Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-04-18 CorrespondencePugh PrahmP. ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS 11 March 2 , 2016 VIA E-MA11L AND U.S. MAIL City Clerk, City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 (chris-guidry@iowa-city.org RE: Rezoning Application — REZ15-00019 Dear Mr. Guidry: 425 E. OAKDAL 5e(2) CORALVILLE, IOWA 52241 PHONE 319-351-2028 FAX 319-351-1102 PUGHHAGAN.COM MPUGH@PUGHHAGAN.COM On September 4, 2015, Sycamore, L.L.C. and Lake Calvin Properties, L.L.C. (collectively the "Owners") filed the above referenced Rezoning Application. The City's Planning and Zoning Commission discussed this Application and rendered its recommendation to the City Council on October 1, 2015. The Owners subsequently requested that the Application be deferred from further consideration by the City Council. The Owners respectfully ask that the Rezoning Application be placed on the City Council's meeting agenda for April 41 to set the public hearing for the May 2nd Council meeting Representatives for the applicant are not available to attend the Council's April 181i meeting. I would appreciate it if you would confirm this schedule. Should you have any questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, PUGH�HAGAN PRAHWLC Michael J. Pugh MJP/dab cc: Lake Calvin Properties, L.L.C. (via email only) Ms. Eleanor Dilkes (via email only) Mr. John Yapp (via email) Mr. Robert Miklo (via email only) (00068943) To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ15-00019 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Comprehensive Plan: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Bob Miklo Date: October 1. 2015 Pugh Hagen Prahm PLC Michael J. Pugh 1100 6'^ Street, Suite 102 Coralville, IA 52241 (319)351-2028 mpugh@pughhagan.com Rezoning from ID -RM and RRA to RM -20 Development of multifamily dwellings South of Lehman Avenue and East of Soccer Park Road 42.01 acres Agricultural - ID -RM 38.49 acres and RR1 3.52 acres North: Open space (Sycamore Greenway) -131 South: Wastewater treatment plant - P1 East: Open space (Sycamore Greenway) — P1 West: Agricultural - ID -RS South District Plan September 4, 2015 October 19, 2015 The applicant is requesting approval of a rezoning to Medium Density Multifamily Residential (RM - 20). This property was annexed into the city in 1994 as part of the 422 -acre Sycamore Farms annexation. At that time of the initial application the applicant had requested that the subject property be zoned Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM -12). The request was later amended to seek RM -20 zoning for this property. In response to the applicant's request the City took the position, as indicated in a staff memorandum, that given the lack of essential City services, the requested zoning designation was premature, and that as the surrounding areas developed and City services including arterial street access is provided, the merits of the requested multifamily zoning designation could be re-examined. Staff also raised the concern about zoning such a large area for multifamily development. Upon annexation the bulk of the subject property (38.49 acres) was zoned Interim Development — Multifamily Residential (ID -RM); and 3.52 acres was zoned Rural Residential (RR -1) and subject to conservation easement prohibiting development due to the presence of wetlands. The annexation resolution states that this was a voluntary annexation upon application by the owner, Sycamore Farms. The rezoning was subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA — copy attached) containing provisions mostly to address the environmentally sensitive features on the property, as well as a requirement to dedicate land for a school, provide pedestrian access, and provide infrastructure improvements. This property is located within the South District of Iowa City. As with all rezoning requests, the current application should be considered based on the Comprehensive Plan including the South District Plan, Future Land Use Map, adequacy of infrastructure and services to accommodate the uses and intensity of development allowed by the requested zoning. ANALYSIS: Current zoning: The property is currently zoned ID -RM. The purpose of an Interim Development (ID) zone is to provide for areas of managed growth in which agricultural and other nonurban uses of land may continue until such time as the City is able to provide City services and urban development can occur. This is the default zoning to which all undeveloped areas should be classified until City services are provided. Upon provision of City services, the City or the property owner may initiate rezoning to zones consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The principle uses allowed in the ID zone are plant related agricultural. Farm dwellings are allowed if they are associated with an agricultural use. The minimum lot size of the ID zone is 10 acres. Although the ID -RM designation indicates the possible future consideration for multifamily zoning, it is not a guarantee of such zoning. The permanent zoning designation must consider the policies and land use map contained in the Comprehensive Plan in effect at the time a rezoning application is made, as well as the development character of the surrounding