Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2023-02-07 Ordinance
Item Number: 10.a. CITY OF IOWA CITY Z%--_ �=Pa COUNCIL ACTION REPORT February 7, 2023 Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 3.52 acres of land located north of W. Bentor Street and west of Orchard Street from Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -O) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -O). (REZ22-0015) Attachments: Staff Report with Supplemental Memo Additional Correspondence P&Z Preliminary Meeting Minutes CONCEPTUAL RENDERING.pdf Rezoning Ordinance Conditional Zoning Agreement Correspondence - Megan Blaue.pdf Correspondence - Lindsay Alan Park.pdf Correspondence - Paula Swygard.pdf t = MEMORANDUM �, _4 CITY OF IOWA CITY t.k Date: January 4, 2023 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Rezoning of approximately 3.52 acres of land to Riverfront Crossing -Orchard (RFC -0) zone located north of W. Benton St. and west of Orchard St. (REZ22-0015) Background At the Planning and Zoning Commission's December 21, 2022 meeting, the applicant of REZ22- 0015 requested a deferral to January 4, 2023 to allow more time to discuss the proposed rezoning conditions with staff. At issue was staff's recommended condition that would require the owner to resubdivide the property through the final platting process. After further discussion, staff has proposed to remove the condition related to final platting. Staff's main concern related to the public improvements required for this development, such as the traffic signalization and associated intersection improvements. Staff has revised the conditions to eliminate the need for a plat, but still ensure the public improvements are installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The revised conditions are as follows: Prior to site plan approval for any development on the property, Owner shall: a. Enter into an agreement with the City providing for the construction of public improvements or the provision of an improvements escrow prior to issuance of a building permit. In all cases, however, the public improvements shall be constructed prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy. The public improvements shall include, but not be limited to: i. 6' wide sidewalk along the W. Benton Street frontage of the subject property in a location approved by the City Engineer. ii 5' wide sidewalk along the Orchard Street/Court frontage of the subject property in a location approved by the City Engineer. iii. Traffic signalization at the corner of W. Benton and Orchard Streets, and associated intersection improvements, which may include turn lanes, as approved by the City Engineer. iv. Reconstruction of Orchard Street/Court in a manner approved by the City Engineer. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any development on the property, Owner shall dedicate: a. A 30' wide public access easement over the span of the pedestrian street and dedicate right-of-way to the City, without compensation, along W. Benton Street and Orchard Street/Court. The area to be dedicated shall be up to 15' wide, depending on the design of the traffic signalization and is subject to approval by the City Engineer. b. Any additional easements necessary to comply with the City's subdivision design standards. January 4, 2023 Page 2 Public Comment Staff received several pieces of correspondence related to this rezoning that were submitted after publication of the December 21, 2022 agenda packet. All comments received as of December 29, 2022 are included in Attachment 2. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of REZ22-0015, a proposal to rezone approximately 3.52 acres of property near the intersection of W. Benton Street and Orchard Street/Court from Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -0) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -0), subject to the revised conditions outlined above. Attachments 1. December 21, 2022 Staff Report 2. Late Correspondence STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ22-0015 Prepared by: Emani Brinkman, Planning Intern and Anne Russett, Senior Planner Date: December 21, 2022 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Zach Feldman Aptitude Development 669 River Drive, Suite 402 Elmwood Park, NJ 07407 zf(a-),aptitudere.com Contact Person: Brian Boelk Axiom Consultants, LLC 60 E. Court Street, Unit 3 Iowa City, IA 52240 bboelk(a)-axiom-con.com Owner: M&W Properties P.O. Box 5152 Coralville, IA 52241 319-430-5991 Ryanwade1000 @gmail.com Requested Action: Rezone from Low Density Single - Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -O) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -0) Purpose: Redevelopment of the area to comply with the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code. Location: North of W Benton Street and west of Orchard Street/Court 2 Location Map: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: District Plan: Neighborhood Open Space District: Public Meeting Notification: File Date: 3.52 Acres Residential building, Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard Subdistrict (RFC -0) North: RS -8, Medium Density Single -Family Residential Zone RFC -WR, Riverfront Crossings - West Riverfront South RS -8, Medium Density Single -Family Residential Zone East: RS -8, Medium Density Single -Family Residential Zone West: RFC -WR, Riverfront Crossings - West Riverfront Mixed Use Riverfront Crossings Master Plan SW3 Properties within 500' of the subject property received notification of the Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting. A rezoning sign was posted on the site on November 19, 2022. November 15, 2022 45 Day Limitation Period: December 30, 2022 3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, Aptitude Development, has requested a rezoning from Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (RS-5/OPD) and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -0) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -0) for 3.52 acres near the intersection of Orchard St and Benton St. The proposed rezoning includes 224, 226, 330, 614, 622, 630, 650, and 652 Orchard Court; 711, 725, 727, 741, and 743 Orchard Street; 204 and 206 W. Benton Street (See Attachment 3). In 2016, the City Council adopted an amendment to the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan creating the Orchard District, which included properties along Orchard Street and Orchard Court north of Benton Street. The purpose of the District was to encourage residential redevelopment that would serve as a transition between the higher intensity mixed-use area along S. Riverside Drive and the lower intensity single-family residential neighborhood to the west. After the amendment to the Master Plan, the City Council adopted an amendment to the zoning code to incorporate Orchard District standards into the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code. The zoning standards were adopted to ensure that buildings are complementary in mass and scale to the adjacent single-family neighborhood. This zoning code amendment also included the addition of the Orchard District to the Regulating Plan. The properties on Orchard Ct. were zoned as Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) in 1981 (Ordinance No. 81-3038). This was done because of the multi -family units that were proposed on the lot. The multi -family units were used as a buffer for the single-family housing from the commercial uses to the east and the railroad tracts to the north. In 2018, a portion of the subject property was rezoned to RFC -O (REZ18-00019) subject to the following conditions: a. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall: i. Dedicate 15' of right-of-way along the north side of the Benton St. frontage to the City; ii. Dedicate a 30' wide access easement running in a north -south direction generally along the western 30' of the vacated Orchard Court right-of-way south across the property locally known as 330 Orchard Ct., to the southern property line of 330 Orchard Ct., in a location approved by the City Engineer; iii. Dedicate a 30' wide public access easement over the span of the pedestrian street; iv. Design and obtain approval from the City Forrester of a landscaping plan for the subject property. The landscaping plan shall include, among other plantings, street trees in the Orchard St. right-of-way; and v. Execute an affordable housing agreement to satisfy the affordable housing obligations imposed pursuant to Iowa City Code of Ordinances 14-2G-8 through the provision of on-site owner -occupied dwelling units, on-site rental dwelling units, and/or the payment of a fee in lieu of the remaining dwelling units not provided on- site or as otherwise agreed to between Owner and the City. b. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, Owner shall: i. Construct a 6' wide sidewalk along the Benton St. frontage of the subject property in a location approved by the City Engineer; ii. Construct a 5' wide sidewalk along the Orchard St. frontage of the subject property; iii. Construct a pedestrian street as shown in the concept plan; and iv. Install all plantings shown on and required by the approved landscaping plan. The applicant has held two good neighbor meetings (See Attachment 4). The original meeting 2 was held September 28, 2022. The concept presented at the September 28th meeting did not align with the policy direction of the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan or the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code; and therefore, could not be developed without amendments to both the plan and the code. Based on feedback from both staff and members of the public, significant changes were made to the concept and rezoning proposal and the applicant held a second good neighbor meeting on November 30, 2022. The revised concept presented during the second good neighbor meeting is included in Attachment 5; however, the proposed rezoning does not require that any future redevelopment of the subject property be consistent with this concept. ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: The property is currently zoned Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (RS-5/OPD) and Riverfront Crossings — Orchard (RFC -0). As was previously mentioned, in 1981 a portion of the site was rezoned to RS-5/OPD to allow for multi -family development. The RS -5 zone is primarily intended for the development of single-family residential although some other uses such as duplexes and daycares are allowed in the zone. The Planned Development Overlay allows flexibility in the use and design of structures and land in situations where conventional development may be inappropriate and where modification to requirements of the underlying zone will not be contrary to the intent and purpose of this title, inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, as amended, or harmful to the surrounding neighborhood. The RFC -O zone is "Intended for lower intensity residential development in buildings with street - facing entries opening onto pedestrian -friendly streetscapes that provide a transition between higher intensity mixed-use areas along Riverside Drive and low -scale residential neighborhoods to the west." This zone was tailored specifically for an approximately 5 -acre area, within which the subject properties are located. The zone also explicitly prohibits commercial and industrial uses in this zone, except in live -work townhouses. Proposed Zoning: The proposed RFC -O zone does not restrict density through limitations on dwelling units per acre, but rather through limitations on maximum building height. Unlike the other RFC zones, the Orchard zone has no bonus height provisions and does not allow building heights to exceed the base maximum of three stories. Multi -family buildings in this subdistrict that are two stories or greater are also required to have a 10' stepback, intended to mitigate the visual impact of larger buildings. If the proposed rezoning is approved, future development will be subject to the Affordable Housing Requirement in place for all Riverfront Crossings zoning designations. This requirement mandates the provision of affordable housing units in the amount of 10 or more percent of all dwelling units in the development. This requirement may also be satisfied through a fee in lieu contribution to an affordable housing fund. The applicant intends to satisfy the affordable housing requirement through a fee in lieu. Although the affordable housing requirement was included as a condition of the 2018 rezoning, staff is not carrying forward that condition as it is a requirement of the zoning code and does not need to be included as a separate condition. Existing Land Uses: The subject property is currently developed with a mix of single-family, duplex, and four-plex units. In total, there are approximately 24 dwelling units within the proposed rezoning area. Rezoning Review Criteria: Staff uses the following two criteria in the review of rezoning: 1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan; 5 2. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The Riverfront Crossing Master Plan describes the Orchard Court District as fully developed with duplexes, small multi -family and some single- family dwellings. The plan encourages redevelopment of this area at a higher density while providing a transition between the large-scale development along S. Riverside Drive and the single-family to the west. Development should be restricted to building typologies, such as cottage clusters, townhomes, live -work townhomes and multi -dwelling buildings that are designed and scaled in a manner that is complementary to the rhythm and scale of the single- family neighborhood located to the south and west, where the goal is to preserve the existing housing stock. The Riverfront Crossing Plan also has objectives to improve the design quality of development and create better and more visible street access for the Orchard District. The figure to the right shows an excerpt from the Riverfront Crossing Master Plan that lists the plan objectives, desired development character for the district, and the types of development envisioned for this area. The proposed rezoning would satisfy several of these objectives. It would allow development that would create a transition from larger -scale mixed use and commercial buildings along S. Riverside Dr. to single family housing to the west of the district. Rezoning the property to RFC -O will facilitate the type of redevelopment envisioned for this area in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Development in this area would be required to go through the staff Design Review Committee and comply with the Orchard District Summary Master Plan Objectives: Encourage redevelopment that is complementary in mass and scale to the adjacent single family neighborhood Create a transition from larger -scale mixed-use and commercial buildings along Riverside Drive to single family Improve design quality of development Create better and more visible street access Development Character: s Buildings that are articulated and scaled in a manner appropriate for transition from the larger -scala, mixed-use corridor to the adjacent single family neighborhood s Buildings fronting tree lined streets i Parking located away from street frontages with minimal surface parking lots } Use rear or side yard setbacks, upper floor stepbacks, and landscaping to create transitions to single family neighborhood Development Program. s Limited to cottage homes, rowhouses, townhouses, five -work townhouses, and two to three-story multi -dwelling buildings with third floor stepback. } High level of design in exchange for increased density Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code, which is the intent of the adopted policy direction for this area. 0 Compatibility with ExistingEL ® Neighborhood Character: The proposed 107P RM Ei rezoning is distinct from a typical rezoning■ in that the impetus for the Orchard zone's creation was to ensure neighborhood compatibility. It was expressly created to provide a transitional buffer between the more intensive development allowed in the Riverfront Crossings — West Riverfront (RFC -WR) zone to the east and the.Ll existing Medium Density Single -Family Residential RS -8 to the west. To ensure r. r, -� neighborhood compatibility the zone restricts height to three stories and requires an increased setback of 30' from -� LL1.i4 adjacent residential uses. In addition the J � -- S Regulating Plan (see figure at right) �,- includes a north/south pedestrian street that ensures more than one building, which helps to break up the mass and scale of°° urc.enq semen %/� creM swce any redevelopment. Staff is recommending � R�-R-1 as a condition of the rezoning that a 30' S_ G_ public access easement be dedicated over the span of the pedestrian street. The condition from the 2018 rezoning that a pedestrian street be constructed is not needed since it is required by the Regulating Plan, which is part of Title 14 Zoning. The 2018 rezoning also included conditions related to landscaping. For the proposed rezoning, staff is not recommending any conditions related to landscaping since the Riverfront Crossings Form - Based Code has landscaping requirements, including the planting of street trees. Transportation and Access: When a portion of the subject property was rezoned in 2018, staff requested that the applicant submit a traffic study to evaluate how the proposed development might impact traffic in the area. The study examined two adjacent intersections: Benton St. and Orchard St. and Benton St. and S. Riverside Dr. The analysis indicated that while the S. Riverside Dr. and Benton St. intersection would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS), the southbound approach of Orchard St. at Benton would operate at an unacceptable LOS E during the AM peak hour and a LOS F during the PM peak hour. The proposed rezoning in 2018, which included a portion of the subject property, was anticipated to create an additional 20-30 peak hour trips during AM and PM peak hours (approximately 7:30 A.M. to 8:30 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. to 5:30 P.M.). The proposed rezoning being considered now would result in substantially more traffic generation. Since the area under consideration would result in additional traffic than previously contemplated, staff recommends a condition that the intersection of Benton St. and Orchard St. be signalized. Signalization may also require intersection improvements, such as turn lanes, as well as dedication of additional right-of-way which is also required by the proposed rezoning condition. There are also other transportation related conditions that staff recommends be carried forward from the previous rezoning. These include the construction of a 6' wide sidewalk along W. Benton Street, the construction of a 5' wide sidewalk along Orchard Street, and the dedication of right-of-way along W. Benton Street and Orchard Street. Lastly, staff is recommending a condition that Orchard Street be reconstructed in a manner approved by the City Engineer. There is one condition related to access from the 2018 rezoning that staff is not recommending 7 as part of this rezoning. Specifically, a condition related to the dedication of a 30' wide north/south access easement along the western edge of the property is no longer needed. This condition was contemplated with the previous rezoning in case an additional access point was needed to address traffic. Instead, staff is recommending signalization. Neighborhood Open Space: According to section 14-5K of the City code, dedication of public open space or fee in lieu of land dedication is addressed at the time of final platting for residential subdivisions. As part of a condition of the rezoning, staff is recommending that the area be re - subdivided through the final plat process due to the required signalization and infrastructure improvements that are needed. During the subdivision process the neighborhood open space requirement will be evaluated. NEXT STEPS: Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed rezoning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ22-0015, a proposal to rezone approximately 3.52 acres of property near the intersection of W. Benton Street and Orchard Street/Court from Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -0) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -0), subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to site plan approval, Owner shall re -subdivide the property through the final plat process. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall: a. Dedicate a 30' wide public access easement over the span of the pedestrian street. b. Dedicate right-of-way to the City, without compensation, along W. Benton Street and Orchard Street/Court. The area to be dedicated shall be up to 15' depending on the design of the traffic signalization and is subject to approval by the City Engineer. 3. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, Owner shall: a. Construct a 6' wide sidewalk along the W. Benton Street frontage of the subject property in a location approved by the City Engineer. b. Construct a 5' wide sidewalk along the Orchard Street/Court frontage of the subject property in a location approved by the City Engineer. c. Install traffic signalization at the corner of W. Benton and Orchard Streets, and associated intersection improvements, which may include turn lanes, as approved by the City Engineer. d. Reconstruct Orchard Street/Court in a manner approved by the City Engineer. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Rezoning Exhibit 4. Summary Report from Good Neighbor Meetings 5. Development Concept Approved by: —MMTMle Sitzman, AIUF', Uevelopment Services coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services VV DCIV I VIV An application submitted by Axiom Consultants, on behalf of Aptitude Development for approval of a rezoning of approximately 3.52 acres of property located north of W Benton Street and west of Orchard Court from Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard Subdistrict (RFC -0) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard Subdistrict (RFC -0). HARD � r 11 11 Z, -My." -tea....._ CITY OF IOWA CITY Li7..' !► REZONING EXHIBIT THE MARSHALL IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA PARCEL ID: 1016183001 ZONING: R58 537 OLIVE ST ZONING: R58 J 702 GIBLIN DR ZONING: RS8 706 GIBLIN DR ZONING: RS8 710 GIBLIN DR ZONING: RS8 0 N O N Lu Q0 m m 0 O 714 GIBLIN DR N890 49' 34'w ZONING: RS8 39.75' 0 li Z m 718 GIBLIN DR U ZONING: RS8 00 m O 2 GIBLIN DR z JNING: RS8 536 OLIVE ST ZONING: RS8 ATE RAILROAD IOWA INTERST =308.521 R=2100.00 L EXISTING ZONING: OPD/RS-5 PROPOSED ZONIIIG: RFC -O 245 S RIVERSIDE CT ZONING: RFC -WR g's I d CD 0 627 ORCHARD CT ZONING: RFC -WR ��Z I 06, V O 0 S110 56' 42"E EXISTING ONING: RFC -O / PROPOSED ZONING: RFGO S890 10'09"W 217.59' Nov 16, 2022 - 11:07am S:\PROJECTS y 15.35'880 44'41"E 32.00' I -579° 15' 13"E 24 07 I O� R; 70.00 S880 45'44"W 152.48' M --N880 29' 36"E 32.73' 629 S RIVERSIDE DR ZONING: RFC -WR � am p� 1 E uLt ' 4 o, N 731 S RIVERSIDE DR - w ZONING: RFC -WR En in }, m ;•- "Ilk O Ln t � V 588° 48'09"W 65.15' \_S030 36'17"E 15.11' V � �Ln Ln cn 00 Zm Z00 Zm Z00 Z00 Z00 Zm Z00 0Ln p �� �O I �c O0� �� �� I �� 0� Q°C DC I Z w w w w w w w U Z_ Q mz mz mz mz mz mz co mz ocz �°Uo oo o o oc mN mN N LnN N LnN rnN Lr)N O Q r+ O N N N O 00 m m N N N N N N 021\210204\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Plats\210204 - Rezoning Exhibit.dw� 121 W BENTON ST ZONING: CC2 0 W N C) U � � � Z oc z V)O I I 00 PROJECT LOCATION MAP: APPLICANT: PREPARED BY: APTITUDE DEVELOPMENT TV) N C/O BRIAN BOELK V) 60 E. COURT STREET, UNIT 3 U IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 201-275-1787 319-519-6220 Z 00 J Z 00 L Z 00 Ln z 00 O I 00 00 00 I u z 00 I N I z 00 N Z 00 � N � 0� o� o� 00 0� z� N Q0 I o� mz O I z� �o o I Z� I 0� 2: KLAN < y rn LU Z m Z m Z -o m Z o� Z m Z 00 Z 00 Z m z � z p � z p WRIGH z 0 00 p 0 m� � ST TY� 0 o RIVERSID > CT PL I U I�I�I N 00 o z m m m LAFAYETTE m sT sr16� Q N- N N .-�-- w_ E BENTO S Q o j� U > _m m W 0 .� BENTON ST z z ww > > cn J u m o HARLOc� i W BENTON ST o DOUGLAS ST Q Nov 16, 2022 - 11:07am S:\PROJECTS y 15.35'880 44'41"E 32.00' I -579° 15' 13"E 24 07 I O� R; 70.00 S880 45'44"W 152.48' M --N880 29' 36"E 32.73' 629 S RIVERSIDE DR ZONING: RFC -WR � am p� 1 E uLt ' 4 o, N 731 S RIVERSIDE DR - w ZONING: RFC -WR En in }, m ;•- "Ilk O Ln t � V 588° 48'09"W 65.15' \_S030 36'17"E 15.11' V � �Ln Ln cn 00 Zm Z00 Zm Z00 Z00 Z00 Zm Z00 0Ln p �� �O I �c O0� �� �� I �� 0� Q°C DC I Z w w w w w w w U Z_ Q mz mz mz mz mz mz co mz ocz �°Uo oo o o oc mN mN N LnN N LnN rnN Lr)N O Q r+ O N N N O 00 m m N N N N N N 021\210204\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Plats\210204 - Rezoning Exhibit.dw� 121 W BENTON ST ZONING: CC2 0 W N C) U � � � Z oc z V)O I I 00 PROJECT LOCATION MAP: APPLICANT: PREPARED BY: APTITUDE DEVELOPMENT TV) C/O ZACHARTY FELDMAN C/O BRIAN BOELK V) 60 E. COURT STREET, UNIT 3 U IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 201-275-1787 319-519-6220 ZF@APTITUDE.COM BBOELK@AXIOM-CON.COM 00 00 u�I � � u ��x w j Z N w w w J a Lu N W H RRISON � Z I w z RIVERSID mz 0 mz o �o ITS CORP. UMITS BRO KLAN < y CT (PR) OAK PARK CT u' Q U _ I In N I -o PAR N o� N V Q m E PR E m LLJS� Nov 16, 2022 - 11:07am S:\PROJECTS y 15.35'880 44'41"E 32.00' I -579° 15' 13"E 24 07 I O� R; 70.00 S880 45'44"W 152.48' M --N880 29' 36"E 32.73' 629 S RIVERSIDE DR ZONING: RFC -WR � am p� 1 E uLt ' 4 o, N 731 S RIVERSIDE DR - w ZONING: RFC -WR En in }, m ;•- "Ilk O Ln t � V 588° 48'09"W 65.15' \_S030 36'17"E 15.11' V � �Ln Ln cn 00 Zm Z00 Zm Z00 Z00 Z00 Zm Z00 0Ln p �� �O I �c O0� �� �� I �� 0� Q°C DC I Z w w w w w w w U Z_ Q mz mz mz mz mz mz co mz ocz �°Uo oo o o oc mN mN N LnN N LnN rnN Lr)N O Q r+ O N N N O 00 m m N N N N N N 021\210204\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Plats\210204 - Rezoning Exhibit.dw� 121 W BENTON ST ZONING: CC2 0 W N C) U � � � Z oc z V)O I I 00 PROJECT LOCATION MAP: (NOT TO SCALE) APPLICANT INFORMATION: APPLICANT: PREPARED BY: APTITUDE DEVELOPMENT AXIOM CONSULTANTS, LLC C/O ZACHARTY FELDMAN C/O BRIAN BOELK 669 RIVER DRIVE, SUITE 402 60 E. COURT STREET, UNIT 3 U IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 201-275-1787 319-519-6220 ZF@APTITUDE.COM BBOELK@AXIOM-CON.COM - cn u�I � � u ��x w j Z N w w w J a Lu N W H RRISON � E HA z60H RISON - LL 0Q 0' z RIVERSID ST 0 o EIGHT ITS CORP. UMITS BRO KLAN < y CT (PR) OAK PARK CT u' Q U _ m F PAR DR o� V Q IS E PR E NTIST LLJS� >� m MYRTLE AVE PROJECT cn WRIGH z LOCATION ST TY� WOODSIDE O� RIVERSID > CT PL CT o o LAFAYETTE S- sT sr16� �C00 w_ E BENTO S Q o j� U > _m m W 0 W BENTON ST Q z ww > > cn J u m o HARLOc� i o DOUGLAS ST Q m Lj DOUGLAS uEBER m R , = CT oC CORS R � (NOT TO SCALE) APPLICANT INFORMATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT BOUNDARY: ALL OF LOTS 41 51 61. 71. AND 8 OF ORCHARD COURT SUBDIVISION, AND ALL OF LOTS 1 THRU 5 OF BLOCK 4 OF CARTWRIGHT'S ADDITION TO IOWA CITY, AND VACATED ALLEYS ADJOINING BLOCK 4 OF CARTWRIGHT'S ADDITION TO IOWA CITY, AND ALL THE VACATED RIGHT OF WAY OF SOUTH RIVERSIDE COURT WEST OF ORCHARD STREET, ALL IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 4 OF SAID ORCHARD COURT SUBDIVISION THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 4 S08000'47"W, 114.47 FEET TO THE NORTH ROW LINE OF ORCHARD COURT; THENCE 106.43 FEET ALONG SAID NORTH LINE ON A 50.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY (CHORD BEARING S21021144"E, 87.44 FEET); THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE S11°56'42"E, 15.35 FEET; THENCE 71.07 FEET ALONG SAID NORTH LINE ON A 70.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY (CHORD BEARING S62°10'07"E, 68.06 FEET); THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE N88044'41"E, 32.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE S79015'13"E, 24.07 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE N88029036"E, 32.73 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID ORCHARD STREET; THENCE ALONG 107.23 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE S03°35'55"E, 212.99 FEET TO THE NORTH SAID EAST LINE S03031'34"E, ROW LINE OF WEST BENTON STREET; THENCE S88°48'09"W, 65.15 FEET TO THE WEST ROW LINE OF ORCHARD STEET; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE S03036'17"E, 15.11 FEET TO THE NORTH ROW LINE OF WEST BENTON STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE S88045144"W, 152.48 FEET; THENCE NO3033'33"W, 142.68 FEET; THENCE S89010'09"W, 217.59 FEET; THENCE NO3016'18"W, 159.64 FEET; THENCE N89049'34"W, 39.75 FEET; THENCE N00038'36"W, 260.20 FEET TO THE SOUTH ROW LINE OF THE IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD; THENCE 308.52 FEET ALONG A 2100.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTH (CHORD BEARING N85021'59"E, 308.24 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE PROJECT BOUNDARY CONTAINS 4.35 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. THE PROPOSED REZONING AREA EXCLUDES THE EXISTING ORCHARD COURT PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND CONTAINS 3.52 ACRES AS HATCHED ON THIS EXHIBIT. ZONING INFORMATION: APPLICANT: PREPARED BY: APTITUDE DEVELOPMENT AXIOM CONSULTANTS, LLC C/O ZACHARTY FELDMAN C/O BRIAN BOELK 669 RIVER DRIVE, SUITE 402 60 E. COURT STREET, UNIT 3 ELMWOOD PARK, NJ 07407 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 201-275-1787 319-519-6220 ZF@APTITUDE.COM BBOELK@AXIOM-CON.COM - LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT BOUNDARY: ALL OF LOTS 41 51 61. 71. AND 8 OF ORCHARD COURT SUBDIVISION, AND ALL OF LOTS 1 THRU 5 OF BLOCK 4 OF CARTWRIGHT'S ADDITION TO IOWA CITY, AND VACATED ALLEYS ADJOINING BLOCK 4 OF CARTWRIGHT'S ADDITION TO IOWA CITY, AND ALL THE VACATED RIGHT OF WAY OF SOUTH RIVERSIDE COURT WEST OF ORCHARD STREET, ALL IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 4 OF SAID ORCHARD COURT SUBDIVISION THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 4 S08000'47"W, 114.47 FEET TO THE NORTH ROW LINE OF ORCHARD COURT; THENCE 106.43 FEET ALONG SAID NORTH LINE ON A 50.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY (CHORD BEARING S21021144"E, 87.44 FEET); THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE S11°56'42"E, 15.35 FEET; THENCE 71.07 FEET ALONG SAID NORTH LINE ON A 70.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY (CHORD BEARING S62°10'07"E, 68.06 FEET); THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE N88044'41"E, 32.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE S79015'13"E, 24.07 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE N88029036"E, 32.73 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID ORCHARD STREET; THENCE ALONG 107.23 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE S03°35'55"E, 212.99 FEET TO THE NORTH SAID EAST LINE S03031'34"E, ROW LINE OF WEST BENTON STREET; THENCE S88°48'09"W, 65.15 FEET TO THE WEST ROW LINE OF ORCHARD STEET; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE S03036'17"E, 15.11 FEET TO THE NORTH ROW LINE OF WEST BENTON STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE S88045144"W, 152.48 FEET; THENCE NO3033'33"W, 142.68 FEET; THENCE S89010'09"W, 217.59 FEET; THENCE NO3016'18"W, 159.64 FEET; THENCE N89049'34"W, 39.75 FEET; THENCE N00038'36"W, 260.20 FEET TO THE SOUTH ROW LINE OF THE IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD; THENCE 308.52 FEET ALONG A 2100.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTH (CHORD BEARING N85021'59"E, 308.24 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE PROJECT BOUNDARY CONTAINS 4.35 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. THE PROPOSED REZONING AREA EXCLUDES THE EXISTING ORCHARD COURT PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND CONTAINS 3.52 ACRES AS HATCHED ON THIS EXHIBIT. ZONING INFORMATION: 0 N (n �/ � N Zr -I Hr -1 m 0 X7 ` U Oz >< V° U 0 x L Lu z Z w 0 25 50 w OQ J m U Z0 Z o Q 0 N Lu 0 Lu z CURRENT ZONINGS: OPD/RS-5 - 1.63 ACRES LD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY/LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY) RFC -O - 1.89 ACRES w (RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS -ORCHARD SUBDISTRICT) PROPOSED ZONING: RFC -O - 3.52 ACRES Lq o m V z 0 N (n �/ � N Zr -I Hr -1 m 0 X7 ` U Oz >< V° U 0 x L Lu z Z w 0 25 50 w OQ J m U Z0 Z o Q 0 N Lu 0 Lu z LD Lq LD - m L� w o_j N w a w z N Lq o m V z L Z - a o J Z N w w w J a Lu N O - Luo 2 U 1 OF 1 Q2 = Q� V w z w2z� a ~ 000 V Q LD Lq LD - m L� w o_j U _ 2 X a w z Lu Lq o m V z Z - O .. z w O O o N Z O Z N w w V w O LL Lu N 0= N d SHEET NUMBER: 1 OF 1 From: Brian Boelk To: Anne Russett; Michael Welch Subject: RE: [External] Orchard & Benton Rezoning Date: Friday, December 16, 2022 7:16:32 AM Attachments: imaae003.g_na image004.g_na imaae005.g_na image006.g_na imaae007.ona image008.g_no imaae009.ona image010.g_no imaae011.g_no image012.g_ng logo-charcoalandoranae-linear-transparent-emai 138c9a8be-ef67-4flf-b5f3-7cbfaec9ab75. ona 079 sm fb d4769f35-474f-4861-a58e-099aa5cfa8d3.g_no 079 sm in d806ld26-6el7-45d8-b821-e3b73de5d846.g_nci 079 sm twitter 73f8f4e9-8864-400f-9100-349a7b839898.g_ng 079 sm insta b9829f39-ea7b-4ffb-9e4e-dlalld6e4972.g_na r ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Please see below Anne from the first meeting. Will send you a separate email with comments from second meeting. Good Neighbor Meeting — September 28, 2022 11 attendees Short presentation given and then Open House w/ Q&A Notes from discussion with the Rew Family: • They have lived in this house for 44 years. Their son lives in the house adjacent to the west, and their daughter lives in the house directly adjacent to their son. Thus, the Rew family resides in the three parcels directly adjacent to our project along Benton Street. • Noted that the proposed Fire Lane/Access on the west side would be right next to their existing drive and they would see a lot of cars in and out every day. • Extremely concerned with the size of the building, and in particular the height (3 stories) that will be 65' from their existing house. Noted the concern of those living in the new building being able to look down into/onto their house. • Concerned that it is student living and the number of units proposed. • They asked about patios overlooking that west side and asked whether there would be windows (and how many) overlooking their house. • They asked if the front units facing Benton could be lowered so that only 1 or 2 stories rather than 3. Or, could the building be pushed back further from the ROW (to the north) so more in line with their garage rather than house. I explained to them that there is a maximum setback from the ROW as part of the zoning code so this was not possible. Concerned with losing sunlight into their property and the view they currently have looking down Benton Street. • They are concerned with affordable housing being provided in this building and would rather see the 10% requirement getting taken care of via fee in lieu of. They would rather not see affordable housing next to them. There was a lot of discussion regarding the drainageway (creek). Turns out, the gentleman loves that the creek is in their backyard and is hoping that can remain in some fashion. His wife has been concerned with erosion along the creek for some time now and fine with that waterway moving away from or off property. The husband noted the best situation would be to keep it as close as possible but improve the waterway by stabilizing and controlling erosion. • Many questions as to screening between the proposed building and their yard/house. Also questions on exterior look, but they did like the idea that this would look more like town homes/town houses. Comments from other attendees: • Why one large building? That building is really large. That is too big. • Neighborhood character. Currently older, traditional small-scale houses. They assume new building will have a more modern design appearance and worry about how the two fit (or don't fit) together • Existing "green space" associated with 224, 226, and 230 Orchard Ct is desirable. Micro - neighborhood around those properties. The three buildings to the north can/need to go but the stuff south of those has a feel that fits well in the neighborhood. • Previous rezoning & overall River Front Crossings in Comp Plan protected / buffered the neighborhood by keeping single-family houses along Benton. Transition occurred in back yards. Three story building along Benton will "tower over" the surrounding single-family properties. • The Rews (302 W Benton) felt like the previously approved rezoning was too close and too large but at least the other properties along Benton weren't changing. • Light trespass • Lights from cars entering and exiting building • Light from exterior fixtures around building • Light from windows and decks / balconies on upper floors • Affordable housing • River Front Crossings district incentivizes student housing closer to campus (height bonus if within 1,000 feet) • Miller -Orchard neighborhood seen has a location to reinvest in the existing housing stock rather than replace o Students vs non -student • Displacing existing residents and likely higher rents • Some did NOT want affordable housing as they were concerned with those results in as far as care, look, and those who may live there. • Student housing not seen as a need in this neighborhood or a desirable use • Traffic • There is already a lot of traffic on Benton • Will signals be required? If so, they are really close to Benton / Riverside intersection • What will impacts be to Hudson & Miller Streets? People already use those to cut over to Highway 1. How much worse will this development make it? • Currently appears to be parking shortage because of number of cars ticketed on Orchard Ct • Positive comments The townhouse -style along the southern portion of the building was seen as a positive o Re-aligning/shortening Orchard Ct well received • Eliminating the three buildings (614, 622, 630) seen as OK as it is recognized that those buildings are tired • Several questions on schedule — how soon will this happen? One from a current tenant in one of the rental buildings while others just trying to get an idea on how quickly this is hoping to get pushed through. • How would this project be constructed in terms of phasing/staging of equipment and disruption to the neighboring residents? Thanks, BRIAN BOELK PE, CPESC, CPMSM Owner - Principal - Civil Services Manager AXIOMCONSULTANTS CBJ Best of the Corridor 2019-2022 w: axiom-con.com c: 319-400-1056 01313M From: Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.org> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 11:01 AM To: Brian Boelk <bboelk@axiom-con.com>; Michael Welch <Michael@welchdesigndevelopment.com> Subject: RE: [External] Orchard & Benton Rezoning Great. Could you please send me your summaries of the good neighbor meetings? From: Brian Boelk <bboelkPaxiom-con.com> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 10:54 AM To: Anne Russett <ARussett(@iowa-cit)l.org>; Michael Welch <Michaell@welchdesigndevelopment.com> Subject: RE: Orchard & Benton Rezoning Risk[ ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Thank you, Anne. We will plan to be in attendance. BRIAN BOELK PE, CPESC, CPMSM Owner - Principal - Civil Services Manager From: Brian Boelk To: Anne Russett; Michael Welch Subject: RE: [External] Orchard & Benton Rezoning Date: Friday, December 16, 2022 7:37:29 AM Attachments: imaae003.g_na image004.g_na imaae005.g_na image006.g_na imacje007.g_nci image014.g_na imaae015.Dna image016.g_no imaae017.g_na image018.g_na logo-charcoalandoranae-linear-transparent-emai 138c9a8be-ef67-4flf-b5f3-7cbfaec9ab75. Dna 079 sm fb d4769f35-474f-4861-a58e-099aa5cfa8d3.g_no 079 sm in d806ld26-6el7-45d8-b821-e3b73de5d846.g_nci 079 sm twitter 73f8f4e9-8864-400f-9100-349a7b839898.g_na 079 sm insta b9829f39-ea7b-4ffb-9e4e-dlalld6e4972.g_na We sent you safe versions of your files.msg Sion -In Sheet.Ddf r ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. Please see below Anne from the second meeting. I have attached the sign -in sheet from the second meeting but unfortunately left the the sign -in sheet from the first meeting at the school and it was neverfound. Good Neighbor Meeting — November 30, 2022 Open House w/ Q&A • Many compliments and appreciation for the changes made from original one large building to three smaller buildings. • Residents (specifically the Rew family) very excited that the four parcels to the southeast, included in previous plan, no longer part of project or being purchased by Aptitude. • Everyone seemed to really like the townhouse look based on the elevation provided/shown. • Based on changes in layout and parcels involved, several questioned if the existing drainageway would be impacted or included in improvements in any way. • Requests that lighting be evaluated and focus be made on down lighting and least impacts to neighbors as possible. • Several questions about screening, in particular to the west and south. Would this be vegetation only? Residents would like fencing for purpose of screening visually as well as providing safety/security. • Many still have a concern with traffic as several noted existing issues on Benton Street now. How will these additional units/bed impact traffic? How would a signal work at Benton/Orchard knowing there is a signal very close at Benton/Riverside? Will additional R.O.W. or street width be made or wanted in the future. • We noted that a traffic study has been completed, and further evaluation and design will be required to improve the intersection of Benton and Orchard. This may and most likely will consist of traffic signalization and turn lanes on Benton Street. • There was a question as to how many units are existing within these sites based on single family residential and multi family apartments. What is the comparison between existing number of units and proposed number of units. • Several expressed concerns with parking and asked how much parking is to be provided on site. Their concern being that there is not enough on-site parking so residents will park cars on adjacent streets and impact the surrounding neighborhoods. • Questions on intended schedule for start of construction and leases. • Asked if height still the same and we reiterated that City Code limits these buildings to a maximum of 3 stories/floors above ground. • Though some still would rather not have any development to area at all, they were very complimentary and appreciative of the changes made and the new proposed layout and look. Thanks, BRIAN BOELK PE, CPESC, CPMSM Owner - Principal - Civil Services Manager AXIOMCONSULTANTS CBJ Best of the Corridor 2019-2022 w: axiom-con.com 319-400-1056 U0130 BRIAN BOELK PE, CPESC, CPMSM Owner - Principal - Civil Services Manager AxIOM-CONSULTANTS CBJ Best of the Corridor 2019-2022 w: axiom-con.com c: 319-400-1056 010130 From: Anne Russett <ARussettl@iowa-city.org> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 11:01 AM To: Brian Boelk <bboelk(@axiom-con.com>; Michael Welch <Michael(@welchdesigndevelopment.com> Subject: RE: [External] Orchard & Benton Rezoning Great. Could you please send me your summaries of the good neighbor meetings? From: Brian Boelk <bboelk(@axiom-con.com> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 10:54 AM To: Anne Russett <ARussettl@iowa-city.org>; Michael Welch - �� ------ --\ - -__-- \ - - - -- --- ----- - - - - - i _-- -- _ - - - - _i_ -- - / \-- --- _ _ - --- i�--- ---- - ------ - --- -- - - - - - / \ / J \ - \ / / j \ / �• \ \II III I� \\ � II \_---_-_-_- / ------ -__---------------- - - _----- --_- - ---- __ - - ------ - - _ M _-/ - --_-------- - ---- _----\ ------------ - -- --------- - - - - - _ - - _ _----�-v-- --- _ - --r I ___ ----- -. _r 77-- - - - - - - - - - -------- -- I/ A L/ I 1111 /I / I A 11 v `\ v A// •r • --------------- -- -- III / --_ - �-- �v II v I I 11V/////,' � • . I I I ----- / /n / ------ V I --- - - -� 1 / \\ I ---------- V At LLI I ' 1 _-- v cc I - ----- IF 1 \ I I I - / 1 / 1 - / 1 I I ,• I \ / I \� / _ / //I II ----� / _ _ --- ----J ----------- -- - - _== BENTCN STREET i I p \ j; 1 1�� I ♦ \ \ I 1�,, v, -- I -- II Wo® - -- A / j "'111��� -/ I , / I ■ A A ��-` I I 1 1 1 v / i 1 •, 1 'I� I `C / / I ,\�/ / / 1 `�/ \l JI I �J %•f� \ I� •1�1 I .. Q 1 � I /�'\ 111 I //\\ \ !I `\_ -v- • • !