HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-08-07 Public hearingNOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will
be held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at
7:00 p.m. on the 71" day of August 2018, in Emma
J. Harvat Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa
City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the
next meeting of the City Council thereafter as
posted by the City Clerk; at which hearing the
Council will consider:
An ordinance conditionally rezoning
approximately 18.03 acres from Interim
Development Multifamily Residential (ID -
RM) zone to Planned Development
Overlay/Low Density Single Family
Residential (OPD/ RS -5) zone (5.8
acres) and Planned Development
Overlay/Low Density Multifamily
Residential (OPD -12) zone (12.23
acres) located east of S. Gilbert Street
and west of Sandusky Drive (REZ18-
00005).
Copies of the proposed ordinances and
resolutions are on file for public examination in the
office of the City Clerk, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa.
Persons wishing to make their views known for
Council consideration are encouraged to appear
at the above-mentioned time and place.
Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk
08-07-18
4a
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ18-00005/SUB18-00005
Cherry Creek Subdivision
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Bob Miklo
Date: May 17, 2018
Bedrock, LLC
3500 Dolphin Drive
Iowa City, IA 52240
Contact: Kelly Beckler
MMS Consultants
1917 S. Gilbert Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Requested Action
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
Neighborhood Open Space District:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Rezoning from ID -RM to OPD -5 and ODP/RM-12
and preliminary sensitive areas development plan
and plat approval.
To allow development of 13 single family lots, 31
townhouse style multifamily dwellings and 2 36 -unit
multifamily buildings.
S. Gilbert Street and Cherry Street
18.03 acres
Undeveloped
North: residential and agricultural - ID -RM
South: residential — RS-5/OHD
East: residential — RS -5
West: Napoleon Park— P1
South District Pian — residential 2- 8 dwelling units
per acre
S1- Wetherby
May 7, 2018
June 20, 2018
This property was annexed into the city between 1960 and 1966. Since 1983 it has been zoned
Intern Development — Multifamily (RM -12). The applicant has requested that the property be
rezoned to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Single Family Residential (RS -5) for 4.02
acres and Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM -12) for 14.01
acres. A Level If Sensitive Areas Review, the Planned Development Overlay zone, is required due
to proposed disturbance of previously altered protected slopes, construction of stormwater
management facilities with a protected slope area, removal of more than 50% of the woodlands in
the proposed RS -5 area and more than 80% of the woodland in the proposed RM -12 area. The
applicant is also requesting approval of Cherry Creek Subdivision, a 17 -lot, 18.03 -acre residential
subdivision.
The applicant recently removed trees from the property prior to approval a Sensitive Areas Plan.
The proposed Sensitive Areas Plan proposes to plant replacement trees as part of this
development.
The applicant has indicated that they have conducted a Good Neighbor Meeting.
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning: The purpose of the Interim Development Zone (ID) is to provide for areas of
managed growth in which agricultural and other non -urban uses of land may continue until such
time as the City is able to provide City services and urban development can occur. Upon provision
of City services, the City or the property owner may initiate rezoning to zones consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
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 — RS -5: The applicant has requested that 4.02 acres located on the south and east side
of the development be rezoned from ID to Low Density Single Family with a Planned Development
Overlay for sensitive areas (OPD/RS-5). The Low Density Single -Family Residential Zone (RS -
5) is primarily intended to provide housing opportunities for individual households. The
minimum lot size in the RS -5 zone is 8,000 square feet with a minimum lot width of 60 feet. The
proposed lots range in size from 8,164 square feet to 15,404 square feet. All lots meet the
minimum 60 -foot lot width. The density of 3.24 acres is comparable to typical RS -5 subdivisions
and is similar to the density of the Pepperwood Subdivision, which is located to the east. In
staffs view, the proposed OPD/RS-5 plan is compatible with the adjacent development and
provides for a transition to the higher density multifamily development proposed to the west.
RM -12: For the remaining 14.01 acres, the applicant is proposing Low Density Multifamily with
a Planned Development Overlay for sensitive areas (OPD/RM-12). The purpose of the Low
Density Multi -Family Residential Zone (RM -12) is to provide forthe development of high density,
single-family housing and low density, multi -family housing. This zone is intended to provide a
diverse variety of housing options in neighborhoods throughout the City. Careful attention to site
and building design is important to ensure that the various housing types in any one location
are compatible with one another.
:^.rithin the proposed OPD/P.M-12 zone the applicant is proposing two 36 -unit multifamily
buildings to the east of Gilbert Street, with driveway access to the proposed extension of Cherry
Avenue. An additional 31 townhouse style multifamily dwellings are proposed to be located on
Cherry Avenue and Toby Circle. The proposed townhouse style dwellings provide a transition
between the single-family neighborhood and the two proposed apartment buildings adjacent to
Gilbert Street. The larger apartment buildings would be approximately 800 feet to the west of
the existing single-family homes.
After removing street right-of-way the overall density of the proposed RM -12 area is 8.35 units
per acre. When combined with the RS -5 area the overall density of the proposed development
is 7.5 units per acre and is within the 2-8 dwelling units per acre shown on the Comprehensive
Plan for this area. As discussed below, the South District Plan element of the Comprehensive
Plan encourages the clustering of development on this property.
Land uses proposed and general layout - The planned development process encourages a mix
of housing types and allows the flexibility to locate those housing types in a manner that fits the
site, The land uses proposed are single-family units, townhouse style multifamily buildings with 3
to 5 dwellings per building, and 2 larger 36 -unit multifamily buildings with lower level parking. The
layout of the streets and buildings have been designed to provide a transition from the existing
single-family homes in the Pepperwood Addition and the larger apartment buildings proposed
near Gilbert Street. Woodlands and slopes provide a buffer betweenthis and the adjacent
properties to the north and south.
Mass and Scale - The proposed single family lots are subject to the same RS -5 standards
regarding setbacks, lot coverage, and building height as the existing lots in the Pepperwood
Addition. The townhouse buildings include 4 design options with a variety of building materials
and roof lines to prevent a monotonous streetscape.
The two larger multifamily buildings have been designed to generally comply with the multifamily
design standards, including facade articulation and variation of the roof line. The stone veneer
and wood siding are intended to complement the natural environment.
Open space - Lots 2 and 3 will contain over 2 acres of protected open space. However, most of
that area contains steep slopes and woodlands and will have limited use for active recreation.
The applicant has shown two areas adjacent to the 36 -unit buildings on lots 1 and 2 for use of the
residents of those buildings. Staff recommends that the plan provide details regard the square
footage of those areas, and any amenities, such as outdoor dining space and playground
equipment.
Traffic circulation - Cherry Avenue will provide street access for the property to Gilbert Street, an
arterial street with sufficient capacity for the projected traffic. Based on the Institute of Traffic
Engineers Trip Generation Handbook (9"' Edition), the development(as proposed with 116
dwelling units) will generate approximately 778 vehicle trips per weekday. In 2014, Gilbert Street
had an average daily traffic count of approximately 6,700 vehicles per day (Iowa DOT). Given that
the capacity of a four -lane minor arterial street is more than 30,000 trips per day, the additional
traffic generated by the development alone will not over -burden Gilbert Street.
While some of the traffic generated may choose to use Sandusky Drive for access, it is anticipated
that a majority of the traffic will access Cherry Avenue via Gilbert Street. Additionally, the
connection of Cherry Avenue from Sandusky Drive to Gilbert Street will provide an alternative
street access for the Pepperwood subdivisions and will improve access for emergency and
service vehicles.
As discussed below under #4. traffic calming features are being included on Cherry Avenue.
Based on this information, in staff's vlew the density and design of the Planned Development will
be compatible with and complementary to adjacent development In terms of land use, building
mass and scale, relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout.
2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities.
City sewer and water is available to this property. Capacity is adequate to accommodate
development of these additional dwelling units. Onsite stormwater management is required.
The applicant is proposing to build two stormwater basins in the ravine located along the north
property line. Preliminary storm water calculations reviewed by the City Engineer Indicate that
the capacity of the proposed storm water basins are adequate to handle the projected run-off
from the site.
The ravine in which the stormwater facilities is proposed, contains protected slopes. Currently
the ravine is subject to severe erosion. Construction of the stormwater facilities will be designed
to correct current erosion and prevent future erosion. As noted below the sensitive areas
provisions of the zoning code allow essential utilities including stormwater facilities to be
constructed within with protected areas, if they are designed to protect against erosion, pollution
and habitat disturbance, and result in minimal amounts of excavation and filling. After
installation of the facilities, the sensitive protected areas and associated buffers must be
restored by the developer. Because part of the stormwater facilities will be located on the
adjacent property to the north, an off-site easement will be necessary at time of final plat
approval.
Gilbert Street has capacity to serve the proposed development and Cherry Avenue will improve
traffic connectivity for the area. Based on this information, it is staffs view that the development
will not overburden existing streets and utilities.
3. The development will not adversely affect views, liaht and air, property values and privacy of
neighboring properties any more than would a conventional development
While the proposed development will be a significant change to what has been appreciated for
many years by surrounding neighbors as open space, staff finds that the proposed development
is not a significant departure from what would be allowed for a conventional development with
regard to views, light and air, property values, and privacy of neighboring properties. The
proposed RS -5 lots (lots 416) will provide a transition from the existing single-family homes
within the Pepperwood Addition to the townhouse style buildings and the larger apartment
buildings to the west. The apartment buildings will be built down slope from the existing
neighborhood and this should help ameliorate the visual effect of these larger buildings.
The property to the south is the historic McCollister Farm, which contains a historic house and
a recently constructed single-family dwelling. These two properties contain a significant amount
of open space and woodlands that screen them from the proposed development. Because the
McCollister Farm is a designated historic landmark, further development is not anticipated.
The property to the north contains Friendly Farm, an organic agricultural use. The ravine on the
north side of this property continues onto the Friendly Farm property. The portion of the ravine
on this property contains protect slopes and will be within a conservation easement preventing
further development. This will provide a wooded buffer between the proposed Cherry Creek
Subdivision and the Friendly Farm property.
Based on this information, in staffs view the development will 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 the
purposes of this Title, and with other building regulations of the City.
All planned developments must comply with all the applicable requirements and standards of
the underlying zoning district and the subdivision regulations, unless specifically waived or
modified through the planned development process. Variations to the dimensional requirements
of the underlying base zone and subdivision regulations are allowed:
• to facilitate the provision of desired neighborhood amenities or open space;
• to preserve or protect natural, historic, or cultural features;
• to achieve compatibility with surrounding development; or
• to create a distinctive or innovative neighborhood environment for area residents.
The application Includes a request for reduction of the standard collector street width of 31 feet
down to 28 feet on Cherry Avenue. Staff recommended this reduction to provide traffic calming
for Cherry Avenue, which will carry traffic from Sandusky Drve to Gilbert Street. Traffic circles
are also proposed on Cherry Avenue in two locations where it will intersect with Toby Circle.
The intent is allow Cherry Avenue to provide neighborhood street connectivity, but to discourage
its use a cut through and to calm speeds of vehicles using the street. Staff finds that the proposal
to reduce the pavement width from 31 feet to 28 feet is reasonable given the goal of traffic
calming for this street.
Pedestrian Facilities: Planned developments must include pedestrian facilities to ensure that
residents and visitors have access to public streets and sidewalks, building entrances, parking
areas, shared open spaces, natural areas, and other amenities. In addition, providing street trees
and a variety of building facades that address the street with visible doors and windows make for
a more comfortable environment along the street for pedestrians. Staff finds that the sidewalks,
building designs, and street trees proposed will meet the standard described above.
Public Open Space Requirement: Based on the 4.02 acres proposed for Low Density Single -
Family Residential zone and the 14.01 acres proposed for Low Density Multifamily Residential
zone, the applicant would be required to dedicate 1 acre of land or pay fees in lieu of land. The
Parks and Recreation Commission will review this application and make a recommendation
regarding the dedication of open space or fees. However, given the steep topography of this area
it is unlikely that there is land that is suitable for a public park. Staff recommends that fees be
collected in lieu of the dedication of open space.
The fee can be used for acquisition of new park land or improvements to existing parks within the
Wetherby (S1) open space district, including Wetherby Park and Sand Prairie Park. The fee will
be equal to the fair market value of the land that otherwise would have been required for
dedication. The fee must be paid in full by the developer prior to the issuance of the first building
permit for any lot within the development.
Private Shared Open Space: Large portions of lots 2 and 3 contain protected slopes and
woodlands. A smaller are of woodland is contained on the north portion of lot 4. These areas
should be labeled as conservation easements. At the time of final plat approval, the applicant
must submit a legally binding instrument setting forth the procedures and financing structure to
be followed for maintaining the stormwater facilities and the surrounding conservation easement,
The developer has indicated that a homeowner's association will be established to maintain the
common areas. The details of this arrangement will need to be addressed in the legal papers
submitted when the final planned development plan is submitted.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The South District Pian encourages development of
neighborhoods with a mix of housing types to allow for housing options. Although the
predominant land use in the area will remain detached single-family housing, new neighborhoods
should provide opportunities for townhouses, duplexes as well as multifamily buildings to serve
residents throughout their lifetimes. The South District Plan contemplated locations where
opportunities for higher density housing and clustered density should be allowed, noting: "West
of the Pepperwood Subdivision, wooded slopes make traditional development impractical. In this
area, the 2 to 8 dwelling units per acre envisioned on the land use map on page 53 could be
clustered through an overlay planned development. Such development would rely on an
extension of Cherry Street, which will provide improved connectivity and circulation for the single-
family neighborhood to the east by allowing residents more direct street access to South Gilbert
Street."
The South District Plan indicates that property along the east side of Gilbert Street, south of the
railroad, may be appropriate for town -home or other small lot or duplex development. Additional
density may be considered for projects that add a unique housing element or that enhance
housing diversity for the South District or that otherwise contribute to the connectivity of
neighborhoods or enhance visibility and street access to public parks and other open space. The
extension of Cherry Avenue will provide an important east -west connection allowing neighbors
more direct access to Gilbert Street and the parks and trails located to the west of Gilbert Street.
Sensitive Areas Review: The applicant has applied for approval of a Sensitive Areas
Development, a type of planned development. The purpose of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is
to permit and define the reasonable use of properties that contain sensitive environmental
features and natural resources, and allowing reasonable development while protecting these
resources from damage. The following paragraphs describe the impact this development will have
on the sensitive features of this site.
Steep. Critical, and Protected Slopes - The purpose of regulating development on and near steep
slopes is to:
1. Promote safety In the design and construction of developments;
2. Minimize flooding, landslides and mudslides;
3. Minimize soil instability, erosion and downstream siltation; and
4. Preserve the scenic character of hillside areas, particularly wooded hillsides.
The applicant is proposing to grade protected slopes to allow installation of stormwater
management facilities and to grade areas that appear to be humanly altered protected slopes.
Disturbance of protected slopes and or protected slope buffers trigger the requirement of this Level
11 Sensitive Areas Review with Planning and Zoning Commission review and City Council approval
required.
Development activity is not allowed on protected slopes or in the 50 -foot buffer required around
protected slopes, unless the slopes were previously humanly altered. In addition, disturbance of
altered protected slopes or a reduction of a protected slope buffer may only be approved if a
geologist or professional engineer demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the proposed
development activity can and will be designed to eliminate hazards and will not undermine the
stability of the slope or the buffer area.
The applicant has indicated that the protect slopes adjacent to Gilbert Street have been humanly
altered and is requesting permission to encroach into protected slope and buffer areas. There is
evidence that this assessment is correct. When Gilbert Street was reconstructed several years ago,
it appears that grading was done for the street and to provide fill material. Staff from the City
Engineer's office visited the property and based on the angle of the slope and the pattern of trees
(younger volunteer trees being present on the previously disturbed areas) concurs with this
assessment.
The applicant is also proposing to remove trees and grade portions of protected slope and buffer
areas located within the ravine on the north side of this property and on the adjacent property to
allow for the installation of stormwater management facilities. As noted above under #2. the ravine
is currently subject to severe erosion. Construction of the stormwater facilities will be designed to
correct current erosion and prevent future erosion. The sensitive areas provisions of the zoning
code allow essential utilities including stormwater facilities to be constructed within with protected
areas, if they are designed to protect against erosion, pollution and habitat disturbance, and result
in minimal amounts of excavation and filling. After installation of the facilities, the sensitive protected
areas and associated buffers must be restored by the developer. Because part of the stormwater
facilities will be located on the adjacent property to the north, an off-site easement will be necessary
at time of final plat approval.
Staff recommends that healthy, mature trees located in or near the ravine be preserved and
protected from construction activity to the extent possible. A tree protection plan should be
submitted and approved at the time of the final OPD plan. Provided all conditions are satisfied to
prevent erosion, ensure long term stability of the slopes, and the structural integrity of the proposed
buildings, staff finds that the proposed encroachment into what appear to be previously altered
slopes is reasonable.
Woodlands: The property contained approximately 13 acres of woodland (11.28 acres in the area
proposed for RM -12 and 1.85 acres in the area proposed for RS -5). The applicant recently removed
woodlands portions of the property prior to receiving approval of a sensitive areas plan. The
applicant claims that he was unaware of the woodland retention requirements and that trees that
were removed were undesirable or unhealthy. Photographs dating back as recent to 1990 show
that portions of the the area was once farmed and contained few trees. However more recent
photographs indicate extensive tree coverage. The applicants engineer has provided a plan
estimating the extent of previous woodlands on the property. The ordinance requires that if more
than 50% of a woodland in an RS -5 zone is remove, replacement trees must be planted at a ratio
of 1 tree per every 200 feet of woodland disturbance. For properties zoned RM -12, 20% of the
woodlands must be retained or replacement trees must be planted. The proposed Sensitive Areas
Plan includes a tree replacement plan. Staff recommends that City Forester review and approval of
the tree replacement plan prior to final plat approval.
Archeological sites: The Sensitive Areas section of the zoning code considers the preservation
archaeological sites as well as natural features. The applicant has already initiated some
development activity on the site. Meanwhile, the Office of the State Archaeologist has indicated
that four archaeological sites have been reported within 100 meters of the development site. Due
the density of known archaeological sites in the surrounding area, there is sufficient likelihood that
other undiscovered or undocumented site may be present within the development area that the
OSA recommends a field investigation by a professional archaeological consultant prior to the
commencement of ground disturbing activities (e.g. grading). Staff therefore recommends that as
a condition of approval the applicant hire an archaeologist approved by the state to complete a
study or excavation plan approved by the State.
Water Service: Water mains will need to be extended to serve this development. A water main
extension fee of $435.00 per acre is required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends deferral of this application pending resolution of
the deficiencies and discrepancies listed below. Upon resolution of deficiencies staff would
recommend approval of RFZ18-00005/SUB18-0005, an application submitted by Bedrock LLC for
a rezoning from ID -RM to OPD/RS-5 and OPDIRM-12 and a Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas
Development Plan for Cherry Creek Subdivision, a 17 -lot, 18.03 -acre residential subdivision
located east of Gilbert Street subject to City Forester review and approval of the tree replacement
1]
plan prior to final plat approval and applicant contracting with an archaeologist approved by the
state to complete a study or excavation plan.
DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES:
1. Side elevations are required for the all town house units.
2. Staff recommends that the plan provide details regarding the square footage of those
areas, and any amenities such as outdoor dining space and playground equipment.
3. The protected areas should be label as conservation easements.
4. The percent of steep slope, protected slope and protected slope buffer proposed to be
disturbed should be reported on page 4.
5. Percent of woodland to be retained needs to be clarified.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan
3. Zoning Exhibit
4. Building Elevation Drawings
e—�
Approved by:
Tracy Hights , Dire r,
Department of eighborhood and Development Services
ppdedminlffmp
r; .
DISTRURBED AREAS EXHIBIT
CHERRY CREEK SUBDIVISION
IOWA CITY, IOWA
AP
w.nu.
.a.o.s.
woaa�oun
1 r DURIM WJ
� I D61BIf
r
s
.-
9UBON1910
Iv
I
rcrm.rwn.i
mwoi
LEGEND AND NOTES
= i,mO1 IT �i�,o ui•=:aj 9Pi
°
uNs mim e,snc •1 wm®e.K w rm � x mm�e
-i%
0
00
Project Location Map
ZONING EXHIBIT
CHERRY CREEK SUBDIVISION
.,..m ,.. m
rJr. —. ..
IOWA CITY, IOWA
WScale
pcE n.w F i'BJew.u,Fw•:°.`mm a."..'
�^ mm w. br
.,waw..w..w,mw,,..mFi,w,raw.,w,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,�w,cw�«
A.•peR:
�,:1..
w.ewam.:r«..a.w.«.,ewmmea,wo.w,m,w.wvme,ra..m
yY __�
e.o•«rcrucwn..nw.wa•.Ywa w,<a.«ewwxcJm B.seu,s«oiwr,•cm.eaiecer°.
PLAT PREPARED BY: OWNER/APPUCANT:
-
MMS CONSULTANTS INC. BEDROCK LLC
1917 S. GILBERT STREET 3500DOLPHINGRSE
IOWA CITY. IA SnQ IOWA CITY. IA =0
RC wswm n
j -_• t,,: - I 1 ,'ice
Wks �TTAT
p1 ,w%5'%TIW
gym M` ,•„I
ro
I
z
F�ioM o- ToIR3
\ ` I
\ , ,err yu.c u•
a r.r�•r(rp,BwB�_ a„ wr••'•�M ..w� r• @-
a2lQ_ _ v: d yW i d 3 Srvp9� i O, " I D=�6N ti'uY`+'. 14f4
18.03 AC
M
M
s
CNt ENGNEEAS
LAND PJONERS
LAND SLRJEYORS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECMUSTS
,B„ S GlBER19i,
IGW4
P LrtK)U ybp
IJ,BI JUAN
w.«nv)em,mlMbJiel
ZONING
EXHIBIT
CHERRY CREEK
SUBDIVISION
IOWA CITY
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA r
3
3
MMS CONSULTANTS. INC.'a
0�7NB/18
aYd4 �•
sw.^.n «^
wv.4 11PB . ..
N Y..,
KAvacm
10304-001 ,
a :
,,iiw�-m, F niww.,,a,°m.n as m,wm�u
.,..m ,.. m
rJr. —. ..
