HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-03-2022 Planning and Zoning CommissioinPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Wednesday, August 3, 2022
Formal Meeting — 6:00 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
Development Items
5. Case No. REZ22-0010
Location: 518 Bowery Street
An application for a rezoning of approximately 1,470 square feet of land from High Density
Multi -Family Residential zone with a Historic District Overlay (OHD/RM-44) to Neighborhood
Commercial zone with a Historic District Overlay (OHD/CN-1).
6. Case No. REZ22-0001 & SUB22-0001
Location: East of Camp Cardinal Blvd and west of Camp Cardinal Rd
An application for a rezoning of approximately 27.68 acres of land from Interim
Development -Research Park (ID -RP) zone to Low Density Multi -Family zone with a Planned
Development Overlay (OPD/RM-12) and an application for a preliminary plat of Cardinal
Heights, a residential subdivision with 22 duplex lots and 1 multi -family lot.
7. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: July 6, 2022
8. Planning and Zoning Information
9. Adjournment
If you will need disability -related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact
Anne Russett, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5251 or arussett(o)iowa-city.org. Early requests are
strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: August 17 / September 7 / September 21
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ22-0010 518 Bowery St
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Contact Person:
Owner:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Location Map:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Prepared by: Emani
Brinkman, Planning Intern
Date: August 3, 2022
Connor Moellenbeck
Daydrink Coffee
con nor@ d a yd ri n k. coffee
See above.
M&W Properties
Ryan Wade
ryanwade1000@gmail.com
Rezone from High Density
Multi -Family Residential
with a Historic District
Overlay (OHD/RM-44)
Zone to Neighborhood
Commercial with a Historic
District Overlay (OHD/CN-
1) Zone
To allow for a coffee shop
on the property
518 Bowery Street
1,470 Square Feet
High Density Multi -Family
Residential with a Historic
District Overlay (OHD/RM-
44), Commercial building
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North:
Residential
(RM-44)
South:
Residential
(RM-44)
East:
Residential
(RM-44)
West:
Residential
(RM-44)
Comprehensive Plan:
25+ DU/A
District Plan:
Central
Neighborhood Open Space District:
C3
Public Meeting Notification:
Properties within 500' of the
subject property received
notification of the Planning
and Zoning Commission
public meeting. A rezoning
sign was posted on the site
July 5, 2022.
File Date:
July 5, 2022
45 Day Limitation Period:
August 19, 2022
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Connor Moellenbeck, is seeking a rezoning from High Density Multi -Family
Residential with a Historic District Overlay (OHD/RM-44) to Neighborhood Commercial with
a Historic District Overlay (OHD/CN-1) for a 1,470 square foot property located at 518
Bowery Street. The applicant intends to open a coffee shop at the subject property.
The subject property contains a one and a half story building with a one-story addition. The
building was originally constructed sometime between 1856-1864 as a grocery store by
John M. Haas. Having been established as a commercial business prior to the adoption of
a zoning code by the City in the mid-1920s, the property has continued to be used for non-
residential purposes on the ground floor throughout its existence. The existing 720 square -
foot building was originally used as a grocery store, and historic records show continued
use as a grocery store from 1895 until the early 1970s when it served as the first home of
the New Pioneer Cooperative Society. A retail establishment, the House of Jade, moved in
when the New Pioneer moved out in 1975. Records show a brief tenancy by Helen Caldicott
Community School in 1983. More recently the building was used by Zaza's Pasta and then
as an office.
In 2012, the property was designated a Local Historic Landmark. The historic designation
protects the building from demolition as well as exterior modification that would diminish its
historic integrity. The designation also makes the property eligible for certain exceptions
3
and zoning waivers to allow the continued use of the property.
In 2012 the property was granted a special exception to allow for sales -oriented retail use
and then in 2016 was granted a special exception for general office and commercial retail
(EXC12-000010 and EXC16-00010). These special exceptions allowed the continuance of
commercial uses within a residential zone. Since the building has remained vacant for over
a year, the property has lost its non -conforming use status and cannot receive a special
exception for a different non -conforming use. In 2013 there was another special exception
application submitted to convert the sales -oriented retail use to a coffee shop, the
application was ultimately withdrawn. Given the size of the property and structure, it is not
possible for the property to be re -adapted for a multi -family use and single-family residential
is not allowed within the zoning district.
The applicant wishes to establish another Daydrink coffee shop location at the property.
Their mission is to provide high quality coffee while preventing continued adoption of
"single -use" plastic. Daydrink only use glass jars for to -go containers with the hope of
creating a more sustainable focused community.
The applicant held a good neighbor meeting on July 27, 2022, but no one from the public
attended.
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning: The property is currently zoned as High -Density Multi -Family
Residential with a Historic Preservation Overlay (OHD/RM-44). RM-44 zoning provides
areas for development of high -density, multi -family dwellings and group living quarters but
does not allow single-family or duplex dwellings. The zone allows, as a provisional use,
hospitality -oriented retail (hotels, guest houses, meeting or event facilities), but does not
allow any other retail or commercial uses. Through a special exception, community
service uses are allowed. The purpose of High -Density Multi -Family Residential is for
high -density multi -family housing located in proximity to downtown, the University, or
other employment centers. The minimum lot requirement for a non-residential use in RM-
44 zoning is 5,000 square feet; minimum frontage is 35 feet; front setback is 20 feet; the
required side setback is 10 feet. The property does not meet any of these minimum
dimensional standards. The property does meet the rear 20 feet setback standards.
The property is a Local Historic Landmark and is listed in the National Register of Historic
Places. Changes to the exterior of the building would require review by the Historic
Preservation Commission. The Historic District Overlay will still apply if the underlying
zone is changed to CN-1.
Proposed Zoning: The purpose of the Neighborhood Commercial Zone (CN-1) is to
promote small-scale retail sales and personal service uses in a neighborhood shopping
area. The zoning encourages neighborhood shopping areas that are conveniently located
and that primarily serve nearby residential neighborhoods and promote pedestrian -
oriented development at an intensity level that is compatible with surrounding residential
areas. Allowed uses are restricted in size to promote smaller, neighborhood -serving
businesses and to limit adverse impacts on nearby residential areas. Unlike the RM-44
zone, the CN-1 zone does not have a minimum lot area requirement nor a minimum
frontage requirement. The front setback requirement is 5' and the side and rear
setbacks are 0' unless the property abuts a non-residential zone, which is the case with
the rear boundary of the subject property.
Uses allowed in the CN-1 zone are outlined in Table 1.
Table 1 — Uses Allowed in CN-1
Household living uses
Group Households
PR
Multi -family dwellings
PR
Animal Related Commercial
Use
General
PR
Commercial Recreational
Uses
Indoor
PR/S
Eating or Drinking
Establishments
PR/S
Office Use
General
PR
Medical
PR
Quick Vehicle Servicing
Uses
S
Retail Uses
Alcohol sales -oriented retail
PR
Hospitality oriented retail
PR
Personal service oriented
PR
Sales oriented
PR
Basic utility uses
PR/S
Community Service Uses
General community service
S
Da care uses
PR
Educational facilities
Specialized
PR
Parks and open space uses
PR
Utility -scale ground-
mounted solar energy
systems
S
Communication
transmission facility uses
PR/S
P = Permitted; PR = Provisional; S = Special Exception
Coffee shops are classified as Eating Establishments. Eating establishments are
provisionally allowed in CN-1 if they meet certain standards (see 14-4B-4-B-10), such
as a maximum occupancy load of 100, which can be increased through a special
exception. Additionally, drive-throughs are prohibited.
Given the proximity to adjacent residential uses, staff recommends a condition that
commercial uses may not be open to the public between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. This helps to ensure the commercial use of the property remains compatible
with nearby residential properties and to minimize activities that may be injurious to the
use and enjoyment of residential uses in the vicinity. A similar condition was also
recommended for Deluxe Bakery's rezoning (REZ17-0006).
Parking: The property has two parking spots. Eating establishments require 1 space
per 150 square feet or 1/3 the occupant load, whichever is less. Depending on the
floorplan, which is yet to be determined, the proposed use could require 4 off-street
5
parking spaces. Staff has notified the applicant that the property is eligible for a parking
reduction via special exception due to its local historic landmark status and one may be
needed for the proposed coffee shop. On -street parking along the portion of Bowery
Street is prohibited during daytime business hours. Additionally, there is a high demand
for on -street parking in the surrounding neighborhoods.
Rezoning Review Criteria:
Staff uses the following two criteria in the review of rezoning:
1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan.
2. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan:
The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this property as
appropriate for multi -family residential development at a density of 25+ dwelling units per
acre. The Central District Plan Future Land Use Map has the subject property designated
as High -Density Multi -Family Redevelopment. This land use category is targeted at the
redevelopment of existing multi -family where living conditions are less than ideal due to
a lack of adequate pedestrian amenities and little open space. The plan category notes
that possible redevelopment scenarios will need to be assessed prior to redevelopment.
Due to the subject property's local landmark status, demolition of the building will not
happen unless the building was structurally unsound.
