Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-05-04 OrdinanceItem Number: 10.a. tfflK -2t CITY OE IOWA CITY www.icgov.org May 4, 2021 Ordinance to amend Title 14 Zoning regarding nonconforming drinking establishments in a Historic Overlay District (OHD) zone and vacant for at least two years. (REZ20-0015) ATTACHMENTS: Description Corrected PZ Staff Report 04-23-21 Correspondence with Commissioner Craig Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes 04-15-21 Ordinance ICITY OF IOWA CITY ?a MEMORANDUM April 23, 2021 Note: Two typos were corrected after consideration by the Date: April 15, 2021 Planning & Zoning Commission. Underlines indicate additions. Strike - To: Planning & Zoning Commission through notation indicates deletions. From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Zoning Code Amendment (REZ20-0015) to amend standards for nonconforming drinking establishments Introduction In 2009, the City began regulating the location of bars and taverns with Ordinance 09-4341 by creating a minimum separation distance requirement of 500 feet between drinking establishments. The goal was to mitigate negative externalities associated with an over - concentration of these uses downtown, such as alcohol overconsumption, underage drinking, nuisances, and crime. The City further refined the ordinance in 2013 by limiting the separation distance requirement to only apply in the University Impact Area and Riverfront Crossings District (see Map 1) due to economic impacts and it being unlikely that an unhealthy concentration of drinking establishments would develop in other commercial areas in the City. Existing drinking establishments that did not conform to these regulations were allowed to continue as long as the use did not change and their liquor license did not lapse, or was not revoked or discontinued, for more than one year. Through attrition, this would reduce the density of these uses downtown. As a legal nonconforming use, existing drinking establishments could not expand except as specifically allowed by Code. For example, sidewalk cafes were defined so as not to be an expansion of such uses. In 2015, rooftop cafes were added as an allowable expansion for nonconforming drinking establishments following approval of a special exception. Since adoption, these regulations have helped prevent the further proliferation of drinking establishments downtown. It has also led to a greater mix of downtown businesses, including new retail and office uses. However, the separation distance requirement has had some unintended economic impacts. These impacts can be exacerbated for historic buildings where extensive rehabilitation is required. In some cases, storefronts in historic buildings have remained vacant for years. These factors somewhat limit the economic potential of downtown. As was the case for other amendments to the separation distance requirements, staff developed the proposed zoning code text amendment (REZ20-0015) to address these unintended economic impacts and to support other goals of the comprehensive plan, including historic preservation. Concern was initially raised by the developers of the Tailwind project, which will help preserve important historic resources located at 109-121 E. College Street. These historic buildings will be renovated and occupied with new uses. One of those, a brewpub and restaurant that wishes to operate as a drinking establishment, would occupy the space of the former Fieldhouse bar that has been vacant for several years. The proposed amendment (Attachment 1) would allow the continuance of nonconforming drinking establishments where economically viable business substitutes have not been found for locally designated historic buildings. This pairs historic preservation and economic development goals to reward the designation of local historic landmarks and to fill vacant storefronts through more permissive regulations regarding nonconforming drinking establishments. April 15, 2021 Page 2 Existing Provisions: The City defines drinking establishments in Section 14 -4A -4F as meeting the following criteria: 1. The principal activity of the establishment is the preparation, dispensing and consumption of food and/or beverages; and 2. The establishment is licensed by the state for the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption, as defined by Iowa Code chapter 123; and 3. The establishment is open for business on a regular basis any time between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 2:00 A.M. There are two exceptions that classify such a use as a category other than a drinking establishment. If there is nude dancing, it is considered an adult business use. If it is associated with a hospitality -oriented retail use (i.e. hotel) and has a class B liquor control license, it is considered accessory to the hospitality -oriented retail use rather than as a separate primary use. Overall, there is little flexibility in the definition of drinking establishments. In all zones where drinking establishments are allowed, they must be at least 500 feet from any other drinking establishment if located in the University Impact Area or Riverfront Crossings District. This is true whether the use is permitted provisionally following staff review or by special exception following a discretionary review by the Board of Adjustment. Where legally established prior to the adoption of the separation distance requirement, drinking establishments may continue as a nonconforming use. Almost all downtown drinking establishments are legal nonconforming uses. Legal nonconforming situations are subject to Section 14-4E-5 of the Zoning Code. The purpose of this section is not to force all nonconforming situations to be immediately brought into conformance. Rather, it is to guide future uses and development in a direction consistent with City policy, to protect the character of an area by reducing the potential negative impacts from nonconforming situations, and to bring development into compliance with the City's regulations over time. Nonconforming uses are generally subject to the following regulations: 1. Enlargement or Alteration. A nonconforming use cannot be enlarged unless allowed in the Code. Ordinary repair, maintenance, and remodeling are allowed. 2. Change of Use. A nonconforming use may be converted to another use in the same use category or to a conforming use. The Board of Adjustment may consider special exception requests to change to nonconforming uses in other use categories as long as certain requirements are met, including that the new use is of the same or lesser intensity. Once converted to a less intensive use, it may not return to the prior nonconforming use. 3. Accessory Uses. Some nonconforming accessory uses such as signs may continue as long as the principal use continues. 4. Damage or Destruction. If damaged or destroyed, the same nonconforming use may be restored within 2 years as long as the damage is not too severe. Some additional exceptions exist for uses that existed for at least 25 years prior to the damage. 5. Discontinuance. Typically, a nonconforming use that is discontinued for at least one year must revert to a conforming use. The code includes specific standards in Section 14 -4 -5E -5G for drinking establishments that are nonconforming due to the separation distance requirement. These establishments may continue unless their liquor license lapses, is revoked or is discontinued for one year, or there are changes such that they are no longer classified as a drinking establishment. If one or both of these situations occur, the nonconforming rights cease, and the use must convert to a conforming use. The code also contains special provisions for drinking establishments, including that sidewalk cafes are not considered an expansion of a nonconforming use, and that nonconforming drinking establishments may expand to include a rooftop service area by special exception. April 15, 2021 Page 3 Proposed Amendment: To incentivize historic preservation, promote the occupation of long-term vacant storefronts, and mitigate certain economic impacts of the separation distance requirement, the proposed amendment modifies the standards that allow nonconforming drinking establishments to continue. Specifically, a drinking establishment use would be allowed to continue where: 1. The drinking establishment is on property with a Historic District Overlay (OHD) zone; and 2. The drinking establishment is in a building that has remained vacant for the previous 2 years. An OHD zone is an overlay zoning district used to designate local historic landmarks and local historic districts. This overlay protects these buildings from demolition and requires historic review for most exterior modifications. As it relates to reducing vacancies, staff believes two years is an adequate timeframe to meet the goals of the amendment while mitigating potential abuse. Where an intervening use is established after the nonconforming drinking establishment ceases operations, this provision may not be utilized. In addition, the proposed amendment would allow nonconforming drinking establishments that meet those requirements to expand into other commercial spaces on property zoned with a Historic District Overlay that have also been vacant for the previous 2 years. Similarly, requirements for rooftop service areas that prohibit expansion would be waived for properties that meet these requirements. Drinking establishments that establish rooftop service areas would still be required to follow the special exception process, which utilizes additional standards related to impacts on surrounding properties. The proposed amendment provides multiple benefits to downtown Iowa City. First, it encourages the designation of downtown properties as local historic landmarks. Being designated as a local historic landmark includes rezoning the property with a Historic District Overlay (OHD), which provides local land use protections to the historic building. At the same time, the proposed amendment may only be used where storefronts have remained vacant for at least two years. This provides an opportunity for alternative businesses to establish in the site first. Where other businesses are not viable, it allows the drinking establishment use to be continued. Table 1. Existing and Proposed Regulations for Nonconforming Drinking Establishments Existing Proposed Nonconforming drinking establishments must Nonconforming drinking establishment must cease if: cease if: - The liquor license lapses for a period - The liquor license lapses for a period of one year; or of one year, except where the - The use changes and is no longer a drinking establishment is located drinking establishment. on property zoned OHD and is in a building that has remained vacant for the previous 2 years; or - The use changes and is no longer a drinking establishment. Nonconforming drinking establishments may Nonconforming drinking establishments may expand: expand: - To include a rooftop service areas. - To include a rooftop service areas. - If the drinking establishment is zoned OHD and has been vacant for 2 years, it may expand into a Property that also meets those two criteria. April 15, 2021 Page 4 Analysis There are currently more than 100 businesses that have licenses to serve alcohol in the University Impact Area and Riverfront Crossings District. Approximately 43 of these are classified as drinking establishments, of which 38 are nonconforming. Map 1 shows the location of conforming and nonconforming drinking establishments and a 500 -foot buffer from all drinking establishments inside the University Impact Area and Riverfront Crossings District. It also shows Historic District Overlay (OHD) zones within this area. The largest concentration of nonconforming drinking establishments is downtown, followed by the Northside Marketplace. A few are also located along the S. Gilbert Street corridor. Generally, drinking establishments that are further from the downtown conform to the 500 -foot minimum separation distance requirement. Due to the separation distance requirements, most areas around downtown would not currently allow a new drinking establishment unless it is in a building where it is already established as a legal nonconforming use. Since 2009, approximately 9 nonconforming drinking establishments have lost their legal nonconforming status, and another 2 (The Mill and Union Bar) are currently vacant and may lapse if not reestablished within one year. Most of Iowa City's Historic Overlay zones, which corresponds with Historic Districts and local Historic Landmarks, are north and east of downtown, with some local landmarks scattered throughout the area. Historic zones are typically overlayed on residential rather than commercial base zones. The major exceptions are the recently designated properties at 109 through 127 E. College Street. These were made local historic landmarks as part of the Tailwinds project, which combines historic preservation and economic development efforts. The proposed amendment would allow nonconforming drinking establishments located on property zoned OHD to continue the drinking establishment use where the storefront has been vacant for at least 2 years. The amendment also allows expansion into property that meets those two criteria. After accounting for zoning and lapsed nonconforming drinking establishments, only 111 E. College Street would be eligible to use this amendment, and 121 489 E. College Street may become eligible if it remains vacant for a period of 2 years. That being said, many downtown buildings could be designated as local historic landmarks. Should they qualify and remain vacant for 2 years, existing nonconforming drinking establishments in these buildings may become eligible to use this provision. However, 8 of the 9 lapsed drinking establishments would not be eligible as they have had intervening uses which disqualifies them. This amendment is narrowly targeted to continue supporting the initial goals for which the separation distance ordinance was established. The amendment also facilitates the historic preservation and economic development project at 109-127 E. College Street which contains 3 nonconforming drinking establishments, the Fieldhouse which is lapsed, Martini's which is active, and the Union Bar which is vacant and is expected to lapse. One of the primary tenants of this project is anticipated to meet the criteria of a drinking establishment in the space of the former Fieldhouse, which, after the Union lapses, results in a net change of 0 drinking establishments. Approval of this amendment is needed for this project to move forward. Overall, the requirements of the proposed amendment mitigate negative externalities and prevent the further proliferation of downtown drinking establishments. It also provides powerful incentives for downtown property owners to designate their buildings as local historic landmarks, including the flexibility to have nonconforming drinking establishments expand where other businesses are not economically viable. This will have the effect of promoting both economic development and historic preservation downtown. April 15, 2021 Page 5 Map 1: Drinking Establishments & OHD Zones Near Downtown 0 SOO' Drinking EsL duffer Uniwerslty Impact Area Q RiwerfWt CroS.INS DiArict Drinking Est. NonConforMitq Conforming �Hi$WC District Overlay{ Zone Allows Prir7klrkg tisk, Historic District Overlay 2rsne DoesR-tAllaw Drinking Est. 4 4'1 INTON ,Si I RUPPERT RE] E PAft9 R.D C;HIJRII H 5 1 m M � r � q!� � ET ST ERS6N sT OE YVA9 %N GT ST FQ a � �.! a { BOWERY 5T C 0 -4 C ua z cn YJALNUT ST Iva m °RKWOC30 AVE 1 HIGHLANu AIA: Nore April 15, 2021 Page 6 Consistency with Comprehensive Plan The proposed amendment supports several related goals from the City's comprehensive plan: Preserve the historic, main street character of the Downtown, while encouraging appropriate infill development to enhance the economic viability and residential diversity of the area. Increase and diversity the property tax base by encouraging the retention and expansion of existing businesses and attracting businesses that have growth potential and are compatible with Iowa City's economy. Encourage new business development in existing core or neighborhood commercial areas. By adopting the proposed amendment, the City will continue to provide an opportunity to increase the diversity of local businesses in the existing core of the City. However, where it is shown that other business types are not economically viable, a drinking establishment use may continue beyond what would typically be allowed. In addition, the amendment encourages the designation of historic structures in the core of the City by providing benefits to buildings that are designated as local landmarks. Pairing these goals allows the City to fill vacant storefronts while simultaneously preserving the historic main street character of downtown. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the zoning code be amended as illustrated in Attachment 1 by allowing the continuance and expansion of nonconforming drinking establishments where they are in buildings that are zoned OHD and where those spaces have remained vacant for at least two (2) years. Attachments 1. Proposed Zoning Code Text Amendments 2. Map 1: Drinking Establishments & Historic Landmarks Near Downtown Approved by: . S% Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services Attachment 1 Page 1 Draft Zoning Code Text Underlined text is suggested new language. Strike -through notation indicates language to be deleted. Amend 14-4C-2AA-2 as follows: 2. Additional Special Exception Approval Criteria For Nonconforming Drinking Establishments: An RSA accessory to a nonconforming drinking establishment may be allowed by special exception provided it meets the general approval criteria for special exceptions set forth in section 14-413-3 of this chapter, the approval criteria stated above for all RSAs and the additional approval criteria listed below: a. The RSA shall be located directly above and contiguous to the licensed drinking establishment. Contiguous means there may not be other uses located on floors in between the drinking establishment and the accessory RSA. b. There shall be no horizontal expansion of the licensed drinking establishment e, xcept as allowed per 14 -4E -5G; c. There shall be no increase in interior floor area or interior occupant load of the existing drinking establishment, except if necessary for required bathrooms, elevator, stairs, kitchen equipment, or other essential elements necessary to meet accessibility, building code requirements or to meet the requirements or conditions of the special exception, or except as allowed per 14 -4E -5G. Amend 14 -4E -5F as follows: F. Discontinuance Of Nonconforming Use: Except as allowed in subsection E and G of this section, a nonconforming use that is discontinued for a period of one year must revert to a conforming use or, in qualifying situations, a special exception may be applied for according to the provisions of subsection B of this section. Amend 14 -4E -5G as follows: G. Nonconforming Drinking Establishments And Alcohol Sales Oriented Retail Uses: In addition to the other provisions in this section, the following provisions apply to nonconforming drinking establishments and nonconforming alcohol sales oriented retail uses: 1. Any "drinking establishment", as defined in this title, that was legally established prior to the effective date hereof and that is nonconforming with regard to the separation requirement between said uses, as specified in this title, may continue unless one or both of the situations occur. If one or both of these conditions occur, then nonconforming rights cease and the use must convert to a conforming use: a. The liquor license lapses, is revoked or is discontinued, or the drinking establishment ceases operation, for a period of one year, except where: (1) The drinking establishment is located on property with a Historic District Overlay (OHD) zone; and (2) The drinking establishment is in a building that has remained vacant for the previous two (2) consecutive years. b. There are Ghanges to the use such that the use no longer meets the definition of "drinking estabimshm There has been a change of use as defined in Section 14 -4E -5B. 2. Any "alcohol sales oriented retail use", as defined in this title, that was legally established prior to the effective date hereof that is nonconforming with regard to the separation requirement between said uses, as specified in this title, may continue unless one or both of the following situations occur. If one or both of these conditions occur, then nonconforming rights cease and the use must convert to a conforming use: a. The liquor license lapses, is revoked or is discontinued for a period of one year; or Attachment 1 Page 2 b. There are changes to the use such that the use no longer meets the definition of "alcohol sales oriented retail use". 3. For purposes of this subsection, sidewalk cafes shall not be considered an expansion of a nonconforming use. 4. Nonconforming drinking establishments may expand as follows: a. Tto include a rooftop service area upon approval of a special exception pursuant to the criteria set forth in article C, "Accessory Uses And Buildings", of this chapter; and: b. Where a nonconforming drinking establishment meeting the standards of 14 -4E - 5G -1a expands into property with a Historic District Overlay (OHD) zone that has remained vacant for the previous two (2) consecutive nears. 0 500' Drinking Est. Buffer University Impact Area 0 Riverfront Crossings District Drinking Est. Nonconforming M Conforming `§Historic District Overlay Zone Allows Drinking Est. Historic District Overlay ® Zone Doesn't Allow Drinking Est. Q 11 J o Quad Roam W NTON ST XIA West River BIuHs I RUPPERT RD ciiv Purl: Mit Q F®R f► HIGHLAND AVE A None 6 UM 5 T Cn 0 C7 z p r BOWERY 5T c r --I _ i-,Cn z --4 M p -� --I m U) 0 -4 WALNUT ST mpg N r m RKWOOD AVE Wastew. . Treotme Fora M C) � Z] HIGHLAND AVE A None 6 UM 5 T Kirk Lehmann From: Sent: To: Subject: A RISK Thanks, Kirk. Sent from my iPad Susan Craig <skjeldcraig@gmail.com> Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:35 PM Kirk Lehmann Re: 4/15 PZ Agenda Packet On Apr 14, 2021, at 4:16 PM, Kirk Lehmann <Kirk-Lehmann@iowa-city.org> wrote: Hey Susan, The distinction is that if an eating establishment has a liquor license, they have to close at midnight or they are considered a drinking establishment. On the other hand, drinking establishments have liquor licenses and are able to be open past midnight (up until 2:00 am), but they don't have to be open that full time. If an establishment does not have a liquor license, they would be an eating establishment that can also remain open past midnight. Hopefully that helps. Let me know if you have additional questions. Thanks, Kirk Lehmann, AICP Associate Planner City of Iowa City 319-356-5247 From: Susan Craig <skjeldcraig@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 20214:06 PM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>; Mike Hensch <mhensch@co.johnson.ia.us> Cc: Sara Greenwood Hektoen <sara-hektoen@iowa-city.org>; Danielle Sitzman <Danielle- Sitzman@iowa-city.org>; Kirk Lehmann <Kirk-Lehmann@iowa-city.org>; Raymond Heitner <Raymond- Heitner@iowa-city.org>; Tracy Hightshoe <Tracy-Hightshoe@iowa-city.org>; Kick, Rebecca M <rebecca- kick@uiowa.edu> Subject: RE: 4/15 PZ Agenda Packet <image006.jpg> Am I correct in reading this that a drinking establishment has to be open between the hours of 12 midnight and 2 am? Which means most restaurants are not drinking establishments? Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Anne Russett Sent: Friday, April 9, 20211:07 PM To: Mike Hensch Cc: Sara Greenwood Hektoen; Danielle Sitzman; Kirk Lehmann; Raymond Heitner; Tracy Hightshoe; Kick, RPhPrrn M Subject: 4/15 PZ Agenda Packet Commissioners — You can download the next Thursday's Planning and Zoning Commission agenda packet here: https://www.icgov.org/city-government/boards/planning-and-zoning-commission Here's a link to the Zoom meeting: https://zoom.us/'/91805259053 Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Anne <image007.png> WWW.ICGOV.ORG <image008.png> <image009.png> <image010.png> <image011.png> Disclaimer Anne Russett, AICP Senior Planner She/Her/Hers p:319-356-5251 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 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. 701 MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2021 —7:00 PM ELECTRONIC FORMAL MEETING PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Mark Nolte, Billie Townsend MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Signs STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Electronic Meeting (Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8) An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ20-0015, that the zoning code be amended, as illustrated an attachment 1 of the staff memo by allowing the continuance and expansion of non -conforming drinking establishments where they are in buildings that are zoned OHD and where those spaces have remained vacant for at least two years. CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CASE NO. REZ20-0015: Nonconforming Drinking Establishment Standards Update Ordinance Consideration of the Nonconforming Drinking Establishment Standards Update Ordinance, which amends Title 14 Zoning to allow the continuance and expansion of nonconforming drinking establishments when located on property in a Historic Overlay District zone and where vacant for at least two years. Lehmann began by stating this item is dealing with non -conforming drinking establishments and the standards that are involved. For some background, regarding regulation of drinking establishments in Iowa City, in 2009 the City created a new classification process for drinking establishments and as part of that it came with a 500 -foot minimum separation distance between those establishments, as the purpose was largely to combat the overconcentration of these uses Planning and Zoning Commission April 15, 2021 Page 2 of 9 downtown or near downtown with the goal of preventing alcohol over consumption, especially underage drinking. The University was heavily involved in the creation of this ordinance and nuisances that come with that. The ordinance has been amended a couple times since it was initially adopted, one of the major amendments was in 2013 when the City only restricted this to the University Impact Area and the Riverfront Crossings District, prior to that time it had applied to the entirety of the City. It was determined that outside of downtown they are a lot less likely to see the same level of negative effects and the same level of concentration of drinking uses so the City felt like that it didn't apply as well to those areas and there were some economic impacts that came from that as well. There was another amendment in 2015 where it was expanded for sidewalk cafes and a couple other things that Lehmann will explain later. However, these minimum separation distance requirements really apply again only primarily to drinking establishments as there are different standards for liquor stores. Existing drinking establishments were still allowed to continue as a non -conforming use if the use didn't change and if their liquor license was maintained or was not discontinued for more than a year. Those establishments were allowed to continue and there were still some expansions or some modifications that those establishments downtown could do such as expansions for rooftop cafes or some requirements for service areas, for example. Lehmann next showed a map of Iowa City noting the University Impact Area which is really the northside, downtown, some of the neighborhoods near downtown, it doesn't really go south of the railroad until it crosses the river to the west and then it's the area near campus pretty much over to University Heights. The Riverfront Crossings District then goes south of the railroad, down to Highway 6 a bit, however it's a relatively concentrated area that's most affected by the University and that sees the most redevelopment. Lehmann noted there have been consequences from this ordinance, both good and bad. On the positive side the regulations have helped prevent the further proliferation of drinking establishments downtown, there have been some drinking establishments that have lapsed, so the concentration overall has decreased over time. It has also led to greater mix of businesses downtown including new retail and office uses that have replaced some of those drinking establishments and doesn't place as much pressure on the market for everything to become a drinking establishment. Lehmann also noted there were some unintended impacts that came from it as well such as economic consequences, and that was why it was amended to only apply to the University Impact Area and Riverfront Crossings. There have also been some impacts, especially for historic buildings that require lots of rehabilitation, and some instances where those buildings remain vacant for years and viable uses have not been identified for those locations. Lehmann stated one of the things that prompted staff to look at this ordinance was one of those vacant buildings, it was a concern raised as part of the Tailwinds project at 109-121 East College Street. Lehmann acknowledged this was partially in response to that, but also just trying to address unintended impacts and the middle amendment was also developed to support other goals of the ordinance and plan like historic preservation. Lehmann first discussed the existing provisions because it can be a little confusing at times. Drinking establishments in Iowa City have a specific designation defined at 14 -4A -4F stating a drinking establishment is one that meets three general criteria; (1) the principal activity is preparing, dispensing, and consuming food and beverages. Lehmann added it doesn't matter if the primary purpose of the place is to do food because other criteria also factor in. (2) The establishment is licensed to sell alcohol on site, and (3) the establishment is open for business on a regular basis sometime between12 o'clock midnight and 2am. Otherwise, if an Planning and Zoning Commission April 15, 2021 Page 3 of 9 establishment doesn't meet those three criteria it's generally considered an eating establishment. Lehmann added there are two additional exceptions to classify an establishment in a category other than a drinking establishment; (1) if there's nude dancing it's considered an adult business and (2) if its associated with a hotel and has a class B liquor license, which is a specific a license associated with those uses, it's considered hospitality -oriented retail. Lehmann acknowledged staff did receive a question from a Commissioner prior to this meeting asking does the drinking establishment have to remain open between the hours of 12 o'clock midnight and 2am. Lehmann stated the distinction is not quite that it has to be open that entire time, the distinction is that if there's an establishment that has a liquor license and they want to be an eating establishment, they would have to close at midnight, otherwise they're considered a drinking establishment. Additionally, establishments that have liquor licenses and are open past midnight are considered a drinking establishment even if they aren't open until 2am, it's anytime past midnight. If there is no liquor license it's not considered a drinking establishment, because it won't meet that criteria, so those are eating establishments that can remain open past midnight if they don't have the liquor license. Lehmann noted they do see all of these combinations of uses in downtown Iowa City. Lehmann continued discussing this amendment and non -conforming uses. Generally non- conforming uses are those that are established legally at the time it was established, but either the Code changes in some way, as the case of the separation distance, or it's rezoned and that existing use no longer complies with the new standards. There are specific provisions that apply to those non -conforming uses in at 14-5E-5 and are meant to bring uses into compliance over time and to do so there are several general provisions that apply to these non -conforming uses. (1) The use can't be enlarged except as allowed by Code, (2) it can be converted to another similar use, generally it has to be less intense and sometimes that requires a special exception, it depends on whether the use is in the same category or whether it's a different use category. A lot of the times they see changing uses, for example, if it's a neighborhood commercial use that was rezoned residential and then it can switch between retail uses. (3) There are provisions for accessible uses that can continue with those non -conforming primary uses as long as those still exist. (4) There are some provisions for if it's damaged or destroyed, up to a point and can be reestablished within two years, some additional provisions apply for long established uses. And (5) generally if it's been discontinued for one year, it must can convert to a conforming use or it must be replaced by a conforming use. Lehmann next discussed the specific provisions at 14 -5E -G that apply to drinking establishments and they were adopted as part of the separation distance requirements and it is really focused on those struggling establishments that don't conform to the minimum separation distance requirements. Generally, such uses are considered grandfathered unless the use changes, similarly to other non -conforming uses or the liquor license is discontinued or revoked for more than a year or there are changes to the use such as they are no longer classified as a drinking establishment. Lehmann noted there are also some additional special provisions for these uses such as rooftop cafes are allowed as an expansion and sidewalk cafes are not considered an expansion. Lehmann next discussed the criteria in 14 -5E -G that they're looking at amending. First non- conforming drinking establishments that would otherwise lapse due to one year of liquor license inactivity would be allowed to continue where it is zoned in a historic district overlay (OHD) and Planning and Zoning Commission April 15, 2021 Page 4 of 9 second the building would have had been vacant for two years. In addition, those existing drinking establishments that meet those criteria would also be allowed to expand into spaces that are also vacant and zoned with a historic district overlay. Lehmann pointed to the table that is from the staff report to show the Code language changes. What the change does is add an exception to where it mentions the liquor license lapses for a period of one year and adds in that except for where drinking establishments are on a property zoned OHD and in a building that has remained vacant for the previous two years. Similarly, where it's talking about expansions that can happen it is not only rooftop service areas, but it can also expand into other properties that meet those criteria. Lehmann stated the goal of this is really to try and support a couple goals from the Comprehensive Plan. (1) To encourage rezoning downtown properties as historic district overlay, which is a zoning district that protects historic buildings and affects what exterior improvements can occur and also affects demolition; (2) it does facilitate economic development in uses were buildings have remained vacant for at least two years and (3) provides the opportunity for alternative businesses to establish. Lehmann said this amendment still meets the same goals of the ordinance that was initially adopted in an effort make sure that there's