Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-20-2014 Planning and Zoning Commissionr F.,T 1 7 '' !oll �14.}.�'ial6llNlw aft..� maiwaEsf morrm.41 NAM PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Thursday, November 20, 2014 - 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Iowa City City Hall 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda D. Rezoning Item Discussion of an application submitted by Hodge Construction for a rezoning of approximately 2.3 acres of land in the 600 block of S. Dubuque Street and the 200 block of Prentiss Street from Community Commercial (CC-2) zone and Intensive Commercial (CI-1) Zone to Riverfront Crossings — Central Crossings (RFC-CX) zone. (REZ14-00019) E. Development Item Discussion of an application submitted by MBHG Investment Co. for a Sensitive Areas Development Plan and Preliminary Plat for Sycamore Woods, approximate 34.86-acre, 115- lot residential subdivision located west of Whispering Meadows Subdivision, Parts 2 and 3, along extensions of Whispering Meadow and Blazing Star Drives. (SUB14-00021) F. Annexation / Rezoning Item Discussion of an application submitted by Slothower Farms LLC for annexation and rezoning from County Agricultural (A) zone to Rural Residential (RR-1) zone for approximately 1.10 acres of property located at 965 Slothower Avenue. (ANN14- 00002/REZ14-00022) G. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: October 16 and November 6, 2014 H. Planning & Zoning Information I. Adjournment Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings Formal: December 41 December 18 Informal: Scheduled as needed. CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: November 20, 2014 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner Re: REZ14-00019 600 block of South Dubuque Street The applicant for rezoning REZ14-00019, Hodge Construction, requested deferral at the November 6 meeting to allow additional time to develop conceptual plans regarding how they would develop the property in a manner that is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, more specifically the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. As you may recall, the Master Plan specifically calls out this block for special attention due to its location along Ralston Creek and because of a unique cluster of mid-19`h century cottages located along the property's Dubuque Street frontage. (The original staff report is attached that describes more fully the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan). The applicant has submitted a letter that states that it is not feasible to preserve the cottages and proposes a method of documenting them prior to demolition. They have also presented a brief statement regarding future development along the Creek. They have also submitted the attached conceptual elevation drawings regarding how they might design a new building along Dubuque Street. (See attached email letters and concept plan). It is our understanding that they will present more information at your meeting regarding their investigation as to the structural integrity of the cottages. Staff notes that if the property is rezoned to RFC-CX, the form -based code will require that any new building(s) constructed along Ralston Creek will have to be designed to be oriented toward the creek and meet the Ralston Street Creek frontage standard (see attached zoning code language regarding the Ralston Creek frontage standard). Since it is our understanding that the current business on this portion of the property has a long term lease with an option to renew, staff finds that the form -based code language will be sufficient to ensure that any new development in the future will address the comprehensive plan goals with regard to development along Ralston Creek. With regard to the 19`h century cottages, staff finds that if it is determined that preservation or moving these buildings is not feasible, an acceptable method of documenting and recording the history of these buildings prior to demolition should be required. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of REZ14-00019, a request to rezone approximately 2.3 acres of property located with the 600 block of South Dubuque Street and the 200 block of Prentiss Street from Community Commercial (CC-2) and Intensive Commercial (CI- 1) to Riverfront Crossings Central Crossings (RFC-CX), subject to a conditional zonin agreement that specifies that if it has been determined by a structural engineer that the 19 century cottages located at 608, 610, and 614 S. Dubuque Street are structurally unsound such that they cannot be preserved on site or moved, that an acceptable method of historic recordation and documentation of the cottages be conducted prior to demolition. STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Karen Howard Item: REZ14-00019 Date: October 16, 2014 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Hodge Construction 711 S. Gilbert St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Contact: Kevin Digmann 319-354-2233 kdigmann@yahco.com Requested Action: Rezone from Community Commercial (CC-2) Zone and Intensive Commercial (CIA) Zone to Riverfrorrt Crossings — Central Crossings (RFC-CX) Purpose: Redevelopment according to the Riverfront Crossings District Plan and form -based code Location: 600 block of S. Dubuque Street and 200 block of Prentiss Street in the Central Crossings Subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings Size: Approximately 2.3 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: commercial / CC-2 and CIA Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: multi -family residential (PRM) South: commercial (CC-2 and CI-1) East: commercial (CC-2 and CI-1) West: multi -family residential and commercial (PRM and CC-2) File Date: September 23, 2014 45 Day Limitation Period: November 7, 2014 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The subject properties are located in the 600 block of South Dubuque Street and the 200 block of Prentiss Street in the Central Crossings Subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings and comprise almost an entire city block. The properties that front on Dubuque Street are currently zoned Community Commercial (CC-2) and the properties that abut Ralston Creek and front on Prentiss Street are zoned Intensive Commercial (CI-1). The existing buildings along South Dubuque Street include a small mixed -use building containing commercial space and three apartments, a single family house, three 19"' century stone cottages, and a small strip commercial building. All buildings are 2 r, currently occupied. The properties zoned CI-1 that front on Prentiss Street contain quasi -industrial buildings that contain a wholesale distributor of plumbing supplies. The subject property falls within the Central Crossings Subdistrict of the Rivertront Crossings District and, therefore, the recently adopted form -based zoning code for Rivertront Crossings will apply if the property is rezoned. The applicant has not indicated their plans for redevelopment of the properties. The applicant held a °good neighbor" meeting on October 8, 2014. ANALYSIS: Current and proposed zoning: The Community Commercial Zone (CC-2) is intended for major retail commercial areas that serve a significant segment of the community population. The maximum building height in the CC-2 Zone is 35 feet. The zone is primarily a commercial zone, but allows upper floor residential uses at a density of approximately 15 units per acre by special exception. Since the area zoned CC-2 is approximately 1 acre, the current zoning would allow up to 15 dwelling units. Minimal parking and building setbacks apply, but in this zone parking may be placed between buildings and the street. The Intensive Commercial (CI-1) Zone is intended to provide areas for those sales and service functions and businesses whose operations are typically characterized by land intensive commercial uses that have outdoor storage or work area components, back office functions and wholesale sales businesses that do not require the prime location and visibility necessary for retail commercial uses, and commercial uses with quasi -industrial aspects. Due to the potential for externalities such as noise, dust, and odors from the allowed uses in this zone, residential uses are not allowed in this zone. The Rivertront Crossings form -based zoning for the Central Crossings subdistrict (RFC-CX) would be a significant upzoning. The RFC-CX zone allows for a broad mix of commercial and residential uses, similar to uses allowed in the Central Business Zones. Unlike the CC-2 and CIA Zones, the Rivertront Crossings code allows for a variety of building types (Townhouse, Mufti -Dwelling, Live - Work Townhouses, Commercial, Mixed -Use, and Liner buildings). Commercial uses are allowed, but not required on the ground -level floor of buildings. Buildings must be located close to and oriented toward the street with entries opening onto an improved streetscape designed to provide a comfortable and attractive environment for pedestrians. Parking must be located behind or within buildings and screened from the sidewalk and the street. Residential density is limited only by building height standards and parking requirements, so a rezoning from CC-2 and CIA to RFC-CX could yield a considerable number of residential dwelling units as well as space for commercial uses. The rezoning would have the potential to yield conservatively five times the residential density that the current zoning would allow due to the lower parking requirements in the RFC-CX zone and the absence of a maximum residential density standard. The maximum building height in the Central Crossings subdistrict is four stories. Up to four additional stories may be granted through the bonus provisions, one of which would allow additional height through a transfer of development rights if the existing historic buildings were proposed for preservation. Building design standards apply and will be administered through the staff design review process. These include requirements for streetscape improvements, landscaping, fagade composition and articulation, fenestration (window coverage), entranceway design, and building materials. The Rivertront Crossings code will require compliance with the 30-foot minimum setback from Ralston Creek and will require a "Ralston Creek Frontage" as specified in the form -based code for any new buildings constructed on the properties that abut the creek. This means that the area r' 3 between the creek and the buildings must be configured as a 30 foot -wide pedestrian street. The lower portion of the block is within the floodplain of Ralston Creek, so any residential space must be elevated, making this an appropriate location for residential buildings types with lower level parking that is built to be flood resilient. Comprehensive Plan: The Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan was adopted in January 2013 as an integral part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is located in the Central Crossings Subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings. The plan highlights some of the defining features of this subdistrict, including the two rail lines, the historic Rock Island Rail Depot, and Ralston Creek. In the long term future the rail lines may provide opportunities for passenger service, both regional and local. The plan also highlights redevelopment opportunities along Ralston Creek. It notes that Ralston Creek has been degraded to the point that it is no longer a healthy waterway. Stream restoration efforts could vastly improve the health of the stream, provide an amenity for the entire district, and create a more attractive location for new development, provided buildings are more appropriately set back from the floodway and designed to be flood resilient. The Riverfront Crossings Master Plan specifically calls out this block for special attention due to its location along Ralston Creek, as noted above, and because of a unique cluster of mid-19'" century cottages located along the property's Dubuque Street frontage. The plan states that "because they are unique le century buildings, preservation of these structures should be a goal. In order to encourage their preservation, it is recommended that a density bonus be granted for their preservation and renovation." There is evidence that these cottages were working class homes built sometime between 1860 and 1880, which would make them some of the oldest buildings in Iowa City and unique in their location near the historic rail depot. The Riverfront Crossings form -based code allows a transfer of development rights in order to preserve historic properties. This provision of the Riverfront Crossings code has already been used successfully to preserve the historic Tate Arms rooming house located a few blocks further south along Dubuque Street. It should also be noted that to mitigate for the loss of the historic Sabin School building, which is being torn down in an exchange of properties with Midwest One Bank to provide for the relocation of the UI Music School', the University will provide funds to the City to complete an intensive level historic and architectural survey (survey) and preparation of a nomination to the National Register of Historic Places for the Southside neighborhood in Iowa City that surrounds the Sabin School. This survey work will include the study of the 19P century cottages located on the properties requested for this rezoning. Rezoning of the subject properties to RFC-CX would be more consistent with the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan than the current CC-2 and CI-1 Zoning designations. However, because this particular block has some unique characteristics that are called out for special attention in the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, staff recommends that the rezoning request be deferred until the applicant has developed a concept for how the property would be developed in response to the goals of the plan. Compatibility with neighborhood: The applicant has not indicated how the property would be redeveloped, so it is difficult to determine if it will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff notes that the proposed zoning would allow development that is more consistent with the goals for the future of this neighborhood than the existing CC-2 and CIA Zoning. However, given that the proposed rezoning would be a significant upzoning and due to the unique characteristics of this site, staff recommends that the rezoning be deferred until the applicant has developed a concept for how the property will be redeveloped. ' From the Memorandum of agreement between FEMA, the University of Iowa, the State Historical Society of Iowa, Iowa Homeland Security, the Office of the State Archaeologist, and the City of Iowa City 4 Traffic implications: The streets and public alley are already in place in this block that will provide for adequate traffic circulation if redevelopment of the subject properties were to occur according to the proposed zoning and the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends deferral of REZ14-00019, a proposal to rezone approximately 2.3 acres of property located within the 600 block of South Dubuque Street and the 200 block of Prentiss Street from Community Commercial (CC-2) and Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Riverfront Crossing -Central Crossings (RFC-CX), until the applicant has developed a concept plan for how the property would be redeveloped in a manner consistent with the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Aerial Photograph Approved by: _ / J �� John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services CITY OF ION CITY � III in o 2 P2 1. 1 SITE LOCATION: S. Dubuque & E. Prentiss St. REZ14-00019 Scale: 1"=80' CITY OF IOU CITY ���� Y.+�M'��... �,' .1� `���' Y.• r��.�. ���'. •�I 5i. J,� l-. Yry�i.+.�1"�•asi'•Ct' v rw wCY "L* D PRENTIS, pr wpw kk • �{' _�. .�. �' � - � � f .may k. SITE LOCATION: S. Dubuque & E. Prentiss Streets REZ14-00019 B. Pedestrian Streets Buildings may front on a Pedestrian Street, where provided, in compliance with the requirements in Section 14-2G-3, Subdistrict Standards, and Section 14-2G-4, Frontage Type Standards. In such a case, the pedestrian street is considered a primary street, and as such, all provisions of this Article that apply to primary streets shall also apply to pedestrian streets. In cases where a pedestrian street is illustrated on the Regulating Plan as a primary street and for Ralston Creek Frontages illustrated on the Regulating Plan, a pedestrian street is required, and must be designed according to the following standards. In the case of a Ralston Creek Frontage, the required stream corridor buffer may be included in the required pedestrian street right-of-way or public access easement. 2. Pedestrian Streets shall be designed to meet the following standards: a. Public Pedestrian Street: (1) Public Pedestrian Streets shall be located within a public right-of-way and function like a street, but be limited to non -motorized traffic. (2) Buildings shall front on and be accessed from the public pedestrian street through an allowed frontage type. (3) Public Pedestrian Streets shall be at least 40' in width and intersect with, be perpendicular to and visible from a public street right-of-way and be owned by a government entity. Additional right-of-way width may be required beyond the minimum based on location and the amount of pedestrian traffic anticipated. (4) Public Pedestrian Streets may provide for pedestrian travel through a block to other neighborhood destinations, such as parks, riverfront areas, trails, schools, and neighborhood commercial areas. b. Private Pedestrian Street: (1) Private Pedestrian Streets shall be designed as publicly accessible thoroughfares that function like residential streets but are limited to non -motorized traffic. (2) Residential buildings shall front on and be accessed from the private pedestrian street through \ an allowed frontage type. (3) A private pedestrian street shall be established through a shared public access easement that shall be at min. 30'wide and intersect with, be perpendicular to and visible from a public street C. (1) The required 30'stream corridor buffer shall serve as the pedestrian street right-of-way or public access easement and shall function like a street, but is limited to non -motorized traffic. (2) Buildings shall front on and be accessed from the pedestrian street through an allowed frontage type. (3) The required public trail may serve as a sidewalk that provides access to building frontages. In addition, a separate sidewalk may be constructed on a raised terrace along the building frontages to provide better access to residential units that are elevated above the flood hazard level. F)Z Adopted June 3, 2014 77 d. General Standards. A creative and unique streetscape along the pedestrian street is encouraged based on the type and scale of the buildings along the frontage and the amount of pedestrian traffic anticipated. Streetscape design shall be approved by the FBC Committee and must meet the following minimum standards: (1) To ensure public safety, pedestrian -scale lighting is required along any pedestrian street per City requirements as determined by the FBC Committee. (2) Depending on the location and the design of the development, provision for emergency vehicle access may be required. If required, a central paved pathway must be provided that is at least 20'wide and remains free of obstructions. (3) Each pedestrian street, except for Ralston Creek Frontages and pedestrian streets that require a central 20'fire lane, shall include at least two, min.6'wide public sidewalks separated by a central green space. For pedestrian streets that exclusively serve residential building types, one centrally located min. 10'sidewalkflanked by greenspace may be approved by the FBC Committee. See subparagraph c., above, for sidewalk requirements for Ralston Creek Frontages. (4) Street trees must be planted at the same ratio as required for a regular street right-of-way, although trees may be clustered or spaced according to the streetscape design plan approved by the FBC Committee. (5) Any areas that are not intended for pedestrian pathways shall be landscaped or used for pedestrian amenities, bicycle parking, seating areas, public art, sidewalk caf€ seating, and similar. Landscaped areas may be designed to provide storm water conveyance. 78 Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Development Standards City of Iowa City, Iowa November 13, 2014 City of Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission Re: Dubuque Street Cottages — 608, 610 & 614 South Dubuque Dear Members of the Commission, Given that the preservation of these three buildings has not been deemed feasible, an effort to recognize and document the existence of these buildings will be made. Documentation of each building will consist of photographs, drawings, and historical background and is detailed as follows: Photographs: For each building, the following photographs will be minimally taken: Overall site: at least two contextual views showing the placement of the buildings on the landscape. Buildings: Approximately 7 to 10 photographs of each structure, clearly labeled to identify building address and location from which the photograph was taken. This embraces perspective views, including a general view from the distance showing the environment, landscaping, and relationship to adjacent properties, and views of significant interior or exterior details. For the interior, include views that reveal the method of framing (if accessible), unusual methods of fastening or joining frame members, and other details or equipment that impart its construction history. Drawings A site map, which can be adapted from a city plat or Sanborn insurance map, or satellite image, that shows the location and footprint of the building on the parcel in relation to driveways and the public road. Single line drawings of each building showing elements in correct relation and proportion to one another with label, north arrow, overall dimensions and the date sketched Historical background This will include at a one page narrative on historic information on the buildings from available resources including but not limited to: the buildings' abstracts, State Historic Society documents and Irving Weber's writings. The gathered documentation will be filed with the City and/or displayed within the common space of the proposed development, as deemed appropriate. November 14, 2014 City of Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission Re: 225 & 225 Y2 Prentiss Street We have been asked to address the 225 and 225 X Prentiss Street lots, which are along Ralston Creek and have been submitted for rezoning from CI-1 to RFC-CX. There is currently a long term lease on the property. It is our understanding that under RFC-CX, commercial buildings such as the one on the property are permitted. If/when the property is to be redeveloped, the goals outlined in the comprehensive plan will be addressed at that time. 'zf,�1♦!JJElximl 10 OF ol 5nwtnml'�liumi %a■ nn�,luiin�ngpnixr?Hsr.��f_.IIINIi�IIII..IIIU�' •��,�•I aulj1pnuullilt .r iAi�_.lN11E•;1.'aeEl r:L'.:�1■■ w..- '[�•�I:.wn ir�Y ME ffi w Rig", ..r 1I��. `'[fi�i .'a a� �� jk.n :liliwesib � _ �` - • _ i_ _ . 1 =�_ ���=.= -� _�: ' '. "�� iI�F`vnl.ri..... _..� -_ .--'--. :i.:- � .._i , firm_ i➢_�_�r:_ _..� IS r PRELIMINARY: CONCEPT ONLY aubumuC 4rKCET o s t• m z F -1 HODG�E,� ARCHITECTS,! HV C. CONSTRUCTION I� COMPANY V�iVFN From: Karen <kwitzke@q.com> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 3:34 PM To: PlanningZoningPublic Subject: Nov. 20: South Dubuque cottages Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission: I just read that Iowa City's comprehensive plan recommends preserving the cottages at 608, 610, and 614 South Dubuque Street. However, the proposal you will be reviewing on November 20th makes no provisions for their protection. I'm very pleased that the city granted preservation status to the Tate Arms due to its historic significance to Iowa City. In the same way, I hope you will encourage the preservation of the last three of these historic workers cottages in the former railroad district. A vibrant community seeks to create a balance between the preservation of the old and the progress of the new. Preserving these cottages would be a judicious and intelligent nod to another aspect of Iowa City's history. Thank you for your consideration. Karen Witzke 920 South 7th Avenue Iowa City, IA 52240 From: Cynthia <iabrod(riaol.00m> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 10:09 AM To: PlanningZoningPublic Subject: cottages on Dubuque St To Whom it May Concern: I am against the demolition of the three cottages on Dubuque St. We are losing the unique architecture of Iowa City more and more. Please consider these cottages as having historic significance to Iowa City. Maybe there is a way to keep them as part of a new structure? Thank you, Cynthia Broderick 322 Court St PI Iowa City Name: Sylvia Bochner Email: sylvia-bochner&uiowa.ed Message: These houses and small businesses add so much character to Iowa City! Though I understand the need to expand student housing, it should be done without sacrificing what makes this city unique and without turning Iowa City into just another college town. Name: Carrie Nichols Email: chewnic83na,¢mail.com Message:Dear Planning and Zoning Commission, I would like to add my voice to those requesting that the "Worker Cottages" on South Dubuque Street be saved as historic properties. Each time a historic property is demolished in Iowa City, we lose a little bit of what makes our city unique. Both my husband and I believe it's important to preserve the historical character of Iowa City by saving buildings such as these. As the owner of a historic home, I can appreciate the difficulties in keeping up an older property, but I believe there are many in Iowa City who are willing to restore these types of properties and keep them in good condition. Thank you for your time, Carrie Nichols Name: Jessica Tobin Email: iessicahtobin@gmail.com Message: Please preserve these little treasures in Iowa City. I loved walking past them when I lived on Dubuque Street. They are apart of what makes Iowa City so quaint and charming. There are plenty of apartment complexes as is. Name: Sam Drella Email: samdrella&gmail.com Message:Please consider preserving the history of Iowa City by leaving the cottages on 608, 610 and 614 Dubuque Street untouched. Iowa City prides itself on its value of historical architecture, and these buildings should not be excluded. I case do not tear down these buildings to build apartment complexcs. Our landscape and attention to history are extremely important to us. Sam Drella Iowa City citizen Name: Elizabeth Deifell Email: elizabeth-deifellnn_.uiowa.edu Message:Please preserve Iowa City's heritage and halt demolition of the cottages on 608, 610 and 614 South Dubuque Street. Name: Melody Dworak Email: melodv.dworaknn,email.com Message:I support the preservation of the historic cottages on the 600 block of Dubuque Street. Name: Jesse Carlson Email: icarlson25 2000@y@hoo.com Message:I am writing to petition the razing of classic houses in Iowa City. These houses need to be preserved as they help define Iowa City and its heritage. These houses show the history of the town. Name: Bani Kinnison Email: Banilegaol.com Message: OH, NO! It would be such a shame to see these iconic little buildings torn down and another faceless character -free apartment complex go up. It just makes me wonder if developers would like to bulldoze everthing in Iowa City and have