HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Packet 7.18.19PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
July 18, 2019
Formal Meeting – 7:00 PM
Emma Harvat Hall
Iowa City City Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Election of Officers
4. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
5. Case No. REZ19-08
Applicant: TRD, LLC
Location: South of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack Trail
An application submitted by TRD, LLC for a rezoning of approximately 36.81 acres of
property located south of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack Trail from Interim
Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family Residential
(RS-5).
6. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: June 20, 2019
7. Planning & Zoning Information
8. Adjournment
If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact Anne Russett,
Urban Planning, at 319-356-5251 or anne-russett@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow
sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: August 1 / August 15 / September 5
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner
Item: REZ19-08 Date: July 18, 2019
Tamarack Ridge
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: TRD, LLC
221 E Burlington St
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-631-1894
gjc1974@outlook.com
Property Owner: Doug Paul
319-331-4113
Requested Action: Rezoning from Interim Development Single-
Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Low Density
Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone.
Purpose: Development of single-family housing
Location: South of Scott Blvd and North of Tamarack Trl
Location Map:
2
Size: 36.81 Acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Undeveloped, Interim Development Single-
Family Residential (ID-RS)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: ID-RS – Interim Development Single-
Family Residential
South: RS5 – Low Density Single-Family
Residential
East: ID-RS – Interim Development Single-
Family Residential
ID-RP – Interim Development Research
Park
West: ID-RP – Interim Development Research
Park
ORP – Office Research Park Zone
Comprehensive Plan: Conservation Design
District Plan: Northeast District, Single-Family
Neighborhood Open Space District: NE1
Public Meeting Notification: Property owners located within 300’ of the
project site received notification of the Planning
and Zoning Commission public meeting.
Rezoning signs were also posted on the site.
File Date: June 27, 2019
45 Day Limitation Period: August 12, 2019
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, TDR, LLC has requested a rezoning from Interim Development Single-Family
Residential (ID-RS) zone to Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone for 36.81
acres of land south of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack Trail.
The applicant has also submitted an application for a preliminary plat for this area. The
preliminary plat will be discussed at a future Planning and Zoning Commission meeting;
however, the preliminary plat is attached to show the intended subdivision design.
The applicant has used the good neighbor policy. A good neighbor meeting was held on
Monday, June 10. The summary of the meeting is attached.
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning: The property is currently zoned Interim Development – Single Family
3
Residential (ID-RS). The Interim Development zoning designation applies to undeveloped
properties without access to City services. The ID-RS zone district allows for nonurban uses
of land, specifically crop-related agricultural uses. At this time a rezoning could occur due
to the availability of existing City water and sanitary sewer service.
Proposed Zoning: The applicant has proposed rezoning 36.81 acres to Low Density Single-
Family Residential (RS-5). The RS-5 zone is primarily intended for single-family housing.
The zone allows for some flexibility in housing types. For example, duplexes on corner
lots. This zone also allows for some nonresidential uses, such as parks, schools, religious
institutions, and daycare facilities. In terms of dimensional requirements, the minimum
lot size is 8,000 square feet, the maximum height is 35 feet, and the minimum lot width
(measured at the 15-foot front setback line) is 60 feet.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive
Plan has designated this area for Conservation Design. The Conservation Design land use
designation is applied to areas containing steep slopes, woodlands, or other sensitive
features. The Northeast District Plan identifies this area for single-family residential
development. The RS-5 zone is consistent with the general intended land uses and vision
identified in the comprehensive plan and the Northeast District Plan.
Compatibility with Neighborhood: The project site is located south of Scott Boulevard
and north of Tamarack Trail. The area to the north, west, and east remains undeveloped.
The area to the south and southwest is single-family residential development that is
zoned RS-5. The proposed rezoning will extend the RS-5 zone district further north and
continue the single-family development pattern.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The site contains several sensitive areas, including
critical and protected slopes and woodlands. The preliminary plat indicates that the
development will disturb 12% of the critical slopes and none of the protected slopes. The
City’s sensitive areas ordinance allows the disturbance of up to 35% of critical slopes
before a level II sensitive areas review is required.
In terms of woodlands, the preliminary plat indicates that the development will meet the
retention requirement of 50% per the sensitive areas ordinance. Table 1 provides a
summary of the woodlands.
Table 1. Woodlands Summary
Existing
Woodlands
Disturbed
Woodlands
Woodland
Buffer
Preserved
Woodland
Retention
Requirement
(per code)
18.5 acres 5.0 acres
(27%)
3.9 acres
(21%)
9.5
(52%)
50%
The City’s sensitive areas inventory also identifies this area as having potential
archaeological resources. The applicant has contracted with the Office of the State
Archaeologist who is currently conducting an archaeological study.
Despite the presence of sensitive features, a Planned Development Overlay (OPD)
rezoning is not required because per the preliminary plat the applicant is not exceeding
the requirements of the sensitive areas ordinance and is not requesting any modifications
4
to zoning or subdivision code requirements.
Traffic Implications and Access: Using the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation
Manual (9th Edition), staff estimates that the total traffic generated by the proposed (60)
lots would produce approximately 571 trips per day to/from the development. The
anticipated trips generated would either access N. 1st Avenue (via Hickory Trail) or Scott
Boulevard (via the proposed connection of Tamarack Trail).
For comparison, the existing development that accesses N. 1st Avenue via Hickory Trail
has approximately 121 households and produces approximately 1,152 trips per day using
one access point. Provided the additional access to Scott Boulevard (via Tamarack Trail),
the total trips accessing N. 1st Avenue would likely be reduced even when adding the
proposed 60 lots.
In 2018, Scott Boulevard had an average daily traffic count of approximately 5,100 near
the proposed connection of Tamarack Trail and N. 1st Avenue had an average daily traffic
count of approximately 7,500 near the intersection of Hickory Trail (Iowa DOT). Given that
the theoretical capacity of a two-lane arterial street is conservatively more than 14,000
trips per day, the additional traffic generated by the development alone will not over-
burden Scott Boulevard or N. 1st Avenue as currently constructed.
Currently, the intersection of N. 1st Avenue and Scott Boulevard experiences congestion
during peak travel times. While the estimated additional trips from the development are
relatively low compared with total average daily traffic volumes, the additional trips will
have an impact on the intersection during peak hours. However, the City currently has a
Capital Improvements Project scheduled for 2020 to address this issue either by
constructing a roundabout or by signalizing the intersection.
Additionally, staff proposes two conditions to reduce traffic speeds along the extension of
Tamarack Trail: 1) At the time of final platting, payment of a tree planting fee at a cost of
$500 per tree for the plantings of street trees within the public right-of-way. Trees will
generally be located every 30’ with modifications allowed due to drive-way distances. The
Parks and Recreation Department will be responsible for identifying the appropriate
locations for the trees and planting the trees; and 2) General compliance with the
preliminary plat in that traffic calming measures, like the traffic circles, are incorporated
into the final design of the extension of Tamarack Trail.
Neighborhood Parkland of Frees in-Lieu of: Open space dedication or fees in lieu of are
addressed at the time of subdivision. Based on the 36.81 acres of RS-5 zoning, the
developer would be required to dedicate 0.79 acres of land or pay fees in-lieu. Due to the
proximity of Calder Park, which is 0.3 miles from the southern edge of the project site, an
in-lieu fee payment would be appropriate.
Storm Water Management: Storm water management will be addressed during the
subdivision process. The applicant has submitted plans for storm water management with
the preliminary plat application, which will be finalized at final platting.
Next Steps: Upon recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning
Commission, a public hearing will be scheduled for consideration of the application by the
City Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission will also review the preliminary plat at
5
an upcoming meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ19-08, a proposal to rezone
approximately 36.81 acres of property located south of Scott Boulevard and north of
Tamarack Trail from Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density
Single-Family Residential (RS-5), subject to the following conditions:
1) At the time of final platting, payment of a tree planting fee at a cost of $500 per tree
for the plantings of street trees within the public right-of-way. Trees will generally be
located every 30’ with modifications allowed due to drive-way distances. The Parks
and Recreation Department will be responsible for identifying the appropriate
locations for the trees and planting of the trees.
2) General compliance with the preliminary plat in that traffic calming measures, like
the traffic circles, are incorporated into the final design of the extension of Tamarack
Trail.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Aerial Photograph
3. Preliminary Plat
4. Good Neighbor Meeting Summary
Approved by: __________________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
ppdadmin\stfrep\document2
BLUFFWOODDRTAMARACK TRLLARCH LNSTUART
CT
H I C K O R Y T R L
B L U F F W O O D C I R
R O C H E S T E R A V ECYPRESSCTACT DRN DODGE STB
L
U
F
F
WO
O
D
L
NN 1ST AVEACT PLHICKORYHEIGHTS LNN DUBUQUE RD
HARVEST RD SEN SCOTT BLVD
RS8
ID-RS
P1
CC2
RS5
ORP
CO1
RM12
RR1
MU
RDP
ID-RP
REZ19-8Tamarack Ridgeµ
0 0.15 0.30.075 Miles Prepared By: Jade PedersonDate Prepared: July 2019
An application submitted by TRD, LLC for the rezoning of approximately 36.81 acres near Scott Blvd and Tamarack Trailfrom Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone.