Although the proposed rezoning does not directly align with the land use policy direction
outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan, there are several goals
and policies within the plans that support the rezoning. The Comprehensive Plan
encourages sustainable and walkable neighborhoods and envisions neighborhood
commercial uses as contributing to the quality of life within neighborhoods. The Plan
states:
Neighborhood commercial areas can provide a focal point and gathering place
for a neighborhood. The businesses within a neighborhood commercial center
should provide shopping opportunities within convenient walking distance for
the residents in the immediate area. The design of the neighborhood
commercial center should have a pedestrian orientation with the stores placed
close to the street, but with sufficient open space to allow for outdoor cafes and
patios or landscaping. Parking should be located to the rear and sides of stores
with additional parking on the street (IC2030: Comprehensive Plan Update
page 22).
The Comprehensive Plan also has goals about establishing strategies to retain and
encourage growth of existing locally owned businesses, and recognize that small, and
independently owned, local businesses are integral to Iowa City's 'brand' and sense of
identity (IC2030: Comprehensive Plan Update page 32). Also, to promote economic
growth, encourage a healthy mix of local businesses and support entrepreneurial activity.
Allowing the rezoning of this property, allows for the city to create space for neighborhood
commercial. Additionally, since this building is currently vacant, a rezoning can help with
infill development which is another goal in the comprehensive plan (IC2030:
Comprehensive Plan Update page 7).
t�
The Central District Plan acknowledges several properties originally developed with
buildings that served as neighborhood grocery stores and have remained, over time as
non -conforming commercial uses. These include the Design Ranch Building on Dodge
Street, the former Seaton's Meat Market, Watt's Grocery on Muscatine, and Deluxe
Bakery on South Summit Street. This property is like the other properties in that it has
historically been commercial in a residential zone. Keeping these buildings as their
original type of use create neighborhood commercial areas that serve as the focal point
of a neighborhood (Central District Plan page 3).
Iowa City's Historic Preservation Plan also has goals to protect historic resources through
efficient legislation and regulatory measures (Goal 2). The Plan also recommends that
the City adopt strategies to conserve historic neighborhoods which reflect their organic
development, historical roles and traditions, modern needs, and economic health and
stability (Goal 10).
Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood Character: This building has operated
with non-residential uses since the building was built. This property has contained a
grocery store, retail businesses, and offices, all as non -conforming uses. Those
previous uses were compatible with the surrounding neighborhood character. As noted
by the Comprehensive Plan, neighborhood commercial contributes to the quality of life
in the neighborhood.
When the building was built over 150 years ago, it was deliberately built along a main
thoroughfare near a high traffic area, to attract business (National Register of Historic
Places nomination, page 11, 16, and 19). The building being in a high -density area
allows for pedestrian traffic for people who live in the immediate area.
Traffic Implications: Due to the size of the lot, the limited ability to provide off-street
parking, and the small amount of street parking on the surrounding streets, these would
be a deterrent to people driving to the site. Any business on this property will have to
rely on customers coming on foot or bike from the surrounding neighborhood. The
property is in an established, high -density neighborhood. The neighborhood has easy
pedestrian and biking access and is close to the University and downtown.
SUMMARY: In summary, Staff supports the rezoning of 518 Bowery Street from High
Density Multi -Family Residential with a Historic District Overlay (OHD/RM-44) Zone to
Neighborhood Commercial with a Historic District Overlay (OHD/CN-1) Zone. Both the
Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan contain language about having
commercial uses in neighborhoods to help strengthen the community and increase the
diversity of neighborhoods. The Historic Preservation Plan contains goals to protect
historic resources through regulatory measures and conserve historic neighborhoods.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the rezoning will be
considered by the City Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the application submitted by Connor Mollenbeck for a rezoning from
High Density Multi -Family Residential with a Historic Preservation (OHD/RM-44) to
Neighborhood Commercial with a Historic Preservation Overlay (OHD/CN-1) for a 1,470
7
square foot property located at 518 Bowery Street be approved, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Any commercial use may not be open to the public between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00
a.m.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Aerial Photograph
Approved by: I
St ^----^
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
f6wr ld_' lS.• �Vu lL'
LS1
9
L w�
W.
l
em
1:
18 NVAS y711
L
f
` dim' 906
ow
'a
a
<
IIµ ®
��
o
till
LL
1S N3ana NVn S
1,
bp k
--
O d3
O A N
U
d l o
o c 3 0
m to °
0 L
~ N
U ° 4" C
� N N N x
.0 72 z o
� as =,ta
° d >
h � >
do a au
u
tad F°.N i., °
N C N y
a L La 0 S
LYON'S 2ND ADDITION E 21' OF S 70' LOT 15 BLK 6
AK jr� ,. i
S- S9 85' S5' 55' 100
7 5'
i m :
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ22-0001 & SUB22-0001
Cardinal Heights
GENERAL INFORMATION:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Esther Tetteh, Associate Planner
Date: August 3, 2022
Applicant: Jason Walton
Navigate Homes
jason(ab navigatehomesiowa. com
Contact Person: Brian Vogel
Hall & Hall Engineers, Inc
1860 Boyson Road
Hiawatha, IA 52233
319-362-9548
brian@halleng.com
Owner: Jason Walton
IC Grove East, LLC
Requested Action: Rezoning from interim Development — Research
Park (ID -RP) to Low Density Multi -Family with a
Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-12) and
approval of a preliminary plat
Purpose:
Location:
Location Map:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
To create Cardinal Heights and allow for the
development of 78 dwelling units
East of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and West of
Camp Cardinal Road.
27.68 acres
Undeveloped, zoned for Interim Development -
Research Park (ID -RP)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
District Plan:
Neighborhood Open Space District:
Public Meeting Notification:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
North: OPD/RS-8 - Medium Density Single -
Family Residential with a Planned
Development Overlay
South: OPD/CC-2 - Community Commercial
with a Planned Development Overlay
East: OPD/RS-5 - Low Density Single -Family
Residential with a Planned
Development Overlay and
ID-RS - Interim Development Single -
Family Residential
West: OPD/RM-12 - Low Density Multi -Family
Residential with a Planned
Development Overlay
8-16 units / acre
None
1"T
Property owners in the surrounding areas have
been notified of the proposed subdivision and
rezoning and received notification of the Planning
and Zoning Commission public meeting. A
rezoning and a subdivision sign were posted on
the site on Camp Cardinal Boulevard.
April 19, 2022
The applicant has waived the 45-day review
period.
The applicant, Navigate Homes, is requesting approval for the rezoning of 27.68 acres from Interim
Development —Research Park (ID -RP) zone to Low Density Multi -Family Residential with a
Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-12) and a preliminary plat for land located east of Camp
Cardinal Blvd and west of Camp Cardinal Road. The Preliminary Plat, Planned Development
Overlay, and Sensitive Areas Development Plan is provided in Attachment 3. The proposed
development would allow for the development of 22 duplexes, 4 townhomes and 30 multi -family
units. For renderings of the multi -family building see Attachment 4.
The development proposes the extension of Deer Creek Road off Camp Cardinal Blvd through the
parcel connecting to Camp Cardinal Road. The proposed preliminary plat for the development is a
cul-de-sac - loop layout running north and south, lined by 22 duplexes. Following Deer Creek Road
east toward Camp Cardinal Road, the proposal includes a 30-unit multi -family complex (13 two
bedroom, 17 one -bedroom units) and 4 townhomes with additional duplexes on the south side of
Deer Creek.
The site contains regulated sensitive features including wetlands, woodlands, and slopes. The
Preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan proposes impacts to wetlands and modifications to
the 100' wetland buffer requirement (14-51-6), which requires a Level II Sensitive Areas Review. A
Level 11 Sensitive Areas Review requires submission of a Sensitive Areas Development Plan
(SADP). Furthermore, a Level II sensitive areas review is considered a type of planned development
and as such, must comply with the applicable approval criteria set forth in chapter 3, article A,
"Planned Development Overlay Zone (OPD)".
Good Neighbor Policy: The surrounding property owners have been notified of the proposed
rezoning and preliminary plat. A virtual Good Neighbor meeting was scheduled and took place on
February 1, 2022. A summary of the meeting is included in Attachment 5.
ANALYSIS:
Current zoning: The area is zoned as Interim Development —Research Park (ID -RP). This zone
is intended for areas of managed growth in which agricultural and other nonurban uses of land
may continue until the city is able to provide 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.
Proposed zoning: The applicant is requesting to rezone the entire area (27.68 acres) to Low
Density Multi -Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-12). The purpose of the Low -
Density Multi -Family Residential Zone (RM-12) is to provide for the development of high density,
single-family housing and low density, multi -family housing. In this case, a mix of multi -family
housing units and duplex units provides a diverse variety of housing throughout the neighborhood,
as intended by RM-12 zoning. Because of this mixture, attention to site and building design is
important in this zone to ensure that these housing types are compatible with one another. Due to
impacts to the sensitive areas, a Planned Development Overlay is required. The OPD process
allows for a mixture of uses, provided that additional criteria in section 14-3A-4 and 14-3A-5 of the
City Code are met.
General Planned Development Approval Criteria: Applications for Planned Development
Rezonings are reviewed for compliance with the following standards according to Article 14-3A of
the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance.
1. The density and design of the Planned Development will be compatible with and/or
complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass and
scale, relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout.
Density: The applicant is requesting a rezoning to an OPD/RM-12 zone, which allows for a density
of 15 dwelling units per net acre of land area (total land minus public and private streets right-of-
way). The proposed 30-unit complex, 4 townhomes, and 22 duplexes adds up to 78 total units
across the 25.02 acres of net site area, which equals 3.1 dwelling units per acre.