ONLY apartments and notlung more. But then .ere wouldn't be any reason for people to be in Iowa City. Yes, people want to be here because of the UI but also because this town has character and when you tear down everything that is different and unusual you have no character left, you have Coralville, you have North Liberty .... no one cares about those towns, no one feels passionate about them, no one wants to stay there! They are just outcroppings of chain stores and restaurants, places to live for a while, not home. Iowa City is home because of who lives here, what is here and what is special here. Sure these are oddball little out of the way places that are close to downtown but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to exist!!!! Please don't turn our city into a boring cookie -cutter town with endless rows of apartments crammed into every possible nook and cranny. That isn't what we want!!!!!!!! Name: Craig Owsley Email: crai¢owsley33 ,email.com Message:This is silly. There is plenty of real estate to be develpoed without destroying our history. Not only is this a blow to a historic area, it would also displace 3 if not more businesses, erhaps not forever, but definitely temporarily. Name: Gerrit R. Wynkoop Email: Qerrit.wvnkoop(a,gmail.com Message: Please stop destroying what's left of the small-town charm of Iowa City. Develop somewhere else. Name: Ashley Jensen Email: ashlevanneaj@yahoo.com Message:Please preserve Iowa City's culture. Part of the reason that I love this city so much is because of small businesses and old buildings like these. There are plenty of apartments and companies that already have control of downtown Iowa city; there is no need to give them control of more property by tearing down beautiful historic buildings like these. Name: Claire Core Email: claire.e.core@gmail.com Message:As a freshman in this new city, I wandered the town's neighborhoods, enjoying the unique old buildings and homes. I began watching them through the changing seasons as my walks turned into the best way to relax and think. I loved peeking in the windows of these neat old shops on Dubuque street and hopping over the railroad tracks for some urban exploration. This old buildings connect us to the past, to a history of the town, helping us understand our sense of place in Iowa. It is what we can connect to and take pride in. It helps us know where we came from. We need a heritage. Name: Tim Weitzel Email: HistoricConsultingggmail.com Message:The buildings date to the period around 1870 and remaining detailing shows they were designed in the Italianate style. Despite being small cottages that City Directory information indicates were inhabited by the working class, they were designed to be visually relevant in their time period and contribute to the overall character of the thriving community. We have few working class buildings in town at all let alone in this neighborhood. I've mulled this over for quite some time and despite their heavy degree of modifications, particularly to fenestration, I think they still represent NRHP eligible buildings under Criteria A for associations with broad patterns of history. That should be enough for their preservation under the River Front Crossings District Plan. Further, the lots are deep and would support substantially large buildings, even with parking included, that allowed these buildings to remain, if the new buildings were designed appropriately. Name: Alyssa Bowman Email: Fireflyportraits@hotmaii.com Message:Please do not let the cottages on Dubuque Street be demolished. Every year I watch beautiful and historically significant buildings being destroyed in Iowa City. Soon we will have nothing left and the charm of this city will be gone. The apartment buildings in and around downtown arc such cookie cutter designs that detract from the original beauty of our town. These cottages are wonderful spaces for small businesses and a great way to learn about Iowa City and architectural history. Thank you for your time and consideration. Name: Samantha Nissen Email: samanthaknissen(cagmail.com Message:I don't live in Iowa City for the horrid student housing complexes, but for its historical buildings like the cottages on Dubuque. Name: Cathy Cole Email: cathy-coleguiowa.edu Message: The 3 cottages in the 600 block of South Dubuque should be preserved as stated in the Iowa City comprehensive plan. The developer should not be allowed to rezone the property. Once a building is demolished it can no be restored. Name: Tammy Kirchner Email: tammykirchner@msn.com Message:Dear Planing and Zoning Commission, Heritage is something you can't rebuild. Many areas of Iowa City are being redeveloped but what many people forget is that even the young students have an appreciation for historical spots and buildings -- there is a lack of charm in newer buildings because they don't hold the same history when they're "in the same spot as something historical" and part of what draws students (and others) to Iowa City is the charm we have to offer. Please rethink your plan of comprehensive redevelopment, it makes Iowa City less attractive and cheapens it's heritage and culture. Best, Tammy Kirchner Name: Lindsay Graf Email: lcgrd@yahoo.com Message: these are little hidden gems of Iowa city preserving them it should be a priority we want to keep Iowa city creative and show the history. You really find that with these little cottages. Getting rid of them would be devastating Name: Sue Ellen CrossLea Email: secrossleall@vahoo.com Message:I hope that wisdom conquers the quest to ruin more of that which makes IC unique ---- its little cottage homes. Please follow the Comprehensive Plan on this. It is important as we can never reproduce the past wonders of life in our city. -st ' �'►.� CITY OF IOWA CITY CITY OF �� I M�" H `e m N I' V S UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE Date: November 14, 2014 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner Re: Sycamore Woods Subdivision Introduction: At the November 6 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting a number of questions were raised during the public hearing for which the Commission requested clarification or additional information. Background: As noted in the Staff report, the subject property was rezoned to OPD8 and OPD/RS-12 in August 2007. As part of that rezoning, an OPD/Sensitive Areas Site Plan was approved, which allowed a modified street layout with housing clustered in a way that minimized disturbance to sensitive areas on the site, and a plan that addressed removal of more than 50% of the woodlands and mitigation of wetlands on the site. The overall density of the site is 3.0 units per acre. In 2009, the City Council granted a 2-year extension to the preliminary plat. The plat expired in 2011, but the rezoning and OPD Plan remain in effect so long as there is no substantive variation from the approve OPD plan. The current plat reduces the number of lots from 122 to 115, however street layout, open space, lot configuration, and protection of sensitive areas are otherwise consistent with the previously approved OPD Plan. The applicant has also submitted a Sensitive Areas Development Plan to illustrate how the land will be developed in a manner that will protect, preserve, or mitigate for disturbance of these sensitive features. Stormwater Drainage on Amber and Regal Lanes: Storm sewer intakes from Amber and Regal Lanes discharge onto the subject property. The current storm sewer pipe outlets were installed below grade such that they serve as detention structures that result in water backing up the storm sewer pipes towards Amber and Regal Lanes during rain events. This drainage situation will be remedied with the new development by extending the current storm sewer pipes from Amber and Regal Lanes and grading the subdivision as shown on the grading plan and preliminary plat. (Note that the plat shows the extension of underground storm sewer lines between lots 4 and 5 and lots14 and 15 that continue under Whispering Meadows Drive emptying into Outlot A and Outlot B respectively.) Lots along the north side of Whispering Meadows Drive will be graded to provide the necessary fall to take water south to these outlots. Trees on the Sycamore Woods properties will be removed in order to grade the lots in order to achieve this drainage. Sycamore Greenspace Corps Permit (404 Document) As noted by a member of the public (Lon Drake), the original South Sycamore Greenway plan included property that is now part of the proposed Sycamore Woods subdivision. The City's intent at that time was to acquire a portion of the subject property to be included in a design for the Sycamore Greenway. That plan called for the preservation of the wooded area with some selective tree removal and replacement. Unfortunately negotiations with the property owner fell through. As a direct result, the Greenway plan was amended to exclude the Sycamore Woods property entirely. The greenway was redesigned and located farther to the west and entirely off the Sycamore Woods property. The resulting Corps 404 permit acquired for the greenway project was issued for this amended plan. There are no Corps restrictions on the Sycamore November 14, 2014 Page 2 Woods property as reiatea to the Sycamore Greenway project. I he applicant has provided a copy a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers regarding the current status of the Wetland Mitigation Plan. The letter indicates that the permit remains in force until December 31, 2016 (see attached). As noted in the staff report, all required permits and documentation for the wetland mitigation, including a plan for appropriate monitoring and long-term maintenance of the wetlands, must be submitted prior to final plat approval. Traffic Capacity and Circulation (street widths) Most destinations in the City are located north and west of the proposed subdivision, and traffic from the new development will flow along Nevada Avenue to Lakeside Drive and over to Sycamore Street and eventually from Whispering Meadows Drive to Dickenson Lane/Sycamore street upon build -out. The extension of Whispering Meadows Drive was made a condition of the rezoning in order to provide an alternative route to Sycamore Street, to reduce traffic along Lakeside Drive, and to improve connectivity between neighborhoods and to provide traffic distribution. Whispering Meadows Drive is located approximately equal distance between Lakeside Drive and the future location of the east -west arterial. The extension will remain a stub street and does not connect with any street west of the Greenway, including Sherman Drive, until the next phase of the General Quarters Subdivision is constructed. The Subdivision Code identifies 2,500 vehicles per day (Average Daily Traffic) as the threshold for collector streets at which time secondary access to/from a neighborhood may be required. This guideline is in place to ensure multiple means of access are available to a neighborhood, for emergency service vehicles, utility vehicles, and for general neighborhood traffic circulation. Lakeside Drive has an Average Daily Traffic volume of approximately 2,810 vehicles per day, and already has multiple means of secondary access. The Sycamore Woods proposal will add additional traffic (approximately 800 vehicles per day) to the neighborhood street network. Whispering Meadows Drive, which will eventually connect to the street network on the west side of the Sycamore Greenway, is important to provide for general neighborhood traffic circulation, and to distribute neighborhood traffic without placing an undue burden on any one street. Staff does not consider the traffic volume to be a safety issue, but does recommend street connectivity as proposed to better distribute traffic. Summary: The Sycamore Woods preliminary plat is consistent with the previously approved OPD plan, which was approved in 2007. The preliminary plat was granted a 2-year extension in 2009. The Army Corps of Engineers permit for the wetlands mitigation Plan Continues to be valid. Staff continues to recommend approval, subject to resolution of minor deficiencies and discrepancies noted in the staff report: • All townhome lots must meet the 3,000 square foot minimum of the RS-12 zone. Indicate lot width for lot 22. Relocation of mailbox cluster from Outlot C. • Technical discrepancies as noted by the City Engineer Attachments: 1. Letter from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2. Correspondence DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ROCK ISLAND DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS CLOCK TOWER BUILDING - P.O. BOX 2004 ROCK ISLAND, ILLINOIS 61204-2004 January 27, 2012 Operations Division SUBJECT: CEMVR-OD-P-2006-819 Mr. Duane Musser MMS Consultants, Inc. 1917 S. Gilbert St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mr. Musser: We have completed our review concerning your request for an extension of time. The Department of the Army permit issued to MBHG Investment Company, L.C. for the Whispering Meadows residential subdivision Part IV, is extended to December 31, 2016. The original conditions of your permit remain in full force and effect. You should also have all required Federal, state, and local approvals or renewals. Should you have any questions, please contact our Permit Evaluation Section, Regulatory Branch by letter, or telephone Ms. Sue Apple, 309/794-5376. Sincerely, � ar.iel J. Hayes ZI Chief, Permit Evaluation Section Regulatory Branch -2- SUBJECT: CEMVR-OD-P-2006-819 Copies Furnished: Mr. Richard C. Nelson, Field Supervisor Fish and Wildlife Service Rock Island Field Office (ES) 1511 47th Avenue Moline IL 61265 Chief, Watershed Planning and Implementation Branch U.S.E.P.A., Region 7 901 North 5th Street Kansas City, Kansas 66101 Ms. Christine Schwake Iowa Department of Natural Resources Water Quality Planning Section Henry A. Wallace Building 900 East Grand Avenue Des Moines, Iowa 50319 Review & Compliance Coordinator State Historic Preservation Office State Historical Society of Iowa 600 East Locust Street Des Moines, Iowa 50319 Mr. Steve Gordon MBHG Investment Company, L.C. 2871 Heinz Road Iowa City, Iowa 52240 The Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission The Iowa City Council MBHG Investment Company RE: Whispering Meadow Drive Blazing Star rive Rezoning of 34.86 acres OPD-8 and RS-12 WE,THE RESIDENTS BORDERING OR NEAR THE ABOVE STATED LOCATION WOULD LIKE TO PROTEST THIS PROPOSAL AS IT STANDS. WE REQUEST NO WOODED AREA WITHIN 50OFT OF EXISTING HOMES BE TORN DOWN. THIS WOODED AREA THAT ADJOINS THE CITY WALKING PATH SHOULD ALSO REMAIN UNDISTURBED. THESE TREES AND WETLAND AREA ARE SENSITIVE. BY NOT DESTROYING THE TREES BIRDS,SUCH AS PHEASANT,DUCKS GEESE,OWLS AND ALSO DEER COULD REMAIN PROTECTED FOR EVERYONE TO ENJOY. 1V a MF annRFcc Av;�" R,cha�c;s f j;ws'�v�y,�;� 21� 9 t���y,,,u:t 60 A (:tX 5 2M zoCr.. C45-2ayo 1.n�2 WtSK!n P R..Inh I�evtr T G,+- S� ViY2�• �i/ems U 1 tc D-," -u G V� ZvLh The Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission The Iowa City Council MBHG Investment Company RE: Whispering Meadow Drive & Blazing ar Drive Rezoning of 34.86 acres OPD-8 and RS-12 WE,THE RESIDENTS BORDERING OR NEAR THE ABOVE STATED LOCATION WOULD LIKE TO PROTEST THIS PROPOSAL AS IT STANDS. WE REQUEST NO WOODED AREA WITHIN 500FT OF EXISTING HOMES BE TORN DOWN. THIS WOODED AREA THAT ADJOINS THE CITY WALKING PATH SHOULD ALSO REMAIN UNDISTURBED. THESE TREES AND WETLAND AREA ARE SENSITIVE. BY NOT DESTROYING THE TREES BIRDS,SUCH AS PHEASANT,DUCKS GEESE,OWLS AND ALSO DEER COULD REMAIN PROTECTED FOR EVERYONE TO ENJOY. % 4� 2 ert r !�j The. Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission The Iowa City Council MBHG Investment Company RE: Whispering Meadow Drive & Blazing Star Drive Rezoning of 34.86 acres OPD-8 and RS-12 WE,THE RESIDENTS BORDERING OR NEAR THE ABOVE STATED LOCATION WOULD LIKE TO PROTEST THIS PROPOSAL AS IT STANDS. WE REQUEST NO WOODED AREA WITHIN 50OFT OF EXISTING HOMES BE TORN DOWN. THIS WOODED AREA THAT ADJOINS THE CITY WALKING PATH SHOULD ALSO REMAIN UNDISTURBED. THESE TREES AND WETLAND AREA ARE SENSITIVE. BY NOT DESTROYING THE TREES BIRDS,SUCH AS PHEASANT,DUCKS GEESE,OWLS AND ALSO DEER COULD REMAIN PROTECTED FOR EVERYONE TO ENJOY. N D M R r��.ra�xy ui 3APG1(;�� fir, x tti1 �h ran �� it ' ck > 3J Af^6e4( k.-.n, C 3G' Reel % � r� L S"3 Y �j1G� L fGc k L ll , V( T fl� � l , E 15C ( 3 eo 4 i7, „+c The Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission The Iowa City Council MBHC Investment Company RE. Whispering Meadow Drive & Blazing Star Drive Rezoning of 34.86 acres OPD-8 and RS-12 WE,THE RESIDENTS BORDERING OR NEAR THE ABOVE STATED LOCATION WOULD LIKE TO PROTEST THIS PROPOSAL AS IT STANDS. WE REQUEST NO WOODED AREA WITHIN 500FT OF EXISTING HOMES BE TORN DOWN. THIS WOODED AREA THAT ADJOINS THE CITY WALKING PATH SHOULD ALSO REMAIN UNDISTURBED. THESE TREES AND WETLAND AREA ARE SENSITIVE. BY NOT DESTROYING THE TREES BIRDS,SUCH AS PHEASANT,DUCKS GEESE,OWLS AND ALSO DEER COULD REMAIN PROTECTED FOR EVERYONE TO ENJOY. TT a MT annRr'cc ,� mhE�� �D !-'4.'�J' / jL�i..�_�,' - l/.ci', (j cif •ICJ' t' l -a�RK'&�c�,E 4cyllf' 1 7- U J > 2•c V0, 5 4- -Z The Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission The Iowa City Council MBHG Investment Company RE: Whispering Meadow Drive & Blazing Star Drive Rezoning of 34.86 acres OPD-8 and RS-12 WE,THE RESIDENTS BORDERING OR NEAR THE ABOVE STATED LOCATION WOULD LIKE TO PROTEST THIS PROPOSAL AS IT STANDS. WE REQUEST NO WOODED AREA WITHIN 50OFT OF EXISTING HOMES BE TORN DOWN. THIS WOODED AREA THAT ADJOINS THE CITY WALKING PATH SHOULD ALSO REMAIN UNDISTURBED. THESE TREES AND WETLAND AREA ARE SENSITIVE. BY NOT DESTROYING THE TREES BIRDS,SUCH AS PHEASANT,DUCKS GEESE,OWLS AND ALSO DEER COULD REMAIN PROTECTED FOR EVERYONE TO ENJOY. ATTMT AnnPPgq LvrrckihN f4QOr �, ( �� 16e� jt L e; i—cen 1 - Ak cr/ , 8-0ri ,n �,j i k-1 -�7< The Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission The Iowa City Council MBHG Investment Company RE: Whispering Meadow Drive & Blazing Star Drive Rezoning of 34.86 acres OPD-8 and RS-12 WE,THE RESIDENTS BORDERING OR NEAR THE ABOVE STATED LOCATION WOULD LIKE TO PROTEST THIS PROPOSAL AS IT STANDS. WE REQUEST NO WOODED AREA WITHIN 50OFT OF EXISTING HOMES BE TORN DOWN. THIS WOODED AREA THAT ADJOINS THE CITY WALKING PATH SHOULD ALSO REMAIN UNDISTURBED. THESE TREES AND WETLAND AREA ARE SENSITIVE. BY NOT DESTROYING THE TREES BIRDS,SUCH AS PHEASANT,DUCKS GEESE,OWLS AND ALSO DEER COULD REMAIN PROTECTED FOR EVERYONE TO ENJOY. TTAMV AnnRFCC G,cib''t St• C airui Kirh,j t C-,�b(-e- t-- i r',T.i?1... I NA Vw/mo q b LU C�� - a z m) Ffl c ' �c The. Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission The Iowa City Council MBHG Investment Company RE: Whispering Meadow Drive & Blazing Star Drive Rezoning of 34.86 acres OPD-8 and RS-12 WE,THE RESIDENTS BORDERING OR NEAS2 THE ABOVE STATED LOCATION WOULD LIKE TO PROTEST THIS PROPOSAL AS IT STANDS. WE REQUEST NO WOODED AREA WITHIN 50OFT OF EXISTING HOMES BE TORN DOWN. THIS WOODED AREA THAT ADJOINS THE CITY WALKING PATH SHOULD ALSO REMAIN UNDISTURBED. THESE TREES AND WETLAND AREA ARE SENSITIVE. BY NOT DESTROYING THE TREES BIRDS,SUCH AS PHEASANT,DUCKS GEESE,OWLS AND ALSO DEER COULD REMAIN PROTECTED FOR EVERYONE TO ENJOY. E\iAM f% wEc"A 1 Jf /V C'.'1✓k�g4 iLl i�� I�� �`V�fTI. IZ�. �. 21 SH12eiIdlu 06 E 10 �,- t C rct S . C/L 6%ps S/ Pr rvitv( Z/ ld� ��.t i��Zjc073 )r PROTEST Or' REZONING / TO: HONORABIX MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA- Clrt•GF:ow,t CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners ofproperty Included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundied lect of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following properly: This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least throc-fourths of all the members of the Council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Proporty Address: � ,{_ -kt < I rr Ploporl Own s): �7W Lt .. v�ll c t.LU gt'SOyl By:/* INDIVMUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE 017 IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before rue on - and individual property owner(s)), No4-�VNofor the ;ita cf inwa AUTHORIZED REPRESI+NTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(5): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: t xr r — _ (Date) by (nanre(s) of si y U CW. on"I tAKr.'r dL:62" ii,tirr . 7 This instrument was acknowledged befara me on _ (Date) by (namc(s) of person(s)) as _ .�� _ (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of � _. (name of property owner). Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa ejj"Nb Fnt<ler 0212013 C.C.: CA-1Gt7-Gaunr�r ii'k trt.E+ie PROTEST OF REZONING 'O: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CPTY COUNCIL, IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IO NIA CITY Ve, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property :hich is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is roposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 'his protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the lvorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the :ode of Iowa. I �Q 6 roperty Address; �kSi ie �� vw4 — T" -- roperty Owner(s); A Jk&, _C-_yis__. 4DIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNrR(S)- TATE OF IOWA ) :)I-INSON COUNTY) ss: i _ (� �p j (Date) by leis ' tiunent was aclmow dged before me on �_ (name(s) of C and Idividual property o r(s)). Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa .UTIIORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): TATE OF IOWA ) :)I-INSON COUNTY) ss: Iris instrument was acknowledged before me on jame(s) ofperson(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa rip- Rnhrl Folder 02/2013 PROTEST OF REZONING / '\ TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, IOWA CITY, IOWA C1TY 0F106V,4 C17'Y We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: vc This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -Fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: Property Owner(s): By. _L�— ,.---- --- By: _a,GZ�IGsw� INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on jV d V p 5 , ZU ILI (Date) by �s►rame(s) of indLVIdual property owners . KADEE HOFFMAN ;t Commission Number 777161 My Commission Expires VAAA 94,41' i February 25, 2016 Notary Pub ' and or the State of Iowa AUTIIORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSONCOUNTY) ss: 'this instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa aria, Cnhel Fnider 02/2013 1'1%0TIFST (? REZONING , TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY 01 101v4GITY' We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or this owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundanes of the property ibr which the zorrirp, change is proposed, do hereby protest the reuouing of the following property: • W�11`�pC�a"'trtt - •�r"7.�_� �ll.:i:c>_iril��riVC'. This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rczoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 419.5 of the Code of Iowa. r 1 r A Property Addte r C Property Owncr(s) INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATI OF IOWA JOI-INSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument ryes aeknow edged before me on _ r 0 Vt +bl SGU� 3 j " G _ r-l4 ins UGL'(t;1� and.yr+ -t r individual property owncr(s)). and for the State AUTIIORIZE1) REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING POR PROPI+:Itt'Y OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: . (Date) by (narne(s) of This instrument was acknowledged before, me on (Date) by - — (name(s) of person(s)) as _ (type of authority, such as, officer, trustee) of _ (name of property owner) Notary Public in and the State of Iowa Frio• Cuhd Fn4% 0212013 PROTEST OF REZONING �. TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL I I IOWA CITY, IOWA Cl- A Y OF 10 6VA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the Cavorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with. Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: 2 5 9 -c 0a __..tgzLe-4 q<. Prol By: By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: ,�p� /, This ins ent was acknowled ed before me on r`�/ ©�ftn" 5 7 Q_©I 1 —_ (Date) by M t'C�L�PlZP Qe SQ112� and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (trio' Ciilid FnlriPr 02/2013 PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL I IOWA CITY; IOWA CITY 0FIOYVA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the, owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the 40ning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with S4ction 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. N .el-RPV14 Property .. I: / INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). Notary Public in and for the Stale pf Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) 't' . JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) ofperson(s)) as (name (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of property owner) . Notary Public in and, for the State of lowa Orin Rnhci Fnlder 02/2013 PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL I I IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF104VA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: r) A8 R GZ.d/AS 1 .2 This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: / i'roperty O naner(s):„ l� By: 13y: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OVMR(S): ,TATE OF IOWA ) IOHNSON COUNTY) ss: ilnis instrument wa acknowle ed before me on y (Date) by L . and (name(s) of adividual pn pe owner(s)). Pp1A[s� MELANIE UNG �l o v Commission Number782576 , L ,+ o mis ion Expires = My CNot Public in and for the ate o Iowa kUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): ;TATE OF IOWA ) OHNSON COUNTY) ss: 'his instrument was aclaiowledged before me on uame(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) _ Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa -rig: Subd Folder 02/2013 PROTEST OF REZONING ' 1; I'O: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL '•`^"' IOWA CITY, IOWA ITY0 _ CITFOF704Y.i CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property Which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: ]'his protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the iivorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the .ode of Iowa. Iroperty Address: property O ner(s):_%%e_oy_ ly: ly: _ NDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): TAIT, OF IOWA ) ;)F3NSON COUNTY) ss: his instilment was acknowledged before me on Novi I7e4- 31 20 (Date) by art { EwVr r a%l and i lrlor rr ' J fav _ (name(s) of 3ividual property owner(s)). —&pR4H NM HFri Ism eoMy Co mission Exphu Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 2 -1- 26 r7 UTIIORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): -'ATE OF IO WA ) IIINSONCOUNTY) ss: ds instrument was acknowledged before me on eme(s) ofperson(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) , Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Rnhrl Fnldrr 02/2013 PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL I I IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF104VA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is Droposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: Chis protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the avorable vote of at least flrree-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the ode of Iowa. )roperty Address::2 25' 1S 12ga I A 1\ 4-Gkk-��- V, 'ropert Owner(sl: 1(^�CI�LS 3I% NDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): O TATE OF IOWA ) EOHNSON COUNTY) ss: / t� I i tnunent was acknowledged before me on a��� , i / (Date) by and i %7 odividual property owner(s)). —� YL Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZE REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): 4TATE OF IOWA ) -OENSON COUNTY) ss: ['Iris instrument was a6mowledged before me on (Date) by name(s) of persou(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 02/2013 )rig: Subd Folder PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL I _ IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF10411r1 CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: l,U lS�P,C��l4 � 'pt��}� � $lazlhg n p<<ve Chis protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention t iat such rezonmg shall not become effective except by the kworable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the "ode of Iowa. rroperty Address: 3o aJi r— e � c 'roperty Owner(s): I C� 4y: 1:Q e6,I y: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) DENSON COUNTY) ss: :'his instrument was aclmowledged before me on _ -TA,-T (,A N M r�. 