HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-11-27 Public hearing
/ /1..
lj' 4"f,.,
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
From:
November 20, 2007 )
City Council I t.. J.
Karen Howard, Associate Planne~
REZ07-00014 - 228 E. Court Street rezoning request
Date:
To:
RE:
At their October 18 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-3 (Eastham, Shannon,
and Smith voting no) to recommend denial of this application submitted by Big Ten Rentals, LLC, for
a rezoning from CB-5 to CB-IO on the former St. Patrick's Church site at 228 E. Court Street. The
Commission also heard testimony from the applicant and from the public at their meeting on October
4. The applicant has requested that their application be forwarded to the City Council for
consideration.
Due to the number of documents included in the public record for this case, we thought it would be
helpful to have a list and summary of what is included in the Council packet. The following materials
are included for your consideration:
. Minutes from the October 4 and October 18 Planning and Zoning Commission meetings;
. Staff report dated September 23 and staff memo recommending denial dated October 18;
. Tables comparing residential densities of downtown buildings. There are two tables
provided. The second table reflects the changes made by the applicant to the residential
density and mix after the first Planning and Zoning Commission meeting;
· Location map;
. Memo from John Yapp, Executive Director of JCCOG, regarding preliminary numbers on
current and projected parking demand in the Near Southside;
. Application materials submitted by Big Ten Rentals, LLC, including:
o conceptual site plan, building floor plans, and elevation drawings of the proposed 12-
story building;
o memo regarding management practices;
o Tables providing information about housing mix from similar projects completed in
Madison, Wisconsin;
o Parking analysis for projects in Madison, Wisconsin;
o Sample residential lease;
. Correspondence from the public regarding this request - 8 letters received in opposition.
Per City Code if there is an informal consensus of the Council that is contrary to the recommendation
of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council must defer formal action on the matter
until a discussion has taken place between the Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Staff suggests that if there is a consensus to approve this application, the Council discuss appropriate
conditions of approval with the Planning and Zoning Commission.
If, on the other hand, you agree with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, the
public hearing may be closed and a vote taken on the ordinance on file.
cc: Dale Helling
Jeff Davidson
Bob Miklo
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
To: City Council
Date: November 20, 2007
From: Karen Howard, Associate Plann
RE: REZ07-00014 - 228 E. Court Street rezoning request
At their October 18 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-3 (Eastham, Shannon,
and Smith voting no) to recommend denial ofthis application submitted by Big Ten Rentals, LLC, for
a rezoning from CB-5 to CB-l 0 on the former St. Patrick's Church site at 228 E. Court Street. The
Commission also heard testimony from the applicant and from the public at their meeting on October
4. The applicant has requested that their application be forwarded to the City Council for
consideration.
Due to the number of documents included in the public record for this case, we thought it would be
helpful to have a list and summary of what is included in the Council packet. The following materials
are included for your consideration:
. Minutes from the October 4 and October 18 Planning and Zoning Commission meetings;
. Staff report dated September 23 and staff memo recommending denial dated October 18;
. Tables comparing residential densities of downtown buildings. There are two tables
provided. The second table reflects the changes made by the applicant to the residential
density and mix after the first Planning and Zoning Commission meeting;
· Location map;
. Memo from John Yapp, Executive Director of JCCOG, regarding preliminary numbers on
current and projected parking demand in the Near Southside;
. Application materials submitted by Big Ten Rentals, LLC, including:
o conceptual site plan, building floor plans, and elevation drawings of the proposed 12-
story building;
o memo regarding management practices;
o Tables providing information about housing mix from similar projects completed in
Madison, Wisconsin;
o Parking analysis for projects in Madison, Wisconsin;
o Sample residential lease;
. Correspondence from the public regarding this request - 8 letters received in opposition.
Per City Code if there is an informal consensus ofthe Council that is contrary to the recommendation
of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council must defer formal actien on the matter
until a discussion has taken place between the Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Staff suggests that if there is a consensus to approve this application, the Council discuss appropriate
conditions of approval with the Planning and Zoning Commission.
If, on the other hand, you agree with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, the
public hearing may be closed and a vote taken on the ordinance on file.
cc: Dale Helling
Jeff Davidson
Bob Miklo
APPROVED
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 4, 2007 - 7:30 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Wally Plahutnik, Terry Smith, Beth Koppes, Ann Freerks, Charlie Eastham, Bob
Brooks, Dean Shannon
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen, Howard, Sunil Terdalkar, Sara Greenwood
OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Gelman, Randy Bruce, Karl Madsen, Ronald Kenan, Janice Batts Pesselnick,
Charlotte Walker, Duane Musser, Mike Pugh, Bev Johlin, Jay LeaVesseur, Brad
Ruhland, Sandy Ruhland, Charlotte Bailey
Call to Order: Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:34 pm.
Public Discussion of Anv Item Not on the Aaenda
There was none.
Rezonina Item
REZ07-00014: Discussion of an application submitted by Big Ten Rentals for a rezoning from Central
Business Support (CB-5) zone to Central Business (CB-10) zone for approximately .48-acres of property
located at the northwest corner of Linn Street and Court Street. (45-day limitation period: 10/29/2007)
Howard said additional information that had been requested during the informal work session and e-mail
correspondence that had been received since the informal work session had been distributed to the
Commissioners prior to the start of the formal meeting.
The applicant proposed to build a twelve-story building with one floor of commercial, 11 floors of residential
for a total of 132 apartments which would contain a total of 430 bedrooms. 82 structured parking spaces
would be located at and below grade. The property slopes up from east to west.
The Comprehensive Plan for this area is the Near Southside Plan, which was adopted in 1992. It was
amended in 2006 when the City was considering the Hieronymus Square Project. The Plan was amended to
state that either CB-5 or CB-10 zoning were appropriate between Court and Burlington Streets, based on the
property providing a logical extension of the downtown and adequate services for the density proposed.
Justification for this change included to encourage redevelopment of the area between Burlington and Court
Streets which would reduce redevelopment pressure on the downtown core which already had the desirable
pedestrian scale and historic buildings; and to diversify the mix of housing opportunities in the downtown
area to create more of a balance between University students and others who might enjoy the amenities of
living downtown. It was felt that the mix of residential would support a diverse mix of commercial in the
downtown area and to help it be a diverse and vibrant downtown area.
Requirements of the Conditional Zoning Agreement for the Hieronymus Square Development based on their
request for a rezoning from CB-5 to CB-10 included a minimum of two floors of commercial; a maximum of
200 dwelling units with a mix of studio, one- and two-bedroom apartments; no more than 30% of the units
could be three-bedroom; and no apartments could contain 4- or 5-bedrooms. A minimum of 80 parking
spaces had to be provided on site. A parking impact fee had been paid on the remainder of the required
parking spaces based on the CB-5 standard. They had also been required to install a landscaped courtyard
which served to maintain some open I green space, a loading and unloading space behind the building and a
design review had been required for the building itself.
As proposed, the subject property at 228 E. Court Street would contain 11 studio apartments, 11 one-
bedroom, 4 two-bedroom, 35 three-bedroom, 60 four-bedroom and 11 five-bedroom apartments. 106 out of
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 2
132 units would contain three bedrooms or more which constituted 80% of the apartments as large
apartments. Howard explained the Residential Density Comparisons chart which listed recent apartment
developments in the CB-5 and CB-10 Zone and compared the residential densities of the proposed project
with other high density apartments. The table indicated that the proposed density of this project was
approximately 895 bedrooms per acre compared with the densest projects built to date in downtown Iowa
City, which ranged from 72 bedrooms per acre up to 336 bedrooms per acre, indicating this the proposed
density was significantly higher than anything built to date in Iowa City.
Howard said one of Staffs main concerns was the proposed increase in intensity for this building as opposed
to other CB-1 0 zoned buildings and a concern about whether the amenities on this site and in this area of the
City could support that increase in intensity. There was also the question as to whether that is what the CB-
10 zone was intended for. Other recent rezonings were required to provide a different mix of residential units
that would encourage a diverse population of residents in the downtown area. Staff was concerned about the
mix of units and intensity in the building, and that the living space in the apartments did not really increase as
the number of bedrooms/persons living in the apartment(s) increased. Staff was concerned about how the
lack of living space and shared common areas within the interior of the building would function to meet the
needs of the approximately 430 residents proposed for this building.
Commercial: The proposed building would have only one floor of commercial. The CB-10 Zone contains a
number of requirements to ensure that the space would be suitable for a variety of uses and to ensure
pedestrian friendly orientation so that it would be similar to the rest of the downtown. The proposed building
contains quite a few of the required elements including storefront windows which allowed viewing into the
stores, prominent entrances, entrances that were at level with the sidewalk however some of the commercial
spaces did not meet the minimum floor to floor 14-foot height requirement. Staff felt that issue could be
remedied. Due to the slope of the site from west to east, increasing the height of the second floor would
ensure usable storefronts along Court Street and provide an additional "mezzanine" level along Linn Street.
ParkinQ: Howard said to insure adequate parking was provided for properties rezoned to CB-10 and to treat
residential development equitably with CB-5 properties that had or would pay the parking impact fee in the
Near Souths ide, Staff continued to recommend that any properties south of Burlington Street rezoned to CB-
10 be required to pay the parking impact fee as if they were in the CB-5 zone. For this property, 82 parking
spaces on site were proposed, 309 parking spaces would be required for this building so the applicant would
pay a parking impact fee for 227 spaces. Staff also recommended that a minimum of 1 secured on-site
bicycle parking space per apartment be required due to the number of people who would be living in the
building, the close proximity to downtown and to the campus.
Adeauacv of Shared Parkina Facilities in the Area: As requested by the Commission, the transportation
planning staff put together a memorandum regarding estimated parking demand in the 0-5 year future due to
recent and proposed redevelopment in the south-of-Burlington street neighborhood. Parking demand from
recently constructed buildings and from buildings that are currently under construction is estimated at
approximately 390 spaces net increase. As proposed, the parking demand for Hieronymus Square, for 301
S. Dubuque and for the subject property at 228 E. Court, is estimated at an additional approximate 650
spaces. These numbers showed there is a clear need for a commitment to build a new parking facility in the
next 5 years to support any rezonings to CB-10 in the Near Southside.
Buildina and Streetscaoe Desian: There is a commitment to quality design and pedestrian oriented
streetscape in the downtown area. Staff recommended that if rezoned to CB-10, the applicant be required to
improve the streetscape to meet downtown standards including a minimum 10-foot sidewalk width with
decorative paving, street trees, trash receptacles, benches, and landscaping.
Staff felt that the proposed exterior design was attractive and would meet the standards expected for
building(s) in the CB-10 in the central business district. However, staff had a concern about the proposed
balconies over the rear courtyard which would be isolated from public view and had the potential to become
an attractive nuisance. There had been problems with similar buildings with private courtyards and things
being thrown out the windows and high numbers of police calls to that building. Staff recommended
disallowing balconies over the proposed rear courtyard.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 3
Summarv: In 2006, the Comprehensive Plan was amended to allow the extension of the CB-10 zone within
the Near Southside Development Area. Staff felt that provided that a new development proposed for CB-10
zoning balanced the issues of apartment mix, commercial storefront design, parking, building/streetscape
design in a manner that supported a pedestrian accessible, economically vibrant downtown commercial
area, such rezoning might be justified.
As presently proposed, Staff felt that this application fell short of meeting the goals for rezoning to CB-1 O. Of
significant concern was the proposed apartment mix with a preponderance of 3-, 4-, and 5-bedroom
apartments without sufficient services or surrounding amenities to support the proposed residential intensity
which would have the potential to cause spillover nuisances for adjacent properties and would further
imbalance the housing mix and population in downtown Iowa City. Staff recommended that REZ07-00014 be
denied unless the project was modified to address the concerns identified in the Staff Report.
Public discussion was opened.
Tom Gelman, attorney for the applicant, 714 McLean Street, said that Big Ten Rentals, LLC, a Wisconsin
limited liability company, is owned by Karl Madsen, Jim Cochran and Mike Fischer. The Madison, Wisconsin
company primarily provides housing for University of Wisconsin students. The recent change to the Near
Southside Plan had facilitated this application. The Hieronymus Square project was designed to provide a
diverse mix of uses and had received TIF assistance of up to $16.7M. The 301 S. Dubuque project also
provided a mix of uses and may be aided by up to $6M in TIF assistance. Atthis point in time, the applicants
for this project were not seeking assistance from TIF funding and therefore might not be able to provide the
same type of design considerations. Gelman said the question of residential mix for a particular geographic
area was an important question. Consideration needed to be given to whether every building needed to
have a mix of units or whether the desired residential mix in the downtown could be accomplished generally
without requiring the mix in every building. In other words, could the desired outcome be accomplished by
having multiple buildings with a single type of housing within each as opposed to every building having to
have a mix of residential uses within it. Could the same objective be achieved through multiple buildings
each having a different type of housing?
The parking issue needed to be addressed. It had previously substantially been addressed by two important
factors: 1) the Near Southside Parking Facility district which imposed an impact fee within this area which
enabled the City to accommodate parking needs through municipal facilities. This had been seen to work
very effectively in the new facility south of Burlington Street. 2) The precedent established by the CZA for the
Hieronymus Square project which required an equivalent of CB-5 parking requirements to be met through
either providing a percentage of parking on site and contributing to the Near South Side Parking Facility
District fund. Gelman said because of the timing of the development(s) of the proposed project(s) short-term
parking issues might arise but with the implementation and the integration of the two strategic methods by
the City over the long term the parking demands should resolve themselves.
Gelman said considerations during this evening's meeting should be about long-term issues, not short term.
Some of the issues raised regarding this project might be beyond the scope of the Planning and Zoning
Commission. He urged the Commission to bear in mind that this was a zoning request and not a site plan
review, not a building permit request and not a Code enforcement review. The focus on this application
should be two fold 1) changing the use for this particular parcel from CB-5 to CB-10 and 2) what reasonable
and realistic conditions might be implemented through a CZA to facilitate a CB-10 use and to preserve
reasonable community interest while also being responsive to the pragmatic concerns and limitations of
development, particularly development without TIF financing.
Gelman said this site could be developed under the current CB-5 zoning. An important consideration was
whether a failure to reach a consensus to permit CB-10 zoning would constitute not only an opportunity lost
not only by the developers but more importantly a significant opportunity loss for the community. The
rationale for modifying the Comprehensive Plan was to allow CB-10 in this 3-block limited geographic area
because it made sense for the community to have CB-10 facilities. If this site was developed as a CB-05
site, the City would incur a significant long term lost opportunity for CB-10 facilities within this small
geographic area which had been set aside for that purpose.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 4
Randv Bruce, 7601 Granite Court, Madison, WI. architect who had worked with the applicants on a number
of projects. Bruce said the majority of the first floor outside perimeter would be commercial space. Parking
at surface level would be at the rear of the building. They had a better understanding regarding the required
floor to ceiling heights and felt it could be met. Bruce said he looked forward to doing additional work on the
outside of the building to improve the streetscape to City's standards. Much of the downtown area had
turned out quite nice and the proposed facility could be a great addition as well. Bruce said in response to
concerns raised at the informal meeting regarding a passenger drop-off site, he felt they could create a pick-
up/drop-off site at the rear of the building using the existing alley. There was a full 8-foot grade transition on
the property. The building's base exterior would be a cast stone or limestone integrated with brick, metal
canopy and expansive areas of store-front glass. They wanted to create a rich, permanent feel to the
building. Floors two through ten would be essentially all brick, window openings would be stone sills and
stone heads. Most units would have balconies which in the Madison area had not proven to be a negative in
terms of the management or enforcement of the balcony areas. Another stone band would be introduced
which created a stopping point for the eye and added interest to the building and created more texture. At
the top of the 10th floor the building stepped back considerably and exterior materials would change to pre-
cast panels of smoother texture and lighter color. It would be a beautiful feature on the sky-line. Garage
entrance would be at grade, a ramp going down would transition to parking below the entire building and
would ramp down one more floor level to provide 82 parking spaces enclosed within the building. The patio
area was intended to be a private area for those apartment balconies opening onto it; it was not intended to
be used for large gatherings or public space.
Bruce showed interior and exterior photos of actual buildings they had constructed in Madison. The demand
for parking for parking within their buildings in Madison regarding parking was very different than what is
predicted by reported by the transportation. Bruce reviewed the "Unit Breakdown of Applicant's Recent
Student Apartments" document; in Madison they had found the actual market demand to be one parking stall
for every 5-bedrooms. Translating the one stall per 5-bedrooms to the proposed 430 bedroom Court Street
building would equate to a demand count of 78 parking stalls. 82 parking stalls would be provided on site,
which they felt would meet true market demand.
Bruce said they understood that additional parking stalls would be provided via the parking impact fee, which
they'd calculated at approximately $6100/space or $1.4M generated by the 12-story building. As a CB-5
building, the parking impact fees generated would be approximately $400,000. The applicants felt the
parking impact fee would be a benefit for Iowa City as they didn't believe their tenants would be generating
the demand for those stalls, therefore it would provide additional parking spaces for the general commercial
public and the fee would assist the City in the construction of a new parking ramp.
Bruce said the CB-10 zoning would allow them the economics to build a higher quality architecture than
would be allowed with CB-5. The structure would be concrete frame with a useful life more than double that
of a CB-5 building. Because of the concrete frame and the clear spans allowed with it, it would have re-use
potentiaL They'd designed the building so that if student housing didn't become viable they could renovate it
into market rate condominiums or apartments. CB-10 zoning would allow them to do a higher level of
architecture, build a better quality building and to make an investment in Iowa City's architecture. They
looked forward to that opportunity.
Bruce said approximately 5-years ago the city of Madison had begun a trend to encourage the construction
of student housing in the downtown similar to the photos they had shown and to the project they were
proposing for Iowa City. It had been very successful; he thought Iowa City was starting to initiate the same
type of trend. By increasing the density of the downtown you were able to bring the users closer to the
location to the services they were looking for, Le. bringing the students closer to the campus. All amenities
including restaurants, shopping, libraries were reachable by walking or biking which served to take quite a bit
of the load off the general traffic demands of the city and was an environmentally more sensitive way to
develop. Such density development took the demand for sprawl off the edges of the city and would allow the
next ring of more historic neighborhoods in Iowa City to transition back to more traditional owner occupied
neighborhoods. In Madison it was currently allowing young families to move back into houses that had
previously been student housing and turn those neighborhoods back over to what they had been post war.
Bruce said they looked forward to bringing this high quality of housing to Iowa City and hoped that it would
add to the mix of uses within the downtown.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 5
Karl Madsen, Madison, WI, project developer. Madsen said he agreed with Howard's presentation regarding
justifications for the increase in zoning from CB-5 to CB-10. 1) To encourage re-development in this area.
2) To have a diversity of mix. He asked what would be an appropriate mix and did it need to occur in every
building at every level. Madsen said the developers felt that it did not. The Hieronymus project was
successful because of the reasons it had been approved under. They were not looking to duplicate that
development or be approved under those conditions. 3) Residents sufficient to support the commercial in
these areas. Density had been highlighted as being potentially more significant than in other projects, they
felt that density 'Was critical to the success of their project. Madsen thanked City Staff for working with them
but said they respectfully disagreed with Staffs assessment and overall message regarding their proposed
mix. This project did have 80% in 3-bedrooms and higher, in Madison they had 60% of their units in 3- and
4-bedroom units, a mix which worked for them economically. The economic impact of the commercial, the
fact that they were paying a significant Parking Impact Fee and that they were not seeking public assistance
in financing set them apart. Madsen said they had approximately 3,000 square feet of community space
designed into their structure to provide recreation amenities for the residents of their project.
Freerks asked what was the square footage of community/recreation space in the other buildings that they
had built? Madsen said they'd provide that information to the Commission.
Koppes asked Madsen to define what he considered as community space within the proposed facility, did it
include the court yard. Madsen said it would be both interior and exterior space, he didn't know if the
courtyard had been included or not. Randy Bruce said a central common space was the farthest they had
developed. They knew they wanted to devote a certain area to the common facilities including office and
management space, lobbies and perhaps a study space on the Court Street elevation.
Eastham asked for further explanation as to the rationale regarding bedroom size, why didn't they have an 8-
bedroom apartment in this building? Why was 5 the upper limit, why couldn't 4 be the upper bedroom limit?
Madsen said the economic bottom line of a 5-bedroom unit was better than the economics of a 2-bedroom.
Eastham asked if it affected the price that each occupant paid. Madsen said not significantly; however, in a
studio it would significantly effect how much a person paid for their living space as opposed to living in a 3-,
4- or 5-bedroom unit.
Eastham asked if Madsen had any information on the social effect of students living in a 5-bedroom space as
opposed to living in a 4- or 3-bedroom space. Did they have any management experience in terms of?
Madsen said they did have management experience in 4- and 5 bedroom units. They'd invested upwards of
$200,000 dollars in a surveillance system. Staff had expressed a concern regarding the concealed courtyard
and lack of it being open to public visual surveillance and the potential for students using bad decision
making. Their experience with student housing had been that instances did happen. Their surveillanc~
system encompassed all open common space whether it was interior or exterior. They had surveillance
systems, motion sensors which activated cameras in locations such as elevators and hallways. The
information was transmitted to a system that could store it for up to two weeks. When there were problems
they were able to confront the students directly or involve other agencies as the situation warranted to deal
with the problem at hand. He didn't have empirical data about group living studies.
Eastham asked if the rental code provisions in Madison were significantly different than those in Iowa City
with respect to management requirements and all the items that communities were concerned with in terms
of enforcement and provisions. Madsen said he had not done a point by point comparison. Their
management practices would be similar to those they utilized in Madison. They would take an active
approach. They didn't have the structured facilities in place just to deter the students from making bad
decisions, they were also in place because it was a significant long term investment for the project partners
that they wanted to protect.
Eastham said the applicant's first speaker had suggested that some of the concerns raised by Staff
regarding the mix of bedroom sizes might be addressed by rental code enforcement or rental code
application. Greenwood said she could do legal research on the issue. Iowa City City Code allowed up to 5
unrelated persons to live in one single family unit whether it was CB-5 or CB-1 O. Eastham said he didn't feel
additional research was necessary but since the applicant's representative had raised rental code
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 6
enforcement as a way of addressing bedroom size mix, the applicant's primary experience was in a different
state and if it was significantly different how Madison managed rental properties through their rental code
provisions, it might be important for the Commission to know those items.
Smith asked Madsen if he was willing to disclose what type of investment the applicants would be making in
the Iowa City community. Madsen said it would be more than twenty-million dollars.
Freerks said in the Unit Breakdown document provided by the applicant, it stated that they had two 5-
bedroom units total in their recent projects. Now they were making the leap to 11 5-bedroom units and 60 4-
bedroom units, did they have experience with other buildings of this scale with 5-bedroom units? Madsen
said he did not.
Brooks asked what was different about Iowa City in terms of mix of bedrooms per unit. All of their existing
buildings seemed to be in the 40% range averaging for 2-bedrooms or less. For the development they were
proposing in Iowa City the 2-bedroom units fell in the 16% range. What was different in the market or in
zoning requirements between Iowa City and Madison that they couldn't bring their historical ratio mix to Iowa
City, which in turn would decrease the density per acre.
Madsen said the primary differences would be the parking impact fee which they wouldn't pay in Madison,
the cost of the commercial space and balancing that with the risk of the overall market. The commercial
space that they had in the proposed building would be on both Court and Linn Streets because of Code
requirements. The proposed commercial space was proposed to be a Dominos; he'd prefer not to have
another Dominos, Pappa Johns or liquor store in the frontage of their building. They would like to do
something significantly different, the more they eroded the economics of their project the closer that they'd
be to the product that already existed in Iowa City. Madsen said that he wasn't saying that that was
necessarily bad, but he didn't see the need for another liquor store or similar commercial venue in downtown
Iowa City.