BLUFFWOODDRTAMARACK TRLLARCH LNSTUART
CT
HICKORY TRL
HICKORY PL
EASTBURYDRB L U F F W O O D C I R
R O C H E S T E R A V ECYPRESSCTEVERGREEN CTACT DRN DODGE STB
L
U
F
F
WO
O
D
L
NN 1ST AVEACT PLHICKORYHEIGHTS LNN DUBUQUE RD
HARVEST RD SEN SCOTT BLVD
REZ19-8Tamarack Ridgeµ
0 0.15 0.30.075 Miles Prepared By: Jade PedersonDate Prepared: July 2019
An application submitted by TRD, LLC for the rezoning of approximately 36.81 acres near Scott Blvd and Tamarack Trailfrom Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone.
SSSSSSSSSSSSWWWWWW W W
W
W
W
W WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST
STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTWWWWWWW SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTSTSTSTSTSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSWWWWSTSTSTSTSTWWWWWWSSSSSSSS34
0.44 AC
25
0.32 AC33
0.32 AC
32
0.32 AC
31
0.32 AC
30
0.32 AC
29
0.32 AC
28
0.29 AC
27
0.31 AC
8
0.27 AC
4
0.40 AC
60
0.61 AC
1
0.34 AC5
0.40 AC
22
0.27 AC
35
0.35 AC
36
0.26 AC
37
0.26 AC
38
0.26 AC
39
0.26 AC
40
0.26 AC
41
0.23 AC
42
0.24 AC
43
0.26 AC
44
0.26 AC
52
0.49 AC
47
0.33 AC
46
0.30 AC 48
0.36 AC
45
0.27 AC
24
0.29 AC26
0.32 AC
6
0.43 AC
51
0.45 AC
54
0.44 AC
57
0.45 AC
58
0.54 AC
59
0.52 AC56
0.45 AC
55
0.44 AC
23
0.29 AC
9
0.26 AC
7
0.48 AC
17
0.36 AC
2
0.38 AC
15
0.64 AC
14
0.75 AC16
0.79 AC
OUTLOT A
11.32 ACC1N88° 36' 04"E 476.00'S01° 24' 49"E 1,824.28'S87° 08' 19"W 644.61'S88° 03' 52"W 299.26'N03° 23' 42"W 1,140.29'
N
3
5
°
5
6
'
4
4
"
E
5
9
9
.
0
9
'
N18°
3
0
'
5
1
"
E
2
4
0
.
0
0
'
53
0.47 AC
3
0.38 AC11
0.35 AC
10
0.29 AC
13
0.34 AC
12
0.33 AC 218'80'225'56'210'77'
77'202'22'54'
83'96'200'76'208'76'
97'99'225'77'
94'30'39'31'221'76'
83'150'34'
41'
75'150'75'
83'43'74'52'
230'99'187'
9'76'20'120'176'50'50'208'80'
2
3
7
'
50'
230'207'148'149'190'
5
0
'50'136'171'76'181'75'184'75'179'6'42'74'193'76'199'76'
58'200'36'34'200'70'
70'200'70'
70'175'32'
26'19'
70'200'21
'
56'
70'200'65'5'
70'200'70'
70'200'70'
70'200'70'
70'70'200'70'95'
95'200'49'59
9
'
240'62'56'95'160'95'160'70'160'70'
70'160'70'
70'160'70'
70'160'70'
70'160'5'65'135'56'21'70'160'20'25'
32'
70'70'160'70'
70'160'70'
79'161'34'36'171'70'
89'191'70'
92'218'31'
39'
87'217'11'
74'268'3'
74'292'70'
74'317'70'
74'333'58'
18'
52'341'74'
40'345'74'
39'345'74'
38'43'341'11'62'331'70'
71'71'322'70'
102'310'67'
21
0.30 AC
18
0.31 AC
19
0.31 AC
20
0.33 AC
20'54'4'75'76'199'
51'53'86'44'52'
52'
50
0.39 AC
49
0.35 AC
26'40'48'
2
6
'78078
8784790792
794796
800
800802800802804
804790
800
772
780
790
790796
CURVE TABLE
CURVE #
C1
LENGTH
61.79
RADIUS
955.00
DELTA
3°42'25"
CHORD DIR.
N86° 43' 55"E
CHORD LEN.
61.78
0 50 100
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:ISSUED FOR:PROJECT N0.:DATE ISSUED:PROJECT MANAGER:CURRENT REV:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Jun 27, 2019 - 11:15am S:\PROJECTS\190042\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Plats\190042 PrelimPlat.dwg 19-00421 OF 2WELCHTAMARACK RIDGE, LLCPRELIMINARY PLATAND SENSITIVE AREASSITE PLANJUNE 27, 2019TAMARACK RIDGEIOWA CITY, IOWACITY REVIEWKEY NOTES:
20' DRAINAGE AND STORM SEWER EASEMENT
15' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
HATCHED AREA REPRESENTS AREA INCLUDED IN WOODLAND RETENTION
CALCULATION
A
C
B
50'80'CC
C
C
C
C
C
STORM WATER
MANAGEMENT
BASIN
STORM WATER
MANAGEMENT
BASIN
STORM WATER
MANAGEMENT
BASIN
70'50'190'A
A
A
CSCOTT BOULEVARDTAMARACK TRAIL
BUCKLE DOWNCIRCLEB
B
B
B
50'50'C
PRELIMINARY PLAT
& SENSITIVE AREAS SITE PLAN
TAMARACK RIDGE
IOWA CITY, IOWA
NOTES:
1.ZONING AND ASSOCIATED MINIMUM LOT INFORMATION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
LOT PROPOSED MINIMUM MINIMUM MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACKS
NUMBERS ZONING FRONTAGE WIDTH AREA FRONT SIDE REAR
ALL RS-5 45'60'8,000 SF 15*5 15
* THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING A 25' FRONT SETBACK
2.THIS PROPERTY LIES WITHIN FEMA PANEL 19103C0215E (2/16/2007). THERE ARE NO MAPPED FLOODPLAINS
ON THIS PROPERTY.
3.THERE ARE PROTECTED SLOPES WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT. A BUFFER EQUAL TO 2
TIMES THE HEIGHT OF THE SLOPE IS PROVIDED.
4.THE TOTAL PERCENTAGE IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPE IS LESS THAN 35% OF THE TOTAL.
CRITICAL SLOPE CALCULATION AREA (SF)AREA (ACRES)PERCENTAGE
IMPACTED SLOPES 28,617 0.66 12%
NON-IMPACTED SLOPES 169,310 3.88 70%
NON-IMPACTED SLOPES IN PROTECTED SLOPE BUFFER 42,537 0.98 18%
CRITICAL SLOPES (PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT)240,464 5.52 100%
5.THERE ARE WOODED AREAS WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT. CONSERVATION EASEMENTS
ARE PROPOSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESERVING PORTIONS OF THE WOODED AREAS. PER IOWA CITY CODE,
A MINIMUM OF 50% OF THE EXISTING WOODLANDS MUST BE PRESERVED.
WOODLAND PRESERVATION CALCULATION AREA (SF)AREA (ACRES)PERCENTAGE
DISTURBED WOODLAND 219,157 5.031 27%
BUFFER (50' WIDE)171,460 3.936 21%
PRESERVED WOODLAND 415,297 9.534 52%
WOODLAND (PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT)805,914 18.501 100%
6.THERE ARE NO STREAM CORRIDORS WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
7.ALL PROPOSED WATERMAIN TO BE 8". ALL PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER TO BE 8".