5A VT N and adividual property owner(s)). o v� 3 `2-. 1 K fi, ELDON L. SNYDER CNumbor 123771 �1y commisZ Expires Notary Public in and for the St of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): TATE OF IOWA ) OHNSON COUNTY) ss: 'his instrument was acknowledged before me on Yarne(s) of person(s)) as _ (Date) by (name(s) of (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 'Fig: Subd Folder 02/2013 PROTEST OF REZONING 0: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL .R I IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF 10 A"A CITY de, the rmdersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property ihich is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is roposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of tilefollowing property: p j 1 lus protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the rvorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the 'ode of Iowa. roperty Address: —50 :Re a& Laze, I =OW a C1 -�4 � TA 6224-0 ropert• Ovarer(s): I �tiY}'ln � Sm �`� ;y: rdDWIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): TATE OF IOWA ) OHNSON COUNTY) ss: / (� `'f (Date) by 'Es instrument was acknowledged before me orand (name(s) of I�/I�I__Y(I�CYYI ��- idividual property owner(s)). «, SAMANTHA J. MuLFORD L _. mber 7846BB My IselomIN Ion EExpl j1aryP=ub1iciu nd for the of Iowa cw. ,'UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): 1TATE OF IOWA ) ORISON COUNTY) ss: his instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by uarne(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 02/2013 jig: Subd Folder PROTEST OF REZONING 0: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OFJOHIA CITY /e, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property loch is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is .oposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: J-)rJ Ye. his uch hall not ome effective except by vo able vote ot is f at leasted three -fourths aclaed with the of all the members of tl en that scounc council, insaccordance ewith Section 414 5 of the�e ode of Iowa. 22-4-0 ronerty Address: SO �egaJ n nP �OWGt (4J 1 - 'S STDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): TATE OF IOWA ) OHNSON COUNTY) ss: [� Ind p 1n 1 VIJ�+�`C �� V� � r 21 � (Date) by Iris instrument was acknowledged before me on I names) of and rdividual property Owner(s)). SSAMANTHA J. MULFORD / � p Qommbsion Number 78" karyublic rn and for the State o a my Cam Issia .spires t.UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): 'TATE OF IOWA ) OHNSON COUNTY) ss: "his instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 0=013 )rig: Subd Folder PROTEST OF REZONING VO: HONORAB.LL; MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL I01W 1 IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IO N1A CITY iVe, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property ,vhich is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is Iroposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: e I A 7: rta far r,-ve ' his protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the uvorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the ode of Iowa. 22 Q "'.''' 'roperty Address: ) 3` �, e�1� Lo n-e .- - 4roperty Owner(s): � !y: '{'l�l iy: NDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNI+IR(S): THE OF IOWA ) OHNSON COUNTY) ss: }- a 'his instrument was acknowledged before me on D U eVy\be(" — vI d Q I q (Date) by r �L bail U���L and (name(s) of udividual property wner(s)). MICHELMASSE CamnlMon Number 51 Fen, otary Public in and for the State of Iowa CUSS ,UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): TATE OF IOWA ) ;)IINSONCOUNTY) ss: leis instrument was acknowledged before me on same(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa rio• Cnhrl Foldpa, 02/2013 PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY; IOWA l"W1 CITY OF IOYYA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property. included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: ✓E This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: 2 Property Owner(s): /..; By: ell INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: instrument was before me on rducl property owner(s)). TEMPLE R HIATT COMMISSION NO.704992 MYCOM 1$]]S$sIONIXPIRES blic in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) ofperson(s)) as (Date) by (name(s) of (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Subd Folder 02/2013 PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA '� CITY OFIOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: Wh:speriaw Mewjo•v & 13I012;„m 312;yr for ve This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Praperty Address: 3(o Re_M or l i-r) Property Owner(s): �o5e ph By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: trument was acknowledged before me on _ c0S-� h F_ r1 ci� and individual property ownerM. JODIE KEASLIND I Notarial Seal • Iowa aW4t� Commission NumbeExpires Apr 21, Nota Public in and for State of Iowa My Commission Expires Apr 21, 2017 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: (Date) by (name(s) of This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Subd Folder 0212013 PROTEST OF REZONING CO: HON010 3LE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITYOF706EA CI7Y We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property xhich is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is voposed, do hereby protest the.rezoning of the following property: rive_ This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the avorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the ode of Iowa. 'roperty Address: 'T I i `roperty Owner(s);__(_-Pi S C1 ly: ly: RDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): TATE OF IOWA ) OHNSON COUNTY) ss: n L (Q e) nis instrument was acknowledged before me on e rn b'e-f 3' 2-D l L/ (Date) by Wm'ts J�ic1CSoh Sr- and R rfe;-1 /t. Jae/ sor (name(s)of idividual property owner(s)). L HRYN VYROSTEK ,1/.iLLJ1/ —""�'sslonNumber 183 54m. Ec'. '�'— Notary Pubic i and for the State of Iowa UTIIORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): fATE OF IOWA ) )HNSONCOUNTY) ss: ids instrument was aclaiowledged before me on (Date) by ame(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner)., Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 9v• Rnhrl Fnlder 02/2013 PROTEST OF REZONING 1\ TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA I "1441 I CI_ YOFIOFV,4 CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property.. .96 ,iL _ L I ' • in INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This i tnnnent was a knowledged before me on (�C fa %r �/, -)--0 / Y (Date) by =r C✓1 o rr rls � and -- — —_. (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). KEI_LIE K. TUT LE ,�. ('ram K 7 �'ke !°.���, Commission Number221819 R ^�r co Isslo Ex Tres Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Subd Folder 02/2013 Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media File PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA 1 CITY OF 10 VK4 CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: /✓/irsryerl� A','ve d .3/a2-ng SVav- /2ri've This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: 2 k c Property Owner(s): r , r By: sv lC By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on �oJQw��o�0. '�o \b (Date) by and (name(s) of individ6al property owner(s PATRICIAM, CHIN M Canmicebn Number 787933 May 6.2ot7z��me Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) ofperson(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Subd Folder 02/2013 Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media File PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY 0F10FVA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: a t tiPp�A� s MELANIE UNG z + Commission � Number 782576 rover N �d 71 it s Expires _ s ins ent was acknowledged before me on o(,A 1-2�--c*,<XA ----- a individual property owner(s)). AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as _ (Date) by (name(s) of in and for fl -S e of Iowa (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orip- Snhd Fnldrr 02/2013 PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA I ! CITY OF 10 MIA C17Y We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. / n Property Address: 3C74 LA LAB Prol By: By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on :7d 2o k (Date) by aKq JD i ri �and (naine(s) of individu l property owner(s)). in and for the State) of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: I'lris instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) _ Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa f)rin- Snhrl Folder 02/2013 PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, IOWA CITY, IOWA 61TY DFiOWA CIT' We, the undersigned, being the owners ofproperty:included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby Protest the rezoning of the following property: This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention thgtt such reaoaing shrill not become effective except by th, favorable vole of at least tluve-fourths of all the mcmbets of the council, aH in accordance with Section 414,5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address; 5 cY GL Y1tf it 4a e Property O�w(ner(s): I By: -- INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S):. STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was aciarowledged before me o 4�dda�C MAQe S individual property owner(s)), — y Caanie�on Eoim t� ZaAa? g Ntrvemtisr t3 2015 No ary Public in and for the State of Iowa sAe4' a+ AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR pROpERTV OIVNER(S): STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: (Date) by (name(s) of This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as offeer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and 'for the State of Iowa (trio• Snlul rniAnr 02/2013 6 November 2014 20 Amber Lane Iowa City, I.A 52240-6702 Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 Dear Commission members: I am writing to express my concerns with the proposed Sycamore Woods housing development on the far southeast side of Iowa City. My wife Susan, and I, are home owners of nearly 18 years at the Amber Lane address, and literally a stone's throw distant from the Northwest corner of the proposed development area. When we originally moved to this neighborhood (from Coralville, to escape the development and traffic associated with the Coral Ridge Mall), one of the main factors that influenced our decision to buy a home here involved the proximity to undeveloped areas immediately south and west of us. With the building of the Sycamore Greenway Trail we had easy access, via only a 2-3 minute walk south on the Trail, to see wildlife, woods, open fields, and the tall grass prairie restorations completed alongside the Trail and drainage way --all the way south to the Soccer Park. Unsurprisingly, the landscape near us has been dramatically changed by more development, and open areas especially have been replaced by houses, yards, and streets. Now with proposed Sycamore Woods plan here is another development, almost in our back yard. My most pressing concern about the Sycamore Woods plan is the potential destruction of a major portion of the wooded area --which covers much of the western (borders the Sycamore Greenway Trail between its two branches west to Sycamore Street) and northern borders of the planned area. The conservation easements shown on the plan map protect only part of the western portion (at its narrowest reach to the south) and little or none of the northern portion of this wooded area. Instead there would be houses immediately adjacent to existing homes on the former northern border woods and more homes (directly adjacent to that affected portion of the Sycamore Greenway Trail) on the western border woods, including another city street crossing (Whispering Meadow Drive extension) of the Trail, eliminating even more woods. These affected western border woods have some of the largest trees (mainly silver maple) and best trees in terms of snags to be seen here --their size is similar to other silver maples in my neighborhood, which was itself developed I believe in the early 1970's. You cannot replace 45-year-old + trees with nursery stock trees in a suburban setting and expect similar environmental benefits. Numerous times I have explored these woods in the past 18 years. The roughly North -South drainage way in these woods appears to carry storm - water runoff from residential areas to the North all the way to the drainage ditch (at the southern fork off the Sycamore Trail to Sycamore Street), but acts as a kind of intermittent stream. I will agree that the characteristics of this wooded area are much different than a typical forest area like that at say Palisades -Kepler State Park. My best hypothesis (based on limited information) is that much of this area has been overgrown with trees, from years of little or no management, and/or livestock grazing, and the ability of birds to spread seeds from fruit -bearing trees (especially Mulberry, Wild Cherry, and Hackberry). The forest understory layers have some native plants as well, but again has been heavily influenced by human activities. Altho ugh these woods are perhaps a by-product of human. (1) The woods act as a carbon sink for the storage and capture of CO2 gas and play a role, however small, in ameliorating climate change effects. (2) The woods act as sponge, of sorts, for absorbing and storing rainfall and lessening or eliminating the effects of flash -flooding, as opposed to the impermeable surfaces of roofs, streets, and sidewalks. (3) The woods provide functional habitat for a variety of wildlife species, including: (i)Mammals: white-tailed deer, ring-necked pheasant, raccoon, opossum, skunk, woodchuck, Eastern cottontail, grey squirrel, and small mammals (deer mice, vole, and shrew), bat (more on this below). (ii) Birds: American Robin, Mourning Dove, Northern Cardinal, Great -horned, Barred, and Eastern Screech Owl; Downy, Hairy, Red- headed, Red -bellied and Northern Flicker Woodpecker; Black -capped Chickadee, Tufted Titmouse, White -breasted Nuthatch and other cavity - nesting species. (iii) Reptiles and Amphibians: Northern Garter snake, Dekay's Brown Snake, Western Chorus Frog, Leopard Frog, Cricket Frog, and American Toad in or near these woods. (4) Although I have not identified the species, there are bats that use these woods. We have observed them on many mild, warm, spring and summer evenings at dusk hunting for insects. According to information from the NRCS office (here in Iowa City), much of the proposed development area is potential Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) habitat, during its breeding season. This is a federally- and state -listed endangered species. (5) Finally, there is US Fish & Wildlife Service inventoried wetland in the woods along the southwestern border of the proposed development which seems to be likely to be degraded or damaged by construction activities. These environmental considerations need to be given a fair review in the decision -making process for the proposed Sycamore Woods development, as intangible as they may appear to some. if would like to believe that at some point in the process all parties involved thoughtfully consider "the bottom line" (all factors were considered fairly in a final decision) as substantially more important than business's "bottom line" of profit/losshax money/shareholder benefits. I want to end by stating that I am a former wildlife research ecologist (B.S. and M.S.) with 15 years of experience in that field of work. I shudder to think that another wild area (even if not pristine or remnant) is succumbing to this constant whittling away of natural areas in Iowa, especially in urban areas. I would be remiss to not quote Aldo Leopold, a native Iowan, and a founder of modern conservation thinking: "...The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant. `Vv%at good is it?' If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not." (Leopold, Aldo. 1993. Round River. Oxford University Press: New York. Pp.145-146) Thank you for taking the time to consider my thoughts. (Home Phone) 319-351-4682 November 4, 2014 City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Council Members: I purchased my home in Iowa City in 1998. 1 picked Iowa City as my home due to its uniqueness of community and blending of the University of Iowa. Iowa City has done well at keeping schools and small parks close to neighborhoods with maintaining the landscape of the region. These features are ones that drew me to this incredible town and raise my daughter. I love the politics and environmentalist of Iowa City and the independent thinking of it citizens on global, state, regional, and community scales. This quality makes Iowa City one of the few places that "think of the box" and move forward making them a leader for other communities to follow. I would like to continue my residency in Iowa City. I enjoy the area, my neighbors, the environment, and the support of the council and community. The farmland that turned into a natural habitat behind my home has become an educational tool to teach my daughter about wildlife and migration. As well as, a relaxing place to listen to the variety of birds signing, deer that wander to the edge of their land, mallard ducks with their ducklings, Canadian ducks, wild turkeys, and butterflies that pass through during their migration. At night, the sky explodes with thousands of stars that cannot be viewed with street lights that surround the more congested parts of the city. This is the environment that brought me to Iowa City and continues my stay in my home. When purchasing my home in 1998, . was told that the Sycamore Woods area were wetlands and protected by laws for preservation of its plants, insects, wildlife, and migration for fowl. The creek is also a home for fish, turtles, and amphibians. I was told by neighbors and others who attended the public meeting in 2007 that the land was saved from development due to an endangered turtle that resided in the creek in Sycamore Woods. Please check into the possibility of this land being established wetlands and the endangered turtle before voting to move forward with this project. Regardless, if this land is wetlands or not, it is a natural habitat and beneficial landscape. (Referto Natural Areas of Iowa City Brochure for a list of vegetation that is native to these areas and the South Sycamore Wetland Bird List.) Since 1998, 1 have seen the land between Sycamore and Amber Drive sold and housing developments established. Recently, I have received notification that an application for development for high density of single family homes in the small area of Whispering Meadows Drive and Blazing Star Drive that will destroy the remaining natural habitat in our immediate area. Please grant our neighbors, neighborhood, and future generations the enjoyment of the small natural habitat that is nestled in this small area of town. It's the only land left in this area due to the natural Prairie land that was next to Grant Wood School, which was developed into a parking lot last year. I would like to be a voice for my neighbors and for the existing plants and insects that self-support the economic cycle, the birds/fowl that reside in the woods and those that use that area to migrate, the butterflies and bees that pollinate the plants, and the wildlife that would be uprooted to another part of the city. This is a self -supportive and sufficient economical/environmental cycle that does not need any extra effort from the community for its existence. Forty-three percent of the United State's threatened and endangered species rely on wetlands and natural habitats fortheir survival. Wetlands are the most biological productive ecosystems in the world. They act like a Natural Resource as storage from flood waters. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, 100,000 acres of wetlands are lost each year. Animals, plants, insects are accidently introduced to an area that they do not normally live in due to the loss of land to rezoning and construction. Sycamore Woods is the only natural habitat and, possibly, wetlands left in this neighborhood area that is surrounded by brush, wild plants, wildlife, and trees. The surrounding area has already been surrendered to subdivision housing. The Sycamore Walking Trail is used by many walkers, runners and bike riders, who enjoy the sights and sounds of nature. I know that this Trail would not be disturbed, but the feel of the path will change to a more intrusion in neighbors' backyards than a relaxing walk through natural landscapes. I, myself, use this paved trail on a regular basis for running and walking. I urge the council to take a walk on the trail and look at the Sycamore Woods and listen to the sound of the birds, insects, and wildlife. Please visit Whispering Meadows Wetlands and Sycamore Woods and see how the Sycamore Woods complements Whispering Meadows in it location and landscape. (Refer to the Natural Areas of Iowa City Map.) Thank you so much for your time, patience, and consideration in reading my letter and considering keeping Sycamore Woods a natural habitat. Sincerely, Tammy Smith 30 Regal Lane Iowa City, IA 52240 Tas—cst@hotmail.com -Aa-tarat Amas of To WA MOP ON I .. l��n_uu�,l f ,4 �+. � ' ,,l , ry"'a._ "' lei - Iowa City Trail System 1. Waterworks Park 5. Rohret Road Prairie 8. Terry Trueblood Recreation Area 2. Peninsula Parkland 6. Sand Prairie 9. Ryerson Woods 3. Hickory Hill Park 7. Whispering Meadows 10. Sycamore Greenspace ON 4. Longfellow Prairie Wetland Park 11. Oxeye Prairie NOT TO SCALE Wh3 pre5ervin5 our native commanities And native 6Vecie6 iG iMvortant Over a hundred years ago. 83% of Iowa's land was covered with prairie vegetation while forests and wetlands occupied the remainder of the land. In Johnson County, early historic landscape was dominated by prairie prior to European settlement and forests were present along most valleys where rivers or extensive wet areas protected them from fire. Wetlands and lakes were small and concentrated along valleys. In a span of about 70 years, ending in about 1900. 97% of our state was converted to farmland. Because of this dramatic and rapid transformation very little of the original ecosysten, exists. and what remnants have survived are unique and valuable resources to our community. The City's reconstructed prairies and wetlands are now habitats that contain species of plants, animals and insects that are native to Iowa's landscape. in .vdf l!r tkaring ;:#hould •.,; Anti rerttember please .; materials 4ford the �i{'4 a m�re.lnf"ormatlbn conect.� ,r'fvl(ks Mgtan' Pdf sand �AciQatrol,freeEot rel�,da N imis w ara,oba,,tdl Ctfo'Fc3ffietor brand pdfi©ns@iioroya cri�ri - 319 887;151 8e#d.'Iinks lava wty Pans dnd Tr is Mww is ov or;def LJ-10 d 1009.' 1ov�� f3icd CbtcklL�t s = W yrvi 4ei�abtrds §19,birs7sJloN+§ i=l'ecklrstasp lo%k6*:' ty bit Cltrr;.W 1ctilyds, 6ragsnflibs and bdfisslflresor lacy t��w tovr 6�es ccM ; rJwyapoweshfeks Ipperorglflo-Ochetklrstil Br rterflp Fm east• vew v pawe9htekek opetb g%Index Insects `buggwde.#ie;/Tadeiviewl-i 7AQ Kett to tk2 Tees of fo a vrww i4wadnrgev/€ddcaxla�,bdS[dnfo/ ree�ke`pd# Rep`�nl>'send Antphr,blan� of IoNd: ay{'vdlie,pn'eLnei/la hlerpel-q 3gyl. Lowe DN' R Rog & Toad tal l S t e �uw�r:IoouatlnrgaVlwal��feldroerstayFfi�g,��aad�tl�l IovJ Melrmals Uw v„exfenslon!'as $te2d0%p bFrcatrb u/ta 601 pelf i `'l1 �. ;442.1ty� a.�_ CIiY OF.lOb1'1 CITY lovia tt getation type(s) Location Wetland Forest or Riparian1. Waterworks Park fAcres X X 2. Peninsula Parkland x 3. Hickory Hill Park X X 4. Longfellow Trail Prairie <1 X 5. Rohnst Road Prairie 1.3 X 6. Sand Prairie (native) 38 X 7. Whispering Meadows Wetland Park 18 X X 8. Terry Trueblood Recreational Area (to be constructed) 188 X X X 9. Ryerson Woods Park 49 x 10. Sycamore Greenspace 106 X x 11. Oxeye Prairie 22 X Total Natural Area Acreage: 822 eii `..i 14::Irral aieas OdpVcCol ll,l , ess lival functions triclud; n ` f • :nrrt•a=Irlg :I I i.I: i nu n it! E: for a•Widevafiety n v�,dc.0 ar= •. rts�, •,mot of IoWa`Cr`F�r • p•= . d rg `Pimci.,- groectlpg and„�ga12J n; th•=�r••2ec specles� . ' ,_3 fi�a�c rig `Laos and n ,cJ I0}?a4ts 4 1•} =i • PrUicc+t�n _? watu. rlydi f, anti jnaaaround welf„ Ce�r= SJII Id54 and �I�,mn Irnhl r.u'm tell quality ,,II'A ldittllty . F' f ..; g h:gh nullity I'ibi dtfot \!,7rlety of Tp r �6` Cu s A is •i a= j �t t I ` S(,MO' VYO plant. species Oserved in IOWA C.iJty n#u�al area: Begins Common Name j Species Name Blooming Golden'alerari&r5 �Izaauea May Canada anemone Anemoneaaradea;rs June foxglove beandtongue "..' Pensretn©n tiig+raps June Ohiospderwort ;'iMbescahtrohlensis Jung Buttelfly,ml•Ikweed 'Asdeptas,guberosa June ;Pale purple coneflower ',-ehlnaceapalli8a - Jude , '. thimbleweed Anemone-cylindnca June Foxsedge ' -�, Carexvulpinordest - June River bulrush - :. snrpus f/uyiatilis • 'June Prairie cinquefoil Potentillaarguta June Seft stern bulrush ,..scfrpus validus June \Nlld qumme(feverfew) .' Parthenium iptegnfoliulg � . .June Mountalrr:mint Pycnanthemum yugmianum .July Compass Plant SH'phtum ladniatum July Common Milkweed '.: mclepiassynaca - July Showy ticxK:trefoil Desmodium canadense July great St John s wo t Hypencum ascyron July , Gray -headed coneflowet Raubrda pirinata July Bee balm. Sbergamot)'. Monardaflstulosa July ` Oxeye HWllopsis helianthoides _ luly '' Purple cot a#lower - Ethinacea purpurea �Ji ly Rattldsnalcemaste17-. "Eryngtumyticcrfolium July St++aipp m1llcWeed' - '' Asclepias incamata July %` jup plant;,. : Silphlum perfdliatum , _ - July . Black-eyed Susan -� ;. Rudbeckialtirta July "Big oluestem - AR dropegon'gerardri July utfie blwe ersL ;' Schaachiiinm Aug ui n Stlohiunlnfegm Aug RRatestd;nTdwP�ekda'e%a �. a+haecitsfascopant Ctfas€culata Aug -` Frair{e bla ingstarDarns pyrnostachya .Aug Evertingpeirrilose :'1 Oergtneiabienn+s Aug . 