<,'m:
. i» »'t°.xTw:,,.
WScale
pcE n.w F i'BJew.u,Fw•:°.`mm a."..'
�^ mm w. br
w�v
�;.wx, ,;
nAT
A.•peR:
�,:1..
„ aw
,FR
_ SI,, F u.. YVn•6 wiK•feN Y,mn„aaY m ay.Navt .ovw oaf Y uYn ,v
«zero. wm�.°.wm a.wr m r -,r
M KAT „A,
a°4.T
•"`.`nm..a :`,,, MioaFm� Y°ioa: a ATT 1.a 1a «„e vwos oY «, w.sw .1woiei aa„«w
RC wswm n
�J ���°�'�
Yv ..n Cvn.. M Stl WPI✓. M1eY w,wR
�'
Owv /�A..� ASF
L b T. Y,] V a1 11�lli.0 .'J T.
TxwxTA ITm,arwn , w ,.ems x x q.
m
•,[y
mz-A °1xT-T ,
��0'.IT
amm�, es..mian. N 01 b.• f1111.LT, M,'B n,.)Jma rte,, `— N,MUS.IYT ]M1J M 1 A..1 w HwXw4 Sue
j -_• t,,: - I 1 ,'ice
Wks �TTAT
p1 ,w%5'%TIW
gym M` ,•„I
ro
I
z
F�ioM o- ToIR3
\ ` I
\ , ,err yu.c u•
a r.r�•r(rp,BwB�_ a„ wr••'•�M ..w� r• @-
a2lQ_ _ v: d yW i d 3 Srvp9� i O, " I D=�6N ti'uY`+'. 14f4
18.03 AC
M
M
s
CNt ENGNEEAS
LAND PJONERS
LAND SLRJEYORS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECMUSTS
,B„ S GlBER19i,
IGW4
P LrtK)U ybp
IJ,BI JUAN
w.«nv)em,mlMbJiel
ZONING
EXHIBIT
CHERRY CREEK
SUBDIVISION
IOWA CITY
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA r
3
3
MMS CONSULTANTS. INC.'a
0�7NB/18
aYd4 �•
sw.^.n «^
wv.4 11PB . ..
N Y..,
KAvacm
10304-001 ,
•
1
iIi h - P'�(C: •
li n i ••-� •• :n�u.i.
61.ti :� ;�n�nnnulA. �Ainngmmni. _ _
w�nu..•nr�d. A h annny.nn8 I. nrilbnr'l. �ii� .d Y �'nun.gmn�n � �
Jl�...r....r .n liu �. r...i1.
.n�p�i o.Ibrr�9 .f.��in�!S.Sm,� ... ..l > .6. dLYnr.l�.ly �.u...: m....:i':�\ •
I-_ ■ - �p � ■■■■ :'� sir 8-- � � .��31R--I '
= �� �I�lel� �� ���.ytI- �� CI ISI; ���3I ,r �j • •
^�' I it �, C ��I� GIS � I �I � � I� �' • I •
GI
00
rRONT ELEVATION1
1
1
1
f
rpmCCC
C-ioe19'nla nW
�
A
—I rimill ffI FaPE I —I
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date:
June 1, 2018
To:
Planning and Zoning Commission
From:
Bob Miklo, Senior Planner
Re:
REZ18-00005/SUB-00008 Cherry Creek Subdivision
The applicant has indicated that any revisions to the Sensitive Areas Development Plan will be
presented at the June 7 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. No new information is
available at this time.
Good Neighbor Meeting Minutes
Terry Trueblood Park Lodge
7:00 PM — 8:00 PM, 11/8/2017
Attendance:
Doug Beardsley
Jill Beardsley
Dee Kyllingstad
Dave Kyllingstad
Stan Vander Weide
Marilyn Vander Weide
Dick Droessler
Patty Droessler
Alex Carrillo (Representative)
Kim Bockenstedt (Representative)
Andy Bockenstedt (Representative)
Summary
Meeting began at 7:00 PM with attendees gathering around a table that included proposed drawings of the land use
change that showed how the Cherry Avenue extension would be developed. Drawings included a breakdown of the
proposed property lines as well as examples of what the multi -family units, townhomes, and single-family homes might
look like.
Discussion ensued regarding the possible single-family lot price and the projected values of those homes once built. Per
Andy Bockenstedt, the expected land value for the single-family lots is expected to be in the $65k -$70k range with the
ultimate home value expected to be in the $300k -$350k range.
Attendee expressed concern regarding what the expected demographic would be for those living in the proposed multi-
family units facing Gilbert Street. A general consensus was met amongst the representatives and attendees that the
expected cost -per-unit (monthly rent or condo/townhome cost) would likely result in the property being occupied by
young professionals or first-time buyers.
General discussion followed surrounding the proposed streets, roundabouts, and traffic control measures as well as the
design and orientation of the townhomes.
Attendees asked about the time -line of the proposed land use change. Per Andy Bockenstedt, the main street
connecting Cherry Avenue to Gilbert Street would be developed first with the access streets following this. The first
structures to be developed would likely be some single-family homes which could possibly be included in the Parade of
Homes depending on the timeline. Per Andy Bockenstedt, it would be nice to begin development in the spring of 2018.
General discussion followed surrounding the maintenance of the proposed subdivision. Per Andy Bockenstedt, a
covenant would be in place that lays out specific landscaping and maintenance requirements. Additionally, the streets
would be lined with quality LED street lights to provide ample lighting for the neighborhood.
Questions and subsequent discussion between attendees and representatives ensued regarding the likely increase in
value of the overall area as a result of the proposed land use change. Attendees also commented on how the access to
Gilbert Street would be very nice.
The meeting ended at 8:00 PM with residents expressing excitement about the proposed land use change. Attendees in
unison requested that their approval be documented in the meeting minutes.
A
Summary Report for _== p°g
,- Alt
Fur
Good Neighbor Meeting
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Project Name: Cherry Avenue Extension Project Location: Between Cherry Avenue & Gilbert St
Meeting Date and Time: 11/8/17, 7:00 PM - 8:00 PM
Meeting Location: Terry Trueblook Park
Names of Applicant Representatives attending: Andy Bockenstedt, Kim Bockenstedt,
and Alex Carrillo
Names of City Staff Representatives attending:
Number of Neighbors Attending: 8 Sign -In Attached? Yes X No
General Comments received regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary) -
See attached meeting minutes.
Concerns expressed regarding project (attach additional sheets If necessary) -
See attached meeting minutes.
Will there be any changes made to the proposal based on this Input? If so, describe:
None noted.
Staff Representative Comments
Good Neighbor Meeting Minutes
Terry Trueblood Park Lodge
7:00 PM — 8:00 PM, 1118/2017
Attendance:
Doug Beardsley
Jill Beardsley
Dee Kyllingstad
Dave Kyllingstad
Stan Vander Weide
Marilyn Vander Weide
Dick Droessler
Patty Droessler
Alex Carrillo (Representative)
Kim Bockenstedt (Representative)
Andy Bockenstedt (Representative)
Summary
Meeting began at 7:00 PM with attendees gathering around a table that Included proposed drawings of the land use
change that showed how the Cherry Avenue extension would be developed. Drawings included a breakdown of the
proposed property lines as well as examples of what the multi -family units, townhomes, and single-family homes might
look like.
Discussion ensued regarding the possible single-family lot price and the projected values of those homes once built. Per
Andy Bockenstedt, the expected land value forthe single-family lots is expected to be In the $65k -$70k range with the
ultimate home value expected to be in the $300k -$350k range.
Attendee expressed concern regarding what the expected demographic would be for those living in the proposed multi-
family units facing Gilbert Street. A general consensus was met amongst the representatives and attendees that the
expected cost -per-unit (monthly rent or condo/townhome cost) would likely result in the property being occupied by
young professionals or first-time buyers.
General discussion followed surrounding the proposed streets, roundabouts, and traffic control measures as well as the
design and orientation of the townhomes.
Attendees asked about the time -line of the proposed land use change. Per Andy Bockenstedt, the main street
connecting Cherry Avenue to Gilbert Street would be developed first with the access streets following this. The first
structures to be developed would likely be some single-family homes which could possibly be included in the Parade of
Homes depending on the timeline. Per Andy Bockenstedt, it would be nice to begin development in the spring of 2018.
General discussion followed surrounding the maintenance of the proposed subdivision. Per Andy Bockenstedt, a
covenant would be in place that lays out specific landscaping and maintenance requirements. Additionally, the streets
would be lined with quality LED street lights to provide ample lighting for the neighborhood.
Questions and subsequent discussion between attendees and representatives ensued regarding the likely Increase in
value of the overall area as a result of the proposed land use change. Attendees also commented on how the access to
Gilbert Street would be very nice.
The meeting ended at 8:00 PM with residents expressing excitement about the proposed land use change. Attendees in
unison requested that their approval be documented in the meeting minutes.
GOOD NEIGHBOR MEETING NOTICE
Notice of Good Neighbor Meeting and Open House
10/30/2017
Date and Time: Wednesday, November 8,7:013 PM - 8:00 PM
Location: Terry Trueblood Park Lodge
To neighbors of Cherry Avenue:
The Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z)/Board of Adjustment (BOA) will soon consider
a land use change for a property in your area. The property is located at the end of Cherry Avenue.
The proposal is to develop a subdivision containing a mixture of single-family and multi -family
houses.
As the representative of this request, we would like to invite you to participate in an open -house
where you will have an opportunity to learn about the requested land use change, and we can
gather comments you may have regarding this proposal.
It is anticipated that the P&Z/BOA will be reviewing this proposal by the end of November. A notice
of a formal review by the P&Z/BOA will be sent to all property owners within 30D' of the property
under review by the City. You are encouraged to attend this meeting and voice your opinions.
If you have any questions or would like to submit written comments, please contact Andy
Bockenstedt at (319)331-1558 or email Alex Carrillo at alex.carrilio@bockex.com.
Good Neighbor Meeting
Mailing List
2040 Waterfront Dr
2460 S Gilbert St
2530 S Gilbert St
643 Sandusky Dr
651 Sandusky Dr
657 Sandusky Dr
557 Cherry Ave
560 Cherry Ave
681 Sandusky Dr
702 Sandusky Dr
708 Sandusky Dr
714 Sandusky Dr
720 Sandusky Dr
640 Sandusky Dr
646 Sandusky Dr
652 Sandusky Dr
658 Sandusky Dr
664 Sandusky Dr
670 Sandusky Dr
607 Pepper Dr
703 Sandusky Dr
711 Sandusky Dr
719 Sandusky Dr
r
�--
.,..-4 CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 5, 2018
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Bob Miklo, Senior Planner
Re: REZ18-00005/SUB18-00005 Cherry Creek Subdivision
The applicant has submitted a revised plan in response to concerns discussed at the May 17
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. For comparison the previous plan and staff report are
attached. The minutes of the May 17 meeting are also attached.
Density: The Commission expressed concerns about the overall density of the proposal. The
revised plan has replaced lot 17, which was previously proposed to contain 10 townhouse -style
multifamily dwellings, with two single family lots (lots 17 and 18) and two corner duplex lots (lots
19 and 20). Lots 17 — 20 are now proposed to be zoned Low Density Single Family Residential
(RS -5), rather than the previously proposed Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM -12). This
will result in a more consistent zoning pattern for the lots located on Toby Circle south of Cherry
Avenue (see attached Zoning Exhibit).
With the replacement of 10 multifamily units with 2 single family and 4 duplex units, the overall
density has been reduced from 7.5 to 7.18 units per acre. The proposed density is within the 2-8
dwelling units per acre shown on the Comprehensive Plan for this area.
36 -unit Buildings: Concerns were expressed about the scale of the two 36 -unit buildings
proposed on lots 1 and 2, and the relationship of these buildings to the nearby single family
properties. The applicant has modified the grading plan and redesigned the parking and
driveways to create usable open space near these buildings. On lot 1 the parking and driveways
have been moved away from the south property line and additional trees are proposed between
the building and the south lot line. However, the size of the two 36 -unit buildings has not changed.
The applicant has indicated that he will present drawings showing how the construction of these
buildings in relationship to the hillside, will help minimize their apparent scale and visibility from
the existing residential properties in the neighborhood.
Usable Open Space: The Commission indicated that there is a need for usable open space in
close proximity to the multifamily dwellings. The revised plan includes two areas with playground
equipment and outdoor dining areas featuring paved patios, pergolas, grills and picnic tables.
These areas are located on Lot 1 in the southeast corner (east of the building and parking area)
and on Lot 2 southwest of the building. The grading plan has been revised to provide flat areas
for these features.
Landscape Plan: The landscape has been revised to include additional trees along the south
property line of Lot 1 and lots 8 — 13, as requested by the neighboring property owners. Street
trees have been added between the sidewalk and curb within the right-of-way. As noted in the
May 17 staff report, staff recommends that approval be subject to City Forester review and
approval of the tree replacement and protection plan prior to final plat approval.
Traffic: The Commission questioned whether traffic calming should be designed into the rear
driveway for the townhouse style units on lots 1 and 3. The alley will be narrow (20 feet wide), will
be lined with trees and a retaining wall on the north side, and is divided into two segments with
three driveways back to Cherry Avenue. Based on these conditions staff finds that additional
traffic calming devises will not likely be necessary.
July 31, 2018
Page 2
The Commission asked if an additional traffic calming island would be beneficial on Cherry
Avenue where it intersects with the driveways to lots 1 and 2. The City's Transportation Planner
found that traffic calming islands are currently proposed at adequate distances. An additional
island is not necessary.
A question was raised about the site distance for the driveway on lot 2. Staff has confirmed that
drivers using this driveway will have sufficient site distance.
Sidewalks: The Commission asked about the condition of sidewalks on Gilbert Street and if an
8 -foot wide sidewalk would be appropriate. City inspectors found that current 4 -foot wide sidewalk
is in good condition and do not recommend replacing it at this time. Any damaged locations will
be repaired by the applicant. A wide side walk and trail already are located on west side of Gilbert
Street. The City's Transportation Planner will investigate whether it would be appropriate to
provide a pedestrian crossing from the east side of Gilbert Street to the west side. If it is
determined to be a safe location, curb ramps could be added at the time Cherry Street is installed.
Stormwater: Concerns were raised about stormwater runoff onto adjacent properties. At the time
of final plat approval, the development agreement will specify that the roof drains and gutters for
lots 5 — 16 will be required to drain toward the storm drains on Toby Circle. In addition, a
conservation easement for tree protection will be located along the south lots lines of lot 8 — 13.
These requirements will minimize stormwater runoff onto adjacent properties. The City Engineer
has approved the preliminary stormwater management plan.
Archeologic Study: The applicant has contracted with a professional archeologist, who has
completed an initial survey of the site and presented a report the State Archeologist. The initial
study found that much of the property was disturbed in the 1990s with grading activity associated
with the adjacent Pepperwood subdivision. Because of fill on the property, parts of the site were
not accessible and need further study once the fill has been removed. The applicant has agreed
to have an archeological monitor present during further excavation.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of REZ18-00005/SUB18-0005, an
application submitted by Bedrock LLC for a rezoning from ID -RM to OPD/RS-5 (5.8 acres) and
OPD/RM-12 (12.23 acres) and a Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan for
Cherry Creek Subdivision, a 17 -lot, 18.03 -acre residential subdivision located east of Gilbert
Street subject to 1) City Forester review and approval of the tree replacement and protection plan
prior to final plat approval, 2) at the time of final plat approve the development agreement will
specify that the roof drains and gutters for lots 5 — 16 will be required to drain toward the storm
drains on Toby Circle, and 3) the applicant contracting with an archaeologist approved by the
State to complete a study or excavation plan prior to any additional grading on the property.
Attachments:
1. Revised Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan
2. Revised Zoning Exhibit
3. Previous Staff Report
4. May 17 Planning and Zoning Commission minutes
Approved by:
Danielle Sitzman, Development Services Coordinator,
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
» LANDSCAPE AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CHERRY CREEK SUBDIVISION
IOWA CITY, IOWA
fU
a
---,T -------
M
e
s
ki
1W *
W BI)16Y
��^ YV0.YRV
.Se's L110\141IW
_ �T�'sa�m•w
3
:.9.-
.. m.�.,.e...,__u •"` »
LANDSCAPE AND
SENWNEAAEAS
DMOPW PINI
plull ,.• a
CHERRY MEEK
SUBDIVISION
vxr wry
sr�BOXorwwa�
3
LEGEND
AND NOTES
'J -M
=
`FROM
°
Altl�iv�YM1 Nene a Ta
Not To Scale
x�x�Y_r~
%.\{
]i0 b vi x.• •, •u wwn• oval ie
GWACIIY
bwi. xvm.y rs mato.• rv� ea . uK1^sono va MMw 4 Fav¢
-----------
�a
4BBn VD �m A
____:��
wn R xoi[v
<it•
- ORKOOIK�>aNJi�
a0 M �]� ..T
rvs]f
Project Location Map
y11rc! - a �•
1
Location Me
ZONING EXHIBIT
CHERRY CREEK SUBDIVISION
IOWA CITY. IOWA
AUDITORS PMCEL 1015101, IMA CIT'. JOM WN COUNTY. IOWA
NO
AUWMS PMCEL A15102.KK ACRY. AMISPY COUNTY.IOWA
PLAT PREPARED BY: OWNERWAPPLICANT:
MMS CONSULTANTS INC. BEDROCK LLC
1917 S. GILBERT STREET 3500 DOLPHIN DR SE
IOWA CITY, IA 52200 IOWA CITY, IA 5220
OOw
y
M
M
s
VMENGINE_3S
IRU PIANNERS
IAIASURVETORS
IAIOS'APEARCHIfECTS
DIVROM,ENTAL SPECNLISTS
101 S. RI .1
IJNAGTY. YTYA SIIID
NAIxi1aaz
mw.nrJNAINWlNN1
afN IN.Y�
WM R,CT'0xI9I1x-1Ix
ZONING
EXHIBIT
CHERRY CREEK
SUBDIVISION
IOWA CITY
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
MMS CONSULTANTS. INC
--
.®•AAwx w zuxn r.'io-
/xQ R.l xAfn MSR6 x 0..1 OT !4 .• Y.¢ 1M x
'J -M
M Mcmf a m[ uixfw
`FROM
rTM4
Not To Scale
;a��b t xi
%.\{
]i0 b vi x.• •, •u wwn• oval ie
GWACIIY
bwi. xvm.y rs mato.• rv� ea . uK1^sono va MMw 4 Fav¢
10304-001
W IY, �xN rug Am'
.wmr] .ram m .m nl v. moRa N°xlcd x n.T m n rrA 1m x
I I I
a0 M �]� ..T
m W. Kw 0 ..rT xwx au Al P11a ."�' .s`
P�
114. 11
we.l
1lesc
IL110R
:P
°':1:m1
nlt'
a� _xr.•<
x
_r� '
Y. xr iY9 M •/1 M•I - 'vx l'bro+wi G�
2 M �v I nsTe ATY01C erV ma 4
� rn rl NN �^ EAsst a
xra .wow ..�... x.mnl..i..r,� .NA .r a.A Nx. smr5n. 'an. +�. w• � n..o
µwk
911.wY. SH }x10 xYi��]N]v xn i.n. µl �w fM w..l L14M✓• Pe./ NwM'. �']]'x. 1.Y
M Y. NSA YR emp • M NxM M m uv smuvl� 51a3
�ilN1,
w RwwwxC�NJ x••n
FxOmq YV M•.i. wfxe•Pv.r ]NNVtr AMsl61. Fn e • pPVJ
ewlNn• 11. ]] N.x xi x p1 b x•wnnm m. ,neklbn• N.a6
OOw
y
M
M
s
VMENGINE_3S
IRU PIANNERS
IAIASURVETORS
IAIOS'APEARCHIfECTS
DIVROM,ENTAL SPECNLISTS
101 S. RI .1
IJNAGTY. YTYA SIIID
NAIxi1aaz
mw.nrJNAINWlNN1
afN IN.Y�
WM R,CT'0xI9I1x-1Ix
ZONING
EXHIBIT
CHERRY CREEK
SUBDIVISION
IOWA CITY
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
MMS CONSULTANTS. INC
--
Ow?AIBHB
tirr4
r_]w � www0re I J I
`FROM
rTM4
ID -RM TO RSi
%.\{
r1
GWACIIY
10304-001
,\
.. 1
I I I
\
OOw
y
M
M
s
VMENGINE_3S
IRU PIANNERS
IAIASURVETORS
IAIOS'APEARCHIfECTS
DIVROM,ENTAL SPECNLISTS
101 S. RI .1
IJNAGTY. YTYA SIIID
NAIxi1aaz
mw.nrJNAINWlNN1
afN IN.Y�
WM R,CT'0xI9I1x-1Ix
ZONING
EXHIBIT
CHERRY CREEK
SUBDIVISION
IOWA CITY
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
MMS CONSULTANTS. INC
--
Ow?AIBHB
tirr4
nu
,M
rTM4
�'
Y,m
r1
GWACIIY
10304-001
.. 1
R
a
I
Nil
R _."N'
R
.A
Cherry Ave Development FUSIaG►N
>N CHITECTS. INC.
07/03/2018
I
FUSKN
Cherry Ave Development
ARCHITECTS. GTS. INC.
07/03/2018
Cherry Ave Development FUSI%ooN
ARCHITECTS, INC.
07/03/2018
Cherry Ave Development
.'pU w .
FUSION
ARCHITECTS, INC.
07/03/2018
FUSION
Cherry Ave Development
•RCNITECTS. INC.
07/03/2018
IfUlp,
01.
-
�Pruq.nl.a.ul.pi.n.atln.il..
..1.L....1.1....1.1•Iq.al!L.I.LP.il.r.•Ip
.f .Plplr .Plp.•IY14.loppm I p
.orS..YYv�.orn .ur.mur m.Y
1.1.
..n.b.a•..Y..r�..Yr.r
�i.a■n,
..Yr..gi.rp,.Ur4 a`.
Il..ii a.. ���a.��..IPn..Lul.a4n.�1..
�
_/
_
I
III
liry3q�
Ira..
II
m�
Y■:r
ii.l
- _
ll.-
1
1�
�I�'���ri �w
'
1 •
0. I�rppPl..q...11.�
1
'.r.rP..Lr.9..aalrP.a.r.r1 PLL.