Eastham said a previous speaker had mentioned that the increased density in downtown Madison had
decreased the demand for student living space in near-by neighborhoods. Eastham asked for additional
data if the applicant had it. Madsen said they had no empirical data. Through conversations and based on
the experience of having 15 or 20-showings in a building to all of a sudden no one coming to view units to
the next year the building being put up for sale, that was their knowledge. Comments from the Madison
Planning Department supported their statements. To the extent possible they'd get empirical data.
Brooks said his knowledge of Madison, students, parking, and drivers there was very different than that of
Iowa City. In Madison mopeds almost out numbered people. In Iowa City that was not yet seen. In Madison
there was very limited student storage or any storage for parking vehicles in downtown which might create a
different culture about bringing vehicles to Madison campus than existed in Iowa City. The applicant's data
regarding demand might be applicable to Madison, but he was comfortable with Iowa City Staffs parking
demand data. When the Zoning Code had been re-written, there had data which had addressed that issue.
Madsen explained one difference is that Madison does not allow on-street parking in the downtown areas.
Parking permits were not issued to residents. This was a way to curb the appetite for bringing (residential)
vehicles to the downtown.
Ronald Kenan, resident of Capitol House apartment and member of the Iowa City Citizens Community
Organization, a grassroots community advocacy organization and member of Johnson County Green Party.
He questioned what and why the use of 5-bedroom apartments, was it to encourage students to go into the
subleasing business for themselves. The proposed building was to be built on a tiny lot and would be two
times taller than any of the surrounding buildings. For the residents of Capitol House it would cut off the
view, the sunlight and create a mini-Chicago atmosphere. Question #1, Why wasn't there enough time for
citizens to be informed prior to a developer wanting to change our community through its own change or
construction application? He felt there should be a minimum two week interim period notification period prior
to any City Board or Commission giving consideration to enacting any changes that would effect citizen's
economics, lifestyle, and or community infrastructure in order to allow citizens the opportunity to obtain
information regarding the proposed changes, provide feedback and attend meetings.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 7
Question #2, Why was the developer or developer's representative going first to the City government to get
their input instead of to the citizens for their input. It was a highly anti-democracy process that excluded the
public and allowed the public no time for interaction with other public private citizens to be able to discuss the
changes within the community. Question #3, With any major change(s) within the City, where was the
rationale that the proposed construction met any criteria for bettering our community as opposed to simply
enhancing the bank account of the developer. Should there be a mandatory verification that the Community
would not be adversely affected by increased property taxes, increased traffic congestion, increased
numbers of temporary residents who had no interest in our community but impacted our community's living
standards, the deterioration of the atmosphere and deterioration of our rural small town commercial
businesses and community who struggled to not be out competed by global corporate goods and services.
The City had had an onslaught of projects by developers which sought to dispose residents and enacted
change in the local atmosphere that residents could not tolerate. Small businesses were under assault by
high intensity businesses that overpowered their economic attractiveness and services and which also raised
the property taxes of all residents and small businesses because the large scale businesses could support
the increased valuations due to their non-community regional and national base. The proposed building on
the corners of Linn and Court Streets is the same assault that the Sheraton Towers and hotel Vetro had
imposed on the community several year ago. The Hieronymus Building was indicative of what's been sought
to be obtained, the egocentric, non-compatible, non-community architecture and commercialism. None of
those buildings fit in the neighborhood because of the size, the scope of their edifices were excessive to the
location; none of them complied with the traditional zoning standards because they were so huge; none of
them enhanced the local downtown commercial district which relied on local residents and non-community
business brought in by UI students.
Kenan said it was time for developers to realize that No, they could not have any right to simply build
anything they wanted to in any community regardless of the community's social and commercial realm.
Rights were only granted to citizens and not to developer companies. It was time to bring democracy into
the situation and to tell developers that they could not change communities to satisfy their selfish egocentric
wealth motives. Kenan said this project must not be allowed to be built by a change in zoning laws. The
building must not be allowed to be higher than 6-stories; however, he did appreciate the architectural
appearance of the proposed building.
Freerks asked if notices had been placed. Miklo said notices had been sent to property owners within 300
feet and signs had been posted on the property approximately one-week prior.
Janice Batts Pesselnick, Capitol House Apartment resident, said she did not plan on staying in Iowa City,
she was returning to California because of the trend of development that was happening. She had resided in
Iowa City approximately 20 years ago but had moved away because the City seemed to be more intent on
pleasing the UI students rather than the people who resided in and were trying to earn a meager living in
Iowa City. She lived at Capitol House apartments because she was disabled and had a very low income.
The Capitol House building was a very nice building and had a park-like feel in the front. The residents of
Capitol House were continually disrespected by students who passed by their house and who were drunk,
girls were continually screaming and half dressed, males urinated on the window wells, cars in the back
alley. The proposed building was a big building, students with bad-judgment was a milk toast way to phrase
how students acted. The developers intended to build their building, make their money and move on. The
developers were aware of how students acted. Once the building was built, the developers would have no
long term interest in how the students were going to act. Was the surveillance going to be actual persons,
would there be noise surveillance? Watching pictures of what happened two weeks ago was fine, but who
was going to monitor the noise levels, the drunkenness, the bottles. The proposed parking and drop off area
would be intrusive to the residents on that side of the Capitol House building. The exhaust from the vehicles
in the alley would go right into the ground floor apartments located along the alley.
None of the developer's photos or drawings indicated that there were any surrounding buildings anywhere
near the proposed building. On paper they looked good but didn't acknowledge the existing people and their
lives. The residents of Capitol House apartments were low income people, who'd had unfortunate things
happen in their lives. The residents were scared of the proposed building. The only reason the developers
were even before the Commission was because a tornado had destroyed the former historic, very nice
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 8
church. They could have built this development somewhere else in Iowa City, they were taking advantage of
a very unfortunate situation. Pesselnick said she thought if the proposed building was built, it would root out
Capitol House apartments and it would become the location of the City's next parking ramp. She felt that the
developers should purchase the Capitol House site, relocate the residents and have at it. The Capitol House
apartments were a nice location for the elderly and persons who didn't walk well. They could walk to CVS
pharmacy to get their prescriptions filled and take in fresh air outside of the building. It was a shame that the
developers had whooshed in and were taking advantage of the church's unfortunate demise.
Charlotte Walker, Capitol House Apartment resident, said the proposed building would ruin their building.
Capitol House apartments mainly had elderly people; they were already surrounded by buildings with a great
concentration of students. It was already hard for the elderly residents who lived there because the students
threw furniture off the balconies, the broken bottles thrown off balconies and into their parking lot. Walker
said she was offended that the tenants had not been notified, just the owner. There were almost 100 people
who resided in the building and this would affect their lives. The developers acted like there were not people
who already lived in that area, but there were. Walker said she'd followed other rezonings and the tenants
had been contacted. Why hadn't they been contacted, it was over 100 people. What about the people who
lived across the street, they had not been notified. Walked asked what was the intent for the existing St.
Patrick's Parish parking lot and parish hall? Walked suggested that the developers take their building and
put it somewhere else; it didn't belong in their neighborhood.
Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Koppes made a motion to defer REZ07-00014 to October 18,2007. Shannon seconded.
Eastham asked if it was Staffs recommendation that this application not be acted upon until City Council
acted upon committing to building another parking ramp. If that was the case, how should the Commission
act upon the application before them?
Miklo said Staff recommended that it not be approved until that discussion had occurred. If the Commission
chose to recommend approval of the application, then it would go on the City Council. At or before the
Council's approval, Staff would ask that Council make a decision regarding a parking structure on the Near
Southside. Staffs advice would be, if the Council would not commit to building a parking structure, that they
not approve the application REZ07-00014.
Smith said he was perplexed about the project before them and listening to the arguments. Smith said he
was not sure that the discussion regarding the interior space was relevant to the Commission from a zoning
perspective; in concept he agreed with the argument that this project was not TIF applicable because it
would be just residential student housing. It was a significant difference than Hieronymus Square. With
regard to parking issues, parking codes and standards had been established for minimum on-site parking
requirements as well as parking impact fees. This project met those rules and requirements and it seemed
apparent that this project understood the parking impact fee and there would be a $1.4M fee that would be
associated with it, which was still viable to the developers. Looking at $20M dollar investment in the
community, they were looking at a $300,000-$400,000 in new or additional property taxes which would go a
long way toward staffing a new fire department, which Smith felt was important to the Community. Smith
said he understood the concern of the density issues and not recommending approval of the current
application. He wanted to look at if this application was to be approved, what would be the additional
requirements or changes that the City would want to see, under what conditions and with what conditions
would it be approved, outside of the bedroom or occupancy issues or density issues.
Howard said Staffs biggest concern was the mix of apartments and the common spaces in the building.
Staff felt that was relevant because the bedrooms would be taking up space that could be shared space for
the residents of the building. The question was whether this intensity of use was supported by the amenities
and services on site.
Plahutnik said he saw the main crux as being the zoning, which is dependent on whether this would be a
logical extension of the downtown based on adequate services for the density proposed. With respect to
adequate services, a fee was not a parking space which still didn't provide the service and there was no plan
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 4, 2007
Page 9
as yet to provide the parking that would be required by this building. In response to a challenge from Smith
that that was a City Council issue, Plahutnik acknowledged it was; he also said for Commissioners staying
behind on the Planning and Zoning Commission they had to deal with P&Z issues; those who were looking to
deal with City issues such as tax income could look ahead to that. The TIF issue, they could not look at
whether this would be a TIF project, the Commission didn't give out TIFs, they didn't take TIFs away, and
they could not consider that issue. They also didn't consider the profit motive involved in a developer's
project. The Commission assumed that the developers would only go ahead with projects that would be
profitable for them; it was not their job to make it so. They were considering entirely different things, the
impact on the Community and how it would benefit the Community.
Koppes said she'd lived in the dorms on 1ih floor and remembered Moving In/Moving Out day. It looked like
the building only had two elevators and nowhere for people to park and unload. That was very concerning
as to what it would do to the surrounding area. Also, where would the commercial loading dock be?
Eastham said his major issue was the mix of bedroom sizes. Several of the Staffs recommendations had to
do with the viability of the commercial spaces and additional services such as bicycle parking. He pretty
much agreed with Staffs recommendations. Eastham said he was struggling with what would be a
reasonable bedroom mix for a downtown high rise apartment building that would mainly be marketed to
students. It probably was not a bad idea to have a number of students living close to downtown, students
had some advantages and some disadvantages. One of the advantages was the number of coffee shops
which did not exist 5-years ago and were wonderful places for the citizens to congregate. The students
brought a lot to the downtown community. Eastham said he was not sure that rental income should be the
final determinant of what would be a reasonable bedroom mix.
Freerks said it was a lovely building; the Commission often had to pull teeth to get something as nice looking
as this building was proposed to be. However, the Commission had to look inside as well when it came to
density, she personally would like to see no 5-bedroom units in this structure. The Commission needed to
look at creating a viable, healthy environment all around the community. She hoped that the developer and
Staff could come up with a different configuration for the bedroom mix.
Freerks asked if windows were only in the bedroom units or were they in the common living space as well.
Howard said that in the preliminary floor plans most of the units had balconies which were off of the living
room, but the developer might be better able to answer that question. Freerks said she would like to see a
definite change in the configuration of the densities of the bedrooms; she would like to see something that
could accommodate different people and could live for a long period of time.
Brooks asked if this remained CB-5 and using the allowable apartment size mix, what would be the base that
would be allowed in CB-5 on this space. Miklo said that would be hard to do project because the Code didn't
specify that you had to have a mix in CB-5; you could have all the same size bedrooms in a building. Miklo
suggested looking at the table that Staff had put together. Howard said one of the considerations with CB-5
and also with parking was that for other areas zoned CB-5, developers had to provide parking based on the
established ratios for parking in CB-5 zone, which had been increased in the last Code revision to meet the
demand. Surface parking drove density on the lot; parking provided under or inside a building could provide
more building area on a site and more density. The two newest buildings currently under construction in the
CB-5 zone provided structured parking; using the Residential Density Comparisons chart, you could
compare the acres of the two newest structures to the proposed building and also to compare bedroom mix
per. acre to get an estimate of what a CB-5 density might look like on this property.
Howard said the parking impact fee only covered approximately 1/3 the cost to build a structured parking
space. It gave developers quite a break rather than if they were required to meet the CB-5 zone standards.
Smith asked Greenwood to advise the Commission as to how could they come to a reasonable decision as
to what would be an appropriate mix when the Code allowed 5-bedroom units although most Commissioners
were uncomfortable with that size of unit. Greenwood said the Commission could include conditions that
would address conditions that could be/would be created by the development.
The motion to defer passed on a vote of 7-0.
APPROVED
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 18, 2007 - 7:30 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Wally Plahutnik, Terry Smith, Beth Koppes, Ann Freerks, Charlie Eastham, Bob
Brooks, Dean Shannon
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen, Howard, Sunil Terdalkar, Sarah Holecek, Jeff Davidson
OTHERS PRESENT: Kevin Hochstetler, Duane Musser, Mike Pugh, Jay LeaVesseur, Charlotte Bailey,
Nancy LeaVesseur, Tom Gelmen, Randy Bruce, Karl Madsen, David Dowell,
Charlotte Walker
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
Recommended approval, by a vote of 7-0, of SUB07-00009 an application from The Crossing Development
for a final plat of Cardinal Pointe South Part One and Part Two, a 39-lot, 45.04 acre residential subdivision
located east of Camp Cardinal Boulevard, south of Kennedy Parkway.
Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-1 (Eastham voting no), of REZ07-00015/SUB07-00007/SUB07-
00008 an application from Dav-Ed Limited & Prime Ventures for a rezoning to amend a Sensitive Areas
Development Plan and a preliminary and final plat of Galway Hills Part 4, a 26-lot, 10.41-acre residential
subdivision located west of Donegal Place on Galway Drive.
Recommended denial, by a vote of 4-3 (Eastham, Shannon and Smith voting no), of REZ07-00014 an
application submitted by Big Ten Rentals for a rezoning from Central Business Support (CB-5) zone to
Central Business (CB-10) zone for approximately .48-acres of property located at the northwest corner of
Linn Street and Court Street
Call to Order:
Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:34 pm.
Public Discussion of Anv Item Not on the Aaenda
Jeff Davidson introduced himself to the commission and stated that he had recently taken over the duties of
Director of Planning and Community Development. He stated that he looked forward to working with the
Commission and expressed admiration of the work done by the Commission. He expressed his confidence
in the Planning staff and noted that if the Commission would like to have work performed by the department,
he is open to scheduling those tasks.
Develooment Item
SUB07 -00009: Discussion of an application from The Crossing Development for a final plat of Cardinal
Pointe South Part One and Part Two, a 39-lot, 45.04 acre residential subdivision located east of Camp
Cardinal Boulevard, south of Kennedy Parkway.
Miklo stated that staff recommends approval subject to staff approval of legal papers and construction
drawings prior to City Council consideration. Miklo said that there are no deficiencies in the plat at this time.
He pointed out that a minor lot line adjustment had been made to allow a three attached units on lots 22, 23
and 24. The previous plan had shown two attached units and on detached unit on these three lots. Staff felt
that he proposed change to attach the third unit was not a significant change from the preliminary plan.
Motion: Plahutnik made a motion to recommend approval of item SUB07-00009. Smith seconded.
The motion to approve passed on a vote of 7-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2007
Page 2
REZ07-00015/SUB07-00007/SUB07-00008: Discussion of an application from Dav-Ed Limited & Prime
Ventures for a rezoning to amend a Sensitive Areas Development Plan and a preliminary and final plat of
Galway Hills Part 4, a 26-lot, 10.41-acre residential subdivision located west of Donegal Place on Galway
Drive. (45-day limitation period 10/29/07)
Terdalkar stated that approval should be based on compliance with the six items in the staff report to ensure
stabilization of soils on sloping sites and improvements to woodland areas. He also noted that the applicant
submitted information on neighborhood meetings that were held.
Terdalkar confirmed that there have been no changes to the application since Oct 4. A question came up
regarding the pink areas on the map that was submitted by the applicant. Terdalkar verified that yellow is for
changes being sought, red is for the new construction limit line, and pink is where soil has been pulled back.
Public discussion was opened.
Kevin Hochstedler, of Prime Ventures construction, emphasized that he is with Prime Ventures, not the
previous developer Dav-Ed. He stated that neighbors have been confused by this. Hochstedler showed
photos of a berm and landscape screening that had recently been constructed on lot 8.
Hochstedler said that Prime Ventures will implement four construction practices to mitigate for the increase in
the construction area limits including installation of a construction limit fence and signage, meeting with
subcontractors to ensure limits are not exceeded, and planting native vegetation. As an example of what they
have done so far to improve the site, he showed a picture of a berm, swale, and trees that had been planted on
lots 8 and 9. He stated that these were mature trees that had been planted. They are roughly 20 to 25 feet tall
and have made neighbors happy. He said that grasses have also been planted and that the trees were planted
in a double row with one row of deciduous trees and one with fir trees that will provide a good screen from
Highway 218.
Hochstedler stated that there has been confusion on the part of neighbors as to the purpose of this application.
Some neighbors thought that this application was to rezone to allow multifamily dwellings, but he said that this
is not the case. He stated that Prime Ventures has experience building close to wooded areas in the past, and
cited examples of this including The Stables Subdivision. He also said that Prime Ventures provides interesting
architecture, citing the Arlington Heights Subdivision as an example.
Hochstedler provided specific numbers regarding how the changes will affect the area's sensitive areas. He
said that disturbance to critical slopes, steep slopes and woodland disturbance would increase by between 1 %,
4% and 4% each. Hochstedler stated that Prime Ventures wants to build quality homes.
Duane Musser, of MMS Consultants, stated that lot 20 had been left unchanged. The line in this area had just
been straightened out. He emphasized that no trees have been removed.
Eastham asked about the size of the proposed homes. He said that the information in the Oct 4 meeting
packet stated that plans called for homes of 2600 to 3600 square feet and that Prime Ventures is now showing
a lower figure. Musser said that the discrepancy was due to some figures using a building footprint while others
used total dw~lIing square footage. He said the reason for moving the line was to accommodate the size of the
homes and more specifically, the decks that are to be at the rear of the homes.
A question was asked about whether foundations that are currently in place can be built on the lots without
having to move the line on those lots. The applicant responded that it is possible.
Mike PUQh, counsel for Prime Ventures, stated that he wanted to clarify an item regarding the landscape buffer.
He said the landscape buffer is from the original plat and was a requirement made by the City. This
amendment is to change the final plat. The sensitive areas development plan is a Level II review that requires
a rezoning because the original applicant asked for a modification to allow for a longer cul-de-sac than
otherwise allowed. He said sensitive areas on outlots A and B were being protected. Pugh said that the
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2007
Page 3
reason for this application is because the original Sensitive Areas Development Plan was approved through a
Level II Review, which requires a rezoning. So even though the changes being requested with the current
application are fairly minor, this also requires a Level II Review. He stated that sensitive areas approval
guidelines number 1,4,7,8, and 9 are the only ones applicable in this case. He stated that City staff has
indicated that this application meets these standards. Pugh indicated that the construction area limit line will be
moved approximately 20 to 25 feet further back on lots 21 and 22.
Jav LeaVesseur, 742 Tipperary Rd, said that lots 21 and 22 used to have vegetation in the past, but that Dav-
Ed had bulldozed it. He said that as a result, the neighbors are worried about more vegetation being taken
away. He asked that the developers respect the neighbors and that violations have already occurred.
LeaVesseur stated that the homeowners association is active and desires good communication. He said that
Prime Ventures has made a good faith effort recently to meet or discuss with neighbors. He stated that there is
an orange snow fence in the area of lot 17 near the Iowa City sign, and that vegetation in that area appears to
be thinner now than in the past.
Charlotte Bailev. 6 Kearney Ct, said she wanted to discuss changes that have happened since the last
meeting. She stated that input from the neighbors had been solicited, but a meeting never occurred. She said
that a decision had already been made regarding the amount of the allowed disturbance of the sensitive areas
on this property years ago. She said that the lots are buildable with the construction area limit lines that were
set originally, or else the plan would not have been approved. She stated that a change of construction limit
line placement will result in a change in impact. She said the lots look okay to build on as previously approved.
She asked that an assumption not be made that one necessary fix to move the line to address work that was
already done on tow of the lots does not require the movement of the construction limit line on several lots.
She said that the existing lines are where they are for a reason and that not all changes may be necessary.
Hochstedler stated that Prime Ventures has tried to set up a meeting but due to various circumstances, things
have not worked out. He stated that they are willing to meet with neighbors.
Nancv LeaVesseur, 742 Tipperary Rd, stated that she is requested that there continue to be a good
relationship between Prime Ventures and the homeowners association.
Public discussion was closed.
Smith made a motion to approve item REZ07-00015/SUB07-00007/SUB07-00008. Plahutnik seconded.
Eastham expressed concern that the changes are not necessary because there already appears to be
enough space on the lot to build good sized houses.
Smith expressed a similar concern but felt that the revised plan met the requirements of the code. Smith
asked about the violation on lots 19 and 20 where the construction limit line had already been crossed.
Terdalkar said that the applicant is working on this and has corrected the violations. They had removed the
stocked piled soil and added erosion control measures as directed by the inspection department.
Plahutnik stated that violations were not a P&Z issue as the Commission is not an enforcement entity. He said
that with the improvements the woodlands and the planting of native vegetation as recommended by the Soil
Conservation Service the concerns about soil erosion would be addressed.
Bob Brooks stated that this is a case in point where if the developer would follow the "good neighbor policy"
early on in the process there would not be confusion and misunderstandings and it would save time during the
approval process.
Freerks also agreed that it is important to have open communication with existing neighbors and hoped the
progress that had been made on this front would continue. Freerks asked if the orange construction fence is
temporary. Terdalkar responded that it is temporary and will remain in place through construction.
The motion to approve the item passed on a 6-1 vote (Eastham).
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2007
Page 4
Rezonina Item
REZ07-00014: Discussion of an application submitted by Big Ten Rentals for a rezoning from Central
Business Support (CB-5) zone to Central Business (CB-10) zone for approximately .48-acres of property
located at the northwest corner of Linn Street and Court Street. (45-day limitation period: 10/29/2007)
Howard stated that project would include a 12-story building with one floor of commercial and eleven floors of
residential. It would have 82 parking spaces and would pay parking impact fees to cover the rest. The
applicant has revised the mix of apartments since the last meeting. They are now proposing 36 studio, 24
two-bedroom, 24 three-bedroom, and 64 four-bedroom apartments totaling 148 apartments with 412
bedrooms. 88 of the 148 total apartments now contain 3 bedrooms or more which is 60% of the total.
Howard compared the bedrooms per acre for this application to that of existing local projects. The Big Ten
Rentals project would have 858 bedrooms per acre which is nearly 2.5 times the number of residents per
acre than for the densest project built in the CB-5 and CB-10 to date. City staff remains concerned about the
proposed density and apartment mix and find that the proposed density is achieved by concentrating floor
space in bedrooms, while minimizing living, dining, and shared common areas within the building. Staff
believes that the dorm-like living environment proposed for this project will appeal only to short-term
residents. Since there is already a concentration of this type of residential living in the downtown area, and
one of the reasons that the Near Southside Plan was amended to allow for the possibility of CB-10 Zone was
to provide opportunities for apartments and condominiums designed for and including amenities suited to
residents other than just short term renters and that a better mix of residential opportunities in the downtown
area would help to support a healthy variety of commercial development and retail in the downtown core that
was envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan. Since the proposed development does not appear to meet
these goals there does not appear to be a compelling reason to rezone this property to CB-10.