�I � I 1 1 / / / 11 / / � v V I II I � ���� � v : \ III I I I I I • I� I l/ V / � / 1 / � � 1 / I I I I 1 v I A I 1 / / I �-- I\ \ I I ( I I I I O�CHARD'I COURTAM ) v HILLS , I / ,JF e_ ik i \ 1 to I rl, • 1 1 1_'j // \ I 1 I` I _ I I I I I\ / I I F \ I \ I • � �I/ / , l =_- V I I I I I \ \ / 11 \ I 1 L - _ _ I r I \ • ` I \\ // 1 III I I / / -o , • I /^I A I N ' \ i I ' \ I \ I I v I • I I I \ _ / / II I I I / I I // • I I I I I 1 / I I I I , • , T��ci jam- 1. \\\ \\\'/ A ---/ i II i I I 1 I I \ l 1 _ / 1 \ III I \ � �'► • - 1 I /I I � 1_ I y / .. 1 - [ I � � \ I I III � / • W jig I I iii I I I III I I I I, I \ li-- I I / 17 I I • / � I I II I / I / \ ---------------// I 0 20 40 / ----- _ - / I �-1--7-----_�� - 1 \ \V ` III /\ '„- /`--vi'v ------ \ I I I - �/ / III 1 CONSULTANTS `% ;' ;' i \I i i i i WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM 1 (319) 519-6220 Late Correspondence December 14, 2022 Anne Russett - Senior Planner City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 Re: REZ22-0015 Rezoning Request near Benton Street & Orchard Court, Dear Anne Russett, Please submit the following written comments to the Planning & Zoning Commission in lieu of attendance to the scheduled December 21, 2022 meeting. As a tenant of 627 Orchard Court my primary concern for the planned increased apartment density from rezoning is the parking and traffic that occurs on the limited block and a half street of Orchard Court. That street takes traffic from my 46 unit apartment, some 20 street rental units in the area, plus overflow traffic from some 96 multiple bedroom units in the 629 South Riverside Apartment as well as commercial traffic from the Kum & Go. 629 S. Riverside Apartments have underground parking plus an above ground parking lot with some 85 to 90 spaces. That lot is over parked. Residents park curbside in the egresses as well as on the limited street parking. The 20 independent rental units on the street have cars over parked in the drives blocking sidewalk access while some also park in their yards. No accommodations exists for the numerous Amazon, FedEx, UPS, USPS snail, or Spee -Dee delivery trucks to temporarily park, thus blocking or squeezing egress to a single lane. Plus access for special Cambus services, trash pick-up and commercial traffic from the Kum & Go all contribute to this street fight. Access to Benton Street from Orchard Court can become a challenge and as a result many vehicles cut through the parking lot of Kum & Go. If a traffic light is added to that intersection of Benton and Orchard Ct. I believe, while necessary, will increase the traffic cutting through Kum & Go just to avoid the lights on Riverside Drive and Benton as well as Benton and Orchard. In order for rezoning to occur I believe there needs to be an additional alternate access to the proposed higher density apartments from Benton Street or elsewhere rather than forcing all traffic through Orchard Ct. In addition I think Orchard Ct. should be widened as well as accommodations made for delivery vehicles. As for any future apartments built in the proposed area, parking cannot be minimized. Cordially Richard Vest 627 Orchard Ct. 9216 Iowa City, IA Anne Russett From: Paula Swygard <pswygard@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2022 3:11 PM To: Anne Russett Subject: REZ22-0015 A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Anne - please forward to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Thank you. I apologize that I cannot attend the December 21, 2022 Planning and Zoning meeting due to the holidays. The Orchard District was not part of the original Riverfront Crossings plan. It was unnecessarily added to be a transition between higher intensity mixed use area along Riverside Drive and the single family residential homes to the west. So far, the drawings and plans presented at the Good Neighbor Meetings and with REZ22-0015 have been for multi -family housing that appears to use every inch of land to crowd in as much 3 story development as can be squeezed in. P & Z can only rezone the land and has no control over the buildings which are subject to the Riverfront Crossings form -based code. The properties between Riverside Drive to the east of Orchard Street are part of the original Riverfront Crossings Plan and there is the potential for redevelopment in the near future at the southeast corner of Orchard Street since the former Twin Image building is now for sale. If redeveloped, this too will add to the traffic difficulties already anticipated with the rezoning of the area in REZ22-0015. This area, where the former Twin Image building is located, allows 4 stories max, with no bonus height. If this area redevelops at an increased density as permitted in the original Riverfront Crossings Plan, this will add to traffic problems. Keep in mind that Myrtle and Riverside (West Riverfront Subdistrict) was recently rezoned. This project expanded the West Riverfront district and included a Comprehensive Plan amendment, a rezoning from medium density to high density, and an increase in the maximum height bonus. The original plan showed a development that included a mixed- use project with housing, retail, hospitality, and neighborhood service (2 multi -family residential housing units and townhouse -style housing) uses. However, a 650 bed (mix of 1, 2, 3 bedroom units) multi -family (student housing) development is now in the works. If the developer follows the plan as presented at the Good Neighbor Meeting for REZ22-0015, it would potentially add another 187 units (mix of 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units). All of this development doesn't happen in a vacuum, impacting just one intersection. If the Myrtle/Riverside area gets developed at that high density and the Orchard District gets redeveloped at a density that requires signalization of Orchard/Renton, and the Twin Image building gets redeveloped to increase housing density, all of a sudden the density in buildings within several blocks of each other has potentially increased immensely to include over 1,000+ more residents. The majority with cars. That's in addition to the already built apartment buildings: Riverview West (101 units built in 2016) and 627 Orchard Court (Orchard Lofts - 45 units completed in 2018). Traffic in the area is overcapacity. Per staff report, this proposal will "result in substantially more traffic generation." I fail to see how adding more capacity, with a stop light, will improve the traffic congestion already experienced. The recommendation for signalization may require intersection improvements. Recommendation 3.d states "Reconstruct Orchard Street/Court in a manner approved by the City Engineer." Orchard Streetjust underwent a 2 year reconstruction process, finally completing earlier this month, at great inconvenience to Iowa Citians, especially those living on Douglass Street/Douglass Court who had trouble accessing their homes and who put up with hundreds of cars trapped on their No Outlet streets when drivers were confused by the construction. The most recent traffic study numbers are hard to interpret BUT I can tell you what the congestion is like to experience. And the recent traffic studies have not included the traffic on Orchard, Hudson, and Miller which will all be impacted by the increase in traffic generated by all the multi -family housing being planned. Please refer to the traffic study of those streets completed way back in September 2010 by Johnson County Council of Governments (JCCOG) and a traffic study by MPOJC dated May 2012 completed by then director, John Yapp, Although old, they explored high traffic numbers and traffic calming options back then prior to Riverfront Crossings and the Prairie Hill Co -housing development. Better yet, require a current traffic study of the streets in whole Miller Orchard area instead of focusing just on the intersection of Orchard/Benton and Benton/Riverside It's a given that parking will be inadequate and I, and my neighbors, are concerned that residents of the multi -family housing proposed will store their vehicles on the residential streets of the area including Giblin, Douglass St/Ct, Hudson, and Miller. Tickets for parking violations are already a common occurrence on Orchard Court. The Hwy 1 bus route has stops in this area along Riverside at Myrtle, Kum and Go, McDonalds and near the Dairy Queen. The route will get you to/from Walmart, Aldi's, and out to Walden Square (Fareway and Hartig Drug) and downtown Iowa City. The question is whether the bus route will be able to handle an increase in demand, not only with this rezoning application, but also with the development at Myrtle/Riverside - especially if all of this is student -oriented housing. Most of the current sidewalks were built when the area was first developed and to the standards of that time. They are smaller in scale and close to the street. Retrofitting and adapting them to current standards is challenging. Having lived in the Miller Orchard neighborhood for a long time, I can attest to the fact that many people cut through private property if it is unfenced to find the quickest route available to go between the residential area and the commercial areas along Riverside and the Highway. Sometimes, even fences don't help keep people from cutting through yards. Please consider requiring Opaque Fence or Wall, S5 screening between residential properties abutting the Orchard District property for both privacy and security purposes. I think the Orchard District should never have been created as an after -thought to the original Riverfront Crossings Plan (although that ship has sailed). It is intended for LOWER DENSITY residential development. It appears plans are to stick to the 3 story limit but develop at a higher density that will result in too many people being crammed into an area that is not equipped to handle the traffic that will be generated. It's interesting that so many conditions have been put on the property with both the past rezoning request and the current one. That the rezoning would require signalization of an intersection in such close proximity to Benton/Hwy 1 and reconstruction of streets (one that just completed a total reconstruction) is cause for alarm. Thank you for your time, Paula Swygard Anne Russett From: Claire Wofford <ebullientethos@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2022 3:38 PM To: Anne Russett Cc: From: Paula Swygard; To: letsl<nf@netscape.net; CC: Aaron Van Noy; Adam Tatro; Bart Dvorak; Bill Martell; Cameron Harvey; Cathy Fell; Erin Casey, Ga King; Jane Olson; Janet Evans; Joann Whitmore; Kendall Kachura; Kevin Tobin; Linda K; Lynne Doxie; Mal Stroik; Mark Falk; Mark Keehner; Mary Turecek; Michael Sebaaly; S F; S&J E; Susannah Middaugh; Tim Tack; ZemZem; Sanaa; Shweta Subject: Rezoning for Orchard development - on to Planning and Zoning Commission ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Hello Anne, My name is Claire Wofford and I live at 315 Douglass St. I am concerned about the new Orchard development and its impact on our neighborhood. Currently there are about 24 units in that neighborhood all with ample parking. The last proposal I saw for the new housing construction increased the housing units to around 96. There is typically more than one vehicle per unit, bet's estimate there will be at least 100 additional cars that will need a place to park. I beg the P and Z commission to require any new housing units constructed to provide a FREE parking space for each bedroom, especially since these are adults living there (not families with children). We are the closest area of street parking. We have a narrow street with parking on one side of the street. We have lots of children playing in our neighborhood. The city does not want houses to add parking spaces to single family units, so most homes have one place to park. We already have people from UIHC and the University parking on our street and walking over to go to work and school, I have witnessed the catastrophe that happened with parking in the neighborhood around the new student housing called The Quarters. During the planning phase, the developers promised plenty of parking for all their units, but changed their plans halfway through the development process, plus started to charge the students for a parking place. The result is the residential area is pacl<cd with student parking, even blocking their driveways, blocking fire hydrants, etc, because the students are so desperate for a place to park. Normally Iowa City does such a greatjob of urban planning. I know that parking is one of Iowa City biggest urban planning issues. Our neighborhood is so sweet. Most all my neighbors are so warm and kind and really have created a wonderful cohesive neighborhood. Please, please, please support our wonderful little community by requiring these developers that are creating high density housing next door, to supply their occupants with plenty of free parking for themselves and their visitors. Claire Wofford 20 Dec 2022 Mark Falk 435 Douglass Court Iowa City, Iowa 52246-5405 To Iowa City Planning and Zoning -Commission: My address is 435 Douglass Court. I'm writing to comment on the proposed development adjacent to my neighborhood [Miller/Orchard]. Large apartment buildings are planned for Orchard Street and Court with insufficient free parking provided for the expected number of occupants. I must protest. Without parking provided, these "developments" will flood my nearby neighborhood with those who can't park where they live. This will significantly and negatively impact the nature of our quiet neighborhood. This is for the profit of developers, and is not in the interest the residents of the neighborhood. That profit comes at the expense of our quality of life — for which we will receive no compensation. We already have game day traffic and parking; such density which would only be exacerbated by additional apartment parking. Another "feature" of the proposed construction is the reconstruction of Orchard Street/Court "in a manner approved by the City Engineer". This is absolutely ridiculous. The street is only this fall complete after a lengthy and total reconstruction, at considerable expense and inconvenience. This is a gratuitous waste of tax dollars; surely there are better uses for city funds. If that project was not completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, why was it allowed to proceed? Orchard Street has a stop light at one end already, to add another at Benton Street would mean one could hit three stoplights in 2 blocks distance, which seems excessive. When City planners wanted to impose sidewalks in our neighborhood, our residents appealed to the City Council; we were granted an exception from this "development" plan, based at least in part on the unique nature of our neighborhood. Like a European model, the Douglass Street/Court neighborhood is one where youngsters on bikes and seniors with walkers alike roll and stroll around our circle. My partner is disabled and she uses this Circle as her main exercise venue. If sufficient free parking is not provided for the tenants of these development complexes, we will suffer significant loss of this quality of life, through no doing of our own. Sincerely, Mark Falk Anne Russett From: letsknf@netscape.net Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2022 5:19 PM To: Anne Russett Subject: RE: Orchard & Benton St. Development plan A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Anne, My name is Lindsay Park, and I live at 401 Douglass St. I met you at the first good neighbor meeting at Horn elementary, where I objected to the colossal size of the single complex and the essential removal of all existing trees and greenery that would occur if such a construction were allowed. I did not attend the November meeting, but seeing the revised plans for the development in Paula Swygard's email to us, EZ22-0015 Orchard Street rezoning, I would consider this an improvement in design and scope, and less of a decimation of existing greenspace, including the stream. There is a proposed development north of this area and north of the railroad tracks, which would improve the quality of existing large, old apartment buildings and not remove significant amounts of trees and greenery and which would replace fewer single homes. It also is well served by an existing stop light at the intersection of Riverside and Myrtle. I want to ask the council to explain why The Orchard St project would be prioritized, with an additional stoplight at Benton Street, such a short distance from the busy intersection at Riverside, when better locations for increased density like the one described above would serve that goal while causing fewer problems? Just a final note based on something I observed on the map on page 6 of the EZ22-0015 pdf. It identifies the large areas immediately north and south of Benton St. along the eastern shore of the Iowa River as Green Space. My observation of these spaces however is that they are mostly riddled with ugly stretches of concrete and asphalt ---stuff that no one would ever miss if they were to be removed for better development. These could be transformed into actual greenspace that would be excellent extensions of River Crossings Park. I understand that these lands are not owned by the developers. But I find it interesting that the targeted area for the Orchard St. development is physically more of a greenspace than either of those large plots, and I wish that more plans in general sought to enhance the best qualities such land. Lindsay Park 401 Douglass St. Iowa City, IA 52246 P.S. I did not hear any remarks by anyone at the first meeting rejecting the proposal for including affordable housing I want affordable housing to be part of any and all such developments, especially if rezoning is being pursued to make the projects qualify. Anne Russett From: Anne Russett Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 4:14 PM To: 'Jill Tentinger' Subject: RE: Orchard Court Hi, Jill — Your property at 218 W Benton Street is zoned RS -8, which is the Medium Density Single -Family Zone. This zone is mainly intended for single-family development. It does allow accessory dwelling units. Duplexes are allowed, but only on corner lots. I checked in with the City Engineer on your questions regarding the turn lane. He stated that we do not anticipate a need for additional property from adjacent property owners. As I previously mentioned, we don't have a design so we don't have specifics at this time. However, the section between Orchard Street and Riverside Drive widens to a 5 -lane section, which is more than what would be installed west of Orchard Street (likely a 3 -lane section). Regarding the sidewalk, it is possible the sidewalk adjacent to your property could change alignment, but we anticipate it would remain in the existing public right-of-way. Let us know if you have any additional questions, thanks. Anne From: Jill Tentinger <jill.tentinger@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 11:54 AM To: Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Re: Orchard Court A1 RISK ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Thanks, Anne, I appreciate the information. For our property at 218 W Benton, what is the current zoning? Because a huge, commercial, multi family will surround our property, we would like to know our options for future development. After doing some quick calculations, here is what I am coming up with if a turn lane is added approaching Orchard and how the sidewalk could play out. 1 am using the same turn lane length that approaches Riverside. And the same line coming off the sidewalk at Kum & Go. It doesn't seem like this plan will work within the current easement. Is it the City's plan to take more of our property for the sidewalks? WW A, , t- - .Lot lip '� tt 1Es"�y ,r` 1 d I W Thanks, Jill Tentinger Q 319-631.5152 `2 'iII.tentin er mail.corn on Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 10:30 AM Anne Russett <ARussett Iowa -cit .or > wrote: Hi, Jill — a Id The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the rezoning, but Council makes the ultimate decision. Last night Council set a public hearing for this rezoning for 1/24, so this rezoning will be considered by Council. I will forward your comments below to the City Council. There is no fencing that would be requ'red. The code would require that surface parking be screened from adjacent properties, but to the S2 standards (not S3). The S2 screening standards require that shrubs form a landscape screen ranging o tween 2 and 4 incorporate bermstin or malsght. And onry aias,least 1/3 of the shrubs must grow to no but those are not very common. Keep in mind thatss than 4 fwith heere are currrentalso options to incorporate concept they are not showing any surface parking. rl The proposed zoning district (RFC -O) requires a 30' setback from adjacent RS -8 zoned properties and any new buildings, so any new building would be at least 30' from your eastern and northern property line. Along the eastern edge of your property the developer would be required to install a pedestrian street, which functions as a sidewalk running north/south. It must be at least 30' wide, but not all of that area would be paved. Typically, these are 10' paved areas flanked by green space on both sides. Tree planting is required. All of this would be reviewed by the staff Form -Based Code Review Committee. I can't answer your questions on turn lanes at this point because it's too early in the development process. Public Works staff will be heavily involved in the off-site improvements, but at this point we don't have any detailed plans. Again, I'll share your comments with Council. Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks, Anne From: Jill Tentinger <iiIIAentin er mail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 8:15 AM To: Anne Russett <ARussett iowa-cit .or >; Kirk Lehmann <KLehmann iowa-cit .or > Subject: Orchard Court ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** With the holidays, 1 wasn't able to get an email submitted with my comments. I was not able to attend Dec 21st. And just now realized that the topic was deferred to Jan 4th. I was not made aware of the change. Therefore, I was not in attendance at the meeting. These are my thoughts as I watched the meeting recording. However, it did not pass and they may be moot. Do you know if the developer plans to try again with P&Z? • 1 think this is too many units for the current neighborhood. • 1 think this is too close to single-family 1 residential houses, • Could you please explain the S3 "fencing/screening" structure and where it would be required? • I don't think that the only access point being Orchard Court off of Benton Street is feasible for this many units. • I don't think a stop light at Benton and Orchard is a feasible way to manage the influx of traffic Parking will be an issue. Traffic will be an issue. Traffic will be affected on Hudson and Miller. People already use Hudson as a cut through and go way too fast! People already do not understand the traffic pattern going West on Benton St from the Riverside intersection. At peak times (which is actually all day from 8-5 at the minimum) it is near impossible to back out of our driveway. So, we obviously turn around to go out driving forward. But, left turns can take some time and patience. If this project goes through as proposed, I would rwewa° off of Bentonnow how sSt IIIaffect our front Would turn lanes side yards at 218 W Benton Street. As well as ourY approaching Orchard Ct end up being in front of our house? It is my understanding that the gravel driveway that currently provides access to the houses on Orchard Court is part of our property. How close would the new building be constructed up to our property line/driveway? What are the set back requirements for the pedestrian street that is required? How close would this be to our property line? 1 Jill Tentinger 319.631.5152 4 Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2023 Page 2 of 14 PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CASE NO. REZ22-0015: Location: North of W. Benton Street and west of Orchard Street An application for a rezoning of approximately 3.52 acres of land from Low Density Single Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -0) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -0). Russett noted the Commission deferred this item to today's meeting at the applicants request which was due to concerns with the original conditions that staff was proposing for the rezoning. Staff has revised the conditions and believes that the applicant is agreeable to them and therefore are ready to proceed. Russett began the staff report with a map of the proposed rezoning area noting the area is already developed with a mix of housing types. There's single family, duplexes, and fourplexes in this area with a total of approximately 24 dwelling units within the proposed rezoning area. Currently a portion of the area, the portion to the south, is already zoned Riverfront Crossings - Orchard, and that was rezoned back in 2018, and to the north within the subject area is zoned Single Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay. In terms of background this area was included into the Riverfront Crossings and Downtown Master Plan in 2016 when the Master Plan was amended to create the Orchard District and add it to the Riverfront Crossings District and in 2017 the Riverfront Crossings form -based code was amended to include Orchard District standards. In 2018 a portion of the subject property was rezoned to Riverfront Crossings - Orchard, subject to several conditions. Russett reminded the Commission that at the last meeting they discussed the proposed pedestrian improvements for the area along South Riverside Drive underneath the Iowa Interstate Railroad and the plan is for that to start in May of 2023. The public works department plans to request bids this winter and hopefully start construction in the spring. The applicant has held two good neighbor meetings for the proposed rezoning, the first was in September 2022 where they presented a concept that did not align with the Master Plan or the form -base code. Based on feedback from staff and members of the public, the applicant revised their concept and held a second good neighbor meeting in November 2022. Russett showed the Commission the concept that was shared at that meeting, the applicant is proposing three separate multifamily buildings. She noted there is a pedestrian street that is required as part of the regulating plan that would be part of any development within this area but there's nothing in the rezoning that would tie the developer to this particular concept. She showed the proposed elevations but again noted the rezoning doesn't tie the developer to these elevations or this concept. In terms of the proposed zoning, the Riverfront Crossings - Orchard zone is a form -based zone that regulates scale and form but there is no maximum density. It allows multifamily development with a maximum height of three stories and unlike some of the other Riverfront Crossings zones, this zone does not allow any bonus height, so the max is three stories. The zone does require a Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2023 Page 3 of 14 10 -foot setback above the second story and a 30 -foot setback from any adjacent single family. The pedestrian street runs north and south and helps to ensures smaller scale buildings as it would require the buildings to be broken up. In terms of rezoning approval criteria, Russett stated they look at two criteria, first is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and second is compatibility with the existing neighborhood. In terms of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the guiding policy document for this area is the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan that the guiding policy direction anticipates that this area will be redeveloped and will be rezone to Riverfront Crossings - Orchard zone. Some of the objectives are redevelopment that is complimentary in mass and scale to the adjacent single family and to provide the transition between the larger buildings along South Riverside Drive and the single family further west. In terms of compatibility with the existing neighborhood, the standards within the Riverfront Crossings - Orchard zone help to ensure neighborhood compatibility as there's the three-story height max, the 10 -foot setback above the second story, the increased separation from adjacent residential as well as the pedestrian street to help reduce the scale. Staff is recommending a condition that a 30 -foot public access easement be placed over that pedestrian street to ensure that it is open to the public and all pedestrians in the area. In terms of transportation and access, there was a traffic study that was completed in 2018 as part of that rezoning that looked at the intersection of Benton Street and Riverside Drive as well as the intersection of Orchard Street and Benton Street. Based on that traffic study it was determined that the Benton Street and Riverside Drive intersection would operate at an acceptable level of service. However, the Orchard Street and Benton Street intersection would operate at an unacceptable level of service during peak hours (morning hours and afternoon hours) and the 2018 rezoning estimated an additional 20 to 30 trips during peak hours. Since this proposed rezoning includes approximately 65 more residential units it would result in substantially more traffic generation than the 20 to 30 trips that were looked at in that 2018 study. Therefore, due to the traffic impacts that would be caused by the proposed rezoning, staff is recommending several conditions to address those impacts. The first is signalization of the Benton Street and Orchard Street intersection, which would likely also require some intersection improvements such as turn lanes. Additionally, staff is recommending construction of a six -foot - wide sidewalk along West Benton Street and a five -foot -wide sidewalk along Orchard Street, dedication of additional right-of-way along West Benton and Orchard Street and also the reconstruction of Orchard Street north of West Benton. Staff has had previously recommended a condition that would require the owner to re -subdivide this area through the final platting process but have removed that condition. However, staff wanted to continue to ensure that the public improvements such as the traffic signalization were installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy so that would remain one of the recommended conditions. Staff received five pieces of correspondence related to this application which were included in the agenda packet. To summarize, some of the main concerns in the letters were related to traffic, cut -through traffic, and parking. Staff recommends approval of REZ22-0015, a proposal to rezone approximately 3.52 acres of property near the intersection of W. Benton Street and Orchard Street/Court from Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -0) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -0), subject to the following conditions: Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2023 Page 4 of 14 Prior to site plan approval for any development on the property, Owner shall: c. Enter into an agreement with the City providing for the construction of public improvements or the provision of an improvements escrow prior to issuance of a building permit. In all cases, however, the public improvements shall be constructed prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy. The public improvements shall include, but not be limited to: i. 6' wide sidewalk along the W. Benton Street frontage of the subject property in a location approved by the City Engineer. ii. ii 5' wide sidewalk along the Orchard Street/Court frontage of the subject property in a location approved by the City Engineer. iii. Traffic signalization at the corner of W. Benton and Orchard Streets, and associated intersection improvements, which may include turn lanes, as approved by the City Engineer. iv. Reconstruction of Orchard Street/Court in a manner approved by the City Engineer. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any development on the property, Owner shall dedicate: d. A 30' wide public access easement over the span of the pedestrian street and dedicate right-of-way to the City, without compensation, along W. Benton Street and Orchard Street/Court. The area to be dedicated shall be up to 15' wide, depending on the design of the traffic signalization and is subject to approval by the City Engineer. e. Any additional easements necessary to comply with the City's subdivision design standards Upon recommendation from the Planning Commission, the public hearing will be scheduled for consideration by the City Council with the anticipated timeline that Council would set the public hearing on January 10 and hold the public hearing and first consideration on January 24. Craig noted she thought they were weird looking buildings but realized they have open space areas or atriums. She asked about where the parking would be. Russett replied the parking as they're proposing it now is within the one building for all the units and they're proposing 189 units but parking ratios are based on the number of beds that each of those units have and they're not that far along in the design to know how many parking spaces would be required. The required ratio is for an efficiency or a one bedroom, it's 0.75 spaces per unit, for a two bedroom, it's 1.5 spaces per unit and then three bedrooms are 2.5 spaces per unit. Any affordable units wouldn't require parking. Craig asked if there will be parking on the street. Russett replied yes but it will depend on the width of Orchard Street when it is reconstructed, if it is a 28 -foot width, it would allow parking on both sides, if it's a 26 -foot width, it would allow parking only on one side. Craig also had a question about putting a light at that intersection as it was brough up in several of the letters, she can envision people trying to come across Riverside Drive and having no place to go because there's a red light at Orchard Street, what do the traffic people say about that. Russett stated the public works and transportation planning staff have looked at this and they believe that the signalization is the best way to improve traffic in this area as there's not that Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2023 Page 5 of 14 many other options and it'll make it safer for people trying to get places, especially if they're turning left along Orchard. Right now there is a lot of traffic in that area at peak hours and this is going to add traffic. Craig agrees but still envisions people crossing Riverside going west and are going to be in the middle of Riverside Drive because they traffic's backed up at the red light at Orchard. Russett replied they will have the signalization function in a way so it is timed. Elliott asked about the process, because they're reviewing the rezoning tonight, but then when the concept comes back, is that an administrative review. Russett confirmed it would be administrative and would need to go through design review and the form -base code committee and they would need a site plan application as well as building permits which would all be administrative. She did note the applicant may be proposing a vacation of public right-of-way which would come back to this Commission. Craig asked how many units are in that existing fairly new building that is accessed in and out through Orchard Street. Russett was unsure. Hensch noted in 2018 when they rezoned the south parcel to Riverfront Crossings — Orchard but wondered if besides the rezoning and that vacation of public right-of-way have they discussed this area very much because at the time there was a big concern about traffic and the drainage area through there. Russett noted there is a City owned lot that collects water for stormwater management in the area. Wade had a question on the re -subdivide, initially was that a request and why now it got vetoed. Russett explained staff was originally proposing that the applicant re -subdivide and replat this through the final plat process and the main concern staff had was the public improvements related to traffic signalization, turn lanes and reconstruction of Orchard Court. Although public improvements don't have to come at platting, they can come at site plan review and staff's main concern was ensuring that those public improvements were in place before anyone is occupying any new building in this area. Staff now feels they have address that with the condition related to those improvements being installed and accepted by the City prior to certificate of occupancy. Wade noted at the first public meeting this might have been one larger structure and now it has been broken down into three structures. Russett confirmed that's correct. Wade asked then if the zoning would be approved is there anything that requires it to remain three structures, versus going back to a single larger structure. Russett stated the original concept also included other properties along with the one larger structure but with this rezoning that would not be allowed. Additionally, the pedestrian street is required by the zoning code and is going to have to be installed even if they reconfigure the layout a little bit. The other thing that is a constraint for this property is fire access and she doesn't see how they're going to provide fire access to the rear of these buildings. Russett reiterated this is a concept and they are not required to substantially comply with this concept as part of the rezoning, but they're definitely going to have to have the pedestrian street and ensure some type of fire access. Wade asked if there is anything that limits that pedestrian access to where it is demonstrated on this concept or could it be shifted. Russett confirmed it needs to stay there because it's on the regulating plan. Townsend noted her concern is the fact that they're not going to have any affordable housing and are going to pay the fee in lieu when this is an area where there is bus access and access to all the things people need. Is there any way they could guarantee some affordable housing in Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2023 Page 6of14 that area for this rezoning. Russett replied they are required to meet the affordable housing requirements and the City's affordable housing requirements do provide the option to pay a fee in lieu of providing it on site. So if they don't provide them on site, they would need to pay a fee to the City's affordable housing fund and it's her understanding that that's the route that they would like to take. Signs stated he believes that there was a City lot involved there and is there anything that would prohibit an additional access street from being put over that lot. Russett noted that was something that they had considered with the 2018 rezoning and with that rezoning they recommended a condition of 30 -foot -wide access easement that would be placed there. Also at that time staff felt that if they received any future development proposals for this area that a signal would be required at Benton and Orchard and now they're recommending the signal as opposed to a secondary access as they would need to get permission from the City to either acquire that lot or get an easement to provide that access. Additionally, there are some natural features in the area, there's a stream corridor and some vegetation so any additional pavement in the area would probably be more impactful to the neighbors. Staff feels the signalization is the best way to deal with the increased traffic at this time. Hensch opened the public hearing. Brian Boelk (Axiom Consultants) is representing the applicant Aptitude Development. Mike Welch with Welch Design Development is also present but a representative from Aptitude was not able to make it here tonight, but they do plan on being at the Council meeting. Boelk noted they have been working with City staff diligently to try to continue to evolve this project. As already noted, it started as one larger mass building and made quite an impact. They had a really good dialogue in the first good neighbor meeting with a lot of the residents and neighbors, a couple of which are here tonight, so that was very informative. They really took to heart the discussion with staff as well and went back to the developer, applicant and the architect and did a lot of revising over the past several months to one big large mass building into three smaller buildings. Boelk noted there was actually a reduction of 60 units during those revisions and a reduction of a little over 100 beds in that timeframe as well. Regarding the point of that second access, there was a second access originally looked at with that larger one mass building in the original concept but when they talked to City staff about that there was a lot of concern from the neighbors with having another street out that close to those residences. Their team continued to work with public works and traffic engineering, and they are confident in the traffic signalization working, and there would be timing that would be interactive with the other signal at Benton Street and Riverside Drive. There are ways to do that so that that timing is interconnected to prevent queuing within the intersection. Turn lanes was the other item that has been discussed and adding left turn lanes on Benton Street to the north and south from Orchard to help alleviate traffic flow as well that is looking to turn in either direction and keep the through street going on Benton Street. Regarding parking at the north building, it is really a parking ramp within that north building and there are three levels and then they have liner units on the outside of that. So there's a lower level parking, the second level is liner unit townhomes with parking around the outside and then a third level is just residential, no parking on that level. There are courtyards in between the buildings, those are not parking areas. While they don't have exact numbers, Boelk stated they are somewhere in 283 parking stalls area, which are accounting for what is within that parking ramp itself but that will fluctuate and will be based on the final total number bedrooms in the units, Regarding affordable housing, they're well aware of the requirement and Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2023 Page 7 of 14 will fully meet that, they have not yet finally determined how that's going to be met, the fee in lieu has been mentioned but they're still looking at options in terms of affordable housing within the building itself too so they haven't totally taken it off the table. Finally, Boelk wanted to note they totally acknowledge and accept all the conditions that have been placed on this by City staff. Hensch asked about building structure with the liner units around the parking ramp and will that look in appearance similar to the current structure that is on South Dubuque Street. Boelk confirmed it would be similar to that and with those liner units on the outside they won't know there's a parking ramp within there. Hensch asked regarding the question about parking, when will the determination be made on the width of the street, will it be 26 feet wide or 28 feet wide because it's kind of important to know with what parking options there will be. Boelk replied they've had some discussions with public works and City staff but no final determination has been made on that. He doesn't believe the applicant or developer cares either way and they will certainly design and build that to what City staff feels is necessary there. Hensch stated a couple years ago the Commission rezone the property just north of there and felt like a bait and switch occurred on that one on the rezoning based on concept presented and final platting. He asked how strongly or closely they think at this time they'll be here adhering to this current concept. Boelk acknowledged he totally understands the concern and stated Aptitude Development does multifamily housing geared towards student housing, so that is what they are proposing here. They've done it all around the nation in a number of college towns, so that is quite a bit of proof and evidence of their intent. The biggest change they've seen from what they originally wanted was that one larger mass building and just wasn't going to work here but they've been very good at continuing to downsize and reconfigure. Hensch noted the 10 foot step back on stories above second story, is that step back just on certain sides or all sides because people are rightfully always concerned about the height of a building if there are adjacent single family homes and they need to understand what that step back is and how it's going to look much different than just a three story wall next-door. Russett replied the step backs are required along the street frontages, so along Orchard and along Benton, they will also be required to do it along the pedestrian street because that's considered a street frontage, and it is also required along the residential side. Hensch asked regarding fire department access to the back of the structure with the parking ramp and the liner structures, how are they going to do that on the west side. Boelk stated they have been working with the fire marshal, they've had two or three different meetings to discuss what they're trying to do and likewise with fire hose length and fire truck access, so there might be some additional modifications in terms of length and where that fire link goes to, but they're working together to come up with the best scenario. Also in terms of design and building code, they will have all the proper sprinkler mode and standpipes and things like that within the building itself to help facilitate that fire protection that they need. Hensch noted the intersection of Orchard and Benton has been kind of a mess because there's just no traffic controls there, so with the conditions the City has listed from an engineering standpoint does Boelk agree it will improve what it there now. Boelk confirmed he agrees with that, he has looked at some of the traffic counts that were from the previous traffic study and Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2023 Page 8 of 14 sees this as an absolute improvement. Hensch remembers in the 2018 rezoning there was a lot of concern from the neighbors about that green area, the drainage area to the west side, and by adding more impervious surface will that increase water load into that drainage area. Boelk replied that will certainly need to be evaluated which they will do through the design review and the site plan process. He stated they've actually had a number of conversations with property owners along there on that stormwater management and how they are going to deal with stormwater underground so they will look at that drainage area and get the City engineer to agree with the stormwater management plan. Townsend noted at a previous meeting the Commission talked about plugins for electric cars and are they going provide such plugin as a part of these buildings. Boelk replied they've had some discussions on that with the design team and architect and applicant but can't confirm where that's landed to date. He added within that same discussion there's been talks on solar panels and things like that too on the roof. Signs asked if this is the same developer that came before this Commission in 2018, and if not has this developer developed any other properties in the Iowa City market. Boelk replied no, this developer has not done anything in this market yet, however the architect was the same architect that was part of the 700 South Dubuque project. Craig wanted to discuss parking again, she just has a huge problem that there is only one way out for all those cars and the parking won't be adequate. Will they assign the parking spaces to specific units, for example if somebody gets off work at second shift at UIHC and they drive home what if there's no place to park in that garage, where are they going to go. Boelk is unsure how the developer has handled this in the past on other buildings they've done, they might have assigned permanent parking per assigned stall, he can inquire on that. Craig noted it is less important when there's more surface streets or more places to go to park. Hensch agreed and noted his concern about the 28 versus 26 foot width for the road and the availability of on -street parking for guests. Boelk acknowledged they had some parking discussions at their meeting earlier this week with applicant and one of the things they talked about was the need to meet City code, obviously, number one with number of parking stalls to provide, but number two, that they don't want to do themselves a disservice, either with their own tenants and rentals. If they can't provide parking for their tenants, they are going to hear about it and not going to have them renting again the next year. So, they fully acknowledge and understand that and have enough projects under their belt to know and have a good feel for what that parking requirement should be and obviously, again, needing to meet City code. Hensch asked who makes the decision on the road widths, is that the City engineers, in conjunction with the applicants. Boelk replied yes, it'd be the City engineer or public works. Hensch asked what's the decision criteria. Mike Welch (Welch Design Development) noted that's a good question, there are the couple options that they've already talked about like having parking at least on the west side of Orchard Street is probably a good thing. Parking on the east side would require someone go into the Kum and Go driveway and around the other building so his guess is that's the recommendation is Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2023 Page 9 of 14 going to be that it's 28 feet wide with parking on the west side. Elliott asked where does the bus stop, is it on Benton Street or Riverside Drive. Russett noted where the bus stops on Benton Street before getting to Riverside Drive. Wade noted people are now using Kum & Go as a cut through on a red light on Riverside Drive, adding apartment structures will cause more of that, is there any thought to trying to mitigate that cut through path. Boelk agreed that's a good point, those are all private properties but if a number of people are continuing to do that and they're hitting Riverside traffic, they're not getting out any quicker so maybe they will learn that this isn't going to work well as a cut through. Beyond that he doesn't know if there's anything to help restrict that any further. Boelk noted the signalization on Orchard will help a lot with that because that's a lot of why they're cutting through now is because they can't get out onto Benton so hopefully that signal will give them those windows to do so. Paula Swygard (426 Douglass Street) stated first she doesn't envy them as this is a very complicated thing to look at, they're being asked to approve a rezoning that will have a monumental impact on this area, and they really don't have much to go on except blind faith and a list of conditional zoning agreements. Because its form -based they don't have the actual concept that they're required to stick with, and they don't have exactly how the open space requirement will be met. They do have the height, that's one good thing they know, but they don't know exactly how many units this will be nor really a concept for the mass of the building. Swygard noted one of the Commissioners just referred to this as a larger scale development, but the zoning for this area is to be a lower density area, that in the Plan and in the Code. Swygard could try to explain what it's actually like to live there and that there are times of the day when it is a little difficult to turn onto Benton Street. When she used to work she had to make a turn to the west off of Orchard. But, it works itself out, people learn to find an alternate route. There are many times the day when the signalization will actually stop traffic that's flowing because there's not that much traffic between say two and three in the afternoon but people will have to stop for traffic light because it's all coordinated, unnecessary stops. Swygard also noted one thing that has not been addressed and she's been talking about it for years and knows all of the Plans, the Southwest District Plan, the Miller Orchard Neighborhood Plan (yes they have their own plan that was approved by City Council) and Riverfront Crossings is the impact of all of this traffic that will be generated on Hudson and Miller Streets, those cut through streets that go from Benton over to the highway. People are going to come out of this development, they're going to make a right- hand turn, because they don't want to go through the highway to go over to Walmart and that's going to increase the traffic there. They've had traffic studies done already in those areas, they're old, but at that time they showed that the traffic was over what it should be, and they qualified for traffic calming which was never put in place. Regarding the affordable housing, they've kind of danced around that subject and this is taking out an affordable area of town to live in compared to other areas. But again, as typically done in Iowa City, they remove that and replace it with high rent housing. The traffic is going to be substantially more, it's going to be a lot. Also, they just went through two years of reconstructing Orchard Street which was two years of extreme inconvenience for their area. With regards to parking, it is not going to be enough, that's just the way it is. So, Swygard asks if they're going to approve this is could they please consider requiring an opaque fence or wall or S5 screening between residential properties and any development that happens, they have a lot of people that walk-through yards all the time. Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2023 Page 10 of 14 Kenneth Rew (302 W Benton Street) lives just to the west of the City lot right where the creek runs through and while this may not mean a lot to anyone they bought that house 45 years ago next week and their daughter lives right beside them and their son and his wife live across the street so that's been their little piece of heaven since they moved there and his wife still talks about how much she loves it every year. Other people said it was a nice starter home but they're finishing there no matter what. They've enjoyed the neighborhood, getting to know a few neighbors and they've loved that creek that comes and wraps around right behind their backyard and around their garage. Yes, Benton Street is busy but it's amazingly quieter back in their backyard. They have a daughter in law that has mental problems, but she relaxes back there, where she can just watch the creek, and it's just peaceful with all kinds of little wildlife and stuff. So, when they were told that they were now going to, at one point, take those three other houses and the empty lot and pave over the creek and all of that they were literally devastated. But then this last meeting, they were told that, okay, the plan is not to take those houses or the empty lot, so they do get to keep their little piece of heaven and he is hoping it stays like that. He does agree with Commissioner Townsend regarding the affordable housing, and it always has been affordable and is not rundown housing or falling down or trash, many have had different improvements over the years, so it's true that they're taking away affordable housing to put in less affordable housing. Rew acknowledges he knows that big structure is still going to happen but noted it really does feel like it totally changes the neighborhood to put that many more units in and that much more traffic in their piece of heaven. The whole thing saddens him, but he understands that's progress. He also agrees with Swygard on having a good barrier fence of some kind, because people will just run right through that empty lot and those other yards to come over to Benton Street if there's not actually a physical barrier of some kind. Paula Swygard (426 Douglass Street) wanted to add about the on -street parking, there really isn't any place to put on -street parking there, people are trying to get in and out of Kum and Go, and on the west side there's a lot of curb cuts there that would disappear. She is not sure what the current signage says about parking there but there's tons of parking tickets written there, whenever she looks at the police log for her area, it's just constant constant constant. Hensch closed the public hearing. Signs moved to recommend approval of REZ22-0015, a proposal to rezone approximately 3.52 acres of property near the intersection of W. Benton Street and Orchard Street/Court from Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -0) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -0), subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to site plan approval for any development on the property, Owner shall: a. Enter into an agreement with the City providing for the construction of public improvements or the provision of an improvements escrow prior to issuance of a building permit. In all cases, however, the public improvements shall be constructed prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy. The public improvements shall include, but not be limited to: i. 6' wide sidewalk along the W. Benton Street frontage of the subject property in a location approved by the City Engineer. iii. ii 5' wide sidewalk along the Orchard Street/Court frontage of the subject property in a location approved by the City Engineer. iii. Traffic signalization at the corner of W. Benton and Orchard Streets, Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2023 Page 11 of 14 and associated intersection improvements, which may include turn lanes, as approved by the City Engineer. iv. Reconstruction of Orchard Street/Court in a manner approved by the City Engineer. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any development on the property, Owner shall dedicate: a. A 30' wide public access easement over the span of the pedestrian street and dedicate right-of-way to the City, without compensation, along W. Benton Street and Orchard Street/Court. The area to be dedicated shall be up to 15' wide, depending on the design of the traffic signalization and is subject to approval by the City Engineer. b. Any additional easements necessary to comply with the City's subdivision design standards Elliott seconded the motion. Hensch asked about the waterway to the west and sees on the concept plan presented there's vegetation on the south side of that one structure and the west side of the other, is that going to be S3 standard. Boelk noted that is just representing proposed landscaping and screening but obviously there'll be screening requirements based on City code. He noted they have talked about fencing and some possible structural screening in addition to vegetation and have talked to the applicant about that. Hensch agrees that if they're next to a taller structure like that, screening would be nice, he's not a fan of fences and people are going to cut through because people do what they do but using natural barriers with like S3 screening throughout that area is a pretty good idea. He is in favor of this application and thinks the development this area has turned out really well when they rezoned the south portion in 2018. This is just doing the same thing consistently with the north and the traffic control measures will actually improve what's going on there because right now it can be a mess at times. He admits he is personally guilty of cutting through Miller and Hudson to get to the highway but does think this will help. The whole point of Riverfront Crossings is the concept of improving density. He really liked the liner buildings, it's been a success as seen with the structure on South Dubuque Street, so that concept has been proven to be successful and it's an innovative way to deal with parking. He would like to see them add a condition of adding screening to the areas that don't have natural vegetation that are on the areas next to single family residential. Signs is going to respectfully disagree with most of what Hensch just said and has several issues with the project. He remembers back when they first looked at rezoning this Riverfront Crossings and when they looked at the last development proposal, there's so much discussion about this being a transition area. The 2018 proposal didn't include the large section to the north and it didn't include as much on the south section either and it seems like all sections have grown significantly to where this is a pretty massive project in his estimation. He also doesn't see much green there except trees on the streets, but there is not a lot of green space. What he sees is 189 units and the number of cars and stalls. He is familiar with the liner concept of the parking garage and would agree that's much preferable to just a parking garage being visible. He Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2023 Page 12 of 14 questions the language in the Riverfront Crossings zone talking about pedestrian friendly streetscapes and street facing entries and he questions the number of street facing entries that they're going to see on this project when it's finally developed. And as previously mentioned, unfortunately this development is coming at a time when several of the Commissioners feel recently burned about a proposal that turned out to be nothing like what they were sold at the time of the rezoning so personally he's much more cautious than he was two months ago. He is also concerned about fire access because they hear so much about that also and here's another project that really doesn't have in his mind adequate fire access, there is one way in and one way out. He is very concerned about the traffic and a light here is going to be a disaster. He travels this route almost daily coming down Riverside and oftentimes turning west onto Benton and even now there are times when the traffic is basically backed up from Orchard Street to Riverside if there's a big truck or something coming out of Orchard Street or turning into Orchard Street. That backs up traffic from Orchard Street to Riverside, it's very regularly backed up there and putting another stoplight there leaves no place to go. The previous traffic study indicated that this was a challenged area already and now they're going to add another 189 units coming out of one place onto the same street. He is very concerned about traffic and traffic movement. They also need to remind themselves they just saw proposal last time or time before for another huge development on the north side of the tracks right in the same location, which is going to add traffic pressure to that entire area, in addition to this one. He also feels maybe they need to have a greater conversation about affordable housing and the loss of affordable housing. They are seeing with the development north of the tracks, with this development, with many of the developments in the Riverfront Crossings zone to be perfectly honest, a loss of what is currently affordable housing being replaced by what's not going to be affordable housing and it feels like they've all opted to pay a fee in lieu, and he's not exactly sure where that money is being spent. He hasn't seen any significant number of affordable housing units being built, so as they look at these large projects they have to respond to the community's desire for maintaining affordable housing and this is one more example of a situation where that's not happening. He is inclined to vote against this proposal at this time. Hensch stated just refresh everybody's memory any fee in lieu of has to be spent in the Riverfront Crossings area. Signs understand but asked then where is it going to happen, nobody wants to do it. Hensch replied the City will have to do that because they're the ones collecting money. Craig stated she will not be supporting this, she has too many problems with it. She drove over there again to really look at the area. The Comprehensive Plan says complimentary mass and scale and she does not believe this is complimentary in mass and scale. If it was one small, much smaller building, maybe larger in the back but the front had one story and some green space, she could see that. Additionally, it's that single in and out with hundreds of cars and no place for them to cut through to get anywhere except to Riverside Drive where they can't park. She just cannot support this. Elliott stated she is going to support it as she thinks it meets the rezoning criteria and she likes many of the features, she likes the wrap around building, and thinks they can control who parks in that facility. Wade stated he likes the three -building layout and thinks that's feasible and in the spirit of the Master Plan objectives. It's definitely a much better option than the single large unit. The Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2023 Page 13 of 14 challenges with traffic flow, that's a challenge based on location, and he doesn't see how any developer would overcome that. Traffic signaling, due to lack of options, probably is the most logical one. His reservations are similar to what has been expressed, this layout looks good however upon approval, or potential approval, any changes to this layout makes him a little cautious. Padron expressed her issue with this project is that it seems just so dense and she's having a very hard time imagining how each unit will have enough light and enough windows, it seems very dense. The close integration will cause a higher use of air conditioning in the summer and things like that don't seem sustainable. She does like the parking underneath, but if it is only going be under one of the buildings how is this going to be accessible for a person with disabilities in living in another building, they will have to park on the farther north building and then walk or take an accessible path to the other building. She is also concerned about traffic and the access for the fire trucks. There is also the concern about taking away affordable housing to build something that is not going to be affordable. Her main concern is it seems like two different areas, and not a transitional area, it goes from single family to three very dense buildings with no green space. Padron noted Mike Welch may know more about this because he's LEED certified but she thinks that LEED recommends that when buildings are so dense, and they have like a 1.54 FAR they recommend having like green roofs, but if they're thinking about putting solar panels on the roof, that's not going to be an option either. Therefore, she does not think she can support this project. Hensch clarified one point, the North Building doesn't have parking underneath it, it's actually going to be a parking ramp with liner buildings around it and on the top level there is no parking, that is where there are the atriums to provide light into the units. A vote was taken and the motion was defeated 3-4 (Craig, Padron, Signs and Townsend dissenting). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: DECEMBER 7,2022: Elliott moved to approve the meeting minutes from December 7, 2022. Signs seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: DECEMBER 21, 2022: Craig moved to approve the meeting minutes from December 21, 2022. Signs seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0-1 (Townsend abstained). PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Townsend moved to adjourn, Wade seconded, a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. f /:1 I/II1 1 T /wLIi6" - �i �; iy E i L-A 11 < f Emolds, 31 � r ►''*�wr®���� City Council Supplemental Meeting Packet CITY OF IOWA CITY February 7, 2023 Information submitted between distribution of packet on Thursday and 4:00pm on Monday. Late Handout(s): 10.a. Rezoning — W. Benton St. and Orchard St. — See additional correspondence from Mary Beth Versgrove, Richard Anderson. February 2 - Information Packet IP7 - Revised Agenda and proposed resolution February 7, 2023 City of Iowa City Kellie Fruehling From: Mary Beth Versgrove <mb.versgrove@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 4, 2023 12:12 PM To: *City Council Subject: RE: Proposed rezoning (REZ22-0015) r RISK ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system attachments. ** Members of the Iowa City Council - -# / C, (.cam Late Handouts Distributed - 24L,IZ,,� (Date) Please take extra care opening any links or I am writing to you today to ask that you VOTE NO on REZ22-0015 (Ordinance conditionally rezoning approx 3.52 acres of land located north of W. Benton St and west of Orchard St from low density single-family residential w/ a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS5) and Riverfront Crossing -Orchard (RFC -0) to Riverfront Crossing -Orchard (RFC -0). I live at 93 Prairie Hill Lane in the Prairie Hill Cohousing community adjacent to the Benton Hill Park on Miller Avenue. This proposed change will adversely impact the Miller -Orchard neighborhood and in my opinion does not meet the goals of the subdistrict. It is my understanding that the intent for this proposed development is that it be "transitional" as part of the IC Comprehensive Plan and the Riverfront Crossing Project. Density for the current location is 8 units/acre and the proposed rezoning would be -54 units/acre for The Marshall proposed by Aptitude Development. Such a difference seems anything but transitional to me. Traffic load would be impossible for those of us using W. Benton St daily to access Riverside Dr. This project would most certainly increase "cut through" traffic on both Miller St and Hudson Ave which are already experiencing too much traffic and have on -street parking. In addition, since I use the pedestrian route almost as frequently as driving, I feel that the increase in traffic would make it much more dangerous simply crossing at intersections on W. Benton St. For those biking on W. Benton where there is no bike lane or sufficient shoulder to protect both bikers and walkers, the increased traffic will be an additional burden and safety risk. Overall the proposed project seems to be inadequate in terms of access both for residents and emergency vehicles having only one entrance/exit to three buildings containing 189 units and an unknown number of inhabitants. After listening to comments at the 1/24/23 City Council meeting and the prior Planning and Zoning meeting where this proposal was rejected on a 3:4 vote, I feel that too many questions were unanswered by the development's representatives and there was too much ambiguity on specific responses deferred to city staff for later resolution. Finally, I find it unacceptable that the project does not commit to any affordable housing units and instead is willing to opt to pay a "fee in lieu of providing affordable units". Those homes that will be eliminated with this project certainly represent more affordable housing which is consistent with the current housing while also maintaining a reasonable and safe demand on those of us who own property in the neighborhood already. The scale and mass of The Marshall does not begin to match or meet the house -scaled footprint that would be complementary to the Miller -Orchard neighborhood. Please vote NO when the deferred rezoning proposal (REZ22-0015) is called for a vote. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. Mary Beth Versgrove (319) 621-7795 Kellie Fruehlin From: rander@yousq.net Late Handouts Distributed Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 7:25 AM To: *City Council ., Z Subject: No vote (Date) ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** I would vote not to rezone Orchard and Benton. Richard D. Anderson 134 Prairie Hill LN Iowa city 52246. Sent from my Wad 4 oil@ 113'� swill 1P V t :it[ at, C I T F (Obti'.A C ITY 41T City Council Supplemental Meeting Packel February 7. 2023 Information submitted between distribution of the supplemental picket on Monday and 3:OOpm on Tuesday. Late Handout(s): Planning & Zoning 10,.a. Rezoning — W. Benton St. and Orchard St. — See additional correspondence from Steve Wheeler. Protest of rezoning forms were filed by the follof.vi'ng.' Ken and Gunny Rew (x2). Joseph Nelson, Karen Eakes. Brady Cannon. Jeff Baker. Corey O'Brien, Elisa Wallick, Emily Phelan (x2), Natalie McCleary. Ryan Megeff -,Ma� February 7, 2023 City of Iowa City Kellie Fruehling From: collies.spate_Os@icloud.com Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 4:06 PM -J4 i o. o -- Late Handouts Distributed To: *City Council Subject: Orchard St. - Protest of Rezoning ^ _ -7_� (Date) AI�SK ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** To whom it may concern, I recently became aware of a proposed rezoning effort designed to create a high-density housing development on Orchard St. While I am not the owner of my home, and thus do not have the ability to legally sign a protest of rezoning, I have lived in my home in this neighborhood for over eight years and feel compelled to express my concerns about the proposed development. I understand the need to create affordable, urban housing for a growing student and community population, but I do not feel that the Orchard St. neighborhood is a suitable location for the number of units being proposed. This development would be surrounded primarily by single-family homes, and the increased noise and traffic that would result would negatively affect the peaceful enjoyment of our neighborhood. Between Riverview West, Orchard Court Lofts, and Kum & Go, the amount of traffic in the area has hit a saturation point that will be exacerbated further by creating additional high-density housing with extremely limited ingress and egress options. The increased traffic involved will certainly make the area less safe for pedestrians and vehicles alike. Additionally, the environment surrounding this area serves as a home to an abundance of wildlife that unfortunately has a rapidly shrinking amount of real estate to exist. The creek that runs adjacent to the land in question serves as a corridor for animals to travel, and the mature trees that line the creek provide a home to numerous bird and other wildlife populations. I feel that the negatives far outweigh the positives for this proposed development, and I would encourage you to please vote against rezoning from low density single-family residential in this area. Thank you much for your consideration. Steve Wheeler PROTEST OF REZONftHandouts Distributed TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA Z--7-2�5 (Date) CITY OFIOw'A CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 33D,22�, 22y l 63d, 622 ,� ty, 6s ��' �S 2. �rr;InUr�L�: U� 1) �-Z� 2�� y 1, X13 A -AD 206 , .2� W �r,� �v� ^ AA D i tdl (� 2'7- Z _001S__ 0rr7�.:,�54 This protest is signed and acknowledged with to intention that such r zoning s all not become effective exce t by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: 3 b o� -7o,d4 Property Owner(s): e h e-- ;,� ►� U e r..) _ By By:: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S):Fr STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was 4nowledged before me on 4 k b , s a o; (Date) by �u n Kew and n ..v (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). -Pa 4 0BERT H REYNOLDS o l,' Commission Number 833870 Z °' • My Commission Expires August 19, 2024 1 Notary Public in and tor the §tate of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner).. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZON Ndndouts Distributed TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA Z--7- ;. a, (Date) CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 33D,12�t ni63a, 622 ,� l� , �S �,�- 6s 2. �r�,t���L�:Kly 44D 0 \4 , &A) D ill rod / 2 This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such r zoning shall not become effective exce t by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: Prof By: By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknoyy��ledged before me on 2 J -S 7 - (Date) by K2 n P e w and (, r,n e (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). tit"� �s ROBERT H REYNOLDS Z'�' Commission Number 833870 My Commission Expires August 19, 2024 Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS /Act" PROTEST OF REZONIVE, Handouts Distributee A, TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL �- IOWA CITY, IOWA 7— 23 CITY OF row'A CI TY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposWing change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 33��22�t 22�l, 63a, 622 ,6 l�(, 6SU, ' �s 2 �r�lrtur�C+: U�n� I �-2� 2IL 11 AA'D 206 110 Wc't, OVA ." f�-�U D lit (l r� L_ 2 22-ovI � This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such r zoning s all not become effective exce t by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. r Property Address: , G i tj IV% Property wr(s)T rz-oe .4•,(, By: By: ry INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): E5 STATE OF IOWA ) - �-w JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was ackae wledged before me on �' S I v�3 (Date) by J D Se.nk � So n and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). ,�PRIA4 ROBERT H REYNOLDS o /� a� > Commission Number 833870 • • • • My Commission Expires Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa ,av,P August 19, 2024 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZOAr4C"andouts Distributed TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA Z _ ? . 27- (Date) CITY OFIOYi-'A CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 33D►22�, 22y 630, b22 ,61y � 6s 0� ' 6S z. &66 wd6 : UInch 4I 1 +25- 2��y ,X13 4D 2� 6 , 2c� 1�J ��� 4v� f -�1 a� l r� t7 Z 2Z-ovj� This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such r zoning s all not become effective exce t by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: , �� �l%n, dr Property Owner(s): 1eA►" tl EA K By:��—f � d , By:. INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): E5 STATE OF IOWA ) �� JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on Q3 (Date) by G r t - n F o, ices and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). (s ROGER REYNOL S �PP� o > Commission Number 833870 z "' My Commission Expires ,o,,,,, Au ust 19, 2024 Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner).. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZOA60andouts Distributed TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 2 7— 23 IOWA CITY, IOWA (Date) CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 33D►22�t 221 bad, b22 ,� l�{ 65 �, ' �s 2.. �r�ln�r�k4- � �-2S' 21, LI,A-AD 206,2O W c'c,t�v.� .� � AAD�(11 ro� Z 2200eF�This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such r zonll not become effective exce t by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: 7o6 tl; b t: n L)r s v t By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on _ IJrunrAA4 CA nnon and individual property owner(s)). ';�, 16-193 ,�a�Acs ROBERT N REYNOLDS Z` Commission Number 833870/� My Commission Expires IOWP.August 19, 2024 Notary Public in and for the A��State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as _ (Date) by (name(s) of (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZ6�&dauts Distributed TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA '2---1-21j (Date) CITY OFIOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 33�►22�, 22�(� 63d, 622,6 ty, 65 �1' This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such r zoning shall not become effective exce t by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: Property Owner(s): JA- 4:f AT A t'jr INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument ntt was4nowledged before me on _ Gt kt y— and individual property owner(s)). /S/Z3 11A,S' ROBERT ""1110111 jr,� J _ Commission Number 833870 .,, . My Commission Expires Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa August 19. 