�
_ _ ATE_-P_iii�
TOP OF Wll�OU
.Lm..1..n..1.u..aPn.ainglPy�
�. I�r�,PPOW IPI.r.•PLLr14.PLr.rrPl.rlr.P1.+..-
�i.ur•15..Y_rn1�u_S•y�.4..i.1xM._.S�i,..Yr!L�=`
I
'
�
!�!�1
ELEVATION
-LEFT
�.
I_lel2 I
_
-. -
ma
('i•fr•fr
►�•j �����ff� C �;��r fG7• •(4R
gigice �.n
r•fr f Ir •ifr ['r f�`�f.�r�fr
��` iF���`\' Fq�F\�1�1'�'riF�1,
f�i • t�-� �,`
• 6.:i:1� [��
j1.. �
i; fid' fi•yfr•1+' !r fr fi► 1'�1 •!!!J
1
�
jfr
•'`•fry _��� r
I
•
Rw
Cow
1
�• r,•
�"�fi%h�r.••►�1i
6niY�ij
i• •r•r
�f-
i
II
j�FtlS+4�.irG�iiir'/•�
+�L•�ti•
r•�
�G1.�.•.�,i
•�r�•�r•�
orrI
III ll ��
rI.k1.�'�
�r•:•i�•l��I•�i�'
.�.i�i.1
���i�•i�
�����i ice' IiY•�d,^•/�}.rr�ti•�"r�Ii}.�ij
0
_ =
---------------
I�lela
-
egg
�����fiiiffrjlr PER NO I �'_'1"'•
'' � 4`'�' � rte' F11�` �
wig'
•fa r.
►�� /�.�.�• M.a ! • . i U. -J
•..urs..j.'`•.ixF'1\;M1\"',�FA���\�j��F\�Y"�;•, f —
16T ��,, i
hogllll I_. ..h'f��.:r�s�
s
•iif+�f•,"rR,Fhf'rjrt+i'•`l.\.-j'fr7fj7•�ilf`1,�R'..�.,�..a�..o
�'Fi�
•
��—------------
r
'.�
�.�.�.�.�
'x
T0 III`I`i�'•=
�P
.'I
.. 'w i
II.IG
,�',, �.
1�:• l ,i. -�•IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
NwMIN
.•'s� ,.�.l•l•al•;
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2018
Page 3 of 16
curious what accountability there will be for her new neighbors to keep the new neighborhood
from turning into the same situation they are living in now. Will they be financially able to
upkeep yards and homes? Swanson hopes the Commission will take into consideration not only
what Is concerning to the existing neighborhoods, but also for the new neighbors and to not ask
them to do something they are not able to do and not put them in a losing situation and give
them a change to thrive. Swanson doesn't believe the current plan she has seen is fair to the
people of Forest View. Swanson gave additional questions from neighbors to Miklo so they can
become public record and addressed at that next meeting.
Sara Barron (1903 Grantwood Street), director Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition,
wanted to make note on a couple issues with this rezoning project. One, there are mountains of
research showing affordable housing developments do not lower property values (and she will
share that with Mr. Cole) and secondly she noted the current residents of Forest View have
been instrumental in helping with designing what they went for themselves in the new
neighborhood and have been very active In advocating for what they need In their new
neighborhood. Therefore Barron said there should be no concern that the current residents of
Forest View's voices are not being heard. All they need now is for the other neighborhoods to
welcome them in as part of the community.
Freerks closed the public dicusslon.
Signs moved to defer REZ18-00013/SUB1 B-00006 until the June 7 meeting.
Parsons seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
REZONING/DEVELOPMENT REM IREZ18-00005/SUB18-000051:
An application submitted by Bedrock, LLC for a rezoning of approximately 18.03 acres from
Interim Development Multifamily Residential (ID -RM) zone to Planned Development
Overlay/Low Density Single Family Residential (OPD/ RS -5) zone and Planned Development
Oveday/Low Density Multifamily Residential (OPD -12) zone and a preliminary plat of Cherry
Creek Subdivision, a 174ot, 18.03 -acre residential subdivision located east of S. Gilbert Street &
south of Waterfront Drive.
Miklo noted the property Is on the east side of Gilbert Street, west of Cherry Avenue and Is
pretty heavily wooded. The proposal is to rezone most of the property to RM -12 Low Density
Multifamily Residential and a portion to be rezoned to RS -5 Low Density Single Family
Residential and both are proposed to have a Planned Development Overlay Zone. The plan
also includes a preliminary plat and Sensitive Areas Plan, the plat would Include the extension
of Cherry Avenue to Gilbert Street and a new local street, Toby Circle, which would provide
access to the single family lots and townhouse lots. The Planned Development Includes a
variety of housing types such as single family lots in the southern and eastern portions of the
property, a series of 31 townhouses towards the middle and then two 36 -unit apartment
buildings on Gilbert Street. Miklo stated the property does contain critical and protected slopes
and woodlands, and some of those environmentally areas will, and have been, disturbed. There
will be areas of the property that will be protected through the Sensitive Areas Plan even after
the grading is complete for stonnwater management. Mlklo showed photos of the area noting
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2018
Page 4 of 16
that staff as well as the City Engineers visited this property earlier this year and do feel the
erosion in the area needs to be addressed and the stormwater management facilities may be a
way of doing that.
Miklo stated in terns of the Planned Development Overlay there are several items that must be
considered. One is density, he noted the Comprehensive Plan shows this property as
appropriate for 2-8 dwellings per acre. With the amount of open space left, this plan will achieve
7-8 units per acre so within the guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan. Another item to consider
Is If a development will burden existing streets and utilities and it Is felt by the transportation
planners that most of the traffic will use Gilbert Street, which is an arterial sheet, with more than
sufBclent capacity for a development of this size. Mikio acknowledged some of the traffic will
likely go to the east and use Sandusky Drive, a collector street that goes to Keokuk Street and
both of those have sufficient capacity for this development. One of the goals noted In the
Comprehensive Plan is the extension of Cherry Avenue from Sandusky to Gilbert Sheet to
provide some traffic relief and an alternative street access for the Pepperwood subdivisions.
This street connection also will improve access for emergency and service vehicles.
Mildo noted the sanitary sewer and water service are available to this property, and the
proposed stormwater facilities are believed by City Engineers to correct a serious erosion issue
existing In the ravine.
The next Item to consider is If the development will not adversely affect views, light and air,
property values and privacy of neighboring properties any more than would a conventional
development. Miklo stated in this particular case, the single family lots will provide a transition
from the existing single-family homes within the Pepperwood Addition to the townhouse style
buildings and the larger apartment buildings to the west The buildings proposed In this plan do
not exceed the height limits, will comply with the multifamily building design standards and are
broken down into smaller modules with balconies and different materials in order to minimae
the large scale of the buildings.
Next question is If a combination of hand 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 wdh the purposes of this Title (meaning the Zoning Code), and with other building
regulations of the City. Miklo stated that in this case, unlike other planned developments, the
applicant is not asking for any waivers (e.g. setbacks or height), there is a proposal for reduction
of the standard collector street width of 31 feet down to 28 feet on Cherry Avenue. Staff
recommended this reduction to provide traffic calming for Cherry Avenue, which will carry traffic
from Sandusky Drive to Gilbert Street. Traffic circles are also proposed on Cherry Avenue in two
locations where it will intersect with Toby Circle. The Intent is allow Cherry Avenue to provide
neighborhood street connectivity, but to discourage its use a cut through and to calm speeds of
vehicles using the street. Staff finds that the proposal to reduce the pavement width from 31 That
to 28 feet is reasonable given the goal of traffic calming for this street.
Miklo stated for Planned Developments they must also consider pedestrian networks and
facilities. He stated all the buildings will have access to public sidewalks, the sidewalk on
Gilbert Street may need to be reconstructed due to erosion over the years. Also public open
apace must be considered, a development of this size would be required to dedicate one acre of
open space or pay fees in lieu of. The Parks and Recreation Commission will review this
application and make a recommendation regarding the dedication of open space or fees.
However, given the steep topography of this area It is unlikely that there is land that is suitable
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2018
Page 5 of 16
for a public park. Staff recommends that fees be collected in lieu of the dedication of open
space. Private open space Is also a consideration and Mlklo noted that much of the property
will be in a conservation easement with a homeowners association being responsible for
maintenance (Including the stornwaterfacllitles). legal documents addressing these
responsibilities and funding for maintenance will need to be in place at time of final plat.
In terns of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Miklo reiterated this proposal is In an area
noted for 2 — 8 units per acre but there Is additional text in the Plan that specifically mentions
this property as being possibly appropriate for well-designed multifamily and stressing the goal
of the City of having Cherry Avenue connect to Gilbert Street. Therefore, Staff does find that
this proposal does comply with the Comprehensive Plan for the area.
As Miklo previously mentioned, this proposal Is In a sensitive area and does contain protected
slopes adjacent to Gilbert Street, and the applicant Is proposing those protected slopes be
modified as It has been determined these are altered slopes that have been graded In the past.
When Gilbert Street was reconstructed several years ago, it appears that grading was done for
the street and to provide fill material. The Ordinance does allow for additional alteration of
previously altered slopes. Generally, ravines containing protected slopes should not be altered,
however an exception can be made for stornwater management or sanitary sewer or water
lines. In this case the City Engineer feels a solution to the erosion problem would be build a
series of two damns within the slopes to slow the flow of water and control erosion in this area.
The City Engineer with the stormwater management plan for this application.
Miklo said that the other sensitive feature on the site would be the woodlands. The applicant
recently removed woodlands portions of the property prior to receiving approval of a sensitive
areas plan. The applicant claims that he was unaware of the woodland retention requirements
and that trees that were removed were undesirable or unhealthy. Miklo showed the
Commission a series of photographs to illustrate what the property looked like before the trees
were removed. The City has no way to assess the quality of the trees that were removed, they
do know there are a considerable number of Locust trees In this area which are not considered
desirable, but in any event the Ordinance requires that if more than 50% of a woodland in an
RS -5 zone Is remove, replacement trees must be planted at a ratio of 1 tree per every 200 feet
of woodland disturbance. So approval of this application will require approval of a tree
replacement plan and Staff is recommending that plan, as well as a tree preservation plan, be
approved by the City Forrester before any more development activity on this site. The applicant
has Indicated a desire to plant replacement trees on the perimeter of the property as well as
additional trees will be planted once the houses are built Staff also discussed having trees
planted in the street right-of-way.
The Sensitive Areas section of the zoning code considers the preservation archaeological sites
as well as natural features. The applicant has already Initiated some development activity on the
site. Meanwhile, the Office of the State Archaeologist has indicated that four archaeological
sites have been reported within 100 meters of the development site. Due the density of known
archaeological sites in the surrounding area, there Is sufficlent likelihood that other
undiscovered or undocumented site may be present within the development area that the OSA
recommends a field investigation by a professional archaeological consultant prior to the
commencement of ground disturbing activities (e.g. grading). Staff therefore recommends that
as a condition of approval the applicant hire an archaeologist approved by the State
Archeologist to complete a study or excavation plan approved by the State Archeologist.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2016
Page 6 of 16
Miklo noted there are a variety of townhouse designs proposed along Cherry Avenue and Toby
Circle. With the two multifamily buildings along Gilbert Street there would be underground
parking as well as some surface parking. The applicant is proposing two outdoor activity areas,
one for each apartment building, and a playground area for the townhouses.
When the Staff Report was distributed there were some deficiencies in terms of the materials
required, those have been satisfied.
Therefore Staff is recommending approval of REZ18-00005/SUB18-0005, an application
submitted by Bedrock LLC for a rezoning from ID -RM to OPD/RS-5 and OPD/RM-12 and a
Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Cherry Creek Subdivision, a 17 -lot,
18.03 -acre residential subdivision located east of Gilbert Street subject to City Forester review
and approval of the tree replacement plan prior to final plat approval and applicant contracting
with an archaeologist approved by the state to complete a study or excavation plan.
Theobald asked about the sidewalk on Gilbert Street and Mlklo explained it is there however
has been covered by erosion over the years and as part of this development the sidewalk will
need to be repaired.
Freerks asked about the sensitive areas that will not be disturbed and Miklo showed the areas
as well as areas that will be disturbed for the needs of stornwater management.
Martin questioned the fees In lieu of park space and if the woodlands could become park space.
Miklo stated that based on past experiences and the direction of the Parks Director this area is
not the type of space the City would want to maintain for parkland, the Ordinance is very
spec in requiring neighborhood open space, usable open space for playground equipment
and playing fields. This area is also too steep and could be a liability for the City. There are two
other parks In the area, Wetherby Park and Sand Hill Park so the fees collected from this
development will be applied to those existing parks.
Theobald asked about the two roundabouts or calming circles that will be placed on Cherry
Avenue and who is responsible for maintaining them. Wide replied It will be the responsibility of
the homeowners association.
Freerks asked about the process for determining if a site may be an archeological site. Miklo
said the City will notify the State Archaeologist of the development and they will review their
records and If desired could come and review the site prior to development. Freerks questioned
how the City can prevent disturbance of areas before a study is conducted. Miklo stated the
applicant must have permission from the City before any work on the site is started.
Hench noted the new extension of Chery Avenue appears to be more than 1000 feet long and
he likes that there will be two calming islands placed on the street however feels the third
intersection to the west should have some Intersection control as there are more units in that
area with the two higher density buildings. Miklo noted he discussed this with the transportation
planners and engineers and they felt due to the grade and the Intersection traft will naturally
slow. Hensch Is also concerned about the alley, it is also a long stretch of road without any
control. Mikio stated If that Is a concern the Commission can require some traffic calming
devices to be placed in the alley.
Persons asked if the City will allow on street parking on collector streets such as Cherry
Avenue. Miklo confirmed they do, on street parking will be allowed on one side.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2018
Page 7 of 16
Signs questioned the topography of the area coming off of Gilbert Street and the slope, so he
assumes there will need to be grading to put In the street and questions if there will be any
retention landscaping in that area. Miklo said that has not been discussed by City Staff however
the applicant's engineer may be able to address the concern.
Dyer questioned the visibility at the Intersection where the two large buildings will be for traffic
coming off Gilbert Street. Miklo said the driveway Is at a right angle and then turns sharply so
should be okay.
Freerks asked about the discrepancies listed In the Staff Report. Mlklo confirmed all those
discrepancies have been resolved.
Hench asked about the north boundary of these parcels and If the boundary was going through
the ravine. Miklo confirmed it Is, and a portion of the ravine is on a neighboring property and a
portion of the stormwater retention work would occur on the neighboring property and will
require an easement and consent of the neighboring property.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Andrew Bockenstedt (3500 Dolphin Drive) is the owner of Bedrock LLC (the applicant). He
stated he has done excavation work on developments In Iowa City but this is the first complete
development for his company in Iowa City.
Freorks noted the sensitive areas of the property and the importance of maintaining the
sensitive areas In the Iowa City community, and Is questioning the removal of trees and
beginning work on the site and ignorance regarding a sensitive areas ordinance in the City.
Bockenstedt admitted he made an error In removing the trees. He stated the first house he built
was at 560 Cherry Avenue and saw the whole property as a corn field in 1992. Freerks
understands that, however since 1992 new rules have been created to protect sensitive areas.
She asked if Bockenstedt was working with Southgate Development or MMS Consultants.
Bockenstedt said he Is an excavation contractor and an ambitious fellow and his ambition got
the beet of him as he jumped Into working the area but was not aware removing trees was In the
ordinance, he did not disturb the slopes. He fell that plies of dirt from developments in
Pepperwood had been dumped on the property and trees and such were growing in the piles
and he fail those could be removed. He doesn't feel he disturbed any of the sail within in the
possible archeological areas and the native vegetation under all the mounds of dirt and trees he
moved are still Intact. Bockenstedt admits he made a mistake In moving the dirt and removing
the trees and apologizes.
Hench asked if they harvested any of the trees removed and Bockenstedt sold they did harvest
the walnut trees that were of any value, they did not destroy them.
Dyer asked when the trees were removed. Bockenstedt replied it was after the first of the year.
maybe February. Dyer noted there Is provision regarding trees that harbor Indiana Brown Bats
those trees can only be harvested between October 1 and April 1.
Freerks referenced the Comprehensive Plan and the density for this area which states 2-8 units
per acre and the proposal Is for 7-8 units per acre so very close to the maximum. Therefore
Freerks feels there should be a few more amenities In the area for residents. Bockenstedt saki
he will entertain Ideas and be willing to Incorporate them If able. Freerks said just added open
green space can be attractive, so children can run, kick a soccer ball, etc.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2018
Page 8 of 16
Hensch asked about the three, four and five-plex buildings and if they were all three bedroom
units. Bockenstedt confirmed that Is correct. Hensch noted that appears to be attractive to
families and because of that there needs to be open space for children to play. Although the
development Is close to Wetherby Park, it is still a mile or over away depending on which end of
the development one lives.
Dyer observed the single family lots back up to the parking area for the bigger apartment
buildings and wonder if those homes will object to having an apartment building parking lot in
their backyard. Freerks agreed and said there will need to be a buffer. Miklo noted the house
lots will be at a considerable higher grade than the apartment buildings so there will be a natural
buffer for lights and noise from the parking lots. He stated there will also be a large retaining
wall there. Freerks questioned the safety issues of having a large retaining wall and there might
need to be a fence.
Hensch noted the issues of soil erosion and water retention in this area and the easiest way to
keep the water on the property is to minimize the amount of concrete. Bockenstedt stated the
townhouses are actually drive -under, the garage tucked under the house. Hensch agreed that
will be helpful but still feels there needs to be an overall look at any spaces they can minimize
the use of concrete. Miklo noted on the latest plan the applicant did add a little landscaping
between the driveways of each townhome.
Joel Kline (2460 South Gilbert Street) owns the McCollister Historic Farm House to the south of
the applicant's property. It was originally the farm house for 600 acres that would have included
this property. Kline noted that last time he came before this Commission was when he wanted
to build a garage and had to make sure it was built in the style that was appropriate. He added
they have been good stewards of the property, they have restored the inside and kept the
outside consistent with the original appearance. Kline confirmed the concerns of single family
residences next to apartment buildings resonates with him quite a bit. He is not opposed to
development but feels it is necessary to be sensitive to the historic neighboring property.
Kline raised a number of Issues, first with regards to the trees, when you look back at the 1930's
It was started this area was open fields but it appears there was a border on the southern edge
Of mature walnut trees and those trees would have provided a buffer between his properly and
this development. Kline also noted he never received any invitation to a good neighbor meeting
to discuss this development prior to this evening. Kline said one of the benefits Is trees will
absorb water and over the years Kline noted they have had significant water coming down from
the north, they have put in gravel and paved the driveway in an effort to help with runoff. He Is
concerned with water runoff to the south with this development.
The biggest concern for Kline Is the 36 unit 3 -story building that will abut right up to his property,
he would like to see a lower building and perhaps set back. He noted the open space those
families will use will be on his property and his neighbors. Another concern is the traffic on
Gilbert Street, the traffic on that street continues to Increase, a stop sign has just been placed at
the intersection of Gilbert and McCollister, but adding 790 additional vehicles from this
development will add to the stress of roadway usage. To reiterate, his concerns are about
water, trees, light and other forms of Intrusion onto his property be considered, perhaps a berm
could be created between his property and the development property to minimize intrusion.
Freerks asked how close the 36 unit building will be to the property line. Miklo said it would be
23 feet from the properly line.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2019
Page 9 of 16
Parsons asked about the good neighbor meeting. Mlklo said the applicant will need to address
the discussion at the meeting.
Dan Cochran (2530 South Gilbert Street) lives on the other parol that is just south of the
proposed development. He purchased the entire 10 lot property approximately 15 years ago
and has another owner that wanted the home and to renovate the historic home so they
subdivided the property breaking off the house from the other outbuildings. Cochran corrected
some items from the Staff Report, specifically on bullet point 3 (not adversely affecting views)
and this discussion that the two McCollster Farm properties have their own built -In buffer and
there wouldn't likely be any future subdividing of the property. Cochran had submitted a 7 lot
subdivision to the City at one (mint when he first bought the property. He owns 6 acres, he Is 57
years old, it Is a lot to keep up, there Is a lot Invested in just the value of the property, and there
would be Intent in the future to subdivide it Cochran is not sure he would divide It Into 7 lots,
maybe only 3 however the opportunity Is there. If a subdivision of his property happens, the
prime lots will be the ones that will border where the 35 unit building will be. Therefore Cochran
would state there is an adverse effect to his property. When Cochran subdivided the property,
he specifically subdivided It RS -5 became he didn't want to build a big building there and didn't
want another owner to come In a build a big building there either. Cochran Is concerned about
how close the large 36 unit building will be to his property, however, he does think Bockenstedt
has a great vision. Cochran stated he has three concerns, one is the buffer zone, which has
been discussed, but would also like to see more specific examples of what plantings will be
used along the property lines. He is concerned about the height of the 36 unit building and that
It will be seen from all angles. Perhaps the building could be made into an L shape and
therefore would be placed further away from his property line. Finally he is concerned about the
traffic on Gilbert Street, and the number of people will be crossing the street as the sidewalk on
the west side is not complete. Cochran has one other correction to the staff Report, it sates the
apartment building Is 800 feet from any other structures, that might be true to the Sandusky
area but Wine's house is actually only about 300 feet from the fence line .
Mikio clarified that when the Staff Report mentions the 800 feet, it specifically is referencing the
Pepperwood subdivision.
Shannon Patrick (652 Sandusky Drive) Is concerned with this development and not In favor.
Patrick said the items wrong with this proposal are community outreach. As stated In the packet
there was a good neighbor meeting however he never received notice, and he is within the 200
feet line. The second issue it the trees, he understands It is presented as a mistake, however
as a nelghboring homeowner you see the bulldozers going In and all the trees removed with no
notice of why. Patrick added this does not help with building trust with the developer, he added
there is a sense of community in his neighborhood and they should have been contacted.