Howard said that the application falls short of the goals for CB-10 zoning. She said the plans concentrate
too much space in bedrooms, which results in over 800 residents per acre. Staff is concerned that the
density of residents on the site will be very difficult to manage and may cause problems for residents of the
building and for neighboring properties.
Howard stated that staff recommends REZ07-00014 be denied.
Smith asked if the Comp Plan, district plan, or zoning code say anything about maximum residential density
in the CB-10 Zone. Howard stated that the residential density is only limited by the height and FAR limits for
buildings in the CB-10 Zone.
Eastham inquired about CB-5 versus CB-10 zoning. Howard said that the site development standards are
the same for both with regard to the commercial storefront design, articulation and fenestration of the
building, etc., but that parking standards differ between the two zones. She said that with this request for a
rezoning, the City can place additional reasonable conditions on the development beyond the zoning
requirements. The developers currently have the right to build apartments in the CB-5 Zone and can achieve
considerable density with that zoning. Miklo stated that in the CB-5 zone, bonus points are often sought to
achieve a higher FAR, which then leads to greater scrutiny of the design. Howard discussed the definition of
FAR. Eastham asked if other CB-5-zoned properties have been through design review. Miklo stated that
they have been.
Miklo mentioned that the public works department had noted that sewer capacity in the area should be
checked to see if this density of development could be accommodated with existing facilities. Howard said
that staff had asked the developer for estimates of water usage at other similar projects that they built in
Madison, Wisconsin, but that the planning department has not received these estimates yet.
Public discussion was opened.
Tom Gelman, attorney for the developer, stated that two events led to this application. First was the
destruction of St. Patrick's Church in the tornado. Second was a modification of the Near Souths ide Plan to
allow for CB-10 zoning in the area between Burlington and Court Streets.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2007
Page 5
Gelman discussed the amendment to the Comp Plan. He said the CB-10 zone was equally appropriate as a
CB-5 zone and that two criteria should be used to determine this: 1) Is it an appropriate extension of the
downtown area? 2) Are the services adequate for the density? He questioned why the focus was on the
residential density and whether that was appropriate in this case. He questioned why staff was insisting that
there be a diversity of residents within each building rather than focusing on a diversity of residents in the
whole of downtown.
Gelman talked about two services that seem relevant to the case, parking and sewer capacity. He stated
that the strategy for parking was to use public parking facilities to supplement the on-site parking. He noted
that the developer had agreed to pay a substantial parking impact fee even though the CB-10 zone does nor
require parking. He stated that the Hieronymus Square project has set a good standard in terms of adhering
to the CB-5 parking standards even thought it is zoned CB-10. He also mentioned that the area's plan
showed a potential parking ramp across the street from this property. He stated that the issue of sewer
capacity did not seem to be a problem - the engineers just wanted to confirm that the lines in the area had
sufficient capacity.
He stated that about 24,000 University of Iowa students live off-campus. This has resulted in horizontal
sprawl of students into existing single-family neighborhoods. He said that this project would be less dense
than what is allowed and that the developers had removed all five-bedroom units from the plans. He
discussed that vertical density is different than horizontal density. He said that a taller building would
obviously have greater density. He said the last five horizontal projects in Iowa City have had a density
average of 3.8 bedrooms per unit while this plan has 2.78 bedrooms per unit.
Gelman stated that diverse options should include student housing and that this project will add to the
downtown housing mix. He stated it might also benefit affordable housing in Iowa City. He cited a story he
heard about Washington County. He heard that this County had determined that widows' homes were where
the affordable housing could be found. In this case, when widows' homes became vacant, families were able
to move in. He said the affordable housing in Iowa City could be found in the existing housing stock. This
would be more realistic than building it new. He stated that concentrating student housing in a vertical
project in the CB-10 zone may free up some of the existing housing stock in older neighborhoods
surrounding downtown. This existing older housing stock would then provide for affordable housing
opportunities and could transition back to family housing. He stated that a CB-5 zoned project would have
less of an affect on housing in the older neighborhoods.
Gelman said that on site amenities in a building near downtown don't need to be as great as those farther
away, because there are so many amenities within the downtown area. He cited the availability of the
planned University recreation center and downtown restaurants, etc. He said the location of this property ~
the amenity in this case. He also noted that this project will be student housing whether it is zoned CB-10 or
CB-5.
Randv Bruce, architect for the developer, said that planning staff had praised the exterior design of the
proposed building. He said the density allowed under the CB-1 0 zoning allowed more money to be spent on
the exterior design and materials for the building. He said that there are now less bedrooms in this plan than
in a similar building in Madison, Wisconsin. With CB-10 zoning, it becomes financially feasible to use
concrete and steel construction rather than wood construction. Concrete construction would allow a CB-10
project to be reconfigurable because the walls would not be load-bearing. So in the future the building could
be converted to apartments with fewer bedrooms if that is what the market supported. He said that a large
project would bring students closer in to the downtown. Bruce said that in Madison, a similar building
resulted in students moving closer in, leaving older homes available, and that some homes have been
converted back into single-family homes.
Bruce stated that high quality construction, convertibility, and economic development in downtown are
positives. He said that a CB-1 0 project allows them to spend more on materials and the structure.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2007
Page 6
With regard to the conditions mentioned by staff in their report, Bruce said that they are agreeable to most
conditions with the exception being the prohibition of balconies on interior courtyard. He stated that
balconies are an amenity for the residents and requested that this condition be eliminated.
Karl Madsen, of the development team, asked questions: What are the reasonable conditions? What is an
appropriate standard if this is only a density issue? What constitutes diversity of housing? Is diversity in
each building or diversity spread out over downtown preferred? He said that the proposed project was a
good density for a downtown location and would support retail uses on the ground floor of the building. He
said that it would be adding to the diversity of housing and that the high end condos that the community
desired where already being provided in Plaza Towers and Hieronymus Square. He noted that those projects
received tax breaks which allowed those developers to meet the conditions that the City imposed and that
his team was not seeking tax breaks so the same conditions where not appropriate.
Eastham inquired about the use of CB-10 for a variety of people. He asked if it is possible for students and
non-students to be together. Madsen stated that anyone could rent in this building but that non-students
tend to not want to live near students.
David Dowell, 320 S. Dubuque St, stated that he lives in the Capitol House Apartments which is next to this
property. He asked if more student housing is needed in the downtown area. He said that affordable
student housing may be needed, but doubted whether this would be affordable. Dowell said that people in
the neighborhood are concerned. He believes that this project will not lead to more affordable housing in
neighborhoods. Dowell said that the applicants bought the property knowing what the existing zoning was
and should not have had the expectation that it would be automatically rezoned to CB-10. He stated that if
scattered housing is not used in the case of student housing, but is for other reasons, that this does not
make sense.
Charlotte Walker, 320 S. Dubuque St, stated that the developer had not spoken to residents of the Capitol
House Apartments or other neighbors. She said that some elderly residents can't make it to the meeting to
express their concerns. Walker was concerned that the plan calls for a loading area in the alley that is near
the first floor windows of the Capitol House where some of the most disabled and elderly residents live. She
also expressed concern that in this meeting, the developer had not once mentioned the neighbors
surrounding the property.
Howard clarified that staff was not insisting that there needed to be a diversity of residents within each
building, but rather that the Near Southside Plan was amended to allow opportunities for a wider variety of
residents to live downtown, not just students. Staff was concerned that there was already a concentration of
student apartments in this area and did not feel that an upzoning to support an even higher density of
student apartments met the intent of the recent amendment to the Near Southside Plan. For example, a
condition of approval for the Hieronymus Square project was that there could be no apartments with more
than 3 bedrooms and that not more than 30 percent of the apartments could be 3-bedroom apartments. The
proposed project does not meet the bar that was set by Hieronymus Square. She also noted that the intent of
the Central Business Zone (CB-10) is to support a healthy commercial core, that the zone is not primarily a
residential zone. In addition, there is much more to the Near Southside Plan than just the recent two-
sentence amendment and that the entirety of the comprehensive plan for the area needs to be taken into
account with this rezoning request.
Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Plahutnik made a motion to deny REZ07-00014. Koppes seconded.
Brooks stated that parking is a key issue for him and that he felt that more needs to be done to address the
parking for an apartment building with this number of residents. He said he did like the idea that allowing
high rise residential might help historic residential areas and also felt that the building was designed to
accommodate commercial development on the first floor. He said, however, there is a need for a diversity of
housing types, and a broader mix of people in downtown would be good.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2007
Page 7
Smith stated that this project is a logical extension of the downtown, that the project does meet the cities
parking requirements in the Near Southside. Similar parking concessions were made for Hieronymus
Square. He said is was confused about the density issue and whether it was appropriate to consider this a
problem with this project.
Eastham stated that it is his belief that additional parking will be needed. He said a mix of housing within
each building in this area is not necessary. Eastham said that providing student housing near downtown
may actually increase safety due to a shorter walking distance. He said that it is his observation that the
quality of CB-10 projects has been better than that of CB-5 projects.
Plahutnik stated that this project would lead to too many people in one area and feels that this project is not a
logical extension of downtown. It is such a leap in residential density from anything else in the downtown that
he doesn't feel that this is a logical extension of Iowa City's downtown and is concerned about the impacts
that this will have on the downtown and surrounding properties.
Shannon stated that Iowa City has changed a lot over the years. Reno and Slater residence halls were huge
projects but are well managed. He doesn't have a good answer for the density question, but feels that the
applicant should take the application to City Council for them to make a final decision.
Koppes said that this project does not follow the precedent that was set with the previous CB-10 rezonings in
the Near Southside area and does not feel that it meets the intent of the amendments that were recently
made to the comprehensive plan.
Freerks said she agrees that this is not a logical extension of downtown and that a broader mix of people
would be good to support a healthy downtown commercial core. She also stated that it is appropriate to
discuss the residential density and mix of the proposed project because the CB-10 zone is a commercial
zone. Density is a fundamental issue when considering rezoning requests.
The motion to deny the rezoning request was approved 4-3 (Smith, Eastham, Shannon voted in the
negative).
Consideration of Meetina Minutes
Motion: Smith made a motion to approve the October 4, 2007 meeting minutes as typed and corrected.
Brooks seconded the motion. The motion was approved on a vote of 7-0.
Other Item
None
Adiournment
Motion: Smith make a motion to adjourn the meeting 10:29 pm. Brooks seconded. The motion was
approved on a vote of 7-0.
Minutes submitted by Adam Ralston
s/pcd/minslp&z12007/1 0-18-07 .doc
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Prepared by: Karen Howard
Item: REZ07-00014
228 E. Court Street
Date: September 23, 2007
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Big Ten Rentals
2249 Pinehurst Drive
Middleton, Wisconsin 53562
Contact Person:
Michael Fisher
Phone:
608-235-0122
Requested Action:
Rezoning from CB-5 to CB-10
Purpose:
Development of a mixed-use
residential/commercial building
Location:
228 E. Court Street
Size:
0.484 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Vacant / Commercial (CB-5)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Residential/Commercial - CB-5
South: Institutional - CB-5
East: Residential/Commercial - CB-5
West: Residential/ Commercial CB-5
Comprehensive Plan:
Mixed Use - Central Business
Near Southside Plan
File Date:
September 13, 2007
October 29, 2007
45 Day Limitation Period:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Big Ten Rentals, is requesting approval for rezoning from Central Business
Support Zone (CB-5) to Central Business Zone (CB-10) zone for 0.484 acres of property
located at 228 E. Court Street. S1. Patrick's Church occupied this property until it was severely
damaged by the tornado in April 2006. The church was subsequently razed and the site
cleared and sold for redevelopment. A rezoning to CB-10 would allow construction of the
proposed twelve-story building, which will be marketed as housing for university students. The
applicant proposes one floor of commercial, the minimum required in the CB-10 Zone, and 11
floors of apartments for a total of 132 units containing 430 bedrooms. Parking is proposed
below grade and on the ground floor level of the building behind the commercial storefronts.
2
ANAL YSIS:
Comprehensive Plan:
The subject property is located in the Downtown Planning District and is also covered by the
Near Southside Plan, which was adopted in 1992. The City began implementing this plan by
adopting the CB-5 zone and applying it to the area generally between Court and Burlington
Street. The relationship between the CB-10 zone north of Burlington Street and the CB-5 zone
to its south was intended to create a hierarchy of taller buildings and greater intensity of
development in the downtown core with a step down in height and intensity to the south.
A change in policy with regard to Near Southside development was initiated with the CB-10
rezoning of the Hieronymus Square Property at the southeast corner of Burlington and Clinton
Streets. The logic supporting that rezoning and the amendment to the Near Southside Plan to
allow the extension of the CB-10 zone holds that much of the current CB-5 area south of
Burlington Street-as well as the north side of Burlington Street, which is already zoned CB-
10-contains few buildings that have the characteristics envisioned for the downtown. It was
decided that encouraging redevelopment of this area by extending the CB-10 zoning to just
south of Burlington Street would reduce redevelopment pressure on the downtown core where
the desirable pedestrian-oriented streetscape and historic buildings are in place and that CB-1 0
zoning would be appropriate provided that adequate parking and pedestrian connections to the
established downtown are provided.
Another justification for amending the Near Souths ide Plan, and a condition of the Hieronymus
rezoning and for the subsequent rezoning of the property at 301 S. Dubuque Street, was the
potential benefit of diversifying the mix of housing stock downtown. The success of Plaza
Towers suggested that a market exists for a different sort of high-rise residential development
dOV'fntown. In other words, constructing apartments and condominiums designed for and
including amenities suited to residents other than University students would diversify the
housing stock and help support the type of retail commercial development envisioned by the
Comprehensive Plan for the downtown and the Near Southside. There is a concern that if
apartments are built solely to serve university students, particularly younger undergraduates,
that the downtown would evolve into a campus town with goods and services geared mainly
toward students rather than for the wider community. The conditional zoning agreements for
Hieronymus Square and for the proposed building at 301 S. Dubuque Street require a mix of
studio or 1, 2 and 3-bedroom units, with no more than 30% of the units containing 3 bedrooms,
and no units were allowed more than 3 bedrooms. The difficulty is determining the right
balance of student and non-student housing that will support a vibrant and diverse commercial
core.
The amendment to the Near Souths ide Design Plan states that either CB-S or CB-10 are
appropriate between Court and Burlington Streets, based on the property providing a logical
extension of the downtown and adequate services for the density proposed.
Residential uses within the buildina
Unlike the two recent rezonings from CB-S to CB-10 in the area south of Burlington Street (301
S. Dubuque Street and Hieronymus Square), this rezoning request is intended largely for
student apartments. The applicant, Big Ten Rentals, has built similar projects in Madison,
Wisconsin near the University of Wisconsin campus. Their primary focus and expertise is
student apartments. The commercial space in the building is limited to the ground level floor of
the building.
3
The applicant has cited several reasons to approve an upzoning to CB-10:
. The location is an infill site, so will increase the tax base with minimal increase in
services.
. It increases the amount of housing available to the University population within walking
distance to campus and downtown. It reduces vehicular traffic coming into the
downtown and promotes more environmentally friendly pedestrian and bicycle
circulation.
. It may decrease rental housing demand in the more historic residential neighborhoods
bordering campus, so that those homes may transition back to owner occupancy.
Staff finds that these are legitimate goals and, in general, supported by the Comprehensive
Plan and the Near Southside Plan. Staff is concerned, however, with the mix and intensity of
the apartments proposed within the building. Only 22 of the 132 apartments contain
apartments with fewer than 3 bedrooms. The preponderance of the apartments are 3- and 4-
bedroom units and the building also contains a number of 5-bedroom units. The apartments
with 3, 4, and 5 bedrooms tend to attract young undergraduate students. Older students and
non-students do not typically need or desire so many bedrooms and instead opt for apartments
with fewer bedrooms and more living space. The applicant has provided some sample floor
plans, which are attached to this report. Staff notes that the amount of living space (living
room, dining space, and kitchen area) remains about the same regardless of how many
bedrooms there are in the apartment. The lack of diversity in the units offered and emphasis on
units with a large numbers of bedrooms is likely to attract a preponderance of young
undergraduates living on their own for the first time. It is the experience of City enforcement
officials that property maintenance and enforcement issues are greater for these types of
apartments. In turn, these internal problems become neighborhood nuisance issues and result
a living situation that is not suitable to young students or to other residents the City is trying to
attract into the downtown.
The applicant has provided a description of their property management policies. They have
indicated that there will be a management office on site that will be open during regular
business hours and one tenant in the building will be hired as the resident manager. Problems
that arise after business hours would be addressed by this designated person. While these
policies may be well-intentioned, staff is concerned that it may be difficult for one resident
manager to handle the issues that are likely to occur with 11 floors of large student apartments
(430 students). Staff cautions against approving a rezoning based on the management
practices of the current owners. However, zoning can address the intensity of use, the physical
amenities and shared open space provided on-site. To that end, staff recommends against
including 5-bedroom apartments and recommends reducing the number of 4-bedroom
apartment to create a better balance of efficiency, 1-, and 2-bedroom units within the building.
Another suggestion is to design the upper two floors as condominiums, taking advantage of the
views and proximity to downtown. Short of providing a greater diversity of apartments, staff
does not recommend increasing the allowable density on this property by rezoning to CB-10.
Commercial uses within the buildina
The proposed building is largely a residential building. Only one floor of commercial is
proposed. This may be reasonable given the location of the building, some distance from the
existing downtown core. However, the commercial spaces within the building should be
constructed in a manner that will be attractive and usable to a wide variety of commercial
tenants. Both the CB-5 and CB-10 Zone contain requirements to ensure the viability of the
ground-level floor of buildings for commercial uses, including storefront window and doorway
requirements, ensuring that entrances are close to grade, and requiring a minimum floor to floor
height of at least 14 feet. As currently designed, the commercial storefronts proposed along
4
Court Street do not meet the required floor to floor height requirement for commercial uses in a
mixed-use building. Failure to design the ground floor space in a manner that is attractive to
commercial tenants will likely result in vacant storefronts, not a desirable result in an area
intended for an expansion of the Central Business District. Due to the slope of the site from
west to east, increasing the height of the second floor will ensure usable storefronts along Court
Street and provide an additional "mezzanine" level along Linn Street. This space could be
marketed for office uses, personal service uses, or commercial recreational uses, such as a
fitness center, or reserved for use by the tenants of the building as a common room, a fitness
center, secure bicycle parking area, or other such amenity.
ParkinQ:
The Comprehensive Plan notes that some downtown merchants and business owners feel the
residential population burdens the parking system in the district to the detriment of businesses.
The Plan indicates the need to establish a clear policy for housing, parking and redevelopment
in the Downtown Planning District, which includes the established downtown and the Near
Southside area. When the City completed its study of the redevelopment potential in the Near
Southside, several measures were taken to address the demand and supply of parking for new
commercial and residential development in this area, including the creation of the Near
Southside Parking Facility District.
The policy that underpins the Near Souths ide Parking Facility District acknowledges that
residential parking demand is fundamentally different than the demand for short term
commercial parking. Therefore regulations were set in place to make sure that any new
residential development would pay its fair share to meet the demand for parking in the Near
Southside. Rather than requiring each individual property to provide the required parking on-
site and take up valuable land that could be used for buildings and other site amenities,
property owners pay a fee at the time of development. These fees are pooled into a fund that is
used for development of municipal parking structures that are then shared by all users in the
area.
For development on properties in the Near Southside that are zoned CB-5, the owner is
required to pay a set fee for 75% of the required parking spaces for residential units. Currently
the fee is $6,119 per parking space and represents less than 1/3 the cost of building a
structured parking space. At the time the Near Southside Parking Facility District was
established, CB-10 zoning was not anticipated in the Near Southside. Because the fee is
based on the amount of parking required and there is no requirement for private, off-street
parking in the CB-10 zone, this fee would not apply to areas rezoned to CB-10.
To insure adequate parking is provided for properties rezoned to CB-10 and to treat residential
development equitably with CB-5 properties that have paid or will pay the fee in the Near
Southside, staff continues to recommend that any properties south of Burlington Street rezoned
to CB-10 be required to pay the parking impact fee as if they were in the CB-5 zone. This
arrangement was a condition of the CB-10 rezonings for both Hieronymus Square and 301 S.
Dubuque. If the CB-5 parking requirement is applied to the building proposed at 228 E. Court
Street, 309 parking spaces would be required, 25% of which would need to be provided on site
and fees representing 75% of the required spaces paid into the Near Southside Parking Facility
District Impact Fee Restricted Fund. Staff recommends that this be a condition of approval, if
the property is rezoned to CB-10.
Providing adequate bicycle parking should also be required. Bicycle parking is also based on
the number of required parking spaces. Since no parking is required in the CB-10 Zone,
bicycle parking would not be required if this property were rezoned to CB-10. Given the likely
demand for bicycle parking generated by the tenants of this building, staff recommends that a
5
minimum of 1 secured on-site bicycle parking space be required per apartment, which is the
requirement in the CB-5 Zone.
Adeauacv of Shared Parkina Facilities in the Area
During the rezoning process for Hieronymus Square and 301 S. Dubuque a concern was
expressed about the extent of the redevelopment activity proposed in the Near Souths ide and
whether the City is committed to building another parking facility in the area in the near future to
meet this increased demand. Transportation planning staff have completed an analysis of the
parking demand that will be generated by new and proposed development in the Near
Southside. This analysis shows that the net increase in parking demand from recently
constructed buildings and from buildings that are currently under construction is estimated at
approximately 390 spaces. The net increase in parking demand for Hieronymus Square, 301
S. Dubuque, and for the subject property at 228 E. Court, as these projects are proposed, is
estimated at approximately 650 spaces. There is clearly a need for new parking facilities to
meet this imminent demand. Unless the City makes a commitment to build a new parking
facility in the next 5 years, staff recommends against further upzonings in the Near Southside,
including a rezoning for the subject property at 228 E. Court Street. Staff will be discussing this
issue with the City Council at an upcoming meeting.
Buildina and Streetscape Desian
The Near Southside Design Plan was adopted in 1995 to provide more clear direction for
implementing the Near Southside Plan. The vision expressed in the Design Plan for the
Downtown Extension area states that redevelopment efforts should architecturally mirror the
existing Downtown area. "New structures in this district should reflect the scale, proportion,
fayade repetition, setbacks, materials, roof lines, color, signage, awnings, and equipment
screening elements of the adjacent Downtown. . . . This character can be further enhanced
through implementation of design guidelines and a review process to address each of these
design elements within the Downtown Extension."
The applicant has submitted several sketches that illustrate the proposed exterior features of
the building and have also provided conceptual floor plans. Staff finds that the proposed
exterior design is attractive and would meet the standards expected for the central business
district. It would set the bar in this area with regard to building articulation, fenestration,
architectural detailing, and use of building materials. The street-level storefront design would
meet City standards for pedestrian-friendly design, with generous storefront windows,
architectural detailing that provides interest, and distinctive storefront entrances built at grade. If
the problems with the floor to floor height of the commercial spaces are addressed, staff finds
that the building would generally meet the design expectations for a building in the central
business district.
Staff, however, have concerns about the provision of balconies over the rear courtyard. Since
the courtyard is isolated from public view, it may be an attractive nuisance if balconies are
allowed above. A similar private courtyard on the adjacent building to the east has proved
problematic. City enforcement staff have indicated that this building has one of the highest rates
of criminal complaints in the City. Staff believes that the court yard design may be contributing
toward these problems. Therefore, staff recommends disallowing balconies over the proposed
rear courtyard.