a mix of different uses downtown but where those uses are an establishment because, for whatever reason there doesn't seem to be the market demand, then it won't allow that that drinking establishment use to continue. Lehmann also noted the way that it's designed is to limit the potential misuse of the ordinance, so it is very narrowly targeted. He did reiterate this would help facilitate that Tailwinds project and that that's what initially got staff to start looking at this. In terms of the analysis that staff conducted, there's more than 100 businesses that can serve alcohol in the University Impact Area and Riverfront Crossings Districts, of those around 43 are current drinking establishments and 38 are non -conforming to that 500 -foot buffer for separation distance. There have also been nine former non -conforming drinking establishments that have lost their non -conforming status, mostly due to other uses established there or they were vacant for a period of time. There are two additional drinking establishment licenses in buildings that are currently vacant and may lose their non -conforming status if they weren't reestablished within a year (the Union Bar downtown and The Mill). In the staff memo Lehmann provided a map that shows historic districts, drinking establishments and the 500 -foot buffers. Most of the non- conforming drinking establishments are downtown or near downtown, some in the north side though it's relatively limited. For historic preservation zones, those are mostly north and east of downtown, typically they're associated with residential zones, so a lot of the goals don't necessarily align, but they do align in specific circumstances. Notably, that they align where the Tailwinds project is occurring as that's a recent historic rezoning downtown and there are potentially other buildings downtown that that could be eligible right now. The only property that staff identified is 111 East College Street which is formerly the Field House and it's been vacant for several years now, and others that it might apply to is the Union Bar at 121 East College Street which is vacant and expected to lapse as it closed in on the two year mark, this might also apply to other drinking establishments downtown that are currently active but may be able to use this amendment in future if they're building a historic district overlay. Lehmann reiterated with the 500 -foot buffer there's not a lot of areas where other drinking establishments can establish unless it replaces an existing drinking establishment. Craig asked for clarification on the map for what is in the historic district overlay that allows drinking establishments and where the Tailwinds building is. Lehmann pointed it out on the map and noted that there are other historic districts downtown that are in commercial zones but Planning and Zoning Commission April 15, 2021 Page 5 of 9 typically most of the historic districts or conservation districts are tied to residential properties or residential neighborhoods. Lehmann reiterated as this relates to Comprehensive Plan it supports a couple different goals. (1) Preserving the historic main street character of downtown while encouraging appropriate infill and enhancing the economic viability and residential diversity of the area, primarily the economic viability for this amendment. (2) Increase and diversifying the property tax base, encouraging retention and expansion of existing businesses and attracting businesses that are compatible to the Iowa City economy; and (3) encouraging new business development in the existing core or neighborhood areas. This amendment does provide or maintains that ability to provide a diversity of local businesses downtown because there is that two-year waiting period where before this would kick into effect. It also provides an opportunity for another use to establish and if there isn't another use that seems like it would fit then that's when the drinking establishment use that's already there would be allowed to continue. Lehmann noted it does provide some additional incentives to encourage more OHD designations downtown because it does provide additional benefits for those properties and allows the possibility of expansion of existing successful businesses and it allows different business uses that are not currently allowed. Beyond that, the two-year lapse period for lack of a better term, is really to pair those two goals, the economic development goal on that historic preservation goal and make sure that historic buildings are being protected while still supporting the economic potential of downtown Iowa City. Staff does recommend that the zoning code be amended, as illustrated an attachment 1 of the staff memo by allowing the continuance and expansion of non -conforming drinking establishments where they are in buildings that are zoned OHD and where those spaces have remained vacant for at least two years. Hensch understands that there's three criteria to be eligible, number one they have to be in the right zone, which would be the University Impact Area or the Riverfront Crossings, number two they have to have OHD property designation and the structure would have to be vacant for two years. Lehmann confirmed that was correct. Craig asked if a building that has never been a drinking establishment got the OHD designation there's still no way that it can become a drinking establishment correct. Lehmann confirmed that was but noted if it neighbors a drinking establishment that was also in a OHD they could expand into that space, but only if it met those two criteria. Russett added another situation in which drinking establishment couldn't be located there is if it met that 500 -foot separation distance requirement. Craig asked about the property she saw for sale, the bank parking lot on the northwest corner of Washington and Linn Streets, if somebody builds a building there there's no way it can have a drinking establishment in it, because it's not 500 feet from the bars that are right by the alley. Lehmann confirmed that was correct. Craig said they could build a hotel there and it would be okay. Hektoen noted a new construction also wouldn't satisfy the historic zone. Planning and Zoning Commission April 15, 2021 Page 6 of 9 Craig asked then are the places that are on properties that are allowed through being grandfathered in as drinking establishments, are they considered higher valued buildings or property because they can do higher value activities there, zoning certainly affects the property value of a piece of property. Perhaps something is assessed at a higher value because it is a drinking establishment than it would be if that something that was zoned different. Lehmann is unsure about the assessor's valuation, but his understanding is because the non -conforming drinking establishments are tied to buildings, it does affect the rent of those buildings. Craig said she is a little uncomfortable with this because it feels like someone who can afford to let a building sit empty for two years and then for many years be able to reap some value from that whereas someone who can't afford that to happen and is unable to fill it and therefore loses the opportunity for it to ever be a drinking establishment again just feels like the big guy wins. Elliott followed up on what Craig pointed out in that there are so few historic designated buildings downtown so why aren't there more. Russett stated they are actually currently working on a national register nomination for the downtown and that's something that has typically happened before any further local historic districts have been created in the City. They are not currently pursuing a local historic district in the downtown but are pursuing that national register nomination. She acknowledged there's oftentimes some concerns from property owners with the local historic designation because it does come with a lot of benefits but there's also additional regulation, so a lot of times it's just time working with property owners and doing outreach to see if there's any interest in a designation, the ones that have been designated in the downtown have been initiated by the property owner and they voluntarily wanted to pursue that designation. Nolte offered a comment for anyone in the public or someone that might be new to town on where these ordinances came from. Back in the late 90s two things happened, the University decided no more alcohol on campus and then the Coral Ridge mall opened and there was a flux of retailers that went with it and so any unused space downtown became a bar and things just got out of control. Rents went through the roof, the only thing that would work downtown was a bar for a long time, and so that's where these ordinances came in to right that ship. He thinks they served their purpose of the time but thinks it's smart now to look at the ordinances and how to make adjustments. Hensch opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Hensch close the public hearing. Nolte recommends that the zoning code be amended, as illustrated an attachment 1 of the staff memo by allowing the continuance and expansion of non -conforming drinking establishments where they are in buildings that are zoned OHD and where those spaces have remained vacant for at least two years. Townsend seconded the motion. Hensch really likes the real specific targeting that's associated with this amendment because he was a State Trooper when Iowa City was pretty crazy downtown and got called downtown many times for really big public brawls in the middle of the night, so he remembers those times well and it was really kind of out of control. He thinks this ordinance will be another piece of the Planning and Zoning Commission April 15, 2021 Page 7 of 9 puzzle of encouraging and strengthening the historical character of downtown, hopefully it will encourage more buildings to get a historical designation and potentially reduce the overall vacancies that do occur in historic buildings because of some of the restrictions associated with them by providing some type of economic incentive, by the way of this type of business. Craig agrees and hopes eventually there'll be more historic designations downtown but the only way this ordinance encourages additional ones would be the areas that are already drinking establishments, there's no incentive for someone who's not already a drinking establishment unless they're outside of the 500 -foot buffer so it is a limited encouragement. Nolte agreed, one would be pretty hard pressed to find a spot that isn't in the 500 -foot zone. Townsend agreed but there's still a chance for more restaurants to come in and help revive the vacancies downtown, restaurants are always needed, especially during the noon hour. Elliott stated it seems like a good solution for the property for Tailwinds and if it affects others that's a good thing too. Hensch asked if the genesis of this amendment was a request by the Tailwinds developer, or what actually started this whole discussion. Lehmann replied the genesis was with the Tailwinds project and they looked at a million different ways of trying to approach this and are still looking at things but it's been a process. Townsend stated there likely will be more traffic downtown in the evenings with the music building being open now for recitals and Riverside Theater planning to move to the Ped Mall so it just seems that there will be more traffic and more need for restaurants and eating establishments downtown. Craig stated while she does support this, she has a few minor concerns but economic vitality and preserving historic spaces downtown override any small concerns she has. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. Nolte left the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: APRIL 1, 2021: Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of April 1, 2021. Martin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett gave a few updates, first the Finkbine annexation and the first reading of that rezoning ordinance passed at Council last week, so they are moving that annexation and severance with University Heights to the State for their review and the rezoning will get approved after the State Planning and Zoning Commission April 15, 2021 Page 8 of 9 looks at the annexation. Second is the Yellow Rock preliminary plat, which was that seven -lot subdivision in the County off of Rapid Creek Road, Council approved that last week. Third, from several months ago P&Z looked at a rezoning in Riverfront Crossings south of the railroad tracks on Dubuque Street around 700 South Dubuque, that project is still moving forward, the rezoning was approved a long time ago but they received a parking reduction last night from the Board of Adjustment and this Commission should be seeing an alley vacation soon for that project and also staff is currently reviewing their plans through the design review process. ADJOURNMENT: Craig moved to adjourn. Townsend seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2020-2021 KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member 7/16 8/6 8/20 10/1 10/15 11/5 12/3 12/17 1/7 1/21 2/18 3/18 4/1 4/14 CRAIG, SUSAN X X X X X X O X X X X X X X DYER, CAROLYN O/E O/E -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ELLIOTT, MAGGIE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X X X X X HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X NOLTE, MARK -- -- -- -- X X X X X X X O X X X X SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X O/E TOWNSEND, BILLIE O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member jD,CL Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 (RE720-0015) Ordinance No. Ordinance to amend Title 14 Zoning regarding nonconforming drinking establishments in a Historic Overlay District (OHD) zone and vacant for at least two years. (REZ20-0015) Whereas, studies show that the increase in the concentration of alcohol-related uses is correlated to the overconsumption of alcohol, is correlated to the prevalence of underage drinking, and contributes to an increase in violence and crime; and Whereas, on June 2, 2009, City Council adopted Ordinance 09-4341, which established spacing requirements for drinking establishments throughout Iowa City due to the negative externalities associated with a concentration of drinking establishments such as bars and pubs; and Whereas, drinking establishments that were legally established at the time the spacing requirements were adopted were allowed to continue as legally nonconforming uses, subject to special standards for nonconforming drinking establishment uses; and Whereas, on August 20, 2013, City Council adopted Ordinance 13-4544, limiting the distance separation requirements for drinking establishments to just the University Impact Area and the Riverfront Crossings District because a concentration of drinking establishments was less likely to occur such that spacing requirements were not necessary and were unduly restricting economic development opportunities in outlying commercial areas; and Whereas, it is reasonable to further amend the drinking establishment regulations to allow the continuance and expansion of such legal nonconforming uses where the owners have been unable to establish viable conforming business uses and have remained vacant for at least two years as a result; and Whereas, the City's Comprehensive Plan seeks to preserve the historic main street character of the downtown, to encourage the retention and expansion of existing businesses, to attract businesses that have growth potential and are compatible with Iowa City's economy, and to encourage new business development in existing core or neighborhood commercial areas; and Whereas, this amendment seeks to incentive historic preservation while still limiting the opportunities for new drinking establishments to be established in furtherance of the purpose of the distance separation requirements and the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the zoning code amendment set forth below and recommends approval. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. Amendments. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby Ordinance No. Page 2 amended as follows: A. Amend 14-4C-2AA-2 by adding the following underlined language: Additional Special Exception Approval Criteria for Nonconforming Drinking Establishments: An RSA accessory to a nonconforming drinking establishment may be allowed by special exception provided it meets the general approval criteria for special exceptions set forth in section 14-46-3 of this chapter, the approval criteria stated above for all RSAs and the additional approval criteria listed below: a. The RSA shall be located directly above and contiguous to the licensed drinking establishment. Contiguous means there may not be other uses located on floors in between the drinking establishment and the accessory RSA. b. There shall be no horizontal expansion of the licensed drinking establishment, except as allowed by 14 -4E -5G; c. There shall be no increase in interior floor area or interior occupant load of the existing drinking establishment, except if necessary for required bathrooms, elevator, stairs, kitchen equipment, or other essential elements necessary to meet accessibility, building code requirements or to meet the requirements or conditions of the special exception, and except as allowed by 14 -4E -5G. B. Amend 14 -4E -5F by adding the following underlined language: Discontinuance of Nonconforming Use: Except as allowed in subsections E and G of this section, a nonconforming use that is discontinued for a period of one year must revert to a conforming use or, in qualifying situations, a special exception may be applied for according to the provisions of subsection B of this section C. Amend 14 -4E -5G by adding the following underlined language and deleting the following stricken language: Nonconforming Drinking Establishments and Alcohol Sales Oriented Retail Uses: In addition to the other provisions in this section, the following provisions apply to nonconforming drinking establishments and nonconforming alcohol sales -oriented retail uses: 1. Any "drinking establishment", as defined in this title, that was legally established prior to the effective date hereof and that is nonconforming with regard to the separation requirement between said uses, as specified in this title, may continue unless one or both of the situations occur. If one or both of these conditions occur, then nonconforming rights cease and the use must convert to a conforming use: a. The liquor license lapses, is revoked or is discontinued, or the drinking establishment ceases operation, for a period of one year, except where: (2) The drinking establishment is in a building that has remained vacant for the previous two (2) consecutive years. b. establishment"definition nf "drinking . There has been a change of use as defined in Section 14 -4E -5B. 2. Any "alcohol sales -oriented retail use", as defined in this title, that was legally established prior to the effective date hereof that is nonconforming with regard to the Ordinance No. Page 3 separation requirement between said uses, as specified in this title, may continue unless one or both of the following situations occur. If one or both of these conditions occur, then nonconforming rights cease and the use must convert to a conforming use: a. The liquor license lapses, is revoked or is discontinued for a period of one year; or b. There are changes to the use such that the use no longer meets the definition of "alcohol sales -oriented retail use". 3. For purposes of this subsection, sidewalk cafes shall not be considered an expansion of a nonconforming use. (Ord. 09-4341, 6-2-2009) 4. Nonconforming drinking establishments may expand as follows: a. Tto include a rooftop service area upon approval of a special exception pursuant To the criteria set forth in article C, "Accessory Uses and Buildings", of this chapter: (Ord. 15-4641, 9-15-2015) b. Where a nonconforming drinking establishment meeting the standards of 14• that has remained vacant for the previous two (2) consecutive years. Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication. Passed and approved this day of 2021. Mayor City Clerk Approved by City Attorney's Office — 04/29/2021 Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by _ Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Bergus Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Weiner First Consideration 05/04/2021 Vote for passage: AYES: Mims, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner, Bergus. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Salih. Second Consideration Vote for passage: Date published that the Item Number: 10.b. �r -4 "m ot r4" N CITY OE IOWA CITY www.icgov.org May 4, 2021 Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 6.12 acres of land located near the intersection of Finkbine Commuter Drive and Melrose Avenue to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -20) and Institutional Public (P-2) with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-20/P-2) (REZ20- 0012). (Pass & Adopt) ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Report with Attachments PZ Meeting Minutes Ordinance & CZA STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner & Anne Russett, Senior Planner Item: ANN20-0002 & REZ20-0012 Date: February 18, 2021 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: MMS Consultants 1917 S. Gilbert St. Iowa City, IA 52240 319-351-8282 I.sexton (a)-mmsconsultants.net Contact Person: Ben Logsdon Focus Development Co 319-512-5110 benl@focusdevco.com Property Owner: Board of Regents State of Iowa for the Use & Benefit of the University of Iowa Requested Action: Annexation and Rezoning Purpose: Annexation of 3.61 acres of land currently in University Heights and a rezoning of 6.12 acres from Institutional Public (P-2) and University Heights Commercial (C) to Institutional Public (P-2), Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -20) with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM- 20/P-2) Location: Location Map: 1360 Melrose Ave. Size: Annexation: 3.61 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Comprehensive Plan: District Plan: Neighborhood Open Space District: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: K Rezoning: 6.12 acres Commercial, University Heights Commercial (C) North: Iowa City — Institutional Public (P2) South: University Heights — R-1 East: University Heights — PUD/R-1 University Heights — CM/R-1 West: Iowa City — Institutional Public (P2) Iowa City Northwest District Plan — Not adopted SW2 December 3, 2020 N/A since associated with an annexation The proposed annexation and rezoning are associated with the University of Iowa's property at 1360 Melrose Avenue. The University is proposing to maintain ownership of this land, but enter into a long-term lease with a senior housing developer to redevelop the property at 1360 Melrose Avenue. Typically, the City does not review University projects because it is a State governmental entity and not subject to City zoning regulations; however, the City does have jurisdiction with this redevelopment. Specifically, 14 -2F -6C of the zoning code states "Before a leasehold interest in any land zoned public is conveyed to anyone for a use other than those allowed in the public zone and to anyone other than the government of the United States, the state or a political subdivision thereof, the land must be rezoned to an appropriate zone in which the use is allowed. The use shall be subject to all requirements of the new zone. Further, the zone shall be established as an overlay zone with the underlying zone retaining its original public zone designation." A portion of this property is located within the City of University Heights. Therefore, concurrent with the annexation and rezoning being reviewed by the City, the applicant has submitted a severance application to the City of University Heights. In short, the proposal is to shift the boundary lines of the two cities to avoid a development that crosses jurisdictional boundaries. City staff has been coordinating with the City of University Heights throughout this process. The applicant has proposed a 4 -story senior housing complex that will include 116 dwelling units. The project includes 263 parking spaces, which are located both underneath the building and on a surface lot behind the building. The main access to the development is from Melrose Avenue. The applicant held a virtual good neighbor meeting in September 2020. A summary of the meeting provided by the applicant is attached. ANALYSIS: Annexation The Comprehensive Plan has established a growth policy to guide decisions regarding annexations. The annexation policy states that annexations are to occur primarily through voluntary petitions filed by the property owners. Further, voluntary annexation requests are to be 3 reviewed under the following three criteria. The Comprehensive Plan states that voluntary annexation requests should be viewed positively when the following conditions exist. 1. The area under consideration falls within the adopted long-range planning boundary. A general growth area limit is illustrated in the Comprehensive Plan and on the City's Zoning Map. The City's growth area is located at the fringes of the community within unincorporated Johnson County. The proposed annexation is not located at the City's outskirts, but rather close to the core of the community. Specifically, the proposal requests transferring a portion of land currently within the corporate limits of University Heights to the City of Iowa City. 2. Development in the area proposed for annexation will fulfill an identified need without imposing an undue burden on the City. The Comprehensive Plan encourages growth that is contiguous and connected to existing neighborhoods to reduce the costs of providing infrastructure and City services. The subject property is bordered by the city limits and contiguous to current development and meets the goal of contiguous growth. Public sanitary sewer and water is available to the site and do not need to be upgraded for the project. The site is already served by public transit. Melrose Avenue does have traffic congestion during peak hours of the day; however, most of the congestion will be contained on-site for the proposed use. More details related to the traffic study and proposed improvements are discussed in the rezoning section of this report. The City's affordable housing annexation policy (Resolution 18-211) requires that annexations resulting in 10 or more residential dwelling units provide affordable units equal to 10% of the total units in the annexed area, with an assurance of long-term affordability. The policy was created to apply to greenfield annexations of property in the County at the fringe of the City, and in recognition of the City's considerable discretion in determining whether to annex property. Neither of these conditions are present here. In this case we are just shifting the boundary between two already existing urbanized areas for the purpose of avoiding the unworkable circumstance of a development that straddles two cities. The way that boundary shift is accomplished is through a severance by one city and an annexation by another. Iowa City's annexation of this property is dependent on the severance of the property by University Heights which will be contingent on a 28E agreement specifying the rezoning being requested by the University and sharing of future tax revenue. Therefore, staff has found that the annexation policy does not apply to this annexation. 3. Control of the development is in the City's best interest. The property is adjacent to the City's corporate limits on the north, west, and southwest. The City already provides public services in this area, including transit, Fire, water, and sanitary sewer 6"1.11 VA IWO For the reasons stated above, staff finds that the proposed annexation complies with the growth policy. Rezoning Current Zoning: The subject property is currently zoned University Heights Commercial (C) & Institutional Public (P-2). The P-2 zone is reserved for public uses of land owned or land controlled by the State or Federal government, such as university campuses, regional medical facilities, post offices and other State and Federally owned facilities. Proposed Zoning: The applicant is requesting rezoning the subject property to Medium Density Multi -Family (RM -20) with a Planned Development Overlay. Since the University will maintain ownership of the land the P-2 designation will remain. Therefore, the proposed rezoning request is to OPD/RM-20/P-2. The ri proposed zone allows for a density of 24 dwelling units per net acre of land. The 6.12 -acre site could accommodate 146 dwelling units. The proposal is well under that at 116 dwelling units. As the proposed rezoning will result in a parcel of land with two different zoning designations, staff is recommending a condition that prior to issuance of a building permit the area be re -platted to create lots that conform with the proposed zoning boundaries. 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. 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, Land Uses, Mass & Scale — The proposed development includes 116 dwelling units at a density of 18 dwelling units per acre. The development is intended for seniors, but it is staff understanding that it will not be exclusively for seniors. The proposed block -scale building is over 700 -feet in length and four stories in height. To the immediate east of the site is an existing single- family and duplex development off of Birkdale Court. The development includes 6 units on 1.62 net acres (3.7 dwelling units per acre). These existing units are 1 to 1.5 stories in height. As part of the OPD rezoning, the applicant is requesting a waiver from the 35' height maximum in the RM - 20 zone to build a 63 -foot building. The proposal attempts to address the difference in scale and density by providing a landscaped buffer between the new building and the existing homes and locating the new building approximately 111 feet away from the adjacent lot line. Existing single- family homes are located to the south of the proposed development and are separated from it by Melrose Avenue. Southwest of the proposed development, located in the City, are existing larger scale multi -family buildings and multi -family zoning. General Layout— Attachments 7 & 8 show the Preliminary OPD and Sensitive Areas Development Plan and the building elevations. The OPD plan shows the general layout of the project site, which includes a multi -family building that fronts both Finkbine Commuter Drive (a private street) and Melrose Avenue. Surface parking is proposed on the eastern portion of the site off of Melrose Avenue. 211 parking spaces are required and the plans shows 228 parking spaces and up to 263 through a potential phase 2 component of the site. This is between 17 and 52 more than is required. The proposed building will be required to conform to the City's Multi -Family Site Development Standards, which regulate the design of parking, landscaping, and screening. This will be reviewed as part of the Site Plan Review process. The Multi -Family Site Development Standards require that parking be located behind the building or screened from public rights-of-way. The applicant has requested a waiver from this standard through the City's minor modification process to allow up to seven parking stalls to be located on the west side of the building. This is an administrative review that staff is currently evaluating. The administrative hearing was held on Friday, February 12. Open Space — The project incorporates an on-site open space area that will contain site amenities such as patio space, seating and gathering areas. The required open space for the site is 2,590 square feet and the area depicted on the plan equals 7,300 square feet. Traffic Circulation — The development will be accessed from Melrose Avenue through a drive leading directly to the surface parking lot behind the building. Limited guest parking is provided off of Finkbine Commuter Drive. Deliveries will also be able to access the site from Finkbine Commuter Drive. 5 2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities. The subject property can be serviced by both sanitary sewer and water. The site is also on the City's Melrose Express bus route. As part of the rezoning, staff requested that the applicant complete a traffic study. The executive summary is included in Attachment 9. Here is a summary of the findings of that report: • Current southbound movements at Finkbine Commuter Drive and Melrose Avenue are a Level -of -Service (LOS) F (i.e. failing) during the AM peak hour. This includes traffic traveling south onto Emerald Street and west or east onto Melrose Avenue. • Current eastbound left -turn movements at Finkbine Commuter Drive and Melrose Avenue are a LOS F during the AM peak hour. • A signal is currently warranted at Finkbine Commuter Drive and Melrose Avenue. • While the proposed development does not add much traffic to Finkbine Commuter Drive (e.g. deliveries and guest parking), it will not improve the current situation. • Future southbound movements, at the proposed access to Melrose Avenue, are anticipated to operate at a LOS F on opening day during the AM peak. Vehicle queues would be contained to private property. • An eastbound left -turn lane on Melrose Avenue, at the proposed access, is warranted on opening day. Any additional development along Finkbine Commuter Drive in the future, beyond what is currently proposed, cannot occur without additional improvements at the Finkbine Commuter Drive and Melrose Avenue intersection. At this time, staff is not recommending signalization of this intersection, but will likely require it as part of any future rezonings. For this rezoning, staff is recommending a condition requiring installation of an eastbound left -turn lane on Melrose Avenue at the proposed access to the site. 3. The development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property values and privacy of neighboring properties any more than would a conventional development. The proposed development is larger in scale than surrounding properties; however, light and air are maintained through buffering and distance separation between the existing single-family and duplex residences to the east and the new building. Furthermore, typical University development does not require review by the City. But for the proposed long-term lease with a private senior development group, the University could develop this site without compliance with City zoning. 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. The applicant has requested a waiver from the 35 -foot height maximum in the RM -20 zone and proposes a building not to exceed 63 -feet in height. Per 14 -3A -4K Modifications to Zoning Requirements, the maximum building height may be modified or waived, provided that the design of the development results in sufficient light and air circulation for each building and adequate, accessible open space for all residents of the development. The proposed elevations, show an s - shaped building design that incorporates private balconies and shared open space. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: There is no adopted district plan for the Northwest District, where this property is located. However, the future land use map of the IC 2030 Comprehensive Plan indicates that this area of Iowa City should consist of primarily of public/semi-public space because it is owned by the University of Iowa. M The proposed rezoning aligns with several goals of the comprehensive plan: • Land Use Element: Encourage compact, efficient development that is contiguous and connected to existing neighborhoods to reduce the cost of extending infrastructure and services and to preserve farmland and open space at the edge of the city. • Housing Element: Encourage a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods: o Identify and support infill development and redevelopment in areas where services and infrastructure are already in place. • Transportation Element: Maximize the safety and efficiency of the transportation network. • Environment, Energy, and Resources Element: Recognize the essential role out land use policies play in preserving natural resources and reducing energy consumption. o Encourage compact, efficient development that reduces the cost of extending and maintaining infrastructure and services. o Discourage sprawl by promoting small -lot and infill development Neighborhood Open Space: Open space dedication or fees in lieu will be addressed at the time of subdivision. Based on the 6.31 acres of RM -20 zoning, the developer would be required to dedicate 0.65 acres of land or pay fees in -lieu. The site is located across the street from a public golf course and Villa Park is located two blocks away on Westgate Street. Therefore, fees in lieu would be appropriate. Sensitive Areas Review: The applicant has submitted a Sensitive Areas Development Plan due to the presence of a grove of trees and slopes on the site. 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. Grove of Trees — The site contains a grove of trees totaling 52,426 square feet (1.2 acres). The SADP identifies the removal of 71.5% (37,508 square feet) of those trees. Since this area of trees is less than 2 acres in size it is not considered a woodland; and therefore, not subject to the woodland retention requirements of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Steep, Critical, and Protected Slopes — In terms of slopes, the site contains steep, critical and protected slopes. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires a 2 ft. buffer for each foot of vertical rise of the protected slope, up to a maximum buffer of fifty feet (50') (14-51-8D-1). No development activity, including removal of trees and other vegetation, will be allowed within the buffer. The SADP contains 465 square feet of protected slopes, but no disturbance to protected slopes. The SADP identifies the disturbance of 11,626 square feet or 62% of the 18,702 square feet of critical slopes that exists on the site. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance allows a disturbance of critical slopes up to 35%. Since the proposed SADP impacts critical slopes beyond 35% it requires a Level 11 review (14-51-313), which requires a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission and approval by the City Council. NEXT STEPS: After recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission the following will occur: • City Council will need to set a public hearing for both the annexation and rezoning. • Prior to the public hearing, utility companies and non -consenting parties will be sent the annexation application via certified mail. • City Council will hold the public hearing on the annexation and rezoning. VA • City Council must pass a resolution approving the 28E agreement with the City of University Heights prior to passing a resolution approving the annexation. • Additionally, the City of University Heights must pass a resolution approving the 28E agreement and a resolution approving the severance. • After approval of the annexation, severance, and 28E agreement by both jurisdictions, the applications for annexation, severance, and the 28E agreement will be sent to the State Development Board for consideration and approval. • Upon approval by the State Development Review Board, the City Council can adopt the rezoning ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of ANN20-0002 and REZ20-0012, a voluntary annexation of approximately 3.61 acres of property located at 1360 Melrose Avenue in University Heights and rezoning of approximately 6.12 acres from University Heights commercial (C) & institutional public (P2) to medium density multi -family residential with a planned development overlay (OPD/RM- 20/P-2) subject to the following conditions: 1. No building permit shall be issued for any of the subject property until the City Council approves a final plat subdividing the subject property to conform to the zoning boundaries established by the zoning ordinance. 2. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, installation of an eastbound left turn lane on Melrose Avenue at the proposed access subject to review and approval of specifications by the City Engineer. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Applicant's Statement 4. Annexation Exhibit 5. Rezoning Exhibit 6. Summary of Good Neighbor Meeting 7. Preliminary OPD and Sensitive Areas Development Plan 8. Elevations 9. Traffic Study, Executive Summary Only Approved by: I • Dance e itzman, AICP Department of Neighborhood and Development Services t; L v ra u L, 9 T 41 c Q c ru Ln 73 C U M1917 S. Gilbert Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 M MMS Consultants Inc. onsult 1.8282 m msconsulta nts.net Experts in Planning and Development5ince 1975 mms@mmsconsultants.ret November 24th, 2020 The Board of Regents, State of Iowa, the University of Iowa, Build to Suit, and Newbury Living are jointly submitting a request for: 1) voluntary severance/annexation from the City of University Heights to the City of Iowa City; and 2) a rezoning from Public to an Overlay Planned Development Overlay with underlying RM -20 and P-2 zoning. This is a unique development on vacant land owned by the University of Iowa that does not currently generate any tax revenue for the community. The site, which currently includes property within the jurisdictional boundaries of both the City of Iowa City and the City of University Heights, is an important gateway to the University, including the University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics. The University will be granting the developers a long-term ground lease to the site, but the University will continue to own the land. The buildings and improvements developed on the site will be assessed and create new tax base for the community. The development plans, site plans, and architectural renderings have all been extensively vetted and approved by University leadership, including the University's planning department and the University Architect. The annexation and severance from University Heights allows the city boundary to shift to the east placing the entire parcel and development into the City of Iowa City. The voluntary severance and annexation has been contemplated in a series of work sessions over the past last 18 months with University Heights Council; subject to a 28E Agreement for the sharing of property taxes and other items between the City of Iowa City, the City of University Heights, and the University of Iowa. The applicants propose a rezoning from Public to a Multifamily OPD -RM -20/P-2 zoning to allow for the construction of an active adult multi -family project. The use is generally consistent with the comprehensive plan for the area, and is compatible with the mix of multi -family and medium to high density residential uses in the surrounding neighborhood, complementary to the University of Iowa's Finkbine Golf Course & Clubhouse, and consistent with other recently completed re -development projects. There is substantial existing public infrastructure and utilities in place to support the requested change in zoning. Finally, the Developer has made a couple of informal preliminary submittals to the City of Iowa City. Staff comments from those submittals have been considered and plans have been adjusted where the design and development team deemed appropriate. The final submittal illustrates a building which is four stories and has one area of underground parking that is within the 1S' setback recommended by the code. These variations warrant the request for a rezoning to an Overlay Planned Development. These are the only remaining deviations from the zoning code. Attached Exhibit A documents the deviations from the code sections along with justifications for approval of the plan as submitted. At the request of Staff, the final site submittals will be used to complete a traffic study as directed by Kent Ralston at t; L ra LJ L, 3 T 41 c Q ra I ru L C U M19175. G i lbert Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 M MMS Consultants Inc. onsult 1.8282 m msconsulta nts.net Experts in Planning and Development5ince 1975 mms@mmsconsultants.ret City of Iowa City. The plans for this site have resulted in a reduced the number of parking stalls than were associated with the previous University Athletic Club located on this same site. Traffic flows/movements from the new development will be an improvement to the Melrose corridor when compared to the Athletic Club. Finally, as recommended by staff, the applicants held a neighborhood meeting with the surrounding community to introduce the project and solicit feedback/discussion. The design team and University leadership presented the project and discussed the plans for the development. Feedback and discussion at the meeting were overwhelmingly positive. In addition to the meeting, members of the development team have met several of the neighbors on-site. The comments from the on-site meetings were also overwhelmingly positive. We believe this neighborhood support is further evidence that we should be approved as submitted. Meeting notes from those discussions were previously sent to City of Iowa City staff. Exhibit A: Code Variation Items for The James on Melrose 14-5A-5:F1b: Title 14 Zoning Code, Chapter 5 - Site Development Standards, Article 5: Construction and Design Standards, Section F. Standards for Structured Parking in Multi -family, Subsection 1. Parking within Building, item b: In Multi -Family Zones, structured parking is not permitted on the ground level floor of the building for the first fifteen feet (15') of building depth as measured from the street -facing building wall. On lots with more than one street frontage this parking setback must be met along each street frontage, unless reduced or waived by minor modification. When considering a minor modification request, the City will consider factors such as street classification, building orientation, location of primary entrance(s) to the building, and unique site constraints such as locations where the residential building space must be elevated above the floodplain. The project requests a minor modification at the main entrance of the building, located at the west elevation along Finkbine Commuter Drive, where grade would drop down lower than the Y from ceiling height to be classified as underground parking (subsection d) to accommodate the atgrade entry. All other areas of parking would meet the criteria of subsection d as it pertains to below -grade parking and not being located within the first 15 feet of the ground floor. 14-2B-4:C1e: Title 14 Zoning Code, Chapter 2 - Base Zones, Article B: Multi -family Residential Zones, Section 4: Dimensional Requirements, Subsection C: Building Bulk Standards, item 1e: Adjustment of Height Standards: M19175. G i lbert Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 M MMS Consultants Inc. onsult 1.8282 m msconsulta nts.net Experts in Planning and Development5ince 1975 mms@mmsconsultants.ret (1) The maximum height for a principal building may be increased; provided, that for each foot of height increase above the height standard, the front, side, LJand rear setbacks are each increased by an additional two feet (2'); and Ln provided, that an increase in height does not conflict with the provisions of chapter 6, "Airport Zoning", of this title. (2) A minor modification may also be requested to adjust the maximum height o for a particular building or property according to the procedures and approval criteria for minor modifications contained in chapter 4, article B of LU this title. The project requests a minor modification to increase the overall height of the building. The project does not conflict with the provisions of Chapter 6: Airport Zoning. The requested height increase would be a height of 65'-0". The project is setback from neighboring properties where such height would not impede access Q to sunlight. There are precedents for similar structures and height increases a located along Melrose. Grade level is raised on the south end of the building to ra Ln place parking below grade and lower the height. The north end of the building is lowered a full story to work with existing grade and lower the overall height as well. 14-2B-6:C1e: Title 14 Zoning Code, Chapter 2 - Base Zones, Article B: Multi -family Residential Zones, Section 6: Site Development Standards, Subsection C: Location and a� Design Standards for Surface Parking and Detached Garages, item 1: Location: Surface parking, parking within accessory structures, and loading Q areas must be located behind principal building(s) and concealed from view of fronting streets. Parking and loading areas may not be located directly between a principal building and the street or within the required side setback area. Any portion of a parking or loading area that is not completely concealed from view of a fronting street must be screened to the S2 standard. (See figures 2B.4 and 2B.5 below.) (Ord. 05-4186,12-15-2005) vThe project requests a minor modification to allow for a small amount of parking on the west side of the building, located between the principle building and the Ln street frontage along Finkbine Commuter Drive. This parking will serve as accessible parking and guest parking for visitors to the building. A precedent is established at the Finkbine Clubhouse, located across the street from this project where parking is located in the frontage. U v v c LU .5 U ANNEXATION EXHIBIT A PORTION OF LOT 1 OF UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC CLUB SUBDIVISION, A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17, OF TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS , JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA I I F0HK o DKK (ROLF COURSE URSE I NORTH QUARTER CORNER i OF SECTION 17-T79N-R6W OF THE FIFTH P.M. FOUND 5\8" PIN W\ LS CAP 12531 1548.99' N88'51'11"E I CENTERLINE FINKBINE HW' � X70 H�/IE 1 n �/�� COMMUTER SECT IIV Il LI = r cti-Jl1 =1R6�/V FDNK o I]HE GOLF COURSE My OF MWA My ;TE 0 10 25 50 75 100 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 1"=100' FN88'51'11 "E Point of Beginning 388.89' �I 0 d ao UH1 WEG; WV /%7HLE7OC� CLUB o N IN ALCORPANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF FE60RPEP IN PLAT 600(\ 35 AT PAGE 306 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON N 011 COUNTY RECORPER'S OFFICE, C4 City of Iowa City Proposed Annexation 3.61 AC z 0 HE HIE' Ci zg SEC7M 17-779H-HISW _�jp1"� S86'17'36"W E\ 46.00' s W 0 S[F11 o31F=11 SEC 71]ON 0-T779H-1R6W NORTHEAST CORNER OF / / SECTION 17-T79N-R6W C07 ll OF DO�/�p�/UA COT ll OF THE FIFTH P.M. FOUND 5\8" PIN W\ YELLOW PLASTIC LS CAP 8165 NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17 BOOK 38 AT PAGE 156 656.83' S88'51'11 "W 7MY OO F UN0bERSFY H0GHT8 OO U7L IMI AUDO701N'S [PAIRC EL 200150677 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF REGORPEP IN PLAT 600i< 60 AT PAGE 10 OF THE RE( ORPS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER"S OFFICE. AUDD UOO IRIS [PAINC EL IN ACCORPANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORPEP , IN PLAT 60010 60 AT PAGE 316 OF THE / RECORPS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORPER'S OFFICE., AUDI-TOH,z FARM L 2015066 ' IN ACCORPANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RE60poff THE PLAT 60�N ON6aNTYR AT � PS PAOE RPER"REGOR 0 / EXISTING I I \ / \ nnnnnn nTr 1. I%I VI%n 1- LIMITS Fli w um F=IR 0� ll Q�LrIIn�\uc CLUB SOUTHWEST S B 10 "M�mON \ / -- __ CORNER OF LOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORPEP IN PLAT f5 or 38 ATP 6E 306 OF THE RECORPS OF THE Lk2hN50N � \ N 6aJNTY RE60RPER"5 OFFICE- N80 7.44' — ' 37'39"W 192 8 rn 2 ' 9,N) _/_ 1 -ft- } 92 86'iR) N75 4g'42"w /CORONERH OFS SLOT My OF MeiF= o4y aimc a LOCATION MAP - N.T.S. LEGEND AND NOTES 1k - CONGRESSIONAL CORNER, FOUND - CONGRESSIONAL CORNER, REESTABLISHED 4F Uhl NERSrr , \ _ =a - CONGRESSIONAL CORNER, RECORDED LOCATION • - PROPERTY CORNER(S), FOUND (as noted) O - PROPERTY CORNERS SET S T• (5/8" Iron Pin w/ yellow, plastic LS Cap embossed with "MMS" ) 0 - CUT "X" J (• ;?• $E $-79.6 - PROPERTY &/or BOUNDARY LINES - CONGRESSIONAL SECTION LINES - - - - - - - - - RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES — - CENTER LINES OSED ANNEXATION - EXISTING CITY LIMITS - LOT LINES, PLATTED OR BY DEED — — — — — — — — — — - EASEMENT LINES, WIDTH & PURPOSE NOTED - EXISTING EASEMENT LINES, PURPOSE NOTED (R) - RECORDED DIMENSIONS (M) - MEASURED DIMENSIONS C22-1 - CURVE SEGMENT NUMBER UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND HUNDREDTHS FN88'51'11 "E Point of Beginning 388.89' �I 0 d ao UH1 WEG; WV /%7HLE7OC� CLUB o N IN ALCORPANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF FE60RPEP IN PLAT 600(\ 35 AT PAGE 306 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON N 011 COUNTY RECORPER'S OFFICE, C4 City of Iowa City Proposed Annexation 3.61 AC z 0 HE HIE' Ci zg SEC7M 17-779H-HISW _�jp1"� S86'17'36"W E\ 46.00' s W 0 S[F11 o31F=11 SEC 71]ON 0-T779H-1R6W NORTHEAST CORNER OF / / SECTION 17-T79N-R6W C07 ll OF DO�/�p�/UA COT ll OF THE FIFTH P.M. FOUND 5\8" PIN W\ YELLOW PLASTIC LS CAP 8165 NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17 BOOK 38 AT PAGE 156 656.83' S88'51'11 "W 7MY OO F UN0bERSFY H0GHT8 OO U7L IMI AUDO701N'S [PAIRC EL 200150677 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF REGORPEP IN PLAT 600i< 60 AT PAGE 10 OF THE RE( ORPS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER"S OFFICE. AUDD UOO IRIS [PAINC EL IN ACCORPANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORPEP , IN PLAT 60010 60 AT PAGE 316 OF THE / RECORPS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORPER'S OFFICE., AUDI-TOH,z FARM L 2015066 ' IN ACCORPANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RE60poff THE PLAT 60�N ON6aNTYR AT � PS PAOE RPER"REGOR 0 / EXISTING I I \ / \ nnnnnn nTr 1. I%I VI%n 1- LIMITS Fli w um F=IR 0� ll Q�LrIIn�\uc CLUB SOUTHWEST S B 10 "M�mON \ / -- __ CORNER OF LOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORPEP IN PLAT f5 or 38 ATP 6E 306 OF THE RECORPS OF THE Lk2hN50N � \ N 6aJNTY RE60RPER"5 OFFICE- N80 7.44' — ' 37'39"W 192 8 rn 2 ' 9,N) _/_ 1 -ft- } 92 86'iR) N75 4g'42"w /CORONERH OFS SLOT My OF MeiF= o4y aimc a LOCATION MAP - N.T.S. 4F Uhl NERSrr , \ _ =a r i r crry CAMPU; hml:hine .1 [III S T• WINE 8-7�-{i w J (• ;?• $E $-79.6 5 r._ PRO OSED ANNEXATION F LL A C' _ r : LI -A PARK- _ LU Is -^�� DESCRIPTION - PROPOSED ANNEXATION A PORTION OF LOT 1 OF UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC CLUB SUBDIVISION, AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17, OF TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Commencing at the Northeast Corner of Section 17, Township 79 North, Range 6 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa; Thence S88o51'11 "W, along the North Line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 17, a distance of 656.83 feet, to the Point of Beginning; Thence S01 °08'49"E, 237.28 feet, to a Point on the East Line of Lot 1 of University Athletic Club Subdivision, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 38 at Page 306 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S86o17'36"W, along said East Line, 46.00 feet; Thence S61 °52'41 "W, along said East Line, 61.55 feet; Thence SOOo03'18"E, along said East Line, 225.16 feet, to the Southeast Corner thereof; Thence N75o44'24"W, along the South Line of said Lot 1, and the Northerly Right -of -Way Line of Melrose Avenue, 192.89 feet; Thence N80037'39"W, along said South Line and Northerly Right -of -Way Line, 107.44 feet, to the Southwest Corner of said Lot 1; Thence NOOo05'06"W, along the West Line of said Lot 1, and the Northerly Projection thereof 421.60 feet, to its intersection with the North Line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 17; Thence N88o51'11 "E, along said North Line, 388.89 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Annexation Tract contains 3.61 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. 3.61 AC FkA M S CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS 1917 S. GILBERT ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319) 351-8282 www.mmsconsultants.net Date Revision ANNEXATION EXHIBIT A PORTION OF LOT 1 OF UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC CLUB SUBDIVISION, A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17, OF TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. Date: 11-10-2020 CD Designed by: Field Book No: N K. I R Drawn by: Scale: RLW I 1"=100' Checked by:DMW Sheet No: Project No: IOWA CITY 7331-050 of: CD REZONING EXHIBIT A PORTION OF LOT 1 OF UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC CLUB SUBDIVISION, A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17, AND A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, ALL OF TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN TO IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA A=40'25'37" R=200.00' L=141.12' T=73.64' 222.70' C=138.21' N88'51'11"E CB=N36'06'43"E IRNK o KFE 00LIF COURSE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 17-T79N-R6W OF THE FIFTH P.M. FOUND 5\8" PIN W\ LS CAP 12531 1937.88'- I I II�� �1W�n ' -NE' I� �/�� � =C'flON Il l= r7QD 11 =R(3�/V I IRR o I]NE 0OLF OOO UG��C �=71'34'33" R=50.00' L=62.46' T=36.05' C--58.48' N56'19'31 "E 0=56'28'34" 32.99' R=197.50' L=194.67' T=106.07' J/ C=186.89' / CB=N28'05'14"E S88'51'11"W - - - - CENTERLINE FINKBINE COMMUTER DRIVE A=82'30'20" R=112.50' L=162.00' T=98.67' C=148.36' CB=N41'06'07"E CB=N46'34'01 'E N82'21'17"E 189.68 N10'46'45"E 23.66' �l Point of Beginning 0 1 BCS' o,S[E' SEC 71]GH a-T779N-R6W 0 m 91 IFINK1 119E OOLIF COURSE 0 M V EU1 M if ApTHILE��n0� CLUIS o o w �� o DD l/ D�DOl1V N N ALGGRDANGE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF REGGRPED IN PLAT N N 1300(\ 38 AT PAGE 306 Of THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. roposed OPD RM -20/P-2 Zone 6.12 AC NEIt NE Is 0 1 U) 0 C5 00 P. M NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 17-T79N-R6W OF THE FIFTH P.M. FOUND 5\8" PIN W\ YELLOW PLASTIC LS CAP 8165 NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17 BOOK 38 AT PAGE 156 656.83' S88'51'11 "W - - - S86*17 46.36 00, W c�6 AUDD D R13 PARCEL 200150077 IN AGCORPANGE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT f�Oa\ 60 AT PAGE 10 OF THE RECORPS OF THE JOHN50N COUNTY RECORPER"S OFFICE. AUIOMRIS PARCEL 2016091 0091 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF REGORDEP , IN PLAT BOOK 60 AT PAGE 316 OF THE / RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE./ LaMD�il'O[3'� [PL%RC EL 2015066 ' IN AGGORPANGE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF REG�HE PLAT pO�N ONTPAOE GOUNTYI0 OfR C FHE RDEF:R3 RDS 0 / 01 m M ERMTV La77HLE7OC CLU o SOUTHWEST SU o 10 " am \ / - CORNER OF LOT IN A(COZtAN E WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT 6000 38 ATP 6E 906 OF THE REGORPS OF THE JOHNSON - N8031'33"w _ N COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE- 0=1'04'43„ -- 107.44' cNi /' R=5779.65' N8013 -192-89" - / - - - T- 4 482 - _ _ 39"yy 192 8s.(Al---) /V75 -4442"W 75 4 I SOUTHEAST 6 C=108.81' 4 42"w _ CORNER of LOT CB=N79'38'41"W o----- ------------- / 0 10 25 50 75 100 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 1 "=100' LEGEND AND NOTES A - CONGRESSIONAL CORNER, FOUND A - CONGRESSIONAL CORNER, REESTABLISHED A - CONGRESSIONAL CORNER, RECORDED LOCATION • - PROPERTY CORNER(S), FOUND (as noted) O - PROPERTY CORNERS SET (5/8" Iron Pin w/ yellow, plastic LS Cap embossed with "MMS" ) 0 - CUT "X" J - PROPERTY &/or BOUNDARY LINES - CONGRESSIONAL SECTION LINES - - - - - - - - - - RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES - - CENTER LINES - LOT LINES, INTERNAL - LOT LINES, PLATTED OR BY DEED - - - - - - - - - - - EASEMENT LINES, WIDTH & PURPOSE NOTED - EXISTING EASEMENT LINES, PURPOSE NOTED R - RECORDED DIMENSIONS (M) -MEASURED DIMENSIONS C22-1 - CURVE SEGMENT NUMBER UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND HUNDREDTHS LOCATION MAP - N.T.S. J {Ih'l CAMPU; ` Elnlch�c �• � SW SE 8-79-6 r' 2z; SE 8-79-6 5 T u 4 PROPOSED RM -20 ZONE r I _ I`T A r LI -A PARK- _ Cf?ANDJIEW � w a t r - DESCRIPTION - PROPOSED OPD RM -20/P-2 ZONE A PORTION OF LOT 1 OF UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC CLUB SUBDIVISION, A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17, AND A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, ALL OF TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Commencing at the Northeast Corner of Section 17, Township 79 North, Range 6 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa; Thence S88°51'11"W, along the North Line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 17, a distance of 656.83 feet, to the Point of Beginning; Thence S01 °08'49"E, 237.28 feet, to a Point on the East Line of Lot 1 of University Athletic Club Subdivision, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 38 at Page 306 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S86°17'36"W, along said East Line, 46.00 feet; Thence S61 °52'41 "W, along said East Line, 61.55 feet; Thence S00°03'18"E, along said East Line, 225.16 feet, to the Southeast Corner thereof; Thence N75°44'24"W, along the South Line of said Lot 1, and the Northerly Right -of -Way Line of Melrose Avenue, 192.89 feet; Thence N80°37'39"W, along said South Line and Northerly Right -of -Way Line, 107.44 feet, to the Southwest Corner of said Lot 1; Thence 1\180°31'33"W, along said Northerly Right -of -Way Line, 164.09 feet; Thence Northwesterly, 108.82 feet, along said Northerly Right -of -Way Line on a 5779.65 foot radius curve, concave Southwesterly, whose 108.81 foot chord bears N79°38'41"W, to its intersection with the Centerline of the Finkbine Commuter Drive; Thence N10°46'45"E, along said Centerline, 23.66 feet; Thence Northeasterly, 62.46 feet, along said Centerline on a 50.00 foot radius curve, concave Southeasterly, whose 58.48 foot chord bears N46°34'01 "E; Thence N82°21'17"E, along said Centerline, 89.68 feet; Thence Northeasterly, 162.00 feet, along said Centerline on a 112.50 foot radius curve, concave Northwesterly, whose 148.36 foot chord bears N41 °06'07"E; Thence N00°09'02"W, along said Centerline, 123.22 feet; Thence Northeasterly, 194.67 feet, along said Centerline on a 197.50 foot radius curve, concave Southeasterly, whose 186.89 foot chord bears N28°05'14"E; Thence N56°19'31"E, along said Centerline, 32.99 feet; Thence Northeasterly, 141.12 feet, along said Centerline on a 200.00 foot radius curve, concave Northwesterly, whose 138.21 foot chord bears N36°06'43"E; Thence N88°51'11 "E, 222.70 feet; Thence S01 °08'49"E, 226.90 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Tract of Land contains 6.12 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. 6.12 AC M M S CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS 1917 S. GILBERT ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319) 351-8282 www.mmsconsultants.net Date Revision REZONING EXHIBIT A PORTION OF LOT 1 OF UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC CLUB SUBDIVISION, A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17, AND A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, ALL OF TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS AND IOWA CITY JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. Date: 11-10-2020 Designed by. Field Book No: KJB Drawn by. Scale: RLW 1"=100' Checked by. Sheet No: DMW Project No: IOWA CITY 7331-050 of: 1 MEETING MINUTES ASK ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER STUDIO ARCHITECTURE I INTERIORS PROJECT NAME: Finkbine Active Adult PROJECT 19015 NUMBER: DATE: 09.17.2020 — 6:00pm — Good Neighbor Meeting, via Zoom PRESENT: Frank Levy, Newbury; Ben Logsdon, Focus; Nate Kaeding, BTS; Brent Schipper, Kurtis Wolgast, ASK; Anne Russett, City of Iowa City; David Kieft, Adele Vanarsdale, U of I, (+ 13 others); Discussion Topics: 1. Meeting to discuss the project with the surrounding neighborhood and community. a. DK: discussed how the project came to fruition, City process, property taxes, P3, City jurisdiction and boundaries b. BL: discussed existing site characteristics and context c. BS: discussed proposed site plan, general discussion on site. d. Site Design: i. Breaking up fagade with serpentine layout; other factors e. Building Images: i. Model shots of The James at Melrose shown 1. Made note of landscaping plan not fully developed —will consider vegetative screening to neighboring developments 2. Visual screen along Melrose 3. Shortest point from Birkdale property line to our building is 130'. ii. Reference to 4000 Ingersoll —north fagade image shown 1. Emphasis on fenestration 2. Collection of materials f. Next Steps i. AR: discussed P&Z, City Council meeting— public meetings where people can continue to voice their opinion. ii. BL: anticipate rezoning application will be submitted mid-October. 1. Approvals over winter, with anticipated start of Spring 2021. 2. Opening 2022. iii. DK: Board of Regents meeting required for long term agreement — seen as a formality at this point, and not concerned. iv. DK: Annexation / severance documents of land between Iowa City and University Heights. 1. Gifting tract of land to University Heights as part of agreement 2. Questions from Attendees: 6:49#kthvrxMy1iqxhNAhMAr,hvW r]*uAW 83645# S=484815::19:3:* ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING a. What is the price point? FL: Around $2 /SF range. b. What are the sizes of units? FL: Size will range from 750sf—1,200sf — 2,OOOsf unit sizes. Possible for a few micro units c. Are units able to be sublet? FL: Units will not be able to be sublet. d. Will there be a restaurant? FL: no food service or restaurant planned. There will be a lounge area where food could be catered, or tenants could reserve to host parties. DK: The Finkbine clubhouse has restaurant and bar that is open to the public. Several local shops and restaurants in the area that will benefit from a new influx of people to this area. e. What is the setback along Melrose? KW: 40' front yard setback. — confirmed by AR. Melrose will not be altered. f. How far is the driveway to the Birkdale property line? KW: 75' g. What is the demographic? FL: mid-upper incomes; people in the latter stages of careers, near retirement. h. Hope you will minimize light pollution (comment noted from chat). 6:49#Bl dx h/#TAhMAP,hvfP r1J1w0A3645# S4$4815 ::19: 3 : ## ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING PRELIMINARY OPD AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN FINKBINE -THE JAMES ON MELROSE LEGAL DESCRIPTION Commencing at the Northeast Corner of Section 17, Township 79 North, Range 6 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa; Thence S88°51'11"W, along the North Line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 17, a distance of 656.83 feet, to the Point of Beginning; Thence S01 °08'49"E, 237.28 feet, to a Point on the East Line of Lot 1 of University Athletic Club Subdivision, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 38 at Page 306 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S86°17'36"W, along said East Line, 46.00 feet; Thence S61 °52'41 "W, along said East Line, 61.55 feet; Thence S00°03'18"E, along said East Line, 225.16 feet, to the Southeast Corner thereof; Thence N75°44'24"W, along the South Line of said Lot 1, and the Northerly Right -of -Way Line of Melrose Avenue, 192.89 feet; Thence N80°37'39"W, along said South Line and Northerly Right -of -Way Line, 107.44 feet, to the Southeast Corner of said Lot 1; Thence N80°31'33"W, along said Northerly Right -of -Way Line, 164.09 feet; Thence Northwesterly, 108.82 feet, along said Northerly Right -of -Way Line on a 5779.65 foot radius curve, concave Southwesterly, whose 108.81 foot chord bears N79°38'41 "W, to its intersection with the Centerline of the Finkbine Commuter Drive; Thence N10°46'45"E, along said Centerline, 23.66 feet; Thence Northeasterly, 62.46 feet, along said Centerline on a 50.00 foot radius curve, concave Southeasterly, whose 58.48 foot chord bears N46°34'01 "E; Thence N82°21'17"E, along said Centerline, 89.68 feet; Thence Northeasterly, 162.00 feet, along said Centerline on a 112.50 foot radius curve, concave Northwesterly, whose 148.36 foot chord bears N41 °06'07"E; Thence N00°09'02"W, along said Centerline, 123.22 feet; Thence Northeasterly, 194.67 feet, along said Centerline on a 197.50 foot radius curve, concave Southeasterly, whose 186.89 foot chord bears N28°05'14"E; Thence N56°19'31"E, along said Centerline, 32.99 feet; Thence Northeasterly, 141.12 feet, along said Centerline on a 200.00 foot radius curve, concave Northwesterly, whose 138.21 foot chord bears N36°06'43"E; Thence N88°51'11 "E, 22.70 feet; Thence S01 °08'49"E, 226.90 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Tract of Land contains 6.12 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. PROPOSAL APPLICANT PLANS TO CONSTRUCT A MULTI -FAMILY BUILDING ON 6.12 ACRES. DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE APPLICANT PLANS TO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION IN SPRING 2021, LASTING THRU SUMMER 2022. PHASE TWO PARKING LOT CONSTRUCTION, (IF NEEDED), IS ANTICIPATED TO BE COMPLETE BY SUMMER 2022. DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS PROPOSED ZONING: OPD -RM -20/P-2 (MULTI -FAMILY) SETBACK REQUIREMENTS BUILDING SETBACKS: REQUIRED FRONT YARD 40 FEET (MELROSE AVE) FRONT YARD 20 FEET (EXISTING WALK ALONG FINKBINE COMMUTER DRIVE) SIDE YARD 10 FEET REAR YARD 20 FEET LOT CHARACTERISTICS LOT AREA 266,611 SF (100%)(6.12 AC) BUILDING AREA 48,708 SF (18.3%) PAVING AREA (INCLUDES PHASE 2) 76,750 SF (28.8%) GREEN SPACE AREA 141,153 SF (52.9%) THE ON-SITE SHARED OPEN SPACE AREA WILL CONTAIN SITE AMENITIES SUCH AS PATIO SPACE, SEATING AND GATHERING AREAS. THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE FOR THE SITE IS 2,590 SQUARE FEET, (259 BEDROOMS x 10 SF). THE AREA DEPICTED ON THIS PLAN ENCOMPASSES 7,300 SQUARE FEET. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA OF SITE HAS BEEN REDUCED BY 32,500 SF WITH THIS SITE PLAN VERSUS THE PREVIOUS SITE PLAN BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH 5TH TOTAL 1 BEDROOM UNIT 2 4 7 5 3 21 2 BEDROOM UNIT 6 12 12 13 4 47 3 BEDROOM UNIT 6 11 11 9 6 43 3L BEDROOM UNIT 0 1 1 2 1 5 TOTAL UNITS 116 UNITS PARKING REQUIREMENTS 1 STALL PER 1 BR UNIT = 21 PARKING STALLS 2 STALLS PER 2 BR UNIT = 94 PARKING STALLS 2 STALLS PER 3 BR UNIT = 96 PARKING STALLS TOTAL PARKING STALLS REQUIRED = 211 PARKING STALLS TOTAL PARKING STALLS PROVIDED 115 PARKING STALL IN LOWER LEVEL GARAGES (INCLUDING 5 ADA STALLS) 104 EXTERIOR PARKING STALLS (INCLUDING 5 ADA STALLS), PHASE 1 35 EXTERIOR PARKING STALLS, PHASE 2 TOTAL PARKING STALLS PROVIDED = 219 PARKING STALLS (INCLUDING 10 ADA STALLS), PHASE 1 TOTAL PARKING STALLS PROVIDED = 254 PARKING STALLS (INCLUDING 10 ADA STALLS), PHASE 2 BICYCLE PARKING IS PROVIDED WITH HANGING RACKS AT EACH GARAGE PARKING STALL. BICYCLE PARKING WILL BE REVIEWED WITH THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION. THE COMPLETE SITE UTILITY DESIGN, INCLUDING ELEVATIONS, AND ALL REQUIRED NOTES AND DETAILS, WILL BE PROVIDED WITH THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION. NOTE: NO DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY OR REMOVAL OF TREES MAY TAKE PLACE WITHIN PROTECTED SLOPE BUFFER AREAS THE APPLICANT REQUESTS A WAIVER FOR THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR THIS ZONE. THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT PROPOSED IS 63 FEET. IOWA CITY, IOWA CONSTRUCTION LIMITS FINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSE IOWA CITY, IOWA n I Vhf SE 8-751-6i z: 5E 1#-79 a � � NIF r A � LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE mw I -IME O�1 17-779H-IRGW FDNK 0 ONE (ROLF COURSE URSE XW W � O G 0=1'04'43" R=5779.65' L=108.82' T=54.41' C=108.81' �CB=S79'38'41"E ,E /J - LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION (TYP) 'SCSI -aEI SEMI]ON a-779) LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION (TYP) FDNK �NE CROo LF COURSE OU7LO7 LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION (TYP) \ I 13.11' I I I 13.90' N00°03'18"W ' 225.16 � I I,/ /` N '800• m Ld UNI]WERV7V LA7HLE7[I0 CLUB • 9 7 a SU o O0WM0N LLJ \a O a 8 �O IN AGGORPANGE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF REGORPEP IN PLAT V P C.C.PSV 'ENT a b 6001 35 AT PAGE 30G OF THE REGORPS Of THE JOHNSON aryl , c� GGUNTY REGORPER"S GFFIGE- LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION (TYP) ' a 3 O C 26.p0'a S�5° 19289, (� I 6w � `76w` - - 16W` - --7----- 6.12 AC M M CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS 1917 S. GILBERT ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319)351-8282 www.mmsconsultants.net Date Revision 01-12-21 Per city comments - kjb 02-05-21 Per city comments - bah PRELIMINARY OPD AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN (SITE LAYOUT PLAN) FINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSE IOWA CITY JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. Date: 11/12/2020_ Designed by: Field Book No: KJ B Drawn by: Scale: Ghecked by: Sheet No: JDM Project No: 7331-050 af: 5 STANDARD LEGEND AND NOTES - PROPERTY &/or BOUNDARY LINES - - - CONGRESSIONAL SECTION LINES ------------- - RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES - EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES - - CENTER LINES - EXISTING CENTER LINES - LOT LINES, INTERNAL - LOT LINES, PLATTED OR BY DEED - - - - - - - - - PROPOSED EASEMENT LINES - EXISTING EASEMENT LINES BENCHMARK (R) - RECORDED DIMENSIONS 22-1 - CURVE SEGMENT NUMBER -EXIST- -PROP- POWER POLE - POWER POLE W/DROP - POWER POLE W/TRANS - POWER POLE W/LIGHT - GUY POLE - LIGHT POLE OO - SANITARY MANHOLE - FIRE HYDRANT - WATER VALVE O ® - DRAINAGE MANHOLE ® ❑ - CURB INLET X X - FENCE LINE - EXISTING SANITARY SEWER (( - PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER - EXISTING STORM SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER W-- WATER LINES E - ELECTRICAL LINES T - TELEPHONE LINES G - GAS LINES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CONTOUR LINES (1' INTERVAL) - PROPOSED GROUND - EXISTING TREE LINE 0 �EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE & SHRUB - EXISTING EVERGREEN TREES & SHRUBS THE ACTUAL SIZE AND LOCATION OF ALL PROPOSED FACILITIES SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, WHICH ARE TO BE PREPARED AND SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS DOCUMENT. FINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSE IOWA CITY, IOWA n I Vhf SE 8-751-6i z: 5E 1#-79 a � � NIF r A � LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE mw I -IME O�1 17-779H-IRGW FDNK 0 ONE (ROLF COURSE URSE XW W � O G 0=1'04'43" R=5779.65' L=108.82' T=54.41' C=108.81' �CB=S79'38'41"E ,E /J - LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION (TYP) 'SCSI -aEI SEMI]ON a-779) LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION (TYP) FDNK �NE CROo LF COURSE OU7LO7 LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION (TYP) \ I 13.11' I I I 13.90' N00°03'18"W ' 225.16 � I I,/ /` N '800• m Ld UNI]WERV7V LA7HLE7[I0 CLUB • 9 7 a SU o O0WM0N LLJ \a O a 8 �O IN AGGORPANGE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF REGORPEP IN PLAT V P C.C.PSV 'ENT a b 6001 35 AT PAGE 30G OF THE REGORPS Of THE JOHNSON aryl , c� GGUNTY REGORPER"S GFFIGE- LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION (TYP) ' a 3 O C 26.p0'a S�5° 19289, (� I 6w � `76w` - - 16W` - --7----- 6.12 AC M M CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS 1917 S. GILBERT ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319)351-8282 www.mmsconsultants.net Date Revision 01-12-21 Per city comments - kjb 02-05-21 Per city comments - bah PRELIMINARY OPD AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN (SITE LAYOUT PLAN) FINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSE IOWA CITY JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. Date: 11/12/2020_ Designed by: Field Book No: KJ B Drawn by: Scale: Ghecked by: Sheet No: JDM Project No: 7331-050 af: 5 PRELIMINARY OPD AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN FINKBINE - THE JAMESON MELROSE V7 OWA C 0 4 10 20 30 40 I) IOWA GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET FINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSE IOWA CITY, IOWA 4 5`�i : SE ft_7`I_iVV SE 8-7q-; y ,� � { N l J - ~ LOCATION MAP �T NOT TO SCALE 00 11It'll 1111 1 VAI 111 I II /r /, / , v I //llllll 11 Il ' O I 111 l l �lI p l . � I ter, cin // ////ii oi/ LUV[fTS OF. CCS ��C�` :i(Typ) ��-a-a-6,J �S Cr' „ / �� '/ / / - -- lS r /r / i\ ^' / \ (D -(P 6 r i r //. / PLAG-ES I NCE EXISG TREE �TIN,S r,U X TOBE r _1 O , , I II III �, / � \ \ - - - - - / t 1 I ' PR�'�E-�/E1J� r i/i /, /i/ 1 - , ' �� I I I l 1 I 1 (p // / r I I 1 1 v ` %� jj/jo / /jj of 'r�� r / / /rr �r \ VI �WJVIf�t JIJN �L�� ® �� / / i r V o I to h \ ^ /' r/, i// / ' rr - -- ICV( (p , / �' / /' // r/ r // r I I I I I I I /'//j�/'//' ,i'''�---vv 1\V1111 j11111111111�I1i 1 II 1111 � I T W II II I1I I I I I I 1 WIIIII IIIJIWOII IIIIIIII II IIll I 1 I ' / 1 I I I 1 I \ V A Al \ I 0) 11J II II I 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 I 11 l 1110 I 1 II IT - Q_ l / l � � '�� �� � v IIIIIIIIII IIII IIIIIIII11111 I 1 I 1 1 1 11 V AA � ` ,ESFI$T1 NG TF2E(S / ll I \ \ TO BE - I I I i - � �V w/ � � 11- - - l / / i I V v MVV ------ - �0 - 1 O ll III IIIIIIIIII 1111111 111 V `_ � - \ 77j w � ♦ � , � / / � I v v V� , r 1 A I I I I III I I �/ - \--- 772 r ri _ �w� -,- \ - ` v vA \ V / / , _ _ v F V � � 1 I / v AA '• � _ /� V 1 1 II I I I I I I� ��I V�I�I�'J�� / / / / / // /// - - `- - P SED 773 U DIN '6$it 74.00 L = 2.00` � / _ - _ _ l 11 9' �` � \ - \ � - _ • I I I I I 1 I I 1111 1 1 111 1 I I I I I %2 / / // / 11 /l l l / 111 l l I l E _ L E �- - f■ ■ \ v - - v /// / � ---- N • _- -s v �� I I /// /// �/ 11111 I �� I II \ v � �� / / / / /// / / / / //// / ////// / ®/ -♦�♦ � � - 770- a °v // I I I I I v` v / / l l l l l l 1 1 1 l I / / / i ® / / - - - - - ♦ ° �' v ` � 1 V I <v ® / � \ ♦ V ^° � v •� I I I I \ IIII I __�� vv�l l l 11 l 111 l�ll 1111 l 111 l 11 ,' , ' I 1 / e ` - ) '� V ■ A �r � �� � � � � ,I � V A � A V � VAA � \ \ - - � \ 1 1 VA `\ v / / l 1 / I Ill / lull l 1 /llllll l L I I I 1 1 A\1 \ V Avv v V Al I / 774 ♦ v 7j- ° 1 1 A° A vv v v v v v A V A vA V'� II I l l ( I I I I / Ill I I I I �� � A • .\ \\V 6�VA v `v`vvV` vvAV11A v Orl llllll I II 11 II 11 / ` ♦t1 ♦ ` .I o \ \ \ v vv �` v` V v \ \� I \ , 1 ® �� ■■ � •■ ■■♦�♦♦ v I .° • ° 1 ° A \ \ v A A v� v v v V 1 I l A // 1 1 IIII ( I I I I III 1 1 1 1 1 I I 774� , v " v v v v v v v v I : ` v / w v " L�11{I&S OF CON, UaTlONI rIIYIP) I 1 i I 1 I / I I I I I I IFI��`yEi P�RII�J�E�`�� ,5,14�f�F�(�,��nII�� 11 1 1 I �• ..I s. n ° \ \ \ \ \ \111 II II III/ /'ATLIMITOF/C6INSrK,0Cilll0N,IN s A A I l / / I l I I /I III THYSA�FtP� I I I l I/ � I � I \.• ' I '`' \•° \ \ \ LS I \\\ W w �E b s.l s V V �a V A I,TOI Eh�,}\ vv vvI E 1 p \� %64 W/ 1 1 I IIII ll I I I I I I I I W -- - ■ s ° 4 v V A A` ` r sa v 11 I 1 v v 5 I I I I I III 1 1 11 II I - - � v = _ � / / ♦ 1• s � r, A . v � V A \ V A V1 IIII I I V A A \ VA 'IBJ v v v � V / � r v ■ l ♦ ♦ � r� ° v A A 1 1 I A V /l 11 I III I I I 1 1 ' ■/�� s s ` `° V IIIIIIII III I 1A A \ Vv- ` v v�`� A - -- --- � ---- I s • v V A I ` ' ` / I ■ � J' s o • IE SA r - - �` \ v v v v� � � i N � 1 I CP• \ ° ` 111 III II A A A A A \ 1 / I I I \\ \ \ \\ ` v v v x ■ r s v v `\ / ■;♦ 1 \ \ � _ i � il - ------1rpd o ■ 1 { • ° I" ` (�' ° • ° \ \ I \ \ I I 1111 GORDANC, �V1T Tt1E PE ERE \ \ ` \ \ I ® ♦ IS\ •1111 I I \ 01xo • ♦♦ ED PE BOOK 3 T \\ \ \ ����--------- /\\\\` _ 1\ \ \ \ \\ AW) i � p�p 1 r v 66, V A A\ VAV A A \jj�VA A A (� ��pp j/ �O D \ ' ---- 9 uW LJ ■I ��� r ,\s� PER, 7LO �C DO3 H I 0 4 9N-InV VV °0�- -� - '- - -- ---- �C° s a •s • % v AA VA \ V A I l l l l l l II /�Au V ` r w 3: A r -- 9 C� ■1 s` �j `, > v VA\VA\\ \ 111111VA \ \V0 \ e -- --- � Gam- 773 +� � •. Ov v v v v 1 v v v v v v v - �� 0 � ■I I i � 65 V A \V AV1 1 A VIVA A `\ V A\\V A V I A -778- s to - -- --- ---- ■ �• � v v l I I v vv v v` v v v v v v v v vv v / ■I ? I v v v v I v vvv vv i. A A\ VA V A (S V AA I _ _ ---778 � --� `\ ®e a l i 1 I n� 774 ^`'� � ., '° � . . 6� °° \ 1 \ \ \o F (ROLF C OUIRSE A61O\ VA\ V Av 777 v` v vvv v A apvvv v LIMIT$ OFvQONSTRUCfiI(�i��vTYR�v vv v ,0 OPOSED \ 1 g BUILDING / FF=786.0 MW o 11 X80 LL=774.00 / v - - -- _ � �--- ----- 183 LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION (\TYP) T � _ o a e / •♦ ♦� ijs , , ° 775 - - - - / v v vvv vv v e e m w ♦ ♦• P ° 9 ��� UNI] V�El! S,1 if /r,17HLEM CLUB B mf1 fin \ ■■■ as O ` M ° ° N AGCOR6ANCE WIT -11 TILE PLAT I7IEREOF REGORPED IN PLAT \ BOOK 381 AT PAGE 3O/o OF TI1E' RECORDS OF TILE JOHN -",ON / COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFCE II v _776_ - - - -- - — - �� 16 9� G -- V' / I 16�. v v W �/676 � — - - I 6.12 AC RA MA !9. CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS 1917 S. GILBERT ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319)351-8282 www.mmsconsultants.net Date Revision 01-12-21 Per city comments - kjb 02-05-21 Per city comments - bah PRELIMINARY OPD AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN �GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL FINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSE IOWA CITY JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. Date: 11/12/2020 Designed by: Field Book No: KJ B Drawn by: Scale: N P B 1 "=40' Ghecked by: Sheet No: JDM Protect No: 2 7331-0501 l 5 STANDARD LEGEND AND NOTES EROSION CONTROL LEGEND ■■■■■■■■■■o■ SILT FENCE/FILTER SOCK ■ ■ ■ PERIMETER SILT FENCE - - - - - - - - - - EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES — - CENTER LINES TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXIT SA TEMPORARY SOIL STOCKPILE AREA D TEMPORARY PARKING AND STORAGE DIRECTION OF OVERLAND FLOW CW CONCRETE TRUCK/EQUIPMENT WASHOUT F7p DUMPSTER FOR CONSTRUCTION WASTE PR PORTABLE RESTROOM n RIP RAP OUTLET PROTECTION DL DOCUMENT LOCATION (PERMITS, SWPPP, INSPECTION FORMS, ETC.) 01 OTHER MEASURE: FILTER SOCK INLET PROTECTION -EXIST- -PROP- 02 OTHER MEASURE: ------- FILTER SOCK BEHIND CURB AT CURB RAMP 03 OTHER MEASURE:_______ THE ABOVE LISTED ITEMS ARE SHOWN IN THEIR RECOMMENDED LOCATIONS. IF A CONTROL MEASURE IS ADDED OR MOVED TO A MORE SUITABLE LOCATION, INDICATE THE REVISION ON THIS SHEET. THE BLANKS LEFT FOR OTHER MEASURES SHOULD BE USED IF AN ITEM NOT SHOWN ABOVE IS IMPLEMENTED ON SITE, ADDITIONAL PRACTICES FOR EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL CAN BE FOUND IN APPENDIX D OF THE SWPPP. 5a - SANITARY MANHOLE Y - FIRE HYDRANT FINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSE IOWA CITY, IOWA 4 5`�i : SE ft_7`I_iVV SE 8-7q-; y ,� � { N l J - ~ LOCATION MAP �T NOT TO SCALE 00 11It'll 1111 1 VAI 111 I II /r /, / , v I //llllll 11 Il ' O I 111 l l �lI p l . � I ter, cin // ////ii oi/ LUV[fTS OF. CCS ��C�` :i(Typ) ��-a-a-6,J �S Cr' „ / �� '/ / / - -- lS r /r / i\ ^' / \ (D -(P 6 r i r //. / PLAG-ES I NCE EXISG TREE �TIN,S r,U X TOBE r _1 O , , I II III �, / � \ \ - - - - - / t 1 I ' PR�'�E-�/E1J� r i/i /, /i/ 1 - , ' �� I I I l 1 I 1 (p // / r I I 1 1 v ` %� jj/jo / /jj of 'r�� r / / /rr �r \ VI �WJVIf�t JIJN �L�� ® �� / / i r V o I to h \ ^ /' r/, i// / ' rr - -- ICV( (p , / �' / /' // r/ r // r I I I I I I I /'//j�/'//' ,i'''�---vv 1\V1111 j11111111111�I1i 1 II 1111 � I T W II II I1I I I I I I 1 WIIIII IIIJIWOII IIIIIIII II IIll I 1 I ' / 1 I I I 1 I \ V A Al \ I 0) 11J II II I 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 I 11 l 1110 I 1 II IT - Q_ l / l � � '�� �� � v IIIIIIIIII IIII IIIIIIII11111 I 1 I 1 1 1 11 V AA � ` ,ESFI$T1 NG TF2E(S / ll I \ \ TO BE - I I I i - � �V w/ � � 11- - - l / / i I V v MVV ------ - �0 - 1 O ll III IIIIIIIIII 1111111 111 V `_ � - \ 77j w � ♦ � , � / / � I v v V� , r 1 A I I I I III I I �/ - \--- 772 r ri _ �w� -,- \ - ` v vA \ V / / , _ _ v F V � � 1 I / v AA '• � _ /� V 1 1 II I I I I I I� ��I V�I�I�'J�� / / / / / // /// - - `- - P SED 773 U DIN '6$it 74.00 L = 2.00` � / _ - _ _ l 11 9' �` � \ - \ � - _ • I I I I I 1 I I 1111 1 1 111 1 I I I I I %2 / / // / 11 /l l l / 111 l l I l E _ L E �- - f■ ■ \ v - - v /// / � ---- N • _- -s v �� I I /// /// �/ 11111 I �� I II \ v � �� / / / / /// / / / / //// / ////// / ®/ -♦�♦ � � - 770- a °v // I I I I I v` v / / l l l l l l 1 1 1 l I / / / i ® / / - - - - - ♦ ° �' v ` � 1 V I <v ® / � \ ♦ V ^° � v •� I I I I \ IIII I __�� vv�l l l 11 l 111 l�ll 1111 l 111 l 11 ,' , ' I 1 / e ` - ) '� V ■ A �r � �� � � � � ,I � V A � A V � VAA � \ \ - - � \ 1 1 VA `\ v / / l 1 / I Ill / lull l 1 /llllll l L I I I 1 1 A\1 \ V Avv v V Al I / 774 ♦ v 7j- ° 1 1 A° A vv v v v v v A V A vA V'� II I l l ( I I I I / Ill I I I I �� � A • .\ \\V 6�VA v `v`vvV` vvAV11A v Orl llllll I II 11 II 11 / ` ♦t1 ♦ ` .I o \ \ \ v vv �` v` V v \ \� I \ , 1 ® �� ■■ � •■ ■■♦�♦♦ v I .° • ° 1 ° A \ \ v A A v� v v v V 1 I l A // 1 1 IIII ( I I I I III 1 1 1 1 1 I I 774� , v " v v v v v v v v I : ` v / w v " L�11{I&S OF CON, UaTlONI rIIYIP) I 1 i I 1 I / I I I I I I IFI��`yEi P�RII�J�E�`�� ,5,14�f�F�(�,��nII�� 11 1 1 I �• ..I s. n ° \ \ \ \ \ \111 II II III/ /'ATLIMITOF/C6INSrK,0Cilll0N,IN s A A I l / / I l I I /I III THYSA�FtP� I I I l I/ � I � I \.• ' I '`' \•° \ \ \ LS I \\\ W w �E b s.l s V V �a V A I,TOI Eh�,}\ vv vvI E 1 p \� %64 W/ 1 1 I IIII ll I I I I I I I I W -- - ■ s ° 4 v V A A` ` r sa v 11 I 1 v v 5 I I I I I III 1 1 11 II I - - � v = _ � / / ♦ 1• s � r, A . v � V A \ V A V1 IIII I I V A A \ VA 'IBJ v v v � V / � r v ■ l ♦ ♦ � r� ° v A A 1 1 I A V /l 11 I III I I I 1 1 ' ■/�� s s ` `° V IIIIIIII III I 1A A \ Vv- ` v v�`� A - -- --- � ---- I s • v V A I ` ' ` / I ■ � J' s o • IE SA r - - �` \ v v v v� � � i N � 1 I CP• \ ° ` 111 III II A A A A A \ 1 / I I I \\ \ \ \\ ` v v v x ■ r s v v `\ / ■;♦ 1 \ \ � _ i � il - ------1rpd o ■ 1 { • ° I" ` (�' ° • ° \ \ I \ \ I I 1111 GORDANC, �V1T Tt1E PE ERE \ \ ` \ \ I ® ♦ IS\ •1111 I I \ 01xo • ♦♦ ED PE BOOK 3 T \\ \ \ ����--------- /\\\\` _ 1\ \ \ \ \\ AW) i � p�p 1 r v 66, V A A\ VAV A A \jj�VA A A (� ��pp j/ �O D \ ' ---- 9 uW LJ ■I ��� r ,\s� PER, 7LO �C DO3 H I 0 4 9N-InV VV °0�- -� - '- - -- ---- �C° s a •s • % v AA VA \ V A I l l l l l l II /�Au V ` r w 3: A r -- 9 C� ■1 s` �j `, > v VA\VA\\ \ 111111VA \ \V0 \ e -- --- � Gam- 773 +� � •. Ov v v v v 1 v v v v v v v - �� 0 � ■I I i � 65 V A \V AV1 1 A VIVA A `\ V A\\V A V I A -778- s to - -- --- ---- ■ �• � v v l I I v vv v v` v v v v v v v v vv v / ■I ? I v v v v I v vvv vv i. A A\ VA V A (S V AA I _ _ ---778 � --� `\ ®e a l i 1 I n� 774 ^`'� � ., '° � . . 6� °° \ 1 \ \ \o F (ROLF C OUIRSE A61O\ VA\ V Av 777 v` v vvv v A apvvv v LIMIT$ OFvQONSTRUCfiI(�i��vTYR�v vv v ,0 OPOSED \ 1 g BUILDING / FF=786.0 MW o 11 X80 LL=774.00 / v - - -- _ � �--- ----- 183 LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION (\TYP) T � _ o a e / •♦ ♦� ijs , , ° 775 - - - - / v v vvv vv v e e m w ♦ ♦• P ° 9 ��� UNI] V�El! S,1 if /r,17HLEM CLUB B mf1 fin \ ■■■ as O ` M ° ° N AGCOR6ANCE WIT -11 TILE PLAT I7IEREOF REGORPED IN PLAT \ BOOK 381 AT PAGE 3O/o OF TI1E' RECORDS OF TILE JOHN -",ON / COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFCE II v _776_ - - - -- - — - �� 16 9� G -- V' / I 16�. v v W �/676 � — - - I 6.12 AC RA MA !9. CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS 1917 S. GILBERT ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319)351-8282 www.mmsconsultants.net Date Revision 01-12-21 Per city comments - kjb 02-05-21 Per city comments - bah PRELIMINARY OPD AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN �GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL FINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSE IOWA CITY JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. Date: 11/12/2020 Designed by: Field Book No: KJ B Drawn by: Scale: N P B 1 "=40' Ghecked by: Sheet No: JDM Protect No: 2 7331-0501 l 5 STANDARD LEGEND AND NOTES - PROPERTY &/or BOUNDARY LINES — — - CONGRESSIONAL SECTION LINES ------------- - RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES - - - - - - - - - - EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES — - CENTER LINES - EXISTING CENTER LINES - LOT LINES, INTERNAL - LOT LINES, PLATTED OR BY DEED PROPOSED EASEMENT LINES ------- - EXISTING EASEMENT LINES -lilill'o - BENCHMARK (R) - RECORDED DIMENSIONS 22-1 - CURVE SEGMENT NUMBER -EXIST- -PROP- - POWER POLE - POWER POLE W/DROP - POWER POLE W/TRANS - POWER POLE W/LIGHT - GUY POLE - LIGHT POLE OO 5a - SANITARY MANHOLE Y - FIRE HYDRANT - WATER VALVE O ® - DRAINAGE MANHOLE Irk ❑ - CURB INLET X X - FENCE LINE - EXISTING SANITARY SEWER (( - PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER ' - EXISTING STORM SEWER �< - PROPOSED STORM SEWER W-- WATER LINES E - ELECTRICAL LINES T - TELEPHONE LINES G - GAS LINES - - - - - - - - CONTOUR LINES (1' INTERVAL) - PROPOSED GROUND - EXISTING TREE LINE 0 �EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE & SHRUB - EXISTING EVERGREEN TREES & SHRUBS THE ACTUAL SIZE AND LOCATION OF ALL PROPOSED FACILITIES SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, WHICH ARE TO BE PREPARED AND SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS DOCUMENT. FINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSE IOWA CITY, IOWA 4 5`�i : SE ft_7`I_iVV SE 8-7q-; y ,� � { N l J - ~ LOCATION MAP �T NOT TO SCALE 00 11It'll 1111 1 VAI 111 I II /r /, / , v I //llllll 11 Il ' O I 111 l l �lI p l . � I ter, cin // ////ii oi/ LUV[fTS OF. CCS ��C�` :i(Typ) ��-a-a-6,J �S Cr' „ / �� '/ / / - -- lS r /r / i\ ^' / \ (D -(P 6 r i r //. / PLAG-ES I NCE EXISG TREE �TIN,S r,U X TOBE r _1 O , , I II III �, / � \ \ - - - - - / t 1 I ' PR�'�E-�/E1J� r i/i /, /i/ 1 - , ' �� I I I l 1 I 1 (p // / r I I 1 1 v ` %� jj/jo / /jj of 'r�� r / / /rr �r \ VI �WJVIf�t JIJN �L�� ® �� / / i r V o I to h \ ^ /' r/, i// / ' rr - -- ICV( (p , / �' / /' // r/ r // r I I I I I I I /'//j�/'//' ,i'''�---vv 1\V1111 j11111111111�I1i 1 II 1111 � I T W II II I1I I I I I I 1 WIIIII IIIJIWOII IIIIIIII II IIll I 1 I ' / 1 I I I 1 I \ V A Al \ I 0) 11J II II I 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 I 11 l 1110 I 1 II IT - Q_ l / l � � '�� �� � v IIIIIIIIII IIII IIIIIIII11111 I 1 I 1 1 1 11 V AA � ` ,ESFI$T1 NG TF2E(S / ll I \ \ TO BE - I I I i - � �V w/ � � 11- - - l / / i I V v MVV ------ - �0 - 1 O ll III IIIIIIIIII 1111111 111 V `_ � - \ 77j w � ♦ � , � / / � I v v V� , r 1 A I I I I III I I �/ - \--- 772 r ri _ �w� -,- \ - ` v vA \ V / / , _ _ v F V � � 1 I / v AA '• � _ /� V 1 1 II I I I I I I� ��I V�I�I�'J�� / / / / / // /// - - `- - P SED 773 U DIN '6$it 74.00 L = 2.00` � / _ - _ _ l 11 9' �` � \ - \ � - _ • I I I I I 1 I I 1111 1 1 111 1 I I I I I %2 / / // / 11 /l l l / 111 l l I l E _ L E �- - f■ ■ \ v - - v /// / � ---- N • _- -s v �� I I /// /// �/ 11111 I �� I II \ v � �� / / / / /// / / / / //// / ////// / ®/ -♦�♦ � � - 770- a °v // I I I I I v` v / / l l l l l l 1 1 1 l I / / / i ® / / - - - - - ♦ ° �' v ` � 1 V I <v ® / � \ ♦ V ^° � v •� I I I I \ IIII I __�� vv�l l l 11 l 111 l�ll 1111 l 111 l 11 ,' , ' I 1 / e ` - ) '� V ■ A �r � �� � � � � ,I � V A � A V � VAA � \ \ - - � \ 1 1 VA `\ v / / l 1 / I Ill / lull l 1 /llllll l L I I I 1 1 A\1 \ V Avv v V Al I / 774 ♦ v 7j- ° 1 1 A° A vv v v v v v A V A vA V'� II I l l ( I I I I / Ill I I I I �� � A • .\ \\V 6�VA v `v`vvV` vvAV11A v Orl llllll I II 11 II 11 / ` ♦t1 ♦ ` .I o \ \ \ v vv �` v` V v \ \� I \ , 1 ® �� ■■ � •■ ■■♦�♦♦ v I .° • ° 1 ° A \ \ v A A v� v v v V 1 I l A // 1 1 IIII ( I I I I III 1 1 1 1 1 I I 774� , v " v v v v v v v v I : ` v / w v " L�11{I&S OF CON, UaTlONI rIIYIP) I 1 i I 1 I / I I I I I I IFI��`yEi P�RII�J�E�`�� ,5,14�f�F�(�,��nII�� 11 1 1 I �• ..I s. n ° \ \ \ \ \ \111 II II III/ /'ATLIMITOF/C6INSrK,0Cilll0N,IN s A A I l / / I l I I /I III THYSA�FtP� I I I l I/ � I � I \.• ' I '`' \•° \ \ \ LS I \\\ W w �E b s.l s V V �a V A I,TOI Eh�,}\ vv vvI E 1 p \� %64 W/ 1 1 I IIII ll I I I I I I I I W -- - ■ s ° 4 v V A A` ` r sa v 11 I 1 v v 5 I I I I I III 1 1 11 II I - - � v = _ � / / ♦ 1• s � r, A . v � V A \ V A V1 IIII I I V A A \ VA 'IBJ v v v � V / � r v ■ l ♦ ♦ � r� ° v A A 1 1 I A V /l 11 I III I I I 1 1 ' ■/�� s s ` `° V IIIIIIII III I 1A A \ Vv- ` v v�`� A - -- --- � ---- I s • v V A I ` ' ` / I ■ � J' s o • IE SA r - - �` \ v v v v� � � i N � 1 I CP• \ ° ` 111 III II A A A A A \ 1 / I I I \\ \ \ \\ ` v v v x ■ r s v v `\ / ■;♦ 1 \ \ � _ i � il - ------1rpd o ■ 1 { • ° I" ` (�' ° • ° \ \ I \ \ I I 1111 GORDANC, �V1T Tt1E PE ERE \ \ ` \ \ I ® ♦ IS\ •1111 I I \ 01xo • ♦♦ ED PE BOOK 3 T \\ \ \ ����--------- /\\\\` _ 1\ \ \ \ \\ AW) i � p�p 1 r v 66, V A A\ VAV A A \jj�VA A A (� ��pp j/ �O D \ ' ---- 9 uW LJ ■I ��� r ,\s� PER, 7LO �C DO3 H I 0 4 9N-InV VV °0�- -� - '- - -- ---- �C° s a •s • % v AA VA \ V A I l l l l l l II /�Au V ` r w 3: A r -- 9 C� ■1 s` �j `, > v VA\VA\\ \ 111111VA \ \V0 \ e -- --- � Gam- 773 +� � •. Ov v v v v 1 v v v v v v v - �� 0 � ■I I i � 65 V A \V AV1 1 A VIVA A `\ V A\\V A V I A -778- s to - -- --- ---- ■ �• � v v l I I v vv v v` v v v v v v v v vv v / ■I ? I v v v v I v vvv vv i. A A\ VA V A (S V AA I _ _ ---778 � --� `\ ®e a l i 1 I n� 774 ^`'� � ., '° � . . 6� °° \ 1 \ \ \o F (ROLF C OUIRSE A61O\ VA\ V Av 777 v` v vvv v A apvvv v LIMIT$ OFvQONSTRUCfiI(�i��vTYR�v vv v ,0 OPOSED \ 1 g BUILDING / FF=786.0 MW o 11 X80 LL=774.00 / v - - -- _ � �--- ----- 183 LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION (\TYP) T � _ o a e / •♦ ♦� ijs , , ° 775 - - - - / v v vvv vv v e e m w ♦ ♦• P ° 9 ��� UNI] V�El! S,1 if /r,17HLEM CLUB B mf1 fin \ ■■■ as O ` M ° ° N AGCOR6ANCE WIT -11 TILE PLAT I7IEREOF REGORPED IN PLAT \ BOOK 381 AT PAGE 3O/o OF TI1E' RECORDS OF TILE JOHN -",ON / COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFCE II v _776_ - - - -- - — - �� 16 9� G -- V' / I 16�. v v W �/676 � — - - I 6.12 AC RA MA !9. CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS 1917 S. GILBERT ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319)351-8282 www.mmsconsultants.net Date Revision 01-12-21 Per city comments - kjb 02-05-21 Per city comments - bah PRELIMINARY OPD AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN �GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL FINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSE IOWA CITY JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. Date: 11/12/2020 Designed by: Field Book No: KJ B Drawn by: Scale: N P B 1 "=40' Ghecked by: Sheet No: JDM Protect No: 2 7331-0501 l 5 PRELIMINARY OPD AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN FINKBINE -THE JAMES ON MELROSE IOWA CITY, IOWA SENSITIVE AREAS LEGEND s CONSTRUCTION LIMITS STEEP SLOPE (11,420 SF - 100%) STEEP SLOPE (DISTURBED) (9,080 SF - 79.5%) CRITICAL SLOPE (18,702 SF - 100%) CRITICAL SLOPE (DISTURBED) (11,626 SF - 62.2%) FINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSE IOWA CITY, IOWA 4 [, ` 51N SE 8-74-(; E: SE ft-7�I-fi y PA l J 5 f LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE /\ PROTECTED SLOPE (465 SF) , \I PROTECTED SLOPE BUFFER - --66 IJ MAN MADE PROTECTED SLOPE (1,142 SF - 100%) MAN MADE PROTECTED SLOPE (DISTURBED) (1,142 SF - 100%) ---� GROVE OF TREES (52,426 SF - 100%) GROVE OF TREES (TO BE REMOVED) (37,508 SF - 71.5%) FINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSE IOWA CITY, IOWA 4 [, ` 51N SE 8-74-(; E: SE ft-7�I-fi y PA l J 5 f LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE /\ I , \I I\ 1 _5 i \ 110 1 / _ v FT -1 / 0 4 10 20 30 40 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 1"=40' / I / / r / r r / ' //'/VIII / \ \ \ I OF TRUC'rT�S'"`//ppi,,l�7yy1N� /'/ ' �--� VA \I II IIII 1111111111111 `�/ I Cn 01 1 � / �/r '/i —v � A I 1 11111111 1111111 NI \ I I I --v`v1VAV1111j11111111111Lf)I'N �'' /�'/', �v1V111VAVIj11IIIIII1111111vIII�111111VA 1 // I I ' / �/� 111111 I Ilj 1lllli�llll 011111j11111 I l I 11111 II III � II II II 1 1111111 II I III IIII 11 11 ; I 11 1 0 1 1Ji 1V 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 / / / / \ 111 ILf) III Ill Will 111 111 1 I1 I N Ill 11I II 11 / 1 1/ 1 1 III�IIIIIIII Il;l 11111/11III I I 1 111^II 1 III I I I I I I 1I I/ 1 1 1/ 1// I I I I L0III III III 111111 l II III III III I I I r ,' 1 1 I� I I 1 j 111II 1I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 Itill 1j111111111 1%2� 11111 11 IIIIII IVIII 11111 I I I I I I I I � 1 1 I IIII Illll I II11I III Jill I I Ill I I I �p / \ III I III 1 1 1 1 1 I I IIII 1111111111iilll11111111i \ I 1 I i I II I I � I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I \ 11 111 1 1 1 I' I i \ I I It I1 I I I I I I I I I i I `I 1 Ill \ v A V vvv J ` Al V A V AAS\\ '� 1, I IIII 1j I I vv vv Vv v v A 1 A v AO/ 1 I \\ � vvv v` � vv A 1 1 1 I I v \\ v 11 11 lI III IIIIII I v v A VAA 1 1 1 I I A \\ 1111 I �� I I /I/ // / l /' / // I I I I 1 I I 1 \ \ \\\1111j1111111111/;'�i/, \ 111111111 111111 it / I I l / r / 1 / 111 I III III r 0MIT1p�'OOIV"U6Tld1�(i*/ 1? II I 1\1/11 l l \ \ 11111III11j1111 111V1VvVA vv v.I 1 1 1V A' 1 IIII, v 111II111l11111IV v v; v I I )I'I lI Ill III I IIII \ \ \\ \ \ `\ // / I, V I I I III I vv IA 1 A \ V AA \ Vv-- / I It v I V / I � v A 11111111111111VA1VA\\\\\ ��////I III 1 1 111 1 1 1111 1A v v V A V A V A\ v vv vvv \\11111 11i4�11\ \\VAAA V AA VA VA�AAAVAA\\� vvv v�vv�v J \ \ \ \\ \ J OA \ \ — — — \ — — — — — — — — — — — \ 1 1 1 \ 1 \ r J / r _ _ _ I IN AGGORbANGE WI I-1 TILE PLAT ITIIEREO7= RECORDED IN PLAT 130GtC 381 AT PAGE 306 OF T1E, RECORDS OF T-dE 10 fNWON COUNTY RECORDER'S 61 FILE \ ' I — I ' � I - S < \ s_ 713vv _ G �� 2 \ 16W 113- G `( h ,O J 76W ----- - - ---- —i�-� -- - - — - ----- ' 6W /----------------------- - - - - -- - -- _ -16 - 76W` LO 76 VV 16W 6.12 AC M MA !9 CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS 1917 S. GILBERT ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319)351-8282 www.mmsconsultants.net Date Revision 01-12-21 Per city comments - kjb 02-05-21 Per city comments - bah PRELIMINARY OPD AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN (SENSITIVE AREAS MAP) FINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSE IOWA CITY JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. Date: 11/12/2020 Designed by: Field Book No: KJ B Drawn by: Scale: N PB 1 "=40' Ghecked by: Sheet No: JDM Project No: 3 7331-050 of: 5 , I\ ' //'/VIII / \ \ \ I OF TRUC'rT�S'"`//ppi,,l�7yy1N� /'/ ' �--� VA \I II IIII 1111111111111 `�/ I Cn 01 1 � / �/r '/i —v � A I 1 11111111 1111111 NI \ I I I --v`v1VAV1111j11111111111Lf)I'N �'' /�'/', �v1V111VAVIj11IIIIII1111111vIII�111111VA 1 // I I ' / �/� 111111 I Ilj 1lllli�llll 011111j11111 I l I 11111 II III � II II II 1 1111111 II I III IIII 11 11 ; I 11 1 0 1 1Ji 1V 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 / / / / \ 111 ILf) III Ill Will 111 111 1 I1 I N Ill 11I II 11 / 1 1/ 1 1 III�IIIIIIII Il;l 11111/11III I I 1 111^II 1 III I I I I I I 1I I/ 1 1 1/ 1// I I I I L0III III III 111111 l II III III III I I I r ,' 1 1 I� I I 1 j 111II 1I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 Itill 1j111111111 1%2� 11111 11 IIIIII IVIII 11111 I I I I I I I I � 1 1 I IIII Illll I II11I III Jill I I Ill I I I �p / \ III I III 1 1 1 1 1 I I IIII 1111111111iilll11111111i \ I 1 I i I II I I � I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I \ 11 111 1 1 1 I' I i \ I I It I1 I I I I I I I I I i I `I 1 Ill \ v A V vvv J ` Al V A V AAS\\ '� 1, I IIII 1j I I vv vv Vv v v A 1 A v AO/ 1 I \\ � vvv v` � vv A 1 1 1 I I v \\ v 11 11 lI III IIIIII I v v A VAA 1 1 1 I I A \\ 1111 I �� I I /I/ // / l /' / // I I I I 1 I I 1 \ \ \\\1111j1111111111/;'�i/, \ 111111111 111111 it / I I l / r / 1 / 111 I III III r 0MIT1p�'OOIV"U6Tld1�(i*/ 1? II I 1\1/11 l l \ \ 11111III11j1111 111V1VvVA vv v.I 1 1 1V A' 1 IIII, v 111II111l11111IV v v; v I I )I'I lI Ill III I IIII \ \ \\ \ \ `\ // / I, V I I I III I vv IA 1 A \ V AA \ Vv-- / I It v I V / I � v A 11111111111111VA1VA\\\\\ ��////I III 1 1 111 1 1 1111 1A v v V A V A V A\ v vv vvv \\11111 11i4�11\ \\VAAA V AA VA VA�AAAVAA\\� vvv v�vv�v J \ \ \ \\ \ J OA \ \ — — — \ — — — — — — — — — — — \ 1 1 1 \ 1 \ r J / r _ _ _ I IN AGGORbANGE WI I-1 TILE PLAT ITIIEREO7= RECORDED IN PLAT 130GtC 381 AT PAGE 306 OF T1E, RECORDS OF T-dE 10 fNWON COUNTY RECORDER'S 61 FILE \ ' I — I ' � I - S < \ s_ 713vv _ G �� 2 \ 16W 113- G `( h ,O J 76W ----- - - ---- —i�-� -- - - — - ----- ' 6W /----------------------- - - - - -- - -- _ -16 - 76W` LO 76 VV 16W 6.12 AC M MA !9 CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS 1917 S. GILBERT ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319)351-8282 www.mmsconsultants.net Date Revision 01-12-21 Per city comments - kjb 02-05-21 Per city comments - bah PRELIMINARY OPD AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN (SENSITIVE AREAS MAP) FINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSE IOWA CITY JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. Date: 11/12/2020 Designed by: Field Book No: KJ B Drawn by: Scale: N PB 1 "=40' Ghecked by: Sheet No: JDM Project No: 3 7331-050 of: 5 PRELIMINARY OPD AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN FINKBINE -THE JAMES ON MELROSE IOWA CITY, IOWA SENSITIVE AREAS LEGEND CONSTRUCTION LIMITS R� STEEP SLOPE (11,420 SF - 100%) STEEP SLOPE (DISTURBED) (9,080 SF - 79.5%) CRITICAL SLOPE (18,702 SF - 100%) CRITICAL SLOPE (DISTURBED) (11,626 SF - 62.2%) FINKBINE — THE JAMES ON MELROSE IOWA CITY, IOWA .-. r n 51N SE 8-7q-(; `Z: SE ft_7`I_fi NI IF [, � s �W LL, LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE �\ PROTECTED SLOPE (465 SF) I PROTECTED SLOPE BUFFER MAN MADE PROTECTED SLOPE (1,142 SF - 100%) MAN MADE PROTECTED SLOPE (DISTURBED) (91 SF - 8.0%) L. ....... a FINKBINE — THE JAMES ON MELROSE IOWA CITY, IOWA .-. r n 51N SE 8-7q-(; `Z: SE ft_7`I_fi NI IF [, � s �W LL, LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE �\ I I `\I 1 I I \ FDNK o I]11CF,(GOLF C OUIREE I I 1 0 1 I 1 � O00 r Mw / ------ 00 / - IA _ w ,TE 0 4 10 20 30 40 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 1"=40' 1 h / ` I / I I S \)IIIIIlI111lIlllll/lI/I/ilii /\_I-_-_-- -�` 11 1 \ / I '/'//llllllllyllllllll/l/l/////�/ OF C STRUCf j%/,�l,x/ Pn// =//ui /l/II II/111111//t , / /„ /, Ilujl►'')I � �� i�--_-��� `\ `\ 1111 LTI \\\II 1 C) \ I I I I ' //'' -�`�1 VAV1111j1111111 11IIII��IIr\ �/ /'' --� Al "111 III 1111i,ll�IllVy ��� / / i'/ / 111 1111 11 1 \111111111 11111 111111 Illl�1 1 11111111 l 1 AI /'� LTI / //111111 t 111�� ^ If/ 1I It� I��lll11111111111 II // /� j' III q.111II11I1111/ 1 11111 II I 1 _ i011Io I i^I II/ I 11 =III I I II I t N Jill I II l Ilii l l l l If j 1 1 1 1 1 t I I I 1111 Hit I II lull III III I I I I I I 111111111 11111IIII l l t l I III t l 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 I I ill '20 ' �\ 1 I I III IIIIII 111111111 I I i I 1 111 t I ///// \ I 111111111 I II I II II I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1111,1 ILII II I III I III I I III111 1 I I y- I� ISI pI I I I jI� \ 11 I I I I I 1 11 II�I�IIN ((��yyL�S4pp11V�� 1111 11111 11��1�1F1 UV' Qly'Jmg'/ \I 111 11II1I���IIIII�IIIII - - ` II I I l 111 1111 25 I III I I\ ,// j \ if lilt II III I I \\\ \\ //11 Il/I / 11/I / ill l i 1111111II 1 vvvvA A1j 111111A' //lllt1l11i l I // / 11 1 IIII I 1 t�{G/bNSTRUCTION (TIYO) 111 I Jill I I I II I V A V v 1111111111111111 \VAvv vl 11 V A11 V I I I v \v vv v A 111j111111111111111111\ `�`v� v 1 1 V 111 it III v v vv \111111111111111111VAA\VA` ��A v I /111 111111 /III / mil 1 Ill llh l 1A V A V A\ Vv _ / Ill vvvv vv v0U7L0 AV A A `3r ` v A\ I I I/ill AIA `\� vvv��VAAA�� I I v AA\VAVA` VAVC, V s 1 1 1 A v vv vvvvvvvvv"vvv v v�` v` vv6'0vvvvv��vvv�v i - - - ---\ _ \ \ D - -� 1 - - - - - - \ \ \\\ \y LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION (TYP)- \ I I UN0d;EIRMTY AMLEToC CLUB o \' su Bmwiimno 1 \ IN ACC, RbANCE WITf1 TIE PLAT IT-dEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT �)OOC 381 AT PAGE 30/v OF TdE RECORDS OF TIE J0-41WN COJNTY RECOZER'S OFFICE. / 6W--- - / L/ ' ----------------- - - - - -� _ / - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- \ / / - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - / / / - - - -� -� �_�--_------ - �7�W n co i --------------- 6.12 AC M MA !9 CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS 1917 S. GILBERT ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319)351-8282 www.mmsconsultants.net Date Revision 01-12-21 Per city comments - kjb 02-05-21 Per city comments - bah PRELIMINARY OPD AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN SLOPES FINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSE IOWA CITY JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. Date: 11/12/2020 Designed by: Field Book No: KJ B Drawn by: Scale: N PB 1 "=40' Ghecked by: Sheet No: JDM Project No: 4 7331-050 of: 5 PRELIMINARY OPD AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN FINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSE LANDSCAPE LEGEND: IOWA CITY, IOWA LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: EX15TING SHADE TREE EX15TING SHRUB EXISTING ORNAMENTAL TREE EX15TING EVERGREEN TREE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS RESIDENTIAL USE TREES I TREE FOR EVERY 550 5F OF TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE. - 48,779 / 550 = 89 REQUIRED 17 PARKING AREA TREES 10 STREET TREES G4 RESIDENTIAL USE TREES 93 PROPOSED TREES + I I EX15TING TREES TOTAL = 102 PROVIDED PARKING AREA SCREENING ALL PARKING AREAS MUST BE SCREENED FROM VIEW OF A FRONTING STREET TO THE 52 STANDARD. - PROVIDED PLANT LIST - EVERGREEN, ORNAMENTAL & 6f TAPE TREES PARKING AREA TREES 60TANIGAL NAME I SMALL TREE WITHIN 40' OR I LARGE TREE WITHIN GOOF EVERY PROPOSED SHADE TREE PARKING SPACE OR PORTION THEREOF. PROPOSED SHRUBS - PROVIDED PROPOSED EVERGREEN TREE AUTUMN BRILLIANCE 6ERVICEI3ERRY PROPOSED ORNAMENTAL TREE STREET TREES 25" X 20' I LARGE TREE FOR EVERY 40 LINEAL FEET OF FRONTAGE. PROPOSED STREET TREE - MELR05E AVE: 573.24 / 40 = 15 REQUIRED 2" GAL, 10 PROPOSED 4d X 36y 5 EX15TING EX15TING SHADE TREE EX15TING SHRUB EXISTING ORNAMENTAL TREE EX15TING EVERGREEN TREE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS RESIDENTIAL USE TREES I TREE FOR EVERY 550 5F OF TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE. - 48,779 / 550 = 89 REQUIRED 17 PARKING AREA TREES 10 STREET TREES G4 RESIDENTIAL USE TREES 93 PROPOSED TREES + I I EX15TING TREES TOTAL = 102 PROVIDED PARKING AREA SCREENING ALL PARKING AREAS MUST BE SCREENED FROM VIEW OF A FRONTING STREET TO THE 52 STANDARD. - PROVIDED PLANT LIST - EVERGREEN, ORNAMENTAL & 6f TAPE TREES QTY 60TANIGAL NAME GGMMON NAME INSTA OOMMEW MATURE 4 AMELANCHIER X &FANPIFLORA 'AUTUMN pRILLIANGE' AUTUMN BRILLIANCE 6ERVICEI3ERRY 1/2 GAL. 6 & 6 25" X 20' 4 AESOLUS 6LAI3RA OHIO BUCKEYE 2" GAL, 6& 6 4d X 36y 4 BETULA NIGRA RIVER BIRCH 2" GAL. 6 & i3 35 X 25' 4 CARPINUS GAROLINIANA AMERICAN f10RNiI 2" GAL. I3 & 15 3d X 3d 4 OELTIS OCGIPENTALIS COMMON HACKf5ERRY 2V' GAL. b & 15 761 X 36Y 4 CERCIS CANADENSIS EASTERN REPI3UD 1/2-" GAL. I3 & 15 25 X 25' 2 CORNUS KOU5A KOU5A D06WOOP 1/2" GAL. 6 & 6 3d X 3d 4 FA6U5 6RANPIFOLIA AMERICAN EEGH 2" GAL. 6 & 6 5a X 50' 4 6LEPITSIA TRIAGANTIIOS var. INERM16 'MARVE' NORTIIERN ACCLAIM THORNLESS HONEYLOCUST 2" GAL. 6 & I3 5d X 3d 2 OLEPITSIA TRIA0ANTII0S 'SKYCOLE' SKYLINE