Land Uses Proposed: The applicant is proposing a mix of duplex and multi -family residential. There
are currently two areas to the west zoned RM-12 and one area to the southeast. The property to
the immediate west was rezoned to OPD/RM-12 in 2017 but remains undeveloped. The property
to the northwest also has RM-12 zoning with townhomes constructed, as well as ongoing townhome
development. Cardinal Villas Condominiums located southeast of the subject property is also zoned
as OPD/RM-12 with two multi -family buildings on the property. The area to the north is zoned
OPD/RS-8 and contains duplexes similar to those proposed. The addition of more duplexes and
multi -family housing to the area will complement the existing, ongoing, and future development
plans in the area.
Mass. Scale, and General Layout: Due to the potential impacts of the sensitive areas, the
development layout is more compact instead of spreading out over the property. The proposed
duplexes are located on the western edge of the site off a cul-de-sac street to the north of Deer
Creek Road and a loop street to the south of Deer Creek Road. Additional duplexes front Deer
Creek Road to the east along with the proposed 30-unit multi -family buildings and townhomes. The
multifamily and townhomes cannot exceed 35 feet in height and have a footprint of 12,000 square
feet and 3,660 square feet respectively.
The OPD plan shows duplex footprints with the access to garages from the front facade. 14-3A-
4K-lc-(2) requires garages and off-street parking areas be located so that they do not dominate
the streetscape. Alley or private rear lane access will be required, unless garages are recessed
behind the front facade of the dwelling in a manner that allows the residential portion of the
dwelling to predominate along the street. This standard will be reviewed at site plan and building
permitting stage to ensure full compliance to the requirement.
Open Space: The proposed development will need to comply with private open space standards,
outlined in section 14-2B-4E of the City Code. For the 30-unit complex, the calculation comes out
to be 430 square feet of private open space required (10 SF per bedroom, 43 total bedrooms in
complex). The duplexes require a minimum of 300 SF per dwelling and the townhomes require
minimum 150 SF of useable open space. The applicant is aware of these open space standards as
they are listed on the preliminary plat. The OPD plans shows 10,000 square feet of on -site open
space for the multi -family uses. Additionally, the preliminary plat includes two outlots totaling 16.76
acres that contain regulated sensitive areas that will be placed in conservation easement at final
platting.
Traffic Circulation: The proposed development will have access off of Camp Cardinal Blvd through
an extension of Deer Creek Road. The extension of Deer Creek Road will provide access to the
entire site and, until Camp Cardinal Rd and a proposed traffic circle at the intersection of Deer Creek
Road and Camp Cardinal Road are constructed, Deer Creek Road will provide temporary access
to Camp Cardinal Road. This will provide a secondary access, if needed. The subdivision code 15-
3-21K authorizes the City to request an applicant to contribute 50% of the reconstruction cost of
bringing the segment of the subject street that abuts the subject property to city standards. As a
condition to the rezoning, owner shall contribute 50% of the cost of upgrading Camp Cardinal Road
to City standards prior to issuance of building permit. The infrastructure also requires traffic calming
devices. The contribution shall include 50% of the cost of construction of the traffic circle at the
intersection of Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal Road.
2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities.
The property can be serviced by both sanitary sewer and water. Access to the site will be provided
through the extension of Deer Creek Road, which will connect to both Camp Cardinal Blvd and
Camp Cardinal Road.
3. The development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property values and
privacy of neighboring properties any more than would a conventional
development.
The nearest neighbors to the north of the subject property are separated by a woodland
preservation area and a stream corridor. The nearest neighbors to the east and southeast will
also remain separated due to the preservation of woodlands. The proposed development does
not adversely affect views, light and air, property values and privacy of neighboring properties any
more than would a conventional development.
4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the
underlying zoning requirements or from City street standards will be in the public
interest, in harmony with purpose of this Title, and with other building regulations.
The proposed development is not seeking any waivers or variations from the underlying zoning
requirements. Additionally, the proposed RM-12 zone allows the proposed mix of residential land
uses proposed. The proposed multi -family building, duplexes, and townhomes provide a range of
housing options. When factoring in both the total building area occupied (approximately 2.27
acres or 98,800 SF) and the total area occupied by R.O.W. (2.61 acres), the total lot coverage is
equal to approximately 15.5%. Meaning, approximately 84.5% of the net site area will remain free
of buildings, parking, and vehicular maneuvering areas. The mix of housing, the extension of Deer
Creek Road, and the preservation of sensitive features are in the public interest.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The area does not have a district plan hence, the
proposed development is reviewed according to the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan.
The Future Land Use Map of the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject property as
appropriate for residential development at a density of 8-16 dwelling units per acre. As previously
stated, the subject property proposes around 3.1 dwelling units per net acre. This density is
actually below what is envisioned in the plan; however, the site is constrained due to the sensitive
features.
The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan encourages urban growth through compact and connected
neighborhoods. The Preliminary Plat, Planned Development Overlay, and Sensitive Areas
Development Plan demonstrates a commitment to these goals by providing wide interconnected
sidewalks and a variety of housing types that as noted in the Comprehensive Plan, "Ensure a mix
of housing types within each neighborhood to provide options for households of all types and
people of all incomes".
The Comprehensive Plan is also aimed at encouraging pedestrian -oriented development and
attractive and functional streetscapes that make it safe, convenient, and comfortable to walk. The
applicant is showing sidewalks along both sides of Madan Court and Dear Creek Road. The plan
also shows a sidewalk along Madan Loop and connected to the Deer Creek sidewalk on the
subject property. The sidewalk along Deer Creek will connect to the existing sidewalk along Camp
Cardinal Blvd.
Although the comprehensive plan discourages cul-de-sacs and emphasizes stub streets for future
connectivity, the proposed development is limited due to sensitive areas and existing
neighborhood constraints. Specifically, due to the layout of the neighborhood to the north, which
incorporates a loop street, connecting with that existing neighborhood is not possible. By
proposing development on the most buildable portion of the property, and thereby preserving the
natural areas of the property, the development aligns with the goals of the comprehensive plan.
Subdivision Design: The proposed subdivision contains 23 residential lots and two outlots. Outlot
A is noted on the preliminary plat as open space area to be maintained by the homeowner's
association. Outlot B will also contain open space to be maintained by the HOA, but it will also
include a storm water management area. Additionally, the preliminary plat shows a conservation
easement area that will ensure the preservation of sensitive resources. The subject plat proposes
the designation of 2.61 acres of public right of way though the extension of Deer Creek Road. This
also includes the construction of Madan Court and Madan Loop from Deer Creek Road. Madan
Court is proposed as a cul-de-sac lined by 12 duplexes. Madan Loop is a loop street lined by
another 7 duplexes proposed. East of these streets and along Deer Creek Road are the proposed
4 townhomes, housing complex, and the remaining 3 duplexes.
According to section 15-3-2A-4 of the City Code, cul-de-sacs should be avoided unless it can be
demonstrated that existing constraints prevent the extension of the street to access existing
streets within or abutting the subdivision. Due to sensitive area constraints, as well as the northern
neighborhoods providing no access point due to loop street systems, there is not an outlet for
through street access. Because of these constraints on the property, the applicant proposes
Maclan Court ending in a cul-de-sac. Staff supports the proposed cul-de-sac design since
previous iterations with a loop street resulted in greater impact on sensitive features.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The subject property contains regulated wetlands,
woodlands, and slopes. The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Sensitive Areas Development
Plan as part of the OPD rezoning. Due to the proposed disturbance of wetlands and associated
buffers, a Level II Sensitive Areas Review is required.
Jurisdictional Wetlands — The City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires a 100 ft. buffer to be
maintained between a regulated wetland and any development activity (14-51-6E-1). The
Ordinance does allow for buffer averaging to be permitted where an increased buffer is deemed
necessary or desirable to provide additional protection to one area of a wetland for aesthetic or
environmental reasons. The applicant has chosen to request buffer averaging, as wetlands and
wetland buffers are proposed to be impacted. As required by 14-51-6E-2, no buffer will be reduced
by more than 50% and all provided buffers will be equal to or greater than what is reduced.
Additionally, the applicant proposes a buffer reduction for the wetland located at the southeastern
corner of the subject property. According to 14-51-6E-3b of the City Code, a wetland buffer may
be reduced by up to 50' if the standards of the of the previously mentioned section are met, as
demonstrated by a wetland specialist. A wetland specialist has determined that all standards of
14-51-6E-2 and 14-51-6E-3b are met. Staff finds that the proposed buffer averaging, and buffer
reduction can be justified as demonstrated by a wetland specialist and will meet the requirements
of the City Code.
The existing wetland is comprised of approximately 0.90 acres. Approximately 14% of the existing
wetlands will be disturbed or 0.059 acres to accommodate leveling of some lots and stormwater
management. Per 14-51-6G, staff has required the applicant to provide mitigation for the proposed
disturbance to the existing wetland. Compensatory mitigation for the impacts to a 0.015-acre
forested wetland will be provided at a ratio of 1:2. Compensatory mitigation for the southern
wetland areas will be provided at a ratio of 1:1.5. The applicant has proposed to meet the City's
wetland mitigation requirements by providing onsite wetland mitigation. Specifically, the applicant
will provide 0.096 acres of wetland to mitigate the loss of 0.059 acres of wetlands.