202: AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as _ (Date) by (name(s) of (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS _f a _ (Date) by (name(s) of (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZOW&douts Distributed TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA 2 — 7— 23 4t CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the prcQ 4zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 33Dt2U,22'�1 baa, 622,E l�, 6s �I�' �is z. brclnard('4-. U� 1 � IS" 2��y A -AD 206 OLI W oewio' ��-/U� (ti( (��' ,,// i� �Z4effectilv?e-UI� 0[6 k,; This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such r zoning t all not becomeexce t by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: 2 iJy �✓ 2!l� 10 V1 / ;:7 Property Owner(s): Q V By: ca 100, C—' t By: ._.i �.� j7j INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): F 7.1 ` STATE OF IOWA ) �" JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was ackngwle ed before me on� S 12,3 (Date) by r� ) ' i and (name(s) of individual propertyowner(s)). 11. IA4 ROBERT N REYNOLDS/� Commission Number 833870 y My Commission Expires Au ust 19. 202a Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZOMdandouts Distributcu TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA 2--7— 23 (Date) i CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 33D,22�, 691 �r�►u���k U�� �2� Z��y �, X13 A—AD 206 2O \4 t��7 4v� � /�—�1 � rc�I r��, ,,!! s � � z 2.2—vv'� o This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such r zoning s1iall not become effective exce t by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: S 3 q b t k ve S4 - Property Owner(s): By: LIM oS INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrurnwas ackno ledged before me on _ C L S A W (l qac. {C and individual property owner(s)). -1 IS -1 a3 �pP�p[S ROBERT H REYNOLDS oD commissian Number 833870 ? • •• • r:',G•i•:::nis19. Expires Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as _ (Date) by (name(s) of (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner).. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS ._ _ (Date) by (name(s) of (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner).. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS Late Handouts Distributed PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA (Date) CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 33D,22�, - 692- &66 orj��-: U�� I }'24effectiv? 22- A -AD 206 , 2� 1� r�t,a�v� S , f. A D 4111 o-/ G � !_ � Of� Or6This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such r zoning shall not becomeexce t by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: Prol M INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was ac owledged before me on 1 (Date) by f'11 I' Llok) if�,j,q 1A, LLC and (name(s) of individual -property owner(s)). �Pa"4a ROBERT H REYNOLDS1�a� n o Commission Number 833870 N z My Commission Expires �pyrP August 19, 2024 Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner).. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS r. This instrument was ac owledged before me on 1 (Date) by f'11 I' Llok) if�,j,q 1A, LLC and (name(s) of individual -property owner(s)). �Pa"4a ROBERT H REYNOLDS1�a� n o Commission Number 833870 N z My Commission Expires �pyrP August 19, 2024 Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner).. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZ §;Odouts Distributed f TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 2 7 — IOWA CITY, IOWA (Date) CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 33,1U, 2211 63,D, 4 -LZ It 11 i 6s - 6 s Z S' 2'`i , -K13 4 v D 2 0� 1 L_ V v 1% f' L'1 �V 1 St, A V D l a l PoP, P, / 'CA � L,2 _ v V 1 .i DIC hC�.i_ t 5j This protest is signed and acknowledged with t) e intention that such r zoning shall not become effective exce t by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: Property Owner(s): LIM IIn INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was ackn wledged before me on _ F11; %Jtir 1� fJ.. Ian L L - . and individua property owner(s)). I'100-3 ROBERT H REYNOLDS a �" Commission Number 833870 I. ,,, . My Commission Expires Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa ,or.. Au ust 19, 2024 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as _ (Date) by (name(s) of (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZ04poandouts Distributed C-, TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA (Date) CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 33t�►22�, 22y baa, X22 ,� t�, 6S zi ' A -AD 206 , 2O W ewiok "" , AAD ul1 rod ,! t"I�be�come222-001 s- OIL kc;' i This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such r zoning sHall not effective exce t by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: 710 �1S1► I i ✓) Property Owner(s): Naga i Irri By: r By:; C; E5 INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S):" STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on J hJ23 (Date) by f',1,�-I �,1 e f Y� c C Ie c: and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). P131A�S ROBERT H REYNOLDS 0 Commission Number 833870 My Commission Expires August 19, 2024 Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS Late nanaouts Lhstributec, PROTEST OF REZONING Z-7-23 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA Gate)-- CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 33�,22�, 22y 63a, b22 ,6 t�{ i �S �► " 6S �. br6lnu��6: US Vbeco�me 2S- � ' �, X13 A -AD 206 , 2c� 1�J t�t7 4v� . AA 1) SII roP ,! �22—vv� This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such r zoning shall noeffective exce t by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. n Address: j Prop ) Prop 1 wner(s):; By: w By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) X_ JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This insnment was acknowledged before me on I I a� (Date) by '\ �1 a (1 f r ' 1 E and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). R'� ROBERT H REYNOLDS 0 Commission Number 833870 My Commission Expires August 19, 2024 Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) .. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS #1 C.C,-- PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 33t�►22�,22ylbad,622,�t�(i6S0►"6s2 AA iD Gtl( �r fk ; � Tbeco�m�eeffe 2"UOi1 A ll'' This protest is signed and acknowledged with t e intention that such r zoning sl'fall not ctiveexce t by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: Property Owner(s): By: By: , --- INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on _ and individual property owner(s)). Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on 02-07-2,02-3 (Date) by GMikA ph�l (name(s) of person(s)) as ( yN pa.Yt U Ow Iter (type of authority, such as ldficer, trustee) of (name of roperty owner . ro�aWL Mazahir Salih Commission Number 827136 * * My Commission Expires ipWp October 27, 2023 No for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA -NDS )q/6.Cr- PROTEST OF REZONING i TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL �` IOWA CITY, IOWA �,,&,.__', - CITY OFIOW,4 CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 33t�►22�122y l b3�, b22 ,� t� GS �,�' �S 2. �rrl�►�arz:�C�-: a� I2S y tj3 1410 206 2� t�t.i�. l A/A D Gi l i 60 fi'• ,/ L- Z 22-0Ui � Ok6; 54 This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such r zoning shall not become effective exce t by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: Z� W . Bembn—S f. Property Owner(s): 71WYAI axe uG roe"R�Arf Mazahir Salih By: ._ �t •• * ber 827136 By: �OWP My Commission Expires Octobe , 2023 INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on individual property owner(s)). and Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: - --r't ('Hate) by (name(s) of This instrument was acknowledged before me on 01-01-20-L3 (Date) by C i � e.I ra," (name(s) of person(s)) as Co 0 om O Wq-r (type of authority, such a fficer, trustee) of Pe,n n Ln LLC-- (name of property owner).. o.PA'"rs� Mazahir Salih ** Commission Number 827136 Commission Ex /OWN MY October 27, 2023res Notary Publig,ifi and gElhe State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA ^ F I VV tJ CITY OF IOWA CI TY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 33fl►22�, 22y l b3�, b22,� 1y bs �►� �s 2. �rCInur�L : U��ir.� i �-ZS 91, -KI? 4A!'D 2() 6 11 W . AAD ull rod, ,/ i �, e__21 -00I'S Ok6.J5i This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such r zoning shall not become effective exce t by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: �% L/ .�, -ri PropeO co By' 5064.. ROBERT H REYNOLDS --?„ r ;. ; _s o Commission Number 833870 By: s My Commission Expires r August 19, 2024 k .,. Ln INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S):rev STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on and individual property owner(s)). Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): _ (Date) by (name(s) of STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknow e f re me on r� (Date) by �al (n e(s) ofperson(s)) as '4 „ d ii,,,,,; JV4 ,,�� 9 (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of 4 -e ell % %-V (name of property owner) . ROBERT H REYNOLDS i Commission Number 833870 My Commission Expires AWP August 19, 2024 -6� t4_ - L Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA - NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA. CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 33Dti2U, 22y,63d,0k- ' 692. brc� d- C'� Uf/vj II 4ADs This protest is signed and acknowledged with tlfe intention that suc r zoning slriall not become effective exce t by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: -2 2-0 J11° 46e 4_ rO^ Property Owner(s): ao :I 06 /1 n " By: ��CD ByIj INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): 7� _r STATE OF IOWA ) Cn JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: �n ry This ins ent was ac owledged before me on !� �k K (Date) by V+ dk b rna n and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). ROSER�" T H RE'Y 0 Commission Number 833810 i My Commission Expires Au ust t9, 2024 Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) .. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa prig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA - NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA ':• _:_.._._ . _ CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: at4d ` 11 �-2,S 2�-�-� .* ti �c l rod i - 2z�ov� oIzw.)5i This protest is signed and acknowledged wi h t e intention that suc r zoning s all not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with. Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: �?` Z, a i^/, 6e- r,j 0 N Property Owner : 6790/-9_1 L -L -G By: tiP By: x INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on _ and individual property owner(s)). Commission Number 833870 ._— My Commission Expires Auaust 19. 2024 Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowl (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by ___ (name(s) of d before me on � � �� Z3 (Date) by 0 A V, d Roma 1 f r «'r- (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of M.- h (name of property owner) .. cps.+ ce ROBERT H REYNOLDS x° Commission Number 833870 My Commission Expires August 19 2024 Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS w r,a (Date) by ___ (name(s) of d before me on � � �� Z3 (Date) by 0 A V, d Roma 1 f r «'r- (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of M.- h (name of property owner) .. cps.+ ce ROBERT H REYNOLDS x° Commission Number 833870 My Commission Expires August 19 2024 Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS LIP 71 ly CL D yi�o -T, in 4 41 E 0 4W ww vg:[* r.� '606 +610 1Z 614 _a�� IH -H -l0.0--, FEB 0 7 2023 City Clerk Iowa City, Iowa -.. 173 184 533 H `_ 245 223 spa F 603 - '535 - 107 r / 134r 6" +71126 --... 538 ,537 6( 191 - r 73 r—r---• t-' �. 735 r-740` 612 951 I 606 961 I _ r- --6 _r--- .739 ♦ 614 736 701 702 T- x622 629 627 f `746_" 733' 732 i0�5 Q X630 �4$1-c/ 710 ct 63 70D 1_730 713 714 �^ 701 6 r 704 729 723 _ 1 1 r• 717 718 330 +� 224 501 01 710 ` 727 719 720 721 722 f-""— 7 7( 612 725 s X741 F77 t - r.. r- 731 506' 446 23361— 320 312 302' 224 218 206 - W Benton St _ r- 325 3 (+ 2211 Tl 8 9 337 229 31 121 801 339 r r" 811 r , 815 r 831 824 E817 841 y, r p 418 r 402 326 r 314 302r ,901 850 909 915 Douglass St ^ 0 920 1 1 r-- Highway 1 W Johnson Johnson County GIS 0 0.03 0.06 County Web Printing Development:Stre mi 1 inch = 293 feet Printed 2/7/2023 6 173 184 �' rS 1 38 154 - 107 r / 134r 6" +71126 ; 6 + 191 - r 73 r—r---• 83 7 9 612 951 56Z _ 606 961 .580 560 600 1 1 r-- Highway 1 W Johnson Johnson County GIS 0 0.03 0.06 County Web Printing Development:Stre mi 1 inch = 293 feet Printed 2/7/2023 6 DEFEATED Prepared by: Emani Brinkman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5230 (REZ22-0015) Ordinance No. An ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 3.52 acres of land located north of W. Benton Street and west of Orchard Street from Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -0) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -0) (REZ22-0015). Whereas, the applicant, Aptitude Development, has requested a rezoning of property located north of W. Benton Street and west of Orchard Street from Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -O) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -O); and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that this area is intended for redevelopment that is complementary to the surrounding single-family neighborhoods in mass and scale and acts as a transition between the larger -scale development along S. Riverside Drive and the single-family neighborhoods to the west; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended denial due to concerns regarding compatibility with the adjacent single-family neighborhood and traffic impacts; and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2022) 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, the rezoning creates a public need that requires improvements at the intersection of Orchard Street and W. Benton Street in the form of traffic signals, and associated improvements such as turn lanes, as well as the reconstruction of Orchard Street; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need that requires improvements to pedestrian connectivity, including the installment of sidewalks along W. Benton Street and Orchard Street, a public access easement over the pedestrian street, and the dedication of additional public right-of- way; and Whereas, the owner, M&W Properties, LLC, and the applicant, Aptitude Development, have agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate development in this area of the city. 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, property described below is hereby reclassified to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -0): ALL OF LOTS 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 8 OF ORCHARD COURT SUBDIVISION, AND ALL OF LOTS 1 THRU 5 OF BLOCK 4 OF CARTWRIGHT'S ADDITION TO IOWA CITY, AND VACATED ALLEYS ADJOINING BLOCK 4 OF CARTWRIGHT'S ADDITION TO IOWA CITY, AND ALL THE VACATED RIGHT OF WAY OF SOUTH RIVERSIDE COURT WEST OF ORCHARD STREET, ALL IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS: Ordinance No. Page 2 BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 4 OF SAID ORCHARD COURT SUBDIVISION THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 4 S08°00'47"W, 114.47 FEET TO THE NORTH ROW LINE OF ORCHARD COURT; THENCE 138.67 FEET ALONG SAID ROW LINE ON A 50.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY (CHORD BEARING S17059'46"W, 98.31 FEET); THENCE 10.80 FEET ALONG SAID ROW LINE ON A 15.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY (CHORD BEARING S41°01'43"E, 10.57 FEET); THENCE 74.18 FEET ALONG SAID ROW LINE ON A 157.43 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY (CHORD S37°05'29"E, 73.49 FEET); THENCE 80.23 FEET ALONG SAID ROW LINE ON A 120.90 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY (CHORD BEARING S72°55'36"E, 78.77 FEET); THENCE ALONG SAID ROW LINE N88045'17"E, 25.33 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF ORCHARD COURT; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE S03034'02"E, 114.21 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE S03036'17"E, 170.87 FEET TO THE NORTH ROW LINE OF WEST BENTON STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE S88045'44"W, 152.48 FEET; THENCE NO3°33'33"W, 142.68 FEET; THENCE S89010'09"W, 217.59 FEET; THENCE NO3°16'18"W, 159.64 FEET; THENCE N89049'34"W, 39.75 FEET; THENCE N00°38'36"W, 260.20 FEET TO THE SOUTH ROW LINE OF THE IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD; THENCE 308.52 FEET ALONG A 2100.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTH (CHORD BEARING N85°21'59"E, 308.24 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE PROPOSED REZONING AREA IS 3.52 ACRES. Section II. Zoning Map. The building official 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 the ordinance as approved 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 record the same in the Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance, 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 day of 2023. Mayor Ordinance No. Page 3 Attest: City Clerk Approved/by G City Att ney's Office (Sara Hektoen — 01/19/2023) It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS First Consideration Vote for passage NAYS: Taylor, ABSENT: Alter Bergus Dunn Harmsen Taylor Teague Thomas 2/7/2023 : AYES: Alter, Bergus, Harmsen, Teague Thomas, Dunn ABSENT: None Second Consideration Vote for passage: Date published Preparod by: Emanl Brinkman, Planning Intern, 410 t=. Washington, i0" City, !A 52240 (319) 356-5230 (REZ22-0015) Conditional Zoning Agreement This agreement is made among the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (here'naf;er referred to as "City'), M&W Properties LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Owner"), and Aptitude Development (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant"), Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 3.52 acres of property located north of W. Benton Street and west of Orchard Street, legally described below; and Whereas, Applicant has requested the rezoning from Lova Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPDIRS-5) and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -O) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -0); and Whereas, the Comprehensive Pian indicates that the subject area is appropriate for redevelopment subject to compliance with the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public: need that requires improvements at the intersection of Orchard Street and W. Benton Street in the form of traffic signals, and associated improvements such as turn lanes, as well as the reconstruction of Orchard Street; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need that requires improvements to pedestrian connectivity, including the installment of sidewalks along W, Benton Street and Orchard Street, a public access easement over the pedestrian street, and the dedication of additional public right-of- way; and Whoreas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended denial due to concerns regarding compatibility with the adjacent single-family neighborhood and traffic impacts; and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2022) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulatiors, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and Whereas, The Owner and .Applicant agree to develop this property in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Conditional zoning Agreement. Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: M&W Properties, LLC is the legal title holder of the property legally described as: ALL OF LOTS 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 8 OF ORCHARD COURT SUBDIVISION, AND ALL OF LOTS 1 THRU 5 OF BLOCK 4 OF CARTWRIGHT'S ADDITION TO IOWA CiTY, AND VACATED ALLEYS ADJOINING BLOCK 4 OF CARTWRIGHT'S ADDITION TO IOWA CiTY, AND ALL THE VACATED RIGHT OF WAY OF SOUTH RIVERSIDE COURT WEST OF ORCHARD STREET, ALL IN THE CITY OF IOWA CiTY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 4 OF SAID ORCHARD COURT SUBDIVISION THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 4 S08°00'47"W, 114.47 FEET TO THE NORTH ROW LINE OF ORCHARD COURT; THENCE 138.67 FEET ALONG SAID ROW LINE ON A 50.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY (CHORD BEARING S17°59'46"W, 98.31 FEET); THENCE 10.80 FEET ALONG SAID ROW LINE ON A 15.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY (CHORD HEARING S41°01'43"E, 10.57 FEET); THENCE 74.18 FEET ALONG SAID ROW LINE ON A 157.43 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY (CHORD S37°05'29"E, 73.49 FEET); THENCE 80.23 FEET ALONG SAID ROW LINE ON A 120.90 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY (CHORD BEARING S72°55'36"E, 78.77 FEET); THENCE ALONG SAID ROW LINE N88045'17"E, 25.33 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF ORCHARD COURT; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE S03°34'02"E, 114.21 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE S03°36'17"E, 170.87 FEET TO THE NORTH ROW LINE OF WEST BENTON STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE S88°45'44"W, 152.48 FEET; THENCE NO3°33'33"W, 142.68 FEET; THENCE S89°10'09"W, 217.59 FEET; THENCE NO3'16'18"W, 159.64 FEET; THENCE N89°49'34"W, 39.75 FEET; THENCE N00°38'36'W, 260.20 FEET TO THE SOUTH ROW LINE OF THE IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD; THENCE 308.52 FEET ALONG A 2100.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE 'NORTH (CHORD BEARING N85°21'59"E, 308.24 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE PROPOSED REZONING AREA IS 3.52 ACRES. 2. Owner and Applicant acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the Comprehensive Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2022) 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 satlsy public needs caused by the requested change. 3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner and Applicant agree that development of the subject property will conform to all requirements of the Zoning Code, as well as the following conditions: A. Prior to site plan approval for any development on the property. Owner shall: i. Enter into an agreement with the City providing for the construction of public improvements or the provision of an improvements escrow prior to issuance of a building permit. In all cases, however, the public improvements shall be constructed prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy. The public improvements shall include, but not be limited to: a. 6' wide sidewalk along the W. Benton Street frontage of the subject property in a location approved by the City Engineer. b. 5' wide sidewalk along the Orchard Street/Court frontage of the subject property in a location approved by the City Engineer. c. Traffic signalization at the corner of W. Benton and Orchard Streets, and associated intersection improvements, which may include turn lanes, as approved by the City Engineer. d. Reconstruction of Orchard Street/Court in a manner approved by the City Engineer. B. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any development on the property, Owner shall dedicate: i_ A 30' wide public access easement over the span of the pedestrian street and dedicate right-of-way to the City, without compensation, along W. Benton Street and Orchard Street/Coin'. The area to be dedicated shall be up to 15' wide, depending on the design of the traffic signalization and is subject to approval by the City Engineer. ii. Any additional easements necessary to comply with the City's subdivision design standards. 4_ Owner and Applicant acknowledge the requirements of Iowa City Code of Ordinances 14-2G-8, which requires the execution of an affordable housing agreement to satisfy the affordable housing obligations through the provision of on-site owner -occupied dwelling units, on-site rental dwelling units, and/or the payment of a fee in lieu of the remaining dwelling units not provided on-site or as otherwise agreed to between Owner and the City. 5. The concitions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2022), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change. 6. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deerned to be a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the City of Iowa City. The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties. In the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all development will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. 7. Nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 8. This Conditional Zoning 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 Applicant's expense. Dated this . _ day of _ City of Iowa City Bruce Teague, Mayor Attest: Kellie Eruehling, City Clerk Approved by: City Attorney's Office , 2023. NI&W Properties LLC By: -- Ryan Wade Aptitude Development By City of Iowa City Acknowledgement: State of Iowa ) ss: Johnson County ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2023 by Bruce Teague and Kellie Fruehling as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City. Notary Public in and for the State of lovra (Stamp or Seal) M&W Properties LLC Acknowledgment: Prop, I State of County o T is record was acknowledged before me on . •,jl {AA "al 0' _, 2023 by r , (name) as C'Y' _ (titley of M&W Properties LLC Ack owledgement: STACIE S U fONO Commaslon Numntir 106031 My Comm*Won Expor" " August 29, 2023 Aptitude Development Acknowledgment: '1 No ary Pubiic in and fcolie State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) My commission expires: 6 9, 2q - Z0Z 3 State of WC40 3-tv-3� County of Y� C/o- This record was acknowledged before me on�2023 by Qw.*&.v% EO , (name) as " Vins}ke.jt- _ _ (title) of Aptitude Development. Notary Public n and fco the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) My commission expires: i 112 12S CAVA IM M 1 Ccxnmission S 50143323 ^^mmMion Expk% 11117J= Kellie Fruehling From: megan b <speed.bumps@hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2023 3:39 PM To: *City Council Subject: Rezoning plans at Benton/Orchard AA RIi K ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** To whom it may concern, I live in the Douglass St. Circle near the proposed housing project and i ask that this be voted down. The street traffic at Orchard Benton intersection is already a problem and the light at Riverside a block further already takes forever. Adding a light a block away at Prchard Benton will seriously back up Benton St., a main vein of traffic moving to the Coralville area and this will cause major traffic jams for a great many people. Please do not consider allowing a large construction project that will flood our small neighborhood with students and their vehicles. Its already bad enough on game days here. Respectfully, Megan Blaue 3193833317 Kellie Fruehlin From: letsknf@netscape.net Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 3:32 PM To: *City Council Subject: EZ22-0015 Orchard Street rezoning proposal R15�t ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** City Council Members, I am writing to voice my opposition to the possible rezoning and approval of a large housing development, EZ22-0015 Orchard Street, in our neighborhood. Though some improvements have been made to the original plans, such a large development on this particular site would still be detrimental to the neighborhood mostly because of the highly restricted access to the area ( a single short street to the south), and the increase in traffic congestion that would result on Benton St. and the additional traffic lights being added a mere half block from the Benton and Riverside intersection. Such a large project should only be considered for land allowing access from as many directions as possible, not in a severely confined cul de sac below such a monumental extended railroad plateau. Furthermore, this land contains the most dense and widespread tree cover in the entire Miller Orchard neighborhood, and that growth has been important in muffling the loud sounds of the frequent train traffic. A treeless Orchard St. would be a painful irony. I understand also that parking charges to residents in the development will very likely cause some to choose instead to store their cars along surrounding streets. While increasing housing density in urban areas is an admirable goal, too much of a burden is being targeted in such a small territory in too short of a time. Another project, just South of Myrtle Street, is already going to be built immediately north of this very same stretch of railroad plateau (though with much better traffic access and less destruction of trees and greenery). The City would be wiser and fairer to wait at the very least for the true effects of that development to be experienced after its completion, and not to shove through the Orchard St. project now. Sincerely, Lindsay Alan Park 401 Douglass St. Iowa City, IA. Kellie Fruehling From: Paula Swygard <pswygard@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 8:03 AM To: *City Council Subject: Rezoning at Orchard and Benton 1 ZRS ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Members of the City of Iowa City Council, Some say that this is is just a rezoning The concept presented is rough and the applicant doesn't have to adhere to it. Aptitude Development specializes in student housing. It is reasonable to assume that they will standardize their final project and reuse designs from their previous developments. httpss:llwww.aptitudere.com/ Because they don't define width and depth, the Form -Based Subdistrict Standards for the Orchard District are inadequate to meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan leaving "lower intensity," "transition" and "complementary in mass and scale to the adjacent single family neighborhood" open to interpretation. Fix this How can City Council ensure development meets the vision and goals of the Comp Plan(s) if it's none of your business what develops there? Signalization of Orchard and Benton • Will impact the whole Iowa City Community • No current, understandable traffic numbers have been given. No explanation of how estimated traffic numbers were reached • No public input from MPOJC on feasibility • Too close to a major intersection at Benton/Riverside. What are those traffic numbers? Also affects Orchard/Hwy 1 intersection • Will be unnecessarily bogged down at Orchard/Benton in stoplights during non -peak hours • Will increase cut through traffic at Kum & Go, Riverside West apartments, and on Hudson and Miller which already qualify for traffic -calming Miller Orchard Neighborhood • An area in flux with a lot of rental housing. Lots of students rent our neighborhood homes, Orchard Lofts, Riverside West, Old Gold Apartments and Michael Street Apartments ■ Stated goals include attracting permanent residents and stabilization ■ The UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership invested over $500,000 over 5 years in our neighborhood to help stabilize the area. And it has helped! This proposal is counter to that investment and stabilization • Affordable housing — they have stated they will pay the fee -in -lieu instead of replacing affordable housing removed • Open space for quality of life —fee in lieu of? Parking • Developer plans to charge residents for parking ■ Those residents will search for free parking on neighborhood streets. Parking allowed on only one side of streets in this area • My guests and I will now have to compete for parking in front of my house • I will have to deal with unplowed streets and my leaves that aren't vacuumed because of cars parked/stored by residents of this development • Will increase cut through foot traffic in the neighborhood. It's only about 1/3 of a mile walk to get to any point in the neighborhood. Please don't turn my neighborhood into a parking lot for this development. Please adhere to the vision and goals of all the Comp Plan(s) that apply to Miller Orchard and to the City. Map of the Miller Orchard Neighborhood d a Gt$e�*ooa RS8 oWRIvers;ME't RM2n a W Benton 5t 1 �a RS8 a Douglass St "_Hill Ln c I Douglass Ct Pi Thank you for your time, Paula Swygard 2 Item Number: 10.b. CITY OF IOWA CITY Z%--_ �=Pa COUNCIL ACTION REPORT February 7, 2023 Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 31.2 acres of property located east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8). (REZ22-0012) (Second Consideration) Attachments: REZ22-0012 Staff Report Packet 12-21-2022.pdf 2022-12-21 P&Z Final Minutes Ordinance & CZA Council correspondence - Michael Welch STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ22-0012 Western Home GPD of Iowa City GENERAL INFORMATION: Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner Date: December 21, 2022 Applicant/Owner: Pat O'Leary Western Home Independent Living Services, Inc. 5703 Caraway Lane Cedar Falls, IA 52246 Contact Person: Michael Welch Welch Design and Development michael@welchdesigndevelopment.com Requested Action: Rezoning from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8). Purpose: Construction of a senior living community with 35 single-family homes, 8 duplex units, 38 multi -family units, 20 townhome-style units, and 1 assisted living building with 32 beds Location: Location Map: East of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane Size: 31.2 Acres Existing Land Use; Zoning: Surrounding Land Use; Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: District Plan: Neighborhood Open Space District: Public Meeting Notification: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: K Undeveloped/Vacant Open Space; Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) North: Residential; Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) South: Residential & Institutional; Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Low Density Multi -Family (RM -12) East: Residential; Rural Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RR-1) West: Undeveloped/Vacant Open Space; Low Density Multi -Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-12) Residential, 2-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre None NW1 Property owners and occupants within 500' of the property received notification of the Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting. A rezoning sign was posted onsite at Gathering Place Lane. October 12, 2022 The applicant waived the 45 -day review period. The applicant, Western Home Independent Living Services, is requesting approval for the rezoning of 31.2 acres from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and Low Density Single - Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density Single - Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8) for land located east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane. The Preliminary Planned Development Overlay and Sensitive Areas Development Plan is provided in Attachment 3. The proposed development would allow for the construction of a senior living community with 35 single-family homes, 8 duplex units, 38 multi -family units, 20 townhome-style multi -family units, and an assisted living building with 32 beds. Elevations are provided in Attachment 4. The plan proposes improving Camp Cardinal Road to City standards and extending Deer Creek Road to Gathering Place Lane. This block would contain the 32 -bed assisted living building and 20 townhome-style units with a shared alley and parking. From the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Gathering Place Lane, the plan proposes to further extend Gathering Place Lane through the subject property in an arc to the east, terminating at a temporary turnaround on the north side of the St. Andrews Presbyterian Church property to the southeast. The multifamily buildings (which include 38 multi -family units, a clubhouse, and neighborhood commercial uses) are on the west side of this extension of Gathering Place Lane. Two cul-de-sacs and a loop street are shown north of the extension with 8 duplex units at some corners and the remainder consisting of single-family homes. 3 Additional single-family homes and a stormwater retention basin are shown south of the extension. The site contains regulated sensitive features including slopes, woodlands, a stream corridor, and wetlands. The Preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan (SADP) proposes reducing wetland buffers, which requires a Level II Sensitive Areas Review. In a Level II Sensitive Areas Review, the SADP is evaluated as a planned development that must comply with the applicable approval criteria set forth in Article 14-3A "Planned Development Overlay Zone (OPD)" of the Iowa City Zoning Code. Good Neighbor Policy: The surrounding property owners were notified of the proposed rezoning. A Good Neighbor meeting was held at St. Andrews Presbyterian Church on August 25, 2022. A summary of the meeting is included in Attachment 5. ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: The northern portion of the subject property (approximately 27 acres) is zoned Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS). This zone is intended for areas of managed growth in which agricultural and other nonurban land uses may continue until the City is able to provide services and urban development can occur. The interim development zone is the default district to which all undeveloped areas should be classified until City services are provided. The southern portion (approximately 4 acres) is zoned Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5). This zone is primarily intended to provide housing opportunities for individual households and to create, maintain, and promote livable neighborhoods. The code allows some flexibility of dwelling types to provide housing opportunities for a variety of household types and some nonresidential uses that contribute to the livability of residential neighborhoods, such as parks, schools, religious institutions, and daycare facilities. However, nonresidential uses should be planned and designed to be compatible with the character, scale, and pattern of the residential development. The OPD overlay permits flexibility in the use and design of structures and land in situations where conventional development may be inappropriate and where modification to requirements of the underlying zone will not be contrary to the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code, inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, or harmful to the surrounding neighborhood. Proposed Zoning: The applicant is requesting to rezone the area (31.2 acres) to Medium Density Single -Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8). The purpose of this zone is primarily to provide for the development of small lot single-family dwellings. Due to impacts to the sensitive areas, an OPD is required, which also allows for a mixture of uses, provided that additional criteria in section 14-3A-4 and 14-3A-5 of the Code are met. The OPD also allows the applicant to request waivers for certain zoning standards. In this case, a mix of single-family, duplex, and multi -family residential uses, in addition to commercial uses, are proposed which requires careful attention to site and building design to ensure compatibility with the character, scale, and pattern of the residential development. The applicant is also requesting a rear setback reduction on the north property line for one single-family home, a front setback reduction for several homes around the bulbs of Camille Court and Clara Court, a front setback reduction for a few townhome units, an on-site parking reduction for the neighborhood commercial use, and a height increase for the multi -family and mixed use buildings. These are discussed in detail below. 