Patrick next discussed the concern with the density of the proposal, the surrounding
neighborhood is RS=5 and this will be rows of townhomes and a 20 foot apartment building
poking over the hill. This is not with keeping the character of the area, it transitions the area
from a neighborhood to just housing. Having lived In Corelvllle next to HyVee he has seen
where those areas of houses become rentals over time as no one wants to buy next to large
apartment buildings. Patrick shared the concern regarding density, lack of space, does not
achieve the feeling of long-term residents. He does feel housing Is needed In the area,
especially low-income housing, however trying to shove 400 people into a small area will create
housing, not a neighborhood, This level of density does not ft the character of the area.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2018
Page 30 of 16
Patrick next commented on the extension of Cherry Avenue and with the addition of the traffic
circles it will not be any faster for residents on Sandusky to take that way to Gilbert Street than
to go the current routes, the road extension Is not needed. He feels the road extension will add
to traffic concerns not alleviate them. Patrick's final point is regarding the school district and the
fact is Iowa City Is the 141h most economically segregated city, and on the school side of things
the district has been trying to deal with this problem that effectively has all the high density,
more affordable housing, Is all in the same part of town. This development will be In the Twain
district. In some areas of Iowa City the schools have a 5% reduced or free lunch percentage,
which Is upwards of 70% reduced or free lunch percentage. Alexander school Is similar to
Twain as well. Adding this much development will exasperate the situation and work against
the School Board's work to try to spread out affordable housing amongst the schools. Patrick
noted that Kingsley Botchway, on the City Council, is very aware of the school district concerns
and adding several hundred units in this area will not help the situation. Patrick closed by
saying he is not against development, he likes and wants more neighbors, the way to achieve it
Is to have a mixture of multifamily, such as four-plexes scattered within single family, and meet
the character of the area.
Alex Carrillo (373 Windmill Place) works with Bockenstedt as the director of operations for
Bockenstedt Excavating and apologized to the gentleman who didn't receive the good neighbor
notice. They did hold a neighborhood meeting and he hand -delivered notices to all the
Sandusky mailboxes, mailed notices to the two parcels to the south and the Braverman property
to the north. The meeting was held on November 8, 2017, at the Terry Trueblood Park Lodge.
The Beardsley's attended, Kyllingstad, Vanderweeds, and Russells also attended and good
conversation was shared.
Freerks closed the public discussion.
Hensch moved to defer REZ18-000051SUB118-00005 until the June 7 meeting.
Martin seconded the motion.
Freerks noted there has been good conversation this evening regarding concerns.
Signs wanted to acknowledge the point regarding the large size of the single-family lots allows
for the higher density In the multifamily areas. Freerks agrees and feels perhaps the multifamily
38 unit buildings could be smaller.
Freerks also reiterated the concern about the open space and amenities. She feels they are
trying to squeeze so much Into this area and perhaps If It were left a bit more open it would be a
better environment, and a better long-term neighborhood.
Signs stated he normally Is all for density but for some reason this proposal does not work for
him and is concerned about the two very large buildings on top of a hill overlooking a valley and
that exasperates the visual impact of the buildings. He also Is very concerned about how close
it is to the south property line. He noted the conservation easement disappears at the south
edge of the building and that Is where It is needed the most. He agrees with the comments that
this development is out of character for this area.
Martin said when looking at the larger area (Pepperwood, across the street, etc.) a better
continuity needs to be explored.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2018
Page it of 16
Freerks acmowledged it Is a tough lot to develop and it likely why it hes been undeveloped for
so long. She discussed the buffers and possible berms and water flow, especially to the south,
and wants to see a tree protection plan.
Martin asked for more information about the state archeological findings and the implications.
Freerks noted the Comprehensive Plan states for this area to be a dlstlncuve and Innovative
environment for the neighborhood and a need for facilities and amenities and she Is not seeing
that in this proposal.
Signs added sticking pergolas on the edge of a parking lot next to a retaining wall is not
particularly a user friendly alternative. He would agree there Is just a lack of usable open space.
Hensch stated his concerns are to maintain the integrity of that area, as well as the amenities
issues. He added one of the focuses Is to keep the neighborhoods walkable, and therefore he
feels there needs to be a six foot sidewalk the entire length of Gilbert Street along this property.
Within the development there Is too much concrete, they need to find ways to keep the
stormwater on the property as much as possible, there Is a real problem with erosion on the
north side and that needs to be addressed on the site as well as remediate the erosion that has
occurred. Hench echoed other's concerns that there simply is not enough open space, he is a
big fan of density but also feels they need to create neighborhoods and the way to accomplish
that is to give people the opportunity to be outside and meet each other. He also voiced his
displeasure with the harvesting of the mature trees and that there are no walnut trees specified
to be replanted, and the overall landscape plan Is inadequate. All the borders to the south and
east should have good landscape borders, and wherever they can, even if its just a small tree,
there needs to be trees. With regards to the three, four and five-plexes he does not have an
Issue with the density, the Issue Is there Is no place for children to play and not place for people
to congregate to meet neighbors. Overall there needs to be less density and more open space.
Theobald added with regards to trees walnut trees aren't necessarily good for gardeners as it Is
hard to grow other things around them, but In looking at the plants listed, there are some Issues
that need addressed. With the roundabouts she suggests they look at what is planted outside
City Hall.
Parsons added with regards to the large buildings perhaps looking at different materials or
colors, just seems like a lot of brown and grey. He said the project they recently approved on
Camp Cardinal Boulevard used colors to create a good design.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
A public hearing of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, Annexation Policy, to add a
section pertaining to affordable housing.
Miklo noted the proposed amendment text was distributed to the Commission In their agenda
packets, the goal of the amendment is to address affordable housing. Miklo explained when the
City annexes property it is when they have the most leverage, even more so than with a
rezoning, so the thought Is given the concerns about affordable housing in Iowa City this would
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 7, 2016
Page 2 of 7
Development Overlay / Highway Commercial (OPD/CH-1) zone for approx. 23 acres of property.
The applicant Is also requesting approval of the preliminary plat of Forest View, a 73.15 -acre
subdivision, located north of Foster Road, south of 1-80, west of N. Dubuque Street, east of
Mackinaw Drive.
Miklo stated the staff is requesting this hem be deferred until the June 21 meeting. He said that
the traffic study had just been submitted and needed to be reviewed by staff. He noted that the
stonnwater management plan was also still being reviewed by the City Engineer and the wetland
determination had not yet been resolved.
Freerks opened the public hearing
Seeing no one Freerks closed the public hearing.
Hensch moved to defer REZ18-00013/SUB18-00006 until the June 21 meeting
Martin seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0
REZONINGIDEVELOPMENT ITEM (REZ18-00006/SUB18-00005):
The application, submitted by Bedrock, LLC for a rezoning of approximately 18.03 acres from
Interim Development Multifamily Residential (ID -RM) zone to Planned Development Overlay/Low
Density Single Family Residential (OPD/ RS -5) zone and Planned Development Overlay/Low
Density Multifamily Residential (OPD -12) zone and a preliminary plat of Cherry Creek
Subdivision, a 17 -lot, 18.03 -acre residential subdivision located east of S. Gilbert St 8 south of
Waterfront Dr.
Miklo stated the applicant is requesting this item be deferred until the June 21 meeting.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one Freerks closed the public hearing.
Theobald moved to defer REZ18-00006/SUB18-00005 until the June 21 meeting.
Signs seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
REZONING ITEM (REZ18-00015):
Discussion of an application submitted by Allen Homes, for a rezoning of approximately 8.02
acres from Interim Development - Single Family Residential (ID -RS) zone to Low Density Multi -
Family Residential (RM -12) zone (3.19 acres) and Medium Density Single -Family Residential
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 21, 2018
Page 14 of 15
REZONINGIDEVELOPMENT ITEM (REZ78-00006/SUB18-00006):
The application, submitted by Bedrock, LLC for a rezoning of approximately 18.03 acres from
Interim Development Multifamily Residential (ID -RM) zone to Planned Development
Overlay/Low Density Single Family Residential (OPD/ RS -5) zone and Planned Development
Overlay/Low Density Multifamily Residential (OPD -12) zone and a preliminary plat of Cherry
Creek Subdivision, a 17 -lot, 18.03 -acre residential subdivision located east of S. Gilbert St &
south of Waterfront Dr.
Miklo stated the applicant is requesting this item be deferred until the July 5 meeting.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one Freerks closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to defer REZ18-00005ISUB18-00005 until the July 5 meeting.
Martin seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JUNE 7. 2018
Hensch moved to approve the meeting minutes of June 7, 2018.
Signs seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Miklo noted they have scheduled a joint meeting with the City Council for Tuesday, July 3 to
discuss the rezoning on Burlington, Capitol and Court Streets.
Miklo also acknowledged and thanked Freerks for her service to the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Adjournment:
Parsons moved to adjourn.
Signs seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
J U LY 5, 2018 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry, Baker, Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max
Parsons, Mark Signs, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Bob Miklo
OTHERS PRESENT: Alex Carrillo, Andrew Bockenstedt, Joel Kline, Don Cochran,
Shannon Patrick, Nate Byers
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-1 (Dyer dissenting) the Commission recommends approval of REZ18-00005/SUB18-
0005, an application submitted by Bedrock LLC for a rezoning from ID -RM to OPD/RS-5 (5.8
acres) and OPD/RM-12 (12.23 acres) and a Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development
Plan for Cherry Creek Subdivision, a 17 -lot, 18.03 -acre residential subdivision located east of
Gilbert Street subject to 1) City Forester review and approval of the tree replacement and
protection plan prior to final plat approval, 2) at the time of final plat approve the development
agreement will specify that the roof drains and gutters for lots 5 - 16 will be required to drain toward
the storm drains on Toby Circle, and 3) the applicant contracting with an archaeologist approved
by the State to complete a study or excavation plan prior to any additional grading on the property.
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Parsons nominated Hensch for Commission Chair, Dyer seconded the nomination, a vote was
taken and the motion passed.
Hensch nominated Parsons for Vice Chair, Dyer seconded the nomination, a vote was taken and
the motion passed.
Hensch nominated Signs for Secretary, Martin seconded the nomination, a vote was taken and the
motion passed.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM (REZ18-00005/SUB18-000051:
Discussion of an application submitted by Bedrock, LLC for a rezoning of approximately 18.03
acres from Interim Development Multifamily Residential (ID -RM) zone to Planned Development
Overlay/Low Density Single Family Residential (OPD/ RS -5) zone (5.8 acres) and Planned
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 5, 2018
Page 2 of 12
Development Overlay/Low Density Multifamily Residential (OPD -12) zone (12.23 acres) and a
preliminary plat of Cherry Creek Subdivision, a 17 -lot, 18.03 -acre residential subdivision with 93
multifamily dwellings, 2 duplex lots and 15 single family lots located east of South Gilbert Street &
west of Sandusky Drive.
Miklo noted this item was deferred from the May 17 meeting, since that time the applicant has
submitted a revised plan and the most significant change in the plan is former lot 17 is no longer
proposed to be rezoned to Low Density Multifamily but rather to be rezoned to Low Density Single
Family, the same as the adjacent lots south of the proposed Cherry Avenue. Miklo stated the
previous plan had included 10 multifamily units in the form of two sets of townhouses, the new
proposal is to create two lots which will be suitable for either single family or corner lot duplexes,
either which is allowed by the proposed RS -5 zone, and two single family lots. As a result all of the
properties that will have access to Toby Circle will be single family or the possibility of two duplexes
on the corner lots.
Miklo highlighted other changes to the plan, one is the density of the proposal has decreased from
7.5 units per acre to 7.18 units per acre and both of those densities are within the Comprehensive
Plan recommendation of 2 to 8 dwelling units per acre. Another concern that was raised by the
Commission at the May 17 meeting was with the two -36 unit apartment buildings therefore the
applicant has revised the plan to pull back the parking and fire access drive from the south
property line and therefore creating more greenspace in that area. The building itself has not
changed. In the expanded greenspace area the applicant proposes playground area and dining
areas with a concrete patio, fixed in place grills, picnic tables and a pergola added. A similar
feature has been added to the north building as well, and even with the addition of the playground
area there is still a tree buffer between the area and Gilbert Street. Miklo added the landscape
plan has also been amended with additional trees added to the southern part of the single family
lots and additional trees added to the retaining walls on the south side. Also with the revised plan
the retaining walls stair -step and there are two levels rather than one tall retaining wall. Miklo
noted street trees have also been added between the sidewalk and the curb as well as the trees on
the private property. Miklo noted this is a change in City policy, in the past the City has avoided
putting trees in areas where there might be water lines or other easements but it is rare those lines
break and need to be repaired so trees are now being allowed.
Traffic and traffic calming questions were raised at the last meeting, one specific concern was
regarding the length of the alley, the City transportation planners looked at the plans and they felt
the design of the alley is such that it will not need traffic calming. There will be a retaining wall and
a dense row of trees along the north side and having trees or landscaping along a roadway tend to
slow traffic down, additionally the alley is broken into two segments serving a relatively small
number of units (14 units served in one section and 7 in the other section) and there is a curve in
the alley with three points of entry. Miklo noted the applicant has agreed if there are issues in the
future they would be open to installing some traffic calming devices.
The driveway access to Cherry Avenue was also a concern with the question of if it had sufficient
sight distance, again the transportation planners reviewed this and confirmed there is sufficient
sight distance. Another question was regarding the landscape islands that are designed into
Cherry Avenue to calm or slow down traffic and if a third island would be necessary and again the
transportation planner felt it isn't really necessary and the islands are spaced according to City
guidelines.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 5, 2018
Page 3 of 12
Miklo commented on the sidewalk along Gilbert Street and the question of whether it should be
widen to 8 feet, there currently is a 4 foot sidewalk in the area and upon inspection for the most
part is in good condition, any part not in good condition would need to be repaired before
occupancy. There is an 8 foot sidewalk and trail system on the other side of Gilbert Street and the
City standard is to generally have 8 foot sidewalks on one side of the street and a 5 foot sidewalk
on the other side, in this case the 4 foot sidewalk is nonconforming and it is staffs view that the
expense of removing and replacing that sidewalk is not worth it and do not recommend it. Staff is
looking at introducing a street crossing with a curb cut or curb ramp to make it easier to cross
Gilbert Street.
Regarding stormwater management the City Engineer has indicated they will require that all the
gutters, roof drains and driveways for the single family lots be directed to Toby Circle, where the
street will have inter -storm drains that should help minimize any runoff to adjacent properties to the
south. There is also a conservation easement along the south property line for preservation of
some existing trees as well as new trees that will be planted. Therefore there will be minimal
pavement in that area and therefore the City Engineer has approved the preliminary stormwater
plans and feels it will actually be an improvement over the current conditions on the site.
There were questions raised about the archeological study of the area, the applicant had
contracted with a private archeologist who has reviewed the site and determined because of
grading that happened back in the 1990's when the adjacent subdivision was built, apparently
there was fill from some of the basements dumped on this site and also soils borrowed from this
site to supplement Pepperwood Addition, and that work was all done before the City has a
sensitive areas ordinance. Because of that disturbance they found no evidence of archeological
sites but there are some areas where they would like to do further studies as the fill material that
was placed there in the 1990's is removed, so the applicant has agreed to have an archeological
monitor present on the site when further development occurs and that is something the City can
specify in the conditional zoning agreement.
Miklo next showed images of the buildings that are proposed. There are three different models of
the townhomes so there will be a variety of building types along Cherry Avenue. The garage
entrances onto Cherry Avenue will require a minor modification which can later be approved by
staff. The reason is due to the topography it does not lend itself to an entrance from the side.
Staff recommends approval of REZ18-00005/SUB18-0005, an application submitted by Bedrock
LLC for a rezoning from ID -RM to OPD/RS-5 (5.8 acres) and OPD/RM-12 (12.23 acres) and a
Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Cherry Creek Subdivision, a 17 -lot,
18.03 -acre residential subdivision located east of Gilbert Street subject to 1) City Forester review
and approval of the tree replacement and protection plan prior to final plat approval, 2) at the time
of final plat approve the development agreement will specify that the roof drains and gutters for lots
5 - 16 will be required to drain toward the storm drains on Toby Circle, and 3) the applicant
contracting with an archaeologist approved by the State to complete a study or excavation plan
prior to any additional grading on the property.
Hensch asked about the sidewalk on the east side of South Gilbert Street and that it does not
extend all the way south so how will the people from this new subdivision get across the street to
the walking trail. Miklo noted that City transportation planners are investigating a possible
crossing. Miklo added that sidewalks on the east side will eventually be extended to McCollister
Boulevard as the McCollister Farms property is developed.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 5, 2018
Page 4 of 12
Hensch shared his concern about the language of having an archaeologist monitor on site and if it
was specific enough to note that means if anything is uncovered all work on the site should stop
until future investigations. Miklo said that could be clarified when the conditional zoning agreement
is drafted. If a burial ground is uncovered there are State Codes that will be enforced.
Parsons asked what the square footage was for the open space now on lots 1 and 2. Miklo noted
the applicant could address that question. He did add that there would be a payment in lieu of
open space that would be used to support Wetherby Park or Sand Hill Park.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Alex Carrillo (373 Windmill Place) works for Bedrock LLC as the project coordinator for the
proposed Cherry Creek Subdivision. He began by thanking Staff and Miklo for all the guidance
and support they provided in completing the revisions for the development project. Bedrock LLC is
very excited about the plan that is before the Commission this evening. Carrillo noted his
appreciation for the Commission and the neighboring community members for their feedback at
that last meeting and stated since that time they have collaborated with the City, MMS and the
architects (Fusion) to try to address some of the feedback that was brought up. To highlight some
of the primary comments, first was density, also the size of the Lot 1 apartment building, the usable
open space, and traffic and tree buffers. Miklo addressed in his staff report a bit but Carrillo had
prepared a presentation to address the concerns as well.
With regards to density, even though the Comprehensive Plan suggests 2 to 8 dwelling units per
acre they felt they could reduce some of the units and create a better buffer from townhomes to
single family homes. In an effort to maximize the open space they utilized their grading plan and
were efficient as possible with the space, moving the retaining walls and creating more open
space. They also reduced the parking spaces as they had more than was required, so that created
more open space. They are now adding a playground, a pergola picnic area, and are reducing the
height of the retaining wall. In this restructure every dwelling will have green space, the single
family homes will have yards, the townhomes will have screen porches overlooking the woodland
areas and the apartment buildings will have the open playground/picnic areas.
Martin asked how many bedrooms would be in the two apartment building units. Carrillo said they
will be one and two bedroom units.
Carrillo continued with addressing the concern about the Lot 1 apartment building and if it was too
close to the property line. They have complied with the height requirements, the setback
requirements, and they felt it was appropriate, especially given the topography of the land. He
presented some 3-D renderings so everyone could better see the plan. The digital profile is set to
the grading plan. The buildings are set into the hills and therefore will not tower over the rest of the
development. They also updated the coloring scheme to be less bland and add character to the
buildings. Carrillo next showed pictures of the property in its current state and noted the tree
buffers that will remain as well as where new trees will be planted.
Signs asked about the two large retaining walls on the southern part of the property. Carrillo said
they have revised the plan to terrace those retaining walls and add plantings to create the best
aesthetic possible. They will be using the Rosetta's Outcropping product, which will provide a
beautiful aesthetic with a natural look.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 5, 2018
Page 5 of 12
Carrillo stated the pergola and picnic tables would made of timber which would add to the aesthetic
of the property. Hensch asked how many tables and pergolas would be on the property. Carrillo
said they are showing three tables on the plans, but could add more as there is space available.
Dyer asked what the components of the play structure will be. Carrillo said it will have a couple
slides and some monkey bars. Dyer noted there should be some benches added for parents or
caregivers to sit and watch children play.
Hensch noted that since both buildings are the same size, they should both have the same number
of picnic tables and outdoor spaces.
Martin questioned having 1 and 2 bedroom units in the apartment buildings and then also saying
there would be play structures and open space for children. Carrillo said many young couples with
one child will live in a 2 bedroom unit.
Dyer asked if there was room on the ravine side for benches to be place overlooking the ravine.
Carrillo didn't think there would be room for that because of the sensitive areas but they could add
benches to the areas by the parking lots.
Hensch asked what exterior building materials they propose to use on the three, four and five-plex
buildings. Carrillo said they would use cement board, not vinyl as indicated on some of the plans.
There would also be stone and shingle shakes used.
Hensch stated a concern from neighbor comments regarding the 36-plex and the distance from the
southern lot line. It also is an 80 foot building so that is massive along a property line. Carrillo
acknowledged that was a concern and why he showed the 3-D images and how the tree line will
block the sight lines. He added the first residence to the south is over 300 feet away.
Martin asked what type of trees they are planting along the southern property line. Carrillo said he
is unsure of the species of trees planned, however they have met with the City Forrester and is
using his recommended species.
Andrew Bockenstedt (3116 Lyle Drive NE) is also with the Bedrock LLC, he wanted to reiterate that
they are more than willing to work with the City to install the curb ramps and crosswalk for access
to the trail on the other side of Gilbert Street.
Hensch noted his concern about having a crossing across Gilbert Street, it is a very busy street.
Bockenstedt agrees and likes the idea of running the sidewalk on the east side further south but
there is a steep slope along there and a retaining wall would need to be added.
Miklo added that South Gilbert Street is being considered for a "road diet" which would reduce it
from four lanes to three, slowing traffic and making it easier for pedestrians to cross.
Martin asked where the closest bus stop to this development would be. Miklo is unsure, Hensch
knows there is one at the corner of South Gilbert and Southgate Streets and knows there is not
one on Sandusky.
Hensch asked about the landscaping plan noting that typically the plans label each type of tree that
is to be located in each area. This proposed plan does not indicate what types of tree and Hensch
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 5, 2018
Page 6 of 12
is concerned because of the early harvesting of the trees on this property they need to make sure
they get quality trees introduced back into the area. Bockenstedt said he is open to having the
landscape architect update the plan to show the types of trees. Miklo said they are recommending
that the City Forester approve the landscaping plan before final plat approval.
Joel Kline (2460 South Gilbert Street) owns the McCollister Historic Farm House to the south of the
applicant's property. He wishes to point out again he has taken on this National Historic Registry
house in good faith and made a strong effort to restore it. Currently they have artisan brick
workers using historic mortar doing repairs on the house. They built the garage in discussion with
the City and architects to keep it with the historic feel as well. Kline stated to put the largest and
tallest building south of Highway 6 just 23 feet from the property line of an historic property doesn't
seem to be keeping with maintaining the character of the National Historic Landmark. Kline said
he raised a number of concerns at the May meeting and feels none of them have been addressed.