Woodlands —As shown in Table 2, the subject property has approximately 22.9 acres of woodlands.
The preliminary SADP shows that the development proposes to disturb 9.35 acres (55.8%) of
woodlands on the subject property. An additional 3.43 acres will remain unimpacted but located
within the 50' woodland buffer area. The disturbed woodlands and buffer area total 12.78 acres
(55.8%), leaving roughly 44.2% (10.12 acres) unimpacted which is above the 20% woodland
retention allowed per the sensitive areas ordinance.
Table 2 — Summary of Woodlands
E—x
listing
Disturbed & Buffer Area
Woodlands Preserved
22.9 acres
100%
12.78AC
55.8%
10.12AC
44.2%
Steep. Critical, and Protected Slopes — The subject property contains critical and protected
slopes. The impacts to these slopes are outlined in Table 3. Approximately 19.3% of critical
slopes are proposed to be impacted, which is below the 35% of critical slopes that are allowed to
be impacted per the sensitive areas ordinance. The sensitive areas ordinance only allows impacts
to protected slopes if they are manmade or needed for necessary infrastructure through a Level II
sensitive areas review. The approximately 10.3% of protected slopes that will be impacted are
either manmade slopes or for the construction of the storm water basin.
Table 3—Summary of Re ulated Slo es
Slo es
Existing
Impacted %
Non -impacted
Critical
328,991 100%
63,473 19.3%
276,327 84.1%
Protected
55,031(100%)
5,575 (10.3%)
manmade
49,456 (89.7%)
Archaeological Sites — Staff reached out to the State archaeologist and inquired about needing
an archaeological study for the site. Staff was informed that a study was conducted in 2004 and
there are no current concerns with the site.
Neighborhood Open Space: According to section 14-5K of the City code, dedication of public
open space or fee in lieu of land dedication is addressed at the time of final platting for residential
subdivisions. Based on the 27.68 acres of RM-12 zoning, the developer would be required to
dedicate 1.87 acres to the City or pay a fee in -lieu of land dedication.
Storm Water Management: All storm water management requirements for this site are being
met in the existing regional retention basin located on the west side of Camp Cardinal Blvd and
the proposed stormwater detention basin in Outlot B. Public Works staff have reviewed and
approved the preliminary storm water management plans. Additional review will occur at the time
of final platting.
Sanitary Sewer Service: The development is serviced by a previously approved sanitary sewer
plan of improvements that was originally proposed for development on the west side of Camp
Cardinal Blvd. The proposed sanitary sewer line is located at the north end of the subject property.
Correspondence: Staff has received public correspondence (Attachment 6) from neighboring
residents voicing both concern and support for the proposed development. Generally, the
concerns expressed relate to traffic and impacts on property values.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation from the Planning and
scheduled for consideration by the City Council.
Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of REZ22-0001, a proposal to rezone approximately 27.68 acres of
land located east of Camp Cardinal Blvd and west of Camp Cardinal Road from Interim
Development — Research Park (ID -RP) zone to Low Density Multifamily Residential with a
Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-12) zone subject to the following condition:
1. Prior to issuance of building permit, Owner shall contribute 50% of the cost of upgrading
Camp Cardinal Road to City standards. This contribution shall include 50% of the cost of
construction of the traffic circle at the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal
Road.
Staff also recommends approval of SUB22-0001, a preliminary plat for Cardinal Heights.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Aerial Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Preliminary Plat, Planned Development Overlay, and Sensitive Areas Development Plan
4. Multi -Family Building Renderings
5. Good Neighbor Meeting Summary
6. Public Correspondence
Approved by:
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
L
co
a
as
cn
�J
w
1L-+
O
7
rn
O
0
0
0
v
7
m
w
Lo
(n
(A
lfl
111
T
.--�
W
.--i
t0
(A
t0
lfl
0%
01
t0
111
01
M
Ln
lfl
M
M
N
mM
m
�{
z
M
M
M
M
kO
N
M
l
I--1
o%
•--I
rn
.--I
rn
,--I
m
. -I
m
. -1
o
O
m
.--I
w
w
Z
a
°
aQ
w�
J
0
W
}
U
Va
z
0
z
W
w
CD
0
J
W
u
z
U
I
in
w
w
z
�_
}
W
Q
z
z
°
w
a
LU
w
z
w
>
_
?
w
z
p
(D
Of
w
2:
F
s
p
a
J
Q
Z
Q
Q
Z
a}}
w
U
Q
U
a
LU
¢
U
Lu
V
r
`fr}
w
i
LU
wa
LU
(D
p(D
w
p
�
w
z
Uz
w
Q
(.�
J
W
w
W
F
(/)
p
J
w
0aw
�w
0
w
0
0
CL
z
w
W
J
J_
F-
0
Z
X
LL
0
Z
w
0
w
rJ
H
J
H
D
__ I
PM
+++++++t+++++++++++++++
t+t+++ttt+++tt++++t++tt
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +�N -
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +6s
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
t + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Z
+ + + t + + + + + + + + + t + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + t + + + + + + + + + t + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 0
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + /
+ t t + + t + t + + t + + t + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + o /
+ + + + + + + t t + t + t t .
.• + + + + + + + + + + + + + /
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + /
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + t + t + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + t + + + + + + + -I ^
+ + + + + + + + + + + U1 /
+ + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + SS1
+ JJ,
rs
J- 1
__ I
W
H
O
z
W
a
Q
U
G
z
Q
J
Q
W
z
W
(9
U °Jp �a ° W~ W w a z xz oxw g zw
w ~ ca
Q W a p w > U O OU W z N Ln LL z U
° ¢ F > w a 0 Q (D w� p qa Z
Q a0 za w En L9 O z w O ww wQ w f Ga
3 w J M d W z U Z m H w Uui > ¢
O C7 W 7 z W Ul W J m W Q� .i 7 W 0 !n
a ° Z U 3 x = U J j p w Q "� w W¢
¢ az W o o: O O � W LL 3 J zwF Zo 0 wo
z Qg mm O O > U a 70UW Op to 0a
O tW(I 2 O = W 1' Z V i H W O (n J ° p W J V Z
YLijz tnQ tn3 O a W z w F W JQw °w x O H
a J z !n
3"' r1. W z Q W U W U z m � z� W a m Q W
> ul ¢¢ m° v~i t°1I Q w W o Q = H < W w a Q W tail ° u
Zr� ~= W Z p w W W aC Z LnZ Uz Q H o� to
`-� w H Q w U Z w F~- O Z a F° Ow W G m °~° Q
W WZ Sn a 3 z° o z 3 z¢G °g �U D
W0U tno °W W ¢ g m W Q W Jw gJW �� z UUa W0
U H a F ¢ W m W V O m LL ¢ O a¢= z Q O ¢ 0. W
w¢ ztri p� ~ z u w¢ ��U 0, ¢� wQ N�
> w (n a W W O W K Z a' a F N W
x F o U w z J ° z U ~ w to z ul Q ul J W C7 z U O to W p
z g = g Ln zp
Wo o� g3 m Ln p aW R az aO �z< 3w o¢ cc En
Ox wt, W to C�7 N a J w z Za w 3toou
o 0U w H z ¢x
Wf F.z. m0 P z �7 a a pw zp �zz C7 to Q UH jtn
m J z o x U 0 Coe G a¢og (n JLn zw
zz <X = w �¢ 0 o �x of ¢am 00 N ¢ fz
O~x~ Qw tn= a Q DV Z x wF Ftn WWap 02 p° Qtn
QU Wa~ ZW a U z pz g QQ >z ¢O> .~ LL wO >m
U cc N to w O w w H U W z Z W g W a W E M W > 0 n z
x 0 U ¢ m z p 3� > > W U W a U ¢ O to O
o? gW oU f > _ �u a �$ �� ngo ma no Mtn
J t n H Q W Z O W t o J l l Z On J z Z p W
W = LL l,� z Z 0 3 x> W u p W W Q K Q ~° x p H U o
F w a to ¢
K W z g !n ° 0 O ¢ = a m f- a Z V) W W V N ~ z F 0
O
a Zz Zw w pu\I x F a p w aNw F¢ O u °z
o_ gW o F WD z W �¢ wLn BUJ zz¢z CC zQ
w0 ~¢ a0 ~ w F xQ g Q 3vi zx Qzx a (J �0 �g
�� gF W� to to to n a x 0(n g0 x O ¢tu dui ¢tj 0a
FU FW Fw z En O� O < aH >f °=Z �Qw N3 FW 3z
�x �a ~~ Q OU m z w W Wg 3UU QOm ma3 ow zN z~
¢ a J W ¢ U J 0 J w 0 � Y a W H W p � U° U x N a to
W a .— Z� ¢ Q D U W V m� J 2 Q Q 2 = Q= m 0 O° U m
aQ Wx oz n to "�� mJ WO ¢1 3 tnJF' pO ~N oU
o� Q?N g° a ¢ J x$ a z m� W n �zz aQo m~ U� za
0 0 F O O Q W w W 2 f to tail 30 ¢ w ¢ z x U g W z 0 F Z as Z �¢
K K z G F Q H ? Z lxll x (n ~a' � Q Q W UU nN. W ¢ 0 = Q
0o 00� �Z F a aw w Fu W ox� x�z °J z� n
nz g 00
Uw ODW Ow z d z ww z Z zw W= wzz zW0 wp W¢ J¢
zZ oao o0 3 z g >~ Ln a� zz �og CL aZ (n Qz
O O w W w � W J g O ce z 7 o J} (n g O W W J Z p J J Z °
UU am0 as ¢ a z aQ z V ¢tn ¢m U3a ¢O¢ ¢O ¢ar5 wtn
4 vi 6 rl: ai 6 6 -i-i .r. `n. ti .m-i k6
l .Im �1'
w l i--
Co= C' Emil' _
� r
Summary Report for p
1�;.o,A�
Good Neighbor Meeting_
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Project Name: Cardinal Heights Project Location: East of camp Cardinal Blvd, west of camp Cardinal Rd
Meeting Date and Time: February 1st, 2022-5:30pm to 6:30pm
Meeting Location: Zoom Meeting
Names of Applicant Representatives attending: F. Joe Hughes - Navigate; Jason Walton - Navigate
Brian Vogel -Hall and Hall; Susan Forinash -HHE
Names of City Staff Representatives attending: Anne Russet - Senior Planner
Number of Neighbors Attending: 7 Sign -In Attached? Yes No X
General Comments received regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary) -
Neighbors were not particularly excited about potentially losing some privacy and seeing the private
woodland area behind their home being disturbed. Applicant explained the closest proposed home will be
approximately 400' from any existing home and will be buffered by existing woodlands and drainage way.