5tl f goltlenrbd sobifag r gi la Aug' Rountneaded nushrylover 1_espedea apitata Aug Side -oats grama B6utg16ua curhpendufa` ' Aug ' Canada'w1d rye t :ttmuscapadensis AuF Canadagoldenmd -f Aug : Cream gentian ISenrjana alba Aug •'.. I+liar g ass sorghasbum Owns Sept South Sycamore Wetland Bird List Common name Species Name Identifier Drake Fuller ICBF Waterfowl (Anatidae) Wood Duck Aix sponsa Northern Pintail Anas acute Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata Green -winged Teal Anas crecca Blue -winged Teal Anas discors Mallard Duck — Anas platyrhynochos x Gadwall _ Anas strepera American Wigeon Anus amedcana " Canada Goose Branta canadensis x Common Merganser Mergus merganser Grouse & Allies (Phasiamdae) Ringneck Pheasant Phasianus colchicus New World Quail (Odontophoridae) Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus x Grebes (Podicipedidae) Pied -billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps Cormorants (Phalacrocoracidae) x Double -crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Herons & Allies (Ardeidae) Great White Egret Ardea alba Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Green Heron Butondes virescens Least Bittern lxobrychus exilis Vultures (Cathartidae) Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura Kites, Hawks & Eagles Accipitridae Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii Sharp -shinned Hawk Accipiterstriatus " Red -tail Hawk Buteo "amaicensis Broadwinged Hawk Buteo platypterus Northern Harrier Circus c anus ' Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Osprey Pandion haliaetus Cascaras &Falcons (Falcomidae) American Kestrel Falco sparverius x Rails and Coots (Rallidae) American Coot Fulica americana Sora Porcana carolina " Virginia Rail Rallus limicola x x Cranes (Gruidae) Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis nearby Plovers Charadriidae Page 1 of 4 South Sycamore Wetland Bird List Common name Species Name Identifier Drake Fuller ICBF Killdeer Charadrius vociterus Stilts & Avocets (Recurvirostridae) " American Avocet Recurvirostra americana Sandpipers & Allies (Scolopacidae) Spatted Sandpiper Actitis maculans " Sernipalmsted5andpiper Calidris7ivia Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla Short -billed Dowitcher Limnodromus gnseus Long -billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus Red -necked Phalaropes Phalaropus lobatus Wilson's Phalaropes Phalaropus tricolor ' American Woodcock Scolopax minor Gulls & Allies (Laridae) Ringbilled Gull Larus delawarensis Forster's Tern Sterna forsten Pigeons & Doves (Columbidae) Rock Pigeon Columba Livia " Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura x Owls (Strigidae) Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus Nightjars (Caprimulgidae) " Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Swifts Apodidae) Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica Hummingbirds (Trochilidae) " Ruby -throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris Kingfishers (Alcedinidae) Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Woodpeckers & Allies (Picidae) Red -bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus Flycatchers (Tyrannidae) Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii " Eastern Phoebe Sayomis phoebe " " Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus Shrikes (Laniidae Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Vireos (Vireonidae) Warbling Vireo Vireo 9 ilvus " Page 2 of 4 south Sycamore Wetland Bird List Common name Species Name Identifier Drake Fuller ICBF Jays, Crows & Magpies (Corvidae) American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata Swallows (Hirundinidae) Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Cliff swallow Potrochelidon pyrrhonota Purple Martin Progne subis_ M Bank Swallow Ripana npana Northern Rough -winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx sempennis M Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor Chickadees & Titmice (Paridae) Tufted Timouse Baeoloph is bicolor ` Blackcapped Chickadee Poe cile atricapillus Wrens (Troglodytidael Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustns x Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis House Wren Troglodytes aedon Thrushes (Turdidae) Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis American Robin Turdus migratorlus Mockingbirds & Thrashers (Mimidae) Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis x Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum Starlings (Sturnidae) European Starling Sturnus vulgaris pipits Motacillidae) American Pipit Anthus rubescens Wood -Warblers (Parulidae) Yellow -rum ed Warbler Dendroica coronata Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia Common Yellowthroat Geothly is trichas American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla Sparrow & Allies (Emberizidae) A Song Sparrow Melospiza melodic Chipping Sparrow Spizella passenna Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Leconte's Sparrow Ammodramus leconteii Nelson's Sharp -tailed Sparrow Ammodramus nelsoni Grosbeaks & Buntings (Cardinalidae) i-A Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis x Rose -breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus Page 3 of 4 South Sycamore Wetland Bird List Common name Species Name Identifier Drake Fuller ICBF Dickcissel Spiza americana Blackbirds & Allies (Icteridae) Red -Winged Blackbird Baltimore Oriole Agelaius phoeniceus Icterus galbula x x Brown -headed Cowbird Molothrus ater x Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscule - Eastern Meadowlark Stumella ma na g Yellow -headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus x Finches & Allies (Fringillidae) American Goldfinch House Finch Carduelis testis Carpodacus mexicanus x Old World Sparrows (Passeridae) House Sparrow Passer domesticus 105 Total Species 60 sp. Key Drake: Identified by Lon Drake 11101-7r06 Fuller: Identified.by.Jirn Fuller (over severalvisits). .ICBC:.Identified. bytic Bird Club fieldtrip:5/22t??:with Jim Fuller '-=°Identified - x = Identified, breeding - =Identified, probably breeding ^-= Identified, possibly breeding :Compiled by Brenda Nations 4/2008 (brenda-nations@iowa-city.org) 61 sp. 41 sp. Page 4 of 4 6 November 2014 20 Amber Lane Iowa City, IA 52240-6702 Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 I am writing to express my concerns with the proposed Sycamore Woods housing development on the far southeast side of Iowa City. My wife Susan, and I, are home owners of nearly 18 years at the Amber Lane address, and literally a stone's throw distant from the Northwest corner of the proposed development area. When we originally moved to this neighborhood (from Coralville, to escape the development and traffic associated with the Coral Ridge Mall), one of the main factors that influenced our decision to buy a home here involved the proximity to undeveloped areas immediately south and west of us. With the building of the Sycamore Greenway Trail we had easy access, via only a 2-3 minute walk south on the Trail, to see wildlife, woods, open fields, and the tall grass prairie restorations completed alongside the Trail and drainage way --all the way south to the Soccer Park. Unsurprisingly, the landscape near us has been dramatically changed by more development, and open areas especially have been replaced by houses, yards, and streets. Now with proposed Sycamore Woods plan here is another development, almost in our back yard. My most pressing concern about the Sycamore Woods plan is the potential destruction of a major portion of the wooded area --which covers much of the western (borders the Sycamore Greenway Trail between its two branches west to Sycamore Street) and northern borders of the planned area. The conservation easements shown on the plan map protect only part of the western portion (at its narrowest reach to the south) and little or none of the northern portion of this wooded area. Instead there would be houses immediately adjacent to existing homes on the former northern border woods and more homes (directly adjacent to that affected portion of the Sycamore Greenway Trail) on the western border woods, including another city street crossing (Whispering Meadow Drive extension) of the Trail, eliminating even more woods. These affected western border woods have some of the largest trees (mainly silver maple) and best trees in terms of snags to be seen here --their size is similar to other silver maples in my neighborhood, which was itself developed I believe in the early 19709s. You cannot replace 45-year old + trees with nursery stock trees in a suburban setting and expect similar environmental benefits. Numerous times I have explored these woods in the past 18 years. The roughly North -South drainage way in these woods appears to carry storm - water runoff from residential areas to the North all the way to the drainage ditch (at the southern fork off the Sycamore Trail to Sycamore Street), but acts as a kind of intermittent stream. I will agree that the characteristics of this wooded area are much different than a typical forest area like that at say Palisades -Kepler State Park. My best hypothesis (based on limited information) is that much of this area has been overgrown with trees, from years of little or no management, and/or livestock grazing, and the ability of birds to spread seeds from fruit -bearing trees (especially Mulberry, Wild Cherry, and Hackberry). The forest understory layers have some native plants as well, but again has been heavily influenced by human activities. woodsAlthough these _ perhaps .by-product of ma (1) The woods act as a carbon sink for the storage and capture of CO2 gas and play a role, however small, in ameliorating climate change effects. (2) The woods act as sponge, of sorts, for absorbing and storing rainfall and lessening or eliminating the effects of flash -flooding, as opposed to the impermeable surfaces of roofs, streets, and sidewalks. (3) The woods provide functional habitat for a variety of wildlife species, including: (i) Mammals: white-tailed deer, ring-necked pheasant, raccoon, opossum, skunk, woodchuck, Eastern cottontail, grey squirrel, and small mairmials (deer mice, vole, and shrew), bat (more on this below). (ii) Birds: American Robin, Mourning Dove, Northern Cardinal, Great -horned, Barred, and Eastern Screech Owl; Downy, Hairy, Red- headed, Red -bellied and Northern Flicker Woodpecker; Black -capped Chickadee, Tufted Titmouse, White -breasted Nuthatch and other cavity - nesting species. �iii) Reptiles and Amphibians: Northern Garter snake, Dekay's Brown Snake, Western Chorus Frog, Leopard Frog, Cricket Frog, and American Toad in or near these woods. (4) Although I have not identified the species, there are bats that use these woods. We have observed them on many mild, warm, spring and summer evenings at dusk hunting for insects. According to information from the NRCS office (here in Iowa City), much of the proposed development area is potential Indiana Bat CMyotis sodalis) habitat, during its breeding season. This is a federally- and state -listed endangered species. (5) Finally, there is US Fish & Wildlife Service inventoried wetland in the woods along the southwestern border of the proposed development which seems to be likely to be degraded or damaged by construction activities. These environmental considerations need to be given a fair review in the decision -making process for the proposed Sycamore Woods development, as intangible as they may appear to some. I would like to believe that at some point in the process all parties involved thoughtfully consider "the bottom line" (all factors were considered fairly in a final decision) as substantially more important than business's "bottom line" of profit/loss/tax money/shareholder benefits. I want to end by stating that I am a former wildlife research ecologist (B.S. and M.S.) with 15 years of experience in that field of work. I shudder to think that another wild area (even if not pristine or t) is succumbing to this constant whittling away of natural areas in Iowa, especially in urban areas. I would be remiss to not quote Aldo Leopold, a native Iowan, and a founder of modern conservation thinking: 16... The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant: `What good is itT If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not." (Leopold, Aldo. 1993. Round River. Oxford University Press: New York. Pp.145-146) Thank you for taking the time to consider my thoughts. wo: 19, (Home Phone) 319-351-4682 Monday, November P1 2014 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council of Iowa City, I am passionately against the rezoning of Sycamore Woods for a medium density subdivision. My lovely backyard is at the edge of the wetland/prairie on 32 Regal Lane. I am a mother of two young children, my husband and will be celebrating our -fifth year of home ownership at the edge of Sycamore Woods. The whole reasoning of buying our house at this location was for the beauty out my kitchen window. I am stay at home mother:withl-two and four year old. Living at this residence was affordable for our one income family. I honehly'think it would be disastrous and environmentally irresponsible to build on this land which should begonsidered part of Whispering Meadows Wetland Park. Over the past few years Mother Nature has demonstrated weather extremes in the form of flooding and drought. During the torrential downpours of late, Sycamore Woods turns into a water drainage system helping deviate runoff from surrounding properties. it would be unstable ground to even build upon and perpetuate the flooding problems we are all experiencing. Keeping this area in its natural form not only helps with our ever increasing flooding, the wetland serves as a wildlife habit to frogs, pheasant and deer. I am also concerned about the density of housing proposed for rezoning. Will this be yet more low- income units? Would this help or hinder the FRL school imbalance problem? Let's be honest this side of town holds an unsavory stigma for low income housing. We have great neighbors and have never really had many problems. My daughter also attends Grantwood for preschool and the teachers are wonderful. But I also have been keeping track of all the school boundary politics, including the Diversity Policy. My concern is do we need even more low income housing, creating further imbalance in our schools? What about reinvesting in the two vacant and foreclosed homes already on Regal Lane? 24 Regal Lane, for example has been sitting vacant multiple years before we moved in five years ago. Nobody is "up keeping" this property in any real and caring way. The power is off and hazardous mold signs are on the door. Rezoning Sycamore Woods hurts our property value even further. Why over saturate the market when there are two empty houses on my block? Why build on a natural wetland that we all appreciate and enjoy, that serves as an important habitat for wildlife and detrimental environmental flood mitigation zone? I suggest the city incorporate Sycamore Woods officially into Whispering Meadows Wetland Park and reinvest in the dilapidated vacant properties on this side of town. Thank you so much for considerations. Sincerely, in � Melinda Ragona 32 Regal Lane, Iowa City, IA 52240 November 4, 2014 City of Iowa City: City Council 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear City Council: Tree neighborhood has changed with different home owners and additions since the rezoning plan of 2007. Is there a Statute of Limitations on land rezoning? The zoning plan was seven years ago. Would it not be fair to consider the new additions and new homeowners of the neighborhood to have a voice in the rezoning in 2014? The rezoning plan took place without consideration of the current people of the neighborhood. I appreciate your time and consideration to this matter. Sincerely, J" , MA Tammy Smith 30 Regal Lane Iowa City, IA 52240 V� Guy, �-f-h-z. �.���'v�' ✓yam' �-� � fI� �f�%a�`chaia�l �-� att` olnd ae�u-,,l �� awe rrn.oz� RE: Please help save Sycamore Woods %� ✓���D�,O� Sarah Walz (Sarah-Walz@iowa-city.org) 10:12 AM To: 'Tammy S' Tammy, Also, in the email I sent yesterday there was an error. The number of lots proposed in the current plat is 115 not 125. The original plat included 122 lots. Sarah RE: Please help save Sycamore Woods Sarah Walz (Sarah-Walz@iowa-city.org) 10:10 AM To: "Tammy S' Tammy, Yes, the zoning is currently in pace to allow a mix of detached and attached single-family lots. The issue is how the lots should be arranged. The applicant believed they needed a rezoning, however a determination was made after the notice letters went out that no rezoning was needed as the proposed plan complied with the conditions of the 2007 rezoning. I do apologize for the inconvenience this has caused you and your neighbors. You are correct that the petition is only valid with regard to the rezoning, and must be signed by 20% or more of all properties within 200 feet of any portion of the rezoned land. You still have the right to come to the Planning and Zoning Commission and later to the Council to express your concern and to see if additional trees might be preserved on the site. You could also stop in to our office if you would like to discuss the proposed plan and become more familiar with what is being proposed. Let me know if you have other questions. Sarah From: Tammy S [mailto:tas cst@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 8:27 PM To: Sarah Walz Subject: RE: Please help save Sycamore Woods Hi Sarah, If I understand you correctly, the zoning has been approved for the building of homes in this area and it is the layout that would be voted on. So, the Protest of Rezoning forms that have been filled out by my neighbors and myself would not stop the clearing and construction of the of Sycamore Woods. I spoke with homeowners that line the proposed area. The majority is against the construction and in favor of keeping this land as a natural habitat for the wildlife. Many owners are filling out and turning in their Protest of Rezoning forms, which I believe will be over the 20 percent needed. We are following the Citizen's Guide to the Rezoning Process brochure that was enclosed with our letter from the City of Iowa City. However, I am feeling that this will do nothing to save the Sycamore Woods from destruction. Could you please guide us in what we can do next? Is there any way we can join together to preserve this land? Thank you. I appreciate your time in explaining this proposal to me! Tammy Smith From: Sarah-Walz@iowa-city.org To: tas_cst@hotmail.com Subject: RE: Please help save Sycamore Woods Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 20:19:38 +0000 Tammy, Brenda Nations forwarded your email to me. The subject property was rezoned in 2007 to allow a sensitive areas development plan. That is, to allow a somewhat non-traditional street layout and clustering of homes to minimize disturbance to sensitive areas --the woodlands, wetland, and stream on the site. At that same time a preliminary plat was also approved. While the zoning is still in effect, the preliminary plat has expired, and so the developer has come back with a new plat submittal. The current plat is the same as the old; the only substantive change being that he has reduced the number of lots from 122 to 125. The lots and streets are located in the same manner as the previous plat. I have looked through the files and minutes for the previous rezoning and cannot find your correspondence or any report of endangered species being identified on the property. The record indicates that someone named Sharon Sorenson attended the meeting and presented a petition at the first meeting at which the application was considered, however Planning and Zoning did move forward with a recommendation to approve and the City Council did approve the rezoning. On November 6, it is the preliminary plat that will be under consideration. This is the first step toward development. The applicant must then have a final plat approved. In order to move forward with actual clearing and construction, the applicant must show that he has all necessary approvals from the Army Corps of Engineers, Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Let me know if you have other questions. Sarah From: Brenda Nations Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 11:20 AM To: 'Tammy S' Cc: Sarah Walz Subject: RE: Please help save Sycamore Woods Hi Tammy, Thank you for. your interest in Sycamore Woods. Unfortunately I will not be able to attend the public meeting on the November 6°i because I will be involved in another City function that evening. I am referring you to Sarah Walz, who will be able to answer some of the questions about that project. I haven't heard of the endangered turtle in this area, although I know it has been found in other areas nearby. I'd be happy to speak to you more about this project but Sarah is the person who is overseeing it and will have more information to share with you. Please feel free to call or email if you have any additional questions, Brenda Brenda Nations Sustainability Coordinator City of Iowa City 410 B.:'i'ashington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: (319) 887-6161 From: Tammy S [mailto:tas_cst@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2014 1:46 PM To: Brenda Nations Subject: Please help save Sycamore Woods Dear Ms. Nations: There has been an application submitted to build 115 homes and remove the Sycamore Woods. I was told that this area is wetlands when I purchased my home in 1998. The removal of these woods and creek would displace the wildlife and destroy the existing plants. I am doing my part by passing out protesting forms to the dwellings that surround the wooded area. I am asking for your help and expertise on this topic and to attend the public meeting at City Hall on November 6 at 7pm. Please contact me with suggestions and comments on how I can prevent this project from moving forward. This same project was proposed in 2007 and a turtle, which was discovered in the creek, was deemed an endangered species. So, the application was denied at that time. I wrote a letter at that time because I was unable to attend the public meeting, but this is what I was told. Please help, if you can. Thank you for your time and consideration to this matter. Tammy Smith To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: ANN14-00002 and REZ14-00022 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant/Property Owner: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Robert Miklo Date: November 20, 2014 Slothower Farms LLC 452 Stagecoach Ct. Glen Ellyn, II 60137 319-530-4252 Requested Action: Annexation and rezoning Purpose: To annex 1.10 acres and to rezone the property from County Agricultural (A) to Rural Residential (RR-1) to allow the portion of the Slowthower farm containing the house and barn to be sold as a 3.1- acre tract. Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: File Date: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 965 Slothower Avenue 1.10 acres Agricultural — County A North: Agricultural — County A South: Agricultural — County A East: Agricultural and County and P-1 West: Agricultural — County A October 16, 2014 Poor Farm -- RR-1 Slothower Farms, LLC has submitted an application for the voluntary annexation of 1.1 acres located west of Slothower Road and south of Melrose Avenue. The applicant has requested that the property be re -zoned from County Agricultural (A) to Rural Residential (RR-1). This annexation is being requested to allow an approximately 3.1 acre portion of the Slothower Farm to be split from the larger property. The new parcel would contain 2 acres (location of the farm house) that are already located in the city in addition to the 1.1 area requested for annexation, which contains a portion of the barn. The property could then be sold as an acreage, while the rest of the farm remains agricultural until the extension of infrastructure and future rezonings allow for its development. ANALYSIS: Annexation: The Comprehensive Plan has established a growth policy to guide the decisions regarding annexations. The annexation policy states that annexations are to occur primarily through voluntary petitions filed by the property owners. The Comprehensive Plan states that 2 voluntary annexation requests should be viewed positively when the following conditions exist. 1. The area under consideration falls within the adopted long-range planning boundary. A general growth area limit is illustrated in the Comprehensive Plan and on the City's Zoning Map. The subject property is located within the city's long-range boundary. The boundary is located approximately half of a mile west of the subject property. 2. Development in the area proposed for annexation will fulfill an identified need without imposing an undue burden on the City. This annexation is being requested to allow the farm house and out buildings to be sold as a group separate from the larger farm. The applicants hope that this will result in the farm buildings being occupied and preserved. Although that this annexation is not directly fulfilling an identified need, it is not imposing any undue burden on the City. 3. Control of the development is in the City's best interest. Although no development is proposed at that this time, the property and adjacent land is within the long-range growth area. Annexation will allow the City to control any future deveiopment so that it is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. For the reasons stated above, staff finds that the proposed annexation complies with the annexation policy. Comprehensive Plan: This property is Weber Subarea of the Southwest District Plan (pages 45 to 47). The district plan states: The land west of Slothower is currently used for agriculture. The Weber Subarea Plan Map designates this areas as future urban development." However, until sewer service is extended in that direction and one or more lift stations constructed, there will not be any significant urban development. Before reaching the twenty-year horizon of this plan, some residential uses may develop along the west side of Slothower Road and begin moving toward the future Highway 965 extension. However, the expectation is that development will not `leapfrog" without street and trail connections bridging the gap between 965 and Slothower Raod. When development becomes imminent a more detailed plan will need to be developed for this area. When development does occur, it will be important to buffer residential uses from the Iowa City Landfill and Highway 965. Because this annexation will not lead to immediate development, staff finds that the request complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning: The RRA is intended to provide a rural residential character for areas in the city that are not projected to have the utilities necessary for urban development in the foreseeable future or for areas that have sensitive environmental features that preclude development at urban densities. It is therefore an appropriate zoning designation for this property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of ANN14-00002 and REZ14-00022, annexation of approximately 1.1 acres and a rezoning from County Agricultural (A) zone to Rural Residential (RR-1) zone for property located to the west of Slothower Road. ATTACHMENT: Location Map '" L y Approved by: / / w- John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services CITY OF IMA CITY RM12 Pi —. ID-RS - RSS 1 •_ Hun tS' y , .Run PL k P1jr 1 _ t OEIX x OPd35 _ t B T J N FIRi1 : s C rvin9 Gr 9 Weber � i j School Pi OPD5 j RS OFfQ5 RR1 { I T CITY OF IOWA CITY CORPORA LIM SITE LOCATION: 965 Slothower Road ANN14-00002/REZ14-00022 Scale: 1"=800' Y' 7 G CITY OF ION CITY a rf Y Fo!" It Tr � � �:. � .. A'I�� �y+�'I 'ems• '� _ �•_ tL �'• y, x, , SITE LOCATION: 965 Slothower Road ANN14-00002/REZ14-00022 MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2014 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Paula Swygard, Phoebe Martin, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sara Greenwood-Hektoen, Karen Howard OTHERS PRESENT: Duane Musser; Ted Pacha; Kevin Digmannn; Alicia Trimble; Loren Ingells; Lisa Roberts; Russell Gamin elej I u 1:4Z I q-,11a� • �, • The Commission voted 6-1 to recommend approval of an application submitted by Build To Suit for a rezoning of 39.6 acres of property from interim Development Single Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Low Density Single -Family (RS-5) zone for 32.34-acres and to Low Density Multi -Family (RM-12) zone for 7.26-acres located at 4701 Herbert Hoover Highway subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement specifying: 1.. The owner/developer will be responsible for providing sanitary sewer and water service to this property. 