neighborhood and the adequacy of infrastructure and services to serve the proposed density. Proposed zoning: The purpose of RM -20 zone is to provide for the development of medium density multi -family housing. This zone is particularly well suited to locations adjacent to commercial areas and in areas with good access to all city services and facilities. This zone allows a mix of detached and attached single-family housing, duplexes, and multi -family housing. The Zoning Code states that careful attention to site and building design is important to ensure that the various housing types in any one location are compatible with one another. The RM -20 zone requires a minimum of 1,800 square feet per 1 and 2 -bedroom units, and 2,700 square feet per 3 -bedroom unit. Based on these requirements up to 675 three bedroom apartments or 1000 one and two-bedroom apartments could be developed on this property if it were zoned RM -20. If public streets are platted to serve the development, the actual density would be less than the maximum stated, but even assuming that 45% of the property is devoted to public streets, over 600 dwelling units could be constructed under the proposed RM -20 designation. Comprehensive Plan: The property falls within the South District Plan, which was adopted in 1997; the plan is currently undergoing an update that will be considered by the City Council on October 20. The current plan states: "The predominate land use in the South District will be single-family residential. However, neighborhoods will also contain areas where low to medium 3 density multifamily, town house and duplex style housing will mix compatibly with single-family housing. The medium density housing options should be carefully designed and located to take advantage of major infrastructure investments, such as arterial streets, and goods and services, which are provided in the neighborhood commercial center. Medium density housing should be compatible in scale and density to blend with single-family neighborhood." The plan contains guidelines indicating that large concentrations of multifamily development should be avoided. To a help ensure a variety of housing stock and control the scale and density of multifamily lots the plan indicates that multifamily zoning should be located at the intersections of collector and arterial streets and limited to no more than 24 units at any one in intersection. The Future Land Use Scenario contained in the current South District Plan (see Exhibit A), depicts this specific property as being appropriate for single-family lots on the south, smaller single-family and duplex lots toward the north with townhouses along the northern boundary adjacent to Lehman Avenue. The proposed update to the South District Plan contains polices that are similar to the current plan regarding encouraging a mix of housing types within new neighborhoods. Also, similar to the existing South District Plan, the proposed land use map (see Exhibit B) depicts the majority of this property as being appropriate for low to medium density single-family development with the possibility of low to medium mixed density, including smaller lot single-family, duplex, zero - lot line and townhouse development, adjacent to Lehman Avenue. The text of the plan indicates the potential for small multifamily buildings for sites where clustering is desirable to protect environmentally sensitive areas or to encourage single loaded streets (streets with development only on one side with open space on the other side). The proposed RM -20 designation does not comply with the current South District Plan or the proposed draft plan. Specifically it is counter to the policy of not creating large concentrations of multifamily development and the direction to place multifamily development in areas with adequate infrastructure and access to goods, services and transit. It does not comply with the adopted or proposed land use plan showing predominately single-family development with townhouses and small areas of multifamily adjacent to Lehman Avenue. It also does not comply with the overall Comprehensive Plan policy promoting compact and contiguous development: "Encourage compact, efficient development that is contiguous and connected to existing neighborhoods to reduce the cost of extending infrastructure and services..." (IC2030: Comprehensive Plan Update - page 23). Similar goals and polices are also repeated on page 27 of the Plan: "Encourage a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods. Concentrate new development in areas contiguous to existing neighborhoods where it is most cost effective to extend infrastructure and services." Adequacy of Infrastructure and Services: The proposed RM -20 zone is in an area that has experienced limited development due to lack of adequate infrastructure. As stated by the Iowa City Zoning Code, RM -20 zones are recommended in areas of the city that have good access to commercial and City services. This property does not have good access to either. The nearest commercial development, the Iowa City Market Place (formerly the Sycamore Mall) is located two miles to the northeast. The closest transit stop is at the intersection of Sycamore and Burns Avenue approximately 1.5 miles the northeast from center this property. Given the current street pattern in this area it would be very difficult for the City to extend bus service to the area. The limited street network would also make access for police and fire protection less than ideal. It may be possible in the future that commercial development will occur closer to this property and that transit routes will be expanded to come closer to this property. But at this time the property falls short of meeting the criteria necessary to support multifamily development. 