The interior floor plans illustrate the proposed mix of apartments within the building and provide
sample interior layouts for the various apartment sizes. As mentioned previously, staff finds the
number of apartment with 3, 4, and 5 bedrooms to be excessive and the limited amount of living
space and shared common areas problematic.
If rezoned to CB-10, the applicant should also be required to improve the streetscape to meet
6
downtown standards, similar to the requirements imposed for Hieronymus Square. These
would include a minimum 10-foot sidewalk width with decorative paving, street trees, trash
receptacles, benches, and landscaping.
SUMMARY
In 2006, the Comprehensive Plan was amended to allow the extension of the CB-10 zone within
the Near Southside Development Area, between Burlington and Court Streets, so long as
concerns with regard to housing and commercial mix, parking, and design are addressed. The
expansion of the CB-10 development was intended to encourage a diversity of housing types in
the downtown while at the same time providing for areas of additional commercial growth. In
addition, allowing the CB-10 zoning to expand into this area will reduce pressure for high-rise
development within the historic downtown core. Providing multi-family housing with an
appropriate level of services and amenities in the Near Souths ide may also relieve development
pressure in the older neighborhoods located north and east of downtown. Provided that new
development proposed for CB-1 0 zoning balances the issues of apartment mix, commercial
storefront design, parking, and building and streetscape design in a manner that supports the
downtown as a pedestrian accessible, economically vibrant commercial area, such a rezoning
may be justified. The Near Southside Plan, however, still also acknowledges the
appropriateness of CB-5 Zoning in this area. The residential density allowed in the CB-5 Zone
is considered high in comparison to other residential zones and is only exceeded by the CB-10
zone by virtue of the difference in allowable height and FAR.
While staff acknowledges the exceptional exterior design of the building as proposed, and
agree that there is a need for student housing close to the university, staff believes that the
application for rezoning 228 E. Court Street from CB-5 to CB-10, as presently proposed, falls
short of meeting the goals for rezoning to CB-10. The apartment mix, with a preponderance of
3-, 4-, and 5-bedroom apartments without the services and amenities to support the resulting
residential intensity will have a greater potential to cause spillover nuisances for adjacent
properties and will further imbalance the housing mix and population in downtown Iowa City.
Given the stated goals of the project and the configuration of the building and mix of
apartments, CB-5 zoning may be more appropriate.
RECOMMENDA liON
Staff recommends that REZ07-00014, a request to rezone approximately 0.484 acres of
property from CB-5 to CB-10 be denied, unless the project is modified to address
concerns identified in this staff report.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Elevations, Drawings, and Diagrams
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
~
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 18, 2007
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
Re: REZ07-00014 - 228 E. Court Street
Based on the discussion at your October 4 meeting, the applicant has submitted a revised
bedroom mix for the project (see attached email from J Randy Bruce). They propose a mix that
results in 412 bedrooms, down from the 430 initially proposed. Even with this change the
proposed density of 858 bedrooms per acre would far exceed the residential density of other
buildings completed over the last 10 years in the CB-5 and CB-10 Zones, and would house
nearly 2.5 times as many residents per acre as the densest project built to date in the CB-10
zone. Even taking an average density of recent residential projects in the CB-5 Zone (see
attached Residential Density Comparisons) and doubling that number for CB-10 zoning, results
in a density that is far below the density proposed by the applicants.1
City staff remain concerned about the proposed residential density and apartment mix for this
project. Staff find that the density is achieved by concentrating floor space in bedrooms, while
minimizing living, dining, and shared common areas within the building. Based on the
discussion and resulting requirements for the previous two CB-10 rezoning requests, there
seems to be a consensus that the Central Business District is in need of a better mix of
residential opportunities to create demand for a wider variety of goods and services in the
downtown area, which may in turn attract a broader customer base from residential
neighborhoods outside the downtown. At least one member of the Commission requested that
staff come up with an acceptable residential density for the property. This is difficult to
determine, because an "acceptable" building would provide the living space and amenities that
would be attractive to a wider variety of residents. Staff believes that the dorm-like living
environment proposed for this project will appeal only to short-term residents. Since there is
already a concentration of this type of residential living in the downtown area, there does not
appear to be a compelling reason to rezone this property to CB-1 O.
With regard to the parking, the applicants have agreed to supply 25% of the required parking
per the CB-5 standard while paying a fee in lieu of the remaining 75%. This is similar to what
other residential projects in the area have provided. The applicants have indicated that the fee
that they will pay will not benefit their project to any great extent because they believe that the
demand for parking within their building will be very low. They estimate approximately one
parking space demanded for every five tenants. Staff does not believe that parking demand in
Iowa City is comparable to what the applicant has experienced in Madison. Our experience is
that demand for parking is much higher in Iowa City. As discussed at the meeting, this may be
due to a number of factors, including a difference in city parking policies, the ease and cost of
parking in downtown Iowa City versus Madison, and differing university policies regarding
student parking.
1 See the attached comparison table. Taking the average of the six densest CB-5 buildings listed and doubling that
density results in approximately 473 bedrooms per acre. For this 0.48 acre site this density figure translates to a
total of 227 bedrooms.
The City Engineer's Office has raised a concern about the capacity of the existing sanitary
sewer system in this area to serve the proposed density. We have requested water usage data
from a similar building that the applicant has built in Madison to help us determine the service
needs of the proposed building. We are awaiting this information from the applicant.
A member of the Commission also requested a list of items, other than residential density and
apartment mix that should be included in a conditional zoning agreem~nt for this property.
While staff does not recommend approval without resolving the question of appropriate
residential density and apartment mix, we provide the following list of items that should be
considered:
. Parking requirements being calculated per the CB-5 standard, including payment of fees
per the Near Southside Parking Facility District Impact Fee Ordinance;
. Minimum height of at least 7 stories;
· Levell! Design Review;
. Prohibition on balconies on building walls that surround the exterior courtyard;
. Secured bicycle parking provided for the residents at a ratio of at least 1 bicycle space
for every 4 bedrooms within the building;
. Streetscape elements required based on the standards expected for other similar
projects in the CB-10 zone;
· 24-hour on-site management;
. Minimum requirement for usable common space within the building;
. Minimum number of loading spaces in proximity to residential building entrances. Some
possible locations include on-street loading spaces near the residential entrances or on
the parking levels within the building near the elevators.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of REZ07-00014, an application to rezone approximately 0.48 acres of
land from Central District Support (CB-5) to Central Business Zone (CB-10) for property located
at 228 E. Court Street.
ATTACHMENTS:
Correspondence from applicant
Residential Density Comparison table
Correspondence from public
Approved by:
~
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
2
Residential Density Comparisons IA~~ ~
- -
CB-tO Zone
Year Name Address UnKs ~ Bedroom~ACres - -
Units/Acre Bedrooms/Acre
- - - -
1999 liteway BuildiJ 210 S. Clinton St. 39 39 0.15 266.99 266.99
2001 Vogel House 225 Iowa Ave. 24 24 0.07 336.70 336.70
2003 Plaza Towers 221 E. College St.. 50 66 0.90 55.27 72.95
-
3[4 s. Clinton ~ 167.61
228~(~~?~~'~"""Y': ~~
... c. .....d.,mlSlBI~.
CB-5 Zone
Year Name Address Units Bedrooms Acres UnitslAcre BedroomslAcre
1993 Southtown Properties 307-321 S. Linn St. 60 112 0.55 109.09 203.64
1999 Court-Linn Building 332 S. Linn St. 48 90 0.50 96.00 180.00
2005 City Center Partners 315 S. Gilbert St. 51 220 0.81 62.96 271.60
2005 Horizontal Property 425 S. Gilbert St. 24 108 0.92 26.09 117.39
2006 Writer's Square 301 E. Market St. 27 54 0.28 98.01 196.02
2007 Clinton and Court NE 336 S. Clinton St. 24 93 0.33 72.73 281.82
2007 Clinton and Court NW 335 S. Clinton St. 18 72 0.25 72.00 288.00
Page 1 of 1
Karen Howard
From: J Randy Bruce [rbruce@knothebruce.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 09,200712:.53 PM
To: Karen Howard
Cc: gelman@ptmlaw.com; 'Jim Corcoran'; 'Mike Fisher'; 'Karl Madsen'
Subject: 228 Court Street
Karen,
Tom Gelman indicated that you wanted to see the revised unit mix that we are studying. Please keep in mind that
as plans become more detailed we may need to adjust the exact mix slightly to accommodate structural and
mechanical requirements:
Studio Apartments 36
Two Bedroom 24
Three Bedroom 24
Four Bedroom 64
148
J. Randy Bruce AlA
Managing Member
Knothe & Bruce Architects LLC
7601 University Avenue, Suite 201
Middleton, WI 53562
Phone: 608-836-3690
Fax: 608-836-6934
10/12/2007
TA~~ 1,
Residential Density Comparisons
CB-IO Zone .
Year Name Address Units Bedrooms Acres Units/Acre BedroomslAcre
1999 Whitewav Building 210 S. Clinton St. 39 39 0.15 267 267
2001 Vogel House 225 Iowa Ave. 24 24 0.07 337 337
2002 Takanami 221 Iowa Ave. 18 75 0.23 78 326
2003 Plaza Towers 221 E. College St. 50 66 0.90 55 73
2003 Plaza Towers* 221 E. College St. 106 122 0.90 118 136
TBD Hieronymus Sauare 314 S. Clinton St. 76 119 0.71 107 168
TBD Big Ten Rentals 228 E. Court St. 148 412 0.48 308 858
*includes 56 hotel suites
CB-5 Zone
Year Name Address Units Bedrooms Acres Units/Acre Bedrooms/Acre
1993 Southtown Properties 307-321 S. Linn St. 60 112 0.55 109 204
1999 Court-Linn Building 332 S. Linn St. 48 90 0.50 96 180
2005 City Center Partners 315 S. Gilbert St. 51 220 0.81 63 272
2005 Horizontal Property 425 S. Gilbert St. 24 108 0.92 26 117
2006 Writer's Square 301 E. Market St. 27 54 0.28 98 196
2007 Clinton and Court NE 336 S. Clinton St. 24 93 0.33 73 282
2007 Clinton and Court NW 335 S. Clinton St. 18 72 0.25 72 288
CITY OF IOWA CITY ~ .
///// "/////////777 // / / / / " I"
- I-- C B 51 I-
~ ~ I~
~ 5~! I- ~ ~
U~ ~ I~ u 7/U Z ~ ,,<////v/////// Cfl I 1-.
;:::J ~ I 0:::: C
I) P1 ~ ::J" !5~ I ,- ~ :\2
I - . -- ......,..... ~I \ I
RIIRIII 1(.; 11\1 C:::T. ...J ,,..... L- 11'-'" '" \ ~
~~r/::: CB,~~ \ I --' I "
~~ ..~ ~ ~ -~... II= I
..~ IJ ~ .~~~ I'
R J 4 //'/ /' I \.I ...,,-'
.~ IL-- ~I
~1 1_ . :~- 111.-. ~ .. ~
~Ol~~1 p(~2 ~ = C(~.l
Ccurt ~ffice ,:. : .alll ~r
House r 'rln'=ll I. .1'1 _ J ~
_ --. h III PlDr}~ ~ -; I
~ : 1\. : :ARRI50N 5T- o.~L .---- '-:: e: J -
..... ~~I, P_I '" D~II I /~::.--
c:::::: "'~ ~ ) I -... " ,. ~
:: \) ~ ~ PI" ~~ L~ I. ~ I II: ~~
s: J --I ~ ~ .~ ~ tnl~ ~ -~-
~' ~ I--- lP ~[) .. I .j.,I ~ " ==-t
SITE LOCATION: 228 E. Court Street REZ07-00014
~JCCOG
........... m e m 0
Date: October 4, 2007
To: Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission
From: John Yapp, Executive Director7J I ~
Re: Expansion of downtown south of Burlington Street parking demand
Per your request, information pertaining to estimated parking demand in the 0-5 year future due
to redevelopment in the south-of-Burlington Street neighborhood is attached. Currently, parking
in this area is served by the Court Street Transportation Center which includes 600 spaces; and
244 on-street public metered parking spaces. The Court Street Transportation Center has 525
permits currently allocated (300 to the University of Iowa, and 225 to others). A recent study of
the metered parking spaces indicated they are 46% utilized, comparing meter income to total
potential income. This is considered an under-count due to motorists who do not pay, or under-
pay the meter.
With projects recently developed, under development, or within the concept/design stage, there
will be an increased estimated parking demand of 1,028 parking spaces. The attached table
lists development projects and our estimated demand for parking in the south of Burlington
Street Central Business District. This information will be used as part of a comprehensive
presentation to the City Council on Downtown parking demand.
South of Burlington Street parking demand analysis/Recent and
upcoming construction
Address/ SF office / Comm/office Dwelling Resident Total On-site Net parking
Status/ commercial parking units/ demand parking parking demand
Owner demand bedrooms demand orovided increase
313-353 S Gilbert 23,000 SF 23 51 units 220" . 243 97 146
(under cons) commercial
City Center 220 bdrms
Partners (Clark)
425 S. Gilbert 9,000 SF 9 24 units 108 117 37 80
(recently commercial
completed) 108 bdrms
College Town
Partners (Clark)
500 S Gilbert 0 0 21 units 84 84 63 21
(recently
completed) 84 bdrms
University View
PartnerslClark)
335 S Clinton 9,000 SF 9 18 units 72 81 18 63
(under cons) commercial
University View 72 bdrms
Partners -(Clark)
336 S Clinton 11,000 SF 11 24 units 93 104 28 76
(under cons)
City Center 93 bdrms
Partners (Clark)
301 S Dubuque (in 17,000 SF 17 38 units 75 92 0 92
design)3 commercial
Three Bulls, Inc. 75 bdrms
314 S Clinton 45,000 SF 45 60 units 150 269 80 189
(in design) commercial
Hieronymis 150 bdrms
Partners 74 hotel 74
units
Old St Patricks 13,000 SF 13 132 units 430 443 82 361
property
(conceptual)5 430 bdrms
Total 201 1202 1403 413 1,028 space
demand
1) According to the Eno Foundation for Transportation, it is reasonable to assume demand for 1.0 spaces of parking
for every 1 ,000 SF of commercial or office space in a downtown with heavy transit use and the potential for
secondary trip destinations as a pedestrian. The non-CBD commercial and office parking ratio is a minimum one
space per 250-300 SF for retail and office businesses.
2) This analysis assumes a parking demand of one off-street parking space per bedroom for downtown multi-family
structures.
3) For projects that are in design or anticipated, parking demand numbers are estimated based on the size of the site
and, where applicable, concept plans from the property owner or prospective developer.
4) This is the total estimated demand for parking not provided on-site. This demand will be met in parking structures,
metered spaces, or on nearby residential streets that allow on-street parking.
5) Requires rezoning to CB-10
Wpdata/jccogadmin/memos/burlingtonst-P&Z.doc
2
REZONING EXHIBIT
228 E. COURT STREET
IOWA CITY, IOWA
REZONE PARCEL FROM CB-5 TO CB-10
LOT FOUR (4) IN BLOCK ONE HUNDRED AND THREE (103) IN IOWA CITY
j-'"
~'tJ \f" -\ !
v f:. I
\t I
V ,~~
~ ~ '" ,
'v~ I U' 'v~ :
~~" J
10 ". ~
~ _,,~n\f. ~
V ~ V I V
rf'(() J
I OfY) ,
I ~
: &- j-0
\~O
I
IY)
j-
E-<
~
~
0::
IE-<
en
~
:J
0'
:J
CO
:J
o
I
~
j-
____________J
L___________J
150.61'(M) 150'(R)
COURT STREET
------------l
I
I
I
I
1-- -- ---- -- -l I:;.~fl -- - ----l
I '17 I ,.;00' " I
i 'v~ jj j- j
us
1E
.,
~
o 10 25 50 '15 100
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
r=l00'
J
LOCATION MAP
NOT TO SCALE
)
-1 i '
'.
I,.
I
1'.-.-
I--
LOT ~
E-< L.OT ~
~
~
~I Lor \0
en
Z
Z Lor \I
-
....:l
LOT \1-
Lor I~
~_I~
1----
: ~"
I V
I
...
III
...
III
...
III
COURT
5T
~ IS
z 8
~ 0
III
<
u
:::>
...J
o RY
I Revision
oe&lq-oed by, Sc.OII!h REZONING EXHIBIT
DAM 1"=100'
DrOHl'l by~DM DOUs'09_13_07 228 E. COURT STREET
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. I Dote
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
(319) 351-8282
CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA 52404
(319) 841-5188
www.mmsoonsultants.net
GheGked by, ProjeGt No,
DAM IC 7953001
IOWA CITY
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
-::. \ 701'\1'\\ 70<; <;1'\1'\1 \ 70<; <;1'\1'\17 rl...n 0 /1 <; /')1'\1'\7 R. <;<;. /I <; ^ U 1'1'1 T
~~Vl ~; ~i 'r u; u;
f- ;0 ~~~oid'i on on If)~N
~UU~< ~tt,~ ;,- ~i~ ~ ... ~ ~
~~ ~ !!; ~ on tor-cO
~~n N~b
o~3n -j oJi · i ~ ~~m!l~
a:: ~;g ~
zo=l<t: " J ' '~ ~ ~ ~h ~
~~ 8, :t. ~ ?;
li~~2 ~ I I < ~h~ ~
!l!<il1~~ g \li ~ >- g
~r"- 8 ~ ~ IL ~
~
Ii
d
1
~~
~l!:l~
IN~
{;
r~j[
on f:!
~cd)
~ ..., 1il
j~ !I!
!l!
Itl
!iI
,Ii
I.f
I'
, () II!
i~ !il
~z.
9.
~ \jC)Cjo 080
~..
.. \:L9
.+
gL~
. ~..o() 0
\) Cb .
~ Qo ......u
<::>
C:F>
~'"
IS
u
......-.....,..............
~
.::;--7' 9
'~" -------y
~.l.
..-9L9.
o
00
0=
=.6L9....
.60
~~i
Ul
--fgg-._.
vag.
...1
1
I
...ogg...
~
d
· J~
>>l J' I ~
.J~S~-~~,~, ~;: "" I
../
<:,'1>0/
/
KNOTHE
&l?EU~~
7601 UnlYe"ioyAvenua. St-. 201
Mlddleton,Wi,consln S3S62
601-81&.)690 fu836.69H
COlUlla"
,,~
.-
__SIplI2,:aoo1
Prajectillle
~ Court street
lo~o City
12 story
Dn""'ITlde
Basement Floor Pial
1rq'KlNo. DIlWittNo.
0110 A-l'o
----~-_.._._-
--..__..__...._--~
__._r.__._........~__...._
_.__.._--~....-
,
I ';>
I mi I ;;,
I +p I
I I I I
>
,
C """'1><-l UH'1><-l L
I I
I I
I 42 PARKIN6 STALLS 'r I
'r in
'" N
I IB'-O' 2~'-0" 20'-0" 2Q'-0' 26'-0" IB'-O' I
I 1 'I 1 I 1 I
I -0 0 0 I
,
I
I a66tl+ 9 a..... I I
1<0.
I " ';> I
I N ;,- I
N
I
I - I I
I ';>
I aMf'1><-l UH'1><-l ~r-:=J "
'"
) 'r
) i':: GGt-P1><-l
I ~ ~ ~D
I ~ -
I GGt-P1><-l
'--.- - - - - -1- I
-LJ L
I II I I '"
STAIR I GGt-P1><-l I GGt-P1><-l '"
I " RAMP DN. IT)
I N I I
GGt-P1><-T C<H'1><-T
I I
I /-, I
I I a..ti10+ I
I GGt-P1><-l
I I
EL'" . ';> I "/-,"'. EL ... a.66&+ ~
~ GGt-P1><-T N /
I I I /
I I /
I I I ~
';>
'"
N
';>
~
~
--
Basement Plan
sc.ALE lieU", 1'-0-
o
140'-0"
KNOTHE
&I?BlJ~~
i
:i
:J
I
I
[
:;;~
a
,-
9
B...671+
a..,1'l.. a6~ It
RAMP ON.
....... .
.~IT - -
<;>
"
"'
D
STAIR
D
a.611 .
RAMP ON.
~
.-
'-*'!llIpt.a,2X7T
ProjectT'l;lt
22e Court street
IO~Q GIty
12 story
",,",,"'"
FI/'5t Floor Pial
Lori",. LsV81
ProjoctND. Or.r....w.cNo.
0110 ;'-1.1
..._--~- --.-
____..______._...A___~
--....-.....-.----......--
--.__..---......~..-
<;>
C,
N
D
a.. 616 ..
APAIm1ENT wt+IOIl5
-"'"
....6,.
18'-0"
~
.
Plan - LOV>ler Leve
-I
----j
J1
First Floor
i
L
I
I
I
~-
It
I
-, - +=i7
11
L -Ii
I
IT
T
I
I
r
I
L.
A
""'15
22'-8"
PARKING LEVa ABOVE
Ib'-O'
1 GO<P/tGT
(~ ~~
~"'T
- - -- - -1-
I I
I ~"'T I
RAMP ON. .
I I
I ~~ I
I
I ....610. I
I ~~ I
I "\-610.
~"'T
EL6,.. I
~Tn -~-*[Tl--n-
<;>
o
"'
GOMMEI<CIAL
nee",,,
D
~T
I
I
D I
D
I 50'-4"
~II c:.oI+I:'RClAL
. 2565 Sq,R.
I
D I~
20'-0'
n-o"
_] ....6,..
1 20 PARKING STALLS ....,
JX\
........
D
I.
18'-0"
b'-l"
~
COIRT 51REET
JI
-1--8- --
I
I
I
I
STAIR
L
-..$
-,
~
KNOTHE
&l?E!J~~
I
~
::::i
.-
___!IIIpl12,3O:71
,,,,,,lido
228 Court street
10_0 Clt~
12 Stcr~
~rodt
FIrst Floor Plan
Upper Level
ProjoctNo. DrawlagNo.
0110 A-I.IA
'..__-.......r.....-._.._.__
-"--"'-_.~~----.
'__~_r"",,_,,__~_'__
~
.
First Floor Plan - U
SCALE lie" = 1'-0-
I
m
. '11 ---------~ ~----------------- 1
.- -
;,-
1- I -
I
I 9 B..6"M. I II
...... ,.. ...... .
~ [~
D D it-- --
,,~ STAIR I
-
I I
I -
J I --
I ,I
I T
(.(Wk-T !
I D I -
- I
lb'-O" 2~'-0' 20'-0' 2Q'-0' I 11'-0" 33'-0' 1 '-6 --
I L_ -
;--- ...... . <;> 20 PARKIN6 STALLS I 50'-4" ~I
;,- I -
N I I
c.ot-1MERGIAL SPACE BELOV'! -
~. [ -L
~:J rr [rJ -, [-----EI B...616+ T I
"""k-T """k-T """k-': 1<<. D I 11
I """k-T !
"""Nir <c/oFNir <c/oFk-T """k-T <c/oFNir T
'? -
~ I -
I IXI D r-~
w I '" I XI -
/ I TRASH ENCL. I \ .J COMMERGIAL SPACE EIB..OV'! I -
r D
I L - -
/ I STAIR 1- -
I I
I a..b&4'" " ..."". a..61'!+ r
/ 'T COfoM'RC.IALI
COMMERCIAL c, APARTH:NT COMMONS COMMERciAL r
11OO5q,R. "' 1111"<" 1004!5q,.Fl
I D :J D D D D
/ I I -
I 43'-0' -
- r
/ In ,.- - ~'~'I / I
==;==="1 I I_-
I I I II I l-r1 ~ r----j -
~. I I J II -.--4 I- - I I I r
-=t=------1 ---- R--= ----- - - , v
- - 31'-0" 34'-0"
,J I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I In sI
32 O'
J ~
er Leve
COIRT SlET
KNOTHE
&~E!J~~
7601 Un"'e....IlyA""nue,Stc.2111
Middleton, WIsconsin 53562
608-B16.369(1 Fa><816-6U4
COlIll_gnt
Nm.