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 Code. 1. The density and design of the Planned Development will be compatible with and/or complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass and scale, relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout. ri Density: The applicant is requesting to rezone to OPD/RS-8, which allows for a density of 8 dwelling units per net acre of land area (total land minus street rights-of-way). The proposed 35 single-family homes, 8 duplex units, 38 condominium -style units, and 20 townhome-style units add up to 101 total units across the 27.02 acres of net site area, which equals 3.7 dwelling units per acre. A building with 32 assisted group living beds is also proposed but does not count towards the density requirement. Overall, the proposed plan complies with the planned development density requirements for an RS -8 base zone. Land Uses Proposed: The applicant is proposing a mix of single-family, duplex, townhome, multi- family, and assisted living residential structures on three shared lots, in addition to a small neighborhood commercial use. The proposed development is intended to be a senior living community. Based on the onsite parking provided for the multi -family and mixed use buildings, these must be occupied as elder apartments unless additional onsite parking is provided. However, other housing types may be occupied by non -seniors if the intent changes in the future. Surrounding zones include Rural Residential (RR -1) to the east, Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5) to the north and southeast, and Low Density Multi -Family Residential (RM - 12) to the south and west. Most surrounding properties also have Planned Development Overlays (OPDs), largely due to sensitive features. Surrounding land uses include single-family homes to the north and east, St. Andrew's Church to the southeast, and multi -family condominiums to the south. The property to the west is undeveloped but was rezoned in October 2022 to allow duplex, townhome, and multi -family units. The proposed mix of housing types complements existing homes nearby and future development plans. Mass, Scale, and General Layout: Due to potential impacts to sensitive areas, the layout is more compact than a conventional development in a single-family residential zone. The proposed assisted group living, townhome, multi -family, and small-scale commercial uses are on the west/southwest side of the property. This is near other more intense uses including St. Andrew's Church, the Cardinal Villas Condominiums, and proposed uses such as the Camp Cardinal Event Center to the southwest and Cardinal Heights subdivision to the west with a proposed mix of duplex, townhome, and multi -family buildings. The higher intensity uses on the subject property have the best access to major streets, though they are also near an existing single- family home at 608 Camp Cardinal Boulevard. That home is zoned interim development however, so redevelopment may occur in the future. The proposed development transitions to less intense uses to the north and east with predominantly single-family homes along Gathering Place Lane and Camille Court, Clara Court, and Timothy Court, with duplexes on some corner lots. Overall, the layout maintains an appropriate transition to surrounding neighborhoods. Elevations for all proposed uses are available in Attachment 4. Single-family and duplex units are all one story (some with walk -out basements), The assisted group living building is two stories, the townhomes are three stories, and the multi -family and mixed use buildings are three - and -a -half stories. Buildings in this zone cannot typically exceed 35 feet in height and their footprints must comply with lot coverage standards. However, the applicant has requested an increase in height limits for the multi -family and mixed use buildings which would allow them to be approximately 45 feet tall. The elevations demonstrate that off-street parking does not dominate the streetscape. For single-family and duplex units, garages are recessed behind the facade of the dwellings in a manner that allows the residential portion to predominate along the street. Parking areas for the townhomes and assisted group living uses are accessed via a shared alley. Parking areas for the multi -family and mixed use buildings are underground, with limited surface parking. Standards relating to mass, scale, and layout will be reviewed at the site plan and building permitting stages to ensure full compliance with these requirements. Lighting for the any development must follow standards that minimize glare and light trespass for nearby properties. Illumination cannot exceed 0.5 initial horizontal foot-candles and 2.0 5 initial maximum foot-candles at any property line adjacent to or across the street from a residential zone, in addition to standards related to height and shielding. The development must also meet low illumination district standards which require the maximum total outdoor light output for the development to be less than 50,000 initial lumens per acre. Downcast streetlights are anticipated at every intersection and at every dead-end or cul-de-sac to enhance intersection identification and safety. A lighting plan will be reviewed during site plan. Open Space: The proposed development must comply with the private open space standards outlined in section 14 -2A -4E of the Zoning Code. The east multi -family building with 22 units requires 550 square feet of private usable open space (10 SF per bedroom), while the west multi -family building with 16 units requires 400 square feet and the assisted group living and townhome buildings require a combined 920 square feet. In addition, single-family and duplex units require a minimum open space square footage of 500 and 300 per dwelling, respectively. All uses on the plan are shown with adequate private open space, and much of the remaining area is left as open space to retain stormwater and protect sensitive features. Traffic Circulation: Initially, the proposed development will only have access off Camp Cardinal Boulevard through the extension of Camp Cardinal Road. This access point is built to collector standards from Camp Cardinal Boulevard to Gathering Place Lane, at which point Gathering Place Lane to the proposed Deer Creek Road extension is built to collector standards. Secondary access to the site is anticipated following the extension of Deer Creek Road from Camp Cardinal Boulevard to the west as part of the Cardinal Heights subdivision. Section 15- 3-2K of the Subdivision Code allows the City to request an applicant contribute 50 percent of the cost of bringing a segment of street abutting a property to City standards. Staff recommends as a condition of the rezoning that the owner contribute 50 percent of the cost of upgrading Camp Cardinal Road to City standards prior to issuance of building permit, including the cost of building the traffic circle at the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal Road which will serve as a traffic calming device. Access to the northern portion of the site will be along Gathering Place Lane from its intersection with Deer Creek Road. This northern area will only have a single point of access for the foreseeable future due to sensitive areas and existing neighborhood layouts. Specifically, connecting to other existing neighborhoods is not possible due to their street layout to the east and north, which incorporates loop streets with no potential areas for connection. However, the Gathering Place Lane extension is stubbed out on the eastern portion of the St. Andrew's property with a temporary turnaround to allow future connectivity should that area develop. 2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities. The property can be serviced by both sanitary sewer and water. However, water service must be looped from the termination of Gathering Place Lane extension to reduce issues associated with water stagnation and increase firefighting capacity. This may require off-site service through the St. Andrew's property, though the final route will be identified prior to approval of a final plat in compliance with City requirements. Access to the site will be provided through the extensions of Camp Cardinal Road, Gathering Place Lane, and Deer Creek Road (which will provide secondary access when the proposed Cardinal Heights subdivision is developed to the west). If Cardinal Heights develops, the southern portion of the property would have two points of access but the remainder would still only have one point of access. For the full development to have secondary access, additional development would need to occur on the eastern portion of the St. Andrew's property. The proposed development is expected to have 309 daily trips at Deer Creek Road and Gathering Place Lane, which is less than the 500 vehicle trips that would cause it to become overburdened. Should Cardinal Heights not develop, the single point of access would be Camp M Cardinal Road at Camp Cardinal Boulevard. Because Camp Cardinal Road follows collector street rather than local street standards, the vehicle trip threshold is significantly higher to become overburdened. As a result, staff does not anticipate any problems. A unique feature of the proposed plan is the diagonal on -street parking in front of the multi- family and mixed use buildings. Staff finds this reasonable, given the proposed commercial uses at that location. However, the Public Works Department does not have a practice of maintaining such parking spaces. Therefore, if the applicant constructs such spaces, staff recommends a condition that the owner maintain the diagonal on -street parking spaces, including snow removal. Staff recommends that this obligation be further detailed in an agreement executed at the time a final plat is approved. 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 applicant has requested a setback reduction from 20 feet to 16 feet for one of the single- family homes along the north property line. However, the nearest neighbors to the north of the subject property are separated by a woodland preservation area and stream corridor. Neighbors to the east also have a further separation of more than 30 feet due to an existing pipeline easement. Properties to the west and south are separated by setbacks that are typical in single-family zones. As such, the proposed development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property values and privacy of neighboring properties any more than would a conventional development. 4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying zoning requirements or from City street standards will be in the public interest, in harmony with purpose of this Title, and with other building regulations. The applicant is requesting a number of waivers including reduced setbacks, increased building height, a mix of uses, and a modification to the commercial parking requirement. Each variation and its approval criteria are discussed in the following sections, but overall, the proposed development and all requested waivers appear to be in the public interest and in harmony with the purpose of this title. Setback Reductions: The applicant is requesting to reduce the rear setback along the north property line from 20 feet to 16 feet, to reduce the front setback for a few single-family homes on the bulbs of Camille Court and Clara Court from 25 feet to 15 feet, and to reduce the front setback for a few townhomes along Camp Cardinal Road and Gathering Place Lane from 20 feet to 15 feet. To receive a reduction, the applicant must demonstrate that the conditions at 14 -3A -4K-1 a are met, including but not limited to adequate light, air, and privacy; adequate private open space for each dwelling unit; and sufficient area for utilities and street trees. Additionally, front setback reductions for single-family homes must elevate the first floor 30 inches above the grade of the adjacent sidewalk. Because this is a senior housing development, the applicant has requested an exception to this approval criteria pursuant to 14-3A-7 to allow the homes to be zero entry. For an exception to be granted, it must be in harmony with the purpose and intent of Code and Comprehensive Plan; must generally enhance the proposed development and not have an adverse impact on its physical, visual or spatial characteristics; must not result in a configuration of lots or a street system that is impractical or detracts from the appearance of the proposed development; and must not result in danger to public health, safety or welfare by preventing access for emergency vehicles, inhibiting the provision of public services, depriving adjoining properties of adequate light and air, or violating the purposes and intent of the Zoning Code or Comprehensive Plan. For the proposed reductions and requested exception, all relevant criteria appear to be met. VA Building Height: The applicant is requesting an increase in the building height for the multi- family and mixed use buildings from 35 feet to 45 feet to allow a gathering space and rooftop patio on the top stories of both buildings. The maximum building height may be modified pursuant to 14 -3A -4K-1 b where 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. In addition, at least 35 percent of the net land area in the development must be free of buildings, parking, and vehicular maneuvering areas. Based on the elevations, the additional height is used to accommodate an additional half -story on the top of buildings, which is stepped back to maintain light and air for each building, and the proposed patios add usable outdoor space for residents. In addition, well over 35 percent of the proposed development, including sensitive features and stormwater management facilities, is open space. Consequently, staff believes an increase in building height is warranted. Mix of Uses: The applicant is requesting a mix of land uses and building types that is different from what is typically allowed in a RS -8 zone, including multi -family, assisted group living, and neighborhood commercial uses. To allow additional land uses, the applicant must meet all approval criteria at 14 -3A -4C-1. Based on the following analysis, the proposed the mix of uses appears appropriate given the intent of the development and transitions to surrounding areas. Regarding residential uses, a mix of housing types, including single-family, two-family, and multi -family dwellings, is encouraged in all residentially zoned planned developments. The proposed mix for senior housing provides a range of types in such a way that maintains compatibility between uses, and buildings utilize similar architectural elements, scale, massing, and materials. Commercial uses are permitted in residentially zoned planned developments where the property is 2 acres or larger. Such commercial uses should be designed to serve as a focal point of the development, should be designed compatibly with adjacent residential uses, and is encouraged to incorporate open spaces such as town squares. Mixed use buildings with residential and commercial uses are also encouraged. In addition, commercial uses should be of a scale suited to serve residents of the development and adjacent neighborhoods. In this case, the proposed commercial use consists of approximately 2,300 square feet in a mixed use building at the center of the development. The design of the mixed use building matches the rest of the development, and would consist of uses allowed in Neighborhood Commercial zones, such as commercial recreation, eating and drinking establishments, office uses, and personal service- or sales -oriented retail, among others. Because this is not a commercial development, the mixed use building will be evaluated using multi -family site development standards rather than CN -1 site development standards. Staff will ensure the mixed use building complies with all applicable standards during site plan review. Commercial Parking: The applicant is requesting to reduce the minimum off-street parking requirement for the neighborhood commercial use from 9 spaces to 7 spaces. This is allowed where it avoids development on or near regulated sensitive areas pursuant to 14 -3A -4E-4. In this case, the off-street parking for the mixed use building is split between a 9 -space surface lot and a 20 -space underground garage. The required parking for the building is 31 spaces (9 for the commercial use and 22 for senior apartments). The only area where additional parking could be provided is to the north, which is the location of the construction boundary used to protect sensitive areas. Staff believes this parking reduction is warranted because it protects those sensitive features and because the commercial use is also served by diagonal on -street parking that does not count towards this minimum. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Northwest Planning District does not have a district plan, so the proposed development is reviewed using the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan. n The Future Land Use Map of IC2030 identifies the subject property as appropriate for residential development at a density of 2-8 dwelling units per acre. The applicant proposes a density of 3.7 dwelling units per net acre which is consistent with the vision in the plan, even when the additional density provided by the assisted living facilities is included. IC2030 encourages a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods and compact, efficient development that is contiguous and connected to existing neighborhoods. The proposed development implements these goals by focusing on one of the few remaining undeveloped in- fill parcels in Iowa City. In addition, it provides a full range of housing types, including single- family homes, duplexes, townhomes, multi -family units, and assisted group living. The Comprehensive Plan also encourages pedestrian -oriented development and attractive and functional streetscapes that make it safe, convenient, and comfortable to walk. The proposed plan includes sidewalks along all proposed streets and connects into the broader pedestrian network along Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal Boulevard. Furthermore, the centrally located clubhouse and commercial uses provide destinations within walking distance of homes. With regards to street connectivity, the proposed development extends streets to create a coherent network for the southern portion of the site, though connectivity on the northern portion of the site is limited due to sensitive areas and existing neighborhood constraints. Specifically, connecting to other existing neighborhoods is not possible due to the layout of neighborhoods to the east and north, and the location of sensitive features on the property justify the use of cul- de-sacs though the plan generally discourages their use. Meanwhile, the proposed stub street to the east maintains the possibility for a future connection should the eastern portion of the St. Andrew's property develop. The proposed layout of the development also helps preserve the property's natural areas which aligns with goals related to protection of sensitive features. Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The subject property contains regulated wetlands, a stream corridor, slopes, and woodlands. The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan as part of the OPD rezoning. Due to the proposed disturbance of the wetland buffers, a Level II Sensitive Areas Review is required. Jurisdictional Wetlands: The subject property contains an existing wetland of approximately 0.04 acres to the northwest (see Attachment 6). No impacts are proposed to the existing wetlands. However, the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires a 100 -foot buffer to be maintained between a regulated wetland and any development activity (14-51-6E-1). The Ordinance allows a 50 -foot buffer reduction for the wetland according to 14 -51 -6E -3a of the City Code where applicable standards are met as demonstrated by a wetland specialist. The applicant has requested a 50 -foot buffer reduction, and a wetland specialist determined that all standards of 14- 51 -6E -3a are met. Staff has reviewed the full wetland report and concurs with the findings. Stream Corridors: The subject property contains the Cardinal Creek stream corridor on the northern portion of the property. The stream corridor requires a 30 -foot wide stream corridor (spanning both sides of the stream) and 50 -foot wide stream corridor buffer on each side of the stream. The stream corridor is situated far enough away from the proposed construction limits that the stream corridor will not be impacted, so these standards are met. Regulated Slopes: The subject property contains steep, critical, and protected slopes. The impacts to these slopes are outlined in Table 1 on the next page. Approximately 30.7 percent of critical slopes are proposed to be impacted, which is below the 35 percent threshold of critical slopes that may be impacted per the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. 9 Table 1 - Summary of Regulated Slopes Slopes Disturbed Preserved Total Disturbed Square Feet Percent Square Percent Feet Square Feet Percent Steep 297,918 91.9% 26,336 8.1% 324,254 100.0% Critical 73,523 30.7% 166,274 69.3% 239,797 100.0% Protected 0 0.0% 39,523 100.0% 39,523 100.0% Wooded Areas - The subject property has approximately 6.49 acres of woodlands. The preliminary SADP shows that the development would disturb 1.24 acres (19.1 %) of woodlands. An additional 1.87 acres (28.7%) will not be impacted within the 50 -foot woodland buffer, but this area does not count towards preserved woodlands. The disturbed woodlands and buffer area total 3.11 acres (47.9%), leaving roughly 3.38 acres (52.1 %) unimpacted. This is above the 50 percent of woodlands required to be retained in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Table 2 summarizes these findings. Table 2 - Sum ary of Woodlands Archaeological Sites - A Phase I Archaeological Survey was completed by the Office of the State Archaeologist on July 21, 2022. No artifacts or archaeological features were identified in the survey and no further archaeological work is recommended. Neighborhood Open Space: According to section 14-5K of the City code, dedication of public open space or fee in lieu of land dedication is addressed at the time of final platting for residential subdivisions. Based on the 31.2 acres of RS -8 zoning, the developer would be required to dedicate approximately 1.08 acres to the City or pay a fee in -lieu of land dedication. The applicant has requested to pay a fee in -lieu of a public open space dedication, which is estimated at approximately $140,467 based on a recent appraisal. Storm Water Management: The applicant intends to provide stormwater detention in an underslab detention system, to be engineered at the time of the Preliminary Plat. The plan shows a proposed wet stormwater retention basin south of the extension of Gathering Place Lane, and another stormwater retention basin northeast of the intersection of Camp Cardinal Road and Gathering Place Lane. Public Works must approve any stormwater management plan as part of platting process. NEXT STEPS: Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be scheduled for consideration by the City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ22-0012, a proposal to rezone approximately 31.2 acres of land located east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8) subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall contribute 50% of the cost of upgrading Square Feet Acres Percent Disturbed 54,039 1.24 19.1% Buffer Area 81,247 1.87 28.7% Preserved 147,338 3.38 52.1% Total 282,624 6.49 100.0% Archaeological Sites - A Phase I Archaeological Survey was completed by the Office of the State Archaeologist on July 21, 2022. No artifacts or archaeological features were identified in the survey and no further archaeological work is recommended. Neighborhood Open Space: According to section 14-5K of the City code, dedication of public open space or fee in lieu of land dedication is addressed at the time of final platting for residential subdivisions. Based on the 31.2 acres of RS -8 zoning, the developer would be required to dedicate approximately 1.08 acres to the City or pay a fee in -lieu of land dedication. The applicant has requested to pay a fee in -lieu of a public open space dedication, which is estimated at approximately $140,467 based on a recent appraisal. Storm Water Management: The applicant intends to provide stormwater detention in an underslab detention system, to be engineered at the time of the Preliminary Plat. The plan shows a proposed wet stormwater retention basin south of the extension of Gathering Place Lane, and another stormwater retention basin northeast of the intersection of Camp Cardinal Road and Gathering Place Lane. Public Works must approve any stormwater management plan as part of platting process. NEXT STEPS: Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be scheduled for consideration by the City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ22-0012, a proposal to rezone approximately 31.2 acres of land located east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8) subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall contribute 50% of the cost of upgrading 10 Camp Cardinal Road to City standards from Gathering Place Lane to the future extension of Deer Creek Road in accordance with 15-3-2 of the Iowa City Code. This contribution shall include 50% of the cost of construction of the traffic circle at the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal Road. 2. In the event Owner desires to construct on -street angled parking, at the time of final platting, Owner shall execute an agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney obligating the Owner to maintain such spaces. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location & Rezoning Maps 2. Rezoning Exhibit 3. Preliminary Planned Development Overlay and Sensitive Areas Development Plan 4. Preliminary Building Elevations 5. Summary Report for Good Neighbor Meeting 6. Wetlands Delineation Map Approved by: 1 ] . �l Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services N W E .S. REZ22-0012 Gathering Place Development 0.04 0.07 0.15 Miles Prepared By: Emani Brinkman' I I i I Date Prepared: August 2022 � A � �� \V CARDINAL POINTE SOUTH PART TWO ZONING: OPD RS -5 - - - - - x/ � I 1 � a U I I I I I I 1 I I I I II ,J CARDINAL HEIGHTS I I I ZONING: ID- j \ CARDINAL RIDGE PART TWO ZONING: OPD RS -5 AUDITOR'S PARCEL 99051 BK41 PG114 ZONING: ID -RS ZONING: OPD / RM -12 \ AUDITOR'S PARCEL -� 95063 AUDITORS J BK35 PG220 I PARCEL ZONING: ID -RS I 99051 BK41 PG114 "All ZONING: ID -RS PARCEL A 31.20 Ac I� D 1,359,065 SF I r CARDINAL RIDGE PART ONE ZONING: OPD RS -5 41 I � -WALNUT RIDGE ZONING: OPD RR -1 r I WALNUT RIDGE ZONING: OPD / RR -1 II j T" � T�ERN�T-SANE I I I I I I I I II SER C��� rrr� ------------ Z • I� w ISI OUTLOT A I, ST ANDREW II PRESBYTERIAN U li CHURCH z PART ONE °C Lu \ CARDINAL HEIGHTS BK60 PG 138 ZONING: OPD / RM -12 i m� � I I ZONING: OPD / RS -5 i O - _- _ \ ST ANDREWPRESBYTERIAN - 301 CAMP CARDINAL RD I \ CHURCH PART ONE ZONING: OPD / CC -2 Q I ��� \ ZONING: OPD / RS -5 z i re I �� U I CARDINAL VILLAS CONDOMINIUMS \ uZONING: RM -12 \ Q U — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - 01 S� CAMP CARDINAL BLVD AUDITORS PARCEL 2012061 BK57 PG8 \.- ZONING: ID -RS WALNUT RIDGE ZONING: OPD / RR-1�- I I \ I � BU7—j-ERNUT LANE —� I � I WALNUT RIDGE ZONING: OPD / RR -1/ / j o I �i i i I - REZONING EXHIBIT WESTERN HOME GPD OF IOWA CITY IOWA CITY, IOWA LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL "A" BEING PART OF: AUDITOR'S PARCEL 95063 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 35, PAGE 220 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST FRACTIONAL 1/4 AND THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST FRACTIONAL 1/4 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. AND OUTLOT A OF ST. ANDREW PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH - PART ONE, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 60, PAGE 138 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. EXCEPT AUDITOR'S PARCEL 99051 AS RECORDING BOOK 41, PAGE 114, OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST FRACTIONAL 1/4 AND THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST FRACTIONAL 1/4 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 31.20 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. ZONING INFORMATION 0 G 0 RMATI 0 J CURRENT ZONING: ID -RS & OPD / RS -5 PROPOSED ZONING OPD / RS -8 Q)! 0 75 150 225 300 WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 1" = 150' APPLICANT INFORMATION PROPERTY OWNER WESTERN HOME INDEPENDENT LIVING SERVICE, INC 5703 CARAWAY LANE CEDAR FALLS, IA 50613 ST ANDREW PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 140 GATHERING PLACE LANE IOWA CITY, IA 52246 DEVELOPER WESTERN HOME SERVICES, INC 5703 CARAWAY LANE CEDAR FALLS, IA 50613 CIVIL ENGINEER WELCH DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT MICHAEL J. WELCH, PE PO BOX 679 NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 (319) 214-7501 CARDINAL j 'OINTE . O-Li,TH PARTTWO ti r- --'.. * ..�..�..�. �.. 39 STREAM CORRIDOR - I JARDINAL HEI, -HTS SO' STREAM BUFFER - AUDITOR'S CARDINAL RIDGE PARCEL PART TWO 99051 BK41 PG114 EXISTING f POND 620 CA y AR D I NAL OAD M Cl 1 .r` � li ll� • s + l+ `` AUDITDR' CARDINAL 1 PARCEL HEIGHTS 99051 {. BK41 PGI 14 77�1 8 Cit 5 A 1 31,723 36L; �--t` •41 ;I 4 550 � r r I f748 il 744,' 74 5 {, 4 l TOTALIMPACTED 4 •- 7 4 324,254 55 0 r� - ya 5 `55 41 44 I 4 514LL I It} 5 4 5 Y l 8 Cit 5 A 1 31,723 36L; Y 1 � 1 CAM P 1! CAR D I NAL �� 3 RD t 8 Cit ` DEER CRE Roz" - --- \4 1 z �f ' wlz" I I ' ' �r "" `'I`5 ' I T ANDREW PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH — PART ONE Lu r � f 14P23 Ac6`3 184,1 ' 1 1 56+ i = 5'------ I� 4 ' I, 5 A 1 31,723 A 2 158,513 � 3`ti, •�� .�c�14 r` J � �, 38,765 TOTAL CRITICAL SLOPE 239,797 TOTALIMPACTED 297,918 TOTAL STEEP SLOPE 324,254 PERCENT IMPACTED I II m I ' it II C r + I I 1 s� (G9} -0615 CARDINAL VILLAS CONDOMINIUMS , - 1 ` DEER CRE Roz" - --- \4 1 z �f ' wlz" I I ' ' �r "" `'I`5 ' I T ANDREW PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH — PART ONE Lu r � f 14P23 Ac6`3 184,1 ' 1 1 56+ i = 5'------ I� 4 ' I, 5 A 1 31,723 A 2 158,513 � 3`ti, •�� .�c�14 r` J � �, 38,765 TOTAL CRITICAL SLOPE 239,797 TOTALIMPACTED 297,918 TOTAL STEEP SLOPE 324,254 PERCENT IMPACTED I " m I ' it II C r + I I s� (G9} -0615 CARDINAL VILLAS CONDOMINIUMS , - 1 r CARDINAL RIDGE PART TWO f.lq;: 60 AY2 II B.3 1PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 0 so 100 150 200'.OVERLAY AND SENSITIVE AREAS WHEN PRINTED DN 22"x34" SHEET I' 1" = 100' j CARDINAL RIDGE I j PART ONE 60 DEVELOPMENT PLAN M + SHAGBARK CTWESTERN HOME GPD rl I � I OF IOWA CI I Y' 1 �r� Ir� •r Ili/_ EXISTING - STORM WATER BASIN 5.3 -s kI 70 SHAGBARK CT 355' BUTTERNUT CT 343 BUTTERNUT I � r" � •� 3 31 BUTTERNUT CT I � I � �l \• Yom= IMPACTED STEEP SLOPES: IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPES: LOCATION AREA (5F) A 1 31,723 A 2 158,513 A 3 68,917 A 4 38,765 TOTAL CRITICAL SLOPE 239,797 TOTALIMPACTED 297,918 TOTAL STEEP SLOPE 324,254 PERCENT IMPACTED I " m I ' it II C r + I I 343 BUTTERNUT I � r" � •� 3 31 BUTTERNUT CT I � I � �l \• Yom= IMPACTED STEEP SLOPES: IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPES: LOCATION AREA (5F) A 1 31,723 A 2 158,513 A 3 68,917 A 4 38,765 TOTAL CRITICAL SLOPE 239,797 TOTALIMPACTED 297,918 TOTAL STEEP SLOPE 324,254 PERCENT IMPACTED 92% LOCATION AREA (SF) B.1 19,348 B,2 4,877 6.3 49,298 TOTAL IMPACTED 73,523 TOTAL CRITICAL SLOPE 239,797 PERCENT IMPACTED 31% IOWA CITY, IOWA APPLICATION NOTES THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND ASSOCIATED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WILL IMPACT LESS THAN 35% OF THE CRITICAL SLOPES. THE REDUCTION OF THE REQUIRED WETLAND BUFFER WILL REQUIRED A LEVEL II SENSITIVE AREA REVIEW. NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS WILL BE MET VIA "FEE IN LIEU" PAYMENT AT TIME OF FINAL PLATTING. APPLICANT INFORMATION PROPERTY OWNER WESTERN HOME INDEPENDENT LIVING SERVICE, INC 5703 CARAWAY LANE CEDAR FALLS, IA 50613 ST ANDREW PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 140 GATHERING PLACE LANE IOWA CITY, IA 52246 DEVELOPER SALIDA PARTNERS STEVE LONG 308 E BURLINGTON #403 IOWA CITY, IA 52240 (319) 521-3462 WESTERN HOME SERVICE$, INC 5703 CARAWAY LANE CEDAR FALLS, IA 50613 CIVIL ENGINEER WELCH DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT MICHAEL 1. WELCH, PE PO BOX 579 NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 (319) 214-7501 SHEET INDEX SHEET SHEET NAME SADP-1 REGLLIATED SLOPES SADP-2 WOODLANDS SADP-3 CONCEPT PLAN SADP-4 CONCEPT PLAN - NORTH SADP-5 CONCEPT PLAN - SOUTH ENGINEER; welch design +development CLIENT: WESTERN HOME INDEPENDENT LIVING SERVICES INC. P ol= NAME: WESTERN HOME GPD OF IOWA CITY PROTECTED SLOPES: REGULATED SLOPE LEGEND: REVISION Lo: REV DESCRIPTION DATE LOCATION AREA (5F) -- CITY SUBMITTAL #1 09-14-22 A CITY SUBMITTAL #2 11-15-22 C,1 10,654 STEEP SLOPE {18%-25%} B CITY SUBMITTAL #3 12-09-22 C CITY SUBMITTAL #4 12-15-22 C,2 28,869 CRITICAL SLOPL (25%-40°/a) SHEET NAME: TOTAL PROTECTED SLOPE 39,523 PROTECTED SLOPE (> 40%) REGULATED SLOPES - PRELIMINARY m THELE WILL 6E NO IM PACTS TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY & PRDTECTESLOPE BUFaFER PES OR PROTECED PROTECTED SLOPE BUFFER J�L�2 SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT NO: PROJECT MANAGER: SHEET NUMBER: CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS - -- — 1025 WELCH REVISION: ISSUED DATE: 12-15-2022 CARDINAL j 'OINTE . _'SyO-Li,TH PART� TWO j 39 STREAM CORRIDOR - I JARDINAL HEIl-HTS I J CARDINAL HEIGHTS SO' STREAM BUFFER - AUDITOR'S CARDINAL RIDGE PARCEL PART TWO 99051 81<41 PG114 620 CA y AR D I NAL ` OAF) I y r r+ ` AUDITDR' 1 PARCEL 99051 {. BK41 PGI 14 � 77�1 C �-, •L C 1 • 4 5 5 _ 1 - pl n i r Y + 7 I CAM P CAR D I NAL 34 RD 8 i 3 I C.1 w C,2 9,413 C.3 1,872 C.4 25,739 IMPACTED AREA 38,342 13.6% BUFFER AREA 81,723 28.9% / EXISTING POND t CREEK' CARDINAL RIDGE CARDINAL RIDGE PART TWO I PART ONE M I M I , 748------�-'� 4 `w 7%50- 752 r �+ f ���'1` M1� �� 4 A,1y �y� � � 4, Y`r--�-�-� t' � 5` s�' jAJ ✓ + +�" ��"" V4 \ tti� C.3 ` DEER CREWRQz` + " 4 it 4 r` ---- 1 , jc_ 6a 123 Ac �184,10� 76� J r+ 756------- 'S y111lllllll J 1 �-`-` " , 1 h + / r r A------ 74n - -- (G9} CARDINAL VILLAS CONDOMINII rr 1 7 \ ", \ � �_ I1 i 11 \ S', 5 ,`. *51 �ti '�, i i ? ) r+- _~ � ) ? ? % , I.0 C-1 I ,A T ANDREW PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH — PART ONE M EXISTING - STORM WATER BASIN 0 100 150 200 i. WHEN PRINTED DN 22"x34" SHEET I' 1" = 100' 60 SHAGBARK CT � +I II -s 70 SHAGBARK CT Y •� 355 BUTTERNUT CT 343 BUTTERNUT I � r" BUTTERNUT CT I � �l IMPACTED WOODLANDS DEVELOPMENT -RELATED IMPACTS LOCATION AREA (5F) C.1 1,318 C,2 9,413 C.3 1,872 C.4 25,739 IMPACTED AREA 38,342 13.6% BUFFER AREA 81,723 28.9% / I ' 57,53 m Ji , r + I � I 343 BUTTERNUT I � r" BUTTERNUT CT I � �l IMPACTED WOODLANDS DEVELOPMENT -RELATED IMPACTS LOCATION AREA (5F) C.1 1,318 C,2 9,413 C.3 1,872 C.4 25,739 IMPACTED AREA 38,342 13.6% BUFFER AREA 81,723 28.9% TOTAL EXISTING AREA 282,624 PERCENT RETAINED 57,53 PER IOWA CITY CODE, R5-8 ZONE MUST RETAIN AT LEAST 50% WOODLANDS_ WOODLANDS WITHIN THE BUFFER AREAS DO NOT COUNT TOWARDS RETENTION VALUES. WETLANDS THE BUFFER ASSOCIATED WITH THE WETLAND WILL BE REDUCED BY 50' TO MAINTAIN N0 LESS THAN 50' OF BUFFER AROUND THE WETLAND PER SECTION 14-5I.6E-3. REFER TO THE WETLAND REPORT FDR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE BUFFER REDUCTION AND WETLAND CHARACTERISTICS. PROVIDE SILT FENCE ALONG CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS WHERE RUNOFF WILL FLOW TOWARD THE WETLAND, THE WETLAND BUFFER AREAS, EXISTING RAS INS, 0R OTHER DOWN-SLOPE AREAS THAT WILL NOT BE DEVELOPED. DETAILED DESIGN OF THESE MEASURES TO ACCOMPANY THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AND FINAL SADP. LEGEND: WOODLANDS & WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT RELATED: PRESERVED WOODLAND BUFFERED WOODLAND IMPACTED WOODLAND D WETLAND BOUNDARY _WL WETLAND BUFFER CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS ---- ENGINEER; design +development CLIENT: WESTERN HOME INDEPENDENT LIVING SERVICES INC. PROJECT NAME: WESTERN HOME GPD OF IOWA CITY REVISION LOG: REV DESCRIPTION DATE -- CITY SUBMITTAL #1 09-14-22 A CITY SUBMITTAL #2 11-15-22 B CITY SUBMITTAL #3 12-09-22 C CITY SUBMITTAL #4 12-15-22 SHEET NAME: WOODLANDS/WETLANDS - PRELIM. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY & SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT NO: PROJECT MANAGER: 5HEET NUMBER: 1025 WELCH REVISION: ISSUED DATE: C 12-15-2022 SADP-2 J ' CARDINAL POINTE . o-b.TH PARTTWO ti r- -'.. * ..�..�..�. �.. ' N j 39 STREAM CORRIDOR — I CARDINAL HEIl-HTS SO' STREAM BUFFER - AUDITOR'S CARDINAL RIDGE PARCEL PART TWO 99051 BK41 PG114 II r � CARDINAL RIDGE PART TWO CARDINAL RIDGE PART ONE ti j COMMERCIAL OPEN TO PUBLIC 1 PER 250 SF 2,320 SF 9 STALLS THREE-BEDROOM UNITS 11 j 60 SUBTOTAL 31 STALLS TOWNHOUSE UNITS 20 1,220 SF 24,400 SF ' + SHAGBARK CT TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED 74 STALLS MEMORY CARE J ASSISTED LIVING BEDS 32 17,400 SF j TOTAL 133 190,775 SF i I I OFF-STREET PARKING PROVIDED _ - GROUP LIVING - MEMORY CARE SITE INTERIOR 20 STALLS PAVEMENT AREA (EXCLUDES CAMP CARDINAL RD) 183,600 SF i EXTERIOR 12 STALLS TOTAL BUILDINGS AND PAVEMENT 374,375 SF SUBTOTAL 32 STALLS TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AREA 1,359,180 SF NET LAND AREA FREE OF BUILDINGS, PARKING, DRIVES 801,205 SF IMAGINARY LOT LINE MULTI -FAMILY SITES 58.9 °!4 I- 9,65R5F I SHOWN FOR ZONING BUILDING #1 INTERIOR 20 STALLS EXISTING qv/ •.\` v COMPLIANCE (TYPICAL) LOT AREA (ACRES) BUILDING #2 INTERIOR 20 9TALLSPO D 8E .7 AUDITOR'S PARCEL 45063 26.82 10,737 620 CA-- SHAGBARK CT (SEE WAIVER REQUEST 3) EXTERIOR 4 STALLS OLTLOTA- STAND REWS 4.38 - / Ir- I I SUBTOTAL 29 STALLS TOTAL 31.20 AR D I NAL _ IMAGINARY SETBACK �r SF 0 } SHOWN FOR ZONING OAD 4 J ' � 1 / \ I o TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED* 81 STALLS RIGHT-OF-WAY (LOT A) 4.18 ` 8,lI1SF COMPLIANCE (TYPICAL)'^ 10,4785E I I I V I EXISTING PIPELINE DOES NOT INCLUDE STREET PARKING /jL.I__- I I I EASEMENT BK341 PG248 NET ACREAGE 27.02 - ' 12,968 SF �• F / \ 7,1545E \ �' �' �' • �' BICYCLE PARKING TO BE PROVIDED WITHIN THE PARKING STRUCTURES UNITS J ACRE 4.9 ASSUMES EACH MEMORY CARE OR 1'354 , ' \� 15 \ TRAFFIC PROJECTION ITE 11TH EDITION): ASSISTED LIVING BED = 1 UNIT 7,150 SF .� � I I � ,� ( ) 1 • y 6 I 12 I I I AT INTERSECTION OF DEER CREEK ROAD AND GATHERING PLACE LANE 15,579 SF I i 1E,447 SF 13 ~ , • HOUSING TYPE TRIPS PER DAY NO. UNITS DAILY TRIPS COMMERCIAL USES OPEN TO PUBLIC SENIOR - SINGLE-FAMILY * 4.31 35 151 WEST CONDO BUILDING 2,320 SF # _ + 18,058 5F 1 1 �i \ SENIOR - DUPLEX* 4.31 8 35 SENIOR - MULTI -FAMILY 3.24 38 123 ALL COMMERCIAL USES MUST MEET CN -1 STANDARDS o� TOTAL 304 s - } J -� I_ V I * SENIOR DUPLEX UNITS ARE COUNTED AS "DETACHED" RS -8 BASE ZONE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS • i I - j I S SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS REQUESTED WAIVERS LOT AREA - MINIMUM 5,000 SF 705 SF / \ /. !+ 7; 54 SF I' i 7,1 1 I 7, 5 I�' $' e5 I I 1. REQUEST A REDUCTION FOR THE REAR SETBACK ASSOCIATED WITH UNIT 9 FROM 24 FEET TO LOT WIDTH 45 FEET 16 FEET. LOT FRONTAGE 40 FEET w g,43 �> 17,9675E 2- REQUEST A REDUCTION FOR THE FRONT SETBACK ON CULS DE SAC FROM 25 FEET TO 15 FEET SETBACKS . � �. _i �--�.--s.—_.-_-----�- --- -----sem_ �l ` AU D ITD R' -"�"j G AND WAIVE REQUIREMENT FOR UNITS TO BE SET 30" ABOVE ADJACENT PUBLIC SIDEWALK FRONT 15 FEET 30 CARDINAL 1 FARDEL ` ''1�° -' LOT - ; F °F r' \^t] I I (14 -3A -4K 1a{4)) TO MAINTAIN ACCESSIBILITY. NOTE THAT A DRIVEWAY OF AT LEAST 25' GARAGE DOOR 25 FEET HEIGHTS 99051 I 39 — -- -7-�$ _ - _ - — --# 2Z WILL STILL BE PROVIDED FOR EACH UNIT ON THE CUL DE SAC. SIDE 5 FEET BK41 PGI 14 41 7,15a - '' 9, 592 SF I I BUTTE CT 97, 7 &F 4. + -. •, /'' / � _ 29 F 3. REQUEST A REDUCTION OF TWO REQUIRED COMMERCIAL PARKING SPACES FOR EXTERIOR REAR * 20 FEET # PARKING FOR BUILDING #2 DUE TO PROXIMITY TO SENSITIVE AREAS (14 -3A -4E-4) * REQUEST 16' REAR SETBACK FOR UNIT 9 T x 40 28 - y 4. REQUEST AN INCREASE IN THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FROM 35 FOR TO 45 FOR BUILDING #2 r / 41,9i! SF I / ------ �. �� 23 BUILDING #1 AND BUILDING #2 TO ADDRESS SITE TOPOGRAPHY (GRADE PLANE CALCULATION} MULTI -FAMILY ZONE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS NEIGHBORHOOD F -4I i STORM WATER 11 AND ROOFTOP FEATURES. SETBACKS COMMERCIAL AND RETENTION - — it I " 5. REQUEST A REDUCTION FOR THE FRONT SETBACK ASSOCIATED WITH TONHOME-SYTLE FRONT 20 FEET � RESIDENTIAL UNITS , i � I � , I �"" ----� i � BASIN (WET) } I I MULTI -FAMILY BUILDINGS FROM 24 FEET TO 15 FEET TO REMAIN CONSISTENT WITH OTHER SIDE 10 FEET 3 STORIES L_ L 4 9 I I i --- 9 034 5F 7,183 I I I �! SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT REAR 20 FEET =x I m L__ BUILDING SEPARATION 20 FEET NOTES: /r M 26I'� 1. ALL STREETS ARE PUBLIC � 1 7,700 — s� I I •,i 2. PARKING REQUIREMENTS ASSUME "ELDER APARTMENTS" DEED CREEK RD — — — - - / I i — 3. ALL CURB STOPS FOR WATER SERVICES TO BE LOCATED WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH _ _ _ �— _ — ———-----_------� —�—------------ - — _ — -- — -----� —] — T m UNIT Id {ADDRESS PERMANENTLY MARKED ON THE CURB STOP BUILDING 1� 4. THE DEVELOPER I OWNER SHALL 6E RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW REMOVAL FROM THE ANGLED STREET PARKING EVEN THOUGH STALLS ARE IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY I i I CLUB HOUSE EXISTING IIk II I Q I 343 5. REFER TO SHEETS SADP-4 AND SADP-5 FOR LOT DIMENSIONS FOR THE "IMAGINARY" LOT LINES Al I II 16 RESIDENTIAL UNITS - STORM WATER BUTTERNUT T REQUIRED BY PLANNING STAFF 3 STORIES BASIN L — J I I 2 -STORY COTTAGE 16 BEDS - MEM DRY CARE 16 BEDS - ASSISTED LIVING d AS � i 20 INTERIOR PARKING STALLSENGINEER; � �*`��� y w � CONSTRUCT TURNAROUND AND STUB PAVEMENT TO j �� �� 1 A2 ti I _ SOUTH. MIN. 39' RAD. AT BUTTEINI.-1T t_;T I A6 I CONNECT TO EDGE OF PAVEMENT 1 � 4,23 Ac EXISTING WATER LINE we c 184,105 SF I w I PRIVATE WATER � = y MAIN LOOP AND design +development U A16 1 20' EASEMENT CLIENT: 10 I ST ANDREW PRESBYTERIAN WESTERN HOME INDEPENDENT - 1 CHURCH — PART ONE a LIVING SERVICES INC CARDINAL 1 LEGEND: I � I �__ ��JecrNaME��VETERN HOME GPD HEIGHTS +j UNIT TYPES: SINGLE-FAMILY CONDO ��.