The trees they are showing to the south side of their property are actually trees on Kline's property
so he is responsible for the buffer. Those trees on his property are deciduous trees and will not
provide much visual protection during five months of the year when the tree leaves are shed. Kline
had asked for a consideration of a large berm being constructed along the south border to provide
a visual and personnel barrier as well as an 8 foot fence on the south side of the berm. That
request has not been addressed at all. Kline also noted the berm would be useful in water
management since removal of the mature trees is likely to disturb the water flow in an adverse way
to his property. Kline believes development is important, affordable housing is important, but he is
not sure the spirit of this zoning is to require a 36-plex, the greatest density of people outside of the
downtown area. He would suggest it be a two story building rather than three, but realizes that
reduces the revenue of the property. Kline added something like this cannot be undone, it will
significantly change the character of the land in this part of the area, this area was originally the
Napoleon Trading Post, Napoleon Park named after that, and Kline's home was the major
homestead in that area. Once you start building up around it, it cannot be undone, and he urges
the Commission to seriously consider the ramifications and long term effect on the neighborhood
and residents.
Don Cochran (2530 South Gilbert Street) lives on the other parcel that is just south of the proposed
development. He also spoke at the May 17 meeting to voice concerns, some of which have been
captured, some he wants to address again. Runoff is a concern and it appears the City has signed
off on the stormwater plan and Cochran should not get more excess water on his property (he is
now, with the rain recently they had flooding with the removal of the trees). He noted the safety
regarding crossing Gilbert Street has been addressed, it is a major concern, kids especially are
going to want to cross the street to get to the park area. Another area where the kids would want
to explore is the woodland area of his property, there used to be a cattle fence in the woodland but
Cochran pulled out that fence on his property because trees were entwined, so he feels another
fence needs to be built to show the property lines. Cochran pointed out in photos his property line
the tree buffer the applicant is discussing and wants to make sure any landscaping they are
capturing is not part of his or Kline's property, but is truly new landscaping that is being built there.
Cochran also stated that property value was a concern of his as this area was a woodland area
before, he can appreciate that it is going to develop but he didn't think it would be the biggest
building south of Highway 6. He pointed out in pictures that there was once berms along the
property line, not just woodlands, but that has now been leveled out and he feels a berm should be
considered. With looking at the 3-D rendering of the large apartment building, Cochran questions
the elevation of the parking lot, in the original drawings he thought it was the same elevation as
Sandusky, even if it is a bit lower it will up high and the retaining walls don't seem as high. The
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 5, 2018
Page 7 of 12
final concern Cochran raised at the previous meeting was density, and that again has been
addressed this evening, he appreciates the reduction of townhouses but the density was 7.5 out of
2 to 8 before and now is 7.18 out of 2 to 8 and while that is a reduction, it is still a higher density
then one would expect in that location. There are two lots facing the development to the south,
one to the north, and seven lots facing it from the side and to get this large of a density in that one
small area seems excessive.
Shannon Patrick (652 Sandusky Drive) also spoke at the May 17 meeting and said why he thought
when this proposal got to City Council it would not go anywhere, the short reasons were the school
zone conflict, fit with the neighborhood, and lack of trust in good faith. First, with the fit for the
character of the neighborhood, it has been talked about to some degree and Patrick also
appreciates the developer taking out the 10 multi -units to put in single family, he feels it will help on
the transition, but his concern at this point is the 36 unit blocks, which at the end of the last meeting
from the Commissioner's comments he felt it was agreed that those 36 unit buildings were not a
good fit for the neighborhood. He maintains this will be a lot of people to add into a residential
neighborhood, it is a very dense block of housing, and not in character with the single family
neighborhood it is going into. With regards to the school zone conflict, this development will fall
into the Twain district and Iowa City seems to like to dump all of its dense housing into the same
school district which has been giving the school board a headache for years, parents will
remember meeting after meeting about how to get better diversity in housing for the district and it is
difficult because all of the dense housing is built in the same area. Therefore Patrick would
encourage the Commission to look like they are working with other parts of the government in the
plan and not build 72 more units in the form of an apartment building in the Twain neighborhood.
With regards to the trust issue, Patrick agrees that good faith effort has been made to get the
neighbors aware of the meetings, but he noted that some neighbors said the Good Neighbor
Meeting was presented as a done deal and not as an opportunity to give feedback. He noted that
an issue from the last meeting was the clearing out of the trees, the developer stated this was done
before the permit but was okay because he thought it was scrub land, Patrick finds it perplexing
how the developer says he thought it was scrub land, but yet sold off dozens of trees. One does
not sell off truckloads of trees and call it scrub land. Patrick also notes that when looking at an old
map it looks like the area was intended for some large house lots. He added this meeting is the
day after a holiday, and be presented to a new board, makes him feel like perhaps there is some
shady work happening and encourages the Commission to make sure to scrutinize the plans and
make sure everything is ticked off nicely. The last issue Patrick is to comment on is the crossing
on Gilbert Street, it will be an issue, and he thinks of the 72 units, with nationally means 2.5 people
per unit so 250 people in those buildings, and the nearest playground is across Gilbert Street at the
softball fields. He feels there needs to be more than just curb ramps, there needs to be lightening
and other safety alerts. To reiterate Patrick stated this development is not a good fit, to have that
large of buildings in this space.
Nate Byers (2423 North Ridge Drive, Coralville) works with MMS Consultants, the civil engineer
firm for this project, with regards to the questions on the retaining wall height at the outermost
corner the wall is 25 feet above the building elevation so only 12 feet of the building will be seen
over the wall. The roof line of the 36-plex is no higher then the rooflines of the single family homes
looking at the development from the high point on Cherry Avenue. The 36-plex is sunk into the hill
quite a bit. With regards to the tree lines to the south, there will be two rows of plantings long the
whole south side and there was a discussion of putting a berm back there but the City Engineer
actually recommended against it and rather to take all the roof drainage to the north and not worry
about the rear yards.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 5, 2018
Page 8 of 12
Hensch is concerned about the elevation of the building on lot 1 and to address the neighbor's
concerns it looks like the high elevation on the property is 700 feet and it drops down to 680 at the
corner of the building. It is unfortunate they don't have an elevation drawing from that point to
clarify and solve the concerns. Byers explained the elevations and also noted there are some tree
types explained on the landscape plan and that they have worked with the City Forrester regarding
that.
Martin asked about the retaining wall. On the side facing the apartment building it is a tiered wall,
is the other side just a gigantic solid wall. Byers said the wall is cut into the land there so it will not
just be a gigantic solid wall from that view.
Baker asked for clarification on the concept of density, the two 36 -unit buildings are one and two
bedroom units, is there a breakdown of how many are one versus two. Byers stated he believed
there are 12 one bedroom and 24 two bedroom units in each building. Baker noted that compared
to most of the apartment structures in Iowa City that is a smaller density and therefore the look of
the building might be deceiving with regards to the population of the building.
Miklo clarified that a two bedroom dwelling is calculated the same as a one bedroom in the sense
of calculating the density.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Parsons moved for the approval of REZ18-00005/SUB18-0005, an application submitted by
Bedrock LLC for a rezoning from ID -RM to OPD/RS-5 (5.8 acres) and OPD/RM-12 (12.23
acres) and a Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Cherry Creek
Subdivision, a 17 -lot, 18.03 -acre residential subdivision located east of Gilbert Street
subject to 1) City Forester review and approval of the tree replacement and protection plan
prior to final plat approval, 2) at the time of final plat approve the development agreement
will specify that the roof drains and gutters for lots 5 -16 will be required to drain toward the
storm drains on Toby Circle, and 3) the applicant contracting with an archaeologist
approved by the State to complete a study or excavation plan prior to any additional
grading on the property.
Signs seconded the motion.
Hensch acknowledged the neighbors to the south have a valid point on how this plot of land will
change for them, however the applicant seems open to addressing the landscape plan to the
south, even adding a berm.
Signs noted there may not be room for a berm, and Hensch agreed a berm may not be the answer.
Hensch also noted he was surprised the revised plan did not show any reduction in the size or
mass of the two 36 -unit buildings but since the applicant did decrease the density in the Toby
Circle area that was a plus and overall he believes the applicant addressed everything else the
Commission raised.
Dyer is concerned that the 36 -unit building is only 23 feet from the property line which is the same
distance that is allowed in a single family neighborhood, it seems too close for such a big buildirig
regardless of how much of the building can be seen.
Townsend agreed with the concerns regarding the crossing at Gilbert Street and increased number
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 5, 2015
Page 9 of 12
of people on these properties, some which will be children. Miklo stated that traffic and safety is
always a concern the Commission needs to review, as noted the City does have plans to narrow
Gilbert Street from four lanes to three,
Signs feels that if they do narrow Gilbert Street, having the crossing at Cherry Avenue will line up
with the trail on the west side of the street, perhaps a pedestrian island can be added as a possible
solution. Miklo said the traffic engineers would have to do a study to see if that would be
appropriate.
Hensch suggests adding a condition that the applicant is responsible for the costs of implementing
whatever solution the City comes up with to get people across Gilbert Street.
Dyer also noted it isn't just pedestrians, there will be bicyclists needing to get over to the trail along
the river.
Martin noted that recently the Commission just reviewed a large number of properties the Historic
Society wished to designate as historical and here we are neighboring an already existing historical
property and she echoes Dyer's concern of the 23 feet, it seems like to have such a big building so
close to a property line infringes on a historical property. She added Gilbert Street is another
entrance to Iowa City and it is the Commission's responsibility to be thoughtful about it and have a
good transition. She understands looking at two 36-plex buildings, townhomes and single family
there is transition within the plat, but it is important to look at what is surrounding that plat. She is
struggling with the large scale of buildings so close to a historic property.
Baker asked if the concern is at all mitigate by the fact that the historic property building itself is
300 feet away. Martin said it is more that such a big building is so close to a property line. Baker
questions if the Commission is comfortable overall with the plan except for the immediate impact
on a couple of surrounding properties and whether buffering becomes the issue that resolves their
problems. He is not concerned about the density, nor does the size of the building, but
understands the concern regarding the proximity to the neighbors. He wonders if there is
something they could ask of the developer to mitigate the visual impact.
Martin agrees and admits she doesn't have a good enough visual of what the sight line from Gilbert
Street will be. The photos and renderings being shown are from within the development not from
the Gilbert Street view.
Parsons said there will be trees plus a 20 foot high retaining wall, what else can be added. Miklo
thinks adding anything else would be difficult. Parson added the developer is using the topography
to their advantage to minimize the view.
Signs agrees and feels with the topography the neighbor to the south may not actually see
anything, especially if evergreens are planted on top of the retaining wall, it will block any view of
the building from the south. He is not concerned with the distance of the building to the property
line but understands others are and can empathize. He is appreciative to see his concerns
regarding the visual impact from Gilbert Street addressed from the last meeting.
Hensch suggested adding two conditions, one regarding the applicant covering the costs to
improve the crossing across Gilbert Street, and the other one to enhance the landscaping plan to
the south border to increase the trees or brush plantings to create a better separation. Miklo noted
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 5, 2018
Page 10 of 12
in terms of additional landscaping, it is already pretty full up if trees are planted too close together it
will not be a healthy environment.
Parsons asked how long a traffic study would take to determine if and where a cross walk is
appropriate. Miklo is unsure, he just knew they were not able to complete the study before
tonight's meeting.
Miklo added that staff did discuss with the applicant the possibility of making the building shorter or
showing an image from the south. The Commission does have the option to defer this item until
the traffic study is done.
Hektoen is concerned about the open -natured aspect of the condition placed regarding the
sidewalk crossing because it could be very expensive or not, the information is not available at this
time.
Baker feels if Cherry Street is opened, this development will not create the demand for crossing
Gilbert Street so he is reluctant to say this developer should pay for the work to provide that
crossing when everything east of the development will be using that access as well. He doesn't
think that should hold up this decision.
Signs noted another concern of the neighbors to the south was people coming onto their properties
and he agrees there is potentially some issue there so wonders if the Commission wants to add a
requirement that the developer install a fence along the south wall.
Hensch feels that is perpetual problem for any development and he is not sure that is a precedent
they want to set. If a homeowner doesn't want people on their property isn't it incumbent for them
to put up the fence.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1 (Dyer dissenting).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JUNE 21, 2018
Parsons moved to approve the meeting minutes of June 21, 2018.
Signs seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
None.
Hensch announced he will be on vacation at the end of July.
Martin will also be gone but can phone in for the next meeting.
Kellie Fruehling
From: Anne Russett
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2018 2:43 PM
To: Kellie Fruehling
Subject: FW: Cherry Creek Development
Hi, Kellie - Please see the email below regarding a request for a deferral.
Thanks, Anne
Anne Russett, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Iowa City
319/ 356-5251
anne-russett@iowa-city.org
-----Original Message -----
From: Alex Carrillo[mailto:alex.carrillo@bockex.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 20181:12 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Cherry Creek Development
Hi Anne - as discussed, I wanted to send you something in writing. I understand that the public hearing will be
opened next week, but we would like to request deferral of first consideration until the second meeting in
August.
Thanks,
Alex
Sent from my iPhone
An ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 18.03 acres of
property located east of South Gilbert Street and west of Sandusky
Drive, from Interim Development Multifamily Residential (ID -RM)
zone to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Single Family
Residential (OPD/RS-5) zo a and Planned Development
Overlay/Low Density Multifa ily Residential (OPD/RM-12) zone.
(REZ18-0000,5) i
Whereas, the owner, Bd�ock LLC, has i
Street and west of Sandusky rive from It
Planned Development Oveday/L Density
Development Overlay/Low Density MiNtjf
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan
types to allow for housing options and it
Pepperwood Subdivision, as suited for cl
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning
that it complies with the Comprehensive
replacement and protection, specific r
prior to any additional grading; and
Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (201
conditions on granting a rezoning requ,
needs caused by therequested chang
Whereas, the owner has agreed t
conditions of the Conditional Zoninggi
area of the city.
uested a rezoning of property located east of South Gilbert
Development Multifamily Residential (ID -RM) zone to
gle Family Residential (OPD/RS-5) zone and Planned
sidential (OPD/RM-12) zone; and
tges development of neighborhoods with a mix of housing
the area where this current property is located, west of the
snits through an overlay planned development; and
,sion has reviewed the proposed rezoning and determined
wiled that it meets conditions addressing the need for tree
drain an&,qutter orientation, and archaeological consultation
P. provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable
st, over and above'Owisting regulations, in order to satisfy public
and
the property shall be de`vejoped in accordance with the terms and
cement attached hereto to egsure appropriate development in this
Now, therefore, be it ordained the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Ywa:
Section I Approval. Subject the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated
herein, property described help ntiais hereby reclassified from its current zorti�g designation of Interim
Development Multifamily Resid l (ID -RM) zone to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Single
Family Residential (OPD/RS-5 zone:
THAT PORTION OF AUDI R'S PARCEL 2015101 IOWA CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PLAT THEREOF RECO ED IN PLAT BOOK 60, AT PAGE 106, IN THE RECORDS OF THE
JOHNSON COUNTY RE ORDER'S OFFICE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING at the So theast Corner of Auditor's Parcel 2015101, in accordance with the Plat thereof
recorded in Plat Boo60, at Page 106, in the records of the Johnson County Recorder's office; Thence
S89'1 1'58"W, alon the South line of said Auditor's Parcel, 520.60 feet; Thence N36038'18"W, 173.52
feet; Thence N23051'00"W, 125.81 feet; Thence N0o°03'58"W, 74.90 feet; Thence Northeasterly 197.34
feet along a 500.00 foot radius curve, concave Northwesterly, whose 196.06 foot chord bears
N78037'37"E; Thence Northeasterly 329.97 feet along a 504.22 foot radius curve, concave Southeasterly,
whose 324.12 foot chord bears N86004'05"E; Thence Southeasterly 27.76 feet along a 475.00 foot radius
curve, concave Northeasterly, whose 27.75 foot chord bears S76051'30"E; Thence N11°28'04"E, 33.00
feet; Thence N07029'36"E, 135.02 feet; Thence S87°38'02"E, 96.19 feet to the Northeast Corner of
Auditor's Parcel 2015101; Thence S01 °17'48"E, along the East line of said Auditor's Parcel, 538.89 feet to
N
O
C-)
m
n�
(�
Prepared by: Luke Foelsoh, Planning Intem, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240;7m4i30 (t y8-
00005) -<r
�
a 0
Ordinance No.
T
An ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 18.03 acres of
property located east of South Gilbert Street and west of Sandusky
Drive, from Interim Development Multifamily Residential (ID -RM)
zone to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Single Family
Residential (OPD/RS-5) zo a and Planned Development
Overlay/Low Density Multifa ily Residential (OPD/RM-12) zone.
(REZ18-0000,5) i
Whereas, the owner, Bd�ock LLC, has i
Street and west of Sandusky rive from It
Planned Development Oveday/L Density
Development Overlay/Low Density MiNtjf
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan
types to allow for housing options and it
Pepperwood Subdivision, as suited for cl
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning
that it complies with the Comprehensive
replacement and protection, specific r
prior to any additional grading; and
Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (201
conditions on granting a rezoning requ,
needs caused by therequested chang
Whereas, the owner has agreed t
conditions of the Conditional Zoninggi
area of the city.
uested a rezoning of property located east of South Gilbert
Development Multifamily Residential (ID -RM) zone to
gle Family Residential (OPD/RS-5) zone and Planned
sidential (OPD/RM-12) zone; and
tges development of neighborhoods with a mix of housing
the area where this current property is located, west of the
snits through an overlay planned development; and
,sion has reviewed the proposed rezoning and determined
wiled that it meets conditions addressing the need for tree
drain an&,qutter orientation, and archaeological consultation
P. provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable
st, over and above'Owisting regulations, in order to satisfy public
and
the property shall be de`vejoped in accordance with the terms and
cement attached hereto to egsure appropriate development in this
Now, therefore, be it ordained the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Ywa:
Section I Approval. Subject the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated
herein, property described help ntiais hereby reclassified from its current zorti�g designation of Interim
Development Multifamily Resid l (ID -RM) zone to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Single
Family Residential (OPD/RS-5 zone:
THAT PORTION OF AUDI R'S PARCEL 2015101 IOWA CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PLAT THEREOF RECO ED IN PLAT BOOK 60, AT PAGE 106, IN THE RECORDS OF THE
JOHNSON COUNTY RE ORDER'S OFFICE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING at the So theast Corner of Auditor's Parcel 2015101, in accordance with the Plat thereof
recorded in Plat Boo60, at Page 106, in the records of the Johnson County Recorder's office; Thence
S89'1 1'58"W, alon the South line of said Auditor's Parcel, 520.60 feet; Thence N36038'18"W, 173.52
feet; Thence N23051'00"W, 125.81 feet; Thence N0o°03'58"W, 74.90 feet; Thence Northeasterly 197.34
feet along a 500.00 foot radius curve, concave Northwesterly, whose 196.06 foot chord bears
N78037'37"E; Thence Northeasterly 329.97 feet along a 504.22 foot radius curve, concave Southeasterly,
whose 324.12 foot chord bears N86004'05"E; Thence Southeasterly 27.76 feet along a 475.00 foot radius
curve, concave Northeasterly, whose 27.75 foot chord bears S76051'30"E; Thence N11°28'04"E, 33.00
feet; Thence N07029'36"E, 135.02 feet; Thence S87°38'02"E, 96.19 feet to the Northeast Corner of
Auditor's Parcel 2015101; Thence S01 °17'48"E, along the East line of said Auditor's Parcel, 538.89 feet to
Ordinance No.
Page 2
the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Rezoning Parcel contains 5.80 Acres, and is subject to easements and
restrictions of record.
And the property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning designation of Interim
Development Multifamily Residential (ID -RM) zone to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Multifamily
Residential (OPD/RM-12) zone:
THAT PORTION OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2015101, IOWA CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 60, AT PAGE 106, IN THE RECORDS OF THE
JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE AND ALL OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2015102, IOWA CITY,
IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 60, AT PAGE 106,
IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE DESCRIBED AS:
BEGINNING at the Southwest Corner of Auditor's Parcel 2015102, in accordance with the Plat thereof
recorded in flat Book 60, at Page 106, in the records of the Johnson County Recorder's office; Thence
Northwesterly, %long the West line of said Auditor's Parcel, 1150.96 feet along a 5066.16 foot radius
curve, concevheasterly, whose 1148.49 foot chord bears N22°34'09"W; Thence Northeasterly,
along said We, 21.83 feet along a 1959.38 foot radius curve, concave Northwesterly, whose 21.83
foot chord bears N34027'47"E to the Northern most point of said Auditor's Parcel; Thence S70°22'05"E,
along the North line of said Auditor's Parcel, 110.06 feet; Thence S54°46'53"E, along said North line,
62.12 feet; Thence S33°30'08"E, along said North line, 246.13 feet; Thence N80001'51"E, along said
North line, 39.16 feet; Thence S66°34'51"E, 183.05 feet to the Northwest Corner of Auditor's Parcel
2015101, in accordance wil plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 60, at Page 106, in the Records of the
Johnson County Recorders Office; Thence S73°50'49" along the North line of said Auditor's Parcel,
341.55 feet; Thence S84°28'3 E, along said North lin , 242.30 feet; Thence S81°39'26"E, along said
North line, 98.13 feet; Thence S 13'07"E, along sai Orth line, 137.34 feet to the Northeast Corner of
Said Auditor's Parcel 2015101; T nce N87°38'02 96.19 feet; Thence S07°29'36"W, 135.02 feet;
Thence S11°28'04"W, 33.00 feet; I1qence Northw terly 27.76 feet along a 475.00 foot radius curve,
concave Northeasterly, whose 27.75 foot chord b rs N76°51'30"W; Thence Southwesterly 329.97 feet
along a 504.22 foot radius curve, concae h asterly, whose 324.12 foot chord bears S86°04'05"W;
Thence Southwesterly 197.34 feet al in i 50 .00 foot radius curve, concave Northwesterly, whose
196.06 foot chord bears S78037'37"W; Th S00°03'58"E, 74.90 feet; Thence S23051'00"E, 125.81
feet; Thence S36°38'18"E, 173.52 feet to a int on the South line of Said Auditor's Parcel 2015101;
Thence S8901 T58"W, along the said South I' e;,,123.08 feet; Thence S88'1 3'48'W, along the said South
line, 161.59 feet to the Southeast Corner o Auditor's Parcel 2015102; Thence S88°13'48"W, along the
South line of said Auditor's Parcel 2015107, a distance of 85.14 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said
Rezoning Parcel contains 12.23 Acres, a9d is subject to easements and restrictions of record.