4 Sycamore Street, which was recently upgraded to arterial street standards, terminates approximately 1,500 feet to the west of the property. Although a portion of Lehman Avenue is being reconstructed as part of the Sycamore Street project, it is not being built to City standards. It will be built as a chip seal surface to the intersection with Soccer Park Road. The remaining 400 feet of Lehman Road between Soccer Park Road and this property has a gravel surface. The applicant has indicated a willingness to enter a Conditional Zoning Agreement requiring improvement of Lehman Avenue, but would expect contributions toward these road costs from the adjacent property owner and from the City. Other than a special assessment, a difficult process the City has not undertaken in many years, the City does not have a mechanism to require the adjacent owner to contribute to the cost of improving Lehman Avenue. The City's contribution would have to come from the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for which there are competing projects. The CIP currently does not include improvement of Lehman Avenue. In staffs view there does not appear to be a compelling reason for the City to reallocate funds from other planned infrastructure improvements to encourage development on the far outskirts of the city, while there are intervening properties that could be more efficiently developed in terms of infrastructure costs, maintenance and provision of City services. Summary: The applicant contends that the ID -RM designation was negotiated as part of an annexation agreement and implies that there was a commitment to zone this property RM -20. Staff found no documentation to support the claim of an agreement to zone this property to multifamily. Zoning decisions must be made in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan after giving consideration to such factors as efficient urban development patterns, controlling congestion of streets, safety, health and welfare of the public. Public policy dictates that this police power be freely exercised by the City Council in order to respond to changes in the community's needs and concerns. The subject property is not in an area designated for extensive multifamily development. Further this area is not adequately served by infrastructure or City services, and therefore the requested zoning does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. The portion of the property that is zoned RR -1 is subject to a conservation easement that prohibits its development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that an application submitted by Pugh Hagen Prahm PLC for a rezoning from Interim Development Multifamily (ID -RM) zone for 38.49 acres and Rural Residential (RR1) zone for 3.52 acres to Medium Density Multifamily (RM -20) zone for property located south of Lehman Avenue, east of Soccer Park Road be denied. (REZ15-00019) ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Applicants statement in support of rezoning 3. 1994 Conditional Zoning Agreement 4. Exhibit A — South District Future Land Use Scenario 5. Exhibit B — Draft South District Future Land Use Plan Approved by: John Yapp, Develobment Services Coordinator, Department of Neighborhood and Development Services I http://w .icgov.org/site/CMSv2/File/planning/urban/ZoningMap.pdf UUwment rain:a:1rt.utLucatmn mayamv Iiv-vw ia.Iuwa City of Iowa City REZ15-00019 Lehman Ave. and Soccer Park Rd. F- 0 0. . rte^ Com' r E)El Prepared by: Marti We Feet Date Prepared: September 201 2 00 4.000 -♦ r \.f ITT. __. s STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF REZONING Sycamore, L.L.C. and Lake Calvin Properties, L.L.C. (the "Property Owners") acquired the properties which are the subject of this Rezoning Application in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Originally, the properties were part of a larger 420 acre tract of land that was zoned for multi- family development under Johnson County's zoning code. However, on September 15, 1994, the City of Iowa City (the "City") annexed the original tract, including the properties at issue, within the City's limits and jurisdiction. The properties' annexation was the subject of lengthy negotiations between the Property Owners and the City beginning in early 1992. The City desired to annex the properties so that the newly constructed Wastewater Treatment Plant would be contiguous to City limits; the annexation allowed the City to link the Plant's facilities to its corporate limits. The Property Owners, however, opposed the annexation. Through negotiations, the City and the Property Owners were able to reach a mutual agreement regarding the properties' annexation as well as their future development. Annexation of the properties was made possible through a series of bargained -for considerations given between the parties. The City required the property owners to: (i) delineate certain wetlands known as the "Snyder Creek Bottoms" and restrict those areas from development; (ii) dedicate to the public a Conservation Easement protecting approximately 200 acres of the original tract from further development; and (iii) enter into a Conditional Zoning Agreement for the development of the remaining property of the original tract. In return, the Property Owners insisted that: (i) the City designate the properties with a RM -20 multi -family zoning designation; and (ii) the City give proper consideration for the Snyder Creek Bottoms wetlands. The City did so and zoned the properties as ID -RM, Interim Development Multi -Family Residential. It classified the properties under the Interim Development designation because at the time of the annexation, the properties were not served by adequate infrastructure and services, namely a suitable road. The City also gave the properties' their multi -family residential zoning status with the understanding that the "ID" moniker would be removed once an adequate road was constructed to access the Properties. The properties are now ripe for development under the City's Medium Density Multi -Family Residential Zone (RM -20). Adequate infrastructure and services, including an access road, to the properties is now feasible given the development of Sycamore Avenue and the construction of a new elementary school. The properties will be served by a street network that has improved substantially since 1994. fthe Owners would be willing to enter into a Conditional Zoning Agreement requiring the improvement of Lehman Road as a condition precedent to development of the properties, but would expect equitable contribution for these road costs from adjoining property owners and the City. Additionally, the properties are located adjacent to the Pleasant Valley Golf Course, the Iowa City Kickers Soccer Park, the protected wetlands area, and less than three miles from the commercial corridor of Highway 6, providing them with ideal access to commercial amenities, and city services and facilities. This zoning designation will pgvide this area with a broader range of housing types, consistent with the City's goal of pra—yidingwordable housing. ` CZ (00052141) 1994 CZA CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a Municipal Corporation (hereinafter "City") and Sycamore Farms Company, an Iowa General Partnership (hereinafter "Owner"). WHEREAS, Owner has requested the City to annex and rezone approximately 422 acres of land located south of Highway 6, east of Sycamore Street and west of Sioux Avenue, legally described on Exhibit A, from the County designation of RS, Suburban Residential and R3A, Multi -Family Residential, to RS -8, Medium Density Single -Family Residential, RFBH, Factory Built Housing Residential, RM -12, Low Density Multi -Family Residential, RM -20, Medium Density Multi -Family Residential, RRA, Rural Residential and ID -RM, Interim Development Residential Multi -Family; and WHEREAS, Iowa Code § 414.5 (1993) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting Owner's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs directly caused by the requested change; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the anhgxation policy of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the proposed rezoning is subject to the developer agreeing to pay all of the costs associated with providing infrastructure for development of the subject tract, except for any oversized costs for an east - west arterial street if such an arterial street is located through the development; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to ensure the appropriate allocation and suitability of neighborhood open space and the availability of a public school site; and WHEREAS, the property contains wetlands, areas of hydric soils and other environmentally sensitive features; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan, it is the City's policy to preserve and protect environmentally sensitive areas; and WHEREAS, a contractual agreement with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) obligates the City to protect environmentally sensitive areas in the vicinity of the Southeast Interceptor Sewer line from potential adverse effects of development; and WHEREAS, Owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are appropriate in order to ensure appropriate urban development on the southeastern edge of Iowa City. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the Parties agree as follows: Sycamore Farms Company is the owner and legal title holder of the property located south of Highway 6, east of Sycamore Street, and west of Sioux Avenue, legally described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. 2. The Parties acknowledge that, pursuant to the annexation policy contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan, the proposed rezoning is subject to the developer agreeing to pay all of the costs associated with providing infrastructure for development of the subject tract, except for any oversized costs for an east -west arterial street if such an arterial street is to be located through the development. 1;93 1'--c1 220 -2- 3. Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure appropriate allocation of neighborhood open space and the availability of a public school site and that it is the City's policy and obligation to preserve and protect environmentally sensitive areas. Therefore, Owner agrees to certain conditions over and above City regulations in order to lessen the impact of the development on the area. 4. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property from County RS and R3A, Owner agrees that development and use of the subject property will conform to the requirements of the applicable zones: RS -8, Medium Density.Single-Family Residential, RFBH, Factory Built Housing Residential, RM -12, Low Density Multi -Family Residential, RM -20, Medium Density Multi -Family Residential, RRA, Rural. Residential and ID -RM, Interim Development Residential Multi -Family. In addition, the development and use of the subject property will conform to the following additional conditions: Owner will take adequate measures to protect the area and natural features generally described as the "Snyder Creek Bottoms" from any adverse effects from development of adjacent areas. Owner shall specify the protection measures in mitigation plans as required in subsections b and c below. Owner must prepare the mitigation plans at its sole expense and the plans must receive City approval. b. Owner will initially submit a general concept plan for the entire subject property entitled "Wetlands Mitigation Report for Sycamore Farms Development". This mitigation plan will provide a general outline of the Owner's protection measures including but not limited to storm water management. The general mitigation plan must also include a concept plan for a trail or walkway system within the "Snyder Creek Bottoms". C. With each preliminary plat, Owner will submit a specific mitigation plan for the platted area. This specific mitigation plan must contain the engineering details for the mitigation and protection measures for the platted area, including but not limited to design details, specifications, and materials. The specific details regarding the location and construction of the trail system must be included in the mitigation plan for each platted area. d. Owner shall construct the trail or walkway system when either 50% of the property in the RS -8 and RFBH zones has developed or when the ID -RM area is rezoned, whichever occurs first. e. Preservation of the "Snyder Creek Bottoms" via the establishment of a conservation easement approved by the City. Owner will establish a 100 foot no -build buffer zone around all jurisdictional wetlands located outside of the conservation easement, except those for which mitigation is approved, as set forth in the conservation easement. Owner will also establish a 100 foot no -build buffer zone' around all jurisdictional wetlands located within the conservation easement and within 100 feet of the conservation easement boundary. g. Owner shall inventory and document the jurisdictional wetlands, other conservation values and the location of existing farming activities in the "Snyder Creek Bottoms". The City must approve said inventory and documentation. 1733 AGE 221 r .3- h. Owner shall dedicate neighborhood open space to the City or pay fees in lieu of dedication. The amount of open space Owner must dedicate shall be based on the formula contained in the neighborhood open space plan. Owner shall grant a pedestrian access easement over the existing Southeast Interceptor Sanitary Sewer easement or in an alternative location, approved by the City, to connect the trails within the Whispering Meadows Subdivision and the City -owned property to the south of the Sycamore Farms property. j. Owner shall covenant with the City to reserve fifteen acres to be used for construction of a public school. Owner, the City and the Iowa City Community School District shall negotiate the location of the parcel for the potential school site. Owner will retain possession of the parcel until the parcel may be conveyed to the Iowa City Community School District as described herein. The covenant will run with the title to that parcel which shall be designated a "potential school site" on the Final Plat. This covenant shall remain in effect until released of record by the City as set forth herein. If the Iowa City Community School District decides to use the site and applies for a Building Permit to build a school on the designated parcel within fifteen (15) years from the date the parties execute this Conditional Zoning Agreement, Owner shall convey the site to the School District. If the School District has not applied for a Building Permit within fifteen (15) years from the date the parties execute this Conditional Zoning Agreement, the covenant will expire and the use of the parcel shall revert to the Owner. At that time, the City will execute a release of the covenant so that the covenant will not constitute a lien and cloud on the title to the parcel. That release will be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at Owner's expense. If during the time period the covenant is in effect, the City enacts an Ordinance requiring the payment of a School Impact Fee as part of the Final Plat approval process, Owner will pay the required fees for