THORNLESS HONEYLOCUST 2" GAL. I3 & 15 45' X 35' 4 &YMNOCLAPUS PIOGUS KENTUCKY COFFEETREE 2V' GAL. I3 & 15 86;1 X 55' 4 LIRIOPENPRON TJLIPIFERA TULIPTREE 2V' GAL. b & 15 5a X 50' 4 MALUS 'PRAIRIE FIRE" PRAIRIE FIRE CRABAPPLE 1 1/2-" GAL. b & 15 15 X I5' 4 NYSSA SYLVATICA bLAGK TUPELO 2V' GAL. I3 & 15 5d X 3d 4 OSTRYA VIROINIANA AMERICAN F10P 2V' GAL. b & 15 3d X 2d 4 PIGEA 6LAUCA 'PEN5ATA" BLACK HILLS SPRUCE G' HT. I & I 4d X 15' 4 PINUS STROpUS WHITE PINE G" HT. I & 6 76, x 361 4 QUERCUS PALUSTRIS PIN OAK 2" GAL. 13 & 6 /00" X 46' 4 SYRINOA RETICULATA 'IVORY SILK' IVORY SILK JAPANESE TREE LILAC 1/2" GAL. & 6 25 X 20' 3 TAXOPIUM PISTIGHUM pALP CYPRESS G' HT. 6 & 6 76Y X 45' 4 TILIA TOMENTOSA SILVER LINDEN 2" GAL. 6 & 6 5d X 3d 4 ULMUS 'MORTON GLOSSY TRIUMPH ELM 2" GAL. 6 & 6 Gd X 4d PLANT LIST - STREET TREES QTY BOTANICAL NAME OaAMON NAME INS COMMENT MATURE 2 OLEPISTA TRIACANTHOS INTERMIS 'SKYLINE' SKYLINE THORNLESS HONEYLOGUST 2" GAL- 6 & 6 Gd X 3d 4 QUERCUS RUBRA REP OAK 2" GAL. 13 & B 761 X 3d 4 ULMUS AMERICANA 'NEW HARMONY NEW HARMONY ELM 2" GAL- B & 6 7d X 3d PLANT LIST - St1RUs, ORNAMENTAL GRASSES & PERENNIALS QTY WFANIGAL NAME COMMON NAME INSTAL Sim cavum Ir MATURE 617F GALAMA0R6STI3 X AGU>-IPLORA 'KARL FOERSTER" KARL FOERSTER FEATHER BEEP GRASS V, IT. CONT, 4' X 32" HAMAMELIS VERNALIS VERNAL WITCHHAZEL 15" HT. CONT, 9' X 13" HEMEROGALLIS 'STELLA P'ORd STELLA P'ORO PAYLILIES IV' HL CONT, I' X 2' HYPRAl QUERCIFOLIA OAKLEAF 1YPRAl 15" HT, CONT, 7' X 7' PANICUM VIRC)ATUM 'PRAIRIE FIRE' PRAIRIE FIRE REP SWITCH GRASS IV' HT. CONT 4' X 3' RIBES ALPINUM 'GREEN MOUND' GREEN MOUND ALPINE CURRENT 12"" HT CONT. 4' X 4' TAXUS x MEDIA "PENSIFORMIS DENSE YEW 15" HT. CONT. 3' X 5' VIBURNUM DENTATUM ARROWWOOP VIBURNUM 15" HT. CONT, 8' X 5, VITURNUM TRILOBUM '60MPA6TA' COMPACT AMERICAN CRANBERRY GUSH VIBURNUM 24" HT CONT, 5' X 5' — NOTE= ALL PLANT SPECIES SHALL 6E ASSIGNED FROM, II NOT LIMITED TO THE All LISTED PLANT SGHEPULE, SUBJECT TO CITY FORESTER APPROVAL. FINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSE f IOWA CITY, IOWA .ri �,; 1fV SIE M -79-h `! SE tl-79-G ' _7 ) 751 SS + L, f41F 7V -IF / w u _ r�. rn-f•�I LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE / II \ I� I�� jj� �I � n I� I� I� \ Il-DIJVIf\N�ONF=I(30L�11- COUIRSE I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 IxW >11W � I I / / / I l i FTI M 0 4 10 20 30 40 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 1"=40' r r/ri,i////irrlll I r I /i/err / �r i, ��'� _ _� � \\\III II VIII IIIIII IIIIIIII IIII I Ii / \1 I i 'I ���i, ��i,i�i%�--- `\II\\\1111 III II II IIIIII1111111\\ I � I I ��ii ii���/i/%/ � I\II \1 III1111111111111111111111111\\\ I / I 1 �i��i�ii, i��i�� ��� 1111111 II I II I1111IIIIII III III IMI III IIII II 1 Al \/ � � � i,� ice' \ \ 1 11 11111111111 1111 III IIIIII 1 I / I /� � � ��i��� ��— 1 1 11 III 11111111111111111111111111 I 1 / / I �/ ��� � �'�� ��\\ \ 11111111111111111111/ IIIIIIIIII1111111 1 1 1` / // I 11111 IIII VIII II IIIIII I I I — % `\ \ If l illi l (IIII lull l l I II II I I I I I II 1 11 11111 1 III IIII 111)11 II III II i j ,�/i \ �I \I � i l � II Illlll111111j1111111 it l III i l l i I 1111111 11111j11111It 111 1 1 1 ( I I I it V 1 111 III 1 1 III I I r / \ \ I I I I I I I I I1 1 III II 1 11 I I I I l I l l l l I I 1 1 I If VI II III II IIIIIIII Y, I V I I I h i l l 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 11 1 v 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I V I I I IIS Iililliil I�9I111 II I�JhJ9U11 \ II II I I I III l I 1111IIIliIII IIII1Iilllliillll 11 1111 III11I 111 III I1 I I iliilllijijIIIIIIiiiiliIII IIII I I 11 I I I I I l I 1 / till I I III \ \ I I IIII II 111\I \ \ \ �\\\/l/l/11I�L \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\1 V i \ \ \ I / I r / / I 1 1j1i I r/ if IIII 1 V A V A\\ 11 (IIII II II Irl/ /i / lk I / / V A.A �� \\ VA A 11 I I IIII I I I1111 I 11111AA VA � v � I I I V A 1 I IIII i ` � � \\\\ 1 111111111111111111\ \ � �� � I I \III II III ,�, � a VA\V A111 IIII 111111\\ \ SVA �� I I IIII 11 IIII � � � � VA\\ \11111j1111111111VAVA VAA\\VA \�' /III/ I II 11 \ 111111\� �v IAA Ij11\\AVA���� vvvvAvvvvvv A \VAA \ \\\\\\\ 0U7L\� \\ ° �• V 1 1 \ VA\ \AVA\ \ 111 11 111 \II A V v A . \ V A A \AVA\VA11 1� 1111 11 V A V / A� ° a � 11'1 1 1 II II111111\\\ vv v vAA VA Iv — A � � I 11VAAVA AVA\\VAVA\VA\\\\ � v/ v �1 vv vv vvv vvvv vvvv v vvvv. x \ / a — — \---------------- \\\\ \ a ° LJM CLUB a , s x a + % + IN ALGORANGE WITH THE PLAT /THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT ° / ♦ 1 a boor, 381 AT PAGE 3O6 OF THE J RECORDS OF THE J0111\TSON ' x GGJNTY REGORVER'S OFFICE- r i e 00 e W � I w --- -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - _ ^� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -�-_c_ ---- _-,` -_--- - - - - '--- --- — /------------ - - - - --------- - - - - -- -----_ -_ - 16W \ 6 vv 16W` 6.12 AC CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS 1917 S. GILBERT ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319) 351-8282 www.mmsconsultants.net Date Revislon 01-12-21 Per city comments - kjb 02-05-21 Per city comments - bah PRELIMINARY OPD AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN (LANDSCAPE PLAN) FINKBINE — THE JAMES ON MELROSE IOWA CITY JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA MMS CONSULTANTS, INC Date: 11/12/2020 Designed by: f=ield Book No: KJ B Drawn by: Scale: N P B 1 1 "=40' Ghecked by: Sheet No: JDM Project No: 5 7331-050 of: 5 , , I r r/ri,i////irrlll I r I /i/err / �r i, ��'� _ _� � \\\III II VIII IIIIII IIIIIIII IIII I Ii / \1 I i 'I ���i, ��i,i�i%�--- `\II\\\1111 III II II IIIIII1111111\\ I � I I ��ii ii���/i/%/ � I\II \1 III1111111111111111111111111\\\ I / I 1 �i��i�ii, i��i�� ��� 1111111 II I II I1111IIIIII III III IMI III IIII II 1 Al \/ � � � i,� ice' \ \ 1 11 11111111111 1111 III IIIIII 1 I / I /� � � ��i��� ��— 1 1 11 III 11111111111111111111111111 I 1 / / I �/ ��� � �'�� ��\\ \ 11111111111111111111/ IIIIIIIIII1111111 1 1 1` / // I 11111 IIII VIII II IIIIII I I I — % `\ \ If l illi l (IIII lull l l I II II I I I I I II 1 11 11111 1 III IIII 111)11 II III II i j ,�/i \ �I \I � i l � II Illlll111111j1111111 it l III i l l i I 1111111 11111j11111It 111 1 1 1 ( I I I it V 1 111 III 1 1 III I I r / \ \ I I I I I I I I I1 1 III II 1 11 I I I I l I l l l l I I 1 1 I If VI II III II IIIIIIII Y, I V I I I h i l l 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 11 1 v 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I V I I I IIS Iililliil I�9I111 II I�JhJ9U11 \ II II I I I III l I 1111IIIliIII IIII1Iilllliillll 11 1111 III11I 111 III I1 I I iliilllijijIIIIIIiiiiliIII IIII I I 11 I I I I I l I 1 / till I I III \ \ I I IIII II 111\I \ \ \ �\\\/l/l/11I�L \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\1 V i \ \ \ I / I r / / I 1 1j1i I r/ if IIII 1 V A V A\\ 11 (IIII II II Irl/ /i / lk I / / V A.A �� \\ VA A 11 I I IIII I I I1111 I 11111AA VA � v � I I I V A 1 I IIII i ` � � \\\\ 1 111111111111111111\ \ � �� � I I \III II III ,�, � a VA\V A111 IIII 111111\\ \ SVA �� I I IIII 11 IIII � � � � VA\\ \11111j1111111111VAVA VAA\\VA \�' /III/ I II 11 \ 111111\� �v IAA Ij11\\AVA���� vvvvAvvvvvv A \VAA \ \\\\\\\ 0U7L\� \\ ° �• V 1 1 \ VA\ \AVA\ \ 111 11 111 \II A V v A . \ V A A \AVA\VA11 1� 1111 11 V A V / A� ° a � 11'1 1 1 II II111111\\\ vv v vAA VA Iv — A � � I 11VAAVA AVA\\VAVA\VA\\\\ � v/ v �1 vv vv vvv vvvv vvvv v vvvv. x \ / a — — \---------------- \\\\ \ a ° LJM CLUB a , s x a + % + IN ALGORANGE WITH THE PLAT /THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT ° / ♦ 1 a boor, 381 AT PAGE 3O6 OF THE J RECORDS OF THE J0111\TSON ' x GGJNTY REGORVER'S OFFICE- r i e 00 e W � I w --- -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - _ ^� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -�-_c_ ---- _-,` -_--- - - - - '--- --- — /------------ - - - - --------- - - - - -- -----_ -_ - 16W \ 6 vv 16W` 6.12 AC CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS 1917 S. GILBERT ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319) 351-8282 www.mmsconsultants.net Date Revislon 01-12-21 Per city comments - kjb 02-05-21 Per city comments - bah PRELIMINARY OPD AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN (LANDSCAPE PLAN) FINKBINE — THE JAMES ON MELROSE IOWA CITY JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA MMS CONSULTANTS, INC Date: 11/12/2020 Designed by: f=ield Book No: KJ B Drawn by: Scale: N P B 1 1 "=40' Ghecked by: Sheet No: JDM Project No: 5 7331-050 of: 5 2 3 5 CD Z_ Z UNIT COUNTS: REFUSE ZQ IL SIZE 0 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL A203 A203 ASK 1-BED 0 2 4 7 5 3 21 V") 2-BED 0 6 12 12 13 4 47 Al Cl � ABED 0 6 11 11 9 6 43 258'-2 3/4" 0 TU O 10 3L-BED 0 0 1 1 2 1 5 s 91/2 4'-31/4" w TOTAL 0 14 28 31 29 14 116 42'-111/2° 1'-0°,6) 1 20'-0° 180'-21/2" Z ARCHITECTS SCHIFFER KASTNER HOLD ALL RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT TO A3 THESE DRAWINGS. REPRODUCTIONS, �� 7-o wALTERATIONS, MODIFICATIONS, A302 �Ob USAGE OR INCORPORATION INTO D OTHER DOCUMENTS MAY NOT \ I OCCUR WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ASK STUDIO. w COPYRIGHT 2018 Al �� ,j 19 STALLS 17 A2o3 = ASK STUDIO ti o til h \ STI UP I 62 STALLS row` A2% Q s 20 STALLS i \ I ��, 1,343 SF � �o A 73S 00 / 07 s, o � titin \ \ s11 63"' oI• \ I 1'-0" I o 176'-3 3/4" tip; ' �titi s 1,308 SF q T ti 11, A2 C l a ti`' 742 SF \ ��1- os-, \� C2 A 1 o'�sr9 0 l A301 0 if 0 \ I I A301 1- — 146' 7 , ��" % II--- 5 5'-7 3/4" 12'-4' 39'-1 3/4"-------1;12'-4"- 27'-8" 12'-4" 27'-8" 15'-2" \ �,� – U 742 SF Fm ECHANICAL C4 --4 1 --4 1� . I — - 1 7 1,102 SF ° A301 :0 10'-5 3/4" I �. C) cb C 1 ,yc�� Z o 1,193 SF ��' A4 ENTRY CANOPY 0 1,323 SF 1,116 SF 1,102 SF c2 A 4 ABOVE A2U1) ti FIRST FLOOR: 47,353 GSF U DWELLING UNITS: 16,677 SF A4 1,496 SF D CIRCULATION: 2,227 SF A205 I - ti 0 D SERVICE: 311 SF1,x12F so Al �v �o c4 \ D COMMON /AMENITY: 4,208 SF M o 1,101 SF 1,101 SF o 1,496 SF °h A201 % A202 0 D PARKING: 21,087 SF o Z D WALLS / STRUCTURE: 2,843 SF L --- L L - --- --- I DUNIT BALCONIES: 1,479 SF*tiff u 33'-10" 12'-4" 27'-6" 12'-4" 27'-8" 12'-4" 45'-5" 12'-4" — ol **UNIT BALCONIES, NOT INCLUDED IN GSF / UNIT SF II--- 183'-9" �183'-9" Q OF 12Lu Cl A201 cU/) LL] V) \� \ 01 -FIRST FLOOR 0 \ C SCALE: I"= 30'-0" ry � W O � � Z C Cel Lo A3 MAINTENANCE / Lo A302 MECHANICAL SPACES O N U \ O V) A204 \ moo„ N w Al 0 OLo Z Q V O Q A4 66o N A301 N 7 � L \\ 0 W C) titin' N A204\ \ .P_ \ �1��/ C 1 o q� V) LU 0,L 0 \ N A2 moo \ \ Q 9'-61/2" A301 8 co F- 1' 0" 1' 0" �� " 8"8' 6" L6, 20'-8 1/2" 20'-0" 55'-0" tiS�Pv 0 00 7,p0-, \ � CD SAF ti,o Z W 00 b 13 M u— Z 6 STALLS 5 STALLS 40 0 0 57 STALLS ��ISSUE DATE: A20°o])� 24'-6" 27'-0" 27'-0" 11.12.2020 LOWER FLOOR: 21,461 GSF ��Ll- REVISIONS: � 1 18 STALLS Al DWELLING UNITS: 0 SF I o A201 w D CIRCULATION: 794 SF o 60op Z o 135 O SERVICE: 676 SF o Q D COMMON /AMENITY: 0 SF D PARKING: 18,741 SFA 1'-0" 184'-9 7/8" w D WALLS / STRUCTURE: 1,250 SF 0- Cl 0- \A201 \ FLOOR PLANS U Lu 00 -LOWER LEVEL v \' SCALE: 1"=30'-O" w A101 5 PROJECT 19015 2 � 3 / _\\ 5 A203 A203j Z Z UNIT COUNTS: Al Cl ZQ REFUSE J IL SIZE 0 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL ASK 1 -BED 0 2 4 7 5 3 21 1L.3'-7° I/ABE2 -BED 0 6 12 12 13 4 47 16'-3" 23'-9 3/4" 12'-4" )31'-61/2" L.12'-4" 27'-8" 12'-4" 15'-8" 9" 15'-8" 12'-4" 45'-5" 12'-4" 0 � T' I D D 0 6 11 11 9 6 43 I U (i 3L -BED 0 0 1 1 2 1 5 7A;3� o TOTAL 0 14 28 31 29 14 116 V w EjZ ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER HOLD ALL RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT TO A204 \ 855 SF0 SF 1 1,102 SF o 1,496 SF THESE DRAWINGS. REPRODUCTIONS, 756 SF s LTERATIONS, MODIFICATIONS, AlA 1 s A203 W USAGE OR INCORPORATION INTO 827 SF 756S D OTHER DOCUMENTS MAY NOT Dc -4 11Z:) OCCUR WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN ^V' \ M A2 I -- PERMISSION OF ASK STUDIO. \ 1,496 SF �� so L1 � o 7s��„ �_ COPYRIGHT 2018 > 9 1 SF 1,248 SF 1,693 SF `' = ASK STUDIO \ 1,102 SF o 1,591 SIF / 41, U \/ Q 1,343 SF _ o n b %\ c� y�1 1,117 SF, 3'-71/2" 11A" 27'-6" 12'-4" 35'-6" 12'4" 14'-1" 16'-8" '-4" \ e;C 1,308 SIF/,114 9 8, ,114 SF A2 1 742 SF \ Cl titi\ \ s \'I C2 0 A301 L. (4 L1.0'-31/102" q�h \ A301 A202 5'-7 3/4" 12'-4" 28'-101/4" 12'-4" 27'-8" 12'-4" 27'-8" 15'-2" �`�� 6° 742 SF h� MECHANICAL A301 1,102 SF Z 1,102 SF \ 7'� O :o C 1 0y� 10'-5 3/4" 1 ti 1,961 SF U 1,323 SF 1,1 1,193 SF A4 16 SF 1,102 SF A202 A301 THIRD FLOOR: 45,290 GSF o o ~ 4 V)q 1,496 SF 6 `� b% DWELLING UNITS: 37,422 SF A205 A 1 ti� �Z D CIRCULATION: 4,548 SF 87 0 D SERVICE: 176 SF o 1'512 F Al ) �° c4 �� U 1,101 SF 1,101 SF 1,496 SF A201 A202 D COMMON / AMENITY: 0 SF �`�" \ 0:� D WALLS / STRUCTURE: 3,144 SFo 0 D UNIT BALCONIES: 3,472 SF** ** +3,273 SF OF UNIT BALCONY, NOT INCLUDED IN GSF / UNIT SF 33'-10" 12'-4" 27'-6" 12'-4" 27'-8" 12' 4" 45' S" 12'-4" 0 183'-9" z 411 r1 U C1 (A201 Q w % 03 - THIRD FLOOR u ` SCALE: I"=30' -O" ui V) 0 "A203) A203 ry Cl Al w 252'-01/4" O PATIO 1� 16-3 3/8" 23'-9 3/8" 13'-7" 12'-4" 31'-61/2" 12'-4" 27'-8" 12'-4" 15'-8" 9" 15'-8" 12'-4" 45'-5" 12'-4" 950 SF A3 . �Z o q N A204\' \ \ 1,430 SF 1 '�1 2 SF 1,496 SF A 1 mss- O v ' 756 SF 756 SIF s N w � �; \ � A203 , �70 M \ 1 F A2 `o r \ UP o , 1s�, Q Q V o C ti 8 N `QQE1,386 SF 11g2 SF 1,693 SF 1,591 SF / gip„ c_ Z 1,343 SF , n o p \S w ' o 11 , 17 SF o� N 33'-71/2" 12'-4" 12'-4" 35'-6" 12'-4" 14'-1" 9" 16'-8" -�1 Q A204 \ ti`' titi s 61,308 SIF ,moo \ \ 6 ` > 1 T�� o; 27'-6" Al 31'-6' Y,"1�4 SF I r > 5' 2 1 " A2 C 1 \ti742 SF \ s' \ C2 �'s�, �' 63„ N W Do 0 A301 \ �' \ (A202) / �9, j 5'-31/2" 12'-91/2" 39'-13/4" 12'-4" 27'-8" 12'-4" L.27'-8" 15'-2" yob ��6 �'" Q > of L.742 SF [MECHANICAL C4 p m m ~ 1,102 SF U _ 1;�� 1,102 SF ti °c A301 7�� Cl Z w \ u, % �� 1,961 SF .o s 123 ,3SF 1,116 Sfb _ 1,102 SF 1,193 SF ti� A4 A202 6° M LL Z 0 c -I N A301 o )A4 Cp1,496 SF 2205 ISSUE DATE: SECOND FLOOR: 45,303 GSF 1 1 �11.12.2020 DWELLING UNITS: 34,779 SF o 1,512 AF Al 81�„ C4 REVISIONS: D CIRCULATION: 4,569 SF M 1,101 SF o 1,101 SF 1,496 SF °� A201 A202 w M z D SERVICE: 176 SF o � D COMMON /AMENITY: 2,549 SF D WALLS / STRUCTURE: 3,230 SF D UNIT BALCONIES: 3,110 SF** 33'-10" 12'4" 27' 6" 12' 4" 27' 8" 12' 4" 45' S" A w I IL D COMMON PATIO: 950 SF* Jp 183'-9" CL *COMMON PATIO, NOT INCLUDED IN GSF **UNIT BALCONIES, NOT INCLUDED IN GSF / UNIT SF C 1 CJ FLOOR PLANS A201 ~ U w 'A%�\ 02 - SECOND FLOOR U \' SCALE: 1"=30'-O" Q Al 02 F PROJECT 19015 2 3 4 5 0 Z �A203� A203 � UNIT COUNTS: Q Cl J Al SIZE 0 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL REFUSE IL ASK 1 -BED 0 2 4 7 5 3 21 2 -BED 0 6 12 12 13 4 47 � 1 TU Q I/ABED 0 6 11 11 9 6 43 13 7)v 3L -BED 0 0 1 1 2 1 5 A3 37'-117/8" 12'1.-4" 31'-61/2" 12'-4" 27'L.-8" 12''01-4" 15'1.-8" 9" 15'-8" 12'-4" 45'-5" TOTAL 0 14 28 31 29 14 116 A302 Z ARCHITECTS SCHIFFER KASTNER o HOLD ALL RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT TO \ o, T I W THESEALTERATIONS,DRAISMODIFIOCDDUC ONS, o \ 1 405 SF 1,430 SF IFl.102 SF 756 SF 756 SF 1,496 SF �s � W USAGE O HERR DOC INCORPORATION IONTO \ s" A2O3 V OCCUR WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRI TTEN PERMISSION OF ASK STUD. \ \ \ Lu 1,496 SF A2 COPYRIGHT 2018 ASK STUDIO � U 925 SF 1,102 SF 1,643 SF 1,511 SF \ / 4 Q B2 I o \ / ;pT 1,117 SIF Q„ \ / \ (A205 , \ 39'-1 1/4" I 27'-6 tl2'-4" 35'-6" 12'-4" 14'-19" 16'-8" 74" \\ \ 16- 1/4 SF tea; A2 \00111, \C2 1 / . A301 \ MECHANICAL A301 A202 / COMMUNITY C4 6 Q \ ROOM 656 SF ROOFTOP A301 2,086 SF \ PATIO 749 SF II --- Cl Cl U I A4 A202 6�0 � A301 Q C) FIFTH FLOOR: 23,357 GSF I ROOF BELOW z DWELLING UNITS: 17,939 SF I 0 D CIRCULATION: 2,773 SF I C4 U D SERVICE: 176 SF A20) OCOMMON /AMENITY: 656 SF I I_______ D WALLS / STRUCTURE: 1,813 SF D UNIT BALCONIES: 3,343 SF* 0 D COMMON BALCONY: 749 SF* Z *COMMON BALCONY, NOT INCLUDED IN GSF U **UNIT BALCONY, NOT INCLUDED IN GSF / UNIT SF Q Lu U 05 -FIFTH FLOOR W i SCALE: I"=30' -O" O 0 ry A203 A203 Al Cl W O REFUSE � ::E 252'-01/8" �\ CV 13'-7" Lo z A3 16'-3 3/8" L. 23'-9 3/8" 1. 12'-4"1. 31'-61/2" 12'-4" 27'-8" 12'-4" 1. 15'-8" 9" 15'-8" 12'4" 45'-5" 12'-4" Ln A302 titi 10�, � .Q„ U ._ 4- 4- % \ I 0 V) 1,102 SF w A204 \ 855 SF 1,430 SF 756 SF 756 SF 1,496 SF s cN Al tiI 'I SF it O A203 L 1,496 SF A2 Q %\ 'jS vi c_ 961 SF 1,248 SF 1,102 SF 1,591 SF �� O W � \ I 10693 SF / o-. � 1,343 SF oT L I / °' C) % JItih I II 1,117 SF Q \ V A '-71/2" 12,11" 27'-6" 12' 4" 35'-6" 12'-4" 14'-1" 9" 16'-8" A" / A2041 ��, \J 11 -All 1,123 SF Al 76�,- 114 SF `n LU0 A2 Cl tih \ \\� C2 17 / > z A301 q \ A301 AI 202 �; '3° / 39' Q 1,512 SF O 5'-7 3/4" 12'-4" 28'-101/4" 10'-31/2"12'-4" 27'-8" 12'-4" J. 27'-8" -2" ��' 10 40 00 MECHANICAL A301 6 1,102 SF � q 1,102 SF \ 1 Z W IEll - q C 1 FOURTH FLOOR: 44,010 GSF L 1,961 SF M LL Z 0 1,184 SF 1,116 SF2 1,102 SF 1,193 SF A4 A202>. DWELLING UNITS: 36 154 SF r% A301 Op O ISSUE DATE: ti 11.12.2020 D CIRCULATION: 4 0 548 SF co01 = 1 �ti D SERVICE: 176 SF A205 A4 1,274 SF �sr REVISIONS: D COMMON /AMENITY: 0 SF �� D WALLS / STRUCTURE: 3,132 SF I 1,697 SF 1 347 SF 1,496 SIF Al 7�"' c4 Z , D UNIT BALCONIES: 4,695 SF** h1�ti� A A2o2 Q **UNIT BALCONY, NOT INCLUDED IN GSF / UNIT SF �L A w 63'-21/4" 12'-4" 27'-8" 12'-4" 57'-9" IL 2 U Cl FLOOR PLANS A201 04 2 % 04 - FOURTH FLOOR w A` SCALE: I" = 30'-0" Q A 1 03 5 PROJECT 19015 2 3 Al If_NFh W/ FI F%/ATIONI DI ANF V I SCALE: 1/8" = V-0" Al lr-KIFn W/ FI F\/ATI(lf\I DI AKIF D513 -NORTH ROOF 45'-6" 4 - FOURTH FLOOR . 34'-4" 03 - THIRD FLOOR 23'-2" 2 - SECOND FLOOR 12'-0" 01- FIRST FLOOR oll GRADE @ BUILDING BELOW GRADE WALLS, FOOTINGS & FOUNDATIONS (DASHED LINES) 00 - LOWER LEVEL 11'-10" 06 - SOUTH ROOF 56'-8 . . 05B - NORTH ROOF 45' 6 04 - FOURTH FLOOR 34'-4" 03 - THIRD FLOOR 23' 2 02 - SECOND FLOOR 12 0., STOREFRONT FRAMING 01- FIRST FLOOR 0 Y SCALE: 1/8"1'-0" 1 2 5 o- 3TUJ1O ry Z W F— O ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER HOLD ALL RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT TO THESE DRAWINGS. REPRODUCTIONS, W ALTERATIONS, MODIFICATIONS, L USAGE OR INCORPORATION INTO D OTHER DOCUMENTS MAY NOT Z . OCCUR WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ASK STUDIO. U W O COPYRIGHT 2018 _ ASK STUDIO ryU ry O Q WI Q ry A W n rL 2 U U W U ry Q I SSU E. DATE: 1 1 12.2020 REVISIONS: EXTERIOR ELEVATIO PROJECT 19015 Z O U z O U ry O H O Z I U QQ W U rW �/ J O � r I� O W N Z L N 0..... _ O .......... C/) W N - M ]�iO Q � Po V w . N Q I v> W . . ry O N Q � m � U Z L Q Z O WI Q ry A W n rL 2 U U W U ry Q I SSU E. DATE: 1 1 12.2020 REVISIONS: EXTERIOR ELEVATIO PROJECT 19015 !!!! IIII a w 3 4 5 AI IrKiCII IAI/ CI C\IATIOKI DI AAIC -7 Z Z Q J r nin�==� �� �� ��;;���I®ice® � ��� nin Mz NEI FE on in i im_� 'ice ��_� _ a'is ��������:���i ��� -. ®- MR ' __— 1 1 1 11 • 1 1 11 • 1 11 i 1 1� 1 • m • 1 '1 111 • '11 l: • FIBER !=iSm MOM re in nZilln �S ills �I 111 mi mi 1 imol 0 oil 0110111110 1 1 [00 GALV. S Al I I I I -------------------------- - - - - �- EAST ELEVATION - CENTER 1 SECOND FLOOR 12'-0" JCRETE 1 - FIRST FLOOR 0" �nr�JE w BUILDING SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"^L.% SCALE: 1/8" 1'-0" DO WI Z Q ry A Lu IL rL 2 U V) V . F -- Lu - w U Q I SSU E. DATE: 11 12.2020 REVISIONS: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS . A203 PROJECT 1901: 06 SOUTH ROOF 56'-8" O 3 T I ` L) 10 I U ry W ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER HOLD ALL RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT TO THESE DRAWINGS. REPRODUCTIONS, Lu ALTERATIONS, MODIFICATIONS, L USAGE OR INCORPORATION INTO D OTHER DOCUMENTS MAY NOT 05 FIFTH FLOOR OCCUR WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN - PERMISSION OF ASK STUDIO. 45'-6" W COPYRIGHT 2018 _ ASK STUDIO ryU Q 04 - FOURTH FLOOR 34'-4" nin�==� �� �� ��;;���I®ice® � ��� nin Mz NEI FE on in i im_� 'ice ��_� _ a'is ��������:���i ��� -. ®- MR ' __— 1 1 1 11 • 1 1 11 • 1 11 i 1 1� 1 • m • 1 '1 111 • '11 l: • FIBER !=iSm MOM re in nZilln �S ills �I 111 mi mi 1 imol 0 oil 0110111110 1 1 [00 GALV. S Al I I I I -------------------------- - - - - �- EAST ELEVATION - CENTER 1 SECOND FLOOR 12'-0" JCRETE 1 - FIRST FLOOR 0" �nr�JE w BUILDING SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"^L.% SCALE: 1/8" 1'-0" DO WI Z Q ry A Lu IL rL 2 U V) V . F -- Lu - w U Q I SSU E. DATE: 11 12.2020 REVISIONS: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS . A203 PROJECT 1901: 0 3 4 6 -SOUTH ROOF 56'-8" 3 - NORTH ROOF 45'-6" FOURTH FLOOR 34'-4" i THIRD FLOOR 23'-2" SECOND FLOOR OdL 12'-0" 1- FIRST FLOOR OgL oll SCALE: 2 m 6 cn o- 3TUJ1O ry Z w O ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER HOLD ALL RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT TO THESE DRAWINGS. REPRODUCTIONS, Lu ALTERATIONS, MODIFICATIONS, L USAGE OR INCORPORATION INTO D OTHER DOCUMENTS MAY NOT OCCUR WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ASK STUDIO. U Lu O COPYRIGHT 2018 _ ASK STUDIO ryU ry O Q wl Z Q A Lu Lu w rL 2 U V) V) F -- Lu - w U ry Q I SSU E. DATE: 1 1..12.2020 REVISIONS: EXTERIOR ELEVATIO PROJECT 19015 Z O U ry Z O U ry O H O Z U Q Lu U w to O I\ 0 LL] N Z L U ........... _ oCI� Lu N - M ]�iO Q � Po V 7 W . N Q _N I LU O N > ocoU Z w Q Z O wl Z Q A Lu Lu w rL 2 U V) V) F -- Lu - w U ry Q I SSU E. DATE: 1 1..12.2020 REVISIONS: EXTERIOR ELEVATIO PROJECT 19015 PREFIN. METAL FASCIA COMPOSITE WOOD SIDING GALV. STEEL BALCONY RAILING 'f3 — NORTH ELEVATION @ Q ELEVATOR 06 - SOUTH ROOF 56'-8" 05B - NORTH ROOF 45'-6" nnrrlAi AAAI rAcriA rr%AAnl'tcITr AAIl'irVl clr%lAlr NORTH ROOF 45'-6" :L ZAILING )URTH FLOOR 34'-4" SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" Z o- STUDIO rp,Lu O z Z ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER HOLD ALL RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT TO THESE DRAWINGS. REPRODUCTIONS, ALTERATIONS, MODIFICATIONS, USAGE OR INCORPORATION INTO L) OTHER DOCUMENTS MAY NOT OCCUR WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ASK STUDIO. COPYRIGHT 2018 _ ASK STUDIO LL] ryU "' Q V) ISSUE. DATE: 1 1 12.2020 REVISIONS: W Z cn Q W r EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS v Lu 2 . .... U Q A205 PROJECT 19015 O z U Q Lu U LL] "' V) O � r O W CV L Z N 0..... O .......... C/) CV W 0 0 Q Q O V) w . C)N I V) W ry O N > O 00 00 ~ W Q LJL-. Z O ISSUE. DATE: 1 1 12.2020 REVISIONS: W Z cn Q W r EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS v Lu 2 . .... U Q A205 PROJECT 19015 I C Fj 3 r.O' SOUTH ENDSECTION 1 V L� SCALE: 1/8" = 1-0" o - N a--1 III II III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III= % NORTH END SECTION 1 A2SCALE: 1/8" = l'-0" Q - SOUTH ROOF 56'-8" - FIFTH FLOOR 45'-6" OURTH FLOOR 34'-4" THIRD FLOOR 23'-2" ECOND FLOOR 12'-0" - FIRST FLOOR 0" 05B - NORTH ROOF 45'-6" 04 -FOURTH FLOOR 34'-4" 03 - THIRD FLOOR 23'-2" 02 - SECOND FLOOR 12'-0" 01- FIRST FLOOR 0" 00 - LOWER LEVEL -11'-10" 112 SOUTH END SECTION 2 C4 SCALE: 1/8" = 1-0" A4 NORTH END SECTION 2 SCALE: 1/8" = l'-0" 06 - SOUTH ROOF 56'-8" 05B - NORTH ROOF 45'-6" 04 - FOURTH FLOOR 34'-4" 03 - THIRD FLOOR 23' 2" 02 - SECOND FLOOR 12'-0" 01- FIRST FLOOR 05B - NORTH ROOF 45'-6" 04 - FOURTH FLOOR 34'-4" 03 - THIRD FLOOR 23'-2" 02 - SECOND FLOOR 12'-0" 01- FIRST FLOOR 0" 00 - LOWER LEVEL -11'-10" u " 0ry STUDIO Z Lu O ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER HOLD ALL RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT TO THESE DRAWINGS. REPRODUCTIONS, Lu ALTERATIONS, MODIFICATIONS, USAGE OR INCORPORATION INTO D OTHER DOCUMENTS MAY NOT OCCUR WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ASK STUDIO. Lu COPYRIGHT 2018 = ASK STUDIO U U w Q O w Lu Z Q A Lu Lu IL rL 2 U cn U F -- Lu U w Q F ISSUE DATE: 1 1.12.2020 REVISIONS: BUILDING SECTIONS PROJECT 19015 Z O U Z O U O LL O Z 1 U Q Lu U W C/1 O ry J O W :EN r�l Lr)_ Lo NO U 4- O C/) W N �0- O ::E0 Lr) Q V V Z O w cl N F— � Q Q W O N Q Z - o co c 3�1 U Z W < M LL Z o w Lu Z Q A Lu Lu IL rL 2 U cn U F -- Lu U w Q F ISSUE DATE: 1 1.12.2020 REVISIONS: BUILDING SECTIONS PROJECT 19015 In AERIAL FROM SOUTHWEST SCALE: K AERIAL FROM EAST A ENTRANCE @ GRADE L SCALE: Z Z Z Q r cn o- 3T li J I O ry C/) w W ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER N 05 - FIFTH FLOOR M O HOLD ALL RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT TO THESE DRAWINGS. REPRODUCTIONS, Lu ALTERATIONS, MODIFICATIONS, L USAGE OR INCORPORATION INTO D OTHER DOCUMENTS MAY NOT PO OCCUR WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN Z PERMISSION OF ASK STUDIO. U Lu . COPYRIGHT 2018 _ ASK STUDIO ryU � Q 02 -SECOND FLOOR 12'-0" 01- FIRST FLOOR 0" BUILDING SECTION @ ENTRY ^�% SCALE: 1/8" 1'-Oll I: WI Z Q ry A w n rL 2 U V) V) U F -- Lu F Q I SSU E. DATE: 1 1..12.2020 REVISIONS: BUILDING SECTIONS & MODEL IMA PROJECT 1901: O C/) W N 05 - FIFTH FLOOR M O 45'-6" Q PO 71 Z w . N _ 04 -FOURTH FLOOR p 34'-4" N QUJ � ry N >Z� Q 03 THIRD FLOOR 23'-2" (D co co L. W M Z 02 -SECOND FLOOR 12'-0" 01- FIRST FLOOR 0" BUILDING SECTION @ ENTRY ^�% SCALE: 1/8" 1'-Oll I: WI Z Q ry A w n rL 2 U V) V) U F -- Lu F Q I SSU E. DATE: 1 1..12.2020 REVISIONS: BUILDING SECTIONS & MODEL IMA PROJECT 1901: 1y -OL fplk LA yd IL&Z No Alt ;was Al IL vow, 7 -qww 4L _44 -zt �41 i --k- ;. kA Ayr - jk ie bbd rm w w on .-WIN ROP -0-0 pq jwtT-,;k—,1 41 rA �I��!��'I Illy III_ .. --� -- _-- Ph 00 ' ;. f.......... MOM.............. ........... lop . ... ... ...... Al 9 A . L-. 114 I � a 43(1 0 46 9 SN Ll mi oo� 44 i. 40 +4� '61'dTxrV I �j 10.1i is l SA lu I itt, U01 MA 16"1019 A SUM N 3 KKOI SM 0 19 C w ft J% ....... ....... I W- .40 ki a I 19 0 IE IF 46 9 SN Ll mi oo� 44 i. 40 +4� '61'dTxrV I �j 10.1i is l SA lu I itt, U01 MA 16"1019 A SUM N 3 KKOI SM 0 19 C w ft J% ....... ....... I W- .40 ki a I 19 0 IE wl lz i A p W-"-'� VIEW FROM THE EAST r -j cn " 0ry STUDIO Lu ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER HOLD ALL RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT TO THESE DRAWINGS. REPRODUCTIONS, w ALTERATIONS, MODIFICATIONS, USAGE OR INCORPORATION INTO D OTHER DOCUMENTS MAY NOT ZD OCCUR WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ASK STUDIO. Luj COPYRIGHT 2018 = ASK STUDIO U ry Q Z O U z O U O Q LL - Lu U W v I _ a O W N L0 4i U 4- O C/) N W C:) O Lr) V Q V Z W cl F— N=> } W ry O Q ocnU Q Z W M U Z O ISSUE DATE: -- 11.12.2020 REVISIONS: w Lu Z A Lu Lu IL . �. rL 2 U EXTERIOR RENDERINGS U F -- Lu U w Q A305 PROJECT 901 Attachment 9 - Executive Summary Only Melrose Avenue Traffic Impact Study Iowa City & University Heights,, Iowa January, 2021 Prepared by: im, P.C. For: FOCUS DEVELOPMENT w IIW, P.C. + ENGINEERS. ARCHITECTS. SURVEYORS. I hereby certify that this document was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Iowa. otIA111111wit ft., oal� JERI co Jeri Vondera, P.E. e z ; VONDERA Iowa License No. P24462% w 24462 m v � My License Renewal Date is December 31, 2021%•••� .� �', Parts covered by the seal: All p A,`,��'5405 Utica Ridge Road #200 Davenport, IA 52807 Voice: 563-823-0192 Fax: 563-823-0195 IIW Project No. 20175 Web: www.iiwengr.com Melrose Avenue Traffic Impact Study IIW, P.C. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IIW, P.C. has prepared this report for a proposed Active Adult development to be located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S). This study evaluated the effect the development will have on traffic flow and intersection functionality along Melrose Avenue and at the Melrose Avenue/Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S) intersection. A turning movement count was performed at the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S) on November 19, 2020 during peak AM and PM hours. The peak hour in the AM was determined to be 7:30 AM — 8:30 AM. The peak hour in the PM was determined to be 4:00 PM — 5:00 PM. The sight distance at the existing intersection of Melrose Avenue and Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S) and at the proposed intersection of Melrose Avenue & proposed development entrance was reviewed and found to exceed AASHTO's recommendations. Crash data was reviewed and the crash rate in the study area was less than the statewide crash rate average for minor arterials. A model was setup using Synchro traffic analysis software to analyze the existing flow of traffic at the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S). Since the traffic counts in November 2020 were taken during the COVID-19 pandemic, all traffic volumes collected in November 2020 were increased by 14% in the AM and 6% in the PM, per direction from the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County (MPOJC). Because the golf course was closed during the traffic counts, trip generation was used to determine the volume of traffic that may be generated by the golf course. A growth rate of 0.73% on Melrose Avenue east of Finkbine Commuter Drive, and 1.03% west of Finkbine Commuter Drive was used to estimate future traffic. The proposed development will consist of 116 units which will have access to Melrose Avenue at an existing driveway approximately 400 feet east of Finkbine Commuter Drive. There will also be a driveway from Finkbine Commuter Drive for deliveries and visitors. Using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, trip generation rates were developed for the proposed development using ITE Land Use code 252, Senior Adult Housing — Attached. The direction of traffic was distributed entering and exiting the proposed development using the same percentages as existing traffic on Melrose Ave. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) is a function of the volume to capacity ratio of the whole intersection. A value of 100% means that the intersection is at capacity. A volume to capacity ratio of less than or equal to 55% is an A, greater than 55% to 64% is a B, and so on. The model indicated that the existing intersection of Melrose Avenue at Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S) with the COVID factor and golf course traffic is a level of service of E in the peak AM, and a level of service of A in the peak PM. In the year 2042, without the proposed development, the intersection will be a level of service of F in the AM and a level of service of A in the PM. Traffic expected to be generated by the proposed development was added to the model to determine what effect the development had on traffic flow. The table on the next page summarizes the capacity and level of service of the intersection with and without the proposed development. As shown, there is very little change in the capacity of the intersection with the development traffic added. Melrose Avenue Traffic Impact Study IN, P.C. Summary of Intersection Capacity with and without Development Melrose Avenue at Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S) Time Period Intersection Capacity Utilization %, LOS No Development, AM 2022 84.7, E Development, AM 2022 85.0, E No Development, PM 2022 46.0, A Development, PM 2022 46.1, A No Development, AM 2027 86.9, E Development, AM 2027 87.2, E No Development, PM 2027 46.6, A Development, PM 2027 46.9, A No Development, AM 2042 94.3, F Development, AM 2042 94.6, F No Development, PM 2042 49.9, A Development, PM 2042 50.1, A The intersection of Melrose Avenue with the new development driveway was also reviewed. In opening year, in the peak AM and PM hours the level of service is expected to be a C & A, respectively. In the Year 2042, the level of service in the AM and PM hours for the intersection will be D and A, respectively. Although the delay for vehicles exiting the new development is high in the Peak AM, this is a function of the heavy existing traffic on Melrose Avenue. A traffic signal warrant analysis was completed for the proposed intersection of Melrose Avenue and the new development, and for the existing intersection of Melrose Avenue and Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S). The proposed development is not expected to generate enough traffic to warrant a traffic signal at the entrance on Melrose Avenue. At the existing intersection of Melrose Avenue and Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S), without any proposed development traffic, the peak hour traffic signal warrant is satisfied assuming a one -lane approach on Finkbine Commuter Drive. (Only one lane is marked, however, the approach is wide enough for two lanes and vehicles were observed using it as two lanes at the approach.) The proposed development as shown in Appendix 15 will add very little, if any traffic to Finkbine Commuter Drive, and will add approximately 11 vehicles to Melrose Avenue; therefore, the proposed development traffic does not impact the traffic signal warrant analysis. With a traffic signal installed at the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Finkbine Commuter Drive, using 2042 traffic volumes, the model indicates that the intersection will operate much more efficiently than it currently operates. A fully actuated intersection with left turn lanes on Melrose Avenue in both directions may operate at a level of service of C in the AM, and a B in the PM. The need for turn lanes at the proposed development driveway was analyzed. A westbound right turn lane into the proposed development is not warranted. An eastbound left turn lane on Melrose Avenue at the proposed development driveway is warranted. A proposed left turn lane of 120 feet will be adequate for storage and deceleration. A new 140 -room Marriott hotel is being built approximately ''Y2 mile away from this study area. While there may be a few trips generated by the hotel which will pass by the Active Adult development, it is not expected to have an impact on the traffic in the study area. The developer of the Active Adult building is also considering an additional development I± Melrose Avenue Traffic Impact Study IIW, P.C. of approximately 41 townhomes on the west side of Finkbine Commuter Drive. These units may have access to Melrose Avenue at Westgate Street and MacBride Road, west of this study area. This additional development is expected to have very little impact on the traffic in the study area. Melrose Avenue Traffic Impact Study IIW, P.C. INTRODUCTION IIW, P.C. has prepared this report for a proposed Active Adult development to be located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S). See Appendices 1 and 2 for project location. This study evaluated the effect the development will have on traffic flow and intersection functionality along Melrose Avenue and at the Melrose Avenue/Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S) intersection. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Study Area Melrose Avenue is a minor arterial that runs east -west through the cities of Iowa City and University Heights. It is a curbed four lane divided roadway with a curbed grass median west of Finkbine Commuter Drive and becomes a two- lane undivided roadway approximately 300 feet east of Finkbine Commuter Drive. Sidewalks are present on both sides of the street. The speed limit is 25 mph where undivided, and 35 mph on the divided section. Driveways are present along the roadway near the study area for an apartment complex (west of Finkbine Commuter Drive) and a storage shed (east of Finkbine Commuter Drive) with a fully curbed entrance. In addition, two driveways exist at the project site, serving a vacant property. Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S) runs roughly north -south from W. Benton Street to Hawkins Drive. It is a curbed two-lane undivided roadway, except for a grassed median extending approximately 100 feet north of the intersection with Melrose Avenue. Finkbine Commuter Drive appears to be a private street and is posted at 15 mph. Finkbine Commuter Drive provides access to the Finkbine Golf Course, an 18 -hole golf course with a golf shop and a restaurant, and hundreds of parking spaces at Finkbine Commuter Lot and faculty and staff parking for the University of Iowa Hospital. There are gates at the south end of the commuter parking lot which were open at the time of an on- site visit, and vehicles were observed traveling from Melrose Avenue, north to the commuter lot and further north to the University of Iowa Hospital parking. Erin Shane, Associate Director for University of Iowa Parking & Transportation, indicated that usage of the commuter lot in November 2020, was down 24% to 30% from usage in November 2019. In early November 2020, the Hawkeye Commuter lot was closed and parking for many UIHC employees was temporarily relocated to the Finkbine Commuter lot. Even with this change, utilization of the Finkbine Commuter lot was down from last year. The gates at the south end of the commuter lot were left open so that they did not have to re -program all the affected access cards during the temporary relocation. See Appendix 38. There is a small parking lot in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Finkbine Commuter Drive. The parking lot connects Finkbine Commuter Drive with Melrose Avenue at Westgate Street. Vehicles were observed using the parking lot to bypass traffic on Melrose Avenue at the intersection of Finkbine Commuter Drive. Emerald Street is a two-lane undivided roadway which provides access to a fire station and several apartment complexes. The speed limit is 25 mph and on -street parking is only allowed on the west side of the street. A sidewalk is present on the west side of Emerald Street. The intersection of Melrose Avenue and Finkbine Commuter Drive is two-way stop -controlled, with stop signs placed at Finkbine Commuter Drive(N) and Emerald Street(S). Both roadways have street lighting at the intersection and within the study area. An existing bus stop is present at the southeast quadrant of the intersection and was assumed to have a negligible effect on traffic flow. As motorists proceed eastbound on Melrose Avenue approaching Finkbine, Melrose Avenue Traffic Impact Study IIW, P.C. there are warning signs that indicates the right lane ends. However, in the morning peak hour, it was observed that much of the through traffic stayed in the right lane to travel through the intersection so as not to get delayed behind a left turning vehicle. During non -peak hours, most of the traffic traveled through the intersection in the left lane since the right lane ended approximately 300 feet east of the intersection. Traffic Data The Iowa DOT has an AADT traffic count from 2018 on Melrose Avenue east of Finkbine Commuter Drive of 13,400 vehicles per day (vpd). Since no other traffic data was available, a turning movement count was performed at the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S) on November 19, 2020 during peak AM and PM hours. See Appendices 3 & 4. At the time of the traffic count, it appears that the public schools were open with 50% of the students attending classes in person, University of Iowa classes were in session although it is unknown how many of these classes may be virtual, the golf course was closed for the season, the golf shop was open, and the restaurant was open for carry -out only. The peak hour in the AM was determined to be 7:30 AM — 8:30 AM. 64% of the traffic in the intersection was going east on Melrose Avenue and 34% was going west. The peak hour in the PM was determined to be 4:00 PM — 5:00 PM. 30% of the traffic in the intersection was going east on Melrose Avenue, 51 % was going west, and 17% was going south on Finkbine Commuter Drive. Heavy vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles were also counted. The volume of heavy vehicles was almost entirely from buses and was determined to be 1% of the traffic. In the AM peak hour, there were 28 pedestrians within the intersection and 9 bicyclists. In the PM peak hour, there were 52 pedestrians and 9 bicyclists. Emily Bothell, Transportation Engineering Planner with Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County (MPOJC), indicated that traffic volumes in the Iowa City area were down compared to previous years by 14% in the AM and 6% in the PM. Erin Shane, Associate Director for University of Iowa Parking & Transportation, indicated that usage of the commuter lot in November 2020, was down 24% to 30% from usage in November 2019. In order to better represent typical traffic volumes, all traffic volumes collected in November 2020 were increased by 14% in the AM and 6% in the PM, this includes traffic on Finkbine Commuter Drive and Emerald Street. Even though usage of the commuter lot was down by 24% to 30%, it is assumed that if the lot was at a normal usage level, some of the traffic would have accessed the lot from Hawkins Drive; therefore, not all of the 24% to 30% should be added to the Melrose Avenue/Finkbine Commuter Drive intersection. See Appendices 3A and 4A for the existing traffic volumes with a COVID factor applied to better represent typical traffic volumes. Sight Distance The sight distance at the existing intersection of Melrose Avenue and Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S) and at the proposed intersection of Melrose Avenue & proposed development entrance was reviewed. LiDAR was used to determine the existing grades. Since no field topographic data was taken, and due to the accuracy of LiDAR data, the measured intersection sight distances are approximate. AASHTO's criteria for passenger cars was used. Since the speed limit changes near this location, a design speed of 35 mph was used when looking west, and a design speed of 25 mph was used when looking east. At the existing intersection, vehicles exiting Finkbine Commuter Drive turning left will cross 2 -lanes and a 30 -foot median. The required sight distance is calculated to be 476 feet. The measured sight distance is over 600 feet. For vehicles turning right, the required sight distance is 240 feet, and the measured sight distance is over 600 feet. 5 Melrose Avenue Traffic Impact Study IIW, P.C. Vehicles exiting Emerald street turning left will cross 2 -lanes and a 30 -foot median. The design speed is assumed to be 25 mph. The required sight distance is calculated to be 340 feet. The measured sight distance is over 600 feet. For vehicles turning right, the required sight distance is 390 feet, and the measured sight distance is over 600 feet. For vehicles exiting the new development driveway and turning left onto Melrose Avenue, the required sight distance is 390 feet. The measured sight distance is approximately 490 feet. If there is a vehicle in the left lane on Melrose Avenue stopped to turn left onto Finkbine Commuter Drive, the measured sight distance is reduced to approximately 420 feet. For vehicles exiting the new development driveway and turning right onto Melrose Avenue, the required sight distance is 280 feet, and the measured sight distance is approximately 450 feet. Crash Data Crash data was collected from the Iowa DOT website https://icat.iowadot.gov on Melrose Avenue in the study area. In the last 5 years, there have been 9 crashes. Crashes are summarized in the following table, and the crash report is attached as Appendix 5. For an AADT of 13,400, and a study area of 0.20 miles, the crash rate is 184 per hundred million vehicles miles (HMVMT). The statewide 5 -year crash rate average is 202 for minor arterials. Table 1 — Crash Summary Date Type Severity Major Cause 01/01/2016 Angle PDO Failure to yield making a left turn 06/10/2016 Rear -end PDO Improper lane change 02/24/2017 Rear -end PDO Followed too close 02/28/2017 Rear -end PDO Followed too close 10/26/2017 Rear -end PDO Followed too close 04/10/2018 Rear -end PDO Vision obstructed 06/29/2018 Sideswipe PDO Unknown 10/03/2018 Sideswipe PDO Improper lane change 07/15/2019 Sideswipe PDO Improper lane change Existing Level of Service A model was setup using Synchro traffic analysis software to analyze the existing flow of traffic at the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S). Synchro uses the Highway Capacity Manual's (HCM) methods for analyzing traffic. The HCM uses a Level of Service (LOS) to represent the delay experienced by motorists. LOS A is the best operating conditions and LOS F is the worst. For un -signalized intersections, the delay for the thru traffic is essentially zero; therefore, the HCM can be used to compute the level of service for the minor movements, but not the intersection as a whole. Synchro reports for all scenarios are in Appendix 40. For Existing Conditions, the recorded traffic volumes taken in November 2020 were increased by 14% in the AM and 6% in the PM, and these volumes are shown in appendices 3A & 4A. The following table summarizes the Delay in seconds and the LOS on the northbound and southbound approaches, and the eastbound and westbound left turn approaches, which are the legs of the intersections where conflicts exist. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) is a function of the volume to capacity ratio of the whole intersection. A value of 100% means that the intersection is at capacity. It is an accepted technique for transportation planning studies, future Melrose Avenue Traffic Impact Study IIW, P.C. roadway design considerations and congestion management/mitigation programs. A volume to capacity ratio of less than or equal to 55% is an A, greater than 55% to 64% is a B, and so on. The ICU and LOS for the existing intersection is summarized in the following table. Table 2 — Delays (in seconds) and LOS for Existing Conditions, Melrose Avenue at Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S) Time Period Southbound Approach Delay, LOS Northbound Approach Delay, LOS Eastbound Left Delay, LOS Westbound Left Delay, LOS ICU %, LOS AM PEAK *, F 14.8, B 67.4, F 12.7, B 79.6, D PM PEAK 17.6, C 31.3, D 9.1, A 8.4, A 43.9, A * Delay exceeds 300 seconds Since the golf course was closed during the traffic counts, trip generation was used to determine the volume of traffic that may be generated by the golf course. From ITE Trip Generation manual, the Land Use is 430 - Golf Course. The ITE Trip Generation Manual indicates that the trip generation rates include some sites that contained a driving range, club house, pro shop, restaurant, lounge, and banquet facilities. The Manual shows Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs. Acres and Holes. The ITE trip generation manual states that due to the small sample size, trips generated by number of acres should be used with caution. Therefore, for this study, trips generated by number of holes will be used. A phone call to the golf shop indicated the golf course has 18 holes. Rates for Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic were used since the peak hour of the golf course does not typically correspond to the peak hour of the adjacent street. It is assumed that all golf course trips use the Melrose Avenue intersection with Finkbine Commuter Drive since users are not likely to have a parking pass to access the Finkbine Commuter Lot. Table 3 — Trips Generated by Land Use Golf Course These trips generated by the golf course are added to the Existing Conditions volumes shown in appendices 3A & 4A to account for the golf course being closed during the traffic counts. These volumes are shown in Appendices 6 & 7. Delays and LOS are shown in the following table. Table 4 - Delays (in seconds) and LOS for Existing Conditions w/Golf Course, Melrose Avenue at Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street S Time Period Southbound Approach Delay, LOS Northbound Approach Delay, LOS Eastbound Left Delay, LOS Westbound Left Delay, LOS ICU %, LOS Trips Trip Time Acres / Average Trips PM PEAK 16.7, C Generated Generated 8.4, A 45.9, A Generated ° /o Entering ° /o Exiting Period Holes Rate Entering Exiting (vph) (vph) (vph) Pk Hr AM 18 Holes 1.76 32 79 21 25 7 Pk Hr PM 18 Holes 2.91 52 53 47 27 25 These trips generated by the golf course are added to the Existing Conditions volumes shown in appendices 3A & 4A to account for the golf course being closed during the traffic counts. These volumes are shown in Appendices 6 & 7. Delays and LOS are shown in the following table. Table 4 - Delays (in seconds) and LOS for Existing Conditions w/Golf Course, Melrose Avenue at Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street S Time Period Southbound Approach Delay, LOS Northbound Approach Delay, LOS Eastbound Left Delay, LOS Westbound Left Delay, LOS ICU %, LOS AM PEAK *, F 14.8, B 81.6, F 12.7, B 84.2, E PM PEAK 16.7, C 23.0, C 9.2, A 8.4, A 45.9, A * Delay exceeds 300 seconds 7 Melrose Avenue Traffic Impact Study IIW, P.C. Growth Rate The growth rate data was provided by the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County (MPOJC). Their model estimates an annual growth rate of 0.73% on Melrose Avenue east of Finkbine Commuter Drive, and 1.03% west of Finkbine Commuter Drive. See Appendix 8. In order to determine the level of service for Melrose Avenue without the proposed development, the through volumes on Melrose Avenue shown in Appendix 6 & 7 will be increased by these growth rates by 1 year for Year 2022 Without Development, by 6 years for Year 2027 Without Development, and by 21 years for Year 2042 Without Development. The growth rates will not be applied to the golf course volumes since it is assumed the golf course will not expand, and they will not be applied to traffic on Finkbine Commuter Drive since it is assumed that the commuter lot will not expand. These volumes are shown in Appendices 9 - 14 and the delays and levels of service are summarized in the following tables. Table 5 - Delays (in seconds) and LOS for Year 2022 without Development, Melrose Avenue at Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S) Time Period Southbound Approach Delay, LOS Northbound Approach Delay, LOS Eastbound Left Delay, LOS Westbound Left Delay, LOS ICU %, LOS AM PEAK *, F 14.8, B 85.2, F 12.8, B 84.7, E PM PEAK 16.8, C 23.3, C 9.3, A 8.4, A 46.0, A * Delay exceeds 300 seconds Table 6 - Delays (in seconds) and LOS for Year 2027 without Development, Melrose Avenue at Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street S Time Period Southbound Approach Delay, LOS Northbound Approach Delay, LOS Eastbound Left Delay, LOS Westbound Left Delay, LOS ICU %, LOS AM PEAK *, F 15.2, C 104.8, F 13.2, B 86.9, E PM PEAK 17.5, C 24.5, C 9.4, A 8.4, A 46.6, A * Delay exceeds 300 seconds Table 7 - Delays (in seconds) and LOS for Year 2042 without Development, Melrose Avenue at Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S) Time Period Southbound Approach Delay, LOS Northbound Approach Delay, LOS Eastbound Left Delay, LOS Westbound Left Delay, LOS ICU %, LOS AM PEAK *, F 16.7, C 191.0, F 14.5, B 94.3, F PM PEAK 20.1, C 30.0, D 9.9, A 8.6, A 49.9, A * Delay exceeds 300 seconds PROPOSED CONDITIONS Trip Generation The proposed development will consist of 116 units which will have access to Melrose Avenue at an existing driveway approximately 400 feet east of Finkbine Commuter Drive. There will also be driveways from Finkbine Commuter Drive for deliveries and visitors. These driveways will be located across from existing driveways to the golf course. See Appendix 15. For the purposes of this report, it will be assumed that all trips generated in the peak hours will use the driveway on Melrose Avenue. Melrose Avenue Traffic Impact Study IN, P.C. Using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, trip generation rates were developed for the proposed development. The developer indicated that the target market is Active Adults, 55+ and that 116 units will be constructed. Therefore, the ITE Land Use Code 252, Senior Adult Housing — Attached was used. ITE's description of this Land Use is "Senior adult housing consists of attached independent living developments, including retirement communities, age -restricted housing and active adult communities. These developments may include limited social or recreational services. However, they generally lack centralized dining and onsite medical facilities. Residents in these communities live independently, are typically active and may or may not be retired.... the overall highest vehicle volumes during the AM and PM on a weekday were counted between 11:45 AM and 12:45 PM and 12:00 PM and 1:00 PM respectively." See Appendix 16. Since the peak hour of the generator does not coincide with the peak hour of adjacent streets, Weekday Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic was used. The trips generated by this development are summarized in the following table. Table 8 — Trips Generated by Land Use Senior Adult Housing - Attached *Average rate on weekday for AM & PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, 10th Edition Trip Generation Manual Trip Distribution Currently, in the Peak AM hour with the COVID factor, there are approximately 1,880 vehicles on Melrose Avenue that pass by the proposed entrance to the development, 44% are traveling west, and 56% are traveling east. In the Peak PM hour with the COVID factor, there are approximately 1,050 vehicles on Melrose Avenue that pass by the proposed entrance to the new development, 64% are traveling west, and 36% are traveling east. The trips generated by the new development will be distributed based on these same percentages. See Appendices 17 - 20. For simplicity and the purposes of this report, it will be assumed that opening year will be in year 2022 and the development will be at full capacity. The trips generated by the new development and shown on Appendices 17 — 20 are added to the trips from Year 2022 Without Development, which are shown on Appendices 9 & 10, to create the turning movements at the new entrance in opening year, Year 2022 With Development, shown in appendices 21 & 22, and turning movements at the existing intersection of Melrose Avenue at Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S) shown in appendices 23 & 24. These trips were then increased by the growth rate to generate turning movements for Year 2027 with Development (Opening Year + 5) and for Year 2042 with Development (Opening Year + 20). See appendices 25 — 32. Delays and levels of service are summarized in the following tables. Table 9 - Delays (in seconds) and LOS for Year 2022 with Development, Melrose Avenue at Proposed Development Time Period Average Rates* AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM PEAK ITE Land Dwelling AM Peak PM Peak Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Land Use Use Code Units (vph) (vph) (vph) (vph) (vph) (vph) Senior Adult Housing — 252 116 0.20 0.26 Attached Directional Distribution 35% 65% 55% 45% Trip Generation 24 31 8 16 17 14 *Average rate on weekday for AM & PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, 10th Edition Trip Generation Manual Trip Distribution Currently, in the Peak AM hour with the COVID factor, there are approximately 1,880 vehicles on Melrose Avenue that pass by the proposed entrance to the development, 44% are traveling west, and 56% are traveling east. In the Peak PM hour with the COVID factor, there are approximately 1,050 vehicles on Melrose Avenue that pass by the proposed entrance to the new development, 64% are traveling west, and 36% are traveling east. The trips generated by the new development will be distributed based on these same percentages. See Appendices 17 - 20. For simplicity and the purposes of this report, it will be assumed that opening year will be in year 2022 and the development will be at full capacity. The trips generated by the new development and shown on Appendices 17 — 20 are added to the trips from Year 2022 Without Development, which are shown on Appendices 9 & 10, to create the turning movements at the new entrance in opening year, Year 2022 With Development, shown in appendices 21 & 22, and turning movements at the existing intersection of Melrose Avenue at Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S) shown in appendices 23 & 24. These trips were then increased by the growth rate to generate turning movements for Year 2027 with Development (Opening Year + 5) and for Year 2042 with Development (Opening Year + 20). See appendices 25 — 32. Delays and levels of service are summarized in the following tables. Table 9 - Delays (in seconds) and LOS for Year 2022 with Development, Melrose Avenue at Proposed Development Time Period Southbound Approach Delay, LOS Eastbound Left Delay, LOS ICU %, LOS AM PEAK 53.1, F 9.8, A 69.4, C PM PEAK 17.7, C 9.3, A 47.5, A * Delay exceeds 300 seconds M Melrose Avenue Traffic Impact Study IIW, P.C. Table 10 - Delays (in seconds) and LOS for Year 2022 with Development, Melrose Avenue at Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S) Time Period Southbound Approach Delay, LOS Northbound Approach Delay, LOS Eastbound Left Delay, LOS Westbound Left Delay, LOS ICU %, LOS AM PEAK *, F 14.9, B 87.7, F 12.8, B 85.0, E PM PEAK 17.0, C 23.6, C 9.3, A 8.4, A 46.1, A * Delay exceeds 300 seconds Table 11 - Delays (in seconds) and LOS for Year 2027 with Development, Melrose Avenue at Proposed Development Time Period Southbound Approach Delay, LOS Eastbound Left Delay, LOS ICU %, LOS AM PEAK 60.8, F 10.0, A 71.4, C PM PEAK 18.3, C 9.4, A 49.4, A * Delay exceeds 300 seconds Table 12 - Delays (in seconds) and LOS for Year 2027 with Development, Melrose Avenue at Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S) Time Period Southbound Approach Delay, LOS Northbound Approach Delay, LOS Eastbound Left Delay, LOS Westbound Left Delay, LOS ICU %, LOS AM PEAK *, F 15.3, C 108.5, F 13.2, B 87.2, E PM PEAK 17.7, C 24.9, C 9.5, A 8.4, A 46.9, A * Delay exceeds 300 seconds Table 13 - Delays (in seconds) and LOS for Year 2042 with Development, Melrose Avenue at Proposed Development Time Period Southbound Approach Delay, LOS Eastbound Left ICU Delay, LOS %, LOS AM PEAK 99.4, F 10.7, B 78.1, D PM PEAK 20.1, C 9.7, A 53.1, A * Delay exceeds 300 seconds Table 14 - Delays (in seconds) and LOS for Year 2042 with Development, Melrose Avenue at Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S) Time Period Southbound Approach Delay, LOS Northbound Approach Delay, LOS Eastbound Left Delay, LOS Westbound Left ICU Delay, LOS %, LOS AM PEAK *, F 16.7, C 195.8, F 14.6, B 94.6, F PM PEAK 20.3, C 30.6, D 10.0, A 8.6, A 50.1, A * Delay exceeds 300 seconds ANALYSIS The following table summarizes the effect of the development on the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S). As shown in the table, the delay is essentially the same with or without the development. At the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Finkbine Commuter Drive, in the peak hour AM, southbound 10 Melrose Avenue Traffic Impact Study IIW, P.C. traffic on Finkbine Commuter Drive trying to make a left or go straight to Emerald Street currently experience long delays. During the traffic counts, 4 vehicles were observed making this maneuver. Table 15 — Comparing Delays (in seconds) and LOS With and Without Development, Melrose Avenue at Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S) Time Period Southbound Delay, LOS Northbound Delay, LOS Eastbound Left Delay, LOS Westbound Left Delay, LOS ICU %, LOS No Development, AM 2022 *, F 14.8, B 85.2, F 12.8, B 84.7, E Development, AM 2022 *, F 14.9, B 87.7, F 12.8, B 85.0, E No Development, PM 2022 16.8, C 23.3, C 9.3, A 8.4, A 46.0, A Development, PM 2022 17.0, C 23.6, C 9.3, A 8.4, A 46.1, A No Development, AM 2027 *, F 15.2, C 104.8, F 13.2, B 86.9, E Development, AM 2027 *, F 15.3, C 108.5, F 13.2, B 87.2, E No Development, PM 2027 17.5, C 24.5, C 9.4, A 8.4, A 46.6, A Development, PM 2027 17.7, C 24.9, C 9.5, A 8.4, A 46.9, A No Development, AM 2042 *, F 16.7, C 191.0, F 14.5, B 94.3, F Development, AM 2042 *, F 16.7, C 195.8, F 14.6, B 94.6, F No Development, PM 2042 20.1, C 30.0, D 9.9, A 8.6, A 49.9, A Development, PM 2042 20.3, C 30.6, D 10.0, A 8.6, A 50.1, A * Delay exceeds 300 seconds Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Criteria in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) was used to determine if a traffic signal may be warranted in conjunction with the proposed development, now or in the future. Although eight hours of traffic volume data was not collected, the peak hour volumes were used to determine if additional data should be collected. With the development, the highest traffic volume exiting the proposed development during peak hours is 16 vehicles in the Peak AM. This is less than what would be required to warrant a traffic signal. ITE land use Senior Housing — Attached, generates the highest vehicle volumes between 11:45 AM and 1:00 PM. However, even at these peak hours of 11:45 AM to 12:45 PM or 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM, 116 units is estimated to generate 38 trips which is less than would be required for a traffic signal. The existing intersection of Melrose Avenue at Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S) was also reviewed for a traffic signal. Traffic counts were taken from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM, and 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM. These volumes were increased by the COVID factor, the estimated golf course traffic was added to the volumes, and a growth rate was applied to obtain estimated traffic volumes in the year 2022. Without any proposed development traffic, in the peak PM, traffic exiting Finkbine Commuter Drive in 2022 is estimated to be 250 vehicles, with 83% of that traffic turning right. Through traffic on Melrose Avenue is estimated to be 1,107. This does meet the peak hour warrant assuming there is only 1 lane on Finkbine Commuter Drive. (Only 1 lane is marked, however, the approach is wide enough for two lanes and vehicles were observed using it as two lanes at the approach.) None of the other traffic signal warrants were satisfied. Of the five hours of counts, two of the required eight hours of Warrant 1 was satisfied. With the COVID factor, a growth factor for volumes in 2022, and estimated golf course traffic, the three hours counted in the afternoon satisfied three of the required four hours of Warrant 2. It is possible that if additional traffic counts were taken from 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM or from 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM, all four hours of Warrant 2 Melrose Avenue Traffic Impact Study IIW, P.C. may be satisfied. See Appendix 39. The proposed development as shown in Appendix 15 will add very little, if any traffic to Finkbine Commuter Drive, and will add approximately 11 vehicles to Melrose Avenue; therefore, the proposed development traffic does not impact the traffic signal warrant analysis. With a traffic signal installed at the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Finkbine Commuter Drive, using 2042 traffic volumes, the model indicates that the intersection will operate much more efficiently than it currently operates. A fully actuated intersection with left turn lanes on Melrose Avenue in both directions may operate at a level of service of C in the AM, and a B in the PM. Turn Lane Warrants The need for turn lanes at the proposed development was analyzed using National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 457. This is the method approved by the Iowa DOT in urban settings. The criteria for a westbound right turn was determined by using figure 2-6 from the NCHRP Report 457. For the AM peak hour, using a major road speed of 25 mph, the major -road volume estimated in year 2042 in one direction is 1,027 vph, and the right turn volume is 4 vph. Using this method, a right turn lane is not warranted. See Appendix 33. For the PM peak hour, the major road volume estimated in year 2042 in one direction is 864 vph, and the right turn volume is 11 vph. A right turn lane is not warranted. See Appendix 34. An eastbound left turn was also analyzed using figure 2-5 from the NCHRP Report 457. For the AM peak hour in year 2042, using a major road speed of 35 mph, opposing volume is 1,027 vph, advancing volume is 1,237 vph, and percentage of left turn is 1 %, a left turn lane is warranted. A cursory review of the volumes indicated that the eastbound left turn lane is also warranted in year 2022. Figure 2-7 from the NCHRP Report 457 was used to determine the required length of the left turn lane. A proposed left turn lane of 120 feet will be adequate for storage and deceleration in the AM and PM. See Appendices 35, 36 & 37. Future Development Considerations A new 140 -room Marriott hotel is being built approximately'/ mile away from this study area. See Appendix 1 for hotel location. Peter Harman, one of the owners, indicated that the hotel intends to provide services for patients, families, and visitors to the hospital and wants to build a relationship with the University athletic department. It is then assumed that much of the traffic generated by the hotel will be centered around Melrose Avenue and Hawkins Drive. While there may be a few trips generated by the hotel which will pass by the Active Adult development, it is not expected to have an impact on the traffic in the study area. The developer of the Active Adult building is also considering an additional development of townhomes on the west side of Finkbine Commuter Drive. Phase 1 may have up to 18 units, and phase 2 may have approximately 23 units. These units may have access to Melrose Avenue at Westgate Street and MacBride Road, west of this study area. Phase 1 & Phase 2 combined is estimated to generate 25 trips in the AM, and 28 trips in the PM, equivalent to approximately 1 vehicle every 2 minutes. Also, only a portion of these trips would travel through the study area by exiting to the east or arriving from the east. Therefore, unless this development will have access onto Finkbine Commuter Drive, this additional development is not expected to have an impact on the traffic in the study area. Summary 116 units of Land Use Senior Housing — Attached generates approximately 24 trips in the AM and 31 trips in the PM. Analysis shows that the intersection on Melrose Avenue with the new development driveway in the peak AM and PM 12 Melrose Avenue Traffic Impact Study IN, P.C. hours will be a level of service C & A, respectively, in opening year. See Table 9. In the Year 2042, the level of service in the AM and PM hours for the intersection will be D and A, respectively. See Table 13. These levels of service were determined without the warranted eastbound left turn lane into the new development. Although the delay for vehicles exiting the new development is high in the Peak AM, this is a function of the heavy existing traffic on Melrose Avenue. Crashes at this location are less than the statewide average for minor arterials. The sight distance at this location is greater than recommended by AASHTO, and traffic signal warrants are not expected to be met. Also, the proposed development will have very little effect on traffic flow and intersection functionality along Melrose Avenue and at the Melrose Avenue/Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S) intersection. 