Section II. Zoning Map. The buildin official is hereby. authorized and directed to change the zoning map
of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conforyh to this amendment,ppon the final passage, approval and publication
of the ordinance as approved by law.
Section III. Conditional Zonina Abreement. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to sign, and the
City Clerk attest, the Conditional oning Agreement between the property owner(s) and the City, following
passage and approval of this Ord' ance.
Section IV. Certficetion An Recordin . Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is
hereby authorized and direct to certify a copy of this ordinance, and record the same in the Office of the
County Recorder, Johnson ounty, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage, approval and
publication of this ordinanceas provided by law.
Section V. Repealer. II ordinances and parts of ordinances in Conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby re aled.
Section VI. Several' . If any section, provision or part of the Ordinancd shall be adjudge" be invalid
or unconstitutional, su If
shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as le oftny section,
provision or part Cher f not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. D- C
Section VII. Effbctive Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final ReAge, approuZnd
publication, as prov' ed by law. n rn r
Passed and appr ved this _day of 20_. p --0 2 •
y � tv
Ordinance No.
Page 3
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Appprove��d{{ by
v�LeuJ �e4a"
City
Prepared by: Luke Foelsch, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5230 (REZ18-00005)
Conditional Zoning Agreement
This agreement is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter "City"), and Bedrock LLC (hereinafter "Owner").
Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 18.03 acres of property located
east of South Gilbert Street and west of Sandusky Drive; and
Whereas, the Owner has requested the rezoning of said property from Interim
Development Multifamily Residential (ID -RM) to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density
Single Family Residential (OPD/RS-5) on approximately 5.8 acres and Planned Development
Overlay/Low Density Multifamily Residential (OPD/RM-12) on approximately 12.23 acres; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commissio has determined that, with appropriate
conditions regarding tree replacement and protectio roof drain and gutter orientation, and
archaeological consultation prior to any additional gr ding, the requested zoning is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan; and
Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2017) 1
reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning
order to satisfy public needs caused by the rec
Whereas the conditions outlined it
including the replacement of trees on the
environmental features, including possible
stormwater runoff onto adjacent properties; a
;s that the City of Iowa City may impose
st, over and above existing regulations, in
,d change; and
agreement address several public needs,
ty; preservation and protection of sensitive
:ological resources; and the mitigation of
Whereas, the Owner acknowledfies that certain conditions and restrictions are
reasonable to ensure the development 9T the property is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and the need for the protection/reement.
nsitive natural features and managing stormwater; and
Whereas, the Owner agreesevelop this property in accordance with the terms and
conditions of a Conditional Zoning A
N
Now, therefore, in con/Iel
the mutual promises contained herein, thispartieagree as
follows:
D� �
1. Bedrock LLC is holder of the property legally described Q-< —
,� CA rTHAT PORTIDITOR'S PARCEL 2015101 IOWA :_CC[�', �WF�N
ACCORDANCEE PLAT THEREOF RECORD IN P15+'LiJ3C}8K 6�AT
PAGE 106, INRDS OF THE JOHNSON COUN�Y RECi3RDER'S OFFICE
DESCRIBED A: —
BEGINNING # the Southeast Corner of Auditor's Parcel 2015101, in accordance with
the Plat ther9bf recorded in Plat Book 60, at Page 106, in the records of the Johnson
County Recorders office; Thence S89°11'58'1N, along the South line of said Auditors
Parcel, 520.60 feet; Thence N36038'18"W, 173.52 feet; Thence N23°51'00"W, 125.81
podadwegvdraft�o7.1 s.1 e.dor
feet; Thence N00°03'58"W, 74.90 feet; Thence Northeasterly 197.34 feet along a 500.00
foot radius curve, concave Northwesterly, whose 196.06 foot chord bears N78037'37"E;
Thence Northeasterly 329.97 feet along a 504.22 foot radius curve, concave
Southeasterly, whose 324.12 foot chord bears N86°04'05"E; Thence Southeasterly
27.76 feet along a 475.00 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, whose 27.75 foot
chord bears S76°51'30"E; Thence N11°28'04"E, 33.00 feet; Thence N07029'36"E,
135.02 feet; Thence S87°38'02"E, 96.19 feet to the Northeast Corner of Auditor's Parcel
2015101; Thence S01°17'48"E, along the East line of said Auditor's Parcel, 538.89 feet
to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Rezoning Parcel contains 5.80 Acres, and is
subject to easements and restrictions of record.
AND
THAT PORTION OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL2015 01, IOWA CITY, IOWA, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF REC DED IN PLAT BOOK 60, AT
PAGE 106, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON IIUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE
AND ALL OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2015102, IOW CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLA BOOK 60, AT PAGE 106, IN THE
RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE DESCRIBED AS:
BEGINNING at the Southwest Corner of Aud
the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 60, a
County Recorder's office; Thence Northwe e
Parcel, 1150.96 feet along a 5066.16 foo ra
1148.49 foot chord bears N22°34'09"W, The
21.83 feet along a 1959.38 foot radius curve,
chord bears N34°27'47"E to the No ern me
S70°22'05"E, along the North li of said
S54°46'53"E, along said North lin , 62.12 fee
line, 246.13 feet; Thence N80° 1'51"E,, alo
S66°34'51 "E, 183.05 feet to a Northwest
accordance with the plat then of recorded in F
of the Johnson County Re e'rs Office; The
said Auditor's Parcel, 34 . 5 feet; Thence S1
feet; Thence S81°39'26" , along said North lir
said North line, 137.3 feet to the Northeast
Thence N87°38'02' , 96.19 feet; Thenc
S11°28'04"W, 33.0 feet; Thence Northweste
curve, concave rtheasterly, whose 27.75
Southwesterly 3 9.97 feet along a 504.22 f(
whose 324.12 of chord bears S86°04'05"W;
500.00 foot adius curve. concave Northwe
Or's Parcel 2015102, in accordance with
'age 106, in the records of the Johnson
1y, along the West line of said Auditor's
ius curve, concave Northeasterly, whose
ice Northeasterly, along said West line,
;oncave Northwesterly, whose 21.83 foot
3t point of said Auditor's Parcel; Thence
Auditor's Parcel, 110.06 feet; Thence
Thence S39030'08"E, along said North
ig said North line, 39.16 feet; Thence
,orner of Auditor's Parcel 2015101, in
at Book 60, at Page 106, in the Records
ice S73050'49"E, along the North line of
4928'33"E, along said North line, 242.30
:, 98.13 feet; Thence S63°13'07"E, along
:orne> of Said Auditor's Parcel 2015101;
S07a�9'36"W, 135.02 feet; Thence
ly 27.761feet along a 475.00 foot radius
bot chord ears N76°51'30"W; Thence
:)t radius cu e, concave Southeasterly,
hence Southvw sterly 197.34 feet along a
>terly. whose 6.06 foot rhord hParc
�to-oi jt ; inence suu-USbb-t=, t4.9U Leet; Ihence 823°511 '00"E, 125.81 feet;
Thence S °38'18"E, 173.52 feet to a point on the South line o aid Auditor's Parcel
2015101 Thence S89°11'58"W, along the said South line, 1X3.08 feet; Thence
S88°13' 8"W, along the said South line, 161.59 feet to the SoutheastQorners�j Auditor's
Parcel 2015102; Thence S88013'48"W, along the South line of sadud�r's Parcel
2015102, a distance of 85.14 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Si 4' z(png Paa
contains 12.23 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions ofaeewd-
-ic-) rn
�<m
r M
=
ppdadm ayud,aft �7.16.18 dM 2
2. The Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles
of the Comprehensive Plan and the South District Plan. Further, the parties
acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2017) provides that the City of Iowa City may
impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above the
existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change.
3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner agrees that
development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the zoning
chapter, as well as the following conditions:
a. City Fofester review and approval of the tree replacement and protection plan prior to
final platapproval;
b. Development agreement specification at the time of fin I plat approval that the roof
drains and gutters for lots 5-16 will be required to dra' toward the storm drains on
Toby Circle;
c. The applicant contracting with an archaeologist ap oved by the State to complete a
study or excavation plan prior to any additional gr ing on the property and complying
therewith in the course of performing any grading ork.
4. The Owner and City acknowledge that the condi ons contained herein are reasonable
conditions to impose on the land udder low Code §414.5 (2017), and that said
conditions satisfy public needs that are cdused the requested zoning change.
5. The Owner and City acknowledge that in
sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redo
Conditional Zoning Agreement.
event the subject property is transferred,
4nent will conform with the terms of this
6. The parties acknowledge that this Con ional Zonin4Agreement shall be deemed to be
a covenant running with the land and ith title to thelpnd, and shall remain in full force
and effect as a covenant withtitle t the land, unless 6r` until released of record by the
City of Iowa City. \\
The parties further acknowledg that this agreement shall in e to the benefit of and bind
all successors, representative , and assigns of the parties.
7. The Owner acknowledge that nothing in this Conditional Zomig Agreement shall be
construed to relieve the wner or Applicant from complying wi all other applicable
local, state, and federal equlations.
8. The parties agree t t this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by
reference into the oydinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and
publication of the qHinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the JohrH'Mn County
Recorder's Office Ot the Applicant's expense. o m
Dated this day of
City of Iowa City
ppdad"agVd,0cz 7.16.M8
D�
r
n
20_ C-)
_
r
=icy
rn
Bedrock, L.L.C. :<r
-v
m
Oa
N
Jim Throgmorton, Mayor
Attest:
0
Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk By:
Approved by -
City Attorney's Office 7 ,/'Z
G
City Of Iowa City Acknowledgement:
State of Iowa )
ss:
Johnson County )
This instrument was acknowledged,befor me on
Throgmorton and Kellie Fruehling as
State of _
County of
This record was
ppdatlMagVdraf1 z -07.16.18.dw
20_ by Jim
City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
o
My commission expires:
m
c?-<
a,
1
�rn
"°
rn
s
before me on (Da
_ (Name(s) of individual(s) as
(type of authority) of
L.L.C..
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
My commission expires:
4
%b
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice Is hereby given that a public hearing will
be held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at
7,00 p.m. an the lath day of May, 2018, in Emma
J. Hervat Hall, 410 E- Washington Street, Iowa
City, Iowa, or If said meeting Is cancelled, at the
next meeting of the City Council thereafter as
posted by the City Clerk, at which hearing the
Council will consider.
1. An ordinance conditionally rezoning
approximately 7.84 acres from Interim
Development Research Development
Park (IDRP) zone to Planned
Development Overlay/Low Density
Multifamily (OPD/RM-12) zone located
west of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and
2. An ordinance conditionally rezoning
approximately 3.41 acres from High
eoti
Density Multifamily Residential (RM -
44) zone to Riverfront Crossings —
South Downtown Subdistrict (RFCSD)o
zone located at 12 B. Court Street
r� I
FZ11i-00014)
S'
Copies of ropesed oatl0apces,a
resolutions are on file for public examination in the
office of the City Clerk, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa.
Persons wishing to make their views known for
Cnumil consideration are encouraged to appear
at the above-mentioned time and place.
? 3
Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk
r�__r® 011-07-18
818
CITY OF IOWA CITY 4b
'o& MEMORANDUM
Date: July 31, 2018
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Re: 12 Court Street Rezoning
Introduction:
At the July 3rd City Council meeting, you requested that staff summarize feedback from the
University of Iowa on the proposed 12 Court Street rezoning. The Council also asked staff to
share any responses to Council Member inquiries that were made after the July 31 meeting.
This memo summarizes the feedback the Mayor and I received from the University and shares
a response to one additional question submitted to staff.
University Meeting:
On June 151, the Mayor and I met with University of Iowa officials to discuss the 12 Court Street
rezoning. The meeting was requested by the City and held on campus. University officials were
clear that they were not going to advocate a particular position on the rezoning matter before
the Council. In general, they noted the importance of the property location as it sits between
their main campus and their significant property holdings in the Riverfront Crossings District.
Because of its location they expressed a strong desire for high quality architectural design. The
university officials indicated support for the re-establishment of the Capitol Street ROW and
would like to engage in further discussions about whether the restored ROW should be used as
a vehicular roadway or a pedestrian street. The university does not wish to endorse or oppose
building heights. It recognizes that Voxman and other campus and downtown projects are
becoming more urbane in nature and expects newer developments to take on similar urban
forms and densities.
The university noted that there will not be a push in the near future to increase enrollment and
that the current enrollment of 32,000 was generally felt to be the right size for the university.
However, they mentioned that enrolment is only partially within their direct control. They
reminded us that they are currently studying options to mandate first and second year students
to live on campus, based on institutional objectives of student retention and success. Should
they pursue this policy, it would undoubtedly impact local apartment capacities and rents.
Beginning in 2019, the university will conduct a small program that tests this live -on requirement
within one of their existing residence halls. The university has shared this same information with
the rezoning applicant.
Mayor Throgmorton requested that the university share any feedback on interior design
standards that are applied when constructing new residence halls to help ensure a supportive
living and learning environment for students. Per the Mayor's request the university shared the
following (paraphrased):
The university aims for 25sf of common study space per resident. Currently, university
residence halls average in the teens for common space square footage per resident. As
residence halls are renovated the University is attempting the push those numbers over
20 square feet per resident, based on emerging trends in team -based studying and
social involvement within the halls.
The amount of on-site recreational space varies based on proximity to other campus
amenities. As an average they strive for 4-6 square feet per resident.
July 31, 2018
Page 2
Other common amenities that are provided include one study room per floor, a fitness
center per neighborhood (represented by a collection of halls), a learning commons
(study area with breakout rooms), a recreation space with games (e.g. ping-pong, pool
tables, etc.), multi-purpose space (some with a rentable community kitchen), vending
areas, laundry rooms and a convenience store and dining hall per neighborhood.
Lobby areas often contain soft seating areas for waiting/visiting, a staffed front desk,
mailroom, and some type of design feature that helps create a hospitable and welcoming
atmosphere.
The Riverfront Crossings form -based code provides flexibility to require the type of amenities
that the university strives for in its residence halls should the Council want to require those as
part of a granting of bonus height. While the code requires a minimum of 10 square feet per
bedroom of usable open space, up to 50% of which can be provided indoors,
to achieve a height bonus for student housing the owner must comply with the following code
language, which includes additional amenities (subsection b):
8. Height Bonus For Student Housing: Up to five (5) floors of additional building height may be
granted for projects that are ideally located and designed to provide a high quality living
environment for college students.
a. Location: To qualify for this bonus, projects must be located on land that:
(1) Is within the University Subdistrict, South Downtown Subdistrict, or the West Riverfront
Subdistrict; and
(2) Is within one thousand feet (1,000) walking distance along public rights-of-way from the
University of Iowa campus as defined for these purposes and illustrated on the regulating
plan, section 14-2G-2 figure 2G-1 of this article.
b. Management, Design And Amenities:
(1) An enforceable plan for on site management and security must be submitted to and
approved by the City;
(2) For projects with two hundred (200) or more bedrooms, professional twenty four (24) hour
on site management and security must be provided. A professionally staffed management
office/reception desk must be provided in the entrance lobby of the building;
(3) Interior and exterior usable shared open space must be provided with amenities that
create a high quality living environment for students. The management plan must include
adequate provisions for management, maintenance, and security of such spaces;
(4) A secure bicycle parking/storage area shall be provided and maintained within the
building or parking garage;
(5) The owner shall maintain a valid rental permit and comply with all applicable City codes;
(6) The City reserves the right to inspect the property to verify compliance with these
provisions.
The code also states that in addition to meeting the specified criteria, "[a]II proposals [for bonus
height] shall demonstrate excellence in building and site design, use high quality building
materials, and be designed in a manner that contributes to the quality and character of the
neighborhood."
July 31, 2018
Page 3
Other Questions
The only other question staff received on this rezoning was an inquiry about the market share of
student housing that the applicant controls. Staff did not have an easy way to calculate this
figure and thus posed the question to the applicant. The applicant responded by stating "100-
500 LLC owns 96 student apartments with near 200 students currently occupying at the
proposed location. The combined owners of the proposed development have interest in and
management of well over 1000 units and 3000 bedrooms in the Iowa City area. They manage
an extremely large share of apartments in Iowa City with the majority of them rented to college
students".
Kellie Fruehling
From: Rob Decker <rdecker@axiom-con.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2018 2:17 PM
To: Kellie Fruehling
Cc: Geoff Fruin
Subject: Supplemental Packet
Attachments: 180003 - Supplemental Council Info - 12 E Court - 2018_08.01.pdf
For inclusion into the packet for our item and for Council -member review.
Thanks!
AXIOM
CONSUITAMS
Rob Deoker MSE, CPG, CPII
PRINCIPAL
319.333.9322
319.519.6221
C rdecker@axiom-con corn
W www,axiom-con.com
a 80 E Court Street • Unit 03
Iowa City, IA 52240
a a M
re+srvW^ I our""
1
SUPPLEMENTAL COUNCIL INFORMATION
12 East Court Street
August 7, 2018 Council Ano.ULTAmNT,
Project Manager: Rob Decker - presenting
Plans Beyond Rezoning:
The intent of this packet it to provide the City of Iowa City Council members, as well as City staff,
additional information about the overall project intentions for 12 East Court Street. It is in the intention
of this team to construct a high quality, multifamily housing development on this piece of land and
request the additional height (15 stories) allowed in the code by the following means:
3. Historic Preservation: Transfer of the Tate -Arms preservation SF
4. Public ROW Transfer: Dedication of the Capitol Street ROW to the City
8. Student Housing: Ideally located project to provide high quality living for college
students (up to 5 floors.)
10. Workforce Housing: POSSIBILITY to provide additional 5% of Units for
Workforce/Affordable Housing (up to 5 floors.)
Per section G of the Form -Based Code (adopted/revised in 2016), the South Downtown Subdistrict
allows for a maximum of 15 stories in scale (with height bonuses granted above the 8 story base.)
Densely based student housing in this area is a desirable per the Master Plan and the area of this
project can support a high number of rooms.
A SII
i
AXIOMCONSULTANTS
South Downtown District Summary
Extension of Downtown to the south
Bridge the Burlington Street divide
Provide a mix of residential, office, retail, and civic, uses
> Leverage the Clinton Street mobility spine
> Create new civic spaces as focal points - Clinton Plaza and
Ralston Creek Meadow
Development Character.
> Similar intensity to downtown
> Improved Clinton and Court Street streetscapes
> Build on the on-going efforts to improve quality residential
design
C,.
> Multiple housing option typologies
Student housing in areas with good access to campus
Office
> Convenience retail limited to key corners and Transit Oriented
Development (TOD) area
Potential entertainment uses
SD - 4: Capitol Street Student Housing - As the superblock
bounded by Burlington Street, Court Street, Clinton Street, and
Madison Street redevelops, Capitol Street should be extended to
connect Burlington Street and Court Street. This would reconnect
the original street grid in this location, and make two development
blocks with prime street frontage. Due to its close proximity to
campus and the student recreation center, this site would be ideal
for student housing. In particular, university -sponsored, off -
campus, privately developed (owned and operated) efficiency or
suite style apartments would be appropriate on this site. Situated
internally, this site could accommodate up to b buildings (urban
frontage surrounding internal courtyards), and yield well over 700
rooms. Additional building height and density may be possible if
parking demand is accommodated underground or off-site.
AXIOMCONSULTANTS
Additional Items of Note
• Met with the University a second time. They are not in opposition of the project and
expressed the desire to have a high quality project in this location with improved access to
campus via Capitol. They also expressed no concern with the proposed scale/layout.
• Met with the Iowa City Downtown Association to go through the project. They seemed in favor.
• UI Student Government is in favor of the project and spoke at previous meetings.
■ City staff/planning have been extremely supportive of this project.
• Overall taxable addition to Iowa City could be in excess of 3 million annually.
■ UI and City staff have both expressed interest in future possibilities for safely crossing
Burlington to the Pentacrest/Engineering campus.
• Building will be designed with possibility for skywalk connection and safe access connection
points later (similar to Voxman-City parking ramp.)
• Pentacrest Garden apartments have been over 99% occupied for over 40 years.
• Most years demand for these apartments fills them in February or March and only the
age/dated nature of the apartments "holds them back."
• Project provides opportunity to provide more housing to meet demand, provide highly
unique project, improve area to meet more of the RFC plan, and open up Capitol Street at
the same time.
• No projects exist (outside of dormitories) that can provide this type of "on campus"
living with high quality amenities, professionally managed/secure environment, and
quality of student life.
Supplemental Information
STUDENT HOUSING
• Student housing demand in this superblock is very high. We know this because of the historic
demand at this property, waiting lists, student housing study document and City master plan.
• Very specific and unique property provides an opportunity to do something special here.
• Proximity to the Pentacrest, Wellness Center, School of Music, Art Museum, Library and
downtown make this an ideal spot for high density adjacent studenthousing.
New privately -owned student housing should meet the following
locational considerations:
> Locations within the University, South Downtown, or the north
portion of the West Riverfront Districts;
Location should not adversely impact adjacent residential
neighborhoods;
> Directly adjacent to or within a 5 to 10 -minute walk to campus;
> Easy access to the trail network, usable open space, and
recreational amenities; including the University Recreation
Center;
Proximity to existing and proposed transit lines.
■ University supportive
AXIOMCONSULTANTS
HEIGHT
■ 15 story structure is allowed under City Code with height bonus.
15 stories were approved for the 316 Madison project (adjacent) with little question.
14-15 stories were planned in the Master Plan for Clinton/Burlington as well as the Hilton
site. a.k.a. because Capitol shows a lower set of renderings doesn't mean they should be limited
when they meet code - other surrounding properties have varied higher and lower overall. The
plan should be a guideline, not a gospel. Many projects have/will vary from this. That doesn't mean
that a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity should be passed up because it varies slightly from the plan.