--
1Ml.d.~I2,XlO'I'
P<ujKlTkk
228 Court street
10"0 City
12 story
DI1I'IirtTido
2nd-loth Floor PIGIl
Prot<<lNo. OIl'/ltcNo.
0110 A-I.2
...--...-....-----...........-
..........-----....---.
--.-..--.----..--.....-
--.__...-......'-~-
55'-0" 55'-0'
I
I
1
- I STAIR
fOl..R EIEDflOOM i fOI..R I3EIlROOM
I96QO Sq.fl. IO~ ~ .. -~
40 BEDROOMS/fLOOR
2Q PARKING STAlLS/fL.OOR.
-=J ~--
= 1 t ~~
OlE I3EIlROOM fOI..R I3EIlROOM j ';>
!i6&9a,l't. 113OSqft. "
I ~
fIVE EIEDROOM
1716.....
THREE I3EIlROOM EffICIE:NGY
1000..... ........
I .Y -
I ~_1
STAI~ I
I
-l -
fOJR ElEDI<OOM fOJR IlEDROOM ! THREE BEDROOM
latO 5qft. Il!lOSc\R. """"I'" ~"I'"
r::LlIL
140'-0"
Second -Tenth Floor Pion
SCALf: I/e"", 1'-0'
9
~
i>
in
'"
KNOTHE
&~ElJ~~
760IUI\lv....ltyAven~Stll.101
I'1lddleton,Wbcon.1Il 51562
&08.83&,3690 FD:8]6-6~H
eon....."l
"""
.-
......"fll2,2XTl
_n.
22e Court street
10"0 City
12 Story
D,....q;TiIIo
11th 4 12th Floor Pial
f'rojenNo. OmritIcNo.
0110 A-IS
... - ~-- -.-
-..------....----.-
---'-.------..--.--
'-.--...........-.........-
';>
9
';>
P1
?
"
"'
22'-6"
15'-0"
10'-0"
! STAIR I
~~ Lri ~~
.~ 11-~
, I
m<EE EIEDRDOM i
""SqR. I
r~--
~ eroROOM---I. Ii il'I:?!IfI?ROOM
"'SqR. [166SqR.
~.
, il'I:? !IfI?ROOM
~I 16&Sq,J't.
L,
FOUR eroROOM I m<EE BEDROOM m<EE BEDROOM
1 106OSq,ft. 'l&6 Sq,ft. 'l155qR.
I
i
- J 1
10'-0" I 23'-0" 110'-0" I 32'-0" 10'-0" 32'-6"
Eleventh .$ Tv-<elfth Floor Plan
SCALE IJeK .. 1'-0"
EFFICleIC.'T"
+:I65qR..
55'-0"
12!l22 5q.Ft.
35 BEDROOMSJfLOOR
21 PARKIN€> STAl.L5/FLOOR
I
eroROOM I
m<EE""",..R. 01
AlJNDR'( I
I
9
".
"'
FIVE ea:>IlOOM [I
",."'"
!
I
_l~
STAIR
?
~
9
~
KNOTHE
&~EY~~
7&01 U......."ltyAv~..ue.Sl". 201
MIddleton, WlIconslll 53561
608-836-36911 """,836-"3'4
Coolull>nl
~
.-
.....11..,.
Projoalidt
228 Court 5trHt
\cIoIaGlly
.....TI~
Conceptu<:ll Elevation
PrlljK1No. DrawincNo.
0110 A-2.1
a?==?f:~===:..-~..=:
.. a.. ",,",'-\0' ROOf
~ .a_-2'lI'flFIHMOR
~ a''''''''''''''''''MOR
- .
--- .a. 710'.10' ~ FLOOR
. a..161'~2' N1tntlf\..JXlR
cc::" _ I . a"''''' """,,,MOR
.' '""', ~
.-- -
" ':Oc..~ ~
,a..l4l'-1O' ~fLXR
.a..m'.J' 5lXTHFI..OOR
,am'",' FlFTHf'l...OCR
,6...112'-10" FCl.RTlIR..OOR
. a.. "IOS'-T THIRPR..OOR
,B...b'tS'",O ~R.OOR
~
IE
.
~~~:
~
If
-~
l~g;
rQ
~~Q
~rn[]
;;!
"m~I~ld!d:I- ~
.-...-..... ..-.............~...._.,....-,c-.-_. .....................
-'~~~ '. ~_.- ',.,,'. "', ',,"~
m--OO -...
__ . ._, O~
~. ," -'-C,,"
~.- - - --
--,,--.-. .-
I;
I",:
;;;!
e6-616'-d FlFSTFl..OOR-L.ot'ERl2va
l..lnn street
KNOTHE
&~Ell~li
7601 Un.........lty "venu... Ste. 201
Mldaletcn, Wi,eDn.;" SJS62
(,08-836-3690 ~Bl6.69H
C""",IWlI
"'.
.-
..........a.JiIllft
Ptojlctf.w
22& Court street
lDIICIaIg
D~rule
Gonc.eptual Elevation
_No. ....No.
0110 A-22
5==::=..~a~"='.::,:=
~ B... -m'~0" ROOF
'" B.... '1'10'.1' TYfi.fnl ft.OOR
~uiiliffi III~III
T;-[li";~~_
-- --- --
...M: ~
ml= ....'u~
,a.. 1&0'-6" B..BoBmif't.C)C;R
,B.. no'~ mmtFtOOR
,a..~'-2" tfNTH~
'" a.. 151'-6' E16H'Tll R..OOR
,EL. 1-i!'..jo' ;e...emj ftOOR
.a..m'~:2' S1XfHfttlOR.
.a..m'-6' FIFlHR..Oc:R
,EL 112'-10' FO.RnlFl.OOR
"a. 1C.e~:2' THIRD ~
'" B.... 6't9'-t>' 5fCOND R.ooR.
---......-. -
"rn-"--W-.- .@.--
. ... _. _..
_, u.... _ .. .. ____
- ........ - ---
...-............. .....;......'. '. ....-...... ...
.. - ---
n_ .. n___
---.. ---
. .. ---,.- .. --
----- -
--.. --.. ..-
-... ,--" '.-..
.--. ------
--- .. - ..---
---- - -
--. '-'-
0__'..... .. _ .n...... .
-..-. .. ,'.--.-.---------..
... .... .....n.. .--.." , .. _ .
-.,.~-~.....=.'-.-:rn-"---..-:-:....-...;. ~.m.~'.:... ..--.Urn-.--_. i-...,.-.....
___c. . _...,-. ,..- " .. ",', _..-
n. ... _.. ___
n""'" __
____ _.n.... .. ___ _
.n _ _.__
.., _... ._n _....
_. n. _ __
- - -.--- .
.. - "', .-
..- - -.- .- .....---..
._ _.__m__ ___. ....
-'''''--'-''.'..'.-...-. ..-... '''--'-,-''--.-.---
---.. --_.-.._-
n~m~ gmtm~~rn~
- - .._ _.. .___.n__
---- . .....-- - -~-"-'-'-
....._.__._..____... __ _n.___.__.._...._ _.._, .._....._.. ___.._________. ....
____m.._ ________ . __ ..______.__
...........- ". .............- --.-.------ -- .--........
.....-.~........-...rn- '.....-.......~..:-....".-..... ~.....;--mc'...--c.... .-...m~-..-.-'.~.........-...-~. ..-....-.-...
.-"- -. --.- --- .... -,. "......
.._. _no. .__.. n . .___._
- ..- - .
----..- ---.. .... -..
--... _._. '-. . ... -
.- . -- .....- --.-
m... _...... . _ ... _.
_n .__. _._ _"_ .. . __..
_' . ..___ ___ U
--... ... ...--- -
-..... -.--. -.... ...-
-..-- --. . ....- .----
___ _n._.. __n.. ..._ __.._
..._....u..... 'n.___..___,,_.. . ._ .".__.__._.__
- . --.---...-..--..... .-- -
. . ..._....n______
- - -. -.. .
--- -- .....----.- ... . . .... ...--.-...-.-
- -. - '-W"-. -. ."~.---
--- ..-..-- ---- .. ~
- .- .. -- -
.. .... .. --
. ..- _.-- .. --..-
----.. -'-.- .-- -. . . -
-.-. - - ---
.". ---- ....
-.-..- -- . --
---- - ---
__.... n.. ___..__ .._....
_'_ . _.__ ___n
--- -- -. .
'_H_ _____.. _._.. __ .. . _"_
f:::~. c_Qi..... : .. -=Qd............
__._ u _ _ _..
--.- - --.. .. .-
.__ . .___.._.._. __._u__
-..-- --. --..... --- ....- --.--..-.--...--
-'''.''- . --.-._-_...
- -.-------....-...-. .-' .....
---......... ....... -. --.-----...--.
- u____. _..__...... _ _
1..- .rn. . . '-" m----.- - . -.
-.-. .--- . ....-. --.
. . .-..
. . ___. U ..
- ... -..... ." ..
--. -.----". . -. -.-
-.-- .-- . .- - .
..... -..-- -". .... ~
- ... .. .. -
_.__ _.__ .___.. __ ._on
.... .-. . ...--
_. '" -- - -..-
.. __ ..___.. u'n. . _...._
----- -- - --' - .... ...-
... ---.. .... _. .
-..--. . - .. ---
_.. ----- .-.. . . . ----
~.. 8';.Z'-~~ S,.. c~ ~J~g.
10~ ~tffi~! :Af9r ~-ED;
II~
It;
~II
--
-~~.:J:l.-.:-~-.........
~p ~t.r '. '.
~D '
El
~.'i;-
II
~
' ~~;' -h....;' 0 D" :' ... { 1',
a..~1~'-Q"
Court street
East:
Elevation Alol
KNOTHE
&a~BSt~
September 21.2007
Ms. Karen Howard
Associate Planner
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
RE: Rezoning CB-5 to CB-1 0
228 Court Street
Dear Ms. Howard,
Attached along with this letter is supplemental information for the 228 Court Street rezoning
request. The included items are:
. A letter reaardina the manaaement policies.
. Floor plans for the tvpical apartments within the buildina. The unit sizes are larger than
typical student housing to provide living areas that are sufficient for proper furniture
placement and to meet the social needs of the occupants.
. Computer renderinas of the buildina. These drawings provide a better representation of
the building from the intersection of Court and Linn Streets. The exterior of the building
features high-quality materials suitable for the buildings prominent location within the city
downtown area. Traditional brick and glass materials are used in conjunction with more
contemporary glass and precast concrete panels. The exterior materials are composed
to reinforce architectural articulation and step-backs to provide an appealing skyline. The
cast stone and masonry materials at the street level give the building a strong
commercial presence on the street.
. Photoaraphs of The Eauinox. This property was completed in August of 2006 by the
same developers and architects. It illustrates the type of quality that is intended for the
228 Court Street development.
I hope this additional information will assist your review of the rezoning request. The CB-1 0
zoning allows for the property to be developed with a higher quality of student oriented housing
than is currently available in Iowa City. This trend toward premium level housing for students is a
nation wide trend with current students expecting an ever-increasing level of amenities within
their housing. This development is designed to meet those demands. We also believe that the
proposed development will have several positive impacts on Iowa City.
. The development is located on an in-fill site and will substantially increase the city tax
base with minimal increase in services.
7601 University Ave. Ste 201
Middleton. Wisconsin 53562
p (608)836-3690
f (608)836-6934
WWW.knothebruce.com
__ __ nn ~ u. un _ __ _~_~171~:<;;t..ll:!'!!I! !1!~'i'_91t'r!I;!i::! !l!f~'!'.!l!'li!l!1~~i!II~~_ ~Lk; rl~l! !,p'p"r.!)Y!'~!I..~~x]1 :(~I!..}J)2Y{,~~~~H_____ __ _. ._n..._ no _ __ __ ____ - - ~. __n - -...... -- -- _.n __n _.- n -- -. -- -- n _..- - !
. It increases the amount of housing available to the University population within walking
distance to campus and downtown. It reduces vehicular traffic coming into the downtown
and promotes more environmentally friendly pedestrian and bicycle circulation.
. It decreases rental housing demand in the more historic residential neighborhoods
bordering campus, so that those homes may transition back to owner occupancy.
Thank you for your time in reviewing our proposal. Please let me know if you need any additional
information
Very truly yours,
~
Prrv~
X''ll71 ().Conlonm kIWII City\J'n1ja:IIMIl11111lion\l.l..linll 11 Sil..: rliln ^prlfl",QI~1I07 .()l).21 II )W^.duc
':' r~
~ ;-'-,
)
.~
/
KNOTHE
&~~U~l;
1601 Uniw...,............ w..101
1'1iddl-.~ 5J562
6OI-I36-)6'lO fpa)"')4
c-.-
....
-
..-.
......-!lIpt.3,Zll7t
I'rqIa.T.
22& GCllri street
,...... CAbJ
""""r..
~~
-.. "-"
0110 A-045
-- ---.--
----_...._--~
------.--..--
-.--..-----
13-
rbI:I:l1
- -
tw.F I'WJ. . !l' AI' F.
SLEEPlN6
- -
b1S 0
EFFIGIENC.Y
~Sq.Ft.
KNOTHE
&~EU~~
760IU....enltyA........,S_101
~ w--.... SlS61
608-8)6-)690 Fu136-69H
""'"""
....
-
-.
_-....."":lOl71
~T.
22& Gwt street
1"""Gil!!
"",,",""
~ OM I!IM'oClm
-'" """'"
0110 11-4.4
-------.-.--
------....----
--------.---
-.--..----
t:LI:]D
,~ tJ
KlUM.L.5'M~.
t'fi 2S 5J'. IftN
8EDROOM
ONE BEDROOM
56a SqR.
KNOTHE
&~EU~~
1601u..-...,."_SwMlOl
t1icIchwrt. 'NlocDftain nUl
....36-36')0 F....J6-6tl4
c.._
....
....
......
......:a.2:lIl71
l'rqIaT.
22& Gcllri Slreet
1.....(;Ily
-""
~ nr... !ledroGm
".... """No
0'110 A--4.5
5";.....-;;;:-:.=.:=::..-==.:=
~Q 0
<? --
c::
THREE 6EDROOM
qeo Sq.Ft.
BEDROOM
eEDROOH
KNOTHE
&~BU~~
760IU..........,.,ll,_5..n.1OI
t1IdchtorI. w---. HSn
tot-Il6-l6'lO h:.:'l....'l4
<-Do
....
-
.....
........3.Zll'1J
~T.
22& GclIri street
,.... CAllJ
~r.
~ I"ClW' !IM'oClm
_No. "'-No.
0110 """'.2
~:;~-::;.=---:-".,-='::::E
BEDROOM
o[W]
~ -
6
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
DECK
FOUR BEDROOM
II!lO Sctft.
BEDROOM
DECK
LM~ ~
WD
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
FIVE BEDROOM
1216 SqFt.
BEDROOM
GJ
KNOTHE
&~B1J~~
160I\,.lnlwe'*JAwnueSulc8101
MlOdMtan, Wll~,",,",n snn
601-13..1690 Fu UUtM
CllI\AIboII
-
-
-
_.......21_
ProjKl;TIlIt
22& Gt>>1 5tIwt
"""'C;1llJ
tlnwiIaTalt
~'- fIIv. ~
PfaiIu"'- ~,.
0110 ~J
=-:::';:-====:=::-Z'.-=~
_.__0.____
Page I of I
file://S:\PCD\StaffReports\228 E. Court,Big 10 Rentals\EQUIN_006 (l).jpg
11/20/2007
file://S:\PCD\Staff Reports\228 E. Court,Big 10 Rentals\EQUIN _ 007 (1 ).jpg
Page I of 1
11120/2007
Date:
September 20, 2007
To:
Iowa City Planning Department
From:
Big Ten Rentals
Re:
Iowa City Project
As the developers who have purchased the site of the former St. Patrick's Parish, we
would like to provide you with some information on our management practices as it is
our intention to develop the site with student housing. The partners of Big Ten Rentals,
LLC embody a combined experience of over fifty years in real estate with an emphasis
on student housing. The majority of our properties are located in downtown Madison,
Wisconsin with a main client base ofUW-Madison students.
As a result of this experience, we have been able to refine our lease documents and
management practices to avoid many common problems with student rentals and enable
us to act swiftly and effectively in dealing with any issues that do arise. We have found
that by consistently enforcing our policies, the rate of infractions decline and word
spreads amongst the students that violations are not permitted in our properties.
Our management practices include:
1. Lease Documents: A "Nonstandard Rental Provisions" form is incorporated into
each lease. This 4-page document clearly addresses our rules and regulations. It
addresses what is deemed unacceptable behavior and describes the repercussions
if its terms are broken. Examples:
a. Common Areas
1. To enforce these terms, surveillance tapes are reviewed for
evidence of any violation is apparent and trash bags are gone
through to obtain tenant names and/or apartment number.
1. $50.00 fine for trash found in common areas or on grounds
2. Tenant is responsible for any damage caused to common
areas by their actions or those of their guests
b. Parties
1. Eye-witnesses (i.e. resident manager, police, security tapes,
residents, etc) provide testimony to enforce this.
1. Visible kegs result in $100 fine and future incidents may
result in immediate eviction
c. Balconies
1. Routine inspections of balconies are performed by maintenance
staff and management for enforcement. Infractions result in a
$100 fine and cleanup fee
1. Not to be utilized as storage areas
2. No indoor furniture, grills or bikes
3. Patio furniture may be used during summer months only
11. Eyewitness accounts by police, security company, other residents
are used to enforce
1. No more than 5 persons allowed on balcony at one time
2. Guarantors: A guarantor is required for each tenant. We were told by one of the
larger management companies in Iowa City that they require only one guarantor
per apartment. We feel it is beneficial to require individual cosigners as their
involvement proves vital in curbing problematic behavior.
3. Surveillance Cameras: Cameras are placed in common areas (halls, lobbies,
elevators, etc) and recordings are kept for two weeks. These devices allow us to
hold tenants responsible for any negligent actions by both them and their guests.
4. Resident Manager: A tenant of solid character with good references is hired as
resident manager of the building. This person acts as a liaison between the
management company and other tenants of the building. Acting as a
representative of our company, this person is able to act on our behalf in dealing
with problems during non-office hours. This allows for action to be taken when
late night parties are held or noise disturbances or parking issues arise.
5. On-Site Management Office: The visual presence of a management office aids in
detracting deviant behavior. The physical presence of management personnel
allows for prompt enforcement of rules and routine inspections and camera
footage review.
6. Special Event Security Patrol: On dates historically known to involve large
gatherings (i.e.- Homecoming, Halloween, Graduation), security guards are hired
to patrol the premises. Their presence deters many problems and allows for .
prompt intervention when situations do arise. They provide management with a
written report describing the events during their patrol, including any problems
and the person(s) associated with the problem.
7. Police Interaction: Our management office personally meets with the "beat cop"
for the neighborhood. Open communication with the police department allows for
us to keep abreast of any issues within our buildings and allows for the police to
involve our resolve to assist them in their dealing with the residents.
8. Adequate support staff: Routine maintenance and cleaning of the building and
grounds are performed to maintain a good appearance. The interior common areas
and grounds are cleaned on a daily basis.
Based on the severity of a situation; appropriate action is taken. In some cases (first time
trash or noise violation) we first attempt to resolve the matter directly with the tenants. If
the matter is not settled within the set time line or if it is not a first-time violation the
guarantors are contacted. If the actions of our tenants merit harsher penalties, we will also
involve the police, fire department and university and/or file for eviction.
To provide you with a better sense of how matters are handled, please refer to the
following summaries of prior incidents:
. The police contacted us about underage drinking at a party in one of our
apartments. Underage drinking tickets were issued and the party was broken up.
We contacted the guarantors of the apartment to alert them of the illegal activities
taking place in their child's apartment. No future incidents occurred.
. After a fire alarm was pulled needlessly, we were able to identify the person by
using the recordings from our surveillance cameras. A copy of the recording was
given to the fire and police departments and the tenant was issued a steep fine.
. A resident manager contacted our office on a Monday to report common area
damages caused by guests of an apartment over the weekend. The surveillance
tapes were reviewed and the timeframe showing the destruction was saved. The
damage was repaired and the tenants were billed. We met the tenants to review
the tape with them. As it was their first offense and they paid the bill immediately,
no further action was taken. If it had been their second offense, the guarantors
would have been notified immediately of both the current and prior incidents.
The following scenario was created to show how this situation would be dealt with:
. Over homecoming weekend, beer bottles were being thrown to the street from an
upper level balcony posing possible physical harm to passer-byers and possible
property damage to vehicles. The security guard on duty would respond
immediately and order that this behavior be stopped and would then contact the
police. The police would arrive and issue tickets and dispel of the party. Upon
receipt of the security company's report the following day, we would contact the
police to get a summary of their report. Immediate contact would be made to both
the tenants and guarantors of the apartment.
Unit Breakdown of Applicant's Recent Student Apartments
Equinox
Studio
1 Srm
2 Srm
3 Srm
4 Srm
420 West
Studio
1 Brm
2 Srm
3 brm
4 Brm
No. of Units % of Total
19 16.52%
5 4.35%
19 16.52%
24 20.87%
48 41.74%
115 100.00%
No. of Units
24
o
9
23
24
80
% of Total
30.00%
0.00%
11.25%
28.75%
30.00%
100.00%
619 Langdon
No. of Units % of Total
o 0.00%
1 6.67%
5 33.33%
3 20.00%
4 26.67%
2 13.33%
15 100.00%
Stud io
1 Brm
2 Srm
3 brm
4 Srm
5 Srm
Parkioe Analvsis for Equinox and 420 West Apartments in Madison. Wisconsin
Equinox - 115 Units, 329 Bedrooms, 83 Parking Stalls
420 West- 80 Units, 196 Bedrooms, 33 Parking Stalls
Totals for both projects:
195 units, 525 Bedrooms, ] 16 Parking Stalls
Number of Stalls Rented to non residents 21 Stalls
Number of Stalls Rented to residents 95 Stalls
Ratio of Bedrooms to Stalls 5.53
Therefore in a 420 Bedroom Complex stalls needed: 75.9
Parkioe Stalls required bv Code in Iowa City
12 Story building in CBIO zoning
Total stalls required by code
Number of stalls on site
Remaining stalls required to pay fee
Fee of$6,119 x 227
6 Story building in CB5 zoning
Number of stalls on site
Remaining stalls required to pay fee
Fee of $6, 119 x 63
Difference in Fee
309 Stalls
82 Stalls
227 Stalls
$1,389,000
145 Stalls
82 Stalls
63 Stalls
$385,497
$1,003,503
-
WISCONSIN REAL TOR~ ASSOCIATION
4801 Forest Run Road ~
Madison, Wisconsin 53704 RESIDENTIAL LEASE ,
J Michael Real Estate
~~
oP'~ WI
PARTIES
PREMISES
TERM
UTILITIES
RENT
SECl,JRITY
DEPOSIT
CHECK-IN
REPORT
SPECIAL
CONDITIONS
LANDLORD'S
RIGHT TO
ENTER
ABANDONMENT
SALE OF
PROPERTY
This Agreement for the lease of the Premises identified below is entered into by and between the Landlord and Tenant (referred in the
singular whether one or more) on the following terms and conditions:
TENANT(S)
LANDLORD Name: J. Michael Real Zstate
A~r~s: 2702 Monroe Street. Madison. ~ 53711
Landlord's Agent for maintenance, management, service of process and collection of rent - (Note in 'Special Condnions' if more than one
agent)
Name: J. Michael Real Estate
Add~s: 2702 Monroe Street. Madison. WI 53711
PREMISES Street Address:
City/State/Zip: Madison. WI S3703
ApartmenllUniUNo.: RENTAL TERM: 12 months
First Day ofTerm: noon 8/15/07 Last Day ofTerm: noon 8/13/08
This agreement Is only for the stated term and is NOT automatically renewable. Landlord and Tenant must agree in writing if tenancy is to
continue beyond the last day of the rental term.