2. The owner/developer will provide a pedestrian access route to the city sidewalk system at the time of development. 3. Development of the RM-12 zone will be in substantial compliance with the concept plan showing townhouse style multi -family buildings with driveway access from a rear lane. 4. Approval of a development plan, including a landscaping plan, exterior building designs, and site plan by the Design Review Committee to ensure Comprehensive Plan policies regarding compatibility with lower density residential properties and appropriate development appearance for an entranceway to the city, will be required prior to approval of a building permit. (REZ14-00015) The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of an application submitted by Noah Kemp for a rezoning of approximately .39 acres of property at 708 S. Riverside Drive from Community Commercial (CC-2) zone to Riverfront Crossings —West Riverfront (RFC-WR) zone and a vacation of approximately 4665 square feet of the Old West Benton Street right-of-way. (REZ14- 00018/VAC14-00002) The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval SUB14-00017, an application submitted by Carter Holdings, LLC for a preliminary plat of Carter Estate, a two -lot with one outlot residential subdivision located east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Eagle Place. (SUB14-00017) CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. Planning and Zoning Commission October 16, 2014 - Formal Page 2 of 18 PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There were none. NING ITEMS: REZ14-00015 Discussion of an application submitted by Build To Suit for a rezoning of 39.6 acres of property from Interim Development Single Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Low Density Single -Family (RS-5) zone for 32.34-acres and to Low Density Multi -Family (RM-12) zone for 7.26-acres located at 4701 Herbert Hoover Highway. Miklo showed images and location maps of the area. The property was annexed into the city earlier in the year and zoned Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID-RS), a zoning that is given to properties that do not have full access to city infrastructure and services. The applicant is now proposing to zone the northern part Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM-12) and the southern part Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5). The applicant does have a plan to provide sanitary and sewer and water services to this property. The purpose of the Interim Development Zone (ID) is to provide for areas of managed growth in which agricultural and other non -urban uses of land may continue until such time as the City is able to provide City services and urban development can occur. The Interim Development Zone is the default zoning district, to which all undeveloped areas should be classified until City services are provided. Upon provision of City services, the City or the property owner may initiate rezoning to zones consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The applicant proposes to provide sanitary sewer service by installing a sanitary sewer line in the right-of-way in Herbert Hoover Highway, and a lift station near the southeast corner of the property to pump sewage to an existing gravity flow sewer line located in Olde Towne Village approximately 2,500 feet to the west of this property. A water line would also be installed in the County right-of-way. There is a possibility that in the future the applicant may obtain an easement to allow sanitary sewer to gravity flow across the Miller property located to the south east to connect to the trunk located in Stonebridge Estates south of Lower West Branch Road. The proposed RM-12 zoning would allow for high density single family or low density multi- family development. Each dwelling unit is required to have 2700 and 25 sq. ft. per unit or roughly 15 units per acre. Staff does believe that this is in compliance with the comprehensive plan and the northeast district plan which shows a mix of single family, townhouse and small multi -family in this general vicinity of the concept plan. The district plan does show a street on the north side of the St. Patrick's property and shows for some additional townhouses along that street. The applicant's proposal would replace that street with one further to the north and therefore would not have the townhouses which were based on having a single loaded street. The RS-5 zone complies with the comprehensive zoning plan. Which allows for lower density development in the interior of the development. The comprehensive plan requires the inclusion of open space or natural areas into the design of subdivisions. The plan also encourages the use of alleys or rear lanes for higher density areas which this proposed design does include for the townhouses and smaller single family units. In terms of traffic, the metropolitan transportation organization planners did look at the proposed plan and have determined that Herbert Hoover Hwy does have the capacity to handle the traffic from this development. In the long term it will need to be improved to city standards as required Planning and Zoning Commission October 16, 2014 - Formal Page 3 of 18 by subdivision regulations and the developer would be required to contribute to the cost of those improvements at the time of final platting. There are a couple of comments about the concept plan and staff is recommending that the multi -family zoning be tied to this concept plan that if there were any significant changes they would have to come back to the r &Z Commission and City Council for alteration of concept. Staff would not tie the single family part of the plan to the concept plan, it does need a little more work and does not quite comply with the subdivision regulations in terms of block length in a few locations and generally there is more flexibility in how single family subdivisions are laid out so Staff doesn't see the need to tie it to this zoning. Staff recommends approval of REZ14-00015, a proposal to rezone approximately 39.6 acres of property located south of Herbert Hoover Highway from Interim Development Single Family Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) for 32.34 acres and Low Density Multifamily (RM-12) for 7.26 acres, subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement stipulating: 1. The owner/developer will be responsible for providing sanitary sewer and water service to this property. 2. The owner/developer will provide a pedestrian access route to the city sidewalk system at the time of development. 3. Development of the RM-12 zone will be in substantial compliance with the concept plan showing townhouse style multi -family buildings with driveway access from a rear lane. 4. Approval of a development plan, including a landscaping plan, exterior building designs, and site plan by the Design Review Committee to ensure Comprehensive Plan policies regarding compatibility with lower density residential properties and appropriate development appearance for an entranceway to the city, will be required prior to approval of a building permit. Freerks asked if the particular layout could be altered and Miklo answered that the multi -family part of the plan would be tied to general conformance with the concept plan, but the single family area would not have to be tied to the concept plan. Eastham asked if it would be possible to do a more grid like street design. Miklo stated there could be one however the current design does have a grid -like pattern and one of the requirements of all subdivisions is street access to adjacent properties. He said when this is platted additional street connections will be required and he showed on the map where the additional streets would need to be placed. Eastham asked about the comprehensive plan requirements about neighborhood park space being within three to four blocks of every residence and asked if the space in the center of this concept is considered green space. Miklo stated that the space between the lots near the center is not public space, it would be private open space maintained by the homeowners association and that does follow the intent of the comprehensive plan of creating open spaces in every subdivision. Eastham asked if the homeowners association could install a playground on this green space and Miklo confirmed that yes, the homeowners association could do with the space as they wish. Planning and Zoning Commission October 16, 2014 - Formal Page 4 of 18 Eastham counts a ratio of about 1/3 townhomes to 2/3 single family dwellings and that seems heavily weighted to single family detached, and questioned if the staff looks at requiring apartment buildings as part of the development along Herbert Hoover Hwy. Miklo showed that the buildings along the highway are small 4-unit apartment buildings and if you look at the language of the comprehensive plan, the staff feels the plan stresses not concentrating multi- family in any one area making this scale appropriate for the neighborhood, and a good mix of housing. Thomas asked about the lift station and if the applicant would pay for the installation and the city is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the lift station. Miklo confirmed that in the long term that is correct. Thomas asked if there were many lift stations in Iowa City and Miklo replied that it is something the City tries to avoid, but due to topography there are a few lift stations throughout the City. Freerks opened public discussion. Duane Musser (MMS Consultants) came forward representing the applicant Build to Suit. Freerks stated that part of the comprehensive plan compliance states separating sensitive features and questioned the area in the northwest where there is currently a home and large trees and shared concern about preservation of trees in the area. Musser replied that they would try to grade around all the trees possible and pointed out that the intent of the open space in the middle of the development is to preserve as many of the trees in the waterway as possible. Freerks restated concerned about the trees up in the northwest corner and the intentions of the developer for those trees as the current plan shows all those trees to be graded. Musser stated with the multi -family houses along Herbert Hoover Hwy it would be impossible to avoid grading those trees, however there are some single family homes on the concept plan that have been changed to accommodate leaving some of the trees. Musser also stated that they are tied to where the access road to the development can be due to the intersection with Hanks Drive, so some of the trees cannot be saved. Eastham asked about the area shown on the plan as outlots, and asked if all that outlot area is required as result of some sensitive feature. Musser replied that no, there might be some steep slopes, but no sensitive areas. Freerks asked if there would be an evaluation of the sensitive areas once the development begins construction to reassess the sensitive areas and Musser confirmed that yes it would be re-evaluated during platting and construction. Eastham asked if part of the area now shown as an outlot be developed and that northwest corner which does have some magnificent trees be persevered as a local park. Musser felt the outlot would likely not be developed because it was a low area and part of the waterway, but again could not confirm how much of the northwest tree area that could be preserved due to the roadways. Additionally Musser is unsure if the Parks & Recreation Department would want any public park area in the development. Eastham asked why one or two apartment buildings were not part of this plan, Musser stated it was looked at in earlier concepts, however staff did not feel a larger scale building fit into the area, so the applicant chose to go with townhomes in the area instead. The earlier concept had looked at possible 16 unit buildings with underground parking. Also in the current concept there are some zero -lot properties to add to the mix of townhomes and small single family dwellings. Planning and Zoning Commission October 16, 2014 - Formal Page 5 of 18 Thomas asked if the single family was planned for RS-5, and Musser confirmed. Thomas asked if there were discussion of RS-8 or higher single family and Musser stated there was no discussion. Miklo added that the comprehensive plan encourages diversity in housing with townhouses and small apartment buildings located at major intersections, near commercial areas ( there is no commercial in this development) and adjacent to parks and open spaces. Apartment houses are intended to be small in scale and size to fit compatibly with nearby residences and that is what staff used in their guide in terms of this concept. As noted in the staff report several of the corner lots are designed for zero lot lines so staff felt that added to the variety scattered attached housing throughout the neighborhood in compliance with the policies of the comprehensive plan. Freerks closed public discussion. Thomas moved to approve REZ14-00015, a proposal to rezone approximately 39.6 acres of property located south of Herbert Hoover Highway from Interim Development Single Family Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) for 32.34 acres and Low Density Multifamily (RM-12) for 7.26 acres, subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement stipulating: 1. The owner/developer will be responsible for providing sanitary sewer and water service to this property. 2. The owner/developer will provide a pedestrian access route to the city sidewalk system at the time of development. 3. Development of the RM-12 zone will be in substantial compliance with the concept plan showing townhouse style multi -family buildings with driveway access from a rear lane. 4. Approval of a development plan, including a landscaping plan, exterior building designs, and site plan by the Design Review Committee to ensure Comprehensive Plan policies regarding compatibility with lower density residential properties and appropriate development appearance for an entranceway to the city, will be required prior to approval of a building permit. Swvoard seconded the motion. Freerks stated the annexation of this property was discussed a few months ago, and likes the idea of the small multi -family, townhouse -like buildings and feels the development is not unbalanced with others in the area. Freerks shared concern about the integration of the sensitive features, and would like to see thought put into place to maintain the sensitive features as this application moves forward. Overall feels this will be a nice addition to the community. Martin stated disappointment in not being able to keep more of the trees especially in the proximity to the multi -family housing because it would be nice to have some of the open space and some of the existing trees be connected to that area. Thomas stated he liked being explicit with the townhouse concept and how the density is set and thinks townhouses in this area are a good idea. Thomas stated he would prefer the gradient be RS-5, RS-8 or RS-12 and multi -family and would love to see the City discuss the Planning and Zoning Commission October 16, 2014 - Formal Page 6 of 18 issue of traditional neighborhood design and a form based approach to residential developments so there could be more flexibility in terms of how the density is allocated and possibly open up opportunities to transfer some of the development to conserve some natural features. Swygard agreed that there is a lot that can be done with flexibility in sortie of these neighborhoods that would develop them in a more desirable way but this does comply with the comprehensive plan as far as the size and scale of the buildings. Eastman voiced his concerns about the number of townhomes as part of the zoning plan, although he feels this is a favorable development. Eastman did say he doesn't feel the area zoned for RM-12 townhome or small apartment buildings is quite large enough. There is nearly 40 acres here and only about 7 '/ are zoned for multi -family. Eastman also stated the development is in the Lemme School area and has FRL ratios that are in the 20% range which is below the district average. There is a provision in the comprehensive plan about income baiance and apartment buildings, even units sold in apartment complexes, are lower priced than townhomes or single family dwellings. Eastman feels the comprehensive plan could be interpreted as more in favor of smaller apartment buildings. The other issue is that an additional east/west street would make this more of a grid favorable neighborhood. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-1 (Eastham voted no). REZ14-00019 Discussion of an application submitted by Hodge Construction for a rezoning of approximately 2.3 acres of land in the 600 block of S. Dubuque Street and the 200 block of Prentiss Street from Community Commercial (CC-2) zone and Intensive Commercial (CIA) Zone to Riverfront Crossings — Central Crossings (RFC-CX) zone. Howard showed a map of the area and stated that the area to be rezoned is almost an entire city block with the exception of one property located on the alley. The properties that front on Dubuque Street are currently zoned Community Commercial (CC-2) and the properties that abut Ralston Creek and front on Prentiss Street are zoned Intensive Commercial (CI-1). The existing buildings along South Dubuque Street include a small mixed -use building containing commercial space and three apartments, a single family house, three 19th century stone cottages, and a small strip commercial building. All buildings are currently occupied. The properties zoned CIA that front on Prentiss Street contain quasi -industrial buildings that contain a wholesale distributor of plumbing supplies. The subject property falls within the Central Crossings Subdistrict of the Riverfront Crossings District and, therefore, the recently adopted form -based zoning code for Riverfront Crossings will apply if the property is rezoned. The applicant has not indicated their plans for redevelopment of the properties. The applicant held a "good neighbor" meeting on October 8, 2014. Current and proposed zoning: The Community Commercial Zone (CC-2) is intended for major retail commercial areas that serve a significant segment of the community population. The maximum building height in the CC-2 Zone is 35 feet. The zone is primarily a commercial zone, but allows upper floor residential uses at a density of approximately 15 units per acre by special exception. Since the area zoned CC-2 is approximately 1 acre, the Planning and Zoning Commission October 16, 2014 - Formal Page 7 of 18 current zoning would allow up to 15 dwelling units. Minimal parking and building setbacks apply, but in this zone parking may be placed between buildings and the street. Unlike the Riverfront Crossings form -based code, a special exception is needed to develop residential in the CC-2 Zone. The CC-2 zone is used in many of the City's outlying commercial areas. There are not any form based standards to indicate where parking or buildings should be located in relation to the street. The Intensive Commercial (CIA) Zone is intended to provide areas for those sales and service functions and businesses whose operations are typically characterized by land intensive commercial uses that have outdoor storage or work area components, back office functions and wholesale sales businesses that do not require the prime location and visibility necessary for retail commercial uses, and commercial uses with quasi -industrial aspects. Due to the potential for externalities such as noise, dust, and odors from the allowed uses in this zone, residential uses are not allowed in this zone. The Riverfront Crossings form -based zoning for the Central Crossings subdistrict (RFC-CX) would be a significant upzoning. The RFC-CX zone allows for a broad mix of commercial and residential uses, similar to uses allowed in the Central Business Zones. Unlike the CC-2 and CIA Zones, the Riverfront Crossings code allows for a variety of building types (Townhouse, Multi -Dwelling, Live- Work Townhouses, Commercial, Mixed -Use, and Liner buildings). Commercial uses are allowed, but not required on the ground -level floor of buildings. Buildings must be located close to and oriented toward the street with entries opening onto an improved streetscape designed to provide a comfortable and attractive environment for pedestrians. The maximum building height in the central urossings subdistrict Is tour stories. Parking must be located behind or within buildings and screened from the sidewalk and the street. Residential density is limited only by building height standards and parking requirements, so a rezoning from CC-2 and CIA to RFC-CX could yield a considerable number of residential dwelling units as well as space for commercial uses. The rezoning would have the potential to yield conservatively five times the residential density that the current zoning would allow due to the lower parking requirements in the RFC-CX zone and the absence of a maximum residential density standard. Up to four additional stories may be granted through the bonus provisions, one of which would allow additional height through a transfer of development rights if the existing historic buildings were proposed for preservation. The Riverfront Crossings code will require compliance with the 30-foot minimum setback from Ralston Creek and will require a "Ralston Creek Frontage" as specified in the form -based code for any new buildings constructed on the properties that abut the creek. This means that the area between the creek and the buildings must be configured as a 30 foot -wide pedestrian street. The lower portion of the block is within the floodplain of Ralston Creek, so any residential space must be elevated, making this an appropriate location for residential buildings types with lower level parking that is built to be flood resilient. The Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan was adopted in January 2013 as an integral part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is located in the Central Crossings Subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings. The plan highlights some of the defining features of this subdistrict, including the two rail lines, the historic Rock Island Rail Depot, and Ralston Creek. In the long term future the rail lines may provide opportunities for passenger service, both r e g i o n a l and local. Planning and Zoning Commission October 16, 2014 - Formal Page 8 of 18 The Riverfront Crossings Master Plan specifically calls out this block for special attention due to its location along Ralston Creek, as noted above, and because of a unique cluster of mid-19th century cottages located along the property's Dubuque Street frontage. To be consistent with the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, staff feels that a concept should be developed to address the unique features highlighted in the Riverfront Crossings Plan for this particular block. The applicant hasn't submitted a concept plan showing how they would redevelop the properties. Therefore, staff is recommending this rezoning request be deferred until the applicant indicates how they intend to develop the site in compliance with the comprehensive plan. It should be noted that the cottages are not designated as historic landmarks at this point in time although the University of Iowa will be hiring a consultant to complete an historic survey of the buildings in the area as partial mitigation for the upcoming demolition of the former Sabin Elementary School building. The streets and public alley are already in place in this block that will provide for adequate traffic circulation if redevelopment of the subject properties were to occur according to the proposed zoning and the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Staff recommends deferral of REZ14-00019. a proposal to rezone approximately 2.3 acres of property located within the 600 block of South Dubuque Street and the 200 block of Prentiss Street from Community Commercial (CC-2) and Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Riverfront Crossing -Central Crossings (RFC-CX), until the applicant has developed a concept plan for how the property would be redeveloped in a manner consistent with the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Eastham asked what time frame staff had in mind for the deferral and Howard answered that it was up to applicant, as they should be given the opportunity to indicate how they will develop the property in a manner that is consistent with the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Freerks noted that the application does seem odd that there is not anything substantial submitted with the application upon which to base the rezoning, and more clarification is needed. Eastham ask for confirmation that the staff recommendation is to not change the zoning at this time, and Howard confirmed the deferral is until the applicant shares what the concept is for the property and how the redevelopment of this property would be in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Freerks opened public hearing. Ted Pacha (4848 480th Street SE), owner of the property, explained that he has owned the property for roughly 30 years. He is surprised by the deferral recommendation. He said that due to health issues, he feels he needs to do something with the property. If he were to keep the zoning and property as is, which he has been informed by many that is not best for the City, and does not fit into the Riverfront Crossing plan and he has affidavits stating the problems with the cottages being in disarray. Pacha has had the property appraised, and is paying roughly $30,000 in property taxes per year on the buildings that are currently there and with the rezoning the possibilities could be up to $300,000 in property tax revenue to the City depending on how the property is developed. Pacha approached the Hodge Group for their assistance in the process of rezoning since they have been through this process many times. Pacha said he is surprised that now there is a request for a concept plan. The application does state it will Planning and Zoning Commission October 16, 2014 - Formal Page 9 of 18 follow the master plan of the Riverfront Crossings, but at this time no one has purchased the property so the Hodge Group should not have to go to the expense of drawing up development plans. Pacha would just like to know if it can be rezoned, as it appears it can based on the Riverfront Crossing plan and documents he has seen from the City in the past few years. Pacha met with the City a few months ago to ask for guidance on how to go about this process, and have two options, leave it as is and not do anything or rezone the property and see it developed into what the City sees fit for that area. Pacha stated he would like to address the cottages on the property as they are in terrible shape, structurally poor, foundations are cracking and walls unstable, and as of last summer was not in compliance with current housing codes. So one option would be to demolish the buildings due to their safety issues and that is why this proposal for rezoning has come forward. Once the rezoning is approved, then the Hodge Group can spend the money to create a concept plan for the area. Additionally the creek has been a menace to the properties, and having a sidewalk along the creek is not feasible in the present state of the property. Pacha intends to sell the property