• Height of adjacent properties not overshadowed by this structure and topography offsets the
height of this by approximately 2 stories as well. i.e. because this is on a hill, it's more
ideally suited for 15 stories and helps to offset the scale of it.
Additional height fits the area and can be used to provide a once in a lifetime opportunity to
open the South axial view of the Capitol, per the Master Plan, and provide an incredible project
for the area providing great amenities for students.
JC Courthouse - 815.15 Peak of Roof
JC Courthouse - 837.67 Top of Flag
The Vue - 850.67 Top of Roof
UI Music - 789.95 Top of Elevator
316 Madison - 753.70 Top of Elevator
EXPECTED 15 STORY HEIGHT. FFE of approximately 670 -> approximately 170'= 840'
AXIOMCONSULTANTS
PROXIMITY TO JCCH
• Around 200' away from JCCH at it's closest point.
• Views of JCCH aren't impacted much more than current. Pictorial survey and view -study were
done showing the most areas where you can view the JCCH are unaffected and most areas
where you WILL be blocked from JCCH are areas where you are already unable to see the
JCCH.
AXIOMCONSULTANTS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
• Minimum 10% as required by City code.
• Willing to consider additional 5% for additional height bonus transfer per the FBC.
Market rate for rents has been driven up by incredibly (effectively 0% at one time) lowvacancy
rates. Additional housing provided with this and other facilities will satisfy demand for high
quality downtown living for students and provide relief for neighborhoods.
CONSTRUCTION QUALITY and BUILDING PLANS
■ 15 story concrete, glass and steel construction.
• Full architectural, engineering, and general contractor teams will provide design including full
time construction administration and management. All teams will be experienced with this
type of project.
• Values of construction planned upwards of 180 million dollars — this SF price and overall
project value is indicative of high level construction (similar to buildings of similar scope in
town.)
• Materials concrete, steel, glass. This WILL require level 2 design committee so it's
construction can't be of lesser quality.
• Professionally managed by full-time staff on-site with professional security available in the
evening.
■ More amenities, better safety, higher quality of living for students in this South Downtown
area. 24/7 professional management and security.
AXIOMCONSULTANTS
CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORHOOD
• Burlington street beautification and streetscaping per Master Plan.
• Streetscape will provide green spaces along the Capitol Street corridor for students and
the public to gather safely and collaboratively.
• Open courtyard suggested between the West buildings to tie into University Buildings
along Madison including the wellness center. Will require alley amendments for safe
crossing. East side courtyard suggested to be contained and not THROUGH as this
would create an access into what is effectively a street and/or University maintenance
access drive creating possible unsafe conditions.
AXIOMCONSULTANTS
CAPITOL STREET
Axial views opened upper Master Plan
Capin
When the superblock bordered by Burlington Street, Court Street,
Madison Street, and Clinton Street redevelops, Capitol Street
should be extended through the site in order to reconnect the
grid. This new street segment will increase connectivity between
Downtown and the remainder of the district, and re-establish the
view corridor north to the Old Capitol.
L_-. _-1 L L.J
wat
7 r --j F— , r
JLt,l -
-� Lv
AXIOMCONSULTANTS
ORP
Y
i
III`
1 �I..nW-+ter
�5
GREEN SPACE — PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
• Intent to transfer ROW to City of Iowa City for height bonus
■ Intent to ask for non-standard setbacks to:
➢ Increase character of Capitol Street corridor
Sm
➢ Allow for increased sunlight/daylight into corridor/axial path to Old Capitol
➢ Create green spaces and courtyards per the Master Plan
➢ Create spaces for student gathering — lack of which is noted in MasterPlan
Additional green spaces planned for setback areas and rooftops
AXIOMCONSULTANTS
View from East Harrison Street/South Capitol Street
View from West Prentiss Street/South Madison Street
AXIOMCONSULTANTS
View from East Prentiss Street/South Capitol Street
View from East Prentiss Street/South Clinton Street
AXIOMCONSULTANTS
View from South Dubuque Street/East Court Street
View from South Dubuque StreeVEast Burlington Street
AXIOMCONSULTANTS
View from Mid— East Burlington Street between South Dubuque Street and South Clinton Street
View from East Burlington Street/South Clinton Street
AXIOMCONSULTANTS
4
It
pA _ r 10 Y
II 11 ry 4
It
°II „a u
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ18-00014
(ENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Contact:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
Neighborhood Open Space District:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Bob Miklo and Sylvia Bochner
Date: April 19, 2018
100-500 LLC
PO Box 3047
Iowa City, IA 52244
Jeff Clark
355 S. Gilbert Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-631-1867
jeffmc@yahoo.com
Rezone to Riverfront Crossings - South
Downtown Subdistrict
To allow for redevelopment of multi -family
housing
12 E. Court Street
3.41 acres
Multi -family residential, RM -44
Z07-03.18
4b
North: University building and Public parking
ramp (P-1 and P-2)
South: Johnson County Courthouse and
parking (P-1 and P-2)
East: Voxman Music Building and Multi-
family residential (P-2 and RFC -SD)
West: University building and Multi -family
residential (P-2 and RFC -SD)
Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan
C7 - Near Southside
March 22, 2018
May 6, 2018
2
ACKGROUND INFORMA
The applicant, 100-500 LLC, is requesting rezoning from High Density Multi -Family
Residential (RM -44) to Riverfront Crossings—South Downtown District (RFC -SD) for 3.41
acres of property. located at 12'E. Court Street. The property currently contains the Pentecrest
Garden apartment complex. The Downtown and Rivertront Crossings Master Plan was
adopted in 2013 as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. One of the goals of the
Master Plan was to adopt a form -based zoning code for the Rivertront Crossings District that
would facilitate the redevelopment of properties according to the adopted vision. In 2014, a
form -based zoning code for Rivertront Crossings was adopted.
The subject property is located between Burlington Street and Court Street. As part of the
proposed rezoning, the applicant plans to dedicate right-of-way for Capitol Street to reopen
this street, which was closed as an urban renewal project.
The applicant has indicated that they have chosen not to use the "Good Neighbor Policy"
ANALYSIS:
Current and Proposed Zoning: The subject area is currently zone High Density Multi -Family
Residential (RM -44), a zone intended for the development of high density, multi -family
dwellings and group living. quarters. The maximum height in this zone is 35 feet. The current
development on the subject property is an apartment complex in four buildings, which
contains 96 units.
The proposed zone, Rivertront Crossings—South Downtown District, is intended for high
intensity mixed use development in buildings with active ground floor uses opening onto
pedestrian friendly streetscapes. Buildings in this zone must be designed with facades along
public sidewalks with parking and service areas located behind buildings in rear lot and
midblock locations. This zone allows a variety of uses, including commercial and multi -family
residential uses. The height for buildings in the South Downtown District is 8 stories with the
possibility of 7 additional floors if bonus floors are granted for features that provide public
benefit or further goals and objectives of the Master Plan.
In the Rivertront Crossings zone, projects with residential uses are required to provide 10
square feet of useable open space per bedroom. This open space includes any open air,
outdoor space shared by residents of the building, with a minimum width of 20 feet. Indoor
activity space can count for up to.50% of.the open space requirement. The submitted concept
plan does not include information.on the number of units or bedrooms in the proposed
buildings, but it will need to comply with this open space requirement. The applicant has
indicated that the open space will be provided in rooftop areas.
The Rivertront Crossings zone requires that residential developments containing more than
10 units must provide affordable housing units equal to or greaterthan 10%ofthetotal units.
Alternatives to providing the required affordable housing within the development include
payment of a fee to an affordable housing fund, off site affordable housing, or contribution
of land. A signed affordable housing agreement will be required prior to City Council
approval of the rezoning.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master
Plan was adopted in January 2013 as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The
form -based zoning code for Riverfront Crossings is intended to help implement that vision
and contains standards for building and parking placement, streetscape improvements,
building form and design, and landscaping and open space requirements.
The Master Plan specifically addresses the superbiock bounded by Burlington Street, Court
Street, Clinton Street, and Madison Street, in which the subject property is located. The
Plan calls for the extension of Capitol Street to connect Burlington Street and Court Street.
The plan also states that this area is an appropriate site for student housing, due to its
Proximity to campus and the student recreation center. The Master Plan envisioned this
property being combined with others in the area and redevelopment of apartment
buildings surrounding internal courtyards. Because properties within this block have
already redeveloped, the arrangement of buildings around an internal courtyard is no
longer feasible. However, the proposed apartment buildings on either side of the extended
Capitol Street complies with the broader goals of the Master Pian to increase connectivity
and provide student housing close to campus.
Compatibility with neighborhood: The surrounding properties are all zoned either
Riverfront Crossings—South Downtown District or Public (P-1 or P-2). Neighboring
properties include University facilities, such as the Voxman Music Building, the Johnson
County Courthouse, apartment buildings, a gas station, and mixed-use buildings with
commercial on the ground floor and apartments above. In staffs view, the proposed high-
density multifamily residential use will be compatible with both existing and future land
uses in the surrounding neighborhood.
Traffic implications: As a condition of the rezoning the applicant has agreed to dedicate
right-of-way to construct Capitol Street between Burlington Street and Court Street. This
will improve vehicular and pedestrian connectivity in the area and supports a goal of the
Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Pian.
The Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan calls for strestscepe enhancements
along Burlington Street to make it a safe pedestrian route to and from campus. The plan
calls for a 15' sidewalk and a 5' furnishing zone, which should contain pedestrian scale
lighting, and landscaping such as trees, tall grasses, bollards and chain to create a buffer
between the street and the pedestrian sidewalk. The landscape features should also be
designed to discourage midblock pedestrian crossing. Given the increased density and
pedestrian activity that will result from this development, staff recommends that
installation of these improvements be a condition of the rezoning.
Concept Plan: The applicant has submitted a concept plan and illustrations of buildings
that are similar in character to what he would like to construct. It should be noted that these
illustrations are not actual designs for this property. The form -based code will require that
the upperfloors be stepped back. Development on this property will require building design
approval by the Staff Design Review Committee and City Council. The applicant has
indicated that he will be seeking bonus height for right-of-way dedication.
The concept plans shows Capitol Street as a two-lane street with parallel parking on each
side. It is anticipated that the street will include turn lanes at the intersection with
Burlington Street. There is also the possibility that the street will be designed as a
N
pedestrian street with limited or no access to vehicles. The design of the street will need
to be approved by the City Engineer.
The concept plan illustrates a maximum development foot -print, but the applicant has
indicated that specific building design has not been created. The buildings will include
parking within the buildings. Parking for the western building will be accessible from the
alley located on the west side of the building. Parking for the eastern building will be
accessible from Capitol Street or possibly Court Street (because the alley to the east is at a
higher elevation, it may not be usable to provide access to underground parking).
The applicant has indicated that these buildings will include roof top open space for the
benefit of the residents.
Summary: The proposed rezoning including the reopening of Capital Street complies with
the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Plan. A specific plan has not been prepared for
the property. If the applicant is to achieve the bonus height being requested a specific plan
will need to be approved by City Council.
Staff recommends approval of REZ18-00014, a proposal to rezone approximately 3.41 acres
of property located at 12 East Court Street from High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -
44) to Riverfront Crossings—South Downtown District (RFC -SD) subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant will dedicate right of way to the City to reopen Capitol Street.
2. The developer will build the Capital Street to specifications approved by the City
Engineer.
3. Applicant will install streetscape improvements to enhance. the pedestrian
environment on Burlington Street and Court Streets, as discussed in the Downtown
and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan.
An affordable housing agreement will be required prior to the close of the City Council public
hearing on this rezoning.
1. Location Map
2. Concept plan
Approved by: (V�
Tracy Hight e, Di or,
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
ppftdmm%2&WW=mwC
REZ18-00014,
12 E. Court Street
.410
MMM
AWIL
row*
"l3e me,
Ell I
0
eppl�MNr
® ea.�.,1 ,. ,ID�,eOM�.Ml1C,I.ImINM1B1
® � NO �ECCYYOG„10»YbEiC,1 EtMlIp UI{!>!6
1.01wgI ym
wriocllnru�nswnr
e[CeY1�2a1/ro
•O,p0YYN1
IOII�
,1,Mly,/Qlgl
107k O,trsry2t I<Jtll
LOT[M,laOlF 1121 �e1
IIaYC t/2e, il[IIgH)
llQle[
rr1-swOO�
ee[ ro
nwt ro.[slutr
,Imc 1[wnr eelsecxe wrolw
0
:,
12 E CONtf BTIEET
M
IeW1eI1Y�M@O
wdxe: p,ge,srbr
II �,w m
eean.
.e.wew
•wua
�emunn.
an.eeeeeA
r,ua�w
Ma[,in[Ils
ebfllOH1l11lMI1oo11 eYiI,W sie
auw�,e.
�C�
was
.2
e
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 19, 2018
Page 23 of 25
Freerks thanked the applicant for being patient through this process and thinks the end product
will be wonderful and a nice area for the residents that will rent easily.
Parsons noted it is a challenging piece of property to develop on and he feels the changes that
have been made in this process make this application strong.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
REZONING ITEM (REZ1li-00014):
Discussion of an application submitted by 100-500 LLC, for a rezoning of approximately
3.41 acres from High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -44) zone to Riverfront Crossings -
South Downtown Subdistrict (RFC -SD) zone located at 12 E. Court Street.
Due to the late hour of the meeting Miklo did not deliver the whole staff report, it is online for
anyone that wants to read it. Staff is recommending approval with the condition that the right-of-
way to reopen Capitol Street be dedicated to the City and the applicant build or install the street
to the specifications of the City Engineer. The direction of the street at this time is it will be open
to traffic and not limited to a pedestrian street. The applicant would install the streetscape
improvements as called for in the Riverfront Crossings Plan for Burlington and Court Streets.
Additionally the affordable housing requirements Riverfront Crossings must be included in the
Conditional Zoning Agreement. Miklo noted the applicant has indicated they will be seeking a
bonus for additional stories on the buildings, possibility 15 floors, and the Commission had
indicated a desire to see that design so that could be a condition placed on this rezoning.
Freerks said she is interested in seeing the design of this project given the large scale and as
she feels there needs to be usable indoor and outdoor spaces.
Freerks opened the public hearing
Rob Decker (HBK Engineering) stated that this application will require a level two design
approval so there will be a packet of information supplied to the City and he feels it does make
sense to come back before Planning and Zoning. Decker confirmed they will be applying for
height credits, they will get a lot of it from the right-of-way transfer. They will work with Public
Works on parking options, and also address the pedestrian access required along Burlington
Street and their intent is to do a full streetscape in the area. It will all be shown in the design
packet submitted.
Freerks noted she does want to see Capitol Street open to traffic and not just pedestrians due to
all the deliveries that will go to these new buildings and need for vehicle unloading area (not on
Burlington Street).
Signs noted he is hopeful to see a dynamic design of this project, it is a premier piece of
property. Freerks agrees and hopes to see green spaces and areas for activities.
Freerks closed the public hearing.
Hensch moved to recommend approval of REZ18-00004 a n application submitted by 100-
500 LLC, for a rezoning of approximately 3.41 acres from High Density Multi -Family
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 19, 2018
Page 24 of 25
Residential (RM -44) zone to Riverfront Crossings - South Downtown Subdistrict (RFC -
SD) zone located at 12 E. Court Street including the conditions of:
• The applicant will dedicate right of way to the City to reopen Capitol Street.
• The developer will build the Capital Street to specifications approved by the City
Engineer.
• Applicant will install streetscape improvements to enhance the pedestrian
environment on Burlington Street and Court Streets, as discussed in the
Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan.
• The design plan will come before Planning and Zoning for approval.
Parsons seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
Miklo noted the April 5, 2018 minutes are not in the packet and will be deferred until the next
meeting.
Hensch moved to approve the meeting minutes of March 12, March 15 & April 2, 2018.
Parsons seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Miklo reminded the Commission that in a previous meeting they recommended approval of
historical landmark status for seven properties, City Council approved five of the properties.
With two of the properties the owners objected and therefore the State Code requires six out of
seven council members to approve and that did not happen. Miklo asked if the Commission
wanted to meet with Council to discuss the votes. Freerks confirmed that yes a meeting should
happen. Miklo said one possible time for the meeting would be May 15 at the Council's work
session. He said that the Historic Preservation Commission is also being invited, so he will
confirm the meeting time once it is established.
Adjournment:
Hensch moved to adjourn.
Parsons seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2018— Work Session
Page 5 of 9
REZONING ITEM (REZ17-00015):
Discussion of an application submitted by Cardinal Pointe West, LLC for a rezoning of
approximately 7.84 acres from Interim Development Research Development Park (IDRP) zone to
Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Multifamily (OPD/RM-12) zone for the property
located west of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and east of Deer Creek Road.
Miklo stated the applicant submitted a couple of concept illustrations of what the buildings could
look like. They went from the 40 unit buildings with the gable/hip roof to one with flat roofs and
modular changes in the building fagade. The applicant is proposing three buildings with three
different stone/brick colors for distinction.
Theobald asked if the siding is vinyl siding. Miklo is unsure of the material but it is some sort of
manufactured masonry product. One of the goals is more sound deadening materials due to the
proximity to the highway so the Commission can specify what materials are used.
Miklo also stated he confirmed that fire department is open to using pervious pavers or grass
creek in the fire lanes if it is engineered to support fire trucks. The applicant is also working on
identifying tree species to use in the buffer that aren't susceptible to fungus or disease. He also
added there would be some gazebos on the deck areas, the whole area would not be covered
but some of the area would.
Freerks suggested the top windows of the buildings to be taller perhaps to break up the design.
Otherwise she feels this is the right direction.
Signs is glad to see each building distinctive with color
Miklo stated the applicant should have plans complete for the meeting Thursday but the
Commission may still want/need to place some conditions in, the conditional zoning agreement
that the applicant generally follow the concept plan, the landscaping plan be approved by the
City Forrester, and the Fire Marshall and City Engineer approve the design of the fire lanes.
—� REZONING ITEM (REZ18-00014):
Discussion of an application submitted by 100-500 LLC, for a rezoning of approximately
3.41 acres from High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -44) zone to Riverrront Crossings -
South Downtown Subdistrict (RFC -SD) zone located at 12 E. Court Street.
Miklo stated this property is currently RM -44 which is high density multi -family, there are
approximately 95-100 apartment units in the complex. The complex was built after Urban
Renewal and at the time Capital Street was closed to traffic. The Riverfront Crossings Plan calls
for reopening Capital Street, and also calls for high density and possibility student housing in this
area. This area is identified as appropriate for student housing because it is immediately
adjacent to campus and the Code provides a bonus for student housing. A concept plan was
included in the Commissioner's packets showing how the street would be reopened, and a
maximum foot print of what could be built there, no actual design has been drafted. The building
would have stepbacks after a certain level and there would be some usable open rooftop area.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2018 —Work Session
Page 6 of 9
The applicant originally submitted two designs for the street, a four -lane with parking and a two-
lane with parking. Staff is inclined to go with the two-lane with parking and turn lanes at
Burlington Street. Staff is recommending conditioning the zoning on the street being built as part
of the development. Miklo also pointed out the applicant is hoping to use the bonus provisions of
the Code. Riverfront Crossings would allow 8 story buildings in this area with some stepbacks,
the bonus provisions would allow up to 15 floors and vacation of the street right-of-way would be
part of the bonus provision. To get the bonus provisions the design will require City Council
approval, it would not come before the Planning and Zoning Commission, just the City Council.
Dyer asked if it has to go before the Council, why can't it come to the Commission first. Miklo
said that could be a condition of the zoning if there is a valid reason. He noted the
Comprehensive Plan does show what is anticipated here.
Freerks commented that the Commission usually sees more from applicants at this point and is
concerned the design will only go before City Council.
Hensch asked what the goals were for opening up that street, seems like a perfect opportunity to
create a pedestrian area. He noted that if this development is high density student population
having traffic drive down the middle of it seems unsafe as students will cross mid -block.
Freerks countered that she is excited to have the road open to traffic because often when these
big buildings are developed there is no place for UPS to pull in or any other service vehicle.
Signs noted that in other walkways around town (such as the T. Anne Cleary walkway) service
vehicles are parked there all the time. Freerks acknowledged that but said it is different when it
is private and deliveries are pizza and other types. Hensch asked if they could just have service
lanes established. Additionally he noted there is a significant grade change where Capital Road
will go through. Miklo said they will have to bring in quite a bit of fill. Miklo also noted by opening
up the road the residents of the building on the west will be able to access the underground
parking.
Signs noted he is excited to see the street go through but is concerned about the size of the
buildings if a 15 story bonus is allowed, and no green space.
Freerks noted they are proposing a roof top green space, but wants to make clear that the
expectation is more than just a few planters and a couple of chairs. What is needed is
something with true green space and an area that could be used year-round.
Hensch questioned how much room would be available on the rooftop with all the HVAC units
and other mechanical equipment up there. Miklo noted that under the Form -Based Code they
cannot build a rectangle that goes all the way up, they will have to have stepbacks and some
outdoor open space. One of the conceptual drawings shows and idea of the outdoor space
being atop the lower floors where the stepback begins.
Freerks said the Commission would like to hear details from the applicant regarding the
recreation area.
Dyer commented they would like to see actual concepts, not just images of other buildings.
Hensch agreed and noted that for a project of this size (hundreds of units collecting rents for 75
years) the applicant should be able to spend the money to have elevation and concept designs
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2018 —Work Session
Page 7 of 9
drafted.
Miklo asked Hektoen if the concerns about open space and the streetscape are valid enough
reasons to impose a conditional zoning agreement so that the design would have to come back
before the Commission. Hektoen acknowledged if the rational is articulated a conditional zoning
agreement could be imposed.
Freerks asked about the building height being an issue for flight paths for the hospital
helicopters. Miklo replied it would have to be approved by Federal Aviation Administration.
Adjournment:
Hensch moved to adjourn.
Signs seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
Kellie Fruehling
From: Gene Chrischilles <tgenec@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2018 3:09 PM
To: Council
Subject: Higher high rises?