•�.• � � � LEN OF IOWA CITY j REVISION LOG: --------.---.— SHEET NAME: CONCEPT PLAN — PRELIMINARY �{ � - DUPLEX CONDO {2 UNITS) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAP & PROTECTED SLOPE (> 40%) REV DESCRIPTIO PARKING & TRAFFIC DATA SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT GENERAL SITE DATA: PROTECTED SLOPE BUFFER DUE CITY SUBMITTAL #1 #1 I PROJECT NO: PROJECT MANAGER: SHEET NUMBER: MULTI -UNIT CONDO A CITY SUBMITTAL #2 OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS WELCH ° UNIT COUNT: REVISION: B CITY SUBMITTAL #3 12-09-22 GROUP LIVING - MEMORY CARE 1 PER 3 BEDS 32 BEDS 11 STALLS c COUNT AREA TOTAL 1 PER EACH STAFF 16 STAFF 16 STALLS SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS 35 2,625 SF 97,875 SF SUBTOTAL 27 STALLS DUPLEX UNITS 8 2,850 SF 22,800 SF CLUBHOUSE CONDO (BUILDING #1) 14,150 SF 0 50 100 150 200 MULTI -FAMILY #1 - INDEPENDENT ELDER 1 PER UNIT 16 UNITS 16 STALLS TWO-BEDROOM UNITS 8 j., THREE-BEDROOM UNITS 8 WHEN PRINTED DN 22"x34" SHEET I.- MULTI -FAMILY #2 ATTACHED CONDO (BUILDING #2) 14,150 SF 1" = 100, I j- INDEPENDENT ELDER 1 PER UNIT 22 UNITS 22 STALLS TWO-BEDROOM UNITS 11 j COMMERCIAL OPEN TO PUBLIC 1 PER 250 SF 2,320 SF 9 STALLS THREE-BEDROOM UNITS 11 j 60 SUBTOTAL 31 STALLS TOWNHOUSE UNITS 20 1,220 SF 24,400 SF ' + SHAGBARK CT TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED 74 STALLS MEMORY CARE J ASSISTED LIVING BEDS 32 17,400 SF j TOTAL 133 190,775 SF i I I OFF-STREET PARKING PROVIDED _ - GROUP LIVING - MEMORY CARE SITE INTERIOR 20 STALLS PAVEMENT AREA (EXCLUDES CAMP CARDINAL RD) 183,600 SF i EXTERIOR 12 STALLS TOTAL BUILDINGS AND PAVEMENT 374,375 SF SUBTOTAL 32 STALLS TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AREA 1,359,180 SF NET LAND AREA FREE OF BUILDINGS, PARKING, DRIVES 801,205 SF IMAGINARY LOT LINE MULTI -FAMILY SITES 58.9 °!4 I- 9,65R5F I SHOWN FOR ZONING BUILDING #1 INTERIOR 20 STALLS EXISTING qv/ •.\` v COMPLIANCE (TYPICAL) LOT AREA (ACRES) BUILDING #2 INTERIOR 20 9TALLSPO D 8E .7 AUDITOR'S PARCEL 45063 26.82 10,737 620 CA-- SHAGBARK CT (SEE WAIVER REQUEST 3) EXTERIOR 4 STALLS OLTLOTA- STAND REWS 4.38 - / Ir- I I SUBTOTAL 29 STALLS TOTAL 31.20 AR D I NAL _ IMAGINARY SETBACK �r SF 0 } SHOWN FOR ZONING OAD 4 J ' � 1 / \ I o TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED* 81 STALLS RIGHT-OF-WAY (LOT A) 4.18 ` 8,lI1SF COMPLIANCE (TYPICAL)'^ 10,4785E I I I V I EXISTING PIPELINE DOES NOT INCLUDE STREET PARKING /jL.I__- I I I EASEMENT BK341 PG248 NET ACREAGE 27.02 - ' 12,968 SF �• F / \ 7,1545E \ �' �' �' • �' BICYCLE PARKING TO BE PROVIDED WITHIN THE PARKING STRUCTURES UNITS J ACRE 4.9 ASSUMES EACH MEMORY CARE OR 1'354 , ' \� 15 \ TRAFFIC PROJECTION ITE 11TH EDITION): ASSISTED LIVING BED = 1 UNIT 7,150 SF .� � I I � ,� ( ) 1 • y 6 I 12 I I I AT INTERSECTION OF DEER CREEK ROAD AND GATHERING PLACE LANE 15,579 SF I i 1E,447 SF 13 ~ , • HOUSING TYPE TRIPS PER DAY NO. UNITS DAILY TRIPS COMMERCIAL USES OPEN TO PUBLIC SENIOR - SINGLE-FAMILY * 4.31 35 151 WEST CONDO BUILDING 2,320 SF # _ + 18,058 5F 1 1 �i \ SENIOR - DUPLEX* 4.31 8 35 SENIOR - MULTI -FAMILY 3.24 38 123 ALL COMMERCIAL USES MUST MEET CN -1 STANDARDS o� TOTAL 304 s - } J -� I_ V I * SENIOR DUPLEX UNITS ARE COUNTED AS "DETACHED" RS -8 BASE ZONE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS • i I - j I S SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS REQUESTED WAIVERS LOT AREA - MINIMUM 5,000 SF 705 SF / \ /. !+ 7; 54 SF I' i 7,1 1 I 7, 5 I�' $' e5 I I 1. REQUEST A REDUCTION FOR THE REAR SETBACK ASSOCIATED WITH UNIT 9 FROM 24 FEET TO LOT WIDTH 45 FEET 16 FEET. LOT FRONTAGE 40 FEET w g,43 �> 17,9675E 2- REQUEST A REDUCTION FOR THE FRONT SETBACK ON CULS DE SAC FROM 25 FEET TO 15 FEET SETBACKS . � �. _i �--�.--s.—_.-_-----�- --- -----sem_ �l ` AU D ITD R' -"�"j G AND WAIVE REQUIREMENT FOR UNITS TO BE SET 30" ABOVE ADJACENT PUBLIC SIDEWALK FRONT 15 FEET 30 CARDINAL 1 FARDEL ` ''1�° -' LOT - ; F °F r' \^t] I I (14 -3A -4K 1a{4)) TO MAINTAIN ACCESSIBILITY. NOTE THAT A DRIVEWAY OF AT LEAST 25' GARAGE DOOR 25 FEET HEIGHTS 99051 I 39 — -- -7-�$ _ - _ - — --# 2Z WILL STILL BE PROVIDED FOR EACH UNIT ON THE CUL DE SAC. SIDE 5 FEET BK41 PGI 14 41 7,15a - '' 9, 592 SF I I BUTTE CT 97, 7 &F 4. + -. •, /'' / � _ 29 F 3. REQUEST A REDUCTION OF TWO REQUIRED COMMERCIAL PARKING SPACES FOR EXTERIOR REAR * 20 FEET # PARKING FOR BUILDING #2 DUE TO PROXIMITY TO SENSITIVE AREAS (14 -3A -4E-4) * REQUEST 16' REAR SETBACK FOR UNIT 9 T x 40 28 - y 4. REQUEST AN INCREASE IN THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FROM 35 FOR TO 45 FOR BUILDING #2 r / 41,9i! SF I / ------ �. �� 23 BUILDING #1 AND BUILDING #2 TO ADDRESS SITE TOPOGRAPHY (GRADE PLANE CALCULATION} MULTI -FAMILY ZONE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS NEIGHBORHOOD F -4I i STORM WATER 11 AND ROOFTOP FEATURES. SETBACKS COMMERCIAL AND RETENTION - — it I " 5. REQUEST A REDUCTION FOR THE FRONT SETBACK ASSOCIATED WITH TONHOME-SYTLE FRONT 20 FEET � RESIDENTIAL UNITS , i � I � , I �"" ----� i � BASIN (WET) } I I MULTI -FAMILY BUILDINGS FROM 24 FEET TO 15 FEET TO REMAIN CONSISTENT WITH OTHER SIDE 10 FEET 3 STORIES L_ L 4 9 I I i --- 9 034 5F 7,183 I I I �! SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT REAR 20 FEET =x I m L__ BUILDING SEPARATION 20 FEET NOTES: /r M 26I'� 1. ALL STREETS ARE PUBLIC � 1 7,700 — s� I I •,i 2. PARKING REQUIREMENTS ASSUME "ELDER APARTMENTS" DEED CREEK RD — — — - - / I i — 3. ALL CURB STOPS FOR WATER SERVICES TO BE LOCATED WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH _ _ _ �— _ — ———-----_------� —�—------------ - — _ — -- — -----� —] — T m UNIT Id {ADDRESS PERMANENTLY MARKED ON THE CURB STOP BUILDING 1� 4. THE DEVELOPER I OWNER SHALL 6E RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW REMOVAL FROM THE ANGLED STREET PARKING EVEN THOUGH STALLS ARE IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY I i I CLUB HOUSE EXISTING IIk II I Q I 343 5. REFER TO SHEETS SADP-4 AND SADP-5 FOR LOT DIMENSIONS FOR THE "IMAGINARY" LOT LINES Al I II 16 RESIDENTIAL UNITS - STORM WATER BUTTERNUT T REQUIRED BY PLANNING STAFF 3 STORIES BASIN L — J I I 2 -STORY COTTAGE 16 BEDS - MEM DRY CARE 16 BEDS - ASSISTED LIVING d AS � i 20 INTERIOR PARKING STALLSENGINEER; � �*`��� y w � CONSTRUCT TURNAROUND AND STUB PAVEMENT TO j �� �� 1 A2 ti I _ SOUTH. MIN. 39' RAD. AT BUTTEINI.-1T t_;T I A6 I CONNECT TO EDGE OF PAVEMENT 1 � 4,23 Ac EXISTING WATER LINE we c 184,105 SF I w I PRIVATE WATER � = y MAIN LOOP AND design +development U A16 1 20' EASEMENT CLIENT: 10 I ST ANDREW PRESBYTERIAN WESTERN HOME INDEPENDENT - 1 CHURCH — PART ONE a LIVING SERVICES INC CARDINAL 1 LEGEND: I � I �__ ��JecrNaME��VETERN HOME GPD HEIGHTS +j UNIT TYPES: SINGLE-FAMILY CONDO ��.•�.• � � � LEN OF IOWA CITY j REVISION LOG: --------.---.— SHEET NAME: CONCEPT PLAN — PRELIMINARY �{ � - DUPLEX CONDO {2 UNITS) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAP & PROTECTED SLOPE (> 40%) REV DESCRIPTIO DATE SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT y PROTECTED SLOPE BUFFER DUE CITY SUBMITTAL #1 #1 09 14-22 PROJECT NO: PROJECT MANAGER: SHEET NUMBER: MULTI -UNIT CONDO A CITY SUBMITTAL #2 11-15-22 WELCH ° ---- REVISION: B CITY SUBMITTAL #3 12-09-22 TOWNHOME C 12-15-2022 c CITY SUBMITTAL #4 12-15-22 CAM P'' ,r � OAR D I NAL � RD 1 1 Y L CARDINAL VILLAS CONDOMINIUMS L COTTAGES: MEMORY CARE SHEET NAME: CONCEPT PLAN — PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAP & PROTECTED SLOPE (> 40%) SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROTECTED SLOPE BUFFER DUE PROJECT NO: PROJECT MANAGER: SHEET NUMBER: 1025 WELCH CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMIT ---- REVISION: ISSUED DATE: C 12-15-2022 SAD -3 CARDINAL I CARDINAL RIDGE ~-----�', POINTE SOUTH AUDITORS CARDINAL RIDGE ~v~—'`•� EXISTINO/IPELIN CEL PART TWD j PART ONE EASEMENT 3041 PG 4 PART TIDO PA�}R[/�+ -`_ —— B 1 P 1 14 R r { ------ r r --- � AL I !rr��+ `------ +~.+- 1 }/ / f 1 /JJ �/ \\ I� ` •y (I III I5 I I f . +r+-` + Y __`____ ` ""1 v y �' Y ` h 1 5 ' I % r• `+ Ir ,rf { - If i , , J/ _� = f } 5 I I f /! ! 4 f ' `� �1'.Y/ � ` 1 I I /+ f ! / / ' r � ��+[� R 1 -�. J y \5 1 � I I I ' I I ' f I � !� ~ 1 + ' ' r + I ff} + •y\I }`fJ �j ~ - fy a�C y 1 I I ) I III I ! ! 1 + / f ! I�VJ rr / f ✓ :Du 3,��0'c Y \ I C ' ' ! ' ' ' R I' ' I I I ((II fff 5 jjj I R 11 I ! ! ! + _ - - r i 5 4 'I r 1' A�A`` , I I 15 5 ++// + JrJ I /1 r ' f/ r■ J/ A j r r r J+I 11 IJI' �� rl + 4, Ilyy 55 r �, 14 5l ; 55jy ' " 1111// r //' { ' III � r � ilT" r +!!FF // a f -�-. '•,L ■I ! -�1 ' � li -- __s ! I I I �` I I ♦1 I I I I R f I + I ! I / I ! ! i r I I I i -GI 1 1 ; 1 ' 1 I /// +/ }J}� ' 732 fJfffl 1 r .. f 4 ._ -- � i ! `�r+1 I I � I �`� � � I `II + I I /! ! R -f 'S 1 `'S 1 I j' I � • 1 1 � :� +S -�� ___. - ___ � � I I ] I ' I i ++!!! � �If I' � Jf , -''�J'J _�� �t //I' I '-----J'jj1 Ji y I 5! ' r- r i ' -- I I I! + f i/ 1 v } 11 + +I r 1y1�f x I' f 1' f ` r' I+��++ ' ` , I 1' 3 I r '%1557 "I II1+I + 5 `` ` 1 f 3` " 1 iL+ + +r 1 I I I y 'I y \ ,1 `A1 r ( 5 I r 1 rr~-'h t` 'lA ! 4 5 I I 1 I I , I• Il ~�rc�i~ `+r =' iL- � ff ` ' I I , � � Y ' ; Y``jI ` ✓� � R ' ' ' � ' - ' � r _ �i___M -'- 1 I I I , I f% r--�- _ 1 R J � �r• 1 + * Y I ' ' ` I 4� � Y i ! r! I r A 5 I_ 1 ' �+M1S+ r' 1111 I I � I Y I I � r 1 / -�/�� ' r I F1�! +I �' rf / J •+• � I I � `` �I ` I I I I I I l i }k ��� , 1 4 � r R r f J! 1 ! r r � ! /I Irl _ ��~ � S' t� I 5 I I 1 .Y.'. :1 `5 1 � � i 1 I j � I I I I j f f f � y �r Jf}}}r r r r f • 1 I ` 54 1 I I "_ r�yj] x iiY+ I r Jf r / A lJJJ r' r ! I I JJ 1 i { 4 %f // / !Y '%■ 5 1 � h � � � ` `` 1Y 'I I � � f + /J+ J I � f + r � �� _�� 545y .F x 1 � -'� ' ' I � Y � 1 �`'}r ��___ L'lf � ' I' I I f ' rr'�/ � / � { v rR SII r r~ //// s� I 4 yy Y 1 ! i R '' /r .�h.}�� ;� } "` ` k ti + � �_! ! I ' � 1 � 1 5 I I t � II t 96 �y � �I �� vl I, I i I ti 5l+• /��4 �• � f /i f/ r 1✓ f / . • + 1 • e f � I l � 1 f��j I +5 1 y A 55 + +~~k`}v� `� I " 'I I 'I 'I Y I I I i ! r+/ 5~ 5 5 4 I I I r _�ra~ + 1 \ ~f+ x;/f • 1 1 l+ f +I + f r' - Vf437. 7� 1 h I + r - hh y y ,4h Yh 1*_ 51 4 15 '' ' t ` h r r 1 1 r1EXISTING POND I STI NG 4, ? •kij6'541 � � /411 � 1 �7J}1 jJjj I V Y \5 Ih \ h, ` 4` 5Rr 5 - ` 4` . ` J' r '' i 1 'S 51 1 • 4 Y ' / ! ' ._ 15 5 5 I + I' ry + -F-~~ .F ` 1 ! 1 r /R /r !+ 1 5 1 ,r r // �L�*^ 5ti y • • ,4 `A� r ' I y `1{ `5 5 `I` 41 I fl !' `---I-1 _ 55 \ , 1 I ! 1 4�r t * yr \\\ 1 rte' r I + ! 1 1r r1 r "', "....: } - !1 ��•- ' r �` ..1 N. 5 it 'I i•� s +f }J// r:� ,tom �� . I 5 Y'•` S I 5� 'S /l V � � ,�� i � � , � v� f R JY I + 5 r l / ! � r .�--�-- -'�-� --tom_.-..- - � }� �,' � ^ 4 Y � ` _ - 5 15 �r �I `I 11151 � ~ r r -• 1 �f1 • � ! 5j5y j} ��` ti .� III ! ' i ' 1 i r + ' � -- f. r,} 5 4 s`5 {{� 5 x � �+_�+ r 1r r .- f • � � �~ - �----- ' 1111 1 II ! ' 1 I `'� •t� h l ' /(} f 1 Iy I I' I I ! i r 1 1 y "y ,~ r{ " _� SP or 1 �+15r ' \ 'I I r , , Ii i •, ` +y5 + i R I i i ' I r 5 5 - t , 1 } / v 1 ! i { f ?ono I ' + I ' /IJI Jf 4} 1 + + `I `I , "1 r I I i! + } 5E � Y II � � ,� ___ rr_ f -� f�F'+ +5 _ //J{/ffr/J•/%y ,f f +/ vvv��' � Y 11 ''I '; '+5 �"1 45 I it ��� _� �y by � } 4 1' 1 �, y 51 1y� �`___ 1+ fR tF+ � ;+ r�++� J� % 1! ��+� lr ;' I1 5`� �� \tom 4• ___1 � 5 � � *` y +`�-"+ �+ Jf +�r� � 1 ` � �{+~ �A .. � ~� � �v I '� ' ri N . �/// T —i '•� ` �` ' S _ �� _ �� /1 � � I f ; a, •��!/r iI( { II 1{ �ry , ` '� �__'_—• _x r r I 5 4t`` _�-++ f f +R 1:' ITI 1 II �1_ _ - -, �� ` ` - ",-`Y l rr = •f + 5 � j i ' � �' j i + � �. �o-.A `ti _ ____ r` ` % L � � � � \ I � i � I i I~ � u � # � �+� � �_�_ _ f /{ 'r� rr� 1rr' I r� '__ _ _ f rr t �,__ ++� r r r -~ �_ 1 ``-t� ~- / _ ` ` 15,579 SF I l�r }� J� 1 _ - ; I--- +� v,ht Z. 11,U 1~ + I I `Y 5 ` ��� 15 15 ,1 1 'SSol �'-� _ 5 �---- r+ �y i' 1 •y �{4 vh /J` 55y r _ 1111 J 4 1[,- � � • ��`� v ! ' I' S 5 I ti v�� � � \\ ` � t ��yS � 95 'Ash [� �''$T cef 1 i Jl - - _ - o j v, ,kAh ` �___' F r' r 1 ,+ I �. F V + N} '/ ! 4 rt Inv =T4 -- __ I r ! + �� / 7,1-L 5F > ' Y �{ �_J-- r ' ' f r /Y X _ 21,,'��._+��_�r��/r r/{ � /! �r � . _ II yll y -I - ,�,} LI } - * r7` - r" _ --vr ter�{ff I + I5 SF` �`\�� S --- —1 1W SF I 1.150 5E 11 1+ 1 { r r9 r# R { J r \ N • ,97617 f {4 F V x` 5 f��l I'Y J rxrl, r f'YJ�_'� +r- + '�-�• } E +i \ i y�� ` 3 0 ~ 5 VI � 4 r+R # lry r r ''' f +�} �- +� r Ash x` .5 4 4 1�• _ i \ :r 150 SF .5 YY t �+ /�F- /r- _ 1- I ^ \ ` •• I } 5 'S 22 �f1� { � � �r-- � _� / r - 1 f r' fes` / -1 4, } 5'.,SgzsF 47 SF 22A - r r}!- ' �l fI� 21 \�11 7, _., IW .�11' i ST r r \ r rr ' J w 972 I I �"f �ppLV + i -~ " 4 f'iffrf'r f 115 �i� 1 N. �J13U SF k y ? h ~ I ri}'}rrr f l� }l 5 1 — 113T SF 1• r ' i `rifer x STORM WATER tik, ti \ RETENTION BASIN (WET} -`f- � BUILUI4G-#2 '_- NEIGHBORHDOb .n f , 8 5 Y r p h I ��_---_---- ---- `,.� �� 4i134 IF _ _ COMMERCIAL -/ AND, kk _ 22 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ` s— BUILDING #1 , I www,�,ti ''''%'r' .. -- ■ r — 5 � �� � I err{r r _� CLUB HOUSE26. AND5 16 RESIDENTIAL UNITS 3 STOR1" �+ " h �h ' p ,' 4 ` *� 1 5``� M1 • ��___ J7r 7 r SER -jEK"FAD _ ' S ' r -- `1 yy �� r I L " $r i " h `� y h5 ` ' + '1 O �M1L� + +5 I rl r i� \ L9 ! $1 FYI STS- V % w R h 15 `� Ah}R r `'x_� —�_ y_ - �_� —•', 16 — �— r r~ ----- � �_f• � — — — ti � `. �_ � r{ r,�- __ � -- ��` -mow— � _ ��-_—"`���--- �_ �� � — � —� — — — — — — � � �`Y `Y ' � \�� '� � �`�����___ti '� ----- ��� �' �•� �i�'� �� � , t , ���� L `% r�r __-_ -� - ---~- � I _ _`__�- _ � -_____ -' � �`, {� �rf 4 55Y "5 "� 4 5 yi • \ � 1 � ��� i� y� ��y - --- y�� "` ���v � ti ����� `,, I i - 3 31' _� aro-- / EXISTING �- '+,�`'- �I y't �I y' ;i STORM WATER �'Y r I R + }r Y4 13F-4 I I 1 IN � • �� '� 1�5 , I ST ANDREW PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH — PART ONE i r �, I t I------ 16-1 1 4 y � r I ' i I I I I I I I 14 Y Y5y + + I I _ r_.�_� _� l `� 4 i 1 '' ' i i �+�'� -_ __fir++ ' ��•� y�_,� *k� � � h� Y li ` ' I � ~ �_ L 1 I x 1V r 0 25 50 75 100 WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET V1 — 50` d t ` ---\ LEGEND: UNIT TYPES: SINGLE-FAMILY CONDO 34M1 a � � If { I 0DUPLEX CONDO rr / ! �1 MULTI -UNIT CONDO 1 r1 �f j f I +_11 1R TOWNHOME COTTAGES: MEMORY CARE D l' r'------- - ------ CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMIT ! sf f fr I iV ----- - -' --- ENGINEER, - ENGINEER, we ci r< I t` I I 17 design +development 4 J CLIENTIESTERN HOME INDEPENDENT - I LIVING SERVICES INC. PROJECT NAME: WESTERN HOME GPD ! I OF IOWA CITY +it � 3' '245 + I REVISION LOG: REV DESCRIPTION DATE -1 — —Ii ! CITY SUBMITTAL #1 09-14-22 4 A CITY SUBMITTAL #2 11-15-2Z B CITY SUBMITTAL #3 12-09-22 I I C CITY SUBMITTAL #4 12-15-22 CONCEPT PLAN NORTH - PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY & fr{ SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECTL� : PROJECT R: WELCH SHEET NUM6E w I I 1 2 4Y LCH u I REVISION: ISSUED DATE: -4 12-15-2022 SADP /rte t 5y Ji /�39 J y ' I� y f r 1 f rf �' f 5f I' I f 47,B 7 5F LVI — + f 'y+lf p 4 .22 A ` / � f + I3UILDI1$IG #2 F NEIGHf3OiRHDOD 1 J i a COMMERCIAL i ANP Lu 2� RESIDENIIIAL UNITS I j'ti5 1� , 3 STCI LE A} L fry I �i t I Y ------------- __`� -_ � ----- - - ` -- - ' - "T. ; f,r 1 BUILDiI1 #1 --- -- -'-----7 s------ " Lu f 1 CLIJB H06 d. AND 16 RESIDENTIAL 3 STORIES Li sr- DEtR CREF'f .+ — r- � ---- r , - ' hf '.762 ` f I 89.3' MEMORY CARE COTTAGE------ r ----- - ST ANDREW PRESBYTERIAN MAIN LEVEL FFF I74.50 -- - --- LOWER LEVEL *F = 762-50 1CHURCH — PART D N E I } fr f t r` z 756 Lu -----� '-'750 y5 ,1 5 L 75 j. 5 I r I I � V+ �✓�. ' S1, � `1 `IJ I 1 j L� `I - \� I I 41 I 1 M1 �Iz:�` 4.23 AC I rr it .. �• 184,105 5F -7 518 i f I J 5 1 N y� , I Jul 1 0 rr V --------- , \ R ' I w144 I '4 �� -- �� ''�_ I ` r � F f. 54,48' _ �•' I / G �4 ti u+ L J T ION \ ` �,All3r- KL ! •• I _ I ti ~ ti _—r I _ - -- _____— I ! f 738 j ----- v 1 f+ +F n5OD- ' r GATHERIN ,PLACE LN I 1 11 4d'+'jf f 1Ga� €W — CG4) —[Ga) cr4) CG4> (Gi� CGI] {G4) sS 11c + } r�r / fr � + ' ' 444 ♦ \ \", # �rrr STORM WATER` + ��ri'. _ RETENTION 1 roll BASIN {WE \%� v;s 554 + \ 1 1 ',1 5` �,` f {ii 55 I y 5 I 'I ti ; ', EXISTING l ` STORM WATER BASIN I � I '4`II I ' ' + Y � 1' + r I 'IL 5 � r I � I I I al I I ++F ' 'J +}r l 5 I I I 1 , I - {' 0 25 5o 75 100 `•, E,73U SF ti WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" S-IECT V1 = 50` Ln w J I� —760 - LEGEND: UNIT TYPES: SINGLE-FAMILY CONDO DUPLEX CONDO D MULTI -UNIT CONDO i}4 5 TOWNHOME D COTTAGES: MEMORY CARE D CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMIT ENGINEER, design +development CLIENT: WESTERN HOME INDEPENDENT LIVING SERVICES INCL PRO]= NAME: WESTERN HOME GPD OF IOWA CITY REVISION LOG: REV DESCRIPTION DATE -- CITY SUBMITTAL #1 09-14-22 A CITY SUBMITTAL #2 11-15-22 B CITY SUBMITTAL #3 12-09-22 C CITY SUBMITTAL #4 12-15-22 SHEET NAME: CONCEPT PLAN SOUTH — PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY & SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT NO: PROJECT MANAGER: 5HEET NUMBER: 1025 WELCH REVISION: ISSUED DATE: C 12-15-2022 SAD -5 CL CL n 00 N N O N 040 in C LANDSCAPE LEGEND PLANTS: O PROPOSED LARGE DECIDUOUS TREE* J I i ___-- „ \\ �\ II / � �i�// �I /� \ - � > J ISI � I :.. \ � � \ � / \ I I I III � PROPOSED SMALL DECIDUOUS TREE' 0 25 50 75 100 PROPOSED EVERGREEN TREE PLANT SCHEDULE LOCATED ON SHEET L-02 \ \ I III I -� / PROPOSED SHRUB \ I I III ( I I I // / L I III WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET-/ 1" = 50' , �- / I I I \I I I I ( I I \\ SPECIES AS LABELED, PLANTING LOCATION TO BE VERIFIED BY DRIVES, SIGHT TRIANGLES, AND UTILITIES. STREET TREES SHALL BE INSTALLED BY LOT OWNER DURING HOME CONSTRUCTION TO PREVENT CONSTRUCTION DAMAGES,* PLANT SCHEDULE LOCATED ON SHEET L-02 F LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS C �JRT I \ \ \ \ /� /� / / / / n / 14-5E-7: STREET TREE REQUIREMENTS: A. STREET TREES ADJACENT TO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY: \v ' l / 1. ON SINGLE FRONTAGE LOTS, ONE LARGE TREE IS REQUIRED FOR EVERY FORTY (40) LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE ONE SMALL TREE FOR EVERY THIRTY (30) LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE,, BUT NOT LESS THAN ONE 02-GBT / \ \� TREE PER LOT. 2,302.2 LF FRONTAGE /40 = 57.60 REQUIRED 02 -CAP � \ � / /` / 59 PROVIDED ro, 02-OVE6: 2. ON LOTS WITH MORE THAN ONE FRONTAGE, ONE TREE IS REQUIRED // FOR ERY SIXTY (60) LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE. \ \ \�� /(LOTS 01 + 05) `� 329.68 LF FRONTAGE / 60 = 05.50 REQUIRED / x. \ / \ \\ / 07 PROVIDED I / V XW 01-QI - ��/ \ �A, ' 14-5E-8: TREE REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES: 03-QBS / A. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS: / / ( 1. FOR LOTS CONTAINING TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS, MULTI -FAMILY / � I \ I � \ II DWELLINGS, OR GROUP LIVING USES, TREES MUST BE PLANTED ON SITE \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ ��� \ / / \ \ �I 03-GBT I AT A MINIMUM RATIO OF AT LEAST ONE TREE FOR EVERY FIVE HUNDRED \ I \ \ \ \ ��\ � / / // \ \\ \ ` � FIFTY (550) SQUARE FEET OF TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE OF THE LOT. ANY \\\ \ I I \ \\\ /� �/' \ \ \ / 02 -CCH I I COMBINATION OF SMALL AND LARGE TREES IS ALLOWED, PROVIDED THIS \ \ I I I I I I I\\\ \`- �j / l l \ / \ 03-PXA I COVERAGE RATIO IS MET. \ \ \ I I I 01-1-1-H \�\\ / / \ \ I 01 -CCH , (LOT 06) = 5,695.37 SF / 550 SF = 10.34 REQUIRED 02-PTN j I 11 PROVIDED 01-AXG (LOT 12) = 5,695.37 SF / 550 SF = 10.34 REQUIRED / \ — _ _ 1 02-COH \ \ j J I / \\ � � 02-PTN � \ / 11 PROVIDED (LOT 14) 5,695.37 SF / 550 SF 10.34 REQUIRED 01-AXG I / 11 PROVIDED s T _ (LOT 21) = 5,695.37 SF / 550 SF = 10.34 REQUIRED I 70 02 TTP �g �� I 11 PROVIDED -AXG 01 -CAP - \ (LOT 48) = 14,153.04 SF / 550 SF = 25.73 REQUIRED - \\ 03 -CCH / 26 PROVIDED 03 -CCT 04-CVW 03 -CCA , 01-QXW /'A / \ (LOT 40) = 14,153.04 SF / 550 SF = 25.73 REQUIRED �. V / 01 -CCA a oo �04-OVE 01 CC, 03-PXA \ (LOT C) = 17,368.5 + 1,219(20) 26 PROVIDED -CCA ' 01 -QR C 02_AXG S �O \ w 41,748.5 SF/550 SF = 75.91 REQUIRED W — Q 04 -CC 02 QRL 01-QMC A,` \\ 80 PROVIDED s5• 03 -QX - — - z, \ \ a i� 43• - . � oo � W \\\\\ —� / , 01 -TTP; - -� SS i V — \ 01-PTN T \x 01 -CAPS I 02-QBS 03 TMH 01 -CCT l / 01-OVE 01 -CCA / I \ — r 3 01-CVW�- 2 02 AXG \ 01 -CCA f � � � ,01-AXG� 03 -PAC .�_ _/ T — I\ 05 -CAB 06 -MAO TREE 01 -NSB \ \ I'\ \ I6*1 05 -PAC 03-QRC 05 -CAB ` 01-CVW a � \ J 02 -TTP \ / z 02 CCN C 03-CVW V �/ / i� LOT \ \ \ \ \ \ 03-QMC a z 8A a05 -MAO .� 03-QRC l s�SF 03 AXG I / 3 I 01-11 2 -CAP 02 -NSB a ST 03 -COS 03 BPF 01-PXA C a / 03 -CCH � / 6 / \ ��_ — \ \ \ 01 _1_%- 7 C) C) i 1 1 07-SPD\\\\\A \ \ \ — .. 18" TRE 19 -AXE g �8 TREE \\\ \ \ I{IIII I II I ENGINEER: /2� EES 05-SXB 08 CAB 40 / 1 2\E E 02 -TTP SF .96 TREE02-QBS05-SMP 0 41 x / / 02-COH r / ) \ II D 03 CVW 02 CCT J I I I I \ \ \ \� design+development 2 \ I/ /CLIENT: 2 XRE WESTERN HOME INDEPENDENT CES INC.02-QXW T PROJECT NAME: LIVING SERVI KRU—/ I\`L 3 03 QRL 05 -SMP 03 -CCN �WESTERN HOME GPD 01 -BPF 05-MA02R L 1COF IOWA CITY 0OH \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ / \ I \ I REVISION LOG: W > T R- = \ \\ \\ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ REV DESCRIPTION DATE CITY SUBMITTAL #1 09-14-22 amp, R\ J A CITY SUBMITTAL #2 11 z-15-22 \ \ \ \ I I \ TR B CITY SUBMITTAL #3 12-09-22 C CITY SUBMITTAL #4 12-15-22 SHEET NAME: m7777J m — — CONCEPT LANDSCAPE PLAN 3 i _ z Landscaping Plan is to ZoningCode will be with the Ian. The Ian shown hint and is to change in compliance thtandd x p 9 s subject e standards we reviewed e sp p owere s a concept s subject 9 cop ce wthose standards. PROJECT NO: PROJECT MANAGER: SHEET NUMBER: x 1025 WELCH IL Desi J REVISION: ISSUED DATE: L-01 x i C 12-15-2022 0 N 0 N LdK 0 r. 1Ilk ' • • ■ • , IL I J 'J ID QTY. BOTANICALICOMMON NAME ROOT NOTES 01-LSR 02 -CAP \ 05 -SPD A Aesculus 'Autumn Splendor' BB 30-45' H X 30-35' W, C CITY SUBMITTAL #4 12-15-22 AUTUM N SPLENDER BUCKEYE O \ \ O Gyrocladus dioicus 'Espresso' m REVISION: C 40-50' H X 25-35' W, I J l / LU I / \ z J Betula platy phylla 'Fargo' DAKOTA PINNACLE J � BPF 7 BB U DAKOTA PINNACLE BIRCH PLANTING SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE J 7 Carpinus betulus 'Fastigiata' BB 30-40'HX20-30'W; COMMON HORNBEAM PLANTING SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE 1 � Corylus colurna BB 40-60' H X 25-35' W, I PLANTING SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE Q Ce@is occidentalis 'Prairie Pride' 40-50' H X 40-60' W, COH7 L x J 'J 03-LSR 10 -PAC 0 0 0 01 -BPF / 07-JXM 06 -CAS 02-LTT 02 -BPF 03 -CAB 02 -CBF \ / \ 1Ac 84,105 F \ i n IL \ 103 -AAS U I I li 02 -PAN 3 '� \ N N ` 02 -MIP Z \ 1 103 -TMH D In W \ U 1 N �� J NN N i N 02 -MIP 01-PTN 03 -CAP 01 -AAS x 03 -AAS 02 -CCN LANDSCAPELEGEND PLANTS: O PROPOSED LARGE DECIDUOUS TREE' / / PROPOSED SMALL DECIDUOUS TREE* PROPOSED EVERGREEN TREE" \ ( 0 25 50 75 100 ow PROPOSED SHRUB WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET -SPECIES AS LABELED; PLANTING LOCATION TO BE VERIFIED BY DRIVES, SIGHT 5x3 TRIANGLES, AND UTILITIES. STREET TREES SHALL BE INSTALLED BY LOT OWNER 1n O DURING HOME CONSTRUCTION TO PREVENT CONSTRUCTION DAMAGES"" � 11 PLANT SCHEDULE LOCATED ON SHEET L-02 40 LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS 0.9e A� 41,9725E 14-5E-7: STREET TREE REQUIREMENTS: A. STREET TREES ADJACENT TO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY: 1. ON SINGLE FRONTAGE LOTS, ONE LARGE TREE IS REQUIRED FOR ( EVERY FORTY (40) LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE OR ONE SMALL TREE FOR \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ THIRTY (30) LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE, BUT NOT LESS THAN ONE TREE PER LOT. 2,302.2 LF FRONTAGE /40 = 57.60 REQUIRED 2 ,9 XR E \ \ \ 59 PROVIDED \ \ \ \ 2. ON LOTS WITH MORE THAN ONE FRONTAGE, ONE TREE IS REQUIRED \ \ T \ \ \ FOR EVERY SIXTY (60) LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE. I --TE (LOTS 01 + 05) �` 329.68 LF FRONTAGE /60 = 05.50 REQUIRED 07 PROVIDED 01 -BPF ST �1 \ IV T\R EXL- 2, \ 14-5E-8: TREE REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES: A. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS: \ \ 1. FOR LOTS CONTAINING TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS, MULTI -FAMILY DWELLINGS, OR GROUP LIVING USES, TREES MUST BE PLANTED ON SITE AT A MINIMUM RATIO OF AT LEAST ONE TREE FOR EVERY FIVE HUNDRED �\ u TR ` / FIFTY (550) SQUARE FEET OF TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE OF THE LOT. ANY COMBINATION OF SMALL AND LARGE TREES IS ALLOWED, PROVIDED THIS TR / COVERAGE RATIO IS MET. (LOT 06) = 5,695.37 SF / 550 SF = 10.34 REQUIRED 11 PROVIDED (LOT 12) = 5,695.37 SF / 550 SF = 10.34 REQUIRED I / 11 PROVIDED (LOT 14) = 5,695.37 SF / 550 SF = 10.34 REQUIRED 11 PROVIDED (LOT 21) = 5,695.37 SF / 550 SF = 10.34 REQUIRED 11 PROVIDED (LOT 48) = 14,153.04 SF / 550 SF = 25.73 REQUIRED 26 PROVIDED (LOT 40) = 14,153.04 SF / 550 SF = 25.73 REQUIRED 26 PROVIDED (LOT C) = 17,368.5 + 1,219(20) 41,748.5 SF/550 SF = 75.91 REQUIRED 80 PROVIDED PLANTSCHEDIULE ID QTY. BOTANICALICOMMON NAME ROOT NOTES MATURE SIZE: 02 -CAP PLANTING SIZE: AAS7 A Aesculus 'Autumn Splendor' BB 30-45' H X 30-35' W, C CITY SUBMITTAL #4 12-15-22 AUTUM N SPLENDER BUCKEYE O PLANTING SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE PROJECT NO: 1025 O Gyrocladus dioicus 'Espresso' m REVISION: C 40-50' H X 25-35' W, J J / LU I / \ z J Betula platy phylla 'Fargo' DAKOTA PINNACLE J � BPF 7 BB U DAKOTA PINNACLE BIRCH PLANTING SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE CBF 7 Carpinus betulus 'Fastigiata' BB 30-40'HX20-30'W; COMMON HORNBEAM PLANTING SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE 1 � Corylus colurna BB 03-LSR 10 -PAC 0 0 0 01 -BPF / 07-JXM 06 -CAS 02-LTT 02 -BPF 03 -CAB 02 -CBF \ / \ 1Ac 84,105 F \ i n IL \ 103 -AAS U I I li 02 -PAN 3 '� \ N N ` 02 -MIP Z \ 1 103 -TMH D In W \ U 1 N �� J NN N i N 02 -MIP 01-PTN 03 -CAP 01 -AAS x 03 -AAS 02 -CCN LANDSCAPELEGEND PLANTS: O PROPOSED LARGE DECIDUOUS TREE' / / PROPOSED SMALL DECIDUOUS TREE* PROPOSED EVERGREEN TREE" \ ( 0 25 50 75 100 ow PROPOSED SHRUB WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET -SPECIES AS LABELED; PLANTING LOCATION TO BE VERIFIED BY DRIVES, SIGHT 5x3 TRIANGLES, AND UTILITIES. STREET TREES SHALL BE INSTALLED BY LOT OWNER 1n O DURING HOME CONSTRUCTION TO PREVENT CONSTRUCTION DAMAGES"" � 11 PLANT SCHEDULE LOCATED ON SHEET L-02 40 LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS 0.9e A� 41,9725E 14-5E-7: STREET TREE REQUIREMENTS: A. STREET TREES ADJACENT TO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY: 1. ON SINGLE FRONTAGE LOTS, ONE LARGE TREE IS REQUIRED FOR ( EVERY FORTY (40) LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE OR ONE SMALL TREE FOR \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ THIRTY (30) LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE, BUT NOT LESS THAN ONE TREE PER LOT. 2,302.2 LF FRONTAGE /40 = 57.60 REQUIRED 2 ,9 XR E \ \ \ 59 PROVIDED \ \ \ \ 2. ON LOTS WITH MORE THAN ONE FRONTAGE, ONE TREE IS REQUIRED \ \ T \ \ \ FOR EVERY SIXTY (60) LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE. I --TE (LOTS 01 + 05) �` 329.68 LF FRONTAGE /60 = 05.50 REQUIRED 07 PROVIDED 01 -BPF ST �1 \ IV T\R EXL- 2, \ 14-5E-8: TREE REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES: A. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS: \ \ 1. FOR LOTS CONTAINING TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS, MULTI -FAMILY DWELLINGS, OR GROUP LIVING USES, TREES MUST BE PLANTED ON SITE AT A MINIMUM RATIO OF AT LEAST ONE TREE FOR EVERY FIVE HUNDRED �\ u TR ` / FIFTY (550) SQUARE FEET OF TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE OF THE LOT. ANY COMBINATION OF SMALL AND LARGE TREES IS ALLOWED, PROVIDED THIS TR / COVERAGE RATIO IS MET. (LOT 06) = 5,695.37 SF / 550 SF = 10.34 REQUIRED 11 PROVIDED (LOT 12) = 5,695.37 SF / 550 SF = 10.34 REQUIRED I / 11 PROVIDED (LOT 14) = 5,695.37 SF / 550 SF = 10.34 REQUIRED 11 PROVIDED (LOT 21) = 5,695.37 SF / 550 SF = 10.34 REQUIRED 11 PROVIDED (LOT 48) = 14,153.04 SF / 550 SF = 25.73 REQUIRED 26 PROVIDED (LOT 40) = 14,153.04 SF / 550 SF = 25.73 REQUIRED 26 PROVIDED (LOT C) = 17,368.5 + 1,219(20) 41,748.5 SF/550 SF = 75.91 REQUIRED 80 PROVIDED PLANTSCHEDIULE ID QTY. BOTANICALICOMMON NAME ROOT NOTES MATURE SIZE: LARGE DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTINGS PLANTING SIZE: AAS7 A Aesculus 'Autumn Splendor' BB 30-45' H X 30-35' W, C CITY SUBMITTAL #4 12-15-22 AUTUM N SPLENDER BUCKEYE PLANTING SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE PROJECT NO: 1025 PROJECT MANAGER: WELCH Gyrocladus dioicus 'Espresso' m REVISION: C 40-50' H X 25-35' W, GDE5 BB KENTUCKY COFFEETREE PLANTING SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE Betula platy phylla 'Fargo' DAKOTA PINNACLE 30-40' H X 10-15' W; BPF 7 BB DAKOTA PINNACLE BIRCH PLANTING SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE CBF 7 Carpinus betulus 'Fastigiata' BB 30-40'HX20-30'W; COMMON HORNBEAM PLANTING SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE CCT7 Corylus colurna BB 40-60' H X 25-35' W, TURKISH FILBERT PLANTING SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE Ce@is occidentalis 'Prairie Pride' 40-50' H X 40-60' W, COH7 BB HACKBERRY PLANTING SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE Cos7 Carya ovata BB 60-80' H X 30-50' W; SHAGBARK HICKORY PLANTING SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE LSR6 Liquidambar syracif lua 'Rotundiloba' BB 60-75' H X 20-40' W, FRUITLESS SWEETGUM PLANTING SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE Liriodendron tulipifera 70-130'H X 30-60'W 0-60'W; LTT7 BB ' TULIP TREE PLANTING SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE NSB7 Nyssa sylvatica BB 30-50' H X 20-30' W; BLACKGUM PLANTING SIZE :MIN. OF1.5"TRUNK DIAMETER AT6"ABOVE GRADE OVE 7 Ostrya virginiana BB 35-45' H X 15-20' W; EASTERN HOP HORNBEAM PLANTING SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE Ratanus x acerifolia 'Liberty' 40-50' H X 50-60'W PXA7 BB LONDON PLANE TREE PLANTING SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE Quercus bicolor 50-75' H X 40-70' W, QBS7 BB SWAMPWHITEOAK PLANTING SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT6"ABOVE GRADE QMC7 Quercus muehlenbergii BB 40-60' H X 50-70' W; CHINKAPIN OAK PLANTING SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE QRC7 Quercus rubra 'Clemons' BB 60-80' H X 60-80' W; RED OAK PLANTING SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE QRL5 Quercus rubra 'Long' BB 60-75' H X 45-50' W, RED OAK PLANTING SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE QXW 7 Quercus x w arei 'Long' REGAL PRINCE BB 40-60' H X 20-25' W; REGAL PRINCE OAK PLANTING SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT6"ABOVE GRADE Tilia mongolica'Harvest Gold' 25-45' H X 20-30' W; TMH 6 BB MONGOLIAN LINDEN PLANTING SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE Tilia torrentosa'PNI6051' 50-70' H X 30-40' W, TTP7 BB SILVER LINDEN PLANTING SIZE :MIN. OF1.5"TRUNK DIAMETER AT6"ABOVE GRADE Ginkgo biloba'The President' 45-50' H X 30-40' W, GBT7 BB GINKGO PLANTING SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE Populus tremuloides 'NE -ARB' 35-40' H X 10-20' W; PTN8 BB PRAIRIE GOLD ASPEN PLANTING SIZE :MIN. OF1.5"TRUNK DIAMETER AT6"ABOVE GRADE 142 TOTAL SMALL DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTINGS CCN12 Cercis canadensis 'Northern Strain' BB 20-30' H X 25-35' W, EASTERN REDBUD PLANTING SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE Cercis canadensis 'Hearts of Gold' PP #17,740 25-35' H X 20-25' W, CCH12 BB HEARTS OF GOLD RED -BUD PLANTING SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE CAP12 Cornus alternifolia BB 15-25' H X 20-35' W; PAGODA DOGWOOD PLANTING SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE Malus ioensis'Prince Georges' 10-15' H X 10-15' W; MIP12 BB PRAIRIE CRABAPPLE PLANTING SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE CCA12 Carpinus caroliniana BB 20-30' H X 20-30' W, AM ERICAN HORNBEAM PLANTING SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE Amelanchier X grandiflora'Autumn Brilliance' 15-25' H X 20-25' W, AXG12 BB AUTUMNBRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY PLANTING SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT6"ABOVE GRADE SPD12 Syringa pekinensis 'DTR 124 BB 15-20' H X 10-15' W; SUMMERCHARMTREELILAC PLANTING SIZE :MIN. OF1.5"TRUNK DIAMETER AT6"ABOVE GRADE CVW14 Crataegus viridis'Wnter King' BB 15-20' H X 10-15' W; GREEN HAWTHORN PLANTING SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE 98 ITOTAI EVERGREEN TREE PLANTINGS Rcea abies 40-60'H X 25-30'W PAN2 BB NORWAY SPRUCE PLANTING SIZE MIN. OF T HEIGHT TO TOP OF TREE PSE2 Hnus strobus BB 50-80' H X 20-40' W; EASTERN WHITE PINE PLANTING SIZE MIN. OF T HEIGHT TO TOP OF TREE 4 TOTAL DECIDUOUS SHRUB PLANTINGS CAB 24 Clethra alnifolia'Septernber Beauty' CONT. 4-6'H X 3-5'W; PLANTING SIZE: 5 GAL @ 36" MIN. HEIGHT SEPTEM BER BEAUTY SWEET PEPPERBUSH Spiraea x bumalda'Anthony Waterer' SXB 9 CONT. 3-4' H X 3-4' W; PLANTING SIZE 2 GAL @ 18" MIN. HEIGHT ANTHONY WATERER SPI REA CAS 12 Gethra alnifolia'Sixteen Candles' CONT. 3-4' H X 3-4' W, PLANTING SIZE 2 GAL @ 18" MIN. HEIGHT SIXTEEN CANDLES SWEET PEPPERBUSH Azalea x 'Fragrant Star' �(F 19 CONT. 4-5'H X 34W, PLANTING SIZE: 5 GAL @ 36" MIN. HEIGHT FRAGRANT STARAZALEA SMP 17 Syringa meyeri'Palibin' CONT. 4-6'H X 5-7'W; PLANTING SIZE: 5 GAL @ 36" MIN. HEIGHT DWARF KOREAN LILAC 81 TOTAL EVERGREEN SHRUB PLANTINGS PAC18 Hcea abies'Cupressina' CONT. 20-25' H X 4-6' W; PLANTING SIZE: 5 GAL 36" MIN. HEIGHT CUPRESSINA NORWAY SPRUCE @ MAO Mahonia aquifolium 16 OREGON GRAPE -HOLLY CONT. 3-6'H X 3-5'W; PLANTING SIZE: 5 GAL @ 36" MIN, HEIGHT Juniperus x pfitzeriana'Gold Coast' JXP14 GOLD COAST JUNIPER CONT. 2-3'H X 3-4' W; PLANTING SIZE: 5 GAL @ 36" MIN. HEIGHT Juniperus x pf itzeriana 'Mint Julep' JXM 14 CONT. 4-5'H X 4-8'W; PLANTING SIZE: 5 GAL @ 36" MIN. HEIGHT M INT JULEP CHINESEJUNIPER 62 ITOTAI ALL PLANTS SHALL BE .. r Landscaping Plan is subject to Zoning Code standards which will be reviewed with the site plan. The plan shown here is a concept and is subject to change in compliance with those standards. ENGINEER: we c design +development CLIENT: WESTERN HOME INDEPENDENT LIVING SERVICES. INC. PROJECT NAME: WESTERN HOME GPD OF IOWA CITY REVISION LOG: REV DESCRIPTION DATE -- CITY SUBMITTAL #1 09-14-22 A CITY SUBMITTAL #2 11-15-22 B CITY SUBMITTAL #3 12-09-22 C CITY SUBMITTAL #4 12-15-22 SHEET NAME: CONCEPT LANDSCAPE PLAN PROJECT NO: 1025 PROJECT MANAGER: WELCH SHEET NUMBER: L-02 REVISION: C ISSUED DATE: 12-15-2022 STAKING NOTES: TREE & SHRUB PLANTING NOTES: 00 TREE STAKING SHALL ONLY BE USED IF NOTED, IN HIGH WIND 03 AREAS, OR AREAS OF HEAVY ADJACENT PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC. 01 STAKING WIRE THROUGH RUBBER HOSE SET LOOSE TO ALLOW FOR 04 TRUNK TAPER AND DETRIMENTAL GROWTH. TREE SHOULD ALLOW LIMITED MOVEMENT. 02 STEEL FENCE POST STAKE DRIVEN INSIDE MULCH RING DIAMETER. 05 DRIVE STAKES V-0" INTO UNDISTURBED SOIL BELOW ROOTBALL. ;• •..:; •alb • �•; 0. r�•: •• 10 �''•ty �. ' 12 • 13 y� i1 14 J 'J Pq r J n REMOVE TOP 2/3 OF WIRE BASKET AND BURLAP ONCE PLACED INTO PLANTING HOLE. REMOVE ALL SISAL AND SYNTHETIC TWINE. TRUNK FLARE SHOULD BE EXPOSED BEFORE DETERMINING PLANTING HOLE DEPTH. PLANTTREE WITH TRUNK FLARE 1-2" MAXIMUM ABOVE ORIGINAL GRADE, AVOID PLANTING TREE TOO DEEPLY. PLANTING HOLE TO BE AT MINIMUM 3 TIMES THE WIDTH OF ROOTBALL AT SOIL SURFACE, SLOPING TO THE WIDTH OF ROOT BALL AT BASE. PLANTING HOLE WIDTH NEAR SURFACE IS INCREASED TO 5 TIMES THE WIDTH OF ROOTBALL WHEN SOILS ARE HIGHLY COMPACTED OR HEAVY IN CLAY CONTENT. SCARIFY PLANTING HOLE TO HELP ELIMINATE THE CREATION OF A SOIL INTERFACE. PLACE ROOTBALL ON COMPACTED & LEVELED SUBGRADE. REMOVE EXISTING SOIL FROM EXCAVATED PLANTING PIT AND REPLACE WITH PLANTING SOIL. WHILE BACKFILLING, WORK PLANTING SOIL AROUND ROOTBALL TO MINIMIZE LARGE AIR POCKETS AND ENSURE BETTER VERTICAL SUPPORT. AVOID MOUNDING MULCH & MAKING CONTACT WITH TRUNK. FORM 2-3" SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH RING SAUCER TO HELP HOLD WATER DURING ESTABLISHMENT. DIAMETER OF MULCH AREA SHOULD BE KEPT CLEAR OF GRASS, WEEDS, ETC. TO REDUCE COMPETITION WITH TREE ROOTS. UNDISTURBED SOIL. ONLY LIGHTLY PRUNE AND REMOVE DAMAGED OR DEAD BRANCHES SPADE EDGING, TYP. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON PLAN. REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR PLANT SPACING, LOCATIONS 6" MINIMUM WIDER HOLE THAN CONTAINER ON ALL SIDES. TREE PROTECTION FENCING NOTES: 00 TYPICAL ALL TREES NOTED FOR PROTECTION ON SITE PLANS. 01 04'-0" HIGH VISIBILITY ORANGE CONSTRUCTION FENCE. 02 WRAP TREE TRUNK WITH DIMENSIAL LUMBER (2X4,6,9,10). DEPENDING UPON THE TRUNK DIAMETER AND SIZE OF TREE, LENGTH SHALL EXTEND ENTIRETY OF EXPOSED TRUNK TO BRANCHES. SECURE WITH METAL/PLASTIC/POLYESTER STRAPS IN 3 LOCATIONS. 03 STEEL FENCE POSTS AT MIN. 8'-0" O.C. 04 INSTALL FENCING 5' BEYOND DRIP LINE OF PROTECTED TREE. I ELEVATION PLAN GENERAL LANDSCAPE PLANTING NOTES: 01 CONTRACTOR TO LOCATE ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK, CONTACT IOWA ONE CALL (1-800-292-8989 OR 811) AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO DIGGING. REPAIR DAMAGE TO UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES IMMEDIATELY. 02 PRIOR TO PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION, THE LANDSCAPE OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE SHALL APPROVE PLANT LOCATIONS. FIELD ADJUSTMENTS OF PROPOSED PLANT LOCATIONS LISTED ON PLAN MAY BE REQUIRED TO MINIMIZE POTENTIAL INTERFERENCE WITH EXISTING OR RELOCATED UTILITIES OR IMPROVE MAINTENANCE CONDITIONS. 03 PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, ALL TREE PLANTING LOCATIONS SHALL BE FLAGGED AND PLANTING BEDS SHALL BE DELINEATED FOR APPROVAL BY THE PROJECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. CONTACT THE PROJECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE ONE WEEK PRIOR TO ANTICIPATED PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION DATE FOR FINAL LAYOUT APPROVAL. 04 ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL AT LEAST MEET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS SHOWN IN THE "AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK" (ANSI Z60.1 -LATEST EDITION). 05 PLANT QUANTITIES ARE FOR CONTRACTOR'S CONVENIENCE. DRAWINGS SHALL PREVAIL WHERE DISCREPANCIES OCCUR. 06 NO PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE SUBSTITUTED WITHOUT THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 07 BED PREPARATION AND MULCHING NOTES: IMPORTED TOPSOIL, IF REQUIRED, SHALL BE: FERTILE, FRIABLE, NATURAL TOPSOIL, WITH A CLAY CONTENT NOT EXCEEDING 30% AND ORGANIC MATTER CONTENT NOT LESS THAN 5% FREE FROM LUMPS, COARSE SANDS, STONES, ROOTS, STICKS, AND OTHER FOREIGN MATERIAL, WITH ACIDITY RANGE OF BETWEEN Ph 6.0 and 6.8. 08 PLANTING SOIL: PLANTING SOIL (i.e. BACKFILL AREAS AROUND ROOT BALLS AS SHOWN ON TREE/SHRUB INSTALLATION DETAIL) SHALL BE AMENDED. THOROUGHLY MIX 4 PARTS TOPSOIL, 1 PART COMPOST, 1 PART SAND. TOPSOIL SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED WITHIN THE NOTE ABOVE. COMPOST SHALL BE FINELY SCREENED GRADED TO PASS SIEVE AS FOLLOWS: -MINIMUM OF 85% BEING 1/4" OR SMALLER (DRY BASIS RESULT). -MINIMUM OF 70% BEING 5/32" OR SMALLER (DRY BASIS RESULT). -WITH CLUMPS OR PARTICLES 3/4" DIAMETER OR GREATER. SAND SHALL BE C33 WASHED CONCRETE SAND, OR APPROVED EQUAL. 09 UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED, ALL GRASS/PERENNIAL MASSINGS ARE TO BE EVENLY SPACED IN TRIANGULAR PATTERN ARRANGEMENT. 10 PRIOR TO MULCHING ALL PLANTING BED AREAS, APPLY COMMERCIAL GRADE PRE -EMERGENT HERBICIDE (PREEN OR APPROVED EQUAL), PER MANUFACTURE'S DIRECTIONS, TO ALL PLANTING BEDS. 11 PROVIDE A MINIMUM 3" DEPTH OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD AND/OR ROCK MULCH IN ALL TREE PLANTING BEDS. ALL ROCK MULCH BEDS SHALL BE T'4' IN DEPTH, WITH FILTER FABRIC SEPARATING SOIL FROM ROCK MULCH. 12 PROVIDE 3" DEPTH MIN. OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD AND/OR ROCK MULCH IN ALL SHRUB/ORNAMENTAL GRASS/PERENNIAL BEDS. 13 PROVIDE ALL TREES WITH A MINIMUM 3" DEPTH OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. MULCH RINGS FOR TREES SHALL BEA MINIMUM SIX FOOT (6') DIAMETER AND CONTAIN SPADE EDGING AT MULCH RING EDGE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 14 PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN POSITIVE DRAINAGE THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION. DO NOT ALLOW ADDITION OF TOPSOIL, PLANTING SOIL OR MULCH TO DETER POSITIVE DRAINAGE OR TO CREATE AREA OF LOCALIZED PONDING. 15 NURSERY TAGS SHALL BE LEFT ON PLANT MATERIAL UNTIL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS COMPLETED THE INITIAL ACCEPTANCE. 16 CONTAINER GROWN STOCK SHALL HAVE THE CONTAINER REMOVED AND THE ROOT BALL CUT THROUGH THE SURFACE IN TWO VERTICAL LOCATIONS. 17 ALL PLANTS SHALL BE BALLED AND WRAPPED OR CONTAINER GROWN AS SPECIFIED. NO CONTAINER STOCK WILL BE ACCEPTED IF IT IS ROOT BOUND. ALL ROOT WRAPPING MATERIAL MADE OF SYNTHETICS, PLASTICS, BURLAP, TWINE, ETC. SHALL BE REMOVED AT TIME OF PLANTING. 18 AS NEEDED, STAKE ALL NEWLY PLANTED TREES RELATIVE TO WIND EXPOSURE. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE SET PLUMB TO GROUND AND FACED FOR BEST APPEARANCE. AS NECESSARY, PRUNE DEAD BRANCHES OR THOSE THAT COMPROMISE APPEARANCE AND STRUCTURE TO A MAX OF 1/3 THE PLANT. 