50'50'TAMARACK T
R
A
I
L
PROJECT VICINITY MAP-CITY OF IOWA CITY
1 PROJECT
LOCATION
Ralston Creek
Ralst
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
NOT TO SCALE
BEING A PART OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2019027 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 62 AT PAGE 399 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1
4 ) AND SOUTHWEST QUARTER
(SW 1
4 ) OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL 20109027, THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID PARCEL S01°24'49"E, 1824.28 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL S87°08'19"W, 644.61 FEET, THENCE S88°03'52"W, 299.26 FEET; THENCE N03°23'42"W, 1140.29 FEET; THENCE N35°56'44"E, 599.09 FEET; THENCE
N18°30'51"E, 240.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SCOTT BOULEVARD; THENCE 61.79 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A 955.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE SOUTH (CHORD BEARING
N86°43'55"E, 61.78 FEET); THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE N88°36'04"E, 476.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 36.81 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
OWNER / APPLICANT:
TAMARACK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
JOE CLARK
221 E. BURLINGTON ST
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
PREPARED BY:
AXIOM CONSULTANTS, LLC
MICHAEL J. WELCH, PE
60 E. COURT STREET
UNIT 3
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
OUTLOTS:
OUTLOT SIZE (AC)INTENDED USE
A 11.32 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT &
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
ROW 3.43 RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATED TO CITY
* OUTLOT A IS TO BE MAINTAINED AND OWNED BY HOME
OWNERS ASSOCIATION.60'60'60'LEGEND:
UTILITIES
COMMUNICATIONS
OVERHEAD LINE
ELECTRIC
FIBER OPTIC
GAS
SANITARY SEWER
STORM
WATER: DOMESTIC
SUBDRAIN
EXISTING PROPOSED
COMMUNICATIONS HANDHOLE
COMMUNICATIONS PEDESTAL
COMMUNICATIONS MANHOLE
GUY WIRE ANCHOR
UTILITY POLE
UTILITY POLE WITH LIGHT
ELECTRIC MANHOLE
ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
LIGHT POLE
FIBER OPTIC HANDHOLE
FIBER OPTIC MANHOLE
GAS VALVE
STORM SEWER MANHOLE
STORM SEWER INTAKE
HYDRANT
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT
WATER VALVE
CURB STOP
WATER MANHOLE
FENCE: BARB WIRE
FENCE: CHAIN LINK
FENCE: CONSTRUCTION
FENCE: WIRE
FENCE: WOOD
CONTOUR - INTERMEDIATE
CONTOUR - INDEX
TREE: DECIDUOUS
TREE: CONIFEROUS
SIGN
SHRUBBERY
STREAM CENTERLINE
SILT FENCE
EXISTING PROPOSED
W
FO
FO
E
E
C
C
C
CO
SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN
SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN
SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN
100
101
CO CO
OH OH
E E
FO FO
G G
SS SS
ST ST
SD SD
W W
SITE
PROTECTED SLOPE (> 40%)
SENSITIVE AREAS
BUFFER
CRITICAL SLOPE (25-40%)
AREA
IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPE (25-40%)
WOODLAND PRESERVATION
IMPACTED WOODLAND
RS-5
FIRST
A
N
D
R
O
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
PART
F
O
U
R
BK 44,
P
G
2
6
7
RS-5
FIRST
A
N
D
R
O
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
PART
F
O
U
R
BK 30,
P
G
6
0
RS-5
FIRST
A
N
D
R
O
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
PART
F
O
U
R
BK 44,
P
G
2
6
7
RS-5
HARVEST MANAGE
M
E
N
T
REAL ESTATE
BK 53, PG 325
ID-RS
GARY
A
N
D
SUSAN
N
H
A
M
D
O
R
F
BK 30
7
6,
P
G
6
2
1ID-RSMONU
M
E
N
T
F
A
R
M
S,
L
L
C
BK 58
7
7,
P
G
4
9
5
ID-RSID-RS
ACT, I
N
C.
BK 62,
P
G
3
9
9
POINT OF BEGINNING
NE CORNER OF AUDITOR'S
PARCEL 20109027
APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY:
JOHN BEASLEY
321 E. MARKET ST
IOWA CITY, IA 52245
1
2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
12
14
15
16
17
17
18
19
19
LOCATION AREA (AC)
1 0.047
2 0.052
3 0.057
4 0.007
5 0.007
6 0.198
7 0.004
8 0.072
9 0.109
10 0.024
11 0.037
12 0.011
13 0.030
TOTAL 0.657
LOCATION AREA (AC)
14 0.029
15 0.055
16 0.507
17 3.110
18 0.398
19 0.931
TOTAL 5.031
IMPACTED QUANTITIES:
CRITICAL SLOPES WOODLANDS
MONU
M
E
N
T
F
A
R
M
S,
L
L
C
BK 58
7
7,
P
G
4
9
5
APPROVED BY THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
CITY CLERK DATE
SSSSSSSSSSSSWWWWWW W W
W
W
W
W WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST
STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTWWWWWWW SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTSTSTSTSTSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSWWWWSTSTSTSTSTWWWWWWSSSSSSSS34
0.44 AC
25
0.32 AC33
0.32 AC
32
0.32 AC
31
0.32 AC
30
0.32 AC
29
0.32 AC
28
0.29 AC
27
0.31 AC
8
0.27 AC
4
0.40 AC
60
0.61 AC
1
0.34 AC5
0.40 AC
22
0.27 AC
35
0.35 AC
36
0.26 AC
37
0.26 AC
38
0.26 AC
39
0.26 AC
40
0.26 AC
41
0.23 AC
42
0.24 AC
43
0.26 AC
44
0.26 AC
52
0.49 AC
47
0.33 AC
46
0.30 AC 48
0.36 AC
45
0.27 AC
24
0.29 AC26
0.32 AC
6
0.43 AC
51
0.45 AC
54
0.44 AC
57
0.45 AC
58
0.54 AC
59
0.52 AC56
0.45 AC
55
0.44 AC
23
0.29 AC
9
0.26 AC
7
0.48 AC
17
0.36 AC
2
0.38 AC
15
0.64 AC
14
0.75 AC16
0.79 AC
OUTLOT A
11.32 ACC1N88° 36' 04"E 476.00'S01° 24' 49"E 1,824.28'S87° 08' 19"W 644.61'S88° 03' 52"W 299.26'N03° 23' 42"W 1,140.29'
N
3
5
°
5
6
'
4
4
"
E
5
9
9
.
0
9
'
N18°
3
0
'
5
1
"
E
2
4
0
.
0
0
'
53
0.47 AC
3
0.38 AC11
0.35 AC
10
0.29 AC
13
0.34 AC
12
0.33 AC 218'80'225'56'210'77'
77'202'22'54'
83'96'200'76'208'76'
97'99'225'77'
94'30'39'31'221'76'
83'150'34'
41'
75'150'75'
83'43'74'52'
230'99'187'
9'76'20'120'176'50'50'208'80'
2
3
7
'
50'
230'207'148'149'190'
5
0
'50'136'171'76'181'75'184'75'179'6'42'74'193'76'199'76'
58'200'36'34'200'70'
70'200'70'
70'175'32'
26'19'
70'200'21
'
56'
70'200'65'5'
70'200'70'
70'200'70'
70'200'70'
70'70'200'70'95'
95'200'49'59
9
'
240'62'56'95'160'95'160'70'160'70'
70'160'70'
70'160'70'
70'160'70'
70'160'5'65'135'56'21'70'160'20'25'
32'
70'70'160'70'
70'160'70'
79'161'34'36'171'70'
89'191'70'
92'218'31'
39'
87'217'11'
74'268'3'
74'292'70'
74'317'70'
74'333'58'
18'
52'341'74'
40'345'74'
39'345'74'
38'43'341'11'62'331'70'
71'71'322'70'
102'310'67'
21
0.30 AC
18
0.31 AC
19
0.31 AC
20
0.33 AC
20'54'4'75'76'199'
51'53'86'44'52'
52'
50
0.39 AC
49
0.35 AC
26'40'48'
2
6
'78078
8784790792
794796
800
800802800802804
804790
800
772
780
790
790796 0 50 100
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:ISSUED FOR:PROJECT N0.:DATE ISSUED:PROJECT MANAGER:CURRENT REV:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Jun 27, 2019 - 11:15am S:\PROJECTS\190042\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Plats\190042 PrelimPlat.dwg 19-00422 OF 2WELCHTAMARACK RIDGE, LLCGRADING PLANJUNE 27, 2019TAMARACK RIDGEIOWA CITY, IOWACITY REVIEWSTORM WATER
MANAGEMENT
BASIN
STORM WATER
MANAGEMENT
BASIN
STORM WATER
MANAGEMENT
BASINSCOTT BOULEVARDTAMARACK TRAIL
BUCKLE DOWNCIRCLEPRELIMINARY PLAT
TAMARACK RIDGE
IOWA CITY, IOWA
TAMARACK T
R
A
I
L
℄ROW℄STREET1.5%4%
2%2%ROWLINEROWLINE1.5%4%
TYPICAL 26' ROADWAY SECTION
NOT TO SCALE 1
7" PCC
PAVEMENT
60'
26'
13'13'11'5'1'11'5'1'
6" SUBBASE
6" SUBDRAIN
CIVIL STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL SURVEY SPECIALTY
IOWA CITY: 60 East Court Street #3 – Iowa City, IA 52240 319.519.6220 - office
CEDAR RAPIDS: 1901 16th Ave SW #3 – Cedar Rapids, IA 52404 319.519.1257 - conference
CEDAR FALLS: 200 State Street, Unit V – Cedar Falls, IA 50613 www.axiom-con.com
QUAD CITIES: 1607 W River Drive #1 – Davenport, IA 52802 facebook.com/axiomconsultants
DIXON: 501 West 1st Street – Dixon, IL 61021 instagram.com/axiom_consultants
MEMORANDUM
PROJECT: Tamarack Ridge (190042)
DATE: July 10, 2019
TO: Anne Russett – City of Iowa City
SUBJECT Good Neighbor Meeting Summary
A Good Neighbor meeting was held on June 10, 2019 for the Tamarack Ridge Development. Invitations were mailed to
each household located on Tamarack Trail, Hickory Trail, Hickory Place, Cypress Trail, Bluffwood Drive, and Evergreen
Court. This exceeds the 300-foot requirement, but the development team felt it was important to make all thos e potentially
impacted aware of the project. The meeting was held at First Presbyterian Church of Iowa City located at 2701 Rochester
Avenue in Iowa City. The meeting lasted from 5:30pm until 7:00pm and an open house format was used. In addition to
myself, the developers, Joe Clark and Doug Paul, were present. We had two large concept plans laid out for the
neighbors to review and Doug, Joe, and I answered questions and provided an overview of the development.