Tenant must pay aU utility charges that are separately metered or subject to cost allocation, as follows:
Utilltv Charaes Electric Heat Water Bill Unit Gas Air Condltlonlna Hot Water rash I Recycling
Included In Rent x X
SeDlratelv Metered x x x x
Cost Alloc:ation · X
· See Special Conditions.
Rent Amount $ per month due on or before the first day
of each mon th , Rent checks ,hall be made payable to (Landlord) (Landlord', Agent) [STRIKE ONE] and mailed
or delivered to (Landlord) (Landlord's Agent) [STRIKE ONE]. ALL TENANTS, IF MORE THAN ONE, SHALL BE JOINTLY AND
SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR THE FULL AMOUNT OF ALL PAYMENTS DUE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT.
Upon execution of this Agreement, Tenant agrees to pay a security deposit in the amount of $ to be held by
J. Mich.el Real Estate . The deposit, less any amounts legally wnhheld, will be
retumed in person or mailed to Tenant's last known address wnhin 21 days after Tenant surrenders the Premises. Tenant is responsible for
giving Landlord hisJher new address. Surrender shall occur on the last day of the term provided in this Rental Agreement, subject to the
exceptions described in Wis. Admin. Code S ATCP 134.06. Upon surrender, Tenant shall vacate the Premises and return, or account for,
any of Landlord's property held by Tenant, such as keys, garage door openers, etc.
Tenant acknowledges receipt of Landlord's check-in report which tenant agrees to complete and retum to Landlord by the 8th day of the
tenancy. Tenant may request, in writing, a list of physical damages and defects charged to the previous tenant's security deposit no later
then the 8th day of the tenancy.
SpeclalCondltionl: $10/person/month for water/sewer is inoluded in listed rental amount.
Landlord retains the oDtion to void this lease if sianed lease auarantees are not
reoeived by Landlord prior to co_n~nt of le.se. If full rent is not received in
the office bv the 5th of each month. rent is $.
Landlord may enter the Premises occupied by the Tenant, at reasonable times with at least 12 hours advance nolice, to inspect the
Premises, make repairs, show the Premises to prospective tenants or purchasers, or comply with applicable laws or regulations. Landlord
may enter without advance notice upon consent of the Tenant, when a health or safety emergency exists, or if Tenant is absent and
Landlord believes entry is necessary to protect Ihe Premises or the building in which they are located from damage.
If Tenant unjustifiably removes from the Premises before the last day of the rental term, Tenant shall be liable for all rent due under this
Agreement through the last day of the lerm, plus damages incurred by Landlord, and less any net rent received by Landlord in rerenting the
premises. If Tenant is absent from the Premises for three consecutive weeks without written notice of such absence to Landlord, Landlord
may, in Landlord's sole discretion, deem that Tenant has removed from the Premises and proceed to rerent the Premises. If Tenant leaves
personal property behind. Landlord shall have the right to dispose of the property as provided by law or per any written property lien
agreement.
Upon voluntary or involuntary transfer of ownership of the Premises, Landlord's obligations under this Agreement are expressly released by
Tenant. The new owner of the Premises shall be solely responsible for the Landlord's obligations under this Agreement.
Tenant has received, read and understands Landlord's lead-based paint (LBP) disclosures and the Protect Your Family From Lead In Your
Horne Pamphlet (Pamphlet). Tenant agrees to follow the practices recommended in the Pamphlet in order to protect Tenant and other
guests and occupants from Injuries caused by exposure to lead. Tenant shall immediately notify the Landlord in writing if Tenant, Tenant's
guests or any other occupant obselVes any other conditions indicating the presence of a potential LBP hazard, as described in the Pamphlet.
J Michael Real Estate 2702 Monroe St, Madison WI 5371t.1888
Phone: (608) 233-4440 Fax: (608) 233-9130 J. Michael Real Estate
Produced wlh ZipForm'" by RE FormsNet. LlC 18025 Fifteen Mile Road. Clinton Township, Mlchlg8l1 48035. (800) 38)-9805
LEAD-BASED PAINT
PROVISIONS (AppIoobIt
only . lie I'IomIHt 18.. "IIIr;ol
~.....N:IId btIcn 1'71.)
I
T5580855.zfx
TENANT RULES
& OBLIGATIONS
USE
PETS
GOVT. REG.
MAINTENANCE
IMPROVEMENTS
GUESTS
NEGLIGENCE
VACATION OF
PREMISES
RULES
DAMAGE BY
CASUAL TV
CODE
VIOLATIONS
CONDITIONS
AFFECTING
HABITABILITY
SMOKE
DETECTOR
NOTICE
During the lease tenn, as a condition of Tenant's continuing right to use and occupy the Premises,
Tenant agrees and promises, unless Landlord otherwise provfdes In writing, as follows:
1. To use the Premises for residential purposes only for Tenant and Tenant's immediate family.
2. To NOT make or pennit use of the Premises for any unlawful purpose or any purpose that will Injure the reputation of
the Premises or the building of which they are a part.
3. To NOT use or keep In or about the Premises anything that would adversely affect coverage of the Premises or the building of
which they are a part under a standard fire or extended Insurance policy.
4. To NOT make excessive noise or engage In activities which unduly disturb neighbors or other tenants in the building in which
the Premises are located.
5. To NOT permit in or about the Premises any pet unless specifically authorized by landlord in writing.
6. To obey alllawlul orders, rules and regulations of all governmental authorities and, if a condominium, any condominium association
with authority over the premises.
7 . To keep the Premises in clean and tenantable condition and in as good repair as on the first day of the lease term, nonnal wear and tear
excepted.
8. To maintain a reasonable amount of heat In cold weather to prevent damages to the premises, and if damage resulls from Tenant's
failure to maintain a reasonable amount of heat, Tenant shall be liable for this damage.
9. Unless Tenant has received specifIC written consent from landlord, to NOT do or permit any of the following:
a. Paint upon, attach, exhibit, or display in or about the Premises any sign or placard.
b. Alter or redecorate the Premises.
c. Drive nails, tacks, and screws or apply other fasteners on or into any wall, ceiling, floor, or woodwork of the Premises.
d. Attach or affix anything to the exterior of the Premises or the building in which it is located.
10. To NOT permit any guest or invites to reside In the Premises without prior written consent of landlord.
11. To be responsible for all acts of negligence or breaches of this agreement by Tenant and Tenant's guests and invltees, and to be
liable for any resulling property damage or Injury.
12. To NOT assign this Agreement nor sublet the Premises or any part thereof without the prior written consent of Landlord. If Landlord
permits an assignment or a sublease, such permission shall in no way relieve Tenant of Tenant's liability under this Agreement.
13. To vacate the Premises at the end of the tenn, and Immediately deliver the keys, garage door openers, parking pennits, etc.. and the
T enanfs forwarding address to the Landlord.
landlord may make additional reasonable rules governing the use and occupancy of the Premises and the building in which they are located.
Tenant acknowledges the rules stated above, and acknowledges receipt of any additional rules prior to signing this Agreement. Any failure by
Tenant to comply with the rules is a breach of this Agreement.
If the Premises are damaged by fire or other casualty to a degree that renders them untenantable, Tenant may move out unless Landlord
promptly proceeds to repair and rebuild. Tenant may move out if the repair work causes undue hardship. If Tenant remains; rent abates to the
extent Tenant Is deprived of nonnalfull use of the Premises, until the Premises are restored. If repairs are not made, this Agreement shall
terminate. If the Premises are damaged to a degree which does not render them untenantable, landlord shall repair them as soon as
reasonably possible.
The Premises and the building of which they are a part are NOT currently cited for uncorrected building or housing code violations unless a copy
of any such notices of uncorrected code violations are attached to this Agreement. The Premises do NOT contain any of the following conditions
adversely affecting habitability unless listed under Special Conditions: No hot or cold running water, plumbing or sewage disposal facilities not in
good operating order, unsafe or Inadequate heating facilities (incapable of maintaining at least 670F in living areas), no electricity, electrical
wiring or components not in safe operating condition, or structural or other conditions that are substantially hazardous to health or safety.
Wisconsin law requires that th, Landlord maintain .ny smoke detectors loc.ted In .ny building common .reas. St.t, law further
. requires that THE TENANT MUST EITHER MAINTAIN ANY SMOKE DETECTOR ON THE PREMISES, OR GIVE LANDLORD WRITTEN
NOTICE WHENEVER A SMOKE DETECTOR ON THE PREMISES IS NOT FUNCTIONAL. The Landlord shall provld', within flv, days of
receipt of any such notice, any maintenance necessary to make that smoke detector functional. MAINTENANCE SHALL INCLUDE THE
PROVISION OF NEW BATTERIES, AS NEEDED.
AGENCY NOTICE Tenant understands that any property manager, rental agent or employees thereof are representing the Landlord.
Notice: You may obtain information about the sex offender registry and persons registered with the registry by contacting the Wisconsin Department of Corrections on
the Intemet at http://www.widocoffenders.org or by phone at 877-234-0085.
Attachments checked below are attached to this Rental Agreement and Incorporated herein by reference.
Attachment ./ Check Attachment ./ Check
Guarantee/RenewallAssianmenUSublease x Code Violations
Rules and Reaulations Real Estate Aaencv Disclosure
Lead-Based Paint Disclosure & PamDhlet x Other: pavment Plan Drua Addendum X
Nonstandard Rental Provisions x Other: Furni t . Inv. SD aeturn Form X
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Rental Agreement on
LANDLORD:
TENANTS:
TENANTS:
Oralled by Attorney Debra Pelerson Conrad
Copyright 0 August 2002 by WISCOIISin REAL TORse Association. Inc.. 4801 FOl8st Run Road. Madison. WI 53704. To order contact the WlSCOIIsin REAL TORW Association. (606) 241-2047.
No representation is made as to the legal validity of rrrr provision or the adequacy 01 any provision in lilY specific transaction.
ProduCed wilh ZipForm'" by RE FormsNel, UC 18025 F-.. Mile Roed. CIi'llon Township. Michigan 48035. (800) 383-9805
TSSS08SS.m
<<Apartment>)
<<LeaseT erm))
LEASE GUARANTY
In consideration of the Residential Rental Contract with <<Tenant>) (Tenant), the
undersigned Guarantor(s) agree, jointly and severally, to pay to J Michael Real Estate
(Landlord) at its office in the City of Madison, State of Wisconsin, any and all
indebtedness or other liability, fixed or contingent, which Tenant may now or at any time
hereafter owe Landlord, together with interest and collection costs.
Guarantors shall be liable for <<Percentage>>% of Tenant obligations under a
Residential Rent Contract should Tenant fail to honor his/her obligations. Guarantor
shall also pay to Landlord on demand reasonable attorney's fees and all costs and other
expenses incurred by Landlord in collecting or compromising any indebtedness of Tenant
guaranteed hereunder or in enforcing this guarantee against Guarantors.
This Guaranty extends to and includes any renewal or extension of the Residential
Rental Contract with Tenant.
Landlord shall not be required to pursue any other remedies before invoking the
benefits of the guarantee.
The laws of the State of Wisconsin shall govern this Guaranty. The undersigned
expressly consent and submit to jurisdiction of the State of Wisconsin and venue in Dane
County for any legal proceeding relating to the collection of this Guaranty. Guarantors
inevocably appoint Tenant as authorized agent of Guarantors for the purpose of service of
process. Guarantors also stipulate that service by certified mail return receipt requested
directed to Guarantors at the address set forth below shall constitute personal service.
Guarantors may notify Landlord in writing by certified mail of any change in the address
of Guarantors.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this guarantee.
GUARANTORS
Date
Signature
Print Name
Address
Date
Signature
Print Name
Address
NONSTANDARD RENTAL PROVISIONS
I. Definitions
A) Landlord shall be J. Michael Real Estate, it's successors or assigns
B) Tenant shall be all residents ofthe leased premises as indicated by the signatures below
II. Move- In
A) A letter will be mailed out prior to the lease's beginning. This will clearly explain move-in procedures.
B) No keys will be issued and Tenant will not have right to possession unless all of the following are complete:
I) Security deposit is paid in full
2) All Tenant signatures are on lease documents
3) All Guaranty documents have been signed and delivered to Landlord.
4) First month's rent has been paid in full for apartment.
C) Apartment is rented in "as is" condition. No improvements will be completed unless Landlord deems necessary
or it is written into the lease.
D) Landlord agrees to clean the premises and repair any damages from previous occupancy. In the event prior
tenancy results in deterioration of the present condition of the premises, tenant hereby agrees to accept the
premises, and to fully cooperate with Landlord in the facilitation of any repairs and/or cleaning necessary. This
includes allowing for adequate time for necessary cleaning and up to 45 days for necessary repairs.
E) Landlord does not agree to any form of compensation for repairs or cleaning done by Tenant unless written
permission is first given by Landlord.
III. Cleanliness
A) Tenant agrees to maintain all interior and exterior areas of premises in a clean and sanitary condition, free from
physical hazards, garbage and debris. Tenant agrees to perform routine cleaning throughout the premises on a
regular basis. This includes vacuuming any carpet, sweeping and washing floors, scrubbing the bathtub/shower,
toilet, sinks, dusting, removing trash, cleaning all appliances and disposing of any uncovered food.
B) No littering the yards with trash, paper, and cigarette butts, etc.
C) No littering the common areas with trash, paper, cigarette butt, etc.
D) Garbage may not be placed in any area other than in provided containers outside. Any trash found in common
areas will result in a $50.00 trash violation.
E) Tenants agree to pay for any City of Madison fines that are a result of Tenant's trash.
F) Any excessive abuse or neglect of premises will result in a violation letter. Tenant will then have three days to
remedy the violation. If problem still exists after 3 days, Landlord will correct and bill Tenant for charges.
IV. Maintenance
A) Upon request by Tenant for maintenance, a 24-hour notice is not required, unless otherwise requested by
Tenant.
B) If maintenance must enter your unit on an emergency basis and is unable to contact you (i.e. water leaking into
unit below you) notice may not be possible, however, you will be advised of such entry.
C) All maintenance will be done on a priority basis as determined at Landlord's discretion.
D) Tenant shall replace burned out lightbulbs in their apartment at Tenant expense.
E) Tenant shall keep apartment free of minor pests (i.e. mouse or ant traps) at Tenant expense.
F) Tenant is responsible for initial cost & treatment of slow/clogged drains (drain opener, Draino, plunger, etc). If
these attempts do not cure problem, Landlord will provide repair at their expense. Feminine care products may
not be flushed down the toilet. Any drain problems traced to negligence of Tenant will be billed to Tenant.
This includes sinks, toilets, showers, bathtubs, laundry tubs and garbage disposals.
G) Any damage done by Tenant or guest of Tenant is Tenant's financial responsibility. Damage can be remedied
by either:
1) Immediate repair by Tenant at hislher own expense
2) Repair by Landlord for which Tenant will be billed
H) Tenant shall be responsible for repair cost of all appliances when damage or failure is due to negligence of
Tenant.
I) Costs for supplies and labor will be charged to Tenant who caused damage to the apartment or building due to
tenant negligence (examples as follows)
1) Water damage resulting from unclosed windows or improper use of shower enclosures.
2) Flooring or furniture stains and/or burns
3) Frozen pipes due to lack of or inadequate heat: Tenant must maintain a minimum temperature of 60 degrees
to avoid frozen pipes. Power may not be turned off during the months of October through April.
4) Other acts or incidents of damage
J) Tenant shall not offset or charge building supplies or labor from any given rent payment unless authorized by
Landlord in writing.
K) Any holes in walls (i.e. damage or nail) must be patched and painted with proper paint prior to moving out.
L) Locks may be changed or added only by Landlord. Tenant may request to have a lock installed on individual
bedroom doors at Tenant expense. If locks are changed, it will be at Landlords discretion who will be
responsible for labor and materials.
M) If Tenant is locked-out during business hours, Tenant will be billed for service call.
V. After-Hours Maintenance Emergency
A) Calls shall be placed to emergency number provided by Landlord.
B) This service is for emergency purposes only
1) Lack of heat, running water or electricity
2) Large concentration of water/large water leak
3) Fire alarm/sprinklers going off
C) A $25 fee will be charged for any calls placed to emergency number that are not deemed an emergency
situation.
D) Any emergency calls placed that result in necessary after-hours service due to tenant negligence will be billed
back to Tenant.
E) Tenant agrees to pay $75 for any calls placed to emergency service for tenant lockout.
VI. Sublets
A) It is Tenant's responsibility to obtain sublessee.
B) No Sublease is permitted without Landlord's knowledge.
C) Tenant shall notify Landlord of sublet in writing at least 15 days prior to commencement of sublet.
D) Sublessor shall hold Sublessee's security deposit. Landlord holds Sublessor's deposit for the term of the lease.
E) No check-outs will be performed; Sublessee assumes check-in status of Sublessor
F) Copy of signed sublet agreement shall be given to Landlord. All original Tenants must sign the agreement.
G) Sublessee must provide Landlord with telephone number
H) If Landlord furnishes apartment, Sublessee will receive what furniture is in apartment. Any changes will result
in a charge as appears on Furniture Inventory form.
I) Sublessor is liable for all rental payments. Sublease does not release Sublessor from rent obligation. Landlord
will not accept payment from Sublessee.
VII. Rent Collection
A) All rents are due in Landlord's office by 5:00 p.m. on the first of each month. If the first ofthe month falls on a
holiday or weekend, the rent is due in Landlord's office by 5:00 p.m. the following Monday. You will not be
billed.
B) If any portion of the rent is unpaid as of the fifth of each month, the monthly rent will be increased as indicated
on lease agreement.
C) Landlord will not break down outstanding amount to an individual basis, this is tenant's responsibility
D) A $35.00 fee will be assessed to Tenant for issuing any check with insufficient funds, account closed or for any
other factor causing the payment to be returned. If a second check is returned, Tenant agrees to make all future
payments by either money order or certified check.
VIII. Showings
A) A 24-hour verbal notice will be given for each showing
B) Tenant need not be home for showing
C) Showings are done between 10:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Monday through Saturday
IX. Common Areas
A) Trash shall be placed in provided containers
B) City of Madison recycling guidelines must be followed.
C) Alllightbulbs in common areas will be provided and changed by Landlord. Tenant shall notify Landlord when
out
D) Do not block security doors from properly shutting. Keep areas around security doors clean and free of debris so
doors may properly close.
E) If there is a common basement, basement door to be kept locked at all times, by order ofthe Fire Department.
F) Halls to be kept free of bikes and other personal belongings.
G) If provided, use bike racks. Bikes shall not in any case be locked. to fences or front entrances. Landlord will cut
the lock and remove the bike.
X. Parking
A) A parking lease must be entered into between Landlord and Tenant before parking is allowed on the property.
B) Any vehicles with a valid parking lease must have a Landlord sticker/pass visible on vehicle at all times.
C) No mopeds or vehicles are allowed on the lawn or any other non-designated area at any time.
D) Any unauthorized vehicles on premises will be ticketed and/or towed at vehicle owner's expense.
XI. General
A) Tenants are jointly and individually responsible for all terms and conditions of said lease.
B) Landlord retains the option to void this lease if lease guarantee is not received prior to commencement of lease.
C) Tenant and/or guests shall not become disorderly or create unreasonable noise within the apartment or complex
that may disturb other tenants.
D) Fire regulations prohibit charcoaling on upper floor balconies and decks.
E) Waterbeds are prohibited.
F) No pets are allowed unless specified differently on lease, including those of guests. No "visiting" pets are
allowed. A per occurrence fine of$IOO.OO is payable to Landlord for any pet on premises. In addition, a $20.00
per day fee will be added to rent for every day pet remains. This provision in no way grants permission to keep a
pet or allow a pet on premises.
G) Patios and balconies are not to be utilized as storage areas. Patio furniture may be left on porch during summer
months only and should be put away the other months. No couches or indoor furniture are allowed on exterior
porches or patios. No grills or barbeques are allowed on balconies. No trash is to be placed on balcony. If any
of these items are seen, Landlord may remove it at Tenant's expense. A $100 fine will be imposed and Tenant
will be responsible for a clean-up fee in addition. No more than five people may be present on a balcony at a
time.
H) Any visible kegs on the premises will result in a $100 fine. Any further violations may lead to immediate
eviction.
I) Each occupant must carry their own renter's insurance, as Landlord's does not cover occupant's personal
belongings. Landlord cannot guarantee absolute dryness in the basement, so do not put items there that could be
easily damaged by moisture. Landlord strongly encourages Tenant to obtain his own insurance for protection
against loss or damage to personal property under Tenant's control.
J) Landlord reserves the right to post rental signs and banners on premises at Landlord's discretion.
K) This building has security cameras. Any damage due to actions of tenants or tenants' guests will be the financial
responsibility of the tenant.
XII. Move-Out
A) Landlord will perform a checkout of the apartment at the time of lease maturity. Tenant has the right to schedule
an appointment to be present at this checkout. If no appointment is scheduled, Landlord assumes Tenant is
waiving this right and will do checkout without Tenant present.
B) Lease maturity date and time is of the essence.
1) Tenant acknowledges that if premises are occupied beyond Noon oflease maturity, rent is double per day
for that day and everyday thereafter.
C) Time is of the essence for Tenants return of keys to Landlord.
1) Tenant acknowledges that any keys not returned to Landlord at or before time oflease maturity, will result in
a re-key charge of $75.00. Mailbox locks will be re-keyed at a charge of$50.00.
D) Tenant agrees to deliver the premises to landlord in a clean, undamaged state at the time of lease maturity, normal
wear and tear excluded. This entails:
1) Floors must be cleaned
2) Carpet must be cleaned
3) Appliances (behind and below them as well) must be cleaned thoroughly
4) Bathrooms must be clean
5) Walls, cupboards and closets must be clean
6) Windows, window sills and window coverings must be clean
7) Light bulbs must be in working order
8) Any nail holes or other holes must be patched and painted
9) Repair any other damages not noted on your check-in form
10) Removing all personal items and trash from premises
XIII. Security Deposit
A) Security deposit is held for the term ofthe lease.
B) Tenant may not use the security deposit as payment of monthly rent.
C) Security deposit and an itemized list of deductions will be returned within 21 days of expiration of lease with
interest on all months which the full rent was received in the office on or before the first of the month.
D) Deposit/itemized list of deductions will be sent to the party designated on the "Return of Security Deposit" form.
E) Objections to the security deposit return must be made in writing and mailed to the management office within 21
days of receipt of the deposit return.