19 CONTRACTOR SHALL WATER AND MAINTAIN ALL SEEDED/SODDED AREAS AS WELL AS ALL PLANTS UNTIL GROUND FREEZES. MAINTENANCE INCLUDES WEEDING, MULCHING, AND OTHER NECESSARY RELATED OPERATIONS UNTIL INITIAL ACCEPTANCE. INITIAL ACCEPTANCE IS CONSIDERED TO BE THE DATE AT WHICH PLANTING AND MULCHING, ETC., PER LANDSCAPE PLAN, HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 20 THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING, BOTH EXISTING AND PROPOSED, SHALL BE MAINTAINED FOR LIFE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 21 ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE GUARANTEED TO BE IN VIGOROUS GROWING CONDITIONS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR FROM DATE OF INITIAL ACCEPTANCE. ALL PLANT MATERIALS THAT ARE DEAD OR IN AN UNHEALTHY OR UNSIGHTLY STATE ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPLACED AT NO ADDITIONAL COSTTO THE OWNER FOR UP TO ONE YEAR OF INITIAL ACCEPTANCE. 22 SURFACE RESTORATION FOR ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE TURF GRASS LAWN SOD, WITH AN ALTERNATE OPTION TO BE TURF GRASS LAWN SEED. ALL SEED & SOD APPLICATION NOTES ARE LISTED SEPARATELY. CONTRACTOR SHALL FOLLOW MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATIONS FOR PRODUCT INFORMATION & INSTALLATION. FOR ALL SURFACE RESTORATION, PLANTING PRACTICES, AND ANY OTHER LANDSCAPING WORK NOT ADDRESSED VIA MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS, CONTRACTOR SHALL FOLLOW IOWA SUDAS SPECIFICATIONS DIVISION 09: SITE WORK AND LANDSCAPING OF IOWA. ENGINEER: welch design +development CLIENT: WESTERN HOME INDEPENDENT LIVING SERVICES. INC. PROJECT NAME: WESTERN HOME GPD OF IOWA CITY REVISION LOG: REV DESCRIPTION DATE -- CITY SUBMITTAL #1 09-14-22 A CITY SUBMITTAL #2 11-15-22 B CITY SUBMITTAL #3 12-09-22 C CITY SUBMITTAL #4 12-15-22 SHEET NAME: CONCEPT LANDSCAPE PLAN DETAILS PROJECT NO: PROJECT MANAGER: SHEET NUMBER: IL Des' ign 1025 WELCH REVISION: ISSUED DATE: L-03 C 12-15-2022 53'-0" 3 BEDROOM. NO BASEMENT. FINISHED AREA =1%C SF FIRST FLOOR 1 1/4" = 1'-0" a 4 I te.. C" sachamar eesT SIR 3SIA1 11 CONSULTANTS STRUCTURAL ENCINEER ,,Shoemaker Haaland www shoemaker-haalard,com W M MOV Rola, CenNIIp, Imam SUNT i. 314351 )150 WESTERN HOMES -GATHERING PLACE -SINGLE FAMILY PRaETTNO.P,T*CN,,NO SESIFTION .wDSC � �W REASKINS mnnknvanaliaveuvd+tie •... n PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NAME SINGLE FAMILY FLOOR PLANS SHEET NUMUFR A101 fT.O.P.-12/12 ifi' - p" - - - - - - 8OiP1 /8" RAGE - _- - - FIRST FLOOR io T.O.P.-12/12 5'-0" i� TOP GARAGE_ - - <l 8 11/8" - -- ���.-��.-�� 11 FIRST FLOOR - LOWER LEVEL 0'-11/2" TO_P.-12112 s`- o" TOP. -12/12 _ - 8 TOP1118: 8"A 1 FIRSTFL 01-0: 01 T.O.P.-12/12 T.O.P.-GARAGE 8'- 1 1/8" ARm"Wror RESW1U f FIRST FLOOR- _ 8'- 1 1I8 AP 01-0" L.0 MR asIAI11 FIRST FLOOR_A"Iio TOP. -12/12 _ - 8 TOP1118: 8"A 1 FIRSTFL 01-0: 01 T.O.P.-12/12 i V ARm"Wror RESW1U T.O,P -GARAGE oo© 8'- 1 1I8 AP 4J"a zNs asIAI11 FIRST FLOOR_A"Iio 0'--0" cweuvANTE �� �� a �� �� 12-12 Back Elevation 12-12 Front Elevation 2 , llll III L J<I III 1/8"=1'-0" '3 1/8"=1'-0" EXTER OR F N SHE$ 1. J SHARDILAPPF➢CEMF 80ARDSIDING4"EXPOSURE 12-12 Back Elevation -Walkout 4 -B" 2. 3d2' CEMENT BOARD TRIMS l YPICAL CEMENT WALL PANELS(ENTRY) 0. ALUMINUM 'LAO WOOD WINDOWS T.O.P.-12112 410 nen D FF 1191 DUf TO P.-GARAGEIE FI_RSTFLOOR S 0 Shed -Back Elevation -Walkout 7, 1/8" = t'-0" IDk Hipped -Back Elevation 9.i 77/8 Hipped -Back Elevation -Walkout 10, 1/8" = V-0' - Shed -Front Elevation 5. 1/8"=,'0" WESTERN HOMES -GATHERING PLACE -SINGLE FAMILY T„o „1„ 1 Lw&WMre Aw PIRI 11011 pN,,M, ATE DESMIrrial ti j�� Immo Dutch -Back Elevation -Walkout ,t2 - - 1/8" = 1'-w Dutch -Back Elevation 11., 1/8" = 1'-0" Hipped -Front Elevation_, 8 1/8"= 1'.0" 12 T.O.P.-12/12-AIL PRELIMINARY _ _ _ _ T.O P: GARAGE `, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 0000 SHEET HAM 0000 FIRST FLOORAL SINGLE FAMILY Dutch-FrontElevatio_n ELEVATIONS 1/8"= 1'-0" A201 oo© Dutch -Back Elevation -Walkout ,t2 - - 1/8" = 1'-w Dutch -Back Elevation 11., 1/8" = 1'-0" Hipped -Front Elevation_, 8 1/8"= 1'.0" 12 T.O.P.-12/12-AIL PRELIMINARY _ _ _ _ T.O P: GARAGE `, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 0000 SHEET HAM 0000 FIRST FLOORAL SINGLE FAMILY Dutch-FrontElevatio_n ELEVATIONS 1/8"= 1'-0" A201 Area Plan -Option 1 6AI 3132" =1'-0" Area Plan -Option 2 3W=T-O" .� W' -a" UNRA 21'-61R' 31'-81R' BEDROOM '1_C_ BEDROOM PATIO 5T-0 V-0. BEDROOMS L .I C. BATH 1 BEDROOM T Q u 6 LJ LIVING mn IE _ GARAGE — b „II—I BATH 2 rBE I.C. HALL u HALL ROO2 BEDROOMS LAUNDRY MECH KITCHEN I DINING LAUNDRY - MECH. GARAGE FOYER PATIO _ LIVING J� KITCHEN I DINING UNIT B N o \ UNIT A FOYER W" -a' UNITA 21'-6ffi" 31'-611T' 1T -V \ bUNIT A FDYER W-0" UNIT w -U, 10•-R• / o ` ` ��j ❑ _ I UNIT B LIVING KITCHEN I DINING FOYER BE ROOM W -O. f - HALL AMER AR,WTTldS,, � C4 4JsIM wl rsxls" CONSULTANTS STRUCTURAL ENGINEER ,,Shoemaker Haaland WWW shoemaLor-haalard,com W M100V Rola, CIMMIla, lam SUNT i. 314 O TUM PUT 5ECT NAST WESTERN HOMES: GATHERING PLACE -DUPLEX PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NAME FLOOR PLANS -OPTIONS 1&2 SHEET NUMUFR .FIRST FLOOR -OPTION 22.1 - A 1 01 118"=1'-0" b BEDROOMBEDROOM2 FFF4 _lm-_ IINNNNN! BEDROOMS W.I.C. BEDROOM 2 a E b b AUNORY KITCHEN I DINING BEDROOMI GARAGE MECH. n \ bUNIT A FDYER W-0" UNIT w -U, 10•-R• / o ` ` ��j ❑ _ I UNIT B LIVING KITCHEN I DINING FOYER BE ROOM W -O. f - HALL AMER AR,WTTldS,, � C4 4JsIM wl rsxls" CONSULTANTS STRUCTURAL ENGINEER ,,Shoemaker Haaland WWW shoemaLor-haalard,com W M100V Rola, CIMMIla, lam SUNT i. 314 O TUM PUT 5ECT NAST WESTERN HOMES: GATHERING PLACE -DUPLEX PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NAME FLOOR PLANS -OPTIONS 1&2 SHEET NUMUFR .FIRST FLOOR -OPTION 22.1 - A 1 01 118"=1'-0" DUPLEX ELEVATION 2 n 1 /8" = 1'-0'r O a 2 A201 DUPLEX FLOOR PLAN 1/8" = 11-01, 1 A201 1/8" = 11-01, ARCHITECT OF RECORD AKAR ARchiTecture 1027 Rochester Avenue Iowa City, Iowa 52245 T 319.351.4111 CONSULTANTS STRUCTURAL ENGINEER ,,DShoemaker PHaalan a�06 er-haalanJ.ciff 160 Holiday Road, Coralville, Iowa 52241 T. 319.351.7150 CIVIL ENGINEER / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT HFC HART-FREDERICKS CONSULTANTS PC 510 State Street, Tiffin, Iowa 52340 T. 319.545.7215 PROJECT NAME WESTERN HOME&GATHERING PLACE - DUPLEX Enter address here PROJECT NO. Project Number ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION Issue Date 10/07/2022 REV# REV DESCRIPTION ® AKAR ARchiTecture Unauthorized copying, disclosure or construction without written permission by AKAR ARchiTecture is prohibited. PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NAME DUPLEX SHEET NUMBER A201 D W � LJ DUPLEX FLOOR PLAN 1/8" = 11-01, 1 A201 1/8" = 11-01, ARCHITECT OF RECORD AKAR ARchiTecture 1027 Rochester Avenue Iowa City, Iowa 52245 T 319.351.4111 CONSULTANTS STRUCTURAL ENGINEER ,,DShoemaker PHaalan a�06 er-haalanJ.ciff 160 Holiday Road, Coralville, Iowa 52241 T. 319.351.7150 CIVIL ENGINEER / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT HFC HART-FREDERICKS CONSULTANTS PC 510 State Street, Tiffin, Iowa 52340 T. 319.545.7215 PROJECT NAME WESTERN HOME&GATHERING PLACE - DUPLEX Enter address here PROJECT NO. Project Number ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION Issue Date 10/07/2022 REV# REV DESCRIPTION ® AKAR ARchiTecture Unauthorized copying, disclosure or construction without written permission by AKAR ARchiTecture is prohibited. PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NAME DUPLEX SHEET NUMBER A201 24'-0 � z 1 FIRSTFLOOR 1/4" = 1'-D" b \ 24..0. i 2 SECOND FLOOR _ 114" = 1' O" a THIRD FLOOR V4" = T-0" MI �I in] II FE II II II ELEVATIONS NOTE: BULDING IS SUBJECT TO MULTI -FAMILY SITE DEVELOPEMENT STANDARDS WHICH WILL BE REVIEWED WITH THE SITEPLAN. THE BUILDING SHOWN HERE IS A CONCEPT AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE STANDARDS. AKAR �Tlwmffl AM C " sees" � 4 i PROJEC7 NAME WESTERN HOMES - GATHERING PLACE - TOWNHOMES PRaEIC.Ro.P,�R,mm, ISSUE SATE DESM"ON immon Ill clime AN PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEE� NAME FLOOR PLAN A101 �6) �7; (8� � �10 11 12 �� Y`TI' lsrl-a• 7 t 14' 8' M -a' fl' -w 1r.9 11' 4' to .0 is .O" tr-J" 11•-a• 11 11'.4 x•-111 STORAGE 1134 SF I III PARKING 9517 SF V STORAGE8F S Rentable Area Legend ■ CIRCULATION PARKING STORAGE RENT AREA -PARKING i,, 1/8" = 1'-0" NOTE: BUILDING IS SUBJECT TO MULTI -FAMILY SITE DEVELOPEMENT STANDARDS WHICH WILL BE REVIEWED WITH THE SITEPLAN. THE BUILDING SHOWN HERE IS A CONCEPT AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE STANDARDS. Mneas,J.w, 2m5 smorn3RAERrx1EER ,)Shoemaker Haaland WWW,5 W M100V Roaa, CIMMIS,, InIm SU41 i. 314351.)150 PROJEC7 NAME WESTERN HOMES -GATHERING PLACE -APARTMENT BLDG.1 >RIUMICT ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTUYIN 6101 OTT p"d SIESM, 04 t&22 SIAN m 5MR� = � PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NAME AREA PLAN - PARKING A101 D Mneas,J.w, 2m5 smorn3RAERrx1EER ,)Shoemaker Haaland WWW,5 W M100V Roaa, CIMMIS,, InIm SU41 i. 314351.)150 PROJEC7 NAME WESTERN HOMES -GATHERING PLACE -APARTMENT BLDG.1 >RIUMICT ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTUYIN 6101 OTT p"d SIESM, 04 t&22 SIAN m 5MR� = � PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NAME AREA PLAN - PARKING A101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1T2i 113! Rentable Area Legend CAFE CIRCULATION GYM OFFICE RESTROOMS RENT AREA -PUBLIC, 1/8" = i'-0" 10 - F E D2 D C' BI A �cEy sees CONSULTANTS STRUCTURAL ENGINEER ,,pShoemaker Haaland www shoemaLor-kcoandcom W MMOVRI,, CIMMN, AVNEP2., T 313617150 PROJECT NAME WESTERN HOMES -GATHERING PLACE -APARTMENT BLDG.1 P0. ECT NO.P,q N,,N, ISSUE E Mw W pm1w MR PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SN NAME AREA PLAN -PUBLIC Al 02 1 (10 Y 11 X12 13'' lwI_o- I -- � II 14'6. 11 4" 11'-Y' 1T -N 11'-6" 19'-0" 16' 91 11' 4" 11" 4' 11'-4' H' -C 14'-T BEDROOMI L BATH BEDROOM? BEDROOM BEDROOM BALCONY — BEDROOM 2� II rATH 2 I I W.LC.II BATH 1 APT 1221 SF 1 BALCONYC� q 1 KITCHEN I LI /DINING — s BALCONY D �' KITCHEN I LIVING APT. D I DINING 10265E I 3E7 M 2 — —I STAIR 14 BAT %1 1 ELR1 . MECH. 3EDROOM 1iL— BATH 1 W.I.C. 0 Biu __.rl 1 BEDROOM 1 1 II BEDROOM BEDROOM 3 BALCONYB BATH 1HIBA Rentable Area Legend APT. A APT. B API,A 1444 SF ' LIVING I KITCHEN I DINING I CIRCULATION 1212 SF KITHEN I LIVING I DINING 1 �—rA—PT.MECH. APT. C APT. D APIA 1444 SF APT.B 1633 SF ■ CIRCULATION APT.0 1221 SF STAIR 2.1 APT D 1026 SF G F; E D2 D I C (A; �l AM c,,'4as;JUNO 2z,5 s341mruw,ENGISEER 490 )Shoemaker Haaland WWW,5 W N1100y Roaa, CIMMIS,, Ip SU41 i. 314351.)150 PROJEC7 NAME WESTERN HOMES -GATHERING PLACE -APARTMENT BLDG.1 PRWECT NC a�mw N,M,, ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTIEN 6101 Old' p"d SIESM, 07111122 U,lm5",NSIx:w�:� �� PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NAME AREA PLAN -APARTMENTS MEET NUFATER A103 Rentable Area Legend CIRCULATION GATHERING KITCHEN RESTROOMS RENT AREA -GATHERING V8.. = 1'-p1. a4cxnEcroEREcano c,% cEy JUNO 52m5 CONSULTANMI ENTRU IRAERrx1EER (G, JSh©emaker Haaland WWW,5 W M100y Roaa, CIMNIa Ipwa SU41 i. 314351.)150 F) Ei D2 D C Bj A! PROJEC7 NAME WESTERN HOMES -GATHERING PLACE -APARTMENT BLDG.1 PROJECT NO, Num,ar ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTICTI 07111122 m5nknva ONUNE' a uu v 3M M1 0 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Sil� NAME AREA PLAN -GATHERING MEET MUNITER A104 Rentable Area Legend CAFE CIRCULATION GYM OFFICE RENTAREA-PUBLIC-1/16 2 1/1611- 11-01, Rentable Area Legend CIRCULATION GATHERING KITCHEN RENT AREA -GATHERING Copy 1 4 1116" = V-0" 114 'iri 'i6 1ioA i� �ro Rentable Area Legend RESTROOMS L CIRCULATION PARKING Area Schedule (Rentable) Level Name Area APT -1 APT. A 1444 SF APT -1 APT.0 1221 SF APT -1 APT.0 1221 SF APT -1 APT. D 1026 SF APT -1 APT. D 1026 SF APT -1 APT, B 1633 SF APT -1 APT, B 1633 SF APT -1 CIRCULATION 1212 SF APT -1 APT.A 1444 SF GATHERING KITCHEN 258 SF .GATHERING GATHERING 1831 SF .GATHERING RESTROOMS 257 SF .GATHERING CIRCULATION 485 SF GATHERING CIRCULATION 484 SF 'PUBLIC GYM 6458 SF PUBLIC OFFICE 1386 SF 'PUBLIC CAFE 1557 SF 'PUBLIC CIRCULATION 963 SF 'PUBLIC CIRCULATION 963 SF PUBLIC RESTROOMS 391 SF PARKING PARKING 9517 SF PARKING CIRCULATION 406 SF PARKING CIRCULATION 407 SF 'PARKING STORAGE 1134 SF 'PARKING STORAGE 1843 SF RESTROOMS STORAGE RENT AREA -PARKING -1116 i. 1/16"= V-0" Rentable Area Legend APT. A APT. B SmuCruR/.ERrx1EER jShoemaker 41 Haaland www shoemaker-haaland,com W M10v R,10 CenN Ia Ipwa SU41 i. 314351.)150 PROJEC7 NAME WESTERN HOMES -GATHERING PLACE -APARTMENT BLDG.1 PROJECT NO, PFN;,c[ Num,ar ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTICTI 6101 OTT P"'I S1 07111122 MRASKINS mm®un�e�nknvaneniaveuv•. .umm PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION APT. C APT. D N CIRCULATION Sil� NAME RENT AREA -APT -TVP. -1116 3 1/16'= V-0" Apartment -Area Plans MEET MUNITER Al 05 -I I I I It tl 11 I I I I I I It tl 11 i I I I- � flflm flflflfl I� ❑ nn� ® ❑_ ED EE F%nlelevabon w_ = - NOTE: BULDING IS SUBJECT TO MULTI -FAMILY SITE DEVELOPEMENT STANDARDS WHICH WILL BE REVIEWED WITH THE SITEPLAN. THE BUILDING SHOWN HERE IS A CONCEPT AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE STANDARDS. mwn aovnwano IM " sees � C4 i WESTERN HOMES -GATHERING PLACE -APARTMENT BLDG.1 PRWEC.Ro.P,�N,,m, ISSUE SATE DESM"iNN = FAIIIISKINS PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NAME APARTMENT BLDG. - ELEVATION A201 �6) �7; (8� � �10 11 12 �� Y`TI' lsrl-a• 7 t 14' 8' M -a' fl' -w 1r.9 11' 4' to .n 1fi .0" tr-J" 11•-a• 11 11 .4 x•-111 STORAGE 1134 SF I II I I I II III PARKING 9517 SF STORAGE 1843 SF Rentable Area Legend ■ CIRCULATION PARKING STORAGE RENT AREA -PARKING NOTE: BUILDING IS SUBJECT TO MULTI -FAMILY SITE DEVELOPEMENT STANDARDS WHICH WILL BE REVIEWED WITH THE SITEPLAN. THE BUILDING SHOWN HERE IS A CONCEPT AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE STANDARDS. AM Mneas,J.w, ays" PROJEC7 NAME WESTERN HOMES -GATHERING PLACE -APARTMENT BLDG.2 >RIUMICT ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTUYIN 6101 OTT p"d SIESM, 04 t&22 SIAN mMee R� =� PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NAME AREA PLAN - PARKING A101 D AM Mneas,J.w, ays" PROJEC7 NAME WESTERN HOMES -GATHERING PLACE -APARTMENT BLDG.2 >RIUMICT ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTUYIN 6101 OTT p"d SIESM, 04 t&22 SIAN mMee R� =� PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NAME AREA PLAN - PARKING A101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1T1) 12l 113! Rentable Area Legend APT. A APT. C APT. E 7 CIRCULATION ■ PUBLIC AKAR �fflw,ffl �cEy J"aseesT �Q 361A1 11 G1 F E D2 PROJEC7 NAME WESTERN HOMES -GATHERING PLACE -APARTMENT BLDG.2 D Ems.,Ia�t.m C' P0. ECT NO.Pyq NumMr ISSUE E Wle pm1w Bvw B�� A; MR PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 5N NAME AREA PLAN -PUBLIC Al 02 10 (11 �,12� � 13.'' 14' B' 11 4' 11'-Y' 1T -N 11'-6" 16'-1 16' 91 11' 4' 11"l4' 11'-4' H' -C 14'-T BEDROOM(BATH 1 � BEDROOM BEDROOM - BEDROOM? BALCONYA ATH 2 W.I.C. BATH 1 L=1 BEDROOM 2 o APT' A � C1 ° 0 0 B BAT 1444 SF ♦♦ APT. C M 1 SF LIVING I KITCHEN BALCONY �� MECH. (DINING �I KITCHEN I LIVING /DINING MECH. ' s I BALCONY DCIRCULATION APT, D I'' KITCHEN I LIVING 1212 SF 1026 SF jh I DINING - 11 ECH. I _ KITHEN I LIVING I 3EDROOM 2 DINING STAIR 114 — -I BATHL2.... °r ,° .I APT.B _ 11 1� 1 1 ELPV. 1633 SF� MECH. 1 -- 3EDROOM 1.— d APT. B MECH. 9633 SF BATH 1 W.LC. 0 BEDROOM( BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 11 BALCONYB Fw .LC. BA11 BATH 2 ' Rentable Area Legend APT. A APT. B APIA 1444 SF APT.B 1633 SF APT. C APT. D ■ CIRCULATION APT.0 1221 SF APT.D 1026 SF a G F E D2 w -V- Div� A AM c,,'4as;<� zz,s' PROJEC7 NAME WESTERN HOMES -GATHERING PLACE -APARTMENT BLDG.2 ono.szr m.n N,mm, SUE ATE DESCRIPTIEN 711 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NAME AREA PLAN -APARTMENTS MEET NUFATER A103 Rentable Area Legend CIRCULATION GATHERING KITCHEN RESTROOMS RENT AREA -GATHERING V8" = 1'-p1. G Fi Ei D2 D C Bj A! am.. c� sevs cEy i PROJEC7 NAME WESTERN HOMES -GATHERING PLACE -APARTMENT BLDG.2 PROJECT NO, Num,or ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTICTI 0711 1122 mnnknva 6SUNE' e u v Mmw n PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Sil� NAME AREA PLAN -GATHERING MEET MUNITER Al 04 Rentable Area Legend APT. A APT. C APT. E CIRCULATION PUBLIC RENTAREA-PUBLIC-1/16 2 1/16" = 1' P' Rentable Area Legend CIRCULATION GATHERING KITCHEN RENT AREA -GATHERING Copy 1 4 1116" = V-0" Area Schedule (Rentable) Level Name Area APT -1 APT. A 1444 SF APT -1 APT. C 1221 SF APT -1 APT.0 1221 SF APT -1 APT. D 1026 SF APT -1 APT. D 1026 SF APT -1 APT, B 1633 SF APT -1 APT, B 1633 SF APT -1 CIRCULATION 1212 SF APT -1 APT.A 1444 SF GATHERING KITCHEN 258 SF GATHERING GATHERING 1831 SF GATHERING RESTROOMS 257 SF GATHERING CIRCULATION 485 SF GATHERING CIRCULATION 484 SF Not Placed GVM Not Placed Not Placed OFFICE Not Placed Not Placed CAFE Not Placed Not Placed CIRCULATION Not Placed Not Placed CIRCULATION Not Placed Not Placed RESTROOMS Not Placed PARKING PARKING 9517 SF '.PARKING CIRCULATION 4065E PARKING CIRCULATION 4075E 'PARKING STORAGE 1134 SF 'PARKING STORAGE 18435E Not Placed APT. B Not Placed 'PUBLIC PUBLIC 2317 SF PUBLIC CIRCULATION 11935E PUBLIC APT. E 1353 SF 'PUBLIC APT. E 1353 SF PUBLIC APT. A 1435 SF PUBLIC APT. A 1435 SF 'PUBLIC APL C 1221 SF 'PUBLIC APL C 1221 SF RESTROOMS to Rentable Area Legend L CIRCULATION PARKING STORAGE RENT AREA -PARKING -1116 i. 1/16"= V-0" Rentable Area Legend MC"IRCTOFXEctliU a.. cny. ian rsxae CONSULTAIMI WESTERN HOMES -GATHERING PLACE -APARTMENT BLDG.2 PROJECT NO, PFS;,c[ NumMr ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTICTI 6101 OTT P"'I S1 0711 1122 INVISMINS 0AKAReNhTDISI •. n PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION APT. A APT. B APT. C APT. D N CIRCULATION Sil� NAME RENT AREA -APT -TVP. -1116 3 1/16'= V-1)" Apartment -Area Plans A105 NOTE: BULDING IS SUBJECT TO MULTI -FAMILY SITE DEVELOPEMENT STANDARDS WHICH WILL BE REVIEWED WITH THE SITEPLAN. THE BUILDING SHOWN HERE IS A CONCEPT AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE STANDARDS. EXTERIOR FINISHES 1. 6" MASONRY VENEER. 2, JAMES HAREA LAPPED CEMENT BOARD SIDING 4' E OSURE 3, 3Y10 CEMENT BOMB TRIMS TYPIC 4. NICHIHA FIBER CEMENT WALL PANELS (SHADED AREAS) 5. ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOWS 6.OLASS RAILINGS T. ALUMINUM STORE FRONT SYSTEM WI INSULATED GLASS. Front elevation 3116"=P0" ' ARCHIIECTor RECM1U IM . aro I" sees *,,DT DIQ 361 Al 11 OCILAULTANDA WESTERN HOMES -GATHERING PLACE -APARTMENT BLDG.2 rRarC.NO.P,N�N�mm, a_rNA, law PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION APARTMENT BLDG. - ELEVATION A201 A MIDMTCHLE e FRONT ELEVATION -0, m7 ITCH LEVEL Western Home Communities BACK ELEVATION FRONT 14,300 SQ FT PER STORY L _ Lu C7 J BACK COURTYARD ELEVATION OPPISITE ELEVATION MIRRORED RIGHT ELEVATION WHC - Assisted Living Facility Iowa City, Iowa LEFT ELEVATION NOTE: i , n ELEVATIONS ARE CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS AND SUBJECTTO CHANGE TO COMPLY WITH THE MULTI -FAMILY SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THIS SITE. FINAL DESIGNS WILL BE PROVIDED AS NEEDED WITH THE SITE PLAN FOR APPROVAL. architecture& planning LLe uun_ 17111 �nL nn_n_ �nL nn_■ nnn ullu olio niu 11B u ��� 177171 �{ulll� FRONT 14,300 SQ FT PER STORY L _ Lu C7 J BACK COURTYARD ELEVATION OPPISITE ELEVATION MIRRORED RIGHT ELEVATION WHC - Assisted Living Facility Iowa City, Iowa LEFT ELEVATION NOTE: i , n ELEVATIONS ARE CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS AND SUBJECTTO CHANGE TO COMPLY WITH THE MULTI -FAMILY SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THIS SITE. FINAL DESIGNS WILL BE PROVIDED AS NEEDED WITH THE SITE PLAN FOR APPROVAL. architecture& planning + r Summary Report for4 Good Neighbor Meeting CITY OF IOWA CITY Project Name: Gathering Place Developmentproject Location: Gathering Place Ln Meeting Date and Time: August 25, 2022 @ 4:30 - 6:00pm Meeting Location: St Andrews Presbyterian Church Names of Applicant Representatives attending: Michael Welch - Engineer, Sanjay Jani - Architect Kris Hansen, Pat O'Leary - Western Home Names of City Staff Representatives attending: Anne Russett Number of Neighbors Attending: 20 + Sign -In Attached? Yes No X General Comments received regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary) - The neighbors were generally supportive of the development concept. The neighbors to the north appreciated that much of the wooded areas would not be disturbed, particularly those wooded areas with steeper slopes. The predominance of single-family homes was also well received. They also were pleased that there would be no new roads extending north to their neighborhood through the ravine and waterway. The senior nature and assisted living components were seen as a positive for the neighborhood and community. People liked the variety of building forms proposed for the single-family homes. Concerns expressed regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary) - The primary concerns expressed were related to additional traffic on Camp Cardinal Boulevard, potential for removal of existing trees and habitat, potential for additional runoff and erosion into the waterway north of the development, potential visual impacts of lights from this development on neighbors to the east, and desire to have a landscape buffer between this development and existing houses to the east. Will there be any changes made to the proposal based on this input? If so, describe: No specific changes to the plan will be made as a result of the meeting; however, additional details will be incorporated into the plans as the project moves through the approval process that will directly address landscaping, lighting, runoff, and erosion control. Staff Representative Comments Wetland Delineation Western Home Independent Living Services Figure A: Wetland Delineation Map October 2022 • Page 9 Wetland Mitigation Plan Western Home Independent Living Services Iowa City Sensitive Lands & Features Welch Design & Development Iowa City, Iowa Effective Date: 12/15/2022 Copyright© 2022 Impact7G, Inc. Prepared By Will Downey, PWS Project Manager (515) 473-6256 IMPACT7G)� 315 West Cherry St., Ste. 4, PO Box 227 North Liberty, IA 52317 515.473.6256 • info@impact7g.com www.impact7g.com Western Home Independent Living Services Contents ExecutiveSummary............................................................................................................ 3 II. Wetlands Delineated........................................................................................................... 3 III. Jurisdiction..........................................................................................................................3 IV. USACE Preferred Mitigation Method.................................................................................. 3 V. Compensatory Mitigation Plan (Iowa City, City Code 14-51-6G) ...................................... 3 VI. Buffer Reduction................................................................................................................. 3 www.impact7g.com • Page 2 Western Home Independent Living Services I. Executive Summary Impact7G has evaluated the 0.04 acres of emergent wetland within the parcel boundary of the proposed Western Home Independent Living Services Development in Iowa City, Iowa. Based on current site plans (1025 SADP-3 Concept Plan, provided by Welch Design and Development), there are no planned impacts to wetlands delineated within the parcel boundary. II. Wetlands Delineated Impact7G delineated a 0.04 acre emergent wetland, located above an approximately 0.5 acre artificial impoundment. Additionally, a 146 linear feet (LF) section of Cardinal Creek is located within the Investigation Area. III. Jurisdiction Due to the proximity of the floodplain and evidence cited during field wetland delineation a potential direct surface hydrologic connection to Cardinal Creek, the wetland area is assumed to be jurisdictional under Section 404 of the United States Clean Water Act as of this date. IV. USACE Preferred Mitigation Method No planned impacts to jurisdictional waters of the United States. No mitigation required. V. Compensatory Mitigation Plan (Iowa City, City Code 14-51-6G) Under current guidance, this project will not require any mitigation through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, however, under the permit conditions for a Nationwide Permit #29 for Residential Development — a Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) is required for this regulated activity, including .no impact" developments. A Joint Application for permit should be submitted to both the US Army Corps of Engineers and Iowa Department of Natural Resources and will fulfill the project's PCN requirement. VI. Buffer Reduction The buffer area surrounding the delineated wetland (to the east and south) will need to be reduced by 50 feet to allow placement of the Camille Court cul-de-sac, as this area is already limited in developable space due to two adjacent areas of protected slopes (>40%) and their associated buffers. This area is illustrated on site drawing 1025 SADP-3 Concept Plan, dated 12/9/2022. Iowa City, city code 14-51-6E allows for wetland buffers to be reduced by up to 50 feet at this location because the following conditions are met based on field evaluation by Impact7G staff at the time of wetland delineation: • City Code 14 -51 -6E -3a www.impact7g.com • Page 3 Western Home Independent Living Services 1. The wetland is less than 5 acres in area - the delineated wetland is 0.04 acres and does not extend beyond project limits. 2. The wetland does not contain species listed by the federal or state government as endangered or threatened, or critical or outstanding natural habitat for those species — the wetland area is dominated by invasive reed canary grass and is not the preferred habitat for listed species' 3. The wetland does not contain diverse plant associations of infrequent occurrence or of regional significance —the wetland area is dominated by invasive reed canary' 4. The wetland is not located within a regulated stream corridor - see USGS Topographic Mapping2 City Code 14 -51 -6E -3b 2. The wetland likely has periodic standing water in an average year of precipitation and would not qualify for the 75 foot buffer reduction This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client, and for specific application to the project discussed. To the best of my knowledge the above statements, attachments, including those labeled and identified as enclosures, and all conclusions are true, accurate, and based on current environmental principles and science. No warranties, either expressed or implied, are intended or made. In the event that changes in the nature, design or location of the project as shown are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained on this form shall not be considered valid unless Impad7G, Inc. reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this form in writing. W Will Downey, PWS "3 Project Manager Impact7G, Inc.s ani rf ' Impact7G, 2022, "Threatened and Endangered Species Preliminary Review: Western Homes Independent Living Services", Section 4.1 Iowa City Sensitive Lands & Features. I Impact7G, 2022, "Wetland Delineation: Western Homes Independent Living Services", Figure C. www.impact7g.com • Page 4 MINUTES FINAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21, 2022-6:OOPM—FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Maria Padron (via zoom), Mark Signs, Chad Wade MEMBERS ABSENT: Billie Townsend STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett, Parker Walsh OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Welch, Steve Long, Sanjay Jani, Ryan O'Leary, Kirsten Frey RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ22-0012, a proposal to rezone approximately 31.2 acres of land located east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8) subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall contribute 50% of the cost of upgrading Camp Cardinal Road to City standards from Gathering Place Lane to the future extension of Deer Creek Road in accordance with 15-3-2 of the Iowa City Code. This contribution shall include 50% of the cost of construction of the traffic circle at the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal Road. 2. In the event Owner desires to construct on -street angled parking, at the time of final platting, Owner shall execute an agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney obligating the Owner to maintain such spaces. By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of VAC22-0002 a vacation of public right-of-way located at the northwest corner of South Riverside Drive and the Iowa Interstate Railroad right-of-way. OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS: By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends deferring application REZ22-0015 to the January 4, 2023 meeting. CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CASE NO. REZ22-0012: Location: East of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane An application for a rezoning of approximately 31.2 acres of land from Interim Development Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 2 of 16 Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8). Lehmann explained this is a rezoning for 31 acres north of Gathering Place Lane and east of Camp Cardinal Road on the west side of Iowa City. He stated this area is probably one of the largest remaining undeveloped areas within the City east of Highway 218. It's been undeveloped for quite some time and is surrounded mostly by existing development with single family homes to the north and east, multifamily homes and a church to the south, and undeveloped land to the west that was recently rezoned for duplexes and multifamily. Lehmann explained in terms of zoning, the property to the north and south are low density single family residential or RS -5, the properties to the east are rural residential or RR -1, and then to the west and a portion of the south is low density multifamily residential, or RM -12. Lehmann pointed out there's lots of planned development overlays in this area because of all the sensitive features, including woodlands and a stream corridor to the north. In terms of background, the Western Home Independent Living Services is looking to rezone the area to allow a senior housing project with a mix of housing types and uses and would include the development of some new streets including a connection into the proposed Cardinal Heights development to the west that was recently rezoned. It would also allow future connections to the St. Andrew's property to the east. Lehmann reiterated the area does contain several sensitive features, including wetlands, streams, slopes and woodlands. This site was actually previously proposed for rezoning for another senior housing project in 2016, 170 units, and it was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, but then was subsequently withdrawn by the developer. Lehmann next showed a few pictures of the site noting the topography of rolling hills and the trees, especially along the north side of the property. He also pointed out the area that includes a wetland with a stormwater detention basin. In terms of zoning for the subject property, it actually consists of two properties. The northern most is 27 acres, zoned interim development residential single family or ID -RS, which is primarily intended for agriculture until such a time as it develops. The southern portion is about four acres and zoned low density single family residential with an OPD and that OPD was part of the St. Andrews rezoning for sensitive features. Lehmann explained low density single family residential is primarily for single family uses so the proposed zoning is medium density single family residential with a plan development overlay or RS-8/OPD for primarily single family detached units, but the OPD does allow flexibility and that flexibility includes things like different housing types and a commercial use. It also allows modifications to certain standards to the wetland buffer, which is also being proposed as part of this development. The proposed development would be on three different lots with a single owner and would it include about 101 units, 35 single family, 8 duplexes, 20 townhouse style multifamily and 38 multifamily units. The proposed development would also include one assisted living building with 32 beds and then a small-scale neighborhood commercial use approximately 2300 square feet. Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 3 of 16 This development is proposed on extended streets through the area, including Gathering Place Lane, which would terminate on the east side of the property at the arc of the hill as there are sensitive features primarily to the north. In terms of the criteria used to evaluate OPDs Lehmann explained there are four general criteria found at 14-3A and then there are also two standard criteria that apply to all rezonings. The second standard criteria is tied to compatibility with an existing neighborhood that's also covered by the first criteria for OPD which is tied to density and design and making sure that it's compatible with adjacent development and looking at it from a couple different angles. Density in terms of OPD/RS-8 zone allows eight dwelling units per net acre, and what is proposed is approximately 3.7 dwelling units per acre, so they do meet that standard. Another way the City looks at compatibility is tied to land uses. The proposed development does include a mix of single-family, duplexes and multifamily uses, in addition to assisted group living and neighborhood commercial uses. Lehmann did want to note that with the proposed land uses, this is proposed as a senior development but that being said there's no obligation to provide it for seniors except for the multifamily units, those do have to be provided as elder apartments because they make use of a lower parking standard that that applies to senior housing. The rest of the housing could be occupied by seniors, or it could be occupied by others, but the multifamily must remain elder housing. In terms of how this works with surrounding land uses Lehmann reiterated there's single family to the north and east, to the south there's group assembly and multifamily and then to the west it is expected to be multifamily and duplex uses. There are a mix of uses around the site and the development is trying to transition it through the site. Specifically, the transitions look at having higher intensity uses to the west and south, especially the townhomes, multifamily, and assisted group living. Then towards the east and north, that's where there will be the single family uses with some duplexes on the corners therefore providing a really good transition with the way that the existing neighborhoods are laid out. In terms of other concepts that staff look at with mass and scale they look at the elevations. Most of the building heights that are being proposed are typical for these buildings. Lehmann noted there is a requested waiver for building height for the two multifamily buildings in the center of development, the multifamily building, and the mixed-use building which he will discuss later when they get into the waivers. As far as other considerations, the developer does a good job of making sure that the off-street parking doesn't dominate the streetscape, it's recessed for the single family and duplex units and it's below ground for most of the multifamily units or it's located in shared parking behind the units for the townhomes and assisted group living so that doesn't dominate the streetscape. Lehmann also wanted to touch on lighting, the City does use standards that minimize light and glare in surrounding properties and those standards are stronger when it comes to being surrounded by residential uses so this being a residential zone it would also abide by the low illumination district. Lighting will be reviewed during site plan review as well. Another consideration in terms of compatibility is open space and that private open spaces are provided on each or near each of the dwelling units in compliance with the City's open space standards. In addition to much of the development being open space anyway, Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 4 of 16 through either stormwater management areas or through sensitive features, there's plenty of open space provided in compliance with standards. With regards to traffic circulation, this development does propose extending Deer Creek Road and Gathering Place Lane and Gathering Place Lane would curve through the property and end at the property line to the east near St. Andrew's Church. Off Gathering Place Lane would also be two cul-de-sacs and a loop street. Lehmann noted this project will also include the improvement of Camp Cardinal Road, which is basically a gravel road right now. In terms of access, the primary access for this development would be from Camp Cardinal Boulevard via Camp Cardinal Road and then secondary access would come from the future connection of Deer Creek Road to the west which would depend on the Cardinal Heights subdivision that was recently rezoned. Staff is proposing that the owner must contribute 50% of the cost of upgrading Camp Cardinal Road, that would include a roundabout that's proposed for the north side of Camp Cardinal Road where it connects with Deer Creek Road. Lehmann noted that same condition was applied to the Cardinal Heights subdivision to the west as well so between those two properties there would be enough funds to improve that road fully and it would serve as access for both of those developments. Lehmann next discussed the elevations for the development. The single-family elevations are one story, as are the duplex elevations, the townhomes are three stories, the assisted living units are two stories, and the proposed mixed-use and multifamily buildings are proposed to be three and a half stories with that top story being gathering space and outdoor patio space. However, Lehmann explained having that additional half story would push it above the 35 feet that's the typical height limit plus the grade. Regarding the criteria tied to overburdening existing streets and utilities, generally the site can be provided with water and sewer, one complication is that water needs to be looped so that may occur on the site or it may occur off the site and that will determined during platting as those calculations are done. Utilities are fine, in terms of streets it is a development with a single point of access so to avoid overburdening the City does place thresholds on the amount of daily trips that would be allowed. The amount of trips that they would expect at the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Gathering Place Lane would be 309 daily trips, which is below the threshold for becoming overburdened as a local street, but that is assuming that Deer Creek Road is extended to the west. If Deer Creek Road is not extended to the west, that would mean that Camp Cardinal Road where it connects with Camp Cardinal Boulevard would be the single access to this development. However that road is built to collector standards which has a pretty substantial increase allowed for daily trips so staff doesn't anticipate any issues even if there isn't secondary access. One other unusual thing with this development is there's a proposed portion of Gathering Place Lane that includes angled on -street parking and that is something that typically isn't allowed because City services aren't equipped typically to maintain those, especially in snow. Therefore, staff does recommend a condition that the owner maintain all of the on -street angle parking spaces and adjacent properties. Staff does believe that the angle parking makes sense given the fact that there's proposed small scale commercial uses located right outside. Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 5 of 16 Craig asked where's the secondary access if and when it gets developed. Lehmann pointed it out as where Deer Creek Road would be extended as part of the Cardinal Heights subdivision, but it can't go through until that gets developed. He added it is the same with Gathering Place Lane, it stubs off at the St. Andrews property, it does allow for future connectivity, but no development is anticipated there in the near future. The third criteria is related to effects on surrounding properties compared to conventional developments. Lehmann stated to the north the building that's being proposed closer to the rear property line as a single-family home would be 16 feet instead of 20 feet. That being said, the closest development is located across a woodland preservation area and stream corridor so it's not particularly close and staff doesn't anticipate any more impacts than a conventional development. To the east there is a pipeline easement that creates more than a 30 -foot buffer and that's further than would typically be in a conventional development as well. However, to the west and south those setbacks are typical for single family zones and staff doesn't think that there are going to be any impacts beyond the conventional development given those factors. Regarding land uses, building types and modified requirements, all are in the public interest. Lehmann stated there are several waivers that are requested as part of this application. For example, there's a rear setback waiver from 20 feet to 16 feet for the single family home to the north, there's a requested front setback reduction from 20 feet to 15 feet for three of the townhomes along Gathering Place Lane and Deer Creek Road, there's a front setback reduction from 25 feet to 15 feet for single family homes on the cul-de-sacs and as part of that for single family homes that would also typically require that the first floor is elevated 30 inches above the sidewalk, but they have requested a waiver from that as well because it's a senior housing development and they want zero entry access. In terms of other building bulk standards, they are requesting a waiver to increase the height for the multifamily buildings from 35 feet to 45 feet to accommodate the additional half story on those buildings for gathering space and it would also adjust for the grade that is on the property. The applicant is also proposing a mix of uses that would not typically be in an RS -8 zone including single family, duplex, multifamily and assisted group living, as well as a small-scale neighborhood commercial use. Lehmann explained generally OPDs encourage a mix of uses and encourage commercial uses within mixed use buildings that provide or help meet the needs of those living in the area. The final request for a waiver is to reduce the onsite parking for the neighborhood commercial use reducing it from nine spaces to seven spaces and again that is something allowed under the OPD zone for commercial uses if it helps preserve sensitive areas. In this case the only place where those two additional spaces could be added would be to the off-street parking lot to the north, which is right next to sensitive features, so staff believes that criteria is met, especially considering the fact that there's proposed on -street diagonal parking that would help meet the needs of this commercial use that don't get counted towards this minimum parking requirement. Moving onto the factors that are considered for all rezonings, first is compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. This area is shown as having two to eight dwelling units an acre, there is no Northwest District Plan that's adopted so staff just go by the Comprehensive Plan. There's also a number of goals in the Comprehensive Plan related to housing diversity, connected Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 6 of 16 neighborhoods and contiguous neighborhoods, pedestrian oriented development, and preservation of sensitive features. One that's a little more complicated is tied to street connectivity but in this case it is a challenging site and there's not a lot of places to get access or where they can provide street stubs to adjacent properties. This proposal does include the Deer Creek Road extension and connecting to the St. Andrews property, however there are no areas to connect to the east or north because of sensitive features and the layout of those neighborhoods. So given the extent possible, they do provide connectivity as to what would be allowed on that site. Lehmann stated there's the sensitive areas portion of this and a level two review is required, which is a review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council that is tied to reducing the wetland buffer from 100 feet to 50 feet. That being said, there's also a stream, slopes and wooded areas on the site and staff also looked at archaeological sites. In terms of the jurisdictional wetlands, the wetland area on this site is pretty small, just 0.04 acres. Typically, that would require 100 -foot buffer around the wetlands but it may be reduced to a 50 foot buffer with a level two review and if certain standards are met and certified by a wetland specialist. In this case there is a memo from the wetland specialist in the agenda packet that looks at those different criteria. Staff has also reviewed the background information including information on endangered species on the wetland itself and staff does concur with the findings by the wetland specialist. Cardinal Creek is on the very north side of the property but it is located far enough from construction boundaries that it's not really a factor in this. There are approximately 6.5 acres of woodlands on the property and to avoid a level two review they have to retain 50% of that, and also provide a buffer. 52% of the woodlands are retained in this development and only approximately 19% of the woodlands are impacted, the rest of the acreage is included within that buffer area. In terms of slopes, there are numerous slopes on the property but a lot of the steepest slopes are located at the northern part of the property and level two reviews are only required if more than 35% of critical slopes are impacted or if the protected slopes or their buffers are impacted. In this case, they've avoided the protected slopes and their buffers and have only impacted 31 % of critical slopes so this meets the standards for administrative review. With regard to archaeological sites, a phase one study was completed in 2022 and no artifacts were identified and no further work was recommended. Finally, to touch on neighborhood open space standards which are required by 14-5K either by providing open space on site or paying a fee in lieu of it, that's addressed at final platting but in this case with 31.2 acres in an RS -8 zone, it would require dedication of 1.08 acres or a fee of approximately $140,000. With regard to correspondence staff didn't receive any written correspondence on this application. There was a good neighbor meeting held. Staff recommends approval of REZ22-0012, a proposal to rezone approximately 31.2 acres of land located east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8) subject to the following conditions: Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 7 of 16 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall contribute 50% of the cost of upgrading Camp Cardinal Road to City standards from Gathering Place Lane to the future extension of Deer Creek Road in accordance with 15-3-2 of the Iowa City Code. This contribution shall include 50% of the cost of construction of the traffic circle at the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal Road. 2. In the event Owner desires to construct on -street angled parking, at the time of final platting, Owner shall execute an agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney obligating the Owner to maintain such spaces. In terms of next steps, presuming there is a recommendation tonight for City Council, staff anticipates setting the hearing on January 10 for consideration by Council on January 24, there would be the hearing, and then there'll be two additional readings beyond that. Hensch asked from the 2016 rezoning application, which was a different applicant, are these the same parcel boundaries. Lehmann believes it was just the north part of the site and it was 170 units in that proposal, including a mix of some assisted living as well as independent living all in one building. Hensch has tried to read the topographic map and the elevations, but it looks like it generally slopes from east to west with a lot of elevation changes and there's a ridge line that runs along the bowl of it. Lehmann showed an aerial of the north portion of the site noting the ridge line follows the street essentially and it slopes north, east and west, depending on where they are on the property. On the south side of the site it generally slopes to the south. Hensch asked that mostly just for issues with lighting and lighting glare for the people in the Walnut Ridge neighborhood or people concerned about that and could Lehmann talk a little bit about the downcast lighting requirements for the City and would that be for any parking areas that have streetlights with that. Lehmann explained shielding is generally required if a volt is above a certain amount. There are also requirements towards total light output and that's where the low illumination standard comes in and that's the lowest standard that would be allowed. The idea is to avoid just general glare and then there's also standards about not having light trespass on the surrounding properties for residential uses. Finally, there's limits on pole height and a couple other things that try to limit the impacts on surrounding properties. Hensch remembers from the 2016 conversation, the predominant thing they heard from the neighbors to the east was about view shed disruption and the bulk size of the building, but the larger building is now down in that south westerly portion for this application correct. Lehmann said it would be in the west central between the two properties. Craig asked about the clubhouse and if that is for the whole development, not just the people who live in the 16 residential units. Lehmann confirmed it'd be available for anyone who lives within this development. The clubhouse building does have space on the ground floor, including a cafe that's available to residents, a gym that's available to residents, and then the gathering space on the roof. Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 8of16 Signs had a question about the cul-de-sac on the east end of Gathering Place Lane and for all practical purposes he doesn't think that road is going to be extended anywhere, would staff agree or disagree with that assessment. Lehmann agreed there are significant challenges to extending it to the south, there is another stream corridor and there are cost limitations that would apply. Signs noted they hear over and over the City doesn't like cul-de-sacs anymore, for example they had a significant development on the west side that involve sensitive land and it was modified extensively because there was a cul-de-sac proposed on it so he was a little surprised to see this. Wade asked if he understands correctly that there's a waiver request for the single family from 25 to 15 feet. Lehmann states it is from 20 feet to 16 feet for the northern most lot, lot nine and also for the cul-de-sac bulbs there's a larger front setback that's required than typical. So instead of the typical 15 feet, which is what the single family typically is, there's a 25 -foot requirement on the bulb of the cul-de-sac, so that's the waiver that's being requested. Additionally, that's also what triggers the 30 inches above grade standard that they're requesting another waiver from. Wade also asked about the assisted living building at the southwest corner of Deer Creek Road and Gathering Place Lane, he assumes that's going to be a staffed facility so where is the associated staff parking. Lehmann stated he believes one parking space per staff person is anticipated and one for every three beds within the facility for the residents, therefore they do provide enough parking on site. Padron asked for clarification on when it says illumination cannot exceed 0.5 initial horizontal foot-candles and 2.0 initial maximum foot-candles at any property line adjacent to or across the street so only on property lines adjacent to the street, will two be the maximum, but then in the rest of the property lines it will be 0.5. Lehmann stated that would apply to any lot line that is by a residential use, which he believes is almost all property lines with this specific property. The horizontal foot candles are measured at a certain height above grade and in lumens so when they submit a site plan they do a lighting analysis and staff makes sure it's within the thresholds for light trespass on adjacent properties. Hensch opened the public hearing. Mike Welch (Welch Design and Development) is representing the applicant, also present tonight is Sanjay Jani from AKAR and he's doing the architecture for everything other than the memory care assisted living building and also in attendance is Steve Long who is the developer's representative for the project, so between the three of them, hopefully they can answer all the questions. Welch began by noting this has been a challenging site and they've worked on it for a number of years with different people. With Western Home, it's an exciting use of the various uses that they're proposing and they don't usually see that much variation across the site. The addition of the 2300 square feet for neighborhood commercial is exciting to have a place for their residents, but also for Cardinal Heights and other people in the neighborhood, since there's not much else out there. So that is another good positive use of the site. Welch noted they did have Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 9 of 16 a good neighbor meeting and during that that meeting one of the things they heard most of from the neighbors to the east and north was what the impact would be on those sensitive areas. Welch reiterated that they are meeting the code requirements and feel real confident and good about that. Hensch noted during the good neighbor meetings in 2016 he remembers a consideration of that application, which the Commission and Council did actually approve but it was withdrawn, anyway, one of the overall concerns for the neighbors was view shed interruption. Did they hear much of that at this good neighborhood meeting. Welch stated it was kind of brought up, people that came were questioning what they were doing, what they were proposing and once people saw that it was primarily single family on the north end the negative ones generally felt better about that and that they weren't looking at a super tall building. Having the multifamily buildings located far enough away from the neighbors to the north and the east that made those impacts pretty minimal. Hensch asked about lot number nine to the north, where they're asking for that reduction, is the area behind there a really difficult area to develop. Welch confirmed yes, immediately north of that property line is an outlot and from Cardinal Ridge, the development to the north, that's in a conservation easement. Craig had a question about the townhouses, she doesn't typically think of them as elder housing because it's living on three different floors, all the single-family houses are a single floor but then all these townhouses that are three floors. Welch explained Western Home's goal is that they understand that people are at different points in their life and different mobilities and access and desires so they've wanted to have that broad market for not just people who want a single-family house or people who want condo style living, so there is an option in those townhouses to have an elevator that people can add to the design. Also for those in memory care, they need to recognize that sometimes a spouse or significant other may need the memory care, but others are still independent and this gets that balance. Signs asked if the first floor includes the garage. Welch confirmed it does and that is a fairly common type of construction in the market. Hektoen added the zoning code will limit the occupancy of that of those units, only the multifamily are going to be limited by the zoning code for senior living. Padron noted she was looking at the clubhouses floorplan and it says it has 16 units but the floorplan that was presented tonight shows it has eight units. Welch replied it was 16 units in the clubhouse building, there's no units on the first floor and then 8 units each on the second and third floors. Steve Long (Salida Partners representing Western Home) gave a little background about Western Home communities. They are based in Cedar Falls, Iowa, but they have communities throughout Central Iowa and Northeast Iowa. What they strived to do is to have a sense of Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 10 of 16 community and build community. At their main campus in Cedar Falls it's a 200 -acre campus with 1100 residents, which is larger than most towns in Iowa and it's a real community with restaurants and fitness facilities. Long stated his firm has been working with Mike Welch and Sanjay Jani for over a year now to get this right mix of units for this market, they really wanted to have that mix of two and three bedrooms, townhomes, condos, assisted living single family homes and then even within single family homes have a variety so there is different affordability as well. Western Home is known for their memory care and assisted living facilities and in this market there is a big need for those facilities so that's an important part of the continuum that will be developed probably towards the end of the project. Long noted even though he's been in Iowa City over 25 years, he grew up in Cedar Falls and has known about Western Home his entire life and has a lot of friends and family members who have lived there so he's excited to be a part of this team to bring them to this market. Craig asked what about affordable housing. Long acknowledged they talked about that and given the market base it's going to be based on the size of units. There are not any subsidized units being proposed but they're happy to work with the Housing Trust Fund or another entity. He added they mentioned these homes will be open to anybody, but these will all be deed restricted as 55 plus is the model, except for the assisted living and memory care, of course, but for the standalone homes, their deed restricted forever 55 plus. At this point they've been looking at a mix of housing styles to offer different price points. Hensch asked if the assisted living facility includes memory care or is it just assisted living. Long confirmed it is a mixture of both. Sanjay Jani (AKAR Architecture) stated he has been doing residential architecture for almost 35 years and one thing he does not like is when all the houses end up looking exactly the same when the diversity of America is changing, and they all look different. So the first thing they did was made it possible to be more democratic, where people buy into these houses they have option to choose different colors, different planning, different options, so every house can be a little more individual to ensure the individuality of the people who live with them. Nothing will look like cookie cutter housing. Even with the townhouses, the way they are stepping it up to have four -foot offsets instead of one linear flat building they are breaking the scale and are definitely doing things a little different than what he's seen in this marketplace. Hensch asked about the elevators in the townhomes, if somebody purchased the townhome but didn't have the elevator initially, can they add that like 20 years later if they then need an elevator. Jani confirmed they'll plan the elevator in the plan exactly where it should go because they need the tolerances for the doors and everything to open, so the idea would be to put the joists. He noted the amazing thing is this elevator is like a suction tube of only three foot six wide, it's a perfect circle of glass of three foot six so even if one doesn't don't build or buy the elevator is not a huge wasted space. Wade asked if all these units will be zero entry. Jani replied from garage to the house is zero entry and the hope is to have zero entry everywhere, even the front door so there will be no Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 11 of 16 steps, and if there are floors, there will be an elevator option. Ryan O'Leary (343 Butternut Lane) stated his house backs up to the eastern most portion of the planned development and the southernmost area. He likes a lot of what he sees on the plan and has a fair amount of optimism and faith that there'll be further detail to the plan. But, in particular where his windows back up to three units along that back ridge, it has a pretty significant impact and he has a fair amount of optimism that there'll be some landscaping screening that'll be mutually beneficial. So he just wanted to voice his thoughts and concerns about that in the event that there wasn't any sort of a landscaping buffer as that would be regrettable for him and whoever lives in those three houses, but he always anticipated something being done back there. He also noted with the slopes a lot of his property is about 35 feet below so it limits what they can do on their property to create that visual screening. If some screening is done to the west of the pipeline easement that would allow the visual screening. He noted right now they're a density of one house per acre and this would put three houses in about 50% of their visual vantage point out the back which is a little bit more concentration than they're used to. Hensch closed the public hearing. Signs moved to recommend approval of REZ22-0012, a proposal to rezone approximately 31.2 acres of land located east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and Low Density Single - Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8) subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall contribute 50% of the cost of upgrading Camp Cardinal Road to City standards from Gathering Place Lane to the future extension of Deer Creek Road in accordance with 15-3-2 of the Iowa City Code. This contribution shall include 50% of the cost of construction of the traffic circle at the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal Road. 2. In the event Owner desires to construct on -street angled parking, at the time of final platting, Owner shall execute an agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney obligating the Owner to maintain such spaces. Elliott seconded the motion. Hensch really liked the mixed housing and the senior living facility, and the memory care, it's exactly what they need in the City. Those on the Commission at the time were bitterly disappointed when the previous application was withdrawn and now that facility is in Coralville. Craig noted it's obvious a lot of thought has been put into this and also likes the diversity of housing. She agrees that every house shouldn't look the same. What she's concerned about is they've seen quite a few senior housing developments and thinks this is going to be really expensive for people to live there and will be really out of reach for many, many people, particularly elderly people, but is in support of the project. Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 12 of 16 Elliott agrees about the comments regarding the architecture and also is in support of this project. Signs stated notwithstanding his comments about the large cul-de-sac nature of the development, he is in support of it too and thinks it's a fantastic mix and hopes it is developed with the way it's been laid out. Hensch agreed and is generally never in support of cul-de-sacs or bulbs but this is just a tough site and there's not really any other option. Iowa City is running out of developable land and he likes this application. Wade stated he is on board considering the challenge and the topography. It's a nice layout, it looks walkable for the neighborhood and it's nice to see the commercial area whether that ends up as a coffee shop or whatever, it's a draw to the neighborhood. Padron also stated she supports this development. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. CASE NO. REZ22-0015: Location: North of W. Benton Street and west of Orchard Street An application for a rezoning of approximately 3.52 acres of land from Low Density Single Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -O) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -0). Russett stated the applicant has requested a deferral to January 4, the next commission meeting, staff is still working through some conditions with them. Signs moved defer application REZ22-0015 to the January 4 meeting. Elliott seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. CASE NO. VAC22-0002: Location: Northwest corner of S. Riverside Dr. and the Iowa Interstate Railroad An application for a vacation of approximately 266 square feet of public right-of-way to increase the developable area for the proposed redevelopment at the southwest corner of Myrtle Avenue and S. Riverside Drive. Russett explained this is a vacation of 266 square feet of public right-of-way along South Riverside Drive. The area is just north of the Iowa Interstate Railroad. Russett showed the zoning map of the area noting this is a public right-of-way. The background on this vacation is Fte, Doc ID: 032035320008 Type: GEN Kind: ORDINANCE Recorded: 02/10/2023 at 01:41:40 PM Fee Amt: $42.00 Pape 1 of 8 Johnson County Iowa Kim Painter County Recorder BK6457 PG694-701 ro City of 3 10 STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS JOHNSON COUNTY ) 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. 23-4895 which was passed by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at a regular meeting held on the 7th day of February 2023 is a true and correct copy, all as the same appears of record in my office. r' Dated at Iowa City, Iowa, this day of February 2023. Kellie K. Fruehling `? City Clerk lord 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET • IOWA CITY, IOWA 522440-1826 #(319) 356-5000 • FAX (319) 356-5009 Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; (REZ22-0012) Ordinance No. 23-4895 Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 31.2 acres of property located east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8). (REZ22-0012) Whereas, Western Home Independent Living Services, Inc. has requested a rezoning of property located east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8); and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the subject area is appropriate for residential development at a density of 2-8 dwelling units per acre and encourages a mix of housing types within each neighborhood to provide options for households of all types and people of all incomes; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need for construction of Camp Cardinal Road to provide access and traffic calming devices at the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal Road to provide the safe street network envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, in consideration for approval of angled on -street parking, which the City does not have a practice of maintaining, the planned development creates a public need to maintain any angled on -street parking to ensure the high levels of services envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions regarding construction of Camp Cardinal Road and a traffic circle at the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal Road and an agreement between the owner and the City to maintain on -street angled parking, the requested zoning and requested modifications to the underlying zoning standards are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2023) 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, the owners, Western Home Independent Living Services, Inc. and St. Andrew Presbyterian Church, and the applicant have agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate development in this area of the City. 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, property described below is hereby classified Medium Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8), as indicated: Ordinance No. 23-4895 Page 2 PARCEL "A" BEING PART OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 95063 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 35, PAGE 220 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE SOUTHWEST '/ OF THE NORTHWEST FRACTIONAL '/4 AND THE NORTHWEST '/a OF THE SOUTHWEST FRACTIONAL '/4 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. AND OUTLOT A OF ST. ANDREW PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH - PART ONE, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 60, PAGE 138 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. EXCEPT AUDITOR'S PARCEL 99051 AS RECORDING BOOK 41, PAGE 114, OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE SOUTHWEST '/4 OF THE NORTHWEST FRACTIONAL '/ AND THE NORTHWEST '/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST FRACTIONAL '/ OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH/ P.M., CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 31.20 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. Section II. Zoning Map. The building official 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 the ordinance as approved by law. Section 111. 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 any agreements or other documentation authorized and required by the Conditional Zoning Agreement, and record the same in the Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance, 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 in accordance with Iowa Code Chapter 380. Ordinance No. 23-4895 Page 3 Passe and approved this 7th day of February Attest.- City ttest:City Clerk Approved by City Attor y's Office (Sue Dulek — 01/19/2023) 2023. It was moved by Dunn and seconded by Taylor that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS x ABSENT: Alter Bergus Dunn Harmsen Taylor Teague Thomas First Consideration 1/24/2023 Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Dunn, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas NAYS: None ABSENT: None Second Consideration Vote for passage: Date published 2/16/2023 Moved by Taylor, seconded by Harmsen, 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: Alter, Bergus, Dunn, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas NAYS: None ABSENT: None Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (REZ22-0012) Conditional Zoning Agreement This agreement is made among the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"), Western Home Independent Living Services, Inc. and St. Andrew Presbyterian Church (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Owner"), and Western Home Independent Living Services, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant'). Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 31.2 acres of property located east of Camp Cardinal Rd and north of Gathering Place Ln, legally described below; and Whereas, the Applicant has requested the rezoning of said property legally described below from the Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) zone and Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) zone to Medium Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8) zone; and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the subject area is appropriate for residential development at a density of 2-8 dwelling units per acre and encourages a mix of housing types within each neighborhood to provide options for households of all types and people of all incomes; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need for construction of Camp Cardinal Road to provide access and traffic calming devices at the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal Road to provide the safe street network envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, in consideration for approval of angled on -street parking, which the City does not have a practice of maintaining, the planned development creates a public need to maintain any such angled on -street parking to ensure the high levels of services envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions regarding construction of Camp Cardinal Road and a traffic circle at the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal Road and an agreement between the Owner and the City to maintain on -street angled parking, the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2023) 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, the Owner and Applicant agree to develop this property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: Western Home Independent Living Services, Inc. and St. Andrew Presbyterian Church are the collective legal title holders of the property legally described as: PARCEL "A" BEING PART OF: AUDITOR'S PARCEL 95063 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 35, PAGE 220 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE SOUTHWEST '/4 OF THE NORTHWEST FRACTIONAL '/ AND THE NORTHWEST % OF THE SOUTHWEST FRACTIONAL '/4 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. AND OUTLOT A OF ST. ANDREW PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH - PART ONE, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 60, PAGE 138 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. EXCEPT AUDI I" OR'S PARCEL 99051 AS RECORDING BOOK 41, PAGE 114, OF THE _JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE SOUTHWEST '/4 OF THE NORTHWEST FRACTIONAL '/4 AND THE NORTHWEST '/a OF THE SOUTHWEST FRACTIONAL '/4 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH/ P.M., CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 31.20 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 2. Owner and Applicant acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the Comprehensive Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2023) 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 and Applicant agree that development of the subject property will conform to all requirements of the Zoning Code, as well as the following conditions: a. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall contribute 50% of the cost of upgrading Camp Cardinal Road to City standards from Gathering Place Lane to the future extension of Deer Creek Road in accordance with 15-3-2 of the Iowa Citv Code. This contribution shall include 50% of the cost of construction of the traffic circle at the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal Road. b. In the event Owner desires to construct on -street angled parking, contemporaneous with City approval of construction drawings showing the same, Owner shall execute an agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney obligating the Owner to maintain such spaces. 4. The conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2023), 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, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with 2 title to the land, unless or until released by the City of Iowa City. The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties. In the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all development will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. 6. Nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 7. This Conditional Zoning 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 Applicant's expense. Dated this 7th —day of_ February City of Iowa City ce Teague, Mayor Attest: 6 iu,u Kel ie Fruehling,'Cify Clerk Approved by: City Attorney's Office City of Iowa City Acknowledgement: State of Iowa ) ss: Johnson County ) , 2023. Western Hgmje Independent Living Services,,h1c. By/ St. Andrew Presbyterian Church By: Yui This instrument was acknowledged before me on F�-by-z, CcLi V -7 , 2023 by Bruce Teague and Kellie Fruehling as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) TAMARA NEUMANN COMM" n Nixnbw 838058 * * My C0k*A ;WM EXPIRES i�w► M&vZH 14.2M 3 Western Home Independent Living Services, Inc. Acknowledgement: State of a County of hJ(ar,lh k� �,�;► This record was acknowledged before me on 2023 by VAI-Isaiir -cy� (name) as C__C L.) (title) of Western Home Independent Living Services, Inc. ASHLEY R O'NEAL! Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Commission No.772219 * * My Commission Expires �,► March 20, (Stamp or Seal) My commission expires: nrc L ,L , y St. Andrew Presbyterian Church Acknowledgment: State of'TeU-( County of This record was acknowledged before me on J-hU (XV 2023 by 1srtt iS&6--C+j (name) as i (titl ) of St. Andrew Presbyterian Church. CARMEN MERIE KRUEGENotary Public in and for the State of low' R Notarial Seal - Iowa Commission Number 831919 (Stamp or Seal) My Commission Expires May 11, 2024 I l O s� My commission expires: �- 1 L 4 From: Kirk Lehmann To: Kellie Fruehlina Subject: FW: Rezoning - REZ22-0012 Western Home GPD Iowa City Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 10:17:43 AM From: Michael Welch <Michael@welchdesigndevelopment.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 10:02 AM To: Kirk Lehmann <KLehmann@iowa-city.org> Cc: Steve Long (steve@salidapartners.com) <steve@salidapartners.com>; Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.org>; Pat O'Leary <pat.oleary@westernhome.org>; Kris Hansen (kris.hansen@westernhome.org) <kris.hansen@westernhome.org> Subject: Rezoning - REZ22-0012 Western Home GPD Iowa City ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Good morning, Kirk On behalf of Western Home Communities, I'd like request that city council expedite the rezoning by collapsing the 2nd and 3rd readings at their meeting on February 7th Thank you! Michael J. Welch, PE Welch Design and Development (319) 214-7501 (o) (920) 475-8060 (m) Item Number: 11.c. CITY OF IOWA CITY Z%--_ �=Pa COUNCIL ACTION REPORT February 7, 2023 Ordinance amending Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations", Chapter 5 entitled "Miscellaneous Offenses", Section 9, entitled "Amateur Fighting and Boxing" by adding an exception for boxing matches sanctioned by USA Boxing. (Second Consideration) Prepared By: Eric R. Goers, City Attorney Reviewed By: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: No impact. Staff Recommendation: Approval Commission Recommendations: N/A. Attachments: Ordinance Executive Summary: In Iowa, professional fights are highly regulated, while amateur fights have almost no regulation. In 2007, The Union Bar began hosting "Fight Night" events at which patrons could enter the ring and fight other patrons. The Iowa City Press -Citizen attended one such event and found at least two of the boxers to not be sober, with many matches pairing a trained, experienced fighter against one with no such training. Many decided to fight only after arriving at the bar. As a result, Council decided to ban all amateur fights in liquor license establishments as a way to prevent events of this sort, as well as the bar brawl atmosphere that sometimes followed. However, the ordinance appears to be overbroad, prohibiting Golden Gloves amateur matches as well if they take place in a licensed establishment. Background / Analysis: Recently, Think Iowa City awarded a grant, using City ARPA funding, to bring the Golden Gloves State Championship boxing tournament to Iowa City. The event is set to be held at the Graduate Hotel in Iowa City, which holds a liquor license. Under the City's present ordinance, the event could not take place there, as all matches are amateur. This is not the type of event intended to be prohibited by the City's 2007 ban on amateur fights. Golden Gloves events are highly regulated and well run, and unlikely to result in the negative externalities seen in the earlier "Fight Night" events. This amendment comes at the request of Clifton Johnson, a local boxing gym owner and the Vice -President of Iowa Golden Gloves. Staff is requesting expedited action. Prepared by: Eric Goers, City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030 Ordinance Number 22-4896 Ordinance amending Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations", Chapter 5 entitled "Miscellaneous Offenses", Section 9, entitled "Amateur Fighting and Boxing" by adding an exception for boxing matches sanctioned by USA Boxing. Whereas, the State of Iowa regulates professional, but not amateur, fighting and boxing; and Whereas, in 2007 the City prohibited amateur boxing matches in liquor license establishments; and Whereas, this prohibition was overly broad, affecting any and all amateur boxing events, including events sanctioned by USA Boxing, such as Golden Gloves; and Whereas, it is in the best interest of the City to amend the ordinance to allow for any event sanctioned by USA Boxing. 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 5 entitled "Miscellaneous Offenses," Section 9, entitled "Amateur Fighting and Boxing" is amended by striking paragraphs A, B, and C, and replacing them with the following language: A. No person, individual, association, corporation, partnership or club holding a liquor control license or wine or beer permit which authorizes on -premises consumption, nor his or her agents or employees, shall allow an amateur fighting or boxing match to occur on said premises, unless said match is sanctioned by USA Boxing. B. No person shall participate in an amateur fighting or boxing match in an establishment holding a liquor control license or wine or beer permit which authorizes on -premises consumption, unless said match is sanctioned by USA Boxing. C. No person shall promote, advertise, or organize an amateur fighting or boxing match in an establishment holding a liquor control license or wine or beer permit which authorizes on -premises consumption, unless said match is sanctioned by USA Boxing. 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 7th day of FPhriiar� 2023. I --- yr Attest: City Clerk (� Approved by . City Attney's Office — 1/17/2023 It was moved by Taylor and seconded by Dunn that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS x ABSENT: First Consideration 1/24/2023 Vote for passage: AYES: NAYS: None ABSENT: Second Consideration ------ Vote for passage: Alter Bergus Dunn Harmsen Taylor Teague Thomas Alter, Bergus, Dunn, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas None Date published 2/16/2023 Moved by Taylor, seconded by Thomas, 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 that time. AYES: Alter, Bergus, Dunn, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas NAYS: None ABSENT: None