The proposed development will be at an elevation of at least 50' higher than the existing homes.
Old trees were cut down but never removed from previous work that started but was never completed.
Concerns expressed regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary) -
Project will cause increased traffic
Storm water runoff
Proposed building proximity to existing homes
Construction trash
Will there be any changes made to the proposal based on this input? If so, describe:
Added additional stormwater detention basin
Added proposed trees along north boundary to provided additional screening for existing homes
Staff Representative Comments
From:
Tom Bender
To:
Anne Russett
Cc:
Rob Bender
Subject:
Rezoning REZ22-0001
Date:
Tuesday, July 12, 2022 10:00:00 AM
Attachments:
imaae001.Dna
imaae008.Dna
imaae009.Dno
imaae010.Dna
RISK
Anne,
I am an owner of Cardinal Villas at 30 and 80 Gathering Place Lane. I received notification of the
rezoning request for IC Grove East and while I am generally in favor of the request, I do have some
comments;
It appears that Deer Creek Road will be stubbed to Camp Cardinal Road with the intention of later
adding a traffic circle. If this connection is to provide 2ndary egress, it would be potentially putting
an increased amount of traffic on a section of gravel road from the intersection southward to
Gathering Place Lane.
This section of road has been the source of erosion in the form of gravel washing down into the
intersection of Camp Cardinal Road and Gathering Place Ln. The increase in traffic on the gravel
portion will create more dust and the intersection of Camp Cardinal Road and Camp Cardinal Blvd is
already a dangerous place to pull out of due to the reduced visibility on the curve and the high speed
of traffic (well above posted limit) on Camp Cardinal Blvd. Perhaps a signal at that intersection
would help.
All that being said, I like the project and I believe it will add synergy to the area.
Tom
Thomas Bender
Assurance Property
Management
52 Sturgis Corner Drive
Iowa City, IA 52246
Partner
O 319-530-7333
t 319-358-0556
8 tom@assurancepm.com
July 18, 2022
Ms. Anne Russett
Neighborhood & Development Services
City of Iowa City
Re: REZ22-0001-& SUB 22-OOO1Cardinal Heights
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
Dear Anne,
Thank you for the note regarding this planned rezoning by Hall & Hall Engineers. I will be out of town
during your meeting.
This looks like a nice addition to our neighborhood and as a homeowner I would welcome them to our
community.
I am not on the Cardinal Ridge HOA any longer, however, was the longest serving board member in the
HOA history. I was proud to volunteer and recently welcomed other residents to take their turn. I do feel
that more than anyone else-- that I understand the wants and needs of Cardinal Ridge and feel that
would welcome this new neighbor.
All the best with your
Cardinal Ridge Homeowner
drb
From: Jo Emerson
To: Anne Russett
Subject: East of Camp Cardinal Blvd
Date: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 2:47:48 PM
Consideration should be given to Increase in traffic on Camp Cardinal Blvd, which has already increased
substantially in the last nine years.
Aesthetically the new development could impact property value of some existing homes in that area. In my
opinion, townhomes and duplexes would fit in best rather than large apartment complex.
Sincerely,
Mary Jo Emerson
839 Camp Cardinal Rd
Sent from my ilihone
This email is from an external source.
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
J U LY 6, 2022 — 6:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING
E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Maria Padron, Mark
Signs, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Nolte
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Hektoen, Anne Russett, Parker Walsh
OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Welch, Heather Robb, Joe Clark, Lawrence Luebbert, Rex
Clemmensen. Jo Scott
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ22-0008, a proposal to rezone
approximately 64.36 acres of land located north of Rochester Avenue and west of North Scott
Boulevard from Interim Development Single -Family Residential to Low Density Single -Family
Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and 0.31 acres to OPD/ID-RS
zone subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of building permit, Owner shall:
• Dedicate an access easement agreement to allow access to Lot 66 as shown on the
Preliminary Planned Development and Sensitive Areas Development Plan.
• Dedicate a public access easement agreement to allow a public trail from the proposed
development to Calder Park as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development and
Sensitive Areas Development Plan.
• Install the 10' wide trail connection shown on the Preliminary Planned Development and
Sensitive Areas Development Plan.
• Dedicate to the City, with no compensation to Owner, additional right-of-way along
Rochester Ave and N. Scott Blvd, the area of which shall be determined by the City
Engineer in a form approved by the City Attorney.
2. The final plat for any of the above -described land shall incorporate traffic calming devices in
locations approved by and designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Item moved to end of agenda.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 6, 2022
Page 2 of 15
CASE NO. REZ22-0008:
Location: Northwest corner of N. Scott Blvd. & Rochester Ave.
An application for a rezoning of approximately 64.37 acres of land from Interim Development
Single -Family (ID-RS) to Low Density Single -Family with a Planned Development Overlay
(OPD/RS-5) and approximately 0.31 acres of land to Interim Development Single -Family with a
Planned Development Overlay (OPD/ID-RS).
Craig disclosed she saw this on the agenda and contacted Hektoen to see if there would have a
conflict of interest as she had heard that Vintage was building a senior living complex on the
corner of Scott and Rochester, which isn't too far from where she lives and she contacted them
because she has some interest in that model of senior living. Hektoen stated she thought there
would not be a conflict of interest as long Craig could be impartial, which she can be and no
contract has been executed.
Walsh began the staff report with an aerial map of the property for the proposed development.
He next showed the zoning map as well as how it fits in with the surrounding area. The current
zoning is interim development single family, which is typically used for plant -related agriculture,
provisional detached single-family homes and also used to post development for a property until
a preferred use can be developed. The proposed zoning is 64.37 acres to low density single
family residential (RS-5) zone, which is intended to provide housing opportunities for individual
households. The zone allows larger lot sizes and setbacks creating neighborhoods with a limited
density. While the proposed development contains duplexes and a multi -family building, the
Planned Development Overlay (OPD) process allows for a mixture of uses in the RS-5 zone.
0.31 acres will be rezoned to interim development single family with a planned development
overlay to accommodate an existing cell tower that is allowed by right through a special
exception in 2009. Walsh showed the current existing uses on site which is lot 67 (3106
Rochester Ave) and lot 66 which is the cell tower. Recommended condition includes the
dedication of an access easement to allow continued access to lot 66. The preliminary OPD and
Sensitive Areas Development Plan proposes 65 single family lots and a private senior living
community with an additional 12 single family units, three duplexes and 29 multifamily units. A
private senior community clubhouse is also proposed.
Walsh next went over the planned development approval criteria and how the proposed
development fits in with the policy vision of the City. The first approval criteria is the density and
design compatible with adjacent development. Starting with density, five dwelling units per acre
are allowed in the OPD/RS-5 zone. Currently there are proposed 112 dwellings which includes
the existing property and that comes out to be 1.94 dwelling units per acre. The land uses
proposed include single family, two-family and multifamily, the extension of the existing single
family development pattern in the area and concentrating more intense zoning on the corners.
The applicant requested a waiver from 60-foot minimum lot with standard four units within the
senior living community. The proposed modification will not result in increased traffic congestion,
garages and off-street parking will be recessed ensuring garages do not dominate the
streetscape. The applicant also requested a waiver from the duplex corner lot standard. If
waived, duplexes must vary in design to prevent monotony. Staff finds that the approval criteria
is met. Walsh showed some renderings for the options residents will have to choose from for the
single-family (patio homes) and duplexes. The multifamily unit would be facing the private drive
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 6, 2022
Page 3 of 15
with the rear at the intersection of Rochester and Scott with the west side visible from Heron
Drive.
Regarding the requirement of open space, the applicant proposes 15,400 square feet of private
open space for the senior living community which exceeds the required 540. It proposes
providing 840 square feet for each single-family home and 600 square feet for each twin home.
Staff recommends the dedication of an access easement and construction of a 10-foot-wide trail
to Calder Park as a condition of the rezoning.