F) Landlord incurred expenses are billed as follows:
1) General Cleaning - $40.00/hour (includes materials)
2) Carpet Cleaning - $50.00/room
3) Patching/Painting - $75.00Ihour (includes materials)
4) Lightbulb replacement - $2.00/bulb
5) R &M - $50.00Ihour
Lessee
Date
Lessee
Date
Lessee
Date
Lessee
Date
Lessee
Date
Lessee
Date
Date
Lessee
Date
Lessee
614 Langdon Street #502
2007-2008
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE POLICY
Residents shall not, in the leased unit, hallways, elevators, parking garages, parking lots,
maintenance areas, laundry room, lobbies, all exterior areas of the building, and all other
common and/or public areas of the building (the foregoing are collectively referred to as
the "Premises") engage in or permit any drug related criminal activity or engage in or
permit any criminal activity or other activity that endangers the health or safety of other
residents, in the Owner's sole discretion, or engage in or permit any activity that is, in the
Owner's sole discretion, otherwise injurious to the Community or its reputation.
Instances of such conduct shall include, but not be limited to, Residents permitting Co-
Resident, Occupant, member of Resident's Household or Family, Guest Invitee, or other
persons Resident permits to occupy or use the Premises, to keep, use manufacture,
purchase, sell, possess, or otherwise distribute controlled substances or drug-related
paraphernalia (as defined in Wisconsin Uniform Controlled Substances Act) in or about
the premises.
The resident further agrees that if controlled substances are found in the leased premises
during the period of residency, except such controlled substances as have been dispensed
to the person in possession of the same pursuant to a lawfully issued prescription (it being
the burden of the resident to establish that all elements of the foregoing exceptions
apply), the existence of such controlled substances shall constitute a material non-
compliance by the Resident of this lease agreement. The restrictions contained hereunder
are material obligations under the lease. It is fully understood that a single violation of
any of the provisions of this addendum shall be deemed a material violation of the lease,
and good cause for termination of the residency.
I/We have read, understand and accept this policy and understand that this is a part of our
lease.
Resident
Date
Resident
Date
Resident
Date
Resident
Date
Resident
Date
Resident
Date
614 LANGDON STREET #601
NOON 8/15/07 - NOON 8/13/08
"TENANT AND LANDLORD
RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES"
We hereby acknowledge that J. Michael Real Estate has provided a copy of the above
document as approved by the Madison City Council.
Lessee
Date
Lessee
Date
Lessee
Date
Lessee
Date
Lessee
Date
Lessee
Date
-----Original Message-----
From: Clark Adams [mailto:cambridgeplaceapts@mchsi.com]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 3:28 PM
To: Jeff Davidson
Subject: 228 E. Court St.
(The Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission at its meeting Friday will
consider an application to build an apartment complex at the former site of
St. Patrick's Church, 228 E. Court St.)
I would like to voice my disapproval of any further development for
apartment complexes in Iowa City at this time. Right now vacancies can be
found in most complexes throughout Iowa City, Coralville and North Liberty.
The area is overbuilt and with the broad variety available, it makes it
difficult for us apartment managers to keep our units fully occupied.
Clark Adams, Manager
1851 Melrose Ave
Iowa City, IA 52246
319-430-2868
mailto:cambridgeplaceapts@mchsi.com
http://www.cambridgeplaceapts.com
SOUTHTOWN PROPERTIES
PO BOX 2267
IOWA CITY, IA 52244-2267
319-337-2130
3 October 2007
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
Re: 228 EAST COURT STREET (REZ07-00014)
Dear Commission Members:
South town Properties owns the apartment complex ~ediately
adjacent north of the subject property.
While we welcome the development of the former St. Patrick's
Church property, the proposed rezoning from CB-5 to CB-10 is of
concern to us for two reasons:
· The parking facility ~pact fee, which was required
of other apartment developers in the area, is not
required under CB-10 zoning -- nor is it a
requirement to provide off-street parking. Southtown
Properties paid a sizeable fee, as did others, for
the number of parking spaces required but not
provided. A "level playing field" should be the
standard. Otherwise, other area apartment owners are
at a government-caused economic disadvantage.
· Zero lot-line construction would restrict visibility
by tenants in apartments facing the new construction.
Landscaping required of other developments would be
missing. Again, CB-10 zoning would be unfair to both
tenants and existing developers.
We recommend the rezoning to CB-IO be denied. The new owners of
the subject property can construct a suitable building using CB-S
zoning standards.
Sa ood Belle
Co-owner
I
!
i
(~w(
i Tom Breese
V Co-owner
/
SOUTHTOWN PROPERTIES, L. C.
P. O. Box 2267
Iowa City, IA 52244-2267
319-337-2130. (fax) 319-358-5517
19 November 2007
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of
the City of Iowa City
Re: 228 EAST COURT STREET (REZ07-00014)
Good Evening!
Southtown Properties owns the apartment building immediately
adjacent to and north of the above-referenced property.
While we welcome development of that parcel and have no objection
to apartments thereon, we do object to a rezoning which would
enable the developers to avoid the Parking Impact Fee.
Fourteen year ago, Southtown Properties paid $136,000 to the City
of Iowa City for Parking Impact Fees in addition to providing
some on-site parking. Since then, a number of other developers
have paid Parking Impact Fees. In toclay's dollars, hundreds of
thousands of dollars have been paid by those of us who "played by
the rules".
To change the "rules", i.e., rezone 228 East Court Street, would
create an uneven, unfair economic "playing field".
We urge your denial of the rezoning request.
J
Sincerely,../....... ~!/.
J'/ I
I/~/" (I ..
CttA trJe--.-
omas . Breese
Co-owner
/
~vi/~j{
Haywo~d Belle
Co-owner
'"
0 =
=
<() -...
<~" -
-,;,~
)>-. Cl
.... <:: 11
C) -<'-:: N
--{ lJ C> 1-
_-(r !Tl
m ;:!:!It
6~ -,.. 0
_til.
...:::...../-... -
~ ..
N
0'\
BRAY & KLOCKAU. P.L.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PRACTICE LIMITED TO
DOMESTIC RELATIONS
AND FAMILY LAW
DANIEL L. BRAY'
LORI L. KLOCKAU+
CHAD A. KEPROS
402 S. LINN STREET
IowA CITY, IOWA 52240-4929
TELEPHONE
(319) 338-7968
FACSIMILE
(319) 354A871
October 3, 2007
City of Iowa City
Department of Planning and Community Development
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
RE: 228 E. Court Street REZ07-00014
Dear Planning and Zoning Commission Members:
We own the property at 402 South Linn Street, which is
catty-cornered from the property at 228 East Court Street. Our
property is also zoned CB-5.
The proposed rezoning of 228 East Court Street would create
an island of CB-10 which is inconsistent and not compatible with
the surrounding CB-5 zoning nor the city's development plans.
This change simply makes a stacked tower of student housing with
likely vacant commercial space on the first floor. Even with CB-
5, there is a tendency by commercial developers to destroy the
viability of commercial space in favor of overloaded student
housing. This CB-10 zoning would provide neither adequate
parking nor adequate commercial space.
This CB-IO plan is not consistent with the Near South Side
Development Plan. This proposed zoning change and redevelopment
does not provide either support .for the central business district
nor support for the nearby public uses such as the County
Courthouse and the Post Office. COllside:....ation of supporting
public use is important because the Johnson County Board of
Supervisors is now in a study of court needs and jail needs in
the area.
The many issues associated with rezoning to CB-10 and
creating a twelve-story building in the midst of a CB-5 zoning
have not been addressed, let alone resolved, by the developers.
Iowa City neighborhoods need to have adequately planned and
viable commercial space. When the economics of development push
the city to allow student five bedroom apartments stacked up in a
tower of twelve floors, the city and city neighborhoods will
suffer.
'FELLOW OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF MATRIMONIAL LAWYERS
+ MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ADOPTION LAWYERS
City of Iowa City Letter
October 3, 2007
Page 2
We urge the Commission to deny the application to rezone
this property to CB-IO.
Very truly Y010urs
(~it ..~ ~. ~CLu.
~ ');; ~;C~ZAJ
~~;7J
DLB/jeb 10/2/07
planning.zoning.commission.Ol.wpd
.".
BRAY & KLOCKAU, P.L.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
402 S. LINN STREET
PRACTICE LIMITED TO
DOMESTIC RELATIONS
AND FAMILY LAW
DANIEL L BRAY'
LORI L KLOCKAU+
CHAD A. KEPROS
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240-4929
TELEPHONE
(319) 338.7968
FACSIMILE
(319) 354-4871
November 19, 2007
",
<::)
=
.......
City of Iowa City
. City Council
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
o
;~C)
.;...# ---
t-., --(
,~ ~
(-:.:J
II
.....:0:::
/'--.,
-_..~~. '- ,
,-<I
j'-,
N
o
:;~
-Jl
!"---!
'-/
""-"'i
~~;,h,
.~
-.......
)>
r-v
RE: 228 E. Court Street REZ07-00014
Dear City Council Members:
We own the property at 402 South Linn Street, which is
catty-cornered from the property at 228 East Court Street. Our
property is also zoned CB-5.
The proposed rezoning of 228 East Court Street would create an
island of CB-10 which is inconsistent and not compatible with the
surrounding CB-5 zoning nor the city's development plans. This
change simply makes a stacked tower of student housing with likely
vacant commercial space on the first floor. Even with CB-5, there
is a tendency by commercial developers to destroy the viability of
commercial space in favor of overloaded student housing. This CB-
10 zoning would provide neither adequate parking nor adequate
commercial space.
This CB-10 plan is not consistent with the Near South Side
Development Plan. This proposed zoning change and redevelopment
does not provide either support for the central business district
nor support for the nearby public uses such as the County
Courthouse and the Post Office. Consideration of support.ingpublic
use is important because the Johnson County Board of Supervisors is
now in a study of court needs and jail needs in the area.
The many issues associated with rezoning to CB-10 and creating
a twelve-story building in the midst of a CB-5 zoning have not been
addressed, let alone resolved, by the developers.
Iowa City neighborhoods need to have adequately planned and
viable commercial space. When the economics of development push
the city to allow student five bedroom apartments sta.cked up. in a
tower of ' twelve floors, . the city and city neighborhoods will
suffer.
'FELLOW OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF MATRIMONIAL LAWYERS
+MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ADOPTION LAWYERS
City Council
November 19, 2007
Page 2
We urge the Commission to deny the application to rezone this
property to CB-10.
Very tr~6!o;:/;.J!.
KIO~~
amel L. i:~
LLK:jl 11-19-07
K:\Officel\Rezoning\city.council.wpd
r~.;)
0 =
=
4;--''- -.......
"".~-" () """'....-
...:-.....
.J> c:)
) ""1.::: -Tl
(.-" .- '-
'- ,. N
" ,,' a (
/
.:-..... I- t Ti
I'i ::r:1I
~) .........J'" C)
~ -
N
Jay & Nancy Honohan
1510 Somerset Ln
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
(319) 338-6990
Nroamer@aol.com
October 11, 2007
Chair Ann Freerks & Members
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Iowa City, Iowa
410 E. Washington
Iowa City, IA 52240
re: Application Big Ten Rentals
228 E. Court street
Dear Chair Freerks & Commission Members
I am writing to express my opposition to the rezoning request of
Big Ten Rentals regarding the property located at 228 E. Court.
I am a part owner of property at 330 E. Court street and I am
also a member of the Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center
Commission. I have read the newspaper accounts of the proposal.
The Press Citizen reports the proposal is for a 12 story
building with about 132 apartment units with some three bedroom
units, some four bedroom units, and some five bedroom units. The
estimate is that this would result in at least 430 bedrooms and
about 900 rooms per acre. The proposal is to rent to students
and not the general population.
I have the following concerns and objections.
1. Densitv. The density of one half an acre is too
great. I doubt that only 430 students would live in the
building. Experience in this area with other student rental
units indicates more students live in the units than there are
bedrooms. This is a device students use to cut down their
individual costs. Even 430 students in this location is too
great a number.
2. Parkinq. Current parking requirements are in my
opinion not enough for student rentals in this area, yet the
applicants want less spaces than required. Parking in the area
between Burlington and Prentiss is currently inadequate for long
term parking. The proposal would make a bad situation worse. I
also suspect that Big Ten Rentals expect to charge an additional
fee for the parking spaces they construct. This always moves
many students to park elsewhere.
page 2
Commission letter
3. Proximitv to Seniors. The site is located in an
area with senior housing. I remind the commission that the
behavior of many students in the downtown area is less than is
desired. In fact, concerns by the community about student
behavior have put on the November ballot an initiative about
under age students and bars. Placing what I believe will be
approximately 500 students in an area where seniors reside is
not, in my opinion, a good idea.
4. Heiqht. I believe that 12 stories is too high a
building to be placed in this area. In most of the area to the
east of this site, student housing is three stories. A much more
reasonable height. A rental building size that I could support.
5. Central Business Support. I have always understood
that the area between Burlington and Court was to be an area to
support the central business district. I do not see how a twelve
story student rental complex offers any support for the central
business district unless you are considering patrons for the
downtown bars. I remind the Commission that from my observation,
the business use requirement for the first floor has had a mixed
success result.
I am certain that there are other reasons that will be voiced
objecting to this proposal. I respectfully request that the
Commission recommend to the City Council the denial of this
application. That any approval by the Commission requires the
applicant to present a proposal that complies with all existing
code requirements particularly the parking and is at a height
more consistant with the other student rental structures in the
area.
Truly YOj?s,
~h ~
~H c
Honohan
Karen Howard
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Patricia Ephgrave [pnephgrave@mchsLcom]
Thursday, October 11, 20074:21 PM
Karen Howard
Big Ten development
Dear Ms. Howard,
Thank you for presenting some of the problems associated with granting a
zoning change to Big Ten Rentals.
As has been noted, the parking is totally inadequate, and furthermore, even
the suggested number of cars using the narrow streets in that area will
cause untold congestion and safety hazards, let alone the probably higher
number the building would attract. Are there dedicated spaces for the
businesses.
While Iowa City may need to "grow up" it also should try to maintain a
human scale for the buildings, particularly on narrow streets. To build
tall buildings without set-backs on narrow streets creates a canyon effect,
which when coupled with traffic problems, adversely effects citizen life.
Also, please consider the negative shadow and wind effects on neighbors'
properties as well as the positive need to build up. Perhaps it is time to
consider height limits to satisfy more interested parties.
Thank you again for serving our city so well.
Sincerely yours,
Pat Ephgrave
1
Page 1 of 1
From: Lon Claeys [Lon@holtzecompanies.com]
Sent: Monday, October 15,20074:54 PM
To: Bob Miklo
Subject: concerns about the rezoning of 228 E. Court Street
Dear Mr. Miklq,
I am writing to express my concerns and opposition to the rezoning request of Big Ten Rentals in regards
to the property located at 228 E. Court. Midstates Development, Inc. is the managing partner for the Capitol
House Apartments located on 320 South Dubuque Street. Our complex provides clean, safe, and affordable
subsidized housing for the elderly and/or disabled.
The Iowa City Press Citizen has reported this proposed structure to be a 12 story building with a mixture
of residential and commercial leasing. The article states that there will be a total of 132 apartment units with 3, 4,
and 5 bedroom units which results to a total of 430 bedrooms (I understand that a revision has reduced this total
to 412 bedrooms). Even with this reduction the density for this half an acre (.48 acres to be exact) is just too
great! Experience tells me that student housing of 3, 4 and 5 bedroom units will only result in over crowding
beyond the occupancy code by students sub-leasing their apartments in order to reduce their individual expenses,
as well as overburdening Iowa City's infrastructure(sewer system more specifically).
Parking spots, or the lack of, is another concern of mine. I understand that the applicants will only be
supplying 25% of the required parking. They state that the demand for parking within their proposed building will
be "very low" needing only one parking space for every five tenants. I feel that this is a gross underestimate of
actual parking spaces needed in order to mask an obvious problem. Even without this structure our property
continually polices our parking area for unauthorized vehicles and spends considerable time and effort to ensure
that our residents have spaces to park their vehicles. The infusion of this many new tenants and commercial
patrons will undoubtedly complicate an already complicated matter.
The height of this structure is another concern of mine not only that we will be eclipsed by such a large
structure, but also because of the potential the tenants of a building this size could cause to surrounding
buildings. For years we have experienced the effects of undesirable student behavior due to underage drinking
and alcohol abuse. Our tenants' vehicles have been vandalized, our building has been spray painted, we are
frequently sweeping up broken beer bottles thrown from balconies, and have to clean up our parking area of
discarded furniture items thrown from student move-outs. A structure towering over every other structure that
houses primarily students will only result in further vandalism and insecurity to our elderly and disabled tenants. I
am also concerned of the potential and catastrophic damage that this huge building could cause if Iowa City were
to experience another tornado similar to the one we experienced in April of 2006. Fortunately, there was no
bodily injury during that storm but we did not have a 12 story structure only the width of an alley away from us.
I understand that one of Big Ten Rentals arguments to rezone this area is that this structure will have a
beneficial effect on the central business district. I feel this will do quite the opposite. These dorm style apartments
will only appeal to short-term residents on fixed incomes and the downtown bars will be the only beneficiaries of
this proposal. A "wider variety of residents" which is supposed to create a "broader customer base" will just not
happen when Big Ten Rentals is providing nothing more than "rental boxes" without amenities, living space, and
common areas just in order to pack as many tenants in one building as possible.
I am sure you have heard from many others about their concerns and objections so I apologize if I am
sounding redundant. My goal, at minimum, is not to be silent and hopefully to provide a voice for our tenants and
their concerns before the October 18th vote. I respectfully request that you deny this application for the rezoning
of 228 E. Court by Big Ten Rentals. I further request that any future approvals by this Commission requires the
applicant to stay within the parameters of the existing code requirements to truly take into consideration all who
live in this community and not just a select group.
Sincerely, Lon M. Claeys
Midstates Development, Inc.
412 Pavonia St.
Sioux City, IA. 51102
712-258-3251
10/15/2007
HONOHAN, EPLEY,
BRADDOCK & BRENNEMAN L.L.P.
Maurine A. Braddock
Michael J. Brenneman
Sue E. Kirk
Of Counsel:
Lloyd A. Epley
Jay H. Honohan
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
425 B Ave. Box 66
Kalona, Iowa 52247
(319) 656-2916
330 East Court Street
P.O. Box 3010
Iowa City, Iowa 52244
(319) 351-8100
FAX (319) 351-0977
e-mail: Honohan@hebblaw.com
104 Jayne Street
Lone Tree, Iowa 52755
(319) 629-5400
November 5, 2007
Marian Karr
city Clerk Iowa City
410 E. Washington street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
re: Application Big Ten Rentals
228 E. Court street
(REZ07-00014
Dear Marian:
With this letter is my letter objecting to the re-zoning
application of Big Ten Rentals which I have been informed is set
for hearing before the City Council on November 27, 2007.
Please see that the objection is filed and is part of the public
hearing.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
& BRENNEMAN
1~~)
7'-.J
c::::J
',-;;'::;'
-.,
I
Cl
il
,," .; feD
v. '. "
~.--' . .
1"'\3
..
'rl
--,
'"J
( --.)
r\,)
Jay & Nancy Honohan
1510 Somerset Ln
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
(319) 338-6990
Nroame~.(aaol. com
November 5, 2007
~--=~1.
-,.-
()
The Honorable Mayor and
city Council
City of Iowa City, Iowa
410 E. Washington
Iowa City, IA 52240
'.
c--\
.-----
---~"\
---
\-:0'
c~)
.~ -~-.j
re: Application Big Ten Rentals
228 E. Court street
(REZ07-00014
Dear Mayor Wilborn & Council Members:
I am writing to express my opposition to the rezoning request of
Big Ten Rentals regarding the property located at 228 E. Court.
I am a part owner of property at 330 E. Court street. I
understand that the application is set for public hearing on
November 27, 2007.
I understand the proposal is for a 12 story building with
about 132 apartment units with some three bedroom units, some
four bedroom units, and some five bedroom units. The estimate is
that this would result in at least 430 bedrooms and about 900
rooms per acre. The proposal is to rent to students and not the
general population.
I have the following concerns and objections.
1. Densitv. The proposed 430 bedrooms on one half an
acre is too dense for this area great.
2. Parkinq. Current parking requirements are in my
opinion not enough for student rentals in this area, yet the
applicants want less spaces than required. Parking in the area
between Burlington and Prentiss is currently inadequate for long
term parking. The proposal would make a bad situation worse.
3. Proximity to Seniors. The site is located in an
area with senior housing. I remind the commission that the
behavior of many students in the downtown area is less than is
desired. Placing what I believe will be at least 430 students
in an area where seniors reside is not, in my opinion, a good
idea.
4. Heiqht. I believe that 12 stories is too high a
building to be placed in this area. In most of the area to the
page 2
Council letter
east of this site, student housing is three stories. A much more
reasonable height. A rental building size that I could support.
5. Central Business Support. I have always understood
that the area between Burlington and Court was to be an area to
support the central business district. I do not see how a twelve
story student rental complex offers any support for the central
business district unless you are considering patrons for the
downtown bars.
I am certain that there are other reasons that will be voiced
objecting to this proposal. I respectfully request that the City
Council deny this application.
-.:
t _....~
.
"-' ~
--'-'
; "'.)
'~J.j
(''-"...)
Page 1 of I
Marian Karr
From: Mary Yagla [yags12@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 2:52 PM
To: Council
Subject: Development of St. Pat's lot
Dear Council members,
First, I would like to thank you for all of the work that you do for Iowa City and it's residents. I am writing to let
you know that as a citizen of Iowa City and a student at the University of Iowa, I strongly oppose the proposal by
Big Ten Rental to build a 12-story apartment building at the old location of St. Patrick's Catholic Church. This is
an outside developer interested in making money and not invested in the Iowa City community. Residents of
Capitol House Apartments have spoken against this proposal at the planning and zoning commission, and the
proposal has been delayed but not stopped. It is my understanding that this proposal may end up in front of
you. I urge you, as a City Council member, to vote against this further development if/when it appears before
you.
We need to keep development in Iowa City local and our interests should rest with the long-term residents of this
community. If this project proposal comes before you, please realize there are other options for this area. There
could be a park, a community garden, a community outreach center, or any number of things that encourages
Iowa City to feel like a community and encourages community involvement. An idea is a group like Food Not
Lawns could be in charge of a community garden, so the burden would not solely be on the city. I also plead
with you to not allow the use of TIF funding on this development or any development in the future that does not
allocate a percentage of their housing for low-income families and individuals. This is a rising concern of mine in
the Iowa City area.
Thank you for your time, please contact me if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Mary Yagla Peterson
1417 Pine St
Iowa City, IA 52240
Climb to the top of the charts! Play Star Shuffle: the word scramble challenge with star power. Play Now!
11/7 /2007
Page 1 of2
Marian Karr
From: Karen Howard
Sent: Tuesday, November 27,20073:00 PM
To: Marian Karr
Subject: FW: protest of rezoning
From: J Randy Bruce [mailto:rbruce@knothebruce.com]
Sent: Monday, November 26,20078:47 AM
To: Karen Howard
Cc: Jeff Davidson; Bob Miklo; 'Mike Fisher'; Jim Corcoran; 'Tom Gelman'; 'Karl Madsen'
Subject: RE: protest of rezoning
Karen,
Thank you for the information. As it appears very unlikely that we would be able to achieve the required super-
majority vote, we are pulling our application for rezoning. We do not want to take up any additional staff or council
time on the rezoning request.
We look forward to working with you on the our latest proposal for a CB-5 zoned development.