as one sale, not two distinct properties, so the creek, sidewalk, and all buildings will be included in the one sale. The developers that Pacha has spoken with agree that is the best way to proceed. Kevin Digmann, applicant with Hodge Construction, showed the aerial site plan and talked through the property features. The building on the far east side, the large oversized building, was included in the rezoning because it was Pacha's property, but the current occupants have a long-term lease and that portion of the property will not be developed for years. Therefore the focus is on the lots that front on Dubuque Street. There is a steep slope on the backside of these lots that cause some challenges to develop on that lot other than doing some underground parking perhaps. Digmann wants to clarify some of what Howard meant with the upzoning of the property, Hodge Group has shared some preliminary design concepts with the City, however there is not a final concept. The goal is to use the form based concept that was put in place in June that is to be followed. This application is not requesting deviation from that plan. In August the City sent out notice of all the property they were rezoning downtown, Hodge has some property in that area and were not asked to submit a plan before that rezoning could take place. Digmann also wanted to discuss the high density, the zones being redone are CB-5 and PRM which are 4-5 story buildings. Additionally there will be plans for the old St. Patrick's lot to hold a building that could possibility be 10-12 stories. This shows a lot of upzoning happening in the downtown area with no one submitting concept plans and that is all this application is also trying to achieve. Once zoning is approved, then they can spend their money on a design concept that will work for the area and the correct zoning, prepare for a building permit request, and conform with the City standards. Freerks stated that the Commission is not asking for full plans but just a concept plan. At this point the Commission does not have enough information to base a decision of rezoning on, and all other applications that have come forward did include a concept plan that ties into how the entire Riverfront Crossing plan will be. The property in question is two acres which is a full city block so it's very important to see how this will integrate with everything else that will be in the area. Digmann stated he did question why the City did not include the Pacha parcel as part of the City's other downtown rezoning application and was told it was too late to be included, and that they should seek rezoning on their own. Digmann is asking for clarification on why those areas can be rezoned without a concept plan, but the Pacha parcel cannot. Planning and Zoning Commission October 16, 2014 - Formal Page 10 of 18 Howard stated they were directed by the City Council to start some of the rezoning of Riverfront Crossing with the south downtown area. In that area, much of the zoning is central business zoning already and a lot of the properties have already been redeveloped. The City did examine the properties in that area and chose to leave out one of the properties from the South Downtown blanket rezoning because there were unique aspects to that property and a need for a new street extension. Since the owner did not have a concept on how it would be developed and how the new street extension would affect that block, the City left that block out of the rezoning. There was consideration of the properties that were rezoned by the City to make sure they followed the master plan and checked if there were anything specific or unique that they needed to be concerned about and felt that area was a good area to start with for rezoning to the Riverfront Crossings zone. In this particular case, the applicant is correct the City wants this area to redevelop according to the Riverfront Crossings Plan and to the Riverfront Crossings code. However, in this particular case the plan calls out this particular block for a number of reasons as being particularly unique. So that is the reason the staff feels that there should be a concept plan presented that shows how the property will be redeveloped to comply with the master plan. Hektoen stated that additional information is necessary to determine if it complies with the Comprehensive Plan because of the features that Howard has highlighted. Eastham asked for clarification from Digmann on what is the front and back of the lot. Digmann stated that the street would be the front because the alley and the drop-off in the back, the property lends itself for a rear entrance, underground parking. Freerks stated that a concept plan would be fair. Swygard questioned Digmann about the staff report stating that a good neighbor meeting was held, and asked for details regarding that meeting. Digmann stated there were 8-10 in attendance, mostly just curious what was going on, not with objections. Alicia Trimble (2232 California Avenue) is the director of the Board for Friends of Historic Preservation, and here tonight on behalf of the Board to ask that this request be deferred until there is a plan for this area and to underscore the importance of the cottages on Dubuque Street. The City Council has recognized for some time that these are important features of Iowa City history and architecture as they have been on the last three plans for this area just like the Tate Arms had been which was recently made a local landmark. The architecture is both significant and unique to Iowa City and looks to date from the late 1850's and early 1860's. They are further unique because they are some of the few remaining vestiges of the near south side as Sabin school will soon be gone. These are some of the few working class cottages left in Iowa City and certainly the last in that area. They do appear to be from the time around the Civil War which is extremely old for buildings in Iowa City especially free standing non - institutional buildings. Most housing from that time, if it does still exist, was incorporated into a large house built over it. These buildings also represent a class we don't have historically represented in Iowa City, the working class has very few buildings left. People who lived in this area tended to be teamsters related to the railroad, some were carpenters, some were bellboys, but their known history is limited among the history of Iowa City and these are important representations of how people during that time lived. Trimble also pointed out there is significant financial incentives for saving historic buildings through tax credits and other means. Friends of Historic Preservation would like to encourage the City that when redevelopment Planning and Zoning Commission October 16, 2014 - Formal Page 11 of 16 occurs and if the cottages are saved, that the density and parking bonuses be granted to the applicant similar to what happened with the Tate Arms. Trimble restated the request that this application be deferred until everyone has a chance to see a plan of what will happen to that area. Loren ingells (535 E Davenport St) came forward to speak about a couple topics. First the overall view of the river development in that these are very important channeling streets that will be coming into the development and part of a larger neighborhood that still has some remnants that reflect the history of the area. The cottages are important remnants of that but also the house next to it and the one on the corner. There were hotels that were related to the railroad, and the depot making the area a cultural district with cultural resources that are not only a district but individually significant cultural resources. These buildings are unique to the south side and a remnant of a way of living and show the railroads importance to that side of town. Second, Ingells would like to speak to the idea of preservation rather than demolition. It is very simple when someone wants to develop a property the first thing they think about is removal, however there are a lot of ways to approach preservation of properties, and these buildings are easily salvageable. Just because they don't look great right now doesn't mean they aren't important and significant and can't be restored. With tax incentives and various other incentives, he thinks there is potential for saving these buildings as an entryway to a new development and as a cultural resource that will retain the unique character of the area. A deeper look would reveal the potential for these buildings and will shape what that streetscape and the cultural significance of the south side in the future. Pacha stated that in 30 years of owning those buildings he had never heard the City say they liked those buildings but the bottom line is engineers have stated those building could not withstand construction. However Pacha had no idea the cottages were of significance and would like it on the record that if the City would like those three buildings or the historic preservation people want them, they are free for the taking and can be moved from the property. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved that the Commission defer consideration of this item until the next meeting. Freerks stated that there may not be any more information presented by the next meeting. Miklo stated the 45 day period would be up the day after the next scheduled meeting unless the applicant consents to a longer deferral. Thomas seconded the motion to defer consideration of this item unit the next meeting. Eastham stated he was puzzled and is moving to deferring this application because he wants clarification of what the Commission is being asked to do other than the rezoning of the property if these properties are subject to the form based code. What does the Commission need to do to ensure the development is consistent with the Riverfront Crossings master plan? And if those consistencies can be described in three, four, or five conditional zoning agreement provisions. That would seem to be the way to proceed, to describe what needs to be done in addition to what is required in the form based code to comply with the master plan and then the applicant can have his rezoning so he can move forward. Freerks stated that the Commission has consistently asked for specifics because of the Planning and Zoning Commission October 16, 2014 - Formal Page 12 of 18 importance placed especially on areas, corners, and large lots such as this. At this time, Freerks doesn't feel there is enough information to show if it complies with the comprehensive plan because of how the form based code is laid out until the Commission can review something more substantial and therefore will not vote in favor of the rezoning based on four or five provisional notes that might be placed on the agreement. Freerks did state it is key to see what can be done in this area, they need to see a concept plan, and that is in the best interest of the community and the City. The best results are always when the owners and the community come together to see what is possible, what can be done. Freerks stated that Hodge has done some great projects where they have restored buildings, so there are many possibilities. There can be up to four additional floors, there are tax credits, and would urge the applicant to look into the possibilities for the community and the applicant before taking out demolition permits. Martin stated confusion due to the City wanting to see more areas zoned Riverfront Crossing. She understands when it is discussed to tie things into that zoning, but does not understand why it would behoove the Commission to not zone this property as Riverfront Crossing before there is a concept plan. Howard stated it would be beneficial to know more information from the applicant about what the intentions are with regards to complying with the comprehensive plan, and how it relates to those historic structures and Ralston Creek as this block was called out specifically in the master plan for those unique features. Freerks stated those were goals set aside in the comprehensive plan specifically about this lot so to ignore that and to allow anything to happen at this time, and to grant a bonus or benefit to the applicant and allow the rezoning without a concept plan, the Commission will not see a concept plan for the area. This is the time they need to see the plan and take it into consideration because they were called out specifically in the plan as goals. Howard added that in the absence of easy conditions to place on this property staff felt they should give the applicant a chance to identify their thoughts on how they want to develop the property but have not received anything from them. For example the rezoning approved on the west riverfront subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings there were specific and easily quantified conditions that could be placed on the rezoning to comply with the master plan. We knew we needed more space along Riverside Drive for the kind of pedestrian improvements we planned for that area, so a condition was placed on the rezoning that the applicant had to dedicate 10 feet of land along the frontage of the property to widen the pedestrian parkway. That was an easy condition we could put on the zoning at the time, although concept plans were submitted for that property as well. That was the one condition that was called out in the comprehensive plan that wouldn't have been something that the code would have been able to achieve with just the code. That is the issue, when you go through a rezoning property that is your opportunity to look at the uniqueness of each individual site to say is there something special about this that needs to be taken into consideration based on the comprehensive plan vs. just with the zoning rules. The zoning sets rules that apply across the board to lots of different properties. In this situation because staff had not heard from the applicants what their concepts were, we could not determine whether future development would be consistent with the master plan or develop conditions to ensure that it would. Freerks stated the Commission needs to give the applicant the opportunity to state the direction they would like to go. Eastham referred to the application the Commission recommended to rezone to Riverfront Planning and Zoning Commission October 16, 2014 - Formal Page 13 of 18 Crossings designation on Riverside Drive, stating the applicant presented a concept plan for that site, including a building on the site, and the Commission recognized it was a meaningless submission as they would be required to develop that property in compliance with the form based code. Miklo stated the concept plan did show compliance with the master plan and the form based code. Eastham stated with this application there seems to be a concern with the three buildings and their potential historic designation which he would support a conditional zoning provision that includes that possibility as well as something about Ralston Creek improvements. With those provisions the applicant could then proceed with development. In his opinion to approve the rezoning sends a message that the Riverfront Crossing and form based code do not give enough information to allow for development opportunities to developers. Thomas supports staff recommendation and believes these are special conditions and doesn't believe there are many in the Riverfront Crossings area, and therefore is concerned that special conditions are given consideration. The Riverfront Crossings area, in terms of historic area, there is not much there, so there can be made a strong case to try preserve that they can provide incentives to try to encourage that approach and as staff also said there is significant changes with this rezoning so he feels it makes sense to see a concept plan. A vote was taken and the motion to defer this application to the next meeting was carried 7-0 Rezoninq / Vacation Item REZ 14-00018/VAC 14-00002 Discussion of an application submitted by Noah Kemp for a rezoning of approximately .39 acres of property at 708 S. Riverside Drive from Community Commercial (CC-2) zone to Riverfront Crossings —West Riverfront (RFC-WR) zone and a vacation of approximately 4665 square feet of the Old West Benton Street right-of-way. Howard presented the location map and handed out the concept plan developed by the applicant, indicating how the property would be redeveloped. The property is currently zoned Community Commercial (CC-2) and is located at the northeast corner of Benton Street and Riverside Drive. The site was formerly home to Professional Muffler until it was destroyed in the tornado of 2006. At the time, the owner, Noah Kemp, intended to rebuild his business on the site. In order to construct a new building and provide adequate parking in compliance with the zoning code, Mr. Kemp acquired a portion of the Old Benton Street right-of-way and a portion of the parking area at Ned Ashton Park from the City. The City retained a 24-foot wide right-of-way (Old West Benton Street) in order to access the park and a small parking area at the trailhead. The right- of -way is also used by the adjacent property, Linder Tire, for access to their property. Though Mr. Kemp secured a special exception allowing him to rebuild on the site, he decided soon after to relocate his business to a lot further to the north along Riverside Drive. The special exception expired in 2007, and the lot has remained vacant ever since. Mr. Kemp has an opportunity to sell the property now to a new owner who would like to relocate a business to this property and build a new building on this site in compliance with the Riverfront Crossings zoning. Planning and Zoning Commission October 16, 2014 - Formal Page 14 of 18 The Riverfront Crossings form -based zoning for the West Riverfront subdistrict allows for a broad mix of commercial and residential uses. Unlike the CC-2 Zone, buildings must be oriented toward the street -in the case of a comer lot, this means locating the building toward both Benton Street and Riverside Drive. This application is asking for 10 feet of right-of-way to enhance the pedestrian traffic along Riverside Drive, similar to the rezoning recently approved across the street. There is plenty of right-of-way along Benton Street so there is no need for additional right-of-way along that frontage. There is a concept plan for the redevelopment of the site, basically it's a small commercial building would be built to the corner and the potential builder of the property has looked at the form based code and determine they could build a building that could be in compliance with the form based code with some adjustments because of the small size of the property and its location at that corner. They are amendable to dedicating that 10 ft. of right -away, the building would front on both corners and there would be a small drive thru facility on the east side. We do allow in the Riverfront Crossings code drive thru facilities through exceptions so they would need to comply with those conditions. The second request from the applicant, in order to allow this to comply with the Riverfront Crossings plan, is a vacation of a portion of what is currently the old right-of-way of Old West Benton Street. Howard showed photos of the driveways to this property and adjacent properties and also provides access to a small public parking area for Ned Ashton Park and the trailhead for the Iowa River Corridor Trail. In order to fit the parking on the site for a small commercial building in a manner as shown in the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan we need to vacate a portion of that right-of-way so they have enough room for the head -in parking. Staff has looked at the vacation request and feels the Old West Benton Street right-of-way is not serving any other purpose as far a vehicular movement or traffic circulation other than to access to those three parcels. So as long as that vehicular access is maintained staff feels that a 22-foot wide public access easement would preserve access for both private properties and the park/trailhead and allow for easier development of the applicant's property according to the Riverfront Crossings Plan. Howard also noted there is a sewer line that runs through the center of the property. If this property is redeveloped that sewer line may need to be moved. There is a sewer easement established into which the sewer line could be moved. Staff recommends approval of REZ14-00009, a proposal to rezone approximately 21,665 square feet of property located at the northeast corner of S. Riverside Drive and W. Benton Street from Community Commercial (CC-2) to Riverfront Crossing -West Riverfront (RFC-WR), subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement requiring the applicantlowner to dedicate 10 feet of land along the Riverside Drive frontage of the propertyto the City in order to widen the public right-of-way along Riverside Drive. Staff recommends approval of VAC14-00018, a right-of-way vacation for Old West Benton Street right-of-way adjacent to property, subject to the following conditions: • Rezoning of the property at 708 S. Riverside Drive to Riverfront Crossings West Riverbank Subdistrict; • Conveyance of the 4,665 square foot portion of ROW is concurrent with the redevelopment of the corner property; and • Establishment of a 22-foot wide public access easement to preserve vehicular access for both private properties and the park and trailhead. Planning and Zoning Commission October 16, 2014 - Formal Page 15 of 18 Swygard asked where the proposed curb cut on West Benton Street would be in relationship to the current curb cut for business right across the street from it, the McDonalds. Howard showed the aerial but stated the exact location hasn't been determined and it would need to be approved by the city engineer based on distance from the bridge and from the corner. Eastham asked if it would be a right exit only onto Benton Street. Howard stated that the city and traffic engineers have looked at the site and they have found it does need to be a right exit only. Miklo also pointed out that the application does require a special exception due to the proposed drive thru and it will go before the Board of Adjustment. Freerks opened public hearing. No one present. Freerks closed public hearing. Martin moved to approve REZ14-00009, a proposal to rezone approximately 21,665 square feet of property located at the northeast corner of S. Riverside Drive and W. Benton Street from Community Commercial (CC-2) to Riverfront Crossings -West Riverfront (RFC-WR), subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement requiring the applicant/owner to dedicate 10 feet of land along the Riverside Drive frontage of the property to the City in order to widen the public right-of-way along Riverside Drive. Additionally Martin moved to approve VAC14-00018, a right-of-way vacation for Old West Benton Street right-of-way adjacent to property, subject to the following conditions: • Rezoning of the property at 708 S. Riverside Drive to Riverfront Crossings West Riverbank Subdistrict; • Conveyance of the 4,665 square foot portion of ROW is concurrent with the redevelopment of the comer property; and • Establishment of a 22 foot public easement to preserve vehicular access for both private properties and the park and trailhead. Eastham seconded. Freerks noted this lot has been vacant for almost a decade it will be nice to see something established there. Swygard stated this improvement will also create a view corridor to the river which is another positive. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Development Item SUB14-00017 Discussion of an application submitted by Carter Holding, LLC for a preliminary plat of Carter Planning and Zoning Commission October 16, 2014 - Formal Page 16 of 18 Estate, a Not and 1 outlot, 19.10 acre residential subdivision located east of Camp Cardinal Road, north of Eagle Place and Meadow Lark Drive. Hektoen recused herself as her husband is working for the developer on this subdivision. Hektoen stated if the Commission needs legal counsel on this item, please defer until the next meeting and another city attorney will be present to assist at that meeting. Miklo presented the staff report. This area was set aside as an outlet for future development at the time of the development of Cardinal Ridge Subdivision. He showed an aerial photo showing the relationship of the outlot to the Cardinal Ridge Subdivision. It is a heavily wooded lot with a pond and fairly steep slopes. What is proposed is a two lot subdivision that would allow two houses to be built. The majority of the sensitive areas, the woodlands and steep slopes and pond, would be set aside and preserved. There is a no build area identified on the subdivision plat and a portion of that would be set aside as an outlot to be dedicated to the larger homeowners association. The two house lots would share a common drive back to Camp Cardinal Road. They are odd shape lots, the subdivision code discourages this however given the sensitive areas of this plat, staff feel a justification can be made. The subdivision fees, the open neighborhood fees and stormwater management were all addressed when the larger subdivision was approved years ago. Staff recommends approval of SUB14-00017; an application submitted by Carter Holdings, LLC for a preliminary plat of Carter Estate, a two -lot with one outlot residential subdivision located east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Eagle Place. Eastham asked about the emergency vehicle turnaround only for one of the houses, but not the other. Miklo confirmed that the Fire Department review turn around and found that it will be adequate to serve both lots. Freerks opened public discussion. Duane Musser, MMS Consultants representing the applicant stepped forward. There were no questions for Musser. Lisa Roberts (878 Kennedy Pkwy) stated her family bought their property in July and the draw for their new home was the wooded area. She was shocked and worried when she received notice a week ago of this new proposed subdivision as her house is one of the ones the outlot backs up to. Roberts wants to clarify the tree lines will be protected and wants assurances that trees will be preserved on both sides of the ravine. Additionally wants assurance that waterways and drainage will be protected. Roberts would also like to know who owns the property now and what are the future plans for development and whether that would infringe the area and are more houses to be built in the area. Russell Gamin (878 Kennedy Pkwy) asked why there was no good neighbor meeting held with respect to this initiative. Freerks answered that some time ago the Commission requested that the good neighbor meetings be a requirement for rezonings rather than just a policy, but it was not passed by City Council so it's just an option for the applicant, but not a requirement, but it is put in the staff report so the Commission knows if it was held or not. Miklo answered the questions on the future plans for development and showed areas on the Planning and Zoning Commission October 16, 2014 - Formal Page 17 of 18 aerial plat of future developments. He showed the area that would be maintained as a private outlot area maintained by the homeowners association and there would be no further development other than the two houses proposed. In terms of the steep slopes and woodlands, the vast majority would be set aside in Outlot A and even a large portion on the two buildable lots will be set aside as a no build area. Freerks closed public discussion. Eastham moved to approve SUB14-00017, an application submitted by Carter Holdings, LLC for a preliminary plat of Carter Estate, a two -lot with one outlot residential subdivision located east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Eagle Place. Dyer seconded the motion The motion carried 7-0. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: October 2, 2014 Swygard moved to approve the meeting minutes with corrections, Eastham seconded and the motion carried 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Miklo reported on the success of the South District community meeting with about 80 attending. Eastham stated that they talked about revising the exemption part of the sensitive area ordinance. Miklo stated that the Council has put that on the list as well and it will be reviewed sometime next year after completion of the South District Plan. ADJOURNMENT: Eastham moved to adjourn. Thomas seconded. Motion carried 7-0. Planning and Zoning Commission October 16, 2014 - Formal PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 F0RM01 MFFTINf: Page 18 of 18 TERM EXPIRES EXPIRES 2/20 3120 4/3 - 4117 511 615 6/19 7/17 817 8/21 912 9/18 10/2 10116 DYER, CAROLYN 05/16 ^ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE 05/16 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X FREERKS, ANN 05/18 X X X X X X O/E X X —X---X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE 05/17 X X X X X X X X _X X X X X X X SWYGARD, PAULA 05/15 X O/E X X X X X X X X X -X -X X THEOBALD, JODIE 05/18 X X X X X X X I X O/E X---X X X X THOMAS, JOHN 05/15 X X O/E X X X X X X X O/E X O/E X INFORMAL MEETING NAME TERM EXPIRES 112 1113 2/3 2/20 9/18* DYER, CAROLYN 05/16 X X X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE _ 05/16 - X X X X X FREERKS, ANN MARTIN, PHOEBE 05/18 X X X X X 05/17 X O/E X X X SWYGARD, PAULA 05/15 X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE 05/18 X X X X X THOMAS, JOHN 05115 X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused = Not a Member * = Work Session MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6,2014-7:OOPM—FORMAL EMMAJ. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Paula Swygard, Phoebe Martin, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Freerks STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Karen Howard, Sarah Walz OTHERS PRESENT: Sandra Steil, Steve Gordon, Sharon Sorensen, Melinda Ragona, Bob Barta, Kyle Dieleman, Lon Drake, Linda Moss, Joe Snyder, Tom Sorensen, Wynn Johnson, Alan Jones, Tammy Smith, Adam Yack The Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of an application submitted by Moss Farms/Stephen A Moss for a rezoning of approximately 51.03 acres from Interim Development- Research Park (ID -RP), Research Development Park (RDP) and Planned Development Overlay- Highway Commercial (OPD- CH1) to Interim Development — Research Park (ID -RP), Research Development Park (RDP) and Planned Development Overlay - Highway Commercial (OPD-CHI). This rezoning represents a shift of existing zoning boundaries to coincide with the lot lines in a revised preliminary plat of Moss Ridge Campus, a 9-lot, 4-outlot commercial subdivision located west of 2510 N. Dodge Street and north of Interstate 80 (REZ14-00020/SUB14-00019) Eastham called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. •, • �� •19K41011l 1I There were none. REZONING ITEM (REZ14-00019) Discussion of an application submitted by Hodge Construction for a rezoning of approximately 2.3 acres of land in the 600 block of S. Dubuque Street and the 200 block of Prentiss Street from Community Commercial (CC-2) zone and Intensive Commercial (CI-1) Zone to Riverfront Crossings — Central Crossings (RFC-CX) zone. Applicant has requested deferral to November 20, 2014 meeting. Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2014 - Formal Page 2 of 17 Theobald made a motion to defer discussion of REZ14-00019 until the November 20 meeting. Swygard seconded the motion. Eastham opened the discussion for public hearing. There was none. Eastham closed public hearing. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 Rezoning / Development Item (REZ14-00020/SUB14-00019) Discussion of an application submitted by Moss Farms/Stephen A. Moss for a rezoning of approximately 51.03 acres from Interim Development- Research Park (ID -RP), Research Development Park (RDP) and Planned Development Overlay- Highway Commercial (OPD- CH1) to Interim Development — Research Park (ID -RP), Research Development Park (RDP) and Planned Development Overlay- Highway Commercial (OPD-CH1). This rezoning represents a shift of existing zoning boundaries to coincide with the lot lines in a revised preliminary plat of Moss Ridge Campus, a 9-lot, 4-outlot commercial subdivision located west of 2510 N. Dodge Street and north of Interstate 80 Howard presented the staff report. The development is located north of Interstate 80 and west of Highway 1. Howard showed a map of the area in which the red lines showed the current boundary lines of the zoning and the hash lines showing the entire first development phase. There are two items before the Commission tonight; first rezoning that will shift zoning boundaries and second that zoning shift will coincide with lot lines in the revised plat. Howard noted that preliminary plats are valid for two years and the previous plat had just expired. A preliminary plat and associated rezoning for the office park was approved in 2012, and through the development of the master plan and the grading plans for the site to make the lots more conducive to office park development they found they need to shift the boundaries. Additionally, Howard pointed out that due to the sensitive areas on the site, one of the roads previously proposed across the center of the development would be eliminated in order to preserve more of the wooded areas in future phases of the development. There was an environmental review that determined this area to contain habitat for the endangered Indiana Bat so any woodland disturbed in this area will have to be mitigated. The plan for stormwater management has been refined since the previous preliminary plat was approved, which has also caused a shift in the lot lines. The revised plat also indicates areas that will be reserved for wetland mitigation and bat habitat conservation. Howard showed a plat of the new proposed zoning boundaries to illustrate the shift in the boundaries. She also showed a map showing the lot lines in the revised plat. There are nine lots; 4 - 7 are reserved for retail services that would support a larger office park, and the remaining lots are reserved for research development park. It is the same basic plan as the original plat, what shifted was the stormwater basins are more refined and will be designed as a feature of the new office park with some trails around the larger basin. As mentioned previously, the other change from the original plat is to eliminate the road across the center of the property to preserve more of the woodlands. Howard also noted that the applicant had discussions with Pearson to see if there could be a Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2014 - Formal Page 3 of 17 road connection on the south side near the Pearson property to connect to Highway 1. However, Pearson was not agreeable to that road connection, so the plat no longer includes a cul-de- sac at the east end of Creek Preserve Drive. However, an outlot is being reserved in this location in case in the long term future such a road connection becomes possible. Howard explained that the changes to the preliminary plat caused the need for the change to the zoning, so that the new lot lines correspond with the correct zoning. In addition, the applicant has requested a change to the conditional zoning agreement. When zoned in 2010 and rezoned in 2012 they had not yet developed a detailed master plan for the office park and because of that in the conditional zoning agreement they had agreed to submit site plans for each lot to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review rather than through the typical administrative review process conducted by staff. Now that the developer has developed a more refined master plan with the lots identified, stormwater management plan, trails and landscaping to enhance the area, and a signage plan, they are requesting to eliminate the requirement to bring every individual site plan to the Commission for approval. Staff recommends approval of this change. Hektoen reiterated that it was just the provision regarding review approval by the Commission that would be struck from the conditional zoning agreement. All other provisions of the CZA would remain the same. Eastham stated that the Commission had looked at the zoning and site plans for this property previously and expressed interest in the view from Interstate 80 into this area and if it would be a desirable view and an indication of what Iowa City is about and posed the question to Howard to speak on how this revised plat contributes to that interest. Howard stated that the conditional zoning agreement has quite a few requirements for quality building materials, signage plan to assure there is not signage clutter along the interstate, parking lots will have to comply with all landscaping requirements. Staff therefore feels it is an extensive list of quality checks for the developer to fulfill to make this a Class A office space. Thomas asked if the developer was present to present the project and answer questions. Howard confirmed there was someone from the development team. Thomas has a question regarding the bicycle component (as in what is the bicycle circulation concept) of the project and was unsure if it should be addressed to staff or to the developer. Howard suggested Thomas ask the developer for the details, however pointed out there is an extensive set of trails and sidewalks extending throughout the property. Eastham opened public hearing. Sandra Steil (Shiva Hattery) representing Moss Development Group came forward to answer any questions the Commission has. Thomas asked Steil about the bicycle circulation and if the plan was for the bicycles to share the streets. Steil answered that bicycles could share the streets, but since this would be a Class A business park and the trails will be hard surface bicycles will likely use the trails. Thomas asked for verification that the sidewalks and trails would be five feet wide. Steil could not confirm that. Howard stated that the streets are designed as collector streets and will be able to accommodate bicycles and the sidewalks would meet the city standard of five feet for city sidewalks. Howard stated there would be an eight foot sidewalk leading into the development along the south side of Moss Ridge Drive. Howard pointed out that in the future, Oakdale Boulevard will be an arterial street extending through the property, which would also have a wide sidewalk on one side. Thomas shared his concern of Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2014 - Formal Page 4 of 17 traffic speeds if the road is shared due to the wide width of the proposed street. Steil stated the developer would work with City Staff to address that concern when working on the final plat. Eastham closed public hearing. Thomas moved to recommend approval of an application submitted by Moss Farms/Stephen A. Moss for a rezoning of approximately 51.03 acres and subdivision of approximately 172 acres from Interim Development- Research Park (ID -RP), Research Development Park (RDP) and Planned Development Overlay- Highway Commercial (OPD- CH1) to Interim Development — Research Park (ID -RP), Research Development Park (RDP) and Planned Development Overlay- Highway Commercial (OPD-CH1). This rezoning represents a shift of existing zoning boundaries to coincide with the lot lines in a revised preliminary plat of Moss Ridge Campus, a 9-lot, 4-outlot commercial subdivision located west of 2510 N. Dodge Street and north of Interstate 80 (REZ14-00020/SUB14-00019). Thomas also moved to recommend amending the conditional zoning agreement to delete the provision that requires Planning and Zoning Commission review of all site plans. The remaining provisions in the conditional zoning agreement would remain the same. Martin seconded the motion. Thomas stated that looking at the overall site plan it is very pleasing and shows appropriate attention to open space, woodland sensitive area preservation, and the fact that it will be open to the public is a great amenity. He stated that the use of the roundabouts is appropriate and will add to the features of the plan. Thomas did state his concern about 15 foot traffic lanes if speeds are higher than 25 mph and thought perhaps the traffic lanes could be narrower or bike lines inserted. Swygard agreed with Thomas that the plan was improved from previous reiterations including the improved signage plan and agreed it is not necessary for the Commission to review all the individual site plans. Eastham agreed that the overall plan for the development is improved and thinks the use of the roundabouts in the development is forward -thinking, feature oriented, street design. He also stated an appreciation of the signage throughout the development. In terms of the street width, Eastham shared Thomas' concern about the street width of two, 15-foot wide lanes and feels it could be less wide. Dyer stated it was a great improvement over the first plan as it shows more attention to the current topography and landscape. Theobald stated she hoped to see a selection of various tree types in the park. Also in response to the width of the streets, she is concerned about larger vehicles (delivery trucks, etc.) and the need for wider streets for that reason. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. Development item (SUB14-00021) Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2014 - Formal Page 5 of 17 Discussion of an application submitted by MBHG Investment Co. for a Sensitive Areas Development Plan and Preliminary Plat for Sycamore Woods, approximate 34.86-acre, 115- lot residential subdivision located west of Whispering Meadows Subdivision, Parts 2 and 3, along extensions of Whispering Meadow and Blazing Star Drives. Eastham stated he is a member of a board of trustees of a non-profit that owns affordable housing and the non-profit is the general partner and a limited liability corporation which owns property adjacent to part of this property. Eastham stated he would be impartial in his consideration of this development item as he knows of no interest whatsoever of the non-profit corporation he is part of with this subdivision. Walz presented the staff report beginning with explaining that the City sent out notification to meet the seven-day deadline ahead of the meeting. At the time the applicant had applied for a rezoning and Staff did not realized until after the letter went out that rezoning was not required. When it went through the rezoning in 2007 it was subject to a conditional zoning agreement and an OPD plan. in the staff report it explains that while the subdivision expires after two years, the zoning stays in place so long as it meets the conditions. The Zoning Code indicates that a re- zoning is not required so long as changes to the approved preliminary OPD or Sensitive Areas Development Plan are not substantial. The code defines a substantive change as "any significant change in the land uses, street locations, character of the development from what is shown on the approved OPD Plan or Sensitive Area Development Plan, or any variation from the underlying zoning requirements or street standards beyond the ranges approved on the Preliminary OPD Plan or Preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan." Because there are no substantive variations in street layout or location, open space or protection of sensitive features, or lot configuration, no rezoning is required as part of the approval process. The proposed development remains subject to the existing conditional zoning agreement. The letter did cause some confusion for the neighbors and for that Walz apologized. Walz shared email correspondence from neighbors with the Commission and indicated that City Council will receive the same correspondence when the preliminary plat is forwarded to them. In 2007, the property was conditionally rezoned OPD-8 and OPD-RS12 with a sensitive areas development plan. The approved plan allowed for clustered housing and located streets away from sensitive features, which include woodlands, a regulated stream corridor, and wetlands. A preliminary plat for a 122-lot subdivision (76 detached single-family and 46 townhouse units) was also approved and later granted an extension in 2009. Preliminary plats expire after two years, and thus the applicant is now submitting a new, amended plat. The current plat reduces the number of lots from 122 to 115 (71 detached single-family lots oriented along Whispering Meadow, Indigo, and Blazing Star Drives and 44 townhome lots mostly along Verbena and Whispering Meadow Drives). Street layout, open space, lot configuration, and protection of sensitive areas are otherwise consistent with the previously approved OPD Plan. The applicant has also submitted a Sensitive Areas Development Plan to illustrate how the land will be developed in a manner that will protect, preserve, or mitigate for disturbance of these sensitive features. A conditional zoning agreement (CZA) for the property includes requirements for the developer to construct Whispering Meadows Drive t o t In e w e s t e r n edge of t h e Sycamore Greenway (connecting into the General Quarters subdivision) and to extend Blazing Start Drive to the east across a portion of City -owned property adjacent to the Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2014 - Formal Page 6 of 17 Greenway trail. Whispering Meadows Drive will connect with the future Dickenson Lane and supply connectivity to Sycamore Street for developments. The CZA also requires a wetland mitigation plan to be approved by the Army Corps of Engineers and other applicable State and Federal agencies prior to development activity and addresses maintenance of wetland during and after housing construction. Walz commented on the Sensitive Areas Plan. According to a note on the plat, this property contains 430,544 square feet of woodlands (approximately 9.9 acres), and 162,418 square feet (approx. 3.7 acres) will be preserved, which represents approximately 37.7%. Most of the tree removal will occur at the northwest quadrant of the property where Whispering Meadows Drive is proposed to be extended and in areas where the stream corridor will be graded and reconstructed to create new wetland areas proposed as mitigation. The sensitive areas ordinance allows for more than 50% of the woodlands on a property to be removed if an appropriate tree replacement plan is submitted indicating a replacement ratio of 1 tree per 200 square feet of woodland lost above the 50% allowed. The applicant is required to replace trees to mitigate for the 52,854 square feet of woodland lost or 264 trees. The applicant proposes to plant 146 trees in the upland areas surrounding the newly created wetland cells, 4 trees on the islands within the wetland cells, and plant 1 tree in the front yard of every dwelling unit prior to occupancy for a total of 265 trees. In addition, the code requires the preservation of "groves of trees" wherever possible. The applicant is proposing to preserve the grove of trees that exists along the southern border of the property where it abuts the Sycamore Greenway by establishing a construction area limit and implementing tree protection measures during construction. To preserve these trees over time this area is designated as a no -build conservation area. Walz stated that Staff finds that, with the measures taken above to preserve and replace trees, that the plan meets the standards for woodlands and groves in the sensitive areas ordinance and are consistent with the previously approved plan. In regards to the stream corridor, Walz explained that a regulated stream corridor extends in an east -west direction across the center of the proposed development. The stream corridor in this case is 30 feet wide. The buffer areas are illustrated on the sensitive areas development plan. The existing wetlands are mainly of a linear variety associated with the stream corridor, particularly in the area east of Verbena Drive. The development as proposed will impact 1.5 acres of wetland, some of which is within or adjacent to the stream corridor. The applicant is proposing to provide replacement wetlands in the area of the existing stream corridor east of Verbena Drive. A series of wetland cells will replace the existing stream corridor. The applicant has illustrated how this can be achieved with the mitigation area being proposed. In order to develop the property, the applicant is requesting to disturb 1.5 acres of wetland, which will require 2.26 acres of replacement wetlands according to the replacement ratios in the sensitive areas ordinance. For properties containing a wetland, a wetland mitigation plan is required as part of the Sensitive Areas Development Plan. The applicant submitted a wetland mitigation plan to the City and the Army Corps of Engineers Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2014 - Formal Page 7 of 17 in 2007. The plan was reviewed by staff and a wetland specialist and was recommended for approval. The developer must verify that the plan has the current approval of the Army Corps prior to any development activity. Because it is unlikely that construction of the homes in this development will be completed within the typical 5-year wetland monitoring period required by the Corps, the conditional zoning agreement requires that the wetlands be monitored for as long as home construction is occurring on lots that surround the wetlands with written reports submitted to the City after every site visit, rather than just yearly as proposed in the mitigation plan. This will allow a quick response to any damage to the new wetlands occurring due to ongoing construction activity. Also, prior to final platting of the property, the applicant must submit a maintenance plan prepared by a wetland specialist and approved by the City that estimates maintenance costs for the wetland areas and private open space within Outlets A and B, and specifically details long-term maintenance responsibilities, and describes generally to who these responsibilities will be assigned. Walz shared that the plat includes of 115 residential lots clustered away from the sensitive areas on the site. The subdivision will consist of a mix of townhouse lots and detached single-family home lots. Staff finds that the proposed lot layout is acceptable. Townhouse units will be clustered alongthesouth side of Whispering Meadows Driveand along Verbena Drive. Staff finds the placement of the various housing types within the development to be appropriate. The sensitive areas development plan shows the rear lanes behind the townhomes will be screen with rows of evergreen trees and landscaping. Walz explained that the Comprehensive Plan calls for, and the current subdivision regulations require, that "all streets, sidewalks, and trails, should connect to other streets, sidewalks, and trails with the development and to the property line for their extension to adjacent properties. However, the possibilities for street connections through the subject property are severely constrained by the extensive network of sensitive environmental features on the property. Both Indigo Drive and Blazing Circle Drive end in cul-de-sacs in order to limit impacts to the wetlands and woodlands on the site. Connections to adjacent development are limited due to the location of the Sycamore Greenway and the established street layout and development of residential lots in the neighborhood to the north. While street crossings of the Sycamore Greenway should be minimized, at the time of the rezoning of this property a collector street crossing was deemed necessary between Lakeside Drive and the future east -west arterial (McCollister Boulevard) proposed further south. The conditional zoning agreement requires the applicant to construct the extension of Whispering Meadows Drive across the Sycamore Greenway to connect up with Dickenson Lane in the General Quarters subdivision. Dickenson Lane connects into Sycamore Street. At the southeast comer of the plat, the extension of Blazing Star Drive will cross the corner of City- owned park property adjacent to the Sycamore Greenway. Allowing this street crossing location will benefit both the developer and the community; the developer will gain land for the development of 3 or 4 additional lots on the east side of Blazing Star Drive and the community will gain street access to a corner of City parkland. Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2014 - Formal Page 8 of 17 While connections to and through Sycamore Woods are less than ideal, opportunities to improve circulation and connectivity for neighborhoods to the south are possible and should be required with future plats in this area. With future extension of Blazing Star Drive to the east and Whispering Meadows to the south, a more grid -like pattern should emerge, connecting into the future extension of the McCollister Boulevard. This will bring better circulation within the area and provide better access to the many recreational amenities, schools, and commercial destinations in south Iowa City for what has been a somewhat isolated neighborhood. Walz explained that sidewalks are required along all streets within new subdivisions, including along all outlets. The plat indicates sidewalks along both sides of all streets in compliance with this requirement. This includes sidewalks along both sides on Verbena Drive. In addition, the proposed plat indicates that an 8-foot sidewalk will be constructed in Outlot C between lots 86 and 87. Said outlot will subsequently be dedicated to the City. The Parks Department has agreed to accept this outlot to satisfy a portion of the open space requirement for this development. The plat also shows a public access easement over the storm sewer drainage easement next to lot 61 along Indigo Drive. This easement will provide access for area residents along Indigo Drive and Thistle Court to the private open space in Outlot B. Walz showed on the plat the three mailbox clusters: one at the southwest corner of Verbena and Whispering Meadows Drive; one at adjacent to lot 58 serving 14 units on Indigo Drive; and another located in Outlot C serving 53 units. Parks and Recreation will not allow a mailbox cluster to be located in an outlot to be dedicated to the City (Outlot C will be dedicated). Staff therefore recommends that the mailbox cluster be moved to an area north of lot 115 or east of lot 101 along the private open space. Walz indicated that, if the Commission believed it appropriate, they could require some design treatment or landscaping around the mailbox clusters, which are large but are not located directly adjacent to any residential lot. Walz stated Staff recommends that SUB14-00021, a Sensitive Area Development Plan and preliminary plat for Sycamore Woods, an approximate 34.86-acre, 115-lot residential subdivision located west of Whispering Meadows Subdivision, Parts 2 and 3, be approved, subject to resolution of deficiencies and discrepancies noted below. DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES: All townhome lots must meet the 3,000 square foot minimum of the RS-12 zone. Indicate lot width for lot 22. - Relocation of mailbox cluster from Outlot C. Technical discrepancies as noted by the City Engineer Eastham asked Hektoen to explain what the role of the Commission is with regards to this item since it is not a rezoning application. Hektoen stated the Commission is to vote on the compliance to the sensitive areas ordinance and compliance with the subdivision code. Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2014 - Formal Page 9 of 17 Thomas asked Walz about the pedestrian connection at the south of the subdivision and requested it if could be aligned with Verbena Drive rather than the offset. Walz explained that it is lined up so that the sidewalk from Verbena Drive lines up with the trail connection on the other side of Blazing Star. Thomasshared a concern with lot 87 which is directly aligned with Verbena Drive and vehicle lights, etc. will point directly into the center of that lot. If the outlot was centered there, that would correct that issue. Eastham asked regarding compliance with the sensitive areas ordinance if those were new requirements or if they were from the original subdivision. Walz confirmed they were approved with the original subdivision request in 2007. Additionally the applicant will have to show they have approval of the Army Core of Engineers and other agencies for the changes that are proposed. Since it's been seven years since the original approval, it needs to be revisited to make sure those approvals are still valid. Eastham opened public hearing. Steve Gordon (605 Grandview Ct) with AM Management spoke representing the developer. He stated a lot of work was done several years ago putting this plan together with the sensitive features and connectivity. At that time was in the process of developing Whispering Meadows Parts 2 & 3 and then the housing market fell, so they did not continue onto final plat for this development. They are ready to proceed at this time. One of the changes in the new preliminary plat is the townhomes are larger to accommodate better construction as well as some of the angled lots on the cul-de-sacs did not have enough buildable space. That is why there is now a reduction in the total number of lots. Gordon did confirm they will move the mailbox cluster wherever the City recommends. He also discussed the sidewalk from Verbena Drive to the trail and stated it was aligned the way it is so a sidewalk will connect with a sidewalk, and not have the sidewalk from Verbena Drive align with a driveway. Martin asked if Gordon had designs for the mailbox clusters and he stated not at this point. Sharon Sorenson (26 Amber Lane) presented notice as read "we the residents bordering or near the above stated location would like to protest this proposal as it stands. We request no wooded area within 500 foot of existing homes be torn down. This wooded area that adjoins the City walking park should also remain undisturbed. These trees and wetland area are sensitive. By not destroying the trees, birds such as pheasants, duck, geese, owls and also deer could remain protected for everyone to enjoy." Sorenson presented the signed document to Waltz. Sorenson stated that she received the letter from the City on October 28, and were told in that letter to have any comments back to the City by Thursday, October 30, which was less than the seven days required. Additionally it was written that citizens had to have any comments notarized. Only the people bordering the area were allowed to sign. In 2007 Sorenson collected signatures from people who used the walking path because they will be impacted by the development. Sorenson said that the letter and Waltz stated to her this development was a "done deal" because it is not a rezoning it has already been accepted. Sorenson's main concern is the trees, between her home on Amber Lane and the first home on Regal Lane (14 properties) there will be 21 new properties built in the new development. And in that area, more than half of it is filled with trees. Sorenson stated along the walking path to the left there are trees that will also be cut down as part of this development. Whispering Meadows, the main street, will eventually connect with Dickenson Lane, but Dickenson is not a completed road yet, Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2014 - Formal Page 10 of 17 and that subdivision is owned by a different developer, so will all these new houses be built before that road is complete? That is a lot of traffic to dump out onto Lakeside Drive, and onto Sherman Avenue to get to Lakeside. If the road is to go through Sherman, that is currently a turnaround, so they will have to open up that road and it will create so much additional traffic through that area. Sorenson requested from City Staff a list of the names of the citizens that own homes that received the letter and was told verbally over 300 people were sent the letters. When insisted upon, a list was presented there were only 150 names and some were duplicates. Only 84 of the names on the list were residences the rest were owned by the City or companies that Sorenson was told were not allowed to sign neighborhood petitions. Sorenson explained her concern regarding being told this development was a "done deal" from Walz. And if this is not a rezoning (although the letter stated rezoning) how can it be stated to be a "done deal'. This has to be approved by the Commission, and then approved by the City Council so it is not a "done deal' and should not be described as such. Sorenson closed her comments by stating again her concern about the removal of trees and the close proximity of the homes and concerns about all the traffic until the through streets can be constructed. Walz stated that she had not use the phrase "done deal', the zoning is completed so that is done, but informed all who inquired they had the right to come to the meeting to discuss the issue of the trees. Additionally Walz confirmed where the trees were being removed from, and indicated where there will continue to be trees along the Greenway. As far as the trees on the lots, the developer will determine if they need to remove all the trees on each lot to allow for building or if some can be maintained. She showed on the map the areas where trees must be maintained along the buffer. Sorenson questioned if there was a City requirement to keep trees along the City walkways and Walz replied that if the City is required to keep the trees on the City property they would, and regardless the developer will not be removing trees from the City property. The development property does not cross over the City walkway, thought he street does. Walz asked Hektoen for clarification that the City mails to every property owner within 300 feet of the development area and Hektoen confirmed that as well as people within 200 feet of the property can officially protest a rezoning. However, this development is not a rezoning so there is no right to file a formal protest that is limited to a rezoning application. Everyone in the community has the right to come to the Commission meeting and speak, however there is no formal protest or need for a super majority vote by the Council. Sorenson questioned if the rezoning expires after two years and Walz stated that it does not — the preliminary plat expires after two years, but rezoning does not expire as long as the new plat does not vary substantially from the OPD plan. The preliminary plat was renewed again in 2009 but then it expired in 2011, so now the developer is back before the Commission to renew the preliminary plat. Sorenson asked about the drainage of the wetland, in 2007 the developer said it would be behind the 21 houses and there would be a drainage ditch that would connect to the other side by Sherman, but in this plan that will now go under the roads and questioned how that will work. Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2014 - Formal Page 11 of 17 Walz stated she cannot speak to exactly how the drainage system will function, the applicant's engineer would have to speak to that, however there are storm sewers that do run from this area between Regal and Amber Lanes that will bring the water down and into the outlots. Melinda Ragona (32 Regal Lane) stated concern that the property had already been rezoned and property owners were just notified they don't have any say in the matter. She is passionately against the rezoning of Sycamore Woods to a medium density subdivision. Her backyard is at the edge of the wetland prairie on Regal Lane, as a mother of two young children and having lived in this home for five years, bought this home at this location was for the beauty of the area. As a stay at home mother of a 2 and 4 year olds living at this residence was affordable for their one income family. She feels it would be disastrous and environmentally unstable to build on this land and it should just be maintained as part of Whispering Meadows Wetlands and Park. Over the past few years, Mother Nature has demonstrated weather extremes in form of flooding and drought. During the torrential downpours of late Sycamore Woods turns into a water drainage system helping to deviate water from surrounding properties. It would be unstable ground to build upon and would perpetuate the flooding problems all properties are experiencing. Keeping this area in its natural form not only helps with the ever- increasing flooding the wetland serves as wildlife habitat to frogs, pheasants and deer. Ragona also shared concern about the density of housing proposed for rezoning, and if it would be more low-income units and help or hinder the FRL school problems. She noted that this side of town holds an unsavory stigma for low-income housing. She stated she has great neighbors and has never had any problems. Her daughter attends Grantwood Elementary for preschool and the teachers are wonderful. Ragona mentioned the ongoing school boundary discussions and how it is deluding the district diversity policy, and her concern is to have more low-income housing which will create an even more unbalance in the schools. She noted that perhaps one could reinvest in the two vacant homes already on Regal Lane, they have been sitting vacant multiple years and no one is up keeping this property. Adding more properties to the area will affect the property values of existing homes in the area. Why oversaturate the market when there are two vacant homes on just one block. Why build on a natural wetland that everyone can appreciate and enjoy and is a natural habitat for wildlife and a detrimental environmental flood mitigation zone. She suggest the City incorporates Sycamore Woods officially into Whispering Lanes Wetland Park and reinvest in the dilapidated vacant properties on this side of town. Bob Barta (20 Amber Lane) read a portion of a letter he drafted to the City. He wrote to express his opposition to the proposed Sycamore Woods property development. He and his wife have been homeowners on Amber Lane for nearly 18 years, and close to the proposed development. When originally moved into this neighborhood from Coralville to escape the development and traffic associated with Coral Ridge Mall, one of the main factors that influenced their decision to buy a home at this location was the proximity to undeveloped areas immediately to the south and west. With the creation of the Sycamore Greenway Trail System, there was access on the trail to see wildlife, open fields and the tall grass prairie restorations. The landscape has been dramatically now changed with recent developments and open areas have been replaced with houses. Now with the proposed Sycamore Woods plan here is another development in the area. Barta stated his most pressing concern about the Sycamore Woods development is the destruction of a major portion of the woodland area in the northwest corner. The conservation easements shown on the plan map protect only part of the western portion and the southern portion, but none on the northern areas. Instead there would be new homes immediately adjacent to existing homes on the northern border and more homes along a portion of the Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2014 - Formal Page 12 of 17 Sycamore Greenway including another city street crossing. These affected western bordered woods have some of the largest trees, silver maple, which are some of the best trees in terms of snags to be seen. The tree size is similar to other silver maple trees in the surrounding neighborhoods, one cannot replace 45 year old trees with nursery stock trees in a suburban setting and expect similar environment benefits. Barta said his letter continues on to express his rationale explaining his objection to the plans and would just like to state his hope that the environmental considerations discussed will be given a fair review. Berta questioned Waltz regarding a conversation he had with the NRC person today he was sent a map of Iowa City showing an inventory of the national wetlands along the bike path and wanted to know how much the new development would affect that portion of the wetlands. Waltz could not say exactly how much it will impact the wetlands, the developer is required to mitigate anything that they impact. Walz showed on the map the area where the developer cannot disturb the wetlands and the barrier between the wetlands and the lots. She estimated the barrier would be 80-100 feet. Kyle Dieleman (77 Thistle Court) originally came to the meeting to address comments regarding the zoning, but understands now that is not the issue. He is however concerned about the environmental impacts as other folks have spoken about. He feels it is absurd to remove woodlands and add single trees in yards and state that is not a fair substitution. Dieleman stated his other, more major concern, is the connectivity issue. He drives on Whispering Meadow Drive every day and the sort of housing that is already there is, and he assumes will continue in this new development, are single car garage homes which lends itself heavily to on street parking. Whispering Meadows Drive already has cars on both sides of the road making it difficult as only one car can pass through. Additionally there are lot of children in this neighborhood and therefore traffic issues are very serious. Even extending Whispering Meadow Drive will not solve the issue, especially since the development is adding 115 new homes. The Indigo street cul-de- sac will add another 20 lots and there is no outlet for that. His concern is that the connectivity issues will not be resolved adequately. Lon Drake (rural Iowa City) designed the south Sycamore Greenway along with MMS Consultants and stated that in 1998 the City signed an agreement with the Core of Engineers to preserve the wooded area on the west end of this property and questioned if the City has now received a waiver or something that allows this development to now proceed. Walz stated that in 2007 the Army Core of Engineers had approved the development and rezoning. Drake stated the agreement signed in 1998 was an agreement for the watershed and specifically stated those trees would be saved. Walz stated she would submit the agreement Drake has to the City Engineers for their clarification. Drake read from the agreement "referring to that strip of maple trees "this eco system should be preserved and enhanced because it is serving a useful purpose for wildlife and human aesthetics. Enhancement will include planting of shade loving forest floor species like native ferns, common spring wild flowers." For the portion of the younger trees further in the back "the green space plan is to remove the majority of the silver maples preserving only the best in the very open spacing and then planting a more diverse mix of more desirable native tree species." Drake stated the City made a commitment to this area that should still be valid. Eastham stated the Staff will follow up on that agreement. Linda Moss (38 Amber Lane) explained that at the beginning of this conversation she thought it does have to have rezoning if it amends the OPD and questioned if that is correct. Walz stated that if the changes are substantive, change in uses, layout of streets, etc. then that would be Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2014 - Formal Page 13 of 17 correct, however in this situation there have been no substantive changes. Moss stated it was very confusing to receive a letter stating it was a rezoning, and Walz apologized again. Joe Snyder (26 Regal Lane) stated his main concern is with home values, he recently refinanced his home and to his dismay the current home value is now less than the original purchase value. That is understandable with the economic situations however he does believe this preliminary plat would adversely affect one of the main selling points of his home with 20 lots behind it, specifically three lots adjacent to his. Snyder said the subdivisions they live in are obviously early 70's, homes directly to the west are newer subdivisions and now with this development there will be a lot more newer homes in the area which causes concern on how it will affect his home's value especially with replacing views with homes. He also pointed out on the preliminary plat there are areas for outlots A, B, C with tree reduction in certain areas, with tree ridges preserved on the back side but no considerations for the area adjacent to the existing subdivisions. Snyder also echoed the earlier comments regarding traffic and understands Verbena is similar to Whispering Meadows that it is not a very wide street and doesn't believe adding this many homes with only one through street to Sycamore will alleviate traffic congestion. Lakeside Drive currently sees a lot of traffic and has traffic concerns around Grant Wood Elementary with students crossing. Tom Sorenson (26 Amber Lane) has a public notice from the Coreps of Engineers, Staff stated the Core of Engineers approved this preliminary plat and in the notice it does not state an approval of this subdivision. It is a lot of legal jargon, but nothing saying it's approved. Sorenson also questioned why this subdivision would be allowed to proceed without the access of the connection to Dickenson Lane completed first. It could be a one, five, or ten years before that is completed so all the traffic will go out through Lakeside which Staff has agreed is over utilized already. Secondly Staff pointed out on the map a creek running through the property, it is not a creek, it's a drainage ditch, and it drains off of Regal and Amber Lanes, and floods that whole area during horrendous rains. At times Amber Lane has two foot of water on it with only one drain on the street, which goes into that timber area. Also, why not move the houses away and leave the timber along the back of the current subdivisions. Then the street can cross directly over to Dickenson Lane as well without having to make a turn. That would leave the majority of that timber in place. Sorenson reiterated that the notice from the Corps of Engineers does not state approval. Walz stated the subdivision has not been approved, the Corps approved the plan in 2007, but the developers do need to get approval again from the Corps of Engineers before the final plat can proceed. Hektoen confirmed that before the final plat can be approved the developers will need to demonstrate they have approval from the Corps of Engineers, it does not matter what was approved in the past, new approval will be needed. Sorenson asked Hektoen if it could be insisted that the street connection to Dickenson Lane be completed prior to building any homes in the subdivision. Hektoen stated there are secondary access standards in City code, however the developer has rights only over the land they own, and this developer will be required to build the street to the edge of the property. Wynn Johnson (2061 Sherman Drive) is not within the 300 feet of the development so did not receive notice, however heard about the meeting and wanted to share some concerns. Johnson understands the topic is the sensitive areas ordinance, streets and connectivity and that is his major concern. Adding a more densely populated area than the current subdivisions in the area. Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2014 - Formal Page 14 of 17 They say the lot sizes are comparable, but there are a lot of townhomes and even the single- family homes are much denser. While this is great for diversity, there is a need for diverse housing to attract a diverse population, however there needs to be the infrastructure in place. Need options for traffic for this level of density. Johnson understands that Dickenson Lane will eventually extend out to Sycamore Street, but that has not even yet been designed. Johnson recalled previous meetings discussing the plat for General Quarters and heard from Hall and Hall Engineering, there was a neighborhood meeting with Build to Suit who bought the land from Dolan Homes/Town & Country Development. In that short period of time neighbors were waiting for something to start and nothing happened, instead that land has been resold twice and a farmer has purchased it. Therefore the connectivity and infrastructure from the development to Dickenson Lane or Sherman Drive is undecided and with an unknown timeline. Johnson stated that currently it is difficult to even get a snowplow or garbage truck on Sherman Drive due to vehicles being parked on both sides of the street. He concluded that concerns about streets standards, locations, connectivity needs to be addressed. Johnson asked Walz for confirmation on the cul-de-sac on Sherman Drive will always remain a cul-de-sac. Hektoen stated that cannot be promised for all time. Alan Jones (34 Regal Lane) shared his unhappiness with the late notice, not receiving the letter from the City until Friday, but understands that is now moot because this is not a rezoning. He noted the maps provided, both with the letter and online, are difficult to read. Jones pointed out the easement that runs behind his property is not shown on the map as going all the way to the street as it should. His home at 34 Regal Lane is adjacent to the storm drain which then runs under his property. He questioned if there were any other underground lines that connect to that drain. Walz pointed out the two connections and Jones questioned how much volume that one drain has to collect because he feels it's insufficient as the area floods during heavy rains. Additionally the back yard is a sea of water and that will affect the new development area. He stated the City is supposed to dredge out the drainage ditch periodically but it has not been done. He shared that three houses up Regal Lane there is another easement where another sewer line could be put in to alleviate the neighborhood flooding. This new sewer drainage should be installed before the new development is approved, or be part of the development plan. Jones also stated that the street is broken above the sewer line and snowplows make an awful racket when they hit that spot of the street. In closing he stated the area should be maintained as wildlife area with desirable trees planted similar to a Hickory Hill Park. Tammy Smith (30 Regal Lane) disagrees with the letter that was sent regarding the rezoning, received the letter on Friday, October 31, which did not allow for even a full week to prepare, she began right away soliciting the notarized signatures and was not aware that the rezoning was not happening and feels that is unfair to the homeowners. Additionally there has been seven years since the zoning was approved and there has been a lot of development in the area in that time and new homeowners who don't have a voice. Her purpose tonight is to stress the need to save the woods, the wildlife there, and all of that will be destroyed. Additionally she disagrees with the high density housing directly behind her house and it will decrease her property value. The backyards do have significant flooding issues as well. Smith has collected letters and notarized signatures from the neighbors and pointed out that the turnout at tonight's meeting shows the community interest in this project. Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2014 - Formal Page 15 of 17 Adam Yack (3 Thistle Court) is concerned about Whispering Prairie Drive and the width of the road. Currently Whispering Prairie allows for parking on both sides of the street and that congests traffic flow. Eastham closed public hearing. Theobald stated that in light of the information shared at tonight's meeting, as well as the question regarding the 1998 agreement with the Army Core of Engineers, moved to defer this application to the November 20th meeting. Thomas seconded the motion Swygard stated the deferral will give the Commission time to review all the materials submitted this evening. Thomas stated that perhaps some of the issues related to the flooding in the adjacent streets, and the connectivity issue of when the street will be built can be addressed by Staff as well. Eastham said he did not hear from the earlier Staff report any concern about the amount of traffic this development will add to the area, but if that is a concern it should be addressed. He believed the Commission had heard about the adjacent street flooding issues before so requested Staff comment if the new development will exasperate or not affect those issues. Walz will discuss the flood and traffic issues with the City Engineer and asked that the developer also bring their engineer to the next meeting. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. Consideration of Meetina Minutes: October 16, 2014 Dyer moved to defer the approval of the meeting minutes as they were not included in the packets sent to the Commission. Swygard seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Eastham proposed a discussion in subsequent meetings regarding the public input process and questions on the format of long range planning meetings. Hektoen stated Staff can provide the Commission with materials on how they go about notifying citizens of meetings. Eastham stated he is not particularly concerned about notices but rather how the meeting itself is structured. Howard asked for clarification that the Commission is interested in discussing in general how long range planning and public outreach meetings are conducted. Charlie agreed that that is what is he requesting. Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 2014 - Formal Page 16 of 17 Thomas questioned the planning meeting on the near -east side and how people were notified of the meeting, believes it was not on the City's calendar on the website. He thought that probably there was not a very high turn -out for the meeting. Howard stated there were over 80 people at the meeting. Hektoen stated standard protocol was followed on the notification of that meeting. The Commission agreed that this should be discussed at a future meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Thomas moved to adjourn the meeting. Dyer seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 FORMAL MEETING TERM EXPIRES 3/20 413 4/17 5/1 6/5 6/19 7/17 817 8/21 9/2 9/18 10/2 10/16 11/6 DYER, CAROLYN 05/16 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE 05/16 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X FREERKS, ANN 05/18 X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X O/E MARTIN, PHOEBE 05/17 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X SWYGARD, PAULA 05/15 O/E X X X X X X —XI X X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE 05/18 X X X X X X X O/E X tX X X X X THOMAS, JOHN 05/15 X O/E X X X X X X X I O/E X O/E X X INFORMAL MEETING NAME TERM EXPIRES 1/2 1/13 2/3 2/20 9/18* DYER, CAROLYN 05/16 X X X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE 05/16 X X X X X FREERKS, ANN 05/18 X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE 05/17 X O/E X X X SWYGARD, PAULA 05/15 X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE 05/18 X X X X X THOMAS, JOHN 05/15 X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused = Not a Member * = Work Session