13 Planning and Zoning Commission February 18, 2021 Page 2 of 40 CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CASE NO. ANN20-0002 AND REZ20-0012: Applicant: MMS Consultants on behalf of the University of Iowa Location: 1360 Melrose Avenue An application submitted for an annexation of 3.61 acres of land currently in the City of University Heights and a rezoning of 6.12 acres of land from University Heights Commercial (C) and Institutional Public (P-2) to Institutional Public (P-2) and Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -20) with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-20/P-2). Russett began the staff report with a couple aerial images that showed the location of the property and the different boundaries of the proposed annexation versus the rezoning. The proposed annexation is for the 3.61 acre area that is currently within the City of University Heights the rezoning extends into the City of Iowa City about six acres. Russett next showed the zoning map, this property is currently zoned commercial within the City of University Heights and its zoned public within the City of Iowa City to the south where there's a fire station, with some single-family zoning designations to the southwest and some multifamily further to the southwest. In terms of background this property is owned by the University of Iowa and the University plans to maintain ownership of the land but will be entering into a long-term lease with a private developer. The proposal is to shift the boundary lines of Iowa City and University Heights to avoid a development that straddles two jurisdictions. Russett also noted concurrent with the annexation and rezoning the City of University Heights is reviewing a severance application. Russett stated the applicant did hold virtual good neighbor meeting in September. Russett next showed some photographs of the subject property, pointing out some of the sensitive areas and then what the site looks like with the proposed development. It will have frontage off Finkbine Commuter Drive and Melrose Avenue and is a proposed block -scale building with the vast majority of the parking provided in the rear and access from Melrose Avenue. First Russett discussed the annexation and the criteria used when looking at annexations. The first criteria is that the area falls within the long range planning boundary. Russett noted most of the applications that they review are located in the fringe area in unincorporated Johnson County but this proposed annexation is located within the core of the community and is a request to transfer a portion of University Heights to the City of Iowa City. The second criteria is that development in the area proposed for annexation will fulfill an identified need without imposing an undue burden on the City. Russett noted currently this property is bordered by Iowa City to the north, west and southwest and it's contiguous with current development. The property has access to public sanitary sewer and water which will not need to be upgraded for this project and the site is also served by public transit. Russett noted Melrose Avenue does have traffic congestion in the am peak hours so they did ask that the applicant to prepare a traffic study and she will share information on that during the rezoning conversation, but for the proposed development the additional congestion from the proposed development will be contained on site. Lastly, staff finds that the affordable housing annexation policy, which was adopted by Council Planning and Zoning Commission February 18, 2021 Page 3 of 40 does not apply for this annexation. That policy was meant for greenfield annexations and this annexation here is to avoid a development which straddles two jurisdictions and the way that is accomplished is through an annexation and a severance. Russett stated the final criteria is that control of the development is in the City's best interest and she explained again this is adjacent to the City's existing boundaries and the City already provides public services in this area. Russett next moved on to the rezoning, again the current zoning for the property is University Heights Commercial and then P2 which is the City's zoning designation for land that is owned by state and federal governments and in this case it's considered a State entity since it's the University of Iowa. The proposed zoning is to a medium density - multifamily zone with the plan development overlay and the P2 zoning designation will also stay since the University will maintain ownership. Russett also noted this is a multi -family zoning designation that allows up to 24 dwelling units per acre. Staff is recommending that the area be re -platted to create a lot that conforms with the proposed zoning boundaries. Russett stated there are several criteria they look at for planned development overlay rezoning, the first is related to compatibility with adjacent development in terms of land use, mass and scale, open space and traffic. In terms of density, the proposed density for this development is 18 dwelling units per acre, which is below the 24 dwelling units per acre allowed in the proposed zone. The proposal is for 116 multifamily units and is targeted to seniors for an active adult type development. In terms of mass and scale, this is a block scale building around 700 feet in length, it is four stories, which is 63 feet in height, and the applicant is requesting a waiver from the 35 foot height maximum designated for this zoning district. There is single family to the east, and the applicant has proposed to minimize the impact of a new building on the existing residential by providing a landscaped buffer and also separating the building from the existing property line by over 100 feet. In terms of general layout, open space and traffic circulation the proposed building fronts Finkbine Commuter Drive, which is a private street, and Melrose Avenue and there are 228 parking spaces with potential for up to 263 parking spaces shown on the plans, which is more than the required 211 parking spaces required and again the vast majority of the parking is behind the building. The applicant had submitted a minor modification to allow seven parking spaces in front of the building and that was approved by staff earlier this week. In terms of open space, the applicant is proposing patio space seating and some gathering areas of around 7300 square feet of open space which is much larger than the required 2500 square feet of open space. Russett reiterated the access is from Melrose Avenue so the parking lot in the back is not connected to Finkbine Commuter Drive and the only traffic that will access Finkbine Commuter Drive are deliveries and visitors to the to the building. The next criteria is related to the development not overburdening existing streets and utilities. As Russett previously mentioned in the discussion of the annexation this property is already served by sanitary sewer and water and city transit. Russett reiterated the City did request that the applicant prepare a traffic study as part of this rezoning and some of the key findings in that traffic study are that the current southbound movements at Finkbine Commuter Drive and Melrose Avenue operate at a level of service F (failing) during the peak hours, and that is also true for eastbound left turn movements at Finkbine Commuter Drive and Melrose Avenue so a signal is currently warranted at Finkbine Commuter Drive and Melrose Avenue, however staff is not recommending signalization at this location as part of this rezoning but would likely require it as part of any future rezonings. The rationale behind that is the intersection is already failing and the access to the site is from Melrose Avenue and the proposed development will not increase traffic on Finkbine Commuter Drive. The future southbound movements out of the site are anticipated to operate a level of service F on opening day during am peak hours but all of the Planning and Zoning Commission February 18, 2021 Page 4 of 40 queuing from those vehicles will be maintained onsite on the private property. Staff is recommending a condition that requires installation of an eastbound left turn lane on Melrose Avenue at the proposed access to the site. The next criteria is that the development will not adversely affect views, light, air and property values. Russett stated the proposed development is larger in scale then surrounding properties but light and air will be maintained through buffering and distance separation. Additionally, typical University development does not require City review, it is only required in this case because of the long term lease with the private developer, so the rezoning would not have any more impact than a conventional University development would that is not subject to City zoning regulations. The next criteria is that the combination of land uses and building types in any variation from underlining zoning requirements will be in the public interest. Russett explained the applicant is requesting waiver from the 35 -foot height maximum and requesting a building that 63 feet in height. Height maximums may be modified through the OPD rezoning process as long it results in sufficient light and air circulation for each building and adequate accessible open space. Russett acknowledged the plans do show shared open space, as well as private within the building. In terms of compliance with a Comprehensive Plan, Russett noted there is not an adopted Northwest District Plan but the proposal does meet several of the goals of the IC 2030 Comprehensive Plan relating to compact and efficient development that's connected to existing neighborhoods, a diversity of housing options, and supporting infill development and redevelopment in areas where there are services and infrastructure. Russett noted there are some sensitive areas on the site as well as a grove of trees but since the grove is less than two acres in size it is not considered a woodland and is not subject to the woodland retention requirements of the sensitive areas ordinance. There are some protected slopes but none of which would be impacted by the proposed development. The proposal does show that 62% of critical slopes would be impacted which exceeds the 35% allowable and will require review by the Commission and Council. Russett showed a map outlining the sensitive areas which are concentrated in the northeast corner of the property, she also showed the protected slopes which are outside of the construction limits. Regarding next steps, following the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation there are several steps that need to take place for both the annexation and the rezoning and the applicants and staff has been coordinating closely with the City of University Heights on that. Eventually when the annexation and the severance are approved by both jurisdictions the annexation will need to go to the State Development Review Board for final approval prior to the City Council adopting the rezoning. Staff recommends approval of ANN20-0002 and REZ20-0012, a voluntary annexation of approximately 3.61 acres of property located at 1360 Melrose Avenue in University Heights and rezoning of approximately 6.12 acres from University Heights commercial (C) & institutional public (P2) to medium density multi -family residential with a planned development overlay (OPD/RM-20/P-2) subject to the following conditions: 1. No building permit shall be issued for any of the subject property until the City Council Planning and Zoning Commission February 18, 2021 Page 5 of 40 approves a final plat subdividing the subject property to conform to the zoning boundaries established by the zoning ordinance. 2. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, installation of an eastbound left turn lane on Melrose Avenue at the proposed access subject to review and approval of specifications by the City Engineer. Hensch stated he had four questions for staff, first did University Heights comment on this development item. Russet replied there hasn't been. Hensch next noted on the elevations it looks like on the proposed buildings the fourth fours have a step back. Russett stated she believes a portion of it might be, especially where the balconies are located, and perhaps the architect on the call can address that when the applicant presents. Russett did bring up on screen an aerial view of the proposed building and where the balconies are there are some variations and the facade. Hensch next asked about stormwater or detention areas on the property as it looks like there's a lot of impervious surfaces there. Russett acknowledged there is a lot of impervious surfaces but the proposal probably will reduce the amount of impervious service on the site. Hensch's final question is regarding signalization at the intersection. If that intersection is failing is that under the purview of University Heights or Iowa City and either way is it on one of the City's capital improvement plans. Russett stated within the City of Iowa City it's not in the capital improvement plans since Finkbine Commuter Drive is a private drive owned by the University, the University is well aware of the issues and she believes they are looking at ways to address some of those issues. Craig asked about property taxes and how does that work when the University still owns the land, are they just taxed on the buildings. Russett is unsure of the answer on that, she did mention the City is working on a 28E agreement with the City of University Heights related to tax sharing. Hench stated there have been examples of taxing the structures, even though is on leased public zoned land, so he believes that's how it should be done here as well. Townsend asked if the University owns the land and the contractor owns the building, at the end of the lease what happens to the structure. Hektoen explained that would be a matter of private negotiations between those parties. Signs asked regarding the traffic signalization issue, did the traffic study indicate that there was a need at Finkbine or a need at the driveway to the all the parking for this project or both for a signal. Russett said it would be at Finkbine and Melrose. Signs asked if they are not recommending that as a requirement for this development due to the fact that it is only failing for one hour per day. Russett explained because this intersection is already failing, regardless of the development and also the proposed development is accessed from Melrose and the parking lot does not connect with Finkbine so the amount of traffic that the development is going to put onto Finkbine is very limited. Signs also has some concern about the request for the extra height. Generally when they have such requests there is a kind of a quid pro quo, it having the senior living that in this situation. Russett explained that unlike in Riverfront Crossings where a bonus height does require some sort of public benefit, it is not required in this area for the OPD rezoning process. The opportunity to request a waiver and certain conditions are met for this zone. Planning and Zoning Commission February 18, 2021 Page 6 of 40 Martin asked if there were any other iterations of this project, for instance with underground parking or development of a building keeping the sensitive slopes in mind or is this the only iteration that's been talked about. Russett said there's been some minor changes but nothing major like underground parking and such. Hensch opened the public hearing. David Kieft (University of Iowa Business Manager and Director of University Real Estate Planning and Development) noted he has some brief prepared remarks and then is happy to answer questions regarding the tax issues and what happens at the end of the ground lease and all of those sorts of questions. He noted adjacent to this subject property is the University owned golf course and new clubhouse that just opened so this is a unique and special project for the University that started several years ago. The University razed the old University Athletic Club and pool facility and in the University's long term master plans it does not show a need for this land for a University or hospital use, but still views this site as it is adjacent to the neighboring University Finkbine golf course as an important gateway into campus, including the healthcare campus. A few years ago, the University issued an RFP to select a third party developer to design and construct a development on University land through a long term 40 plus year ground lease that would be a unique and attractive neighbor to the golf course and the community. This process led to the selection of Built to Suit and Focus Development and Newbury Living as the development team. Kieft stated the University has been very active working with the developers on the site layout, architecture massing and connectivity of the development to the golf course and the newly constructed clubhouse and restaurant. They also stressed upon the developers to need to be sensitive to the surrounding residential neighborhood. Kieft stated the team has done a great job in meeting with the neighbors in groups and one-on-one settings to listen to and address any concerns. With regards to the taxes, this property is currently fully off the tax rolls and a tax-exempt University/State property. This development will be similar to what they did a few years ago on Mormon Trek where they had a third party developer construct what is now known as Aspire, the graduate student housing, where the tax statements show the assessed value of both the land and the improvements (the building), as separate line items and in this case the University will own the underlying ground and that part portion will be tax exempt but the value of the improvement will become taxable. Kieft went on to say they've had great discussions and similar meetings with University Heights, their mayor and Council, and their legal counsel about the severance and annexation and they have agreed to allow all this property to be annexed into Iowa City, so someone's bedroom isn't in one jurisdiction and their living room or kitchen being in another jurisdiction. Kieft stated the 28 -year agreement will proportionally divide and share in that those taxes that are collected on the value of the improvements. As far as what happens at the end of the ground lease, usually these ground leases are written for the average lifespan or age of a typical building and then the property at the end of the 40 years would revert back to the University. Ben Logsdon (Built to Suit & Focus Development) stated they've been working with the University on site design and architecture design for the last 18 months. They started with University Heights and that then became discussions into moving the property line so that the site is fully in Iowa City. Logsdon noted it has been a lot of collaboration, the building sitting on the site and the architecture has really been shaped with a lot of discussion with the University team with the goal to create a building and a site design that really complements the clubhouse Planning and Zoning Commission February 18, 2021 Page 7 of 40 and has some pedestrian connectivity to the clubhouse across the street, while trying to not impact the neighbors to the east. The building will sit towards the western side of the site and extending north along Finkbine Commuter Drive. The plan was really done through a series of meetings and to meet the goals of the University and trying to be a good neighbor to those around. Logsdon acknowledged the step back that Hensch asked about in the building, they do have a step back in the building. Regarding the sensitive slopes Jon Marner from MMS can talk a little more about the slopes on the north side of the site, but they did actually make adjustments to the orientation to building where the most of the sensitive slopes on the site lie, and actually shorten the building and make the building a little bit smaller by lowering the finished floor at that end of the building to try to minimize the impact to some of those sensitive slopes. Additionally they do have parking under the building as that was another question, about half of it is under the building. Once they build there will be less impervious surface on the site then there is now. Logsdon also mentioned they held a good neighbor meeting in September and did meet with several of the neighbors. Some of the concerns were regarding the slope and stormwater, and the development as it stands now, that parking lot all slopes towards Melrose and some of that water during heavy rains ends up on Melrose creating some flooding issues. They've designed the site so that it actually slopes more to the north and it's contained in the parking lot. The net result will be less flooding issues out on Melrose. Jon Marner (MMS Consultants) discussed the aspects of the site, particularly the issues with the different grades. On the west side of the site, the building the way it's oriented will fit in the existing grades and will allow for the west side of the parking lot, where the visitor parking is, to be elevated. On the east side, where there are those critical or the steeper slopes the entire site drops down to a lower elevation, about a 12 -foot elevation change between that front and the garage entry parking lot. As they continue to move to the north and northeast, the site continues to drop an additional 8 to 10 feet by the rear parking entrance at the back of the site. Regarding the sensitive slopes and impact to those critical slopes and steep slopes in those areas, they've avoided the protected slopes with this design and given the site constraints they've tried to design it such that they're limiting as much as possible the impact of those sensitive areas in the northeast corner. Additionally the ground that the University owns to the north and east are heavily wooded areas and heavily steep, critical, and protected slopes. So while this development is impacting a higher amount within this specific boundary for this OPD there's a large amount of wooded areas and sensitive slopes to the north and the east that are not going to be impacted so in the broader context it's a minimal impact over the entire region. Marner also wanted to reiterate that the parking and the impervious area will actually be less with this development than on the existing site. They have also reduced the parking count a little bit more in an effort to add additional green space to the site. Hensch stated he understands that there's going to actually be a reduction in impervious surfaces but is a little concerned that there's not a storm water plan. The Commission frequently hears about those water issues from neighbors and he wants to make sure they don't create any issues. Marner stated the stormwater will be handled onsite and the western portion the building will drain into the storm sewer and then get collected and conveyed to the north where there's a box culvert that goes underneath Finkbine Commuter Drive. All the drainage generally is going to that same location and ties into an intake system and then would outlet into an existing storm center that's already in place for the west side of the building. The east side of the building currently that entire parking lot drains to the south and the east towards Melrose so they would be taking that drainage and capturing within the parking lot within a storm sewer system and taking all that stormwater runoff back towards the north again into that same ravine. All the water Planning and Zoning Commission February 18, 2021 Page 8 of 40 is going away from any neighbors and that will be shown on the final site plan. Signs asked if these will be rental units and not ownership occupied. Logsdon confirmed that the target audience for these rentals are for 55 plus so it's an active adult age -oriented apartment complex, but he added it will not be age restricted. Newbury Living operates Melrose Meadows down the street and so they're going to share some services and some activities. Signs asked for an estimate of the total rentable square footage. Brent Schipper (ASK Studio Architecture) stated he does not have the total square footage but estimates approximately 1000 square feet per unit, so a ballpark would be 116,000 square feet of rentable space. Martin noted Marner mentioned that the wooded areas to the north and to the east would not be impacted and how do they know that will that those won't be impacted. Marner stated further north there's a lot more protected slopes and those are specifically regulated by the sensitive areas ordinance and they cannot impact them, so it would greatly inhibit the ability to do as much development. Martin asked with this space they are talking about four stories and is that four stories continuously flat or are they utilizing the other slopes to go down further. What will the line of sight look like? Logsdon replied in their initial layout the building was sitting further north and then they had all the first floor parking essentially at one level but as part of the design process, they took that level of parking about halfway down the building and lowered the north part of the building, which creates some issues vertically in the building and the building code, but they did that so that they could lessen the impact to those slopes to the north. So they have taken some steps to try to minimize the impact to the slopes to the north and hopefully minimize the visual impact of the building and try to keep the contour of the natural ground as much as they could and avoid the slopes. Martin noted looking at the area that's covered, not just with hard surface but with building as well, what's the percentage of the current space that will be built upon whether it's building or parking lot. Manner replied the impervious area, which includes the building and all of the paved areas post construction will be a reduction of almost 30,000 square feet. Townsend asked if the land is currently located mostly in University Heights but will all be annexed into Iowa City what does University Heights get out of this. Kieft said Iowa City and University Heights will be sharing the tax revenue, that's what the 28E agreement is for. Kieft noted the University has another agreement where they're going to be doing this. There is land to the north that is university property with a ravine and further to the north there's what's called the Swisher Track and it was owned by a family for generations that no one could get their hands on and it became available about two years ago and the City of University Heights bid on it but one of the issues they have is that there's no easy pedestrian connection to that area but the University has a triangle piece of wooded lands to the north along Finkbine Commuter Drive that they will be gifting to University Heights to be kept in a conservation easement so that they will actually have access to the other property for construction of a trail and allows them to apply for some state grants that are specific for creating trails. Planning and Zoning Commission February 18, 2021 Page 9 of 40 Jennifer Ross asked where one could find a map of what land the University owns currently within the Iowa City area. Hensch stated she could contact City Development Staff and they would be able to guide her in the right direction. Alan Gunderson wanted to comment on car traffic in the area and noted it's also a pretty thriving area for pedestrian and even cycling traffic and right now it's a pretty dangerous place for bicycles to go by. He uses Melrose to go back and forth from work and with his family to places in the area and with the drive there being shielded it seems like that is likely to get worse over time, so what are the plans to deal with those changes as it relates to cycling and pedestrian traffic in an important area in the community. Russett stated there aren't any plans to change the bicycle and sidewalk infrastructure in that area now but right now there are two access points onto the property from Melrose and with the proposed development it will be reduced down to one access so fewer conflict points for pedestrians and bicyclists. Jerry Zimmermann asked what the price points for the apartments will be. Logsdon said he does not have the specific information but the rents will be pretty close to market Iowa City rents. Zimmerman asked what the demographic they're targeting other than 55 and over. Hensch noted these specific questions can be addressed with the developer, this meeting is an opportunity to address the Commission. Hannah Rapson asked how the Commission makes decisions about modifications requested for height, it was zoned for 35 feet and 63 feet seems quite a bit higher, there was some discussion about a step back, but not really any firm information there, it seems like just the balconies are being considered for step back, so she wonders how the City makes decisions when there's something like a 30 feet additional elevation requests. Russett replied there's a specific criteria that's part of the OPD rezoning process that in order to get a waiver for height the development needs to demonstrate that they are still providing adequate accessible light and air circulation and open space for the future residents of the building. Edie Thomas stated it was mentioned that the target is for 55 and older and in her experiences 1000 square feet for a couple is not very large and wonders if the Commission has any requirements on square footage per person and how this project would compare to what would be expected for two or more people. Craig stated she doesn't know about requirements, but in the documentation it states the average is 1000, there were many units that were in the 1200 to 1500 square feet size and then there were others that were in the 800 square foot size, so there were some smaller and some bigger it's not every unit is 1000 square feet. Signs also added from a market standpoint the bulk of the condominium units that are available in the Iowa City market run 1000 square feet, or actually a little under, for a two bedroom - one bath apartment type of unit, so an average size of 1000 square feet for two individuals is probably pretty average. Hensch closed the public hearing Signs moved to recommend approval of ANN20-0002 and REZ20-0012, a voluntary annexation of approximately 3.61 acres of property located at 1360 Melrose Avenue in University Heights and rezoning of approximately 6.12 acres from University Heights commercial (C) & institutional public (P2) to medium density multi -family residential with a planned development overlay (OPD/RM-20/P-2) subject to the following conditions: Planning and Zoning Commission February 18, 2021 Page 10 of 40 1. No building permit shall be issued for any of the subject property until the City Council approves a final plat subdividing the subject property to conform to the zoning boundaries established by the zoning ordinance. 2. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, installation of an eastbound left turn lane on Melrose Avenue at the proposed access subject to review and approval of specifications by the City Engineer. Townsend seconded the motion. Signs stated a couple of the public speakers touched on what the price point would be of these units and in the documentation the response was around $2 a square foot. By looking at the descriptions and looking at the actual individual floor plans, he sees units ranging from about 750 square feet to around 2000 square feet and that puts the 750 square foot unit at around $1,500 a month and the 2000 square foot unit at around $4,000 a month with the average rent throughout the building at about $2,000 a month, which is high, and they are targeting high end for sure. Signs said he would expect that adjacent to the University golf course and golf club so it doesn't surprise him that that's what they're aiming for, and he certainly thinks they can probably get it. Having said that, he does have a little problem understanding the height bonus here because they talked about this all the time and usually, especially for what is almost a 40% height bonus request, in return for something else. Signs stated there is also no requirement for affordable units in this development or fee -in -lieu to account for affordable units. He is wondering if they can propose that as a potential trade off here for the height bonus. Hensch noted the fee -in -lieu is for Riverfront Crossings so they don't have the ability to insert that here as a as part of the CZA. He did also share some concern about the affordable housing aspect, just because of their recent experience with the larger annexation request on the west side that seemed to have failed with Council due to affordable housing issues and that this is not a current greenfield, and so it is a little bit different. Signs asked if the Commission has the ability to tack on something like an affordable housing requirement or fee -in -lieu of for this application. Hektoen noted for this case the River Crossings affordable housing requirement does not apply, but in the context of policy and something adopted by resolution if staff's interpretation of the existing policy that the affordable housing requirement does not apply. Council could disagree and require affordable housing and impose conditions in that context. Signs asked if the City's current annexation policy does have a requirement for affordable housing. Hektoen stated it does but staff's interpretation was it doesn't apply in this jurisdictional city to city boundary line adjustment. Signs asked if as a Commission they could propose otherwise. Hektoen said they can make a recommendation to Council that the policy be clarified or amended in that regard. Hensch asked if they can make a recommendation that staff exam the application of affordable housing requirements to this without it being part of the approval motion. Hektoen said they can make a second subsequent motion if they'd like to but ultimately it would be Council that would decide yay or nay to the idea. Planning and Zoning Commission February 18, 2021 Page 11 of 40 Townsend asked if they are talking about a $4,000 unit how affordable could they make that unit, because unless they're talking a dollar amount, she thinks they are spinning their wheels with affordable housing on high end units. Signs guesses they would do like almost every other developer has done and pay the fee -in -lieu as opposed to actually building affordable units. Craig noted they can make some of those smaller units affordable as it's not a bad location for somebody with low income with public transit right there and the hospital right there. Townsend noted they are still talking about a $1,500 dollar unit that's not going to be affordable to a person that can only afford a $500. Elliott agrees getting something for the additional height through affordable housing is attractive. Hensch proposes they vote on this motion, and second, and then they could make a motion asking the Council to look at seeing if affordable housing requirements of annexation would apply to this, in particular the fee -in -lieu because he agrees with Townsend. Martin stated before they vote on this motion she wants to discuss the traffic signaling. She feels very strongly that now is the time to deal with that, and that road and that lane is very tight for runners and bicyclists, and yes there are two entrances onto Finkbine but even if there is a traffic signal right there at Melrose and Finkbine it would slow it down for the traffic coming on to Melrose. She feels this should be addressed now, it makes more sense to have it in place when the development happens. Hensch noted that when they did the rezoning for Sand Hill Estates on Sand Road/South Gilbert Street they didn't include adding the signalization intersection and the first thing City Council did was require signalization of that intersection so Martin's point is very valid. Nolte commented he really thinks the way they've approached the architecture and the layout of the project is really creative, with the two entrances, with the parking on the back and then tried to be very mindful of the neighbors, it is a thoughtful proposal. Signs agrees it's a nice looking development, and fits perfectly in that spot, he doesn't have any objections to that piece he just thinks there's some disconnect between the significant height bonus and nothing in return, which they always ask for something in return. Signs and Hensch discussed adding a third recommendation to require signalization at Melrose and Finkbine. Craig asked who would be required to do the signal and pay for it. Hensch stated it is not really any concern of his who pays for it, it just needs to be done. Russett added it would then be a condition of the rezoning so the developer would be required to pay. Craig doesn't feel that it's the developer's responsibility at this point. Hensch said it is just a recommendation to the City Council, they can of course change any of the conditions. Hektoen stated this conversation is a record for the Council to read but they have to keep in mind Planning and Zoning Commission February 18, 2021 Page 12 of 40 the conditions that are imposed are to meet public needs created by the rezoning and the conversation so far about the traffic is that it's already failing, but maybe because of all of this conversation, it might make more sense to defer this item to have further conversations about these issues among the parties. Signs said he is okay with leaving that recommendation off but can it to a recommendation to Council to consider it when they look at this proposal. Craig is supportive of that approach. Hearing no more discussion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. Signs then moved to recommend City Council consider affordable housing in the context of the height bonus and also look at the signalization of Finkbine/Melrose. Motion seconded by Townsend. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. CASE NO. REZ20-0016: Applicant: Axiom Consultants Location: South of Scott Blvd and West of 1st Avenue, Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park An application for a rezoning of approximately 48.75 acres of land from Interim Development Single -Family (ID -RS) to Low Density Single -Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5). Heitner began the staff report acknowledging with respect to the application, they did have an error on the staff report and he wanted to clarify that the applicant is Axiom Consultants on behalf of Joseph Clark and Nelson Development 1 LLC and the owner is a ACT Incorporated. Heitner showed an aerial image of the subject property as well as the current zoning which is ID - RS. Heitner also pointed out Hickory Hill Park on the map. Next he showed a view of the most up-to-date concept plan that was submitted with this rezoning application and noted there's three kinds of residential components associated with this plan, detached single family residential that would cover most of the extended Hickory Trail Street, 10 single family dwelling condominium units, and the third component of the development would have a senior living facility in the southeast area closer to the First Avenue intersection with Hickory Trail near the Hickory Point condominiums that currently exist in the northwest corner of that intersection. Craig asked for clarification on the senior living component, it seems like everyone's building senior living these days, all us baby boomers are ready for it, but her understanding is that this is not independent living. Heitner confirmed there would be some assisted living and some independent living. Craig asked if it's 100 units or 100 rooms, will people have individual units or just rooms. Heitner replied that's a distinction he was going to make a little bit later, but no it wouldn't be dwelling units, as they normally characterize as multifamily living quarters, and that's why they're careful to say bedrooms because the Code has a distinction between what is a dwelling unit and what constitutes a bedroom. Craig noted there were many comments about that, and many people did not understand that distinction. Heitner said it is staff's understanding Doc ID: 028142240007 Type: GEN Kind: ORDINANCE Recorded: 06/24/2021 at 11:15:26 AM Fee Amt: $37.00 Page 1 of 7 Johnson County Iowa Kim Painter County Recorder 6K6245PG290-296 STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS JOHNSON COUNTY ) rI r I u W t III I not �,�� ..