The meeting was well attended; however, only one of the meeting attendees signed in on the available sign in sheet.
The concerns expressed by the neighbors can be summarized as follows:
- What will be proposed zoning be? Will there be multi-family development?
- The proposed single-family lots are narrower than those currently on Tamarack Trail. At time of the meeting the
narrowest lots were 68-feet wide. Will this negatively impact the property values for the existing residents?
- The proposed side yard setbacks are only 5-feet (consistent with city RS-5 zoning). Will houses being built closer
together have a negative impact on the character of the existing neighborhood?
- There will be additional traffic on Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail as the new residents travelled south to 1st
Avenue rather than north to N. Scott Boulevard.
- Will the extension of Tamarack Trail to N. Scott Boulevard encourage drivers to cut through the neighborhood to
avoid the 4-way stop and N. Scott Boulevard and 1st Avenue?
- Will the existing wooded areas be removed or cleared for the development?
- Some neighbors were under the impression that the land within the proposed development was part of a
preservation area and could not be developed.
Other neighbors expressed support for the project and were please to learn that the development would be RS -5 single-
family zoning, would preserve wooded areas within the conservation easements, and would incorporate traffic ci rcles
along the extension of Tamarack Trail to provide traffic calming measures and discourage traffic from traveling too fast
through the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Welch, PE
Associate Principal
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 20, 2019 – 7:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Carolyn Dyer, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Mark
Signs, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Hensch
STAFF PRESENT: Wendy Ford, Sara Hektoen, Ray Heitner
OTHERS PRESENT: Randy Miller, Kirsten Frey, Bob Saunders
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 4-2 (Dyer and Martin dissenting) the Commission recommends approval of
application submitted by Paradigm Properties LLC for a Preliminary Plat for a resubdivision of
Lot 6 and Outlot H of Phase 2 and a part of Lots 1 and 2 of Block 3 of Cook, Sargent, and
Downey’s Addition located at the southwest corner of E. 1st Street and S. Gilbert Street.
By a vote of 5-1 (Dyer dissenting) the Commission recommends approval of the proposed Forest
View Urban Renewal Plan located south of Interstate 80, west of N. Dubuque Street, and east of
Mackinaw Drive.
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of an application to designate 225 North
Gilbert Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark and rezone from Community Business Service
(CB-2) to Community Business Service with a Historic District Overlay (CB-2/OHD).
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ19-05, an application to
designate 229 North Gilbert Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark and rezone from
Community Business Service (CB-2) to Community Business Service with a Historic District
Overlay (CB-2/OHD).
CALL TO ORDER:
Parsons called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CASE NO. SUB19-4:
Applicant: Paradigm Properties LLC
Location: Southwest corner of E. 1st Street and S. Gilbert Street
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 20, 2019
Page 2 of 17
An application submitted by Paradigm Properties LLC for a Preliminary Plat for a resubdivision of
Lot 6 and Outlot H of Phase 2 and a part of Lots 1 and 2 of Block 3 of Cook, Sargent, and
Downey’s Addition located at the southwest corner of E. 1st Street and S. Gilbert Street.
This application is a continuation form the June 6, 2019 meeting. Heitner began the staff report
with the question of what should the Commission and staff be evaluating when looking at these
preliminary plats. Referencing Title 15 of the Municipal Code they need to evaluate conformance
to the Comprehensive Plan, as best as possible to apply targets from the Code such as street,
circulation objectives, looking at connections with sidewalks and trails and other pedestrian
connections, conformance with block and lot sizes that are appropriate for the area, open space
requirements and basic public utilities. Heitner showed an aerial view of the subject property.
He noted one of the points raised at the last meeting regarding this application was the issue of
traffic circulation given development in the area. Outlot B in the Phase Three plat shows a
north/south alley intended to provide circulation for the development. The alley in Outlot B will
only connect to E. 1st Street with approval to the neighbors to the north, the Baumgartners
dedicating that connect as a public right-of-way or establishing an access easement at that
connection point. The alley was approved during the Phase Two platting for the subdivision and
the reason why it was built out to the northern property line was to help plan for potential future
access if the property to the north were to ever redevelop. The applicant has shared he
estimates including the newly acquired lot and the existing Lot 6 would add about six one-
bedroom units to the development. Heitner stated given this information and that the alley was
already approved in Phase Two plat staff finds the traffic circulation provided by the preliminary
plat is adequate to meet the needs of the proposed subdivision. Staff finds the application is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the streets and circulation are adequate, there are
sufficient pedestrian connections, the proposed lot size is appropriate for the envisioned
development, the neighborhood open space requirement would be satisfied with a fee-in-lieu
land dedication, and adequate utilities exist to serve this development.
Staff recommends approval of SUB19-04 an application submitted by Paradigm Properties LLC
for a Preliminary Plat for a resubdivision of Lot 6 and Outlot H of Phase 2 and a part of Lots 1
and 2 of Block 3 of Cook, Sargent, and Downey’s Addition located at the southwest corner of E.
1st Street and S. Gilbert Street.
Next steps, pending approval from this Commission the application would go forward to Council
for simultaneous approval of both preliminary and final plat and then administrative site plan and
design review by staff and then onto permitting.
Parsons asked if the easement to 1st Street was needed before this development could move
forward or could it move forward without the easement. Heitner stated it can proceed without the
easement. Parsons noted then the only way to access 1st Street would be to go south through
Outlot H. If the easement doesn’t happen, how will people in this development access Gilbert
Street. Heitner said they would go south through Lot 1 and access Gilbert via 2nd Street.
Baker stated the attorney’s letter states “the previously approved private alley through Outlot B is
Outlot B does not have access to 1st Street without going over and across her client’s property”.
And then in the staff report it states there is no access to 1st Street without an access agreement
in place and there is no requirement the neighbors agree to the easement. So Baker notes by
approving this plat tonight doesn’t mean that access will be available to the developer.
Signs asked where the exit to a public street is from this property. Hektoen stated it will be
designed to funnel the traffic south to the existing E. 2nd Street (Outlot G in Phase One and Two).
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 20, 2019
Page 3 of 17
Baker asked if the curb cut south of E. 1st Street onto the development property will remain.
Heitner said it is uncertain. Baker noted if it does not remain there would be no access to the
development property off E. 1st Street. Heitner confirmed that was correct. Baker asked who
makes the decision on the curb cut. Hektoen said it would be part of the site plan review but
right now there is not a plan to have access to Lot 1 from E. 1st Street.
Signs noted in the staff report they note the approval of the plat from 2017 shows the private
alley terminates at the Aero Rental property, it also shows every other access to Gilbert Street
terminates at an outlot, so he is still questioning where all the traffic from those apartment
buildings and retail space will access Gilbert Street from. Hektoen said all the traffic will access
Gilbert Street from 2nd Street. Signs is not seeing that indicated on the plat. Hektoen stated
there is a public access easement dedicated for the access. Signs stated the building on the lot
will be a very large building and it appears the access will be blocked by the building. Hektoen
said it will not, Outlot B will connect with Outlot G and that is vehicular access point to Gilbert
Street. Signs stated then if the traffic is to flow out Outlot G onto Gilbert Street, is that then the
only access for the entire development. Heitner confirmed that is correct. Signs noted that would
be hundreds of apartments plus businesses all using just one access point.
Parsons opened the public hearing.
Randy Miller (Paradigm Properties, LLC) came forward to answer questions. He noted the
development is just following the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Riverfront Crossings. To the south
there are actually three additional access points onto Gilbert Street, the City didn’t want multiple
access points. The access point on E. 1st Street will be vacated and the building will block that
access point.
Signs asked if there are traffic signals planned at the E. 2nd Street access point. Miller stated
there is not.
Dyer asked how many apartments will be in the location, the two buildings currently under
construction plus the new one. Mr. Miller stated that he was approved to build 258 units from his
TIF agreement, but that he has chosen to build just 223 (1)-bedroom units on the four buildings
that will comprise 1121, 1131, 1141, and 1201 S. Gilbert St. There are 261 parking spaces within
these complexes and an additional 66 parking spaces on the outside of the complexes for a total
of 327 parking spaces on the site. Per the Comprehensive Plan they will be connecting to the
pedestrian and bicycle traffic and the right-of-way to the park.
Parsons asked how many units will be in the new building. Miller said that building was originally
drafted as 63 units but it might be six less and be 57 with no access to E. 1st Street. He bought a
$400,000 lot to give 1/3 of it away to the City for right-of-ways.
Martin asked about the traffic circulating within the development. Miller said it is what is noted in
the Comprehensive Plan. Hektoen stated with arterial streets such as Gilbert Street the City
wants to minimize the number of curb cuts. Heitner said one of the goals of form-based plans
like Riverfront Crossings, it to minimize points of conflict and points of access on busier streets
and to divert the volume to interior spaces.
Signs noted that way back to the original plans shown for this overall area it was shown that the
north/south access would be an alleyway onto E. 1st Street. Hektoen said that is the intention in
the future.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 20, 2019
Page 4 of 17
Signs asked if Miller has had any discussions with the property owners to the north regarding
gaining an access or easement through their property to get to E. 1st Street. Miller replied he had
not.
Baker asked if they need that north access to develop this project and Miller reiterated he does
not, they have planned the development with the E. 2nd Street access point. If he gets the
access he could build a building with the additional six units, but if not then he will build the 57
unit building.
Kirsten Frey (Attorney with Shuttleworth & Ingersoll) is speaking on behalf of Lloyd and Ruth
Baumgartner who own the property to the north known as Aero Rental. Frey wanted this
opportunity to address the Commission regarding a couple of issues. She had sent a written
correspondence to the Commission and wanted the Commission to note the City’s position that
access on E. 1st Street for this subdivision is not required at this time is a shift. That is not what
the original staff report indicated, the original staff report indicated the access to Lot 1 would be
achieved from E. 1st Street and from the north/south alley known as now Outlot B. The City is
now taking a very different position than they took in the original staff report to this Commission
two weeks ago. Frey believes this is in part due to the concerns she raised on behalf of her
clients. Frey believes it was an oversight on the part of the City to not realize they would have to
cross the Baumgartner’s property to have that north/south alley access to E. 1st Street. One of
the significant concerns they have regarding this subdivision is the differences in the subdivision
plat for Lots 1 and 2 and the current one for Phase III. One of the differences is the current
subdivision has property that is currently directly adjacent to E. 1st Street, the prior subdivision
did not, there was no lot with frontage on E. 1st Street. Frey believes that difference is significant
because the public, and the 200 residents that will live there, are going to assume, like the City
did, that they can access E. 1st Street using that alley. That will put them directly over her client’s
property. They also have significant concerns about 223 unit owners and all the commercial
traffic being funneled south. As that gets congested the traffic will head north to what they
believe is a public right-of-way when it is not. Mr. Miller’s comments about having a signal at the
2nd Street intersection or a nice bus stop is well taken. This development is moving faster than
the municipal infrastructure can support. It is also significant to note the minutes from the
original review and consideration of the Planning & Zoning Commission of The Crossings Phase
I and Phase II it is noted in the staff report “the submitted preliminary plat creates a new lot and
block pattern and provides for dedication of land from the pedestrian oriented street network to
support the proposed development of these properties according to the River Front Crossings
Master Plan”. Frey noted that is consistent with the City’s position today. What is inconsistent is
the remainder of the staff report which indicates in part “Lots 1, 2, 5 and 6 will have primary
frontage along Gilbert Street and access onto Gilbert Street”. Frey noted it is significant
because Lots 1, 2, 5 and 6 includes the now Lot 1 of Phase III. So when the Commission
approved Phase I and Phase II it had Outlot H, which is now Outlot B, they were told what is now
Lot 1 would be accessing directly onto Gilbert Street. This plan tonight is a change, it will no
longer access directly onto Gilbert Street and will exit through Outlot B. In addition the staff
report also notes “Lot 7 (on the west side of Outlot B) has primary frontage on the Ralston Creek
pedestrian walkway but will likely need to rely on the extension of 1st Street which would be
located on the abutting property to the north and outside the boundaries of the subdivision to
provide adequate emergency vehicle access. Development of Lot 7 will be restricted until
adequate emergency vehicle access can be provided.” Frey feels the Commission needs to
understand that at the time Phase I and Phase II were approved the Planning and Zoning
Commission was told that what is now Lot 1 would be accessing directly onto Gilbert Street and
Lot 7 would not be developed until 1st Street was a public right-of-way and extended. Therefore
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 20, 2019
Page 5 of 17
the City’s argument that the prior approval of this subdivision means all they doing is adding 0.16
acres and not changing anything is not accurate. At the time the original plan was approved her
client’s had reason to believe the development that had occurred on what is now Lot 1 would not
be accessing 1st Street and would not be accessing through Outlot B. They also had reason to
believe the development on Lot 7 wouldn’t happen until 1st Street was extended. Again, the
development is preceding the municipal infrastructure. Frey believes any reasonable person
looking at this development and looking at where 1st Street is, has to conceded people will use
1st Street to get to their property even if that means traversing over her client’s private property.
Baker asked if the assumption is Outlot B will be paved and ready to use, but not have legal
access to 1st Street. Frey said if it is to be the funnel for the entire 223 units being built on Lot 1
she is unsure what the surface will be. Hektoen noted that only 63 units will be built on Lot 1.
Baker said legally the development cannot use the access through Outlot B unless Frey’s clients
grant access. Frey agree legally that is correct. Baker acknowledged however if they did pave it
regardless of whether the access has been granted there is the likelihood residents would use it.
Baker asked why they don’t just block the property at that point. Frey agreed they could obtain
City approval to block the access and incur significant expense to put in a barrier of some type.
Hektoen stated on private property City approval would not necessarily be needed. Hektoen
also stated the applicant could speak to putting something at the northern edge of Outlot B.
Frey noted whether it could be blocked or not – it was noted in the approval of Phase I and
Phase II that access to 1st Street was necessary for fire access so blocking it would be an issue.
Baker noted fire access is another issue, the complaint of the Baumgartner’s is the use of that
access which will cross their property but that access can be blocked. The objection can be
mitigated without the Commission disapproving this application. Frey responded while that is a
significant objection to this development, it is not the only objection. There are still the concerns
about the amount of traffic from the development being funneled down to one access point, that
is not controlled, and is inconsistent with the Planning & Zoning Commission’s approval of Phase
I and Phase II. Baker asked if the access through 2nd Street have a discernable negative
consequence to Frey’s clients. Frey believes so, from a community member standpoint. Does it
adversely affect their personal property rights, no.
Baker also questioned the public access point and asked how staff responds to knowing 1st
Street cannot be used for public services access is that a problem. Heitner stated every
application for plat is circulated among several departments, no comment was made regarding
point of access from fire, the assumption being because it was approved as part of Phase II the
incorporation of this lot may not add a substantial amount of traffic. Baker asked if there was any
comment based on the fact that 1st Street would not be an access point. Dyer noted usually
where there is a dead-end street there has to be a fire turnaround.
Signs asked if Frey believed her client had any interest in negotiating an easement or some
access to the north/south alleyway. Frey acknowledged they recognize they may need to do so,
and there is always the option for the City to condemn 1st Street, her client’s believe at least then
they would be compensated for their property rather than people using it with no compensation.
Signs noted as he drove through the area and he has assumed through this entire process, as
also shown in the graphic he has seen in this entire process, access to 1st Street would be
possible. Looking at the area it would not be hard to reconfigure the area so her clients would
have their access to their property and the alleyway could connect to E. 1st Street. Signs
encourages them to explore this as the developer has already spent a lot of money to obtain that
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 20, 2019
Page 6 of 17
last little piece of property at the City’s request. Frey said her client recognizes the
Comprehensive Plan and the goals, and wants to make sure it is understood they do not have
objection to Mr. Miller, the concern is they cannot use her client’s property to funnel the
subdivision traffic without compensating them for the use and also believe the development is
out-pacing the municipal infrastructure. The Gilbert Street improvements need to be done, 2nd
Street intersection needs a traffic signal, there needs to be a bus stop, etc. to mitigate the impact
on surrounding property owners. Signs does not disagree.
Bob Saunders (Iowa City resident) had spent 25 years on Johnson County Planning and Zoning
Commission, stated that he did not like how the City’s Planning and Zoning Commission does
not review final plats, and suggested that the Commission members demand that the City
Council consider an amendment to the subdivision code to allow the Commission to review final
plats and site plans. He also noted in his dealings with the City on developments in the Fringe
Area Agreement the City has hammered the County on developments to have multiple access
points, this development does not have multiple access points. He also noted the traffic on
South Gilbert Street during AM or PM rush hour the traffic is backed up all the way from Highway
6 to Aero Rental. To add 250 units, and even 50 or 60 cars wanting to leave the development,
they are not all going to want to go right. If the City is planning major road changes than those
need to be completed before dumping more traffic on streets that cannot handle the traffic at this
time. Saunders noted zoning is forever and if parcels of this property get sold off in the future to
other owners there would need to be an easement across this development so everyone can
access the one city street out. Finally, with question on parking, while there might be sufficient
parking for all the residential units, what about the development’s ability to park the anticipated
demand for the ground floor commercial spaces on site. The parking for commercial differs on
types of commercial and at this time they are clueless on what the need is when they don’t know
what the commercial properties will be.
Hektoen noted the preliminary plat the Commission sees is essentially the same as the final plan
the Council will see.
Frey asked Heitner about circulating the plat to the fire department and other areas and received
no comments back about the access issues. She wants to know if that circulation was done
before or after there were representations in the staff report that access would be available over
1st Street and Outlot B. Heitner said it was circulated before the June 6 staff report was written,
but the notion amongst all staff was there would not be access onto E. 1st Street. Frey noted the
staff report submitted shows there would be. Hektoen said the staff report was crafted after,
when a plat is received it is circulated to all departments to gather comments and it is from those
comments the staff report is drafted. Frey believes that looking at the plat staff presumed they
could access this lot across Outlot B because that is what the staff report said was going to
happen. Her point to the Commission is if the City staff presumed that, it is fair to assume the
fire and police departments may have also.
Miller stated it must have been a misinterpretation because it has never been the developer’s
intention to extend north to 1st Street as it is someone else’s property. Additionally to drive over
it is impossible, and when the building gets built there will be a sidewalk and the driveway will be
closed and for the protection of his tenants they will likely put up barriers at the end of the
alleyway until access could be granted.
Baker asked about the commercial property parking requirements and if types of businesses and
the requirements are written into the Code. Heitner confirmed that. Miller noted per the Code
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 20, 2019
Page 7 of 17
requirements they have more than required spots, they could reduce the parking they are
allocating significantly. He always builds more parking than required on his projects because it
what the tenants want. They also try to rent to commercial tenants that have staggered traffic
patterns (morning, afternoon, evening) because it is better for the commercial tenants.
Baker feels the issue of the effect on the northern neighboring property can be mitigated, the
overall access issue and public safety access is what is concerning. It is clear in the minutes
from 2017 they were going to rely on the extension of 1st Street to provide adequate emergency
vehicle access. Baker asked again, if the review of this plat was based on the assumption 1st
Street would be available for access for public safety vehicles. Heitner said that access was
specifically for Lot 7.
Miller noted they are in the early stages of discussing development of Lot 7 which will be
reviewed by the fire department at time of that development. Miller added with his development
they are having a lot less density than what was projected in the Comprehensive Plan.
Baker asked again about the access points, not just the 2nd street one, but other further south.
Miller stated they were not allowed to have another access point, this is what was set up with the
infrastructure with Riverfront Crossings. The City wanted their access to align with 2nd Street for
the public access and access to the park.
Signs noted that using the access to the south would require access across two other property
owners’ properties. Miller confirmed that was the plan in the Comprehensive Plan – someone
eating dinner at Red Ginger could go all the way north to 2nd Street to access Gilbert Street if
they chose to.
Hektoen stated there are public access easements across all the properties so in terms of
conveyance it would be subject to that restriction. Signs asked if there was a public access
easement across the front of Big Grove. Hektoen said the easement borders Lot 1, the
north/south alleys that have been platted as well as Outlot G.
Frey responded to the comments on the reference to the minutes regarding the approval process
for Phase I and Phase II that specifically reference the fire concern applied to Lot 7 not to Lot 6.
Her argument is the same concern now applies to Lot 1 because in Phase I and Phase II what is
now Lot 1 was specifically contemplated to access Gilbert Street directly and had direct access
to Gilbert Street and no longer does and now accesses its property through Outlot B, so the fire
access point argument should be the same to Lot 1 as it was to Lot 7.
Hektoen noted that Lot 1 has frontage along Gilbert Street and obviously when any site plan
comes in fire does get involved, there is a distance requirement that fire has to have a hydrant
within 250 feet and because they have frontage along Gilbert Street that gives them a whole lot
of room to access the building for fire protection.
Dyer said if they go in through Outlot B they can’t get back out because there is no place to turn
around. Hektoen noted the site plan review process will address those questions and concerns,
Lot 7 is in site plan review right now.
Signs stated if the Commission is to base their decisions on what is presented at the time, if a
fire truck was to drive in on the 2nd Street entrance, turn north on the alleyway to go put out a fire
on the west side of Lot 1 there is no turnaround. Hektoen said it is unsure at this point how those
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 20, 2019
Page 8 of 17
sites are being developed. Signs said as indicated on the Phase III plan they approved on May
16 there is no turnaround.
Parson stated the Fire Chief would have to approve the site plan before it is finalized. Signs
reiterated that they are making a decision with not knowing the outcome and will never see the
plan again before it goes to Council.
Dyer said the Subdivision Code does say there needs to be a hammerhead at the end of dead
end streets, and that is in cases of just a few houses. Hektoen said with single family lots there
is not the same internal circulation opportunities as with a large complex like this.
Parsons closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend approval of an application submitted by Paradigm Properties
LLC for a Preliminary Plat for a resubdivision of Lot 6 and Outlot H of Phase 2 and a part
of Lots 1 and 2 of Block 3 of Cook, Sargent, and Downey’s Addition located at the
southwest corner of E. 1st Street and S. Gilbert Street.
Baker seconded the motion.
Parsons noted this has been a long discussion regarding a preliminary plat, but with a lot of
useful information. In the end what the Commission is really deciding is whether to allow the
additional six one-bedroom units because the developer can start do the development with 57
units rather than 63 without this application. He agrees and hopes the utilities and access need
improvement and hopes that will happen in the near future, he also hopes an agreement will
come so that Outlot B can access 1st Street that would significantly improve some of the issues
brought up tonight. Parson will support this recommendation and have some faith and trust
Council as the steps move forward.
Martin asked if there was interest in amending the motion to include the need for a traffic signal
at 2nd Street. Hektoen said that can be done at rezoning stage but not preliminary plat.
Martin stated that when the rezoning was approved she believed there would be an exit point on
1st Street and 2nd Street. Signs agreed and noted on the Phase III exhibits they approved it
clearly illustrates a corner there.
Townsend suggested the two owners, Aero Rental and developer discuss their options and
come up with something that will give the development access to 1st Street. She feels that would
solve the biggest problem. Signs agrees but also feels the City needs to be part of that
conversation and action. He feels the owners would likely grant the access and they of course
need to be compensated for it. Townsend feels the 200+ tenants will use Aero Rental as
customers as it is walking distance to their homes, so it would be a win/win for both sides.
Dyer objects to the slide that is putting the pressure on the Baumgartner’s, they can do what they
want with their property, and it is inappropriate. It is putting pressure on them to make this
possible.
Signs shared the graphics from the packet the Commission received when they decided upon
the rezoning of Phase III and the graphics clearly show a third access point from 1st Street. He
also shared the final plats for The Crossings Phase I and Phase II and he goes back to the logic
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 20, 2019
Page 9 of 17
while it may be the intent that it would always end at the property line, there appears to be the
image of it connecting to 1st Street. Finally because this hinges on the fact the Commission
approved Phase III, again the representation he saw in that approval shows a curved curb cut,
parking spaces on the north side of the building that park off of 1st Street. Yes, as staff noted it is
not on the lot line but there is the indication the access will be there. Signs is frustrated with the
level of detail on the reports, he really believed there would be third access point (the 1st Street
access) and now there is not. With regards to parking, the developer has over-met the
requirement which is not an issue, the issue is circulation and access. Signs also noted he feels
there is an easy solution to work with the owners to come up with an easement or solution.
Baker wondered if the conversation regarding a signal at 2nd Street is even feasible considering
the distance of 2nd Street from Kirkwood Avenue. Heitner said the transportation planning staff
would have to look into that. The effect on the Aero Rental property is a nonfactor because they
control their own destiny for that, it is the other issues he has pause with. His inclination is they
need more answers, for example is it possible for Outlot B to be configured in such a way that
one would not need access over the Aero Rental property to access 1st Street. Signs said that
would create a driveway right next to a city street corner, which probably isn’t best. Baker said
there could be a short frontage street there.
Signs agreed there are some unanswered questions however will vote in favor as he doesn’t
want to hold Mr. Miller’s development up, he has done everything he has needed to do. Baker
agrees but questions if the issues raised this evening can be solved at the next level. Parsons
acknowledged Council will take it up. Signs doesn’t like that they are pawning these decisions off
to Council, which is what this Commission is here for.
Signs is willing to approve based on the assumption Mr. Miller will block off the access and/or the
Aero Rental folks will block off the access, operating in good faith that with the site review by
staff there will be a hammerhead somewhere for the fire truck to turnaround, and go on record
chastising the process because it is extremely frustrating.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-2 (Dyer and Martin dissenting).
URBAN RENEWAL ITEM:
Discussion on Proposed Forest View Urban Renewal Plan located south of Interstate 80, west of
N. Dubuque Street, and east of Mackinaw Drive.
Ford (City’s Economic Development Coordinator) presented a resolution of necessity for Forest
View Urban Renewal Plan, which was approved by Council last Tuesday. State Code requires
that prior to the City Council holding a public hearing, which is scheduled for July 16, on a new
urban renewal area, the Planning and Zoning Commission must review and submit a written
recommendation about the urban renewal plan to the City Council regarding its conformity with
the Comprehensive Plan.
In August 2017 Council adopted an amendment to the North District Comprehensive Plan with
this particular development in mind. In April 2019 the Comprehensive Plan was amended to
modify the land use map to accommodate the homes and relocation of the Forest View
manufactured neighborhood to a different area within the development. That whole area was
then rezoned on June 24, 2019.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 20, 2019
Page 10 of 17
There were five goals adopted in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that included two
focused on housing. Those were (1) the developer should provide relocation assistance to the
residents and (2) the development of multifamily units that are adjacent to the Mackinaw Village
Neighborhood should incorporate certain design standards for setbacks, woodland buffers, low
lighting, etc. Other goals were (1) commercial and institutional uses must preserve the scenic
character of this area a primary entrance to Iowa City; (2) a buffer of existing trees along
Dubuque Street between Dubuque Street and the development remain to create a buffer and to
create a buffer from the entryway to the development and the Knollwood development homes to
the south; and (3) allow for access from Dubuque Street between I-80 and Foster Road.
Ford noted the Urban Renewal Project is for the City to be able to consider financial participation
in the development of the road that would access the development off Dubuque Street along the
northern part of the development and connecting with Algonquin Street that connects with Foster
Road. North Dubuque LLC, owners of the property, approached the City about sharing the cost
of that infrastructure because they also saw the twofold public benefit in reinvention of the Forest
View manufactured homes and also public access for the rest of the Peninsula development.
Ford stated with the establishment of an Urban Renewal Plan must have a basis, this one is a
combination of “slum and blight” remediation as well as “economic development”. Ford does not
believe this Commission has had to consider a “slum and blight” remediation as part of an Urban
Renewal Plan before but the State Code has criteria and conditions they set forth of which only
one has to be met in order to qualify an area for “slum and blight” remediation and that is in this
case a substantial number of slum, deteriorated, deteriorating structures or ineffective or
inadequate street layout are present. This condition exists in both the existing mobile home
court and also because currently there is only one access to the mobile home court now. The
area with only one street access is also very heavily wooded and causes the danger that in the
event a tree would fall across the road it would be difficult to access emergency vehicles in the
event of a fire. Additionally some of the buildings that exist in that area are considered fire
hazards because of the materials, age and conditions. Therefore the City feels this area meets
the standards for the “slum and blight” remediation which affords the Urban Renewal Area with
no sunset.
Martin asked if it matters who responsibility it was if the area is blighted. Ford replied it does not
by State law.
Ford said the other part of the designation is simpler, the economic development notes the area
is appropriate for commercial enterprises or public improvements related to housing and
residential development and construction of housing and residential development for low and
moderate income families including single or multifamily housing is appropriate. Ford stated
those two factors is what the City is basing this Urban Renewal Plan on.
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a written recommendation
to the City Council stating that the Forest View Urban Renewal Plan conforms to the Iowa City
Comprehensive Plan, and conforms with the general plan for the development of the City of Iowa
City.
Dyer asked if the money being sought is to just be used for the road. Ford said it is for the
infrastructure which includes the road, the water, sewer and trails. Dyer asked if the road needs
to be done before the manufactured housing is built. Ford confirmed it would. Dyer asked how
long it will take to build the road. Ford said those details will be worked out in a development
agreement that won’t go to Council until all details are complete.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 20, 2019
Page 11 of 17
Parsons thought the plan was to extend Algonquin Road at this point for the manufactured
housing and then down the road connect Forest View Drive to that area. Hektoen stated there
will be different phases of the plat and those will guide when the infrastructure is involved. She
stated they will not be able to get any economic development rebate until the entirety of the road
is constructed, that is a condition that will be in the agreement.
Signs asked about the negotiations with the County and School District, one of the complaints
about TIF funding in general is not only does the City give up their share of the money but so
does the County and so does the School District. Ford said it is not really a negotiation but
rather a consultation, a meeting is set where a representative from the County and the School
District is invited, Ford has been involved in more than a dozen Urban Renewal Plan
amendments that have the same requirement and once or twice there has been a representative
from the School District and about half the time there is a representative from the County. At the
meeting they discuss the development prospects and in this case the developer, when it is all
finished, will have new value of approximately $150 million so the impact of spending $12.9
million on rebates to help pay for the road will generate all the value from the property taxes in
the development for the future.
Martin stated she is not a fan of TIFs however she is being open minded. She is concerned that
it is the developer’s fault the area became blighted so why now do they get to ask for funding to
correct it. Ford noted the developer approached the City early on in their planning, at the
beginning three years ago, to ask for assistance with the road and infrastructure for the
development. The City felt it was worth considering and if the City is even going to consider a
cost-sharing arrangement like this they have to have the project incorporated into an Urban
Renewal Plan. Martin believes at some point during the earlier processes before the
Commission the question of if the developer was asking for any TIF money was raised and the
answer was no. Ford said a request for funding would not have been included in any of their
prior deliberations. Martin feels if the City was having those conversations with the developer is
should have been noted in prior deliberations. Martin is not objecting to another access to the
Peninsula and other neighborhoods, it was just not clear where the funding would be coming
from. Ford said while there was discussions of cost-sharing early on until the project comes
more into focus there is enough information to discuss the actual costs. All that information only
came into light in the past couple weeks and that is how they were able to come up with the
$12.9 million cost. The next step is the actual cost-sharing agreement and that is the City
Manager working with the developer to determine what is reasonable and palatable for the
community.
Dyer asked how this amount of money would compare to other TIFs the City has approved.
Parsons noted the last one they approved was the Foster Road extension to Prairie Du Chien.
Ford stated the Foster Road one was a smaller project and about $3.4 million. This project is
much larger. Other building projects, the Chauncey was $14 million, the Iowa City Marketplace
was just under $2 million, so there is a range depending on the financial gap, the public benefit,
etc. There isn’t a formula for one-size fits all. Parsons noted the added cost is because Forest
View Drive will snake around slopes, it is not just a straight street. Ford agreed, and the City has
been very clear with the developer they will consider cost-sharing only on parts of the road that
will connect Dubuque Street to Foster Road so none of the interior streets in the development.
Signs asked if the City was heavily invested in the construction of the Peninsula development.
Ford said that was before her time but doesn’t believe there was a TIF on that development.
Hektoen said there wasn’t a TIF, the City owned the land and sold it to the Peninsula developers.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 20, 2019
Page 12 of 17
Signs acknowledged the developer of this project has made several concessions to the City, the
gas station lot is gone, it is now a parking lot for the trial, they’ve added trails, and they’ve added
trees so he is taking that into consideration as public benefit.
Hektoen said the platting process for this development has not occurred yet so this is not the last
time the Commission will see this development.
Martin asked what the long-term benefit for the schools or the County is on a project like this.
Yes there will eventually be property taxes, is that all. Ford said the two big benefits are the
secondary access and the new neighborhood for the Forest View manufactured housing. The
current homes are not in good shape, many are decades old, some are truly fire traps and
regardless of how they got to that shape those people deserve better housing. This Urban
Renewal Plan will help facilitate the whole development because it puts the road through that
allows for the development that allows for the owners to be able to carry out the project. The
Forest View relocation part of the project has a great public benefit.
Signs added the economic benefit, the office buildings, the apartment buildings, and senior
housing and the tax base coming from all those buildings is significant.
Dyer asked what the developer had to do before the City spends money. Hektoen said this is a
rebate program so the City will not spend any money until the property generates a certain
increase in value and taxes. The City will then rebate those taxes as long as the developer is in
compliance with the executed development agreement. Hektoen stated it will likely take three
construction seasons to complete this development and then they will have to wait another year
after completion to pay their taxes and then receive the rebates. Dyer asked if it was going to
take three construction seasons would that be three more years before the Forest View residents
get to move. Ford said it may not, they don’t know the details yet but there is a concept that
would allow access to the new Forest View neighborhood from Algonquin before the center
section of Forest View Drive was complete. Ford reiterated those details aren’t finalized. Signs
agreed that was mentioned at one of the earlier meetings because they do need to move the
Forest View residents before they can redevelop the middle part of the project. Hektoen stated
the Conditional Zoning Agreement requires the new manufacture housing homes be constructed
in the first phase of the development. This will include the first phase of Forest View Drive from
Algonquin to the new homes.
Dyer stated that Blackbird, the development company, has a project in Des Moines and one in
Ottumwa where they have essentially defaulted. There is a partially destroyed hospital in
Ottumwa that has been left since last August and in Des Moines they approval to build a 33 story
building with apartments and they have done nothing on that for more than a year. Some public
money has been given to them. Dyer is concerned about the residents of the mobile homes.
Hektoen acknowledged those are concerning items and that is why many years ago the City
shifted to a rebate scenario to protect the City from giving public money upfront. The City will not
be out any money if this project is not completed. She added the TIF agreement is just one layer
on this project, there is the Affordable Housing Agreement and others. Hektoen said they will
draft the agreement tightly to make sure the default provisions are solid. Dyer noted that besides
the money there is also no guarantee this mobile home relocation will be done and all of the
approvals is telling people this is going to happen. Hektoen said that always happens with
rezoning or plat approvals it doesn’t guarantee the developer will actually break ground and do
the development. The City has had conversations with the applicants, the Forest View residents
and the developer raising concerns to make sure everyone’s interest is protected but the City
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 20, 2019
Page 13 of 17
can only raise the questions they cannot guarantee success. Signs added there are two or three
local partners in this project with Blackbird which gives him comfort.
Parsons opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one Parsons closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommends Planning and Zoning Commission forward a written
recommendation to the City Council stating that the Forest View Urban Renewal Plan
conforms to the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan, and conforms with the general plan for
the development of the City of Iowa City.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Parsons acknowledged Ford presented in her report this meets the Comprehensive Plan goals,
this gives the area a secondary access, it gives the current residents of Forest View a better way
of life and gives the community amenities in that area.
Signs has never really understood or been a fan of the TIF process but this is an amazing project
if it is done the way it has been presented and will generate the value and tax base to benefit the
community. He is pleased to learn the TIF money is through rebates and the project must be
completed for them to access the funds.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1 (Dyer dissenting).
CASE NO. REZ19-06:
Applicant: City of Iowa City
Location: 225 N. Gilbert Street
An application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning of approximately 0.1 acres of
property located at 225 N. Gilbert Street from Central Business Service District (CB-2) to CB-2
with a Historic District Overlay (CB-2/OHD).
Heitner began the staff report showing an aerial view of the subject property. The current zoning
is CB-2. He wanted to point out a few items the Historic Preservation Commission found
noteworthy. This is the Hohenschuh-Hervert House and Heitner showed photos of the bracket
details on the windows and interior glass French doors. The house was built in 1904 by Charles
Mentzer, a socially recognized carpenter, in a vernacular design with Folk Victorian detailing.
The original owners were Christian and Clara Dostal Hohenschuh, prominent figures in Iowa City
society and second generation immigrants within the Northside immigration communities. In
1936, Katie Hervert, and later her husband Frank Henry Hervert, gained ownership and made
significant alterations to the house. Frank Hervert was a member of the design-build carpentry
industry in Iowa City which influenced the stylistic designation of the house.
With respect to compliance with the Comprehensive Plan there are two goals related to this
proposal. Goal 1: Identify historic resources significant to Iowa City’s past and Goal 10: Adopt
strategies that preserve historic neighborhoods, and in particular, the Gilbert-Linn Street
neighborhood. Specifically, Objective 5 of Goal 1 is satisfied by means of the nomination and
pursuit of Local Landmark designation.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 20, 2019
Page 14 of 17
The Historic Preservation Commission met on June 13, 2019 and conducted a public hearing at
which they reviewed and evaluated the historic significance of the Hohenschuh-Hervert House.
The Commission determined that the property meets the requirements for a landmark and voted
to recommend approval of the designation of 225 North Gilbert Street as an Iowa City Historic
Landmark. The building is significant because of its relationship to second-generation immigrant
families in the Northside of Iowa City, the local tradition of architectural salvage and reuse, and
being a well-preserved example of local design-builder craftsmanship.
Staff recommends the approval of REZ19-06, an application to designate 225 North Gilbert
Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark and rezone from Community Business Service (CB-2)
to Community Business Service with a Historic District Overlay (CB-2/OHD).
Martin asked if the current owner is in favor of this historical designation. Hektoen noted the City
is the owner of the property and perhaps will be sold under the UniverCity Housing program.
Parsons opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one, Parsons closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend approval of REZ19-06 an application designate 225 North
Gilbert Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark and rezone from Community Business
Service (CB-2) to Community Business Service with a Historic District Overlay (CB-
2/OHD).
Townsend seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CASE NO. REZ19-05:
Applicant: City of Iowa City
Location: 229 N. Gilbert Street
An application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning of approximately 0.09 acres of
property located at 229 N. Gilbert Street from Central Business Service District (CB-2) to CB-2
with a Historic District Overlay (CB-2/OHD).
Heitner stated this house was owned by Christian and Clara Dostal Hohenschuh and built in
1897 as a Free Classic Queen Anne by Jacob J. Hotz, a broadly known, successful carpenter
and businessman. With the design direction of his son, Charles Hotz, the two-and-a-half-story
house was given a central hipped roof and lower cross gabled wings. This property, with its
asymmetrical design and elaborate porch, was one of the few high-style houses built in the
1890s to survive from the Phase II Area. Christian and Clara Dostal Hohenschuh, the original
owners of this property, were prominent figures of Iowa City society. The Hohenschuh’s were
part of the Northside Neighborhood immigrant communities as second-generation immigrants.
Jacob J. Hotz was also a second- generation immigrant and interacted with the Northside
German Immigrant Community. The house has relationships with other notable Iowa Citians, the
most prominent being Mary Keating, a second-generation Irish immigrant, who was important in
the history of the Veterans Administration Hospital.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 20, 2019
Page 15 of 17
In terms of satisfying direct goals in the Comprehensive Plan Goal 1b.calls for the Northside
Marketplace calls for the protection of historic buildings. The Historic Preservation element of
the Comprehensive Plan has two goals that relate to this proposal. Goal 1: Identify historic
resources significant to Iowa City’s past and Goal 10: Adopt strategies that preserve historic
neighborhoods, and in particular, the Gilbert-Linn Street neighborhood. Specifically, Objective 5
of Goal 1 is satisfied by means of the nomination and pursuit of Local Landmark designation.
The Historic Preservation Commission met on June 13, 2019 and conducted a public hearing at
which they reviewed and evaluated the historic significance of the Christian and Clara Dostal
Hohenschuh House. The Commission determined that the property meets the requirements for a
landmark and voted to recommend approval of the designation of 229 North Gilbert Street as an
Iowa City Historic Landmark. The building is significant because of its relationship to second-
generation immigrant families in the Northside of Iowa City.
Staff recommends the approval of REZ19-05, an application to designate the Christian and Clara
Dostal Hohenschuh House at 229 North Gilbert Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark and
rezone from Community Business Service (CB-2) to Community Business Service with a Historic
District Overlay (CB-2/OHD).
Parsons opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one, Parsons closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend the approval of REZ19-05, an application to designate 229
North Gilbert Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark and rezone from Community
Business Service (CB-2) to Community Business Service with a Historic District Overlay
(CB-2/OHD).
Motion seconded by Baker.
Dyer noted it is stated in the documents the City is working with potential new owners for the
future use, potentially as commercial properties.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JUNE 6, 2019
Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of June 6, 2019.
Townsend seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Heitner noted the Commission agreed upon meeting at 5:30pm on Wednesday, July 3rd, if a
meeting on the 3rd is necessary. Staff intends to let the Commission know early next week if a
meeting on the 3rd will be required.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 20, 2019
Page 16 of 17
Adjournment:
Baker moved to adjourn.
Townsend seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2018 - 2019
8/16
9/6
9/20
10/18
12/20
1/3 1/17
(W.S.)
2/4
2/21 3/7 3/21 4/4 4/18 5/16 6/6 6/20
BAKER, LARRY X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X O/E X X
DYER, CAROLYN O O/E O X X X O/E X X X X X X O/E X X
FREERKS, ANN ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E
MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X X O/E
X O/E X X X O/E X X X X
PARSONS, MAX X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X
THEOBALD, JODIE ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X X X X X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member