With regards to traffic circulation, Walsh noted the development will include the construction of
Allison Way, Heron Drive and private drive for the senior living community. The development will
be accessed off Rochester Drive so there'll be no Scott Boulevard access. Proposed traffic
calming features include two raised pedestrian crossings and a roundabout. A rezoning condition
includes staff recommendation that at the time of platting traffic calming features be incorporated
in locations approved by the City Engineer.
Next approval criteria is the development will not overburden existing streets and utilities. The
subject property can be serviced by both sanitary sewer and water and have sufficient capacity
to accommodate the proposed development. Transportation staff requested a traffic study which
found 823 new daily trips with full development and occupancy which is estimated to be in 2026.
The study found that traffic at peak hour level of service would operate at an acceptable level -of -
service or a better rating. The study determined that development would not overburden existing
streets and staff concurs. Staff does recommend a condition of the rezoning to include
dedication of public right-of-way at the intersection of Rochester Avenue and North Scott
Boulevard for potential future improvements that may include a roundabout. Recently receiving
new information from Public Works, the applicant submitted a concept which would require a
setback modification from 40 feet to 30 feet along portions of Rochester and staff finds that the
approval criteria in 14-3A-4K-1A to be met.
Moving onto approval criteria three, development will not adversely affect views, property values
and privacy. Walsh stated the proposed development continues the single-family development
pattern that exists south of Rochester Avenue and concentrates more intense uses at the
intersection of two arterial roads and includes three outlots of approximately 33 acres to be
placed in conservation easements. The closest neighbors will be to the south and to the west. To
the west is Larch Lane which would be separated by approximately 18 acres (outlot A) and to the
south it will be separated by Rochester Avenue so staff finds of this development will not impact
existing residents more than a conventional development.
Next is the approval criteria for land use and the building types will be in the public interest. The
proposal incorporates single-family, two-family and multifamily uses, provides diversity of
housing and helps satisfy an ongoing need of senior housing. Outlots A, B and C make up
roughly 33 acres or 50% of the land area and will remain undeveloped. The proposed
development balances environmental protection with the need for increased housing.
Regarding consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan identifies this
area as conservation design and encourages the preservation of sensitive areas by guiding
development away from sensitive areas. Conservation design is appropriate in areas with
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 6, 2022
Page 4 of 15
sensitive features this development has an interconnected system with open space, wide
sidewalks and trails to connect the community. Looking at the North District Plan, the North
District Plan future land use map shows a vision of single family residential, townhomes, and
small apartment buildings. The Plan encourages cul-de-sacs when appropriate, encourages
more intense housing near arterial roads and envisions an extension of Amherst Drive across
Ralston Creek. However, due to the fact that land uses have changed since the adoption of
Northeast District Plan, specifically with the creation of Harvest Reserve, staff is not
recommending a stub street to the north that would eventually tie into Tamarack Trail.
The Northeast District Plan calls for trail connections along waterways, around ponds and
through parks to encourage trail connection at the end of cul-de-sacs. The Plan shows
connections between major destinations and strongly encourages a trail system to connect
neighborhoods with open space, a connection between Bluffwood and Hickory Hill Park, a
connection between Hickory Hill Park and the neighboring park, which is now called Calder Park.
To support this policy direction, staff has requested a 10-foot wide trail between the proposed
development to the edge of Calder Park. The development will also include the construction of a
5-foot wide sidewalk along Rochester Ave, a current gap in the City's sidewalk network.
Regarding compatibility with existing neighborhood, the proposed development is generally
consistent with the existing neighborhood character, the development would provide a
continuation of single family from south to north across Rochester Avenue, the proposal locates
high density units in the southeast corner, providing a transition of uses from single family to
multifamily and then to Old Towne Village directly southwest of the property. Larch Lane to the
west contains attached single-family units and as mentioned earlier, they'll have an approximate
18-acre natural buffer which will separate it from development.
Regarding sensitive areas, a review of sensitive areas by the Commission and City Council is
required due to the impacts to wetlands, modification to buffers, and impacts of more than 35%
on critical slopes. Looking at wetlands, the sensitive area ordinance requires 100-foot buffer
between wetlands and development. Wetland buffer averaging may be permitted when
necessary and is justified by wetland specialist. Wetland buffer reduction may also be used when
necessary as justified by wetland specialists and the reduction proposed is only for the
southwest corner wetland to accommodate the installation of a sidewalk. The existing wetlands
are approximately 3.03 acres with 0.43 proposed to be disturbed. Mitigation requires
replacement ratio of one to one which will be accomplished through offsite wetland bank credits.
Regarding critical and protected slopes, 9.3 acres are critical slopes and 4.7 are proposed to be
disturbed or 51%. The subject property contains no protected slopes. There are 40.3 acres of
woodlands with 14 acres proposed to be impacted or 34.7%. Woodland buffers proposed to be
impacted are 6.1 acres or 15.2%. Woodlands preserved will be 20.2 acres or 50.1 %.
Regarding archaeological sites, Walsh stated the Phase One archaeological survey of the
subject property noted that the subject property is not eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places. No further archaeological work is recommended for the site.
Finally, regarding neighborhood open space, according to section 14-5k of the City code,
dedication of public open space or fee in lieu of land dedication is addressed at the time of final
platting for residential subdivisions. Based on 64.37 acres and a RS-5 zone the developer would
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 6, 2022
Page 5 of 15
be required to dedicate 1.38 acres or pay a fee in lieu of land dedication. The applicant has
requested a fee in lieu of land dedication.
Staff has received correspondence regarding this item in the form of emails from neighboring
residents. Concerns expressed include single family units one through six along Rochester
Avenue, which have since been removed by the applicant, traffic and removal of woodlands.
Staff recommends approval of REZ22-0008, a proposal to rezone approximately 64.36 acres of
land located north of Rochester Avenue and west of North Scott Boulevard from Interim
Development Single -Family Residential to Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned
Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and 0.31 acres to OPD/ID-RS zone subject to the following
conditions:
Prior to issuance of building permit, Owner shall:
• Dedicate an access easement agreement to allow access to Lot 66 as shown on the
Preliminary Planned Development and Sensitive Areas Development Plan.
• Dedicate a public access easement agreement to allow a public trail from the proposed
development to Calder Park as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development and
Sensitive Areas Development Plan.
• Install the 10' wide trail connection shown on the Preliminary Planned Development and
Sensitive Areas Development Plan.
• Dedicate to the City, with no compensation to Owner, additional right-of-way along
Rochester Ave and N. Scott Blvd, the area of which shall be determined by the City
Engineer in a form approved by the City Attorney.
2. The final plat for any of the above -described land shall incorporate traffic calming devices in
locations approved by and designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
Next steps would include upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a
public hearing will be scheduled for consideration by City Council. The anticipated timeline would
be at the July 12, 2022 meeting Council votes to hold a public hearing and at the August 2, 2022
meeting Council there is a public hearing and first consideration.
Hensch has a question regarding the request for the waiver to decrease width of the residential
lots to less than 60 feet, was there a reason for that other than just to put more lots in there.
Walsh stated the reason was when they had the applicant put in the imaginary lot lines, it
showed that the units they had proposed would not be able to accommodate a 60 foot lot width
and so to make sure that they could fit the units proposed, they requested a waiver which will
require the garage setback and they later submitted floor plans which showed all of the garages
would be recessed.
Hensch also asked about woodlands, with 49.9% of the woodlands being disturbed does any of
the development ordinances address replacement of woodlands. Russett replied there is a
mitigation requirement if the impact is above 50% but since they're below that threshold, there is
no mitigation required for the woodlands.
Townsend asked if any of these new units being developed are considered affordable housing.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 6, 2022
Page 6 of 15
Hektoenn stated nothing is obligating them to provide affordable housing, whether they choose
to or not, it's up to them, but it's not part of this process.
Padron asked why a change was made on the corner. Walsh explained that would be to
accommodate the requested additional right-of-way for a potential future roundabout. After Public
Works contacted the applicant they noticed that the 40-foot setback would not be met along the
entirety of that right-of-way, which is the need for the requested modification. Russett added that
request that was not included in the agenda packet as it was a new request that came up on
Friday after the packet was published and the Public Works staff had provided a sketch of the
amount of right-of-way they needed for the roundabout.
Craig had a question about the trail to the park, which is quite long and goes over water and it
goes through the Harvest Preserve area, which is her understanding is private land and the
public don't have access to Harvest Preserve, so how's that going to work. Walsh deferred to
the applicant to answer that question.
Hektoen noted there's a conservation easement that is necessitated by the mitigation activity that
was required, so the public will be able to walk on that trail even if the trail will still be on private
land.
Craig understands why it's preferred that both the entrance/exit options are coming from
Rochester, but to not even have a pedestrian option over to Scott Boulevard seems less than
ideal. Russett noted staff did have conversations about access but noted it's really hard with the
environmental resources on this site, and Harvest Preserve to the north, to have an
interconnected street network. There's also an existing conservation easement in outlot A, that
restricts any street network to the west. A very small portion of the development actually fronts
Scott Boulevard so providing access to Scott Boulevard would have required a change in the
rezoning boundary, and it would have also impacted the wetland that's within outlot C.
Craig noted there's a lot of jointly held land here, she assumes there's going to be a
homeowner's association or something that has to take care of all those acres and it just
concerns her when the next derecho comes through and half the trees are laying on the ground,
who's going to take care of it or invasive species and all that. She feels the City needs to have
something that addresses those things.