� 'od City Of eaTPA C1 I, Kellie K. Fruehling, City Clerk of Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby certify that the Ordinance attached hereto is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No.21-4853 which was passed by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at a regular meeting held on the 4th day of May, 2021, is a true and correct copy, all as the same appears of record in my office. Dated at Iowa City, Iowa, this 23rd day of June 2021. Kellie K. Fruehling City Clerk \ord 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET • IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240-1826 • (319) 356-5000 9 FAX (319) 356-5009 lo,lp Prepared by Joshua Engelbrecht, Planning Intern 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (REZ20-0012) Ordinance No. 21-4853 Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 6.12 acres of land located near the intersection of Finkbine Commuter Drive and Melrose Avenue to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -20) and Institutional Public (P-2) with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-20/P-2) (REZ20- 0012). Whereas, the owner, The Board of Regents State of Iowa for the Use & Benefit of the University of Iowa, has requested a rezoning of approximately 6.12 acres of property located at 1360 Melrose Avenue to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -20) and Institutional Public (P-2) with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-20/P-2); and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for public/semi-public land uses due to the ownership, and also includes several goals that encourage the compact and efficient use of land and the redevelopment of infill sites; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed rezoning and determined that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan provided that it meets conditions relating to platting to conform to the zoning boundary established by this ordinance and the installation of an eastbound left turn lane on Melrose Avenue to the proposed access drive; and Whereas, a public need is created by the rezoning in that the development will result in additional traffic to and from the site, and therefore, an eastbound left -turn is needed to provide safe and efficient access to the site; and Whereas, the owner has agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to address an identified need to better access to the site through the provision of an eastbound left turn lane. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I Approval. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein, the property described below is hereby reclassified to Multi -Family Residential and Institutional Public with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-20/P-2): Commencing at the Northeast Corner of Section 17, Township 79 North, Range 6 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa; Thence S88051'11"W, along the North Line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 17, a distance of 656.83 feet, to the Point of Beginning; Thence S01008'49"E, 237.28 feet, to a Point on the East Line of Lot 1 of University Athletic Club Subdivision, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 38 at Page 306 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S86°17'36"W, along said East Line, 46.00 feet; Thence S61°52'41"W, along said East Line, 61.55 feet; Thence S00"03'1 WE, along said East Line, 225.16 feet, to the Southeast Corner thereof; Thence N75°44'24"W, along the South Line of said Lot 1, and the Northerly Right -of -Way Line of Melrose Avenue, 192.89 feet; Thence N80037'39"W, along said South Line and Northerly Right -of -Way Line, 107.44 feet, to the Southwest Corner of said Lot 1; Thence N80031'33"W, along said Northerly Right -of - Way Line, 164.09 feet; Thence Northwesterly, 108.82 feet, along said Northerly Right -of -Way Line on a 5779.65 foot radius curve, concave Southwesterly, whose 108.81 foot chord bears N79038'41"W, to its intersection with the Centerline of the Finkbine Commuter Drive; Thence N10°46'45"E, along said Centerline, 23.66 feet; Thence Northeasterly, 62.46 feet, along said Centerline on a 50.00 foot radius curve, concave Southeasterly, whose 58.48 foot chord bears N46034'01"E; Thence N82021'17"E, along said Centerline, 89.68 feet; Thence Northeasterly, 162.00 feet, along said Centerline on a 112.50 foot radius curve, concave Northwesterly, whose 148.36 foot chord bears N41006'07"E; Thence N00009'02"W, along said Centerline, 123.22 feet; Thence Northeasterly, 194.67 feet, along said Centerline on a 197.50 foot radius curve, concave Southeasterly, whose 186.89 foot chord bears N28°05'14"E; Thence N56°19'31"E, along said Centerline, 32.99 feet; Thence Northeasterly, 141.12 feet, along said Centerline on a 200.00 foot radius curve, concave Northwesterly, whose 138.21 foot chord bears N36006'43"E; Ordinance No. 21-4854 Page 2 Thence N88°51'11 "E, 222.70 feet; Thence S01 °08'49"E, 226.90 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Tract of Land contains 6.12 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. Section II. Zoning Mao. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance by law. Section III. Conditional Zoning Agreement. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s) and the City, following passage and approval of this Ordinance. Section IV. Certification and Recording. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same, at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, at the owner's expense, all as provided by law. Section V. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section VI. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section VII. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this 4th day of May 20u. 2Pt- M6dr Approved b . Attest: ) City Clerk T ce — 04/01/2021 Ordinance No. 21-4853 Page 3 It was moved by Mims and seconded by Bergus that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x Bergus x Mims x Salih x Taylor x Teague x Thomas x Weiner First Consideration 04/06/2021 Voteforpassage: AYES:Thomas, Weiner, Bergus, Mims. NAYS: Salih, Taylor, Teague. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration 04/20/2021 Vote for passage: AYES: Mims,Taylor, Thomas, Weiner, Bergus. NAYS: Salih, Teague. ABSENT: None. Date published 05/18/2021 Prepared by Joshua Engelbrecht, Planning Intern 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (REZ20-0012) Conditional Zoning Agreement This agreement is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"), and the Board of Regents State of Iowa for the Use & Benefit of the University of Iowa (hereinafter referred to as "Owner"). Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 6.12 acres of property located at 1360 Melrose Avenue; and Whereas, Owner has requested the rezoning of said property to Medium Density Multi - Family Residential (RM -20) and Institutional Public (P-2) with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-20/P-2); and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions relating to platting to conform to the zoning boundary established by the rezoning ordinance and the installation of an eastbound left turn lane on Melrose Avenue to the proposed access drive; and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2021) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and Whereas, Owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to ensure the development of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the need to address additional traffic to and from the site through the installation of an eastbound left - turn to provide safe and efficient access to the site; and Whereas, Owner agrees to develop this property in accordance with the terms and conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement. Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. The Board of Regents State of Iowa for the Use & Benefit of the University of Iowa is the legal title holder of the property legally described as: Commencing at the Northeast Corner of Section 17, Township 79 North, Range 6 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa; Thence S88°51'1 VW, along the North Line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 17, a distance of 656.83 feet, to the Point of Beginning; Thence S01 °08'49"E, 237.28 feet, to a Point on the East Line of Lot 1 of University Athletic Club Subdivision, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 38 at Page 306 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S86'1 7'36"W, along said East Line, 46.00 feet; Thence S61'52'41 "W, along said East Line, 61.55 feet; Thence S00°03'18"E, along said East Line, 225.16 feet, to the Southeast Corner thereof; Thence N75°44'24"W, along the South Line of said Lot 1, and the Northerly Right -of -Way Line of Melrose Avenue, 192.89 feet; Thence N80°37'39"W, along said South Line and Northerly Right -of -Way Line, 107.44 feet, to the Southwest Corner of said Lot 1; Thence N80°31'33"W, along said Northerly Right -of -Way Line, 164.09 feet; Thence Northwesterly, 108.82 feet, along said Northerly Right -of -Way Line on a 5779.65 foot radius curve, concave Southwesterly, whose 108.81 foot chord bears N79°38'41"W, to its intersection with the Centerline of the Finkbine Commuter Drive; Thence N10°46'45"E, along said Centerline, 23.66 feet; Thence Northeasterly, 62.46 feet, along said Centerline on a 50.00 foot radius curve, concave Southeasterly, whose 58.48 foot chord bears N46034'01"E; Thence N82021'17"E, along said Centerline, 89.68 feet; Thence Northeasterly, 162.00 feet, along said Centerline on a 112.50 foot radius curve, concave Northwesterly, whose 148.36 foot chord bears N41 °06'07"E; Thence N00°09'02"W, along said Centerline, 123.22 feet; Thence Northeasterly, 194.67 feet, along said Centerline on a 197.50 foot radius curve, concave Southeasterly, whose 186.89 foot chord bears N28°05'14"E; Thence N56°19'31"E, along said Centerline, 32.99 feet; Thence Northeasterly, 141.12 feet, along said Centerline on a 200.00 foot radius curve, concave Northwesterly, whose 138.21 foot chord bears N36°06'43"E; Thence N88'51'1 VE, 222.70 feet; Thence S01 °08'49"E, 226.90 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Tract of Land contains 6.12 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. 2. Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the Comprehensive Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2021) 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 Code, as well as the following conditions: a. No building permit shall be issued for any of the subject property until the City Council approves a final plat subdividing the subject property to conform to the zoning boundary established by the zoning ordinance. b. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, Owner shall install an eastbound left turn lane on Melrose Avenue to the proposed access drive, subject to review and approval of specifications by the City Engineer. 4. The conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2021), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change. 5. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties, and shall remain in full force and effect until a certificate of occupancy is issued for the above-described property, upon which occurrence these conditions shall be deemed satisfied and this agreement of no further force and effect. 6. Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 7. This agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the Owner's expense. Dated this 4th day of May , 2021 City of Iowa City Mayor City Attorney's Office — +f i 1 ZI City of Iowa City Acknowledgement: State of Iowa ) ) ss: Johnson County ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on and Kellie Fruehling as Mayor and City Clerk, res The Board of Regents State of Iowa for the Use & Benefitof the University of a , By: f I h L -L :tively, of thei Public in and for (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) 2QL by Bruce Teague Iowa City. of Iowa Commission Number 8062 CYCommission Expires The Board of Regents State of Iowa for the Use & Benefit of the University of Iowa Acknowledgement: State of IoWK County of YoVwj vrJ This record was acknowledged before me on MG�h 2 4{ 2021 by -bAyrJ k1.EF_, —(name) as 1I3wiLwu MANkaen (title) of Board of Regents State of Iowa for the Use & Benefit of the University of Iowa. Notary Public in a d �ur.§Pid Co�7ty andBNO@N 0 1 �; Commission Number 803087 (Stamp or Seal) My commission Item Number: 12. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT May 4, 2021 Ordinance amending Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 8, entitled "Community Police Review Board," to lengthen the time period to file a complaint and to allow the complainant to respond to the Police Chief's report. (First Consideration) Prepared By: Susan Dulek, Ass't. City Attorney Reviewed By: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: No I mapct Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: Community Police Review Board recommended approval Attachments: Ordinance Executive Summary: In a Dec. 22 report to Council, the Community Police Review Board (CPRB) recommended a series of City Code amendments including lengthening the time period to file a complaint to 180 days and allowing the complainant to respond to the Police Chiefs report. At a March 23 work session, Council directed staff to proceed with drafting an ordinance to accomplish these two recommendations. Background /Analysis: In Resolution No. 20-159 entitled "Resolution of Initial Council Commitments addressing Black Lives Matter Movement and Systemic Racism in the wake of the murder of George Floyd by the Minneapolis Police and calls for action from protesters and residents" contained 17 actions items. The action item in Paragraph 8 was a request to the CPRB for a "report and recommendation ... regarding changes to the CPRB ordinance that enhance its ability to provide effective civilian oversight of the ICPD...." The CPRB submitted a list of recommendations to City Council in a memo dated Dec. 22, 2020. At the March 23 work session, Council reviewed the CPRB recommendations and determined that two recommendations be adopted while others await legal review and further Council discussion. The two are to lengthen the time period to file a complaint from 90 to 180 days after the alleged misconduct and to allow a complainant to respond to the Police Chief's or City Manager's report. The ordinance extends the time to file a complaint to 180 days and allows the complainant 21 days to respond to the Chiefs or City Manager's report, and they, in turn, have 10 days to reply to the complainant's response. A draft of the ordinance was provided to the CPRB, and at its April 14 meeting, members did not recommend any changes to the draft ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: Description ordinance IRS Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5030 Ordinance No. Ordinance amending Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 8, entitled "Community Police Review Board," to lengthen the time period to file a complaint and to allow the complainant to respond to the Police Chief's report. Whereas, Resolution No. 20-159 entitled "Resolution of Initial Council Commitments addressing Black Lives Matter Movement and Systemic Racism in the wake of the murder of George Floyd by the Minneapolis Police and calls for action from protesters and residents" contained 17 actions items; Whereas, the action item in Paragraph 8 was a request to the Community Police Review Board (CPRB) for a "report and recommendation ... regarding changes to the CPRB ordinance that enhance its ability to provide effective civilian oversight of the ICPD..."; Whereas, the CPRB submitted a list of recommendations to City Council in a memo dated December 22, 2020; Whereas, Council desires to enact two recommendations while others await legal review and further Council discussion; and Whereas, it is in the City's interest to lengthen the time period to file a complaint from 90 to 180 days after the alleged misconduct and to allow a complainant to respond to the Police Chiefs or City Manager's report. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. Amendments. 1. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 8, entitled "Community Police Review Board," Section 3, entitled "Definition of Complaint; Complaint Process in General," Subsection D is amended by adding the underscore text and deleting the strike -through text as follows: D. All complaints to the board must be filed with the City Clerk within one hundred eighty 180 ninety (90) days of the alleged misconduct. 2. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 8, entitled "Community Police Review Board," Section 6, entitled "Police Chiefs Report to Board; City Manager's Report to Board," Subsection D is amended by adding the underscore text as follows: D. A copy of the Police Chiefs report to the board shall be given to the police officer, the complainant, and the City Manager. If the complaint concerns the Police Chief, copies of the City Manager's report to the board shall be given to the Police Chief, the complainant, and the City Council. The complainant shall have twenty-one (21) days to respond to the Police Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III. Penalties for Violation. The violation of any provision of this ordinance is a municipal infraction or a simple misdemeanor. Section IV. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section V. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of 2021. Attest: City Clerk Approved by City Attorney's Office — 04/26/2021 Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by _ Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Bergus Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Weiner that the First Consideration 05/04/2021 Vote for passage: AYES: Teague, Thomas, Weiner, Bergus, Mims, Salih, Taylor. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published Item Number: 13. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT May 4, 2021 Ordinance amending Title 12, entitled "Franchise," Chapter 4, entitled "Cable Television," to repeal the cable television franchise ordinance. (Second Consideration) Prepared By: Susan Dulek, Ass't. City Attorney Reviewed By: Ashley Monroe, Ass't. City Manager Ty Coleman, Media Prod. Svc. Coordinator Fiscal Impact: none Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: Iowa City Telecommunications Commission Attachments: Iowa City Telecommunications Commission minutes March 22, 2021 Letter from Commission to Council Report from Commission to Council ordinance Executive Summary: In 2007 the State established a state-wide franchise for cable tv providers. In 2018 the City's local franchise agreement with Mediacom expired, and Mediacom now operates pursuant to a state franchise. Because the requirements for a state franchise are more favorable than the City's, it is highly unlikely that a company would ever apply for a local franchise, and this ordinance repeals the local franchise provision. With the repeal, the Iowa City Telecommunications Commission (I CTC), established to fulfill requirements of the local franchise, will also be dissolved. Background /Analysis: In 2007 the State established a state-wide franchise for cable tv providers, but did did not allow providers to apply for a state franchise until their local franchise expired. A franchise is what allows the cable provider to occupy space in the right-of-way with its cables and/or fiber. The City's franchise agreement with Mediacom expired in August 2018, and Mediacom has since provided service pursuant to a state franchise. Under local franchise agreements in Iowa City, and elsewhere, cable providers were required to provide certain services (such as build out throughout the City and provision of local channels at no cost) that are not required with a state franchise. As a result, staff does not foresee any provider wanting to operate under a local franchise. Additionally, because the ordinance was passed in 2005, it would need to be completely updated due to changes in technology and federal regulations if a provider was interested in a local franchise. The City's cable franchise ordinance also establishes the I CTC and sets forth its duties. Those duties are all related to the requirements of a local franchise agreement, such as conducting a triennial review and resolving disputes between a subscriber and the provider. With no local franchisee, the ICTC considered whether it still served a function. Council did direct I CTC to look into municipal broadband in 2019, and later, potential funding opportunities, which it has shown in its March 22, 2021 minutes along with submitting a report. At this same meeting, ICTC recommended that the commission be dissolved and provided a letter to Council to this effect. Approval of this ordinance will dissolve the I CTC. ATTACHMENTS: Description minutes letter Ordinance PRELIMINARY Iowa City Telecommunications Commission 0312212021 Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 3 Electronic Meeting (Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8) An electronic meeting was held because a meeting in person was impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of council members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19. Minutes Iowa City Telecommunications Commission March 22, 2021 — 5:30 P.M. Via the Zoom remote meeting platform Call to Order: Meeting called to order at 5:30 P.M. Members Present (via Zooms Adam Stockman, Gina Reyes, James Pierce Members Absent: Andrew Austin Staff Present (via Zooms Ty Coleman Others Present: none Recommendations to Council: Approval of a letter recommending dissolution of the Telecommunications Commission. Approval of Minutes: Stockman moved and Pierce seconded a motion to approve the October 5, 2020 minutes as presented. The motion passed unanimously. Announcements of Commissioners: None. Short Public Announcements: None. Broadband affordability and access - research for City Council: Stockman referred to the report for City Council he included in the meeting packet. He said it included information gathered by the Commission in response to the City Council's request for the group to investigate funding opportunities for making broadband more accessible and affordable in Iowa City. He mentioned the information Reyes had pulled together regarding the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Stockman said the information he had found in his research kept coming back to opportunities designed to increase access to broadband in rural locations. Stockman said the report was a summary of the information gathered to be presented to Council. He noted that opportunities may change over time. He said the report stressed the importance of having broadband access, especially made apparent during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, with schooling and work being done from home by many. He said internet access has become a necessity and is no longer just something nice to have. Reyes said the report was a good summary of what the group found and was a good response to what Council had asked the Commission to do. She said the two potential funding opportunities listed in the report were the best ones for the Council to pursue if they are interested in pursuing the topic further. She noted the first opportunity listed related to infrastructure, but that the second opportunity was geared towards grant opportunities or leveraging existing networks, such as those owned by ImOn and Mediacom. PRELIMINARY Iowa City Telecommunications Commission 03/22/2021 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3 Stockman moved and Reyes seconded a motion to submit the report, as presented, to the Iowa City City Council. The motion passed unanimously. Dissolution of the Telecommunications Commission: Stockman said he recalled past Commission meetings where it was discussed that the group no longer had a charge by the City, given that the City's franchise agreement with Mediacom had expired in 2018. He noted that after the group completed its look at the potential for municipal broadband, the City Council asked for additional information regarding potential funding opportunities. He said that unless the Council were to provide a clear charge moving forward, he felt like the Commission's work was done. Reyes expressed agreement with Stockman's sentiment and said she was in favor of presenting the City Council with the letter that Stockman had drafted and included in the meeting packet. Pierce said he agreed with the others, noting that the group had been at the end of its task for a while and it made sense to bring the Commission's time to an end. Reyes said that if the City Council came up with something for the Commission to do, they would do it, but that at this time she didn't think there was anything else to do. Coleman said the letter does offer the Council an opportunity to consider any further work it may see as valuable. Stockman said he felt the last two projects had been meaningful work for the City. Stockman moved and Reyes seconded a motion to present the letter to the City Council. The motion passed unanimously. Stockman said that since there were no longer any projects to work on or issues to discuss, he recommends that the Commission postpone its next meeting until the Council has had an opportunity to consider the letter. Reyes and Pierce agreed. Stockman said that if the Council was in agreement with the group's recommendation for dissolution of the Telecommunications Commission, then there may not be another meeting. Adjournment: Stockman moved and Pierce seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously. Adjournment was at 5:47 p.m. PRELIMINARY Iowa City Telecommunications Commission 03/22/2021 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 3 TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 12 -MONTH ATTENDANCE RECORD (x) = Present (o) = Absent (o/c) = Absent/Called (Excused) Austin Reyes Brenton Stockman Paterson 03/23/2020 - - - - - Meeting not held due to COVID-19 pandemic. 04/27/2020 o/c x x x o 06/01/2020 o/c x x x o 06/29/2020 o x x x o Pierce vacant 07/27/2020 - - - - - Meeting not held due to Commission preference 08/27/2020 - - - - - Meeting not held due to unexpected lack of quorum 10/05/2020 o x x x - No meetings held - - - - from 10/05/2020 to 03/22/2021 due to a lack of quorum. 03/22/2021 o x x x - (x) = Present (o) = Absent (o/c) = Absent/Called (Excused) Recommended Dissolution Telecommunications Commission Presented by Adam Stockman, Gina Reyes, Andrew Austin, and James Pierce Since the expiration of Iowa City's franchise agreement with Mediacom in August of 2018, the Telecommunications Commission has functioned without a clear charge. Preliminary data gathering to determine the feasibility of pursuing municipal broadband provided a clear task for the Commission and subsequent investigation into funding opportunities to improve accessibility and affordability of broadband gave the Commission purpose. Members of the Telecommunications Commission are committed to serving Iowa City and have thoroughly enjoyed working on the projects mentioned above. However, unless a new charge is given to the Commission, we recommend dissolution of the Telecommunications Commission. Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030 Ordinance No. 21-4854 Ordinance amending Title 12, entitled "Franchise," Chapter 4, entitled "Cable Television," to repeal the cable television franchise ordinance. Whereas, Title 12, Section 4 of the City Code is an ordinance that sets forth the basic requirements required for a company to enter into a local franchise agreement with the City for delivery of cable television service; Whereas, in 2007 the State of Iowa enacted Chapter 477A of the Iowa Code which establishes a state-wide franchise for cable television providers; Whereas, Chapter 477A prohibits municipalities from requiring a local franchise if the company has a state franchise, but did not allow a company to apply for a state franchise until the local franchise expired; Whereas, the City's local franchise agreement in existence in 2007 with Mediacom expired in August 2018; Whereas, the City presently does not have a local franchise agreement with any company; Whereas, because the state franchise requirements are more favorable to cable providers than the City's, it is extremely unlikely that any company would apply for local franchise, and if it did, the current provisions in Title 12, Chapter 4 would need to be completely updated; Whereas, Title 12, Chapter 4 establishes the Iowa City Telecommunications Commission to provide oversight of the local franchise agreement, and the Commission has recommended that it be dissolved; and Whereas, it is in the best interest of the City to adopt this ordinance. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. Amendments. 1. Title 12, entitled "Franchises," Chapter 4, entitled "Cable Television," is amended by repealing it in its entirety. Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this 4th day of may , 2121. 11 SA,f M tM4.( City Attorney's Office — 04/15/2021 Attest: City Clerk / u, Ordinance No. 21-4854 Page 2 It was moved by Mims and seconded by Salih Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES NAYS: ABSENT: Bergus Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Weiner First Consideration 04/20/2021 Vote for passage: AYES: Weiner, Bergus, Mims, Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published that the Moved by Mims, seconded by Taylor, that the rule requiring ordinances to be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, the second consideration and vote be waived and the ordinance be voted upon for final passage at this time. AYES: Thomas, Weiner, Bergus, Mims, Salih, Taylor, Teague. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Item Number: 14. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT May 4, 2021 Ordinance amending Title 4, entitled "Alcoholic Beverages," and Title 10, entitled "Public Ways and Property," to allow alcohol in park shelters. (Pass & Adopt) Prepared By: Juli Seydell Johnson, Director of Parks & Recreation Reviewed By: Sue Dulek, Assistant City Attorney Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: No impact. Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: The Parks & Recreation Commission recommend approval at their March 10, 2021 meeting. Attachments: Ordinance Executive Summary: Currently persons may only possess and consume alcohol in a park with a permit or written agreement. This ordinance loosens that restriction to allow beer and wine to be possessed and consumed in conjunction with any shelter reservation except for the shelters in Napoleon and Kickers parks. Background /Analysis: Consumption of alcohol in the parks is currently allowed with rentals at Terry Trueblood Lodge, the Ashton House, the Riverside Festival Stage and as part of special events hosted by the Iowa City Parks & Recreation Department. Alcohol is limited to beer and wine unless a licensed alcohol provider is providing as part of an event. Small kegs (the equivalent of 82 -12 ounce cans) and growlers are allowed. The City Council last considered an Ordinance change to allow for consumption of alcohol during park shelter reservations in the fall of 2017. The third reading of this Ordinance change was tabled indefinitely by Council action on September 5, 2017. The Council recently held a work session on this topic and directed staff to proceed with re -introducing the ordinance at the first reading. Staff informed the Partnership for Alcohol Safety (PAS) that the ordinance was going to be reintroduced and encouraged any feedback to be directed the City Manager's Office. To date no feedback has been received from individual members of PAS. Department representatives from Parks & Recreation, the City Attorney's Office, the City Manager's Office and Police Department met in 2017 to discuss the potential policy change as well as how best to implement. This committee recommended a change to allow for alcohol consumption in park shelters except for shelters at youth sport complexes. Staff continues to support allowing alcohol with park shelter reservations. A survey of similar sized cities in I owa found only one that does not allow alcohol in their parks (Council Bluffs). Others allowed alcohol either with a shelter rental or had no rules banning alcohol consumption in parks. (Ankeny, Des Moines, Ames, Waterloo, Davenport) The Parks & Recreation Commission recommended that Council allow alcohol to be available for all park shelter reservations except at Napoleon Park and Kickers Soccer Fields at their May 10, 2017 and February 10, 2021 meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Description OrdinancE Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5030 Ordinance No. 21-4855 Ordinance amending Title 4, entitled "Alcoholic Beverages," and Title 10, entitled "Public Ways and Property," to allow alcohol in park shelters. Whereas, the City Code allows possession and consumption of alcohol in parks only with a permit or by a written agreement; Whereas, community members have requested that alcohol restrictions be loosened, and the Parks and Recreation Commission previously recommended that the restrictions on alcohol in park shelters be relaxed; and Whereas, it is in the City's interest to allow possession and consumption of beer and wine in park shelters with a shelter reservation except for the shelters in Napoleon Park and I.C. Kickers Park. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. Amendments. 1. Title 4, entitled "Alcoholic Beverages," Chapter 5, entitled "Prohibitions and Restrictions," Section 3, entitled "Consumption or Possession in Public Places and City Buildings," Subsection B is amended by adding the underscore text as follows: A person shall not consume or possess an alcoholic beverage in a city park, except if said person has purchased said alcoholic beverage from an "authorized entity", and is on an "authorized site", as those terms are defined in this section, or is doing so pursuant to a permit issued by city staff. Any permit issued will abide by and incorporate administrative rules approved by the city manager. This subsection shall not apply to the farmers' market or property within a city park that is leased to another entity for ninety-nine (99) years or more. Notwithstanding_ any other provision in this section, a person may possess and/or 2. Title 10, entitled "Public Ways and Property," Chapter 9, entitled "Parks and Recreation Regulations," Section 2, entitled "Prohibited Actions in Parks,' Subsection F is amended by adding the underscore text and deleting the strike -through text as follows: Alcoholic Beverages: Possess or consume any b8eF eF alcoholic beverages in any park, except as provided in Section 4-5-3 of the Code. Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III. Penalties for Violation. The violation of any provision of this ordinance is a municipal infraction or a simple misdemeanor. Section IV. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section V. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. and approved this 4th day of May , 2021. A r ved by City Attorney's Office — 04/01/2021 Ordinance No. 21-4855 Page 2 It was moved by Salih and seconded by Mims Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Bergus Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Weiner First Consideration 04/06/2021 Voteforpassage: AYES: Weiner, Bergus, Mims, Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. that the Second Consideration 04/20/2021 Voteforpassage: AYES: Thomas, Teague, Thomas, Weiner, Bergus, Mims, Salih, Taylor. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Date published 05/13/2021