Having just read John Thomas' discussion in the July 15 CR Gazette, I would like to endorse his analysis of the issue. It
doesn't seem to me that by not rezoning or by rezoning and limiting the building heights at the proposed 12 E. Court
development, that the council is betraying the intent of the RC Master Plan in the least. In truth, I think it shows a great
deal of common sense to keep the overall development in the RC District spread out as much as possible in terms of
density. Four 15 story towers at 12 E. Court is simply too dense.
Other issues to be considered in regards to this project are intent oriented. It is human nature for the developer to
want to maximize profit potential on every project. To that end, 15 story towers make sense. But can the project be
profitable with 7-8 story towers? It is likely, although the overall profit will not be as great. Will it provide low income
housing units? Not if the developer elects to buy them out. Will the developer request TIF assistance? If recent trends
continue, it is likely- using the argument that the eventual gains in property tax revenue will not occur unless the project
is built and it cannot be built without assistance. These possible intentions or lack thereof can only be controlled by the
council in advance of construction. Therefore, I urge the council to stay on the common sense track and be very
conservative when considering allowances for this project and future projects in the RC District.
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Adam Herrig <adam.herrig@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, July 18, 2018 1:58 PM
To:
Council
Subject:
Pentacrest Garden Apartments
Iowa City Council:
Please approve the rezoning of the Pentacrest Garden Apartments to the Riverfront Crossings District, The Riverfront
Crossings District, if my understanding is correct, was created to shift modern development away from the historic
downtown district with significant input from the community and stakeholders, all at significant expense.
Kudos to Ms. Mims who correctly noted Riverfront Crossings was created democratically with "incredible public input."
While I appreciate the council's desire to vet each particular project, refusal to approve this project based on the
personal feelings of council members is the opposite of democratic.
Why would our democratically elected Mayor tell the city council "When thinking about height bonuses, it is important
to keep in mind that the developer has no legal 'right' to the bonuses. Whether or not they would be granted is solely up
to the council's discretion"? The council, as I see it, should have no discretion to approve or disapprove projects based
on their personal feelings, such as Ms. Taylor's opinion quoted in the Press -Citizen: "This is a very significant location in
the downtown area, and there are historical landmarks; the county courthouse is nearby, the Old Capitol is nearby, and
to dwarf those things with tall buildings ... we don't know how tall they're going to go." Considering the lower elevation,
these proposed 15 story buildings will be roughly the same height as the new Hilton Garden on Clinton street.
The council should be approving projects based not on discretion, but on established laws, guidelines, policies and the
democratic process. I note the Midwest One building and the aforementioned Hilton Garden both dwarf the historic
Johnson County Courthouse in scope and they are roughly equidistant from the courthouse. The Courthouse, while a
beautiful piece of classic architecture, is 117 years old. The council can not refuse to allow modern development based
on the height of an adjacent historical building. The same idealism hampered development of the Chauncey, delayed the
project and cost the city and developer millions of dollars. That members of the council were roundly against The
Chauncey is not lost on me: I too was disappointed with the use of TIF for that project, but the height was of little
concern.
Growth, and commensurate growth of the tax base, allows municipalities to improve and increase services offered to
their communities. Staunching development - especially high value, high density projects like this - only increases the
burden on existing taxpayers. Additionally, the economic return for this project is high. The city gains a large amount of
taxable property without the expense of urban sprawl and furthermore it sounds as if the developer is willing to pay for
the reopening of Capitol Street (which should not have been closed in the first place).
If the developer meets the correct guidelines and qualifies according to criteria the council and Iowa City have created,
the Pentacrest Gardens project must be rezoned and permitted.
Thank you,
Adam Herrig
Kellie Fruehling
From: McIntosh Steve <Stephen.McIntosh@KONE.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 9:33 AM
To: Geoff Fruin
Cc: Kellie Fruehling
Subject: RE: Jeff Clark project
Great, thank you!
Steve
From: Geoff Fruin [mailto:Geoff-Fruin@iowa-city.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 9:32 AM
To: McIntosh Steve <Stephen. McIntosh @ KONE.com>
Cc: Kellie Fruehling <Kellie-Fruehling@iowa-city.org>
Subject: RE: Jeff Clark project
Steve —
I'm copying our City Clerk who can place your letter in the City Council's meeting packet.
Thank you,
Geoff Fruin
City Manager
From: McIntosh Steve [mailto:Stephen.Mclntosh@KONE.coml
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 9:24 AM
To: Geoff Fruin <Geoff- Fruin @iowa-citv.org>
Cc: McIntosh Steve <Stephen.McIntosh @KONE.com>
Subject: Jeff Clark project
Hello Mr. Fruin,
KONE Inc. has performed much elevator work with Mr. Clark using union labor; we certainly would appreciate it if you
could put this letter in the city council's packet concerning Mr. Clarks newest potential project.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Kindest Regards,
SM
Steve McIntosh
Sales Executive
KONE Inc.
1801 River Dr.
Moline, IL 61265
309-797-3232 ext. 204
Steve. mcintos h (a ko n e. com
[KONE
Disclaimer
0
reddot design award
The Information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and
others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
taking action in relation of the contents of this Information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
July 31, 2018
Iowa City Council
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Mr. Mayor and Members of Council,
Elevators Escalators
KONE Inc.
1801 River Dr.
Moline, IL 61265
Tel (563)-529-0902
Fax(309)797-3377
www.kone.com
We here at KONE Inc. certainly appreciate all the business Mr. Jeff Clark has voluntarily sent our way
over the years. I have lost count, but 1 know we are up over 15 elevators installed over the past 18 or
so years! We have developed a nice business relationship with Mr. Clark and again are very
appreciative of him allowing KONE to be a part of his projects in Iowa City.
Please note that KONE Inc. has been in business over 100 years and operates a union shop using
the fine foremen, mechanics, and apprentices from the International Union of Elevator Constructors
(IUEC)-Local 33.
We were very excited to hear about Mr. Clarks plans to potentially build more multi -story buildings in
Iowa City. With multi -story buildings come several elevators to be installed as well as elevator service
on the elevators after they have been installed; all would be performed by Local 33 Union labor.
It would certainly be a loss to the community as well as to the Local 33 union employees if this project
were not to happen.
Kindest Regards,
KONE Inc.
Steve McIntosh
Sales Executive-KONE Inc.
Kellie Fruehling
From: Nancy Bird <nancy@downtowniowacity.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2018 9:33 AM
To: Council
Cc: Kellie Fruehling
Subject: ICDD comments on the 12 Court St rezone proposal
Attachments: ICDD Comments on 12 Court Street rezone 8.3.2018.pdf
Mayor Throgmorton and City Council members,
Please accept this letter with comments for your consideration on the proposed 12 Court St rezone on behalf of the
ICDD Board of Directors.
Please call or email with any questions.
Thank you!
Nancy Bird
Executive Director
319.354.0863
August 3, 2018
Mayor Throgmorton and City Council
Attn: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street,
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Dear Mayor Throgmorton and City Council members,
The ICDD in general supports the rezoning request of 12 Court Street from RM -44 to RFC -SD.
Increasing density in the Riverfront Crossing District is the expected outcome outlined in the
Comprehensive Plan. While this property is not currently included in the downtown SSMID, the project
is of great importance to our downtown stakeholders. Increasing housing in the core of our
community, reclaiming the right of way and vista to the Old Capitol, and increasing the availability of
affordable housing are all opportunities brought forward by this project, among others.
We recognize that some members of the City council have concerns about building height.
Apprehensions about height issues can be mitigated with proper design, strong pedestrian access to
and through the development, and a robust management plan for the site. In his June 28, 2018 memo
to City Council on the project, Mayor Throgmorton identified four points paraphrased below that are
important to him, and similarly, to our Downtown and community stakeholders:
• to ensure residential structures designed to house as many as 2,000 students be
designed and managed in a way that will enable those residents to thrive
• to ensure that the overall ensemble of buildings achieves a high standard of urban
design and enhances the quality and character of the neighborhood;
• to ensure that the Capitol Street right-of-way and green spaces within the development
are opened up, well -furnished, and well -landscaped; and
• to enable the developer to transfer density earned by his preservation of Tate
Arms.
In light of these shared interests, the ICDD encourages the Council to consider the following that our
legislative committee and Board of Directors believe should be priority:
Prioritize pedestrian -oriented design. Our mission of ensuring a safe, clean, and green
environment can be lived out at any height of building at this site with a thoughtful design,
especially with care taken of the pedestrian quality of the overall site. While the height will have
an effect on the skyline, the experience at the street level will likely be the predominant area of
interaction that most will have with the buildings (especially those in the downtown). The City
of Iowa City and IC Downtown District's volunteer design guidelines as provided by Kiku Obata
Iof2
in 2014 could help bolster the general guidelines within the form -based code to address some
of the streetscape elements.
2. Ensure a robust management plan. Our members care very much about the management of any
property of this size. Without proper management, a potential asset could quickly become a
liability. The proposed 12 Court Street project should provide a robust management plan, as
required by the existing code, with your discretion and approval to ensure sufficient on-site
management is provided in perpetuity, clean and safe provisions are met and enforced, and the
site is an asset to the viability of the larger area and Downtown. The emerging 12 Court Street
proposal may benefit from a similarly robust management plan as the one implemented by The
Rise to ensure a successful and sustainable residential development over time.
3. Weigh the public benefits of the project. The public benefits of additional affordable housing
on-site, a highly desirable right-of-way acquisition that provides visual views to the Old Capitol,
finer -grained City blocks for pedestrian, bike, and vehicular mobility, moving students closer to
camps, and the $3.9 million generated in taxes will advance very important community and
Downtown goals. Iowa City is fortunate to have this consideration.
4. Be clear in communications with developer. If Council members have clear expectations
regarding height limits they will be willing to support, they should be articulated to the developer.
This will allow the process to move forward and avoid costly design work that may not be
approved. As is, the zoning code does not articulate when certain heights will not be allowed,
rather it sets a process in motion for what may be achieved. Clarity on this point is of utmost
importance to ensure that a project on this site can move forward with a consistent and shared
set of goals in mind.
5. Establish an opportunity for ICDD input. As a board, we are gender -balanced and inclusive of
the many interests that make downtown authentic and viable. The ICDD can offer a balanced
view and an important perspective of the many impacts future growth may have on the City's
center. If the project is rezoned, we request and think it an asset to the City process to have an
ICDD representative included in the next phases of design.
We thank you for your consideration of these comments. Keeping the core of the city a great place to
work, play, live and learn is an important focus for all of us.
Sincerely,
Nancy Bird, Executive Director, and voting members of the ICDD Board of Directors:
Michelle Galvin, Board President
Amber Neville
Mary Kate Pilcher Hayek, President -Elect
Wesley Ward
Greg Turner, Treasurer
Jason Deppe
Susan Craig, Secretary
Katie Roche
Naftaly Stramer, Past President
Crissy Canganelli
Mark Ginsberg
Nick Lindsley
Monica Moen
David Kieft
Jigna Jani
Anne Armitage
Joni Schrup
2of2
Previously distributed in 6/28 Information Packet as IP4.
Late Handouts Distributed
To: City Council
From: Mayor Jim Throgmorton
Subject: Proposed Conditions for 12 Court Street Rezoning (Date) 71L,\\7
Date: June 28, 2018
Our agenda for Tuesday night's formal meeting includes the proposal to rezone 12 Court Street
from RM -44 to RFC -SD. Approval of this rezoning could result in construction of what might be
the largest residential development ever proposed in Iowa City. As such, it requires careful
thought and discussion on our part.
1 generally support the proposed rezoning with the conditions recommended by the P&Z
Commission. I do so primarily because the rezoning is largely consistent with the 2013
"Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan." This Master Plan is an excellent piece of
work, which was developed with a great deal of public participation. Moreover, the property at
12 Court Street is an ideal location for higher density, well-managed student -oriented housing;
rezoning with conditions recommended by the staff and the P&Z Commission would open up
Capitol Street; and the rezoning would require any new residential structures on the site to
include a substantial number of affordable units. It is also possible, but not certain, that the
additional residential units would put more downward pressure on rents in general throughout
the city.
However, 1 also think it is necessary to attach additional conditions in order for the ultimate
development to be more consistent with the Riverfront Crossings District Master Plan, as well as
to address satisfactorily other concerns that have arisen during our past two meetings.
Background
When we opened the May 15 public hearing on the proposed rezoning, the Council had very
little information about what the developer envisioned building on the site. All we had was a
two-dimensional map showing the footprint of two rectangular buildings stretching from
Burlington to Court, along with the Capitol Street right-of-way being dedicated to the City. I had
heard that the developer expected to receive density/height bonuses that would maximize
potential density. From this I inferred, but did not know for sure, that the developer envisioned
building two elongated 15 -story structures.
The proposed use was consistent with the Master Plan, but the intensity of the development
appeared likely to be much greater than the 4-6 stories plus a possible height bonus
recommended in that Plan. The discrepancy led me to say that I tentatively did not agree with the
P&Z Commission's recommendation. As I indicate during the meeting, I did not necessarily
oppose what the developer wanted to build; I simply did not know what he wanted to build.
After considerable discussion, we continued the public hearing to May 29 so the developer could
clarify his intentions. The developer agreed to do this.
Upon opening the continued public hearing on May 29, we learned the developer envisioned
building four 15 -story buildings, which would contain 800-1,000 residential units (primarily or
perhaps exclusively for students) plus first floor retail. Except for the heights of the buildings,
the birds -eye view image the developer provided appeared to be very similar to what was
recommended in the Master Plan.
If we rezoned the property as recommended without any new conditions, the developer could
deviate from the Master Plan in important ways, subject to subsequent review by the P&Z
Commission and subject to final approval by the City staff and council through the Form Based
Code design review process.
At least one Council member argued that there was no reason to delay the rezoning and that
details would be resolved during the Form Based Code design review process.
However, I strongly believed the council should propose conditions for the rezoning as a way of
signaling clearly what it expects from the developer rather have the developer spend a lot of
money designing the buildings only to risk having the council deny the bonuses. Likewise, I
thought council members would find it very difficult to reject the bonuses once the developer
had spent a substantial amount of money on design and going through staff review processes.
Consequently, I argued we needed more time to identify and discuss possible conditions, which
the council has a legal right to do. I also wanted to learn from P&Z Commissioners why they
voted unanimously to support the proposed rezoning.
When I asked Council members during the May 29 meeting whether they were inclined to agree
with the commission's recommendation, 3 said they were and 3 said they were not. This meant
we were required offer to consult with the commission and continue our public hearing to July 3.
This continuation would not and did not delay the developer's project because the developer is
not far enough along in his planning for the project Moreover, if the rezoning is approved, the
developer will still need to gain staff and council approval for any height bonuses he requests.
When thinking about height bonuses, it is important to keep in mind that the developer has no
legal "right" to the bonuses. Whether or not they would be granted is solely up to the council's
discretion.
In the days after our May 29 meeting, I learned that perhaps as many as 2,000 residents, almost
all of whom would be undergraduates, would be housed in the proposed development.
Accompanied by the City Manager, I subsequently spoke with key officials at the University of
Iowa to learn what the University's interests are and about exploratory conversations it had held
with the developer over the preceding 6+ months.
This process has led me to conclude that the most important things we need to do are: (1) to
ensure that any residential structures designed to house as many as 2,000 students be designed
and managed in a way that will enable those students to thrive academically; (2) to ensure that
the overall ensemble of buildings achieves a high standard of urban design and therefore
enhances the quality and character of the neighborhood; (3) to ensure that the Capitol St. right-
of-way and green spaces within the development are opened up, well -famished, and well-
landscaped; and (4) to enable the developer to transfer density earned by his preservation of Tate
Arms.
Recommended Conditions
With these factors in mind, I propose that we amend the motion by adding the following
conditions to the proposed rezoning -
1 .
ezoning
1. The development must substantially conform with the footprint of the buildings shown
on p. 61 of the Downtown and River&ont Crossings Master Plan ("Master Plan") and
with the bird's eye view presented to the Council on May 29, 2018 ("Bird's Eye
View"), copies of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
2. The development must include a landscaped and well -furnished pedestrian walkway
running east -west between the buildings and an interior courtyard between the
Voxman Music Building and the two easternmost buildings, as suggested in the
Master Plan and shown in the Bird's Eye View.
3. The Owner shall retain an architect team to design both the exterior and interior
components of the development. The architect team must have experience with both
high quality urban design and large scale urban student housing and/or residence halls.
The architect team shall be approved by the City Manager after consultation with the
City Council.
4. In accordance with the Riverfront Crossing Form -Based Code (FBC), any request for
bonus height shall "demonstrate excellence in building and site design, use high
quality building materials, and be designed in a manner that contributes to the quality
and character of the neighborhood." The development shall be eligible for height
bonuses based only on public right-of-way dedication, historic preservation density
transfer, and high-quality student housing. To assure that such quality and character is
achieved, the following conditions shall apply to any bonus height:
A. The average height of the four major buildings may not exceed 8 stories, and
the maximum heights of those four buildings must vary harmoniously. For
example, the buildings could be between 6 and 10 stories with any height in
excess of 8 stories to be approved by Council in accordance with the
provisions of City Code Section 14 -2G -7(G).
B. If the Owner seeks to transfer development rights from Tate Arms, said
transfer shall be allowable as a replacement for the E -W pedestrian walkway
between the two westernmost buildings with a structure not exceeding 4
stories in lieu of additional height on the four major buildings. [Bob Miklo is
checking to see how many square feet could be achieved in a 4 -story structure
between the two westernmost buildings.]
C. Condition 4A notwithstanding, an average of one additional story may be
permitted for the four major buildings in return for the developer dedicating
the former Capitol Street right-of-way back to the City. The additional stories
shall be used such that the maximum heights of the four major buildings
continue to vary harmoniously.
D. Condition 4A notwithstanding, an average of one additional story may be
permitted for the four major buildings for high quality student housing if the
student -housing -related requirements in Section 14-2G-7(Gx8) of the FBC
are met. The additional stories shall be used such that the maximum heights of
the four major buildings continue to vary harmoniously.
E. In addition to the story indicated in Condition 4D, an average of two more
stories may be permitted for the four major buildings if the interiors of the
buildings are designed, maintained, and operated according to standards used
by The University of Iowa in its newest residence halls. The additional stories
shall be used such that the maximum heights of the four major buildings
continue to vary harmoniously.
Sol Coprtd srwo Shdery ho'; 'y
JA lb
Kellie Fruehling
From: Geoff Fruin
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2018 7:25 PM Late Handouts Distributed
To: Tom Vrban
Cc: Kellie Fruehling /
Subject: RE: Comments concerning 12 E. Court Project
(Date)
Tom,
We will make sure your comments are passed along to Council Members prior to Tuesday's meeting.
Thank you,
Geoff Fruin
From: Tom Vrban <tom@tvrban.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 5, 2018 4:51 PM
To: Geoff Fruin <Geoff-Fruin@Iowa-city.org>
Subject: Comments concerning 12 E. Court Project
Mr Fruin, will you please place this email in the City Council's packet and/or disstribute to all city council members.
Thank you very much, sincerely, Tom Vrban
I would like to address some of the comments that the discussion about the 12 E. Court St.
Redevelopment- project has generated.
As a union fire sprinkler installer, union contractor and founder/owner of Vrban Fire Protection I've
enjoyed over 35 years helping the Clark family build Iowa City. My Local Union 669 employees and I have
always been treated fairly and made to feel as part of a team on their projects. They use local contractors
more than many general contractors I have worked with and certainly much, much more than a number of
past and current projects in Iowa city. The ratio of union and merit contractors on their projects reflects
those of similar projects in the area. My company has been a subcontractor on several of the existing
(taller) hi -rises and I believe the Court Street area is the ideal location for a 15 story project. I strongly
support and recommend this 15 story project be approved by city officials. Many thousands of labor hours
will be worked by local labor and suppliers, millions of dollars will be generated by this project just by the
construction phase and most of that will end up back in this community. Future residents will spend
millions of dollars in downtown Iowa city. The 15 story project would generate almost twice the revenue
for the City and businesses compared to the 8 story option that has been discussed.
Ten YEARS of sorely needed low income living space is provided. This is the type of project that Midwest
cities salivate over, to not allow it in Iowa City would be a close minded, tragic mistake.
COUNCIL INFORMATION
12 East Court Street X 1o/V\
August 7, 2018 Council AC.N,,LTANTS
Project Manager: Rob Decker -presenting
Plans Beyond Rezoning:
The intent of this packet it to provide the City of Iowa City Council members, as well as City staff,
additional information about the overall project intentions for 12 East Court Street. It is in the intention
of this team to construct a high quality, multifamily housing development on this piece of land and
request the additional height (15 stories) allowed in the code by the following means:
3. Historic Preservation: Transfer of the Tate -Arms preservation SF
4. Public ROW Transfer. Dedication of the Capitol Street ROW to the City
8. Student Housing: Ideally located project to provide high quality living for college
students (up to 5 floors.)
10. Workforce Housing: POSSIBILITY to provide additional 5% of Units for
Workforce/Affordable Housing (up to 5 floors.)
Per section G of the Form -Based Code (adopted/revised in 2016), the South Downtown Subdistrict
allows for a maximum of 15 stories in scale (with height bonuses granted above the 8 story base.)
Densely based student housing in this area is a desirable per the Master Plan and the area of this
project can support a high number of rooms.
6ow�n Divricl
I
mill
-----
IlnlYrenky - - -
�n{v 1
Y
CanYnYCrosslnys �� ��
AXIOMCONSULTANTS
Y>, [yf 1 o '7
CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORHOOD
• Burlington street beautification and streetscaping per Master Plan.
• Streetscape will provide green spaces along the Capitol Street corridor for students and
the public to gather safely and collaboratively.
• Open courtyard suggested between the West buildings to tie into University Buildings
along Madison including the wellness center. Will require alley amendments for safe
crossing. East side courtyard suggested to be contained and not THROUGH as this
would create an access into what is effectively a street and/or University maintenance
access drive creating possible unsafe conditions.
AXIOMCONSULTANTS
e ..+
was—•- °'.�.",-_ w,,r:^,'Au � A R
sxi p!%
�
ry
pp� ..
_
�: .....
e ..+
was—•- °'.�.",-_ w,,r:^,'Au � A R