J. Randy Bruce AlA
Managing Member
Knothe & Bruce Architects LLC
7601 University Avenue, Suite 201
Middleton, WI 53562
Phone: 608-836-3690
Fax: 608-836-6934
From: Karen Howard [mailto:Karen-Howard@iowa-city.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:21 PM
To: rbruce@knothebruce.com; kmadsen@chorus.net
Cc: Jeff Davidson; Bob Miklo
Subject: protest of rezoning
Randy and Karl,
We did receive a number of protest petitions this afternoon. We will have these verified on
Monday, but it is evident that these petitions would constitute more than the required 20% that
would trigger a supermajority vote of the Council on your rezoning request. I will send you an
email confirmation on Monday once this is verified, but we wanted to let you know as soon as
possible.
Karen Howard
Department of Planning and Community Development
11/27/2007
Page 2 of2
410 E. Washington
Iowa City. Iowa 52240
(319) 356-5251
karen-howard@iowa-city.org
11/2712007
)..-'~ .01
fo~
PROTEST OF REZONING
~
~-_. -
crTY OF 10 WA CITY
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CTIY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning
change, or the owners of property which is located within nyo hundred feet pfthe exterior
boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the
. 'rezoning of the following property:
228 E. Court Street. REZ07-0014 (former St. Patrick's Church)
"
This petition is signed and acknowledged by each ofus with the intention that such
rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths
of all the members of the council, all in accordance with 414.5 'of the Code ofIowa.
5+.
Pk> I E. &r-lihsfch
Property Address
Q
.c:_~
--_.~
>
r--,)
,=
<:;;;;>
--.I
C:J
-ll
STATE OF JOW A )
') ss:
,-< -n
JOHNSON COUNTY) ;i ,---1
,-.- , J
On this /q-f'h dayof ,M,1J~.r- ..20~ beforeme,~und~~~'
a No~ Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared 0,)
,11'YY\ ~/L and
to me known to be the identical persons named in and who executed the within and
foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary
act and deed. .
~....
c:'
f'\,)
Orig: Subd Folder
Co; CA
PCD
Council
Media File
to<.:\.-
PROTEST OF REZONING
~
~----. -
CITY OF IOWA CITY
TO: HONORABLEMA YOR AND CTIY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
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 pfthe exterior
boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the
. 'rezoning of the following property:
228 E. Court Street, REZ07-0014 (former St. Patrick's Church)
,
This petition is signed and acknowledged by each ofus with the intention that such
rezoning shatl not becoine effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths
of all the members of the council, all in accordance with 414.5 'of the Code of Iowa.
Br:.,
STATE OF IOWA )
') ss: .:-< v ,-r1
JOHNSON COUNTY)r'\ ::;= 'c._.J
On this I "i 'fhday of AIo~ .20 of . before me. ~und~.
a NotaQ:.Public W pnd for said County and State, personally appeared c;
JiM s..:!ML and
to me known to be the identical persons named in and who executed the within and
foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary
act and deed. .
TOO 5, ~bVr~ 9--
Property Address __ ~
o =
3~Q :: -ll
~::
(\
c, ...
1")
1. lit. ott
Orig: Subd Folder
Cc; CA
PCD
Council
Media File
Cc'\...,..
PROTEST OF REZONING
~
~-_. -
CITY OF IOWA CITY
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CTIY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning
change, or thc owners of property which is located within two hundred feet pfthe extcrior
boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the
. rezoning of the following property:
228 E. Court Street. REZ07-0014 (former St. Patrick's Church)
"
This petition is signed and acknowledged by each ofus with the intention that such
rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths
of all the members of the council, all in accordance with 414.5 .of the Code onawa.
By: Joe. C~.rK..
OwD~
i..fJ i 5 / lblx}t~ SJ-
Property Address
STATE OF IOWA )
')
~ ~l. I
J .'D1l.. T ,.-n.
O.l.u,SON COUNTY) -=~ ~ :R
Onthis~ayof NOlJembeY ,.20 6+,beforeme.~aooetNgn~~J
a Notary fqblic in and for said County and State, personally appeared); 0
-JcL.~~L and w
to me known to be the identical persons named in and who executed the within and
foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary
act and deed. .
o
;?: C)
f::->~
"'"
=
=
--.I
~-
--<......
a
11
<=l,;.:
lJ~;~
N
tv -00[
I ,. Orig: Subd Folder
Cc; CA
FCD
Council
Media File
~~
PROTEST OF REZONING
~
~--.,.-..
CTTY OF 10 WA CITY
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CTIY COUNCIL
lOW A CITY, IOWA
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 pfthe exterior
,boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the
. rezoning of the following property:
228 E. Court Street. REZ07-0014 (former St. Patrick's Church)
"
This petition is signed and acknowledged by each ofns with the intention that such
rezoning shall not becoine effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths
of all the members of the council, all in accordance with 414.5 'of the Code of Iowa.
.B~~'
f6;i/ ~~
STATE OF IOWA ) l) -(
') ,
ss: =i c) \-n
JOHNSO~UNTY) . -~ E, :' ,
On this I dayof NOVan1J-cr ,200+,before me, th~ersI~. 0
I a lfQtaJ;y PqbJi~ l~d for said County and Stat ersQnally ~eared )> w
L.-O n (;.... f( 1(MlA-Vt--- and t:..
to me known to be the identical persons named in and wllo executed the . thin and
foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary
act and deed. .
io~J1::2f, OuVL~/':J
,...."
- = .
Q 5
..,-- r-"'" .-om-
~.... j C.:J
)>=: -<: 11
N
tary . ublic in and for
r--
~ ...'\:"" "'.. LEIGH A. PALLARDY
~ ~ CommIIIIon Number 741 '1J11
. .
;\
Orig: Subd Folder
Cc; CA
PCD
Council
Media File
11/18/2007 23:04 FAX 3193544871
BRAY&KLOCKAU
141002 ~ "--
'~
'''-.,/
----.... r
PROTEST Oil' REZONING
~
CITY OFlDWiCrrr
TO: HONOR.ABI.EMA YOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, being the owneq ofpzvpcrty mcluded in the proposed 2'.OtJiDg
change, or tho 01llUa'S olpropMy whiob is located 'Within ~ hundred. feet ~fthe ~Ol'
.OOundarics of the property for Which the ZOning ohange is proposed. do hereby pzotcst th~
..rezoningof1!1efuUowingproperty:
228 E. Court Street, REZ07-0014 (former St. Patrick's Church)
"
'Ibis petitiou i. signed and anow1cdacd by CI'cb ofus with the intmtion that S1Wh
mrming man not becoine offecti t by.the favorable vote or at teat tbreo-foUl1hs
of all the members of1he 3CCOl"dance Viith 414.5 'oftho Code of low a.
/';/- -
By. ~
STATEOFJOWA )
)ss:
.JOBNSON COUNTY)
Jt; 7-3~ / S LtV,(/ #, Ie!..
Property ~s 0 ~
;?: (j :;::
y:~ -) ~ =:Q
N ...-
'.
I
iT'
,.--1
\.......J
L~~\~ ~~t^~
Notary ~blic in BUd fox' the SUte onawa
Or:ig: StW Polder
Co: CA
:oct>
ColIQI:il
Media File
11/20/2007 03:01 FAX 3193544871
BRAYIcKLOCKAU
~002
~~
~
\....../
PROTEST OF REZONING
~
CITY Of IOwiCrrr
..-....--.. ' .....
TO: HONORABLBMAYOlt AND Cl'IY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the ~ hem, the ownco ofproperty inc1udCld in tha pxoposed 2Dnin&
cbaqo. 01' the OWDm ofpl~y whitt is I~ witbio ~ hundred feet pfthe cx:tmor
.bound.rlea ofthc property tor wbicb the zoning dIaoge is proposed, do herebyprotcst the
. J'QZODiDg of1he followina property:
228 E. Court Street. REZ07-0014 (former St. patriekls Church)
,
Tbi.t petition is s:i8nod C1d acknowlalgcd by ca'd1 ofllS with the iDteaCion o.t such
~..-n DOt beoaine otfective cuqtt bylbc fav.nb1e '\'Otc of8t IGlSt tbfeo..fowtbs
ofall tI>> D1CIIJbcm of1he COUDCiJ. aU ill ~ wi1h 41.....5 'oftlao Code ollow&.
By:~~("J;sq .
" (0;tJ f,aJ"^-f.~ "
OwnC:a(s) of .. .'
fft!.r>6Sl;v,J Jf.~OlCtj.~
PNp6rty ~ 5:2 ~
. <::0 z .
'r- - CJ
., . -,.~ -,' ....,..,
._..J ~..::: I'
C)--- N -
STATE OF IOWA ) ,:2 f:-) ;Ti. .
') .- 1T1 31._
~!Nl'VW","",^ -- c52 -,~ 0
tI"".&;I.l'~U ......."'-6...~....&.1 ~ ~_-'" /A.~ N
t- ,/ . ~ ..
Ou this ~ day or _I\li~ ftln b?r ..201:J..... bdoro ~ &, UDd~
a~ Public; in aQd fat sal4 Calmly and sw... JMIdOD8Ily ~
.:!5 dLc \~\' rth andoto 1Qe mown to ho the fd"lltioal pcl'&ODI Dan1.ed. in Md. who e<<oautecI the wi1bin u.v:1
fOregoing ~ and ~lcclgcdthat tMy _ClOUted the Ba1nC .. thdrvolur1tuy
act 8Dd deed. .
c,-~
I ~- .
~ ( } . ----....--
N~ . in;md fat the State ollowa
o.d&= SUW folder
Q); CA
PCD
Colmdl
Medfa Pile
"e:J "va.
j
G"-.
'-./
(
'---"'"'
20011WV 2 I PH 12: II
PROTESTOFREZONLNG
~
~ ~
CTTY OF IOHI:4Ctn
-.~-~
F!! j-' :---'1 l
I ~ .
I LI_-__j
('I'T'./ ,"J 1-:;-<\"
vi I IJl_~1 U
'IO\t\/L\ r~i.r\( 1(}\"NA
'II \ ....JI! 1 I, 'TO:
HONORABLBMA YOR AND CTIY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY. IOWA
, ,
We, the undersigned, being the OWPet'S of property included in the proposed zoning
chango,. or the owneq of property which is located within ~o hundred feet ~fthe exterior
.boundaries of the property fur whioh the ~ning change is propos~ do hereby protest the
- rezoning of rhe following property:
228 E6 Court Street. REZ07-0014 (former St. Patrick's Church)
....
This petition is signed and acknowledged by cacl1 ofus with the inte.ution that such
re:wning sluiU not become effective ~cept by the favorable vote of at least th:ree-fourtbs
of all the members of the council. all in accoJ'dancc 'With 414.5 'of the Code of Iowa.
By. ~~~~
Itryy 1"4) Viet. P~s;J....t ~;J5""1cs ~~I,~,
~a{); h,/ Howse Ap(M~/5' 3;lO S4>\C~ '~b\A'v.f, 5~.
Ownk{s) of' Property Address
'.
STATEOFIOWA )
') ss:
JOHNSON COUN'Ii.')
On this .;(}th. dayof ;)(/ ..21,./) , befo~ me, the tmdersigtted,
a N~ Public in and for said County and State. personally appeared
/1"'"",\/ ~v, VIS and
to me known to be the identical pcmons 1U1Ined in and who executed the within and
fure~oing instrument and aoknowledgcd that they executed the same as their voluntary
act and deed. .
Orlg: Stibd. :Polder
Co: CA
PCD
CoqadJ
Media File
TRACY PING
CommIsSion Number 721802
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
APRIL 9. 2009
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at 7:00 p.m., on
the 27th day of November, 2007, in the Council 9hambers, Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall, 410 E. Washington
Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by
the City Clerk; at which hearing the Council will receive comments on plans and specifications for the construction of
two duplex homes located on Lots 13 and 16, Longfellow Manor Subdivision under the Affordable Dream Home
Opportunities program.
Copies of the plans and specifications are on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, City
Hall, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, Iowa. Persons interested in expressing their views concerning this
matter, preferably in writing, will be given the opportunity to be heard at the above-mentioned time and place.
MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
Wpdata/hisadmin/nph11-27 -07 .doc
1
"'-.,
~
Nov-04
Form 653.C1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
AMENDMENT OF CURRENT CITY BUDGET
The City Council of Iowa City in
will meet at 410 E. Washington Street
JOHNSON
at
7:00 PM
on
11/27/07
(hour) (Date)
,for the purpose of amending the current budget of the city for the fiscal year ending June 30,
2008
(vear)
by changing estimates of revenue and expenditure appropriations in the following functions for the reasons given.
Additional detail is available at the city clerk's office showing revenues and expenditures by fund type and by activity.
Total Budget Total Budget
as certified Current after Current
or last amended Amendment Amendment
Revenues & Other Financina Sources
Taxes Levied on Property 1 39,973,488 0 39,973,488
Less: Uncollectted Properly Taxes-Levy Year 2 0 0
Net Current Property Taxes 3 39,973,488 0 39,973,488
Delinquent Properly Taxes 4 0 0 0
TIF Revenues 5 1,798,206 0 1,798,206
Other City Taxes 6 1,446,363 0 1,446,363
Licenses & Permits 7 1,260,091 4,835 1,264,926
Use of Money and Property 8 3,938,963 0 3,938,963
Intergovernmental 9 21,657,383 12,428,748 34,086,131
Charges for Services 10 37,721,095 -615 37,720,480
Special Assessments 11 0 0 0
Miscellaneous 12 4,566,683 115,000 4,681,683
Other Financing Sources 13 54,659,516 13,433,584 68,093,100
Total Revenues and Other Sources 14 167,021,788 25,981,552 193,003,340
Expenditures & Other Financina Uses
Public Safety 15 17,504,724 272,991 17,777,715
Public Works 16 11,135,061 282,755 11,417,816
Health and Social Services 17 0 0 0
Culture and Recreation 18 10,646,775 252,873 10,899,648
Community and Economic Development 19 6,041,351 260,839 6,302,190
General Government 20 7,891,847 -35,051 7,856,796
Debt Service 21 11,717,610 0 11,717,610
Capital Projects 22 14,251,738 20,645,517 34,897,255
Total Government Activities Expenditures 23 79,189,106 21,679,924 100,869,030
Business Type I Enterprises 24 45,878,428 8,849,126 54,727,554
Total Gov Activities & Business Expenditures 25 125,067,534 30,529,050 155,596,584
Transfers Out 26 43,686,586 13,433,584 57,120,170
Total ExpendituresITransters Out 27 168,754,120 43,962,634 212,716,754
Excess Revenues & Other Sources Over
(Under) ExpendituresITransters Out Fiscal Year 28 -1,732,332 -17,981,082 -19,713,414
Continuing Appropriation 29 0 N/A 0
Beginning Fund Balance July 1 30 97,790,612 23,631,740 121,422,352
Ending Fund Balance June 30 31 96,058,280 5,650,658 101,708,938
Explanation of increases or decreases in revenue estimates, appropriations, or available cash:
Continuation of capital improvement projects in process at 6/30/07 including grant funding and transfers from bond
proceeds and operating funds. Budget authority to pay open purchase orders and operating divisions projects
authorized in FY07 which were not complete. Remove Gilbert/Hwy 6 Dual left turn lane project and revised project
scope, reduced estimate for Church/Dubuque Street per City Council. Amend other CIP projects and use $83,046
General Fund contingency. Additional details at City Hall Finance Dept, City Clerk & Library.
There will be no increase in tax levies to be paid in the current fiscal year named above. Any increase in
expenditures set out above will be met from the increased non-property tax revenues and cash balances not
budgeted or considered in this current budget. This will provide for a balanced budget.
Marian K Karr
City Clerkl Finance Officer Name
I ~ !
~~~~tt
~~....~
-.:...
C I T Y 0 F lOW A C I T yen
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 16, 2007
From:
City Manager / City Council
Deb Mansfield, Budget Management Analyst
o~m~
To:
Re: FY 2008 Budget Amendment
Attached is the public hearing notice and supporting documentation to amend the FY2008 budget.
The public hearing notice appears in the Iowa City Press Citizen today. The public hearing is
scheduled for November 27,2007.
Intergovernmental revenues and Other Financing Sources (Transfers In) are the majority of the
revenue amendment. Both are related to carryover of Capital Improvement Projects and additions
to the CIP plan. Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources amendment is $25,981,552, line 14.
Expenditures and Other Financing Sources include carryover of FY07 budget authority for operating
departments and Capital Improvement Projects. Capital Improvement Projects is all of line 22
"Capital Projects", most of line 24 "Business Type / Enterprises" and line 26 "Transfers Out". Total
Expenditures / Transfers Out amendment is $43,962,634, line 27.
General Fund Summary:
The amendment uses $3.48 million of General Fund balance.
~ General Fund operating program expenditures increase by $0.9 million net of Streets and
Traffic move to RUT. It includes carryovers for Public Safety, Public Works, Culture &
Recreation, Community & Economic Development and General Government to complete
expenditures budgeted in FY07 and pay open purchase orders from 6/30/07.
~ Revenues from grants, licenses and permits is amended by $68,220, ($0.068 million)
~ An interfund loan receipt from Landfill for Fire Station #2 of $0.975 million is projected.
~ Transfers Out to Capital Improvement Projects from General Fund uses $3.22 million.
o Fire Station #2 Expansion $1.95 million
o Senior Center Projects $0.46 million (also see 08 G.O. uses - Pg 8)
o Transit Projects $0.48 million (using designated reserve)
o Showers Addition Land Purchase $0.35 million
o Economic Development CIP -$0.25 million (To GF Econ Dev Aid Agency)
o City Attorney Area Remodel $0.23 million
~ An Interfund loan of $400,000 ($0.4 million) from the General Fund to Airport for the UI
Hangar expansion is budgeted.
Streets and Traffic Operations have been moved out of the General Fund directly into the
Road Use Tax fund. This move has a net zero impact to the general fund and RUT balances
and will simplify the annual Road Use Tax report required by the state.
General Fund 6/30/07 Cash balance was $21.75 million, an increase of $3.63 million above
the estimated $18.12 million ending balance projected during the FY08-10 Financial Plan.
$3.48 million of the $3.63 million additional General Fund balance is obligated within this
proposed FY08 budget amendment.
Road Use Tax (RUT) carryovers and CIP revisions use $1.47 million of the 6/30/07 $2.25 million
cash balance. Road Use Tax was projected at $0.97 million ending FY07 balance within the FY08-
10 Financial Plan. See page 7 for a listing of the projects being funded from RUT in this
amendment.
The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) includes both carryover authority for FY07 projects and projects
being added or removed from the plan. A complete listing of the Capital Improvement projects being
amended is on pages 9 - 10. Highlights of significant changes in the CIP plan are:
Airport UI Hangar Expansion
Airport West Terminal Apron
City Hall Projects:
City Attorney Remodel
Lower Level Remodel
Court Hill Trail
Dubuque I Church Intersection
Dubuque I Church Radius Imprv.
Fire Station #2 Expansion
First Ave. Railroad Overpass
$400,000 interfund loan from General Fund to Airport
Carryover funded from property sale
$225,450 from General Fund
$155,000 from 08 G.O. Bonds
Increased project estimate by $310,000
Utilized this amount from $1 million Trail allocation 08 G.O.
Removed from CIP Plan, eliminated $400,000 grant
Added $170,000 to 08 G.O.
Interfund Loan $0.975 million
General Fund balance also funding $0.975 million
$230,000 from 08 G.O. Bonds for Design, contract in process
GilbertlHwy 6 Dual Left Turn Lanes Removed from CIP Plan, remove $1.5 M from 08 G.O.
Old Hwy 218 Water Main Ext.
Senior Center Building
Sand Lake Recreation CIP
$726,000 New project approved by Council in spring 2007
Funded from Water Operations
ADA Restrooms, Boiler & Chiller, Roof & Tuckpointing
Use $0.463 million General Fund balance
Add $0.78 million to 08 G.O. issue for these projects
Added purchase of Showers Addition $350,000
Funded from General Fund
Approval of the budget amendment resolution will be requested following the public hearing on
November 27,2007.
Please contact me or Kevin O'Malley, Finance Director with any questions.
City of Iowa City
FY 2008 Budget Amendment
November 27,2007
Table of Contents
I. Notice of Public Hearing... ... ... .. . ... . .. ... ... .. . ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . ... ... .. . ... .. . .. . ... ... .. . ....1
II. City Budget Amendment & Certification Resolution .. . .. . ...... ...... .. .. .. ... . .. . .. .. .... ...2
III. Program Detail .......................................................................................... 3
IV. Transfers Supplemental Schedule ... ....... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .........7
V. Capital Improvement Projects Summary... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .....9
Nov-Q4
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
AMENDMENT OF CURRENT CITY BUDGET
Form 653.Cl
The City Council of Iowa City in JOHNSON
will meet at 410 E. Washington Street
at 7:00 PM on 11/27107
~OOQ ~~
,for the purpose of amending the current budget of the city for the fiscal year ending June 30,
2008
Near)
by changing estimates of revenue and expenditure appropriations in the following functions for the reasons given.
Additional detail is available at the city clerk's office showing revenues and expenditures by fund type and by activity.
Total Budget
as certified
or last amended
Revenues & Other Financina Sources
Taxes Levied on Property
Less: Uncollectted Property Taxes-Levy Year
Net Current Prooertv Taxes
Delinquent Propertv Taxes
TIF Revenues
Other Citv Taxes
Licenses & Permits
Use of Monev and Propertv
Interaovernmental
Charges for Services
Soecial Assessments
Miscellaneous
Other Financing Sources
Total Revenues and Other Sources
...
1 39,973,488
2 0
3 39,973,488
4 0
5 1,798,206
6 1,446,363
7 1,260,091
8 3,938,963
9 21,657,383
10 37,721,095
11 0
12 4,566,683
13 54,659,516
14 167,021,788
...... .
............ .
............ .
............ ........
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
............ .
............ .
........... .
EXDenditures & Other Financina Uses
Public Safety
Pubiic Works
Health and Social Services
Culture and Recreation
Community and Economic Development
Generai Government
Debt Service
Capital Projects
Total Government Activities Expenditures
Business Tvpe I Enterprises
Total Gov Activities & Business Exoendltures
Transfers Out
Total ExpendltureslTransfers Out
Excess Revenues & Other Sources Over
Under) ExoendltureslTransfers Out Fiscal Year
Contlnulna Appropriation
Beginning Fund Balance July 1
Endlno Fund Balance June 30
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
................. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15 17,504,724
16 11,135,061
17 0
18 10,646,775
19 6,041,351
20 7,891,847
21 11,717,610
22 14,251,738
23 79,189,106
24 45,878,428
25 125,067,534
26 43,686,586
27 168,754,120
28 -1,732,332
29 0
30 97,790,612
31 96,058,280
Current
Amendment
Total Budget
after Current
Amendment
o 39,973,488
o
o 39,973,488
o 0
o 1,798,206
o 1,446,363
4,835 1,264,926
o 3,938,963
12,428,748 34,086,131
-615 37,720,480
o 0
115,000 4,681,683
13,433,584 68,093,100
........~~'~~.r'm.-..
. . . . . .272,991 17,777,715
282,755 11,417,816
o 0
252,873 10,899,648
260,839 6,302,190
-35,051 7,856,796
o 11,717,610
20,645,517 34,897,255
21,679,924 100,869,030
8,849,126 54,727,554
30,529,050 155,596,584
13,433,584 57,120,170
43,962,634 212,716,754
-17,981,082
NIA
23,631,740
5,650,658
-19,713,414
o
121,422,352
101,708,938
Explanation of increases or decreases in revenue estimates, appropriations, or available cash:
There will be no increase in tax levies to be paid in the current fiscal year named above. Any increase in
expenditures set out above will be met from the increased non-property tax revenues and cash balances not
budgeted or considered in this current budget. This will provide for a balanced budget.
Marian K Karr
City Clerk! Finance Officer Name