Signs asked if the sidewalk that's existing on Scott Boulevard goes all the way from Rochester
north or does it stop. Walsh confirmed it does go all the way. Signs asked about on Rochester
along the southern border this property, is there an existing sidewalk. Russett confirmed one will
be required as part of this project.
Signs also asked to confirm the trail to Calder Park will include a public easement which will
allow the public to go through the trail. Is that conservation easement already in existence.
Walsh explained the outlots would be placed into conservation easements at final platting, which
would restrict them from any future development.
Craig and just wanted to reinforce her point, who's going to plow that trail in the wintertime.
Russett replied the trail will be maintained by the City.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 6, 2022
Page 7 of 15
Padron noted the proposed sidewalk on Rochester doesn't look as wide as the sidewalk on Scott
Boulevard, why aren't' the sidewalk going to be the same size. Russett is not actually sure, in
certain instances the City requires wider sidewalks and they did with the development of Scott,
but for Rochester, she doesn't believe they would be requiring anything more than five feet.
Hektoen added City policy is usually that one side of the street has the wider sidewalk.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Mike Welch (Welch Design and Development) representing the developer, the developer, Joe
Clark is here as well as Heather Ropp from Ewing Properties in case there are specific questions
about Ewing properties on lot 65. Welch began by noting Walsh did a great job in the staff report
hitting the high points, but Welch wanted to talk about the process they've gone through over the
last few months with staff and then also with the Good Neighbor meeting they had. An important
piece of this development and this project was the iterative nature, and they did a really good job
of working through issues. As alluded to, they talked about the possibility for access off Scott
Boulevard and looked at that both from a sensitive areas for topography and wetlands, and just
from general logistics, and getting that connection proved to be exceedingly difficult with the
street grades that they would have ended up with and they wouldn't be code compliant with
those and the landowner was interested in keeping the northeast corner of the development not
developed. Another important point is their north boundary is the south boundary of Harvest
Preserve and the land that they're developing is actually not owned by Harvest Preserve but it's
owned by an entity called Monument Farms. So there are two separate entities in that
conservation easement. The conservation easement does stop at that north boundary of the
development and Harvest Preserve does own currently the piece of land in the northwest corner,
but it's not part of their overall conservation area. Welch noted at the good neighbor meeting a lot
of the public didn't understand that too, that there was a line where Harvest Preserve stops, and
it doesn't continue all the way to Rochester Avenue. That took some people by surprise at that
Good Neighbor meeting. Welch showed the Commission what they had presented at the Good
Neighbor meeting. On the photo the white boxes are what they're showing as currently
corresponding with the lots, they did have those six homes fronting on Rochester, they have
been required to have rear access off the back and then a little narrower, smaller house, and
they were bringing those in as a way to further increase that housing diversity in Iowa City and
get a different price point house wise. At that meeting with the neighbors, which was really well
attended (they had 24 homeowners sign in, which included husbands and wives or two people
on the same address sign in) and a lot of good questions came from the neighbors. Welch noted
the biggest takeaway they got was questions about traffic, questions about woodland impacted
but the one that really stood out was the six lots on Rochester and what the impact would be for
people who live south of Rochester and are used to looking at that wooded area which would
now go away and they would see houses. Welch stated the development team regrouped after
that meeting and looked at the feedback and felt like given that opposition and the concerns,
they eliminated those six lots from the development. The other piece that came up in talking to
staff and understanding it a little bit better is that existing conservation easement precludes any
utilities from crossing it and any trail or any kind of access so that forced them to take and snake
that trail around to the north and to do that they work closely with Harvest Preserve. It took a few
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 6, 2022
Page 8 of 15
days but they got an agreement in place to allow that pedestrian access across that piece of land
to get that connection to Calder Park.
Welch noted they're really excited about this project, not only is it good for the people who live
over on the north side of Rochester, or Ralston Creek, as gives them a way to get to the south,
but for the people who end up living in the development, whether they're in the single family
homes, or in Ewing's parcel on the corner, to have access to a neighborhood park is a really nice
benefit. It also provides a nice scenic trail that then follows Hickory Trail into Hickory Hill Park,
just down the road. The other piece that they think is really good about that connection is an
elementary school student who goes to Lemme has a way to connect through and cut through
and walk to school. For those who aren't school age, but maybe want to go get a Dairy Queen, it
takes three quarters a mile off the walk by going on the trail. As one of the neighbors said, now
he can take his ebike to Blackstone so there's lots of benefits for all ages.
Welch also wanted to highlight the scale of this development in the scale of the overall
neighborhood. Their development is 65 acres, they're removing 14 acres of woodland, but
there's 33 acres that's been set aside in those outlots which will be conserved forever. It was
important to note the balance of development versus preserving what's there. This is essentially
an infill development, taking that last piece that's available there, and making use of road and
utility infrastructure that's there. The other piece important to highlight is outlot B is the only piece
of this property that has mature trees on it. Looking at the aerial photos, going back to the 30s,
this area was pasture. The archeological study shows that there were two farmsteads close to
Rochester Avenue and if you go back through and poke around, you can find some of the
remnants of those there. But most of this land was pasture at some point, other than the woods
in outlot B and that's the original mature trees that are being preserved.
Welch addressed the question about the trail and crossing Ralston Creek. He stated they will be
doing the study as part of the planning process to determine if that's a bridge or a culvert and
look at what they need to do. There'll be DNR and Corps of Engineer permitting required for that.
Same with the wetland impacts that they do have, they've started that permitting process with the
Core for those mitigation impacts, they're mitigating off site and that's the Corps of Engineers
preferred method for that wetland mitigation, they will be taking advantage of the wetland banks
that exist now in the Johnson County area.
Hensch noted Welch said that on outlot B those trees existed pre-1930s aerial photographs and
the remainder was all pastureland so that's just trees that have voluntarily grown up since that
time since the pastures have been taken away. Welch confirmed that was correct and noted it's
actually pretty dramatic looking at the 90s and on.
Hensch asked if they did a tree inventory. Welch stated as far as the woodland areas, they use
the aerial mapping to determine those boundaries and a little bit of field survey. They did consult
with Impact 7G on the wetlands and as part of that they did a threatened and endangered
species analysis so they do have a little bit more information, and it's in their report as far as
what species are in there.
Speaking of trees, Hensch noticed one of the public comment comments was about having
Bradford Pears in the planting schematics. He just wondered where they got that. Welch agreed,
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 6, 2022
Page 9 of 15
he's not sure if those are in there, because typically the City Forester would not allow those to be
in there and the City Forester has reviewed the landscape plan.
Hensch noted Welch stated on the six houses that were originally proposed for Rochester he
asked if they were going to have a different price point. Were those going to be more affordably
priced. Welch stated just based on the lot size, because they were fronting Rochester and they
can't get driveway access directly onto Rochester, they would have been rear loaded with a
shared drive, allowed a smaller footprint house on those six lots.
Hensch stated merely because this is an area that he finds very curious, the main concerns the
adjacent property owners had was it would interfere with their view shed. Welch confirmed and
added it was the impacts of those houses on their property values and their views.
Heather Ropp (Regional Director for Ewing Properties) covers the eastern Iowa territory. She
noted they currently have two communities complete in the Johnson County area and one under
construction in North Liberty. What they are proposing here on the east side is 55 and above
housing, it's an ownership model, so these aren't rentals and don't become Airbnb's, these are
owned and operated and controlled by the owners or the members that live there. They are
shareholders buying a share into the entire property. They are going to have a mix of individual
homes, patio homes (slab on grade homes), optional basements, universal design concepts,
designed to age in place. They're also going to add a few duplexes in there, just so they can get
some more density on the site again, universal design concept, duplexes, and then a two-story
building which sits at the corner of Rochester and Scott. The units will be ranging in size from
1000 square feet up to potentially 1800 square feet. Again, the universal design concept
designed to age in place with underground parking. The entire community will enjoy the
common spaces that will be on the property, in the two-story building there will be a great room,
there will be a workshop in the garage area, in the clubhouse a fitness center, an outdoor grilling
area, meeting spaces, game rooms, and other activities to do. They are really promoting this as
community and building beautiful places to live. Their mission is to provide a community where
people know each other and they interact, it is known that as people get older sometimes they
lose that social aspect of their life and they are here to bring that back to the people in the
community.
Hensch asked how many units they are hoping to build there. Ropp replied it's 28 or 29 in the
two-story building, 12 individual homes and then 6 homes in the duplexes.
Hensch asked about the only 55 and over. Ropp replied the state of Iowa has a law that 20% of
that population can be under the age of 55, but over the age of 18, but there are minimum
income requirements to financially qualify to live in any of their communities.
Craig had a question about parking noting the visitor parking for 37 units seems inadequate.
Can people park on the street there. Ropp noted the two-story building will have heated
underground parking so the people that are shareholders in the building will have a dedicated
parking spot below and it should allow for a second car parking below. The garages will have
attached two car garages and then they'll have some driveway access and then they usually try
to allow for a common parking area near the clubhouse for visitors. She hasn't really seen a
parking plan yet to give any input on that.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 6, 2022
Page 10 of 15
Craig noted if they got three book clubs meeting on the same night, they are in trouble. Welch
noted the street is a 26 foot wide private drive so that's a typical city street and would allow for
parking on one side.
Signs asked if there is a pool in the clubhouse. Ropp said they are proposing an outdoor pool.
Padron noted this is all independent living so people will be able to purchase the properties, so
when someone passes away will the property go back to the company or can the family resell it.
Ropp explained being in a senior housing cooperative the members are the shareholders so
they're buying a share of the entire property. When somebody passes away, they can set it up
however they want, they can set it into a trust and state a transfer on death. When that happens,
it's the responsibility of the community manager to resell that person's share and it goes back to
the beneficiary named, but the transactions are all handled in house by the community manager
on site.
Padron asked then could someone younger come and stay or would it always have to be
someone 55 and over. Ropp said visitors are definitely allowed and encouraged but to live there
full time, residents have to be over the age of 18. This is a senior community with ownership 55
and above, but visitors that are staying with somebody for a long term have to be over the age of
18. Grandkids and guests can come visit, but to live there long-term they must be over age 18.
Craig asked what the vision for the maintenance of all the woodlands is. Welch stated that would
be monitored by the homeowner's association with the typical language that invasive species
removal can happen, dead trees can be taken down, and it can be used for recreational
purposes, but someone can't come in and just start clearing or anything like that. Ropp added
their community is maintenance free, the community manager and maintenance technician on
site will be handling all the maintenance of the members living there, not only outside the home,
but everything inside the home as well.
Padron asked regarding the heating parking underneath the two-story building, will there be solar
panels or EV charging station for cars or anything like that. Ropp said they will probably put in
those things as requested. If some of the early people that purchase have an electric vehicle,
they will work with them and plan on that. Since the garage in a co-op is a community space,
they would have to figure out how to monitor or meter that outlet specifically for use of an electric
car but it is definitely something they'll consider. In the individual homes and duplexes, that's
something if people purchase early, they can build into the construction.
Joe Clark (Developer) is also present to answer questions.
Padron noted sometimes the trails can be very hidden and then people don't really know that
they are there to use them. Are they planning on having a sign or something to identify the trails.
Clark replied that's going to be on the City as to what sort of sign they want coming in. He thinks
the City could probably put something over at Calder Park that says there's trails going back
through there. They'll probably need to be a connection from Hickory and Tamarack that comes
down through Calder Park so he's guessing people will see the trail heading down through there.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 6, 2022
Page 11 of 15
Lawrence Luebbert (3269 Rochester Avenue) has lived there for 22 years, the house he built
was a parade home in 2000. Before he bought that lot, he researched the whole area about what
was to go in there and it's been great because he's had wildlife, too much wildlife actually, all
these years. But he thinks this is a great plan and likes the idea. In terms of the trees and the
land, there were cows across the street when he bought his house, it was all grassland and cow
pasture. He was a little bit concerned about the small houses, he thought that was awful tight
because of the terrain but that sounds like that's gone. He is also a fairly serious bicycle rider so
the trail will be nice. It's just a really good layout for the area.
Rex Clemmensen (15 Heron Circle) is a neighbor of Luebbert's and also likes the development
but has one concern and that is the corner where Heron runs into Rochester. Because Heron is
a cul-de-sac that's the only way they can get out and he looked at the traffic study and it says it's
going to be 831 more trips, about 300 more cars. Also it decided at that intersection the average
wait time would increase by nine tenths of a second which he finds wildly implausible because all
these cars that are going to be coming out on there and there's just a stop sign on either side.
While he's in favor of development, he would like to see on the senior center where the private
drive is, it looks like there's a short shot out to Scott Boulevard. He understands why they can't
do it in the far northeast but why not there where it would alleviate some of the congestion at that
corner. The study may say that is not that busy of intersection, but it can be busy in the mornings
and at night. If there is traffic on Rochester, those on Heron are going to wait some time to get on
there and they have no other way to get out except there. So he'd suggest either doing a little
blurb out of there to Rochester or at the minimum take Rochester Avenue to three lanes all the
way back to Tetons Circle, so they can at least have a turn lane to get out of there. He's afraid
people are going to be waiting at that intersection all day.
Luebbert noted he has a point, he's complained to the city a number of times about Rochester
strip after dark coming from that four way stop. He's seen cars doing 50-60 miles an hour
through there.
Craig noted the City is reserving the option someday of putting a roundabout there and that
might actually help that kind of thing.
Jo Scott (608 Larch Lane) stated she doesn't have any objection to the plan and thinks it looks
really pretty good. She is glad that they took the six houses out, that would have been her
objection because that would impact their area. The one thing that she thinks about when she
looks at the number of homes in here is the traffic on Rochester, the speed limit right now is 35.
She would hope that the City would change that speed limit to 25 as it is already hard for them to
get out of their area, people do just come flying down Rochester. She hopes that if this
development is approved, they will seriously consider lowering that speed limit to 25 with that
much traffic that this would entail.
Hensch noted unfortunately as much as they'd like to this Commission doesn't have the authority
to reduce speed limits but that is certainly something that they can address the City with and ask.
Unfortunately, studies have shown that lowering the speed limit does not slow down traffic, it's
other factors that actually slow down the traffic, not the speed limits. When this goes forward to
the City Council, that would be a time to bring up the speed limits.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 6, 2022
Page 12 of 15
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend approval of REZ22-0008, a proposal to rezone approximately
64.37 acres of land located north of Rochester Avenue and west of North Scott Boulevard
from Interim Development Single -Family Residential to Low Density Single -Family
Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and 0.31 acres to OPD/ID-RS
zone subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of building permit, Owner shall:
• Dedicate an access easement agreement to allow access to Lot 66 as shown on
the Preliminary Planned Development and Sensitive Areas Development Plan.
• Dedicate a public access easement agreement to allow a public trail from the
proposed development to Calder Park as shown on the Preliminary Planned
Development and Sensitive Areas Development Plan.
• Install the 10' wide trail connection shown on the Preliminary Planned
Development and Sensitive Areas Development Plan.
• Dedicate to the City, with no compensation to Owner, additional right-of-way
along Rochester Ave and N. Scott Blvd, the area of which shall be determined by
the City Engineer in a form approved by the City Attorney.
2. The final plat for any of the above -described land shall incorporate traffic calming
devices in locations approved by and designed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer
Townsend seconded the motion.
Hensch noted when he saw this drawing, it reminded him of the development on Cherry Street,
that new development going on Cherry between Pepper and Gilbert, it has multiple family,
townhouses and a looped road with single family dwellings and that's progressing very nicely
there. That pushed him to be predisposed to this because it reminded him so much of it.
Additionally the neighbors' concerns have largely been addressed, traffic is always an issue and
that's why people need to be persistent, addressing the City Council. He will support this
application.
Signs wanted to commend everyone involved in this project, he doesn't recall ever having seen a
proposal that matched the Comprehensive Plan and the neighborhood plan vision so well. He
commends them for doing this conservation design, preserving the sensitive areas and the
woodlands and trying to maximize space and that's why he don't have a problem with smaller
lots because that's the price to pay to get some more open space. He is very supportive of this
project, he is always concerned about these outlots, because they always say the outlots are just
going to be there and then five years later someone comes with a plan for the outlot. He doesn't
see anything in here that requires conservation easements but will trust that staff is going it taken
care of along the way. He also noted this may be the first time they've had a development of this
size where neighbors were all generally supportive of the project so that speaks a lot to the
quality of it.
Craig noted she is an eastsider and likes all this development on this side of town. The
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 6, 2022
Page 13 of 15
combination of senior living with the single-family housing is a good one. She wishes there was
an affordable option but understands why it was taken out. She is in support of the plan.
Padron agrees that she would like to have seen those six units that were going to be affordable
to stay. Senior living is a big issue as big as affordable housing here in Iowa City, Oaknoll has a
very long wait list, but thinks the affordable units should have stayed in in the project.
Townsend noted it wasn't considered affordable housing, it was less pricey housing. So that is
different from affordable.
Padron agreed but noted they need affordability for different income levels. They have to
remember that affordability is needed for all income levels, not only for lower income people.
Townsend agreed it's great that there are some finally some 55 and over housing that isn't just
dependent living because there are quite a few seniors that enjoy being able to do what they
want to do and still have a place they can call their own. So this is a great project for the more
mature adults.
Padron had one more comment, that corner at Scott and Rochester can get very, very busy.
Maybe the City can think about adding a light there or something because it's a four way stop
sign and it can get really busy especially very early in the morning and at five. Adding more cars
to the traffic is going to have an impact.
Hensch agrees, four-way stops are so inefficient because everyone just sits there and looks at
each other.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JUNE 15, 2022:
Craig moved to approve the meeting minutes of June 15, 2022.
Townsend seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett gave one update from the last City Council meeting. Council adopted the code cleanup
text amendment that was all the minor code changes approved at the last meeting.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Motion by Townsend and seconded by Signs for Hensch to remain Commission Chair. A vote
was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 6, 2022
Page 14 of 15
Motion by Townsend and seconded by Elliott for Signs to become Vice -Chair. A vote was taken
and the motion passed 4-1-1.
Motion by Craig and seconded by Signs for Townsend to become Secretary. A vote was taken
and the motion passed 6-0.
ADJOURNMENT:
Elliott moved to adjourn.
Townsend seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
Z
O
NO
20
OU
ULU`y
0 N
Z W N
Z Z N
N
N N
06 Z
W
Z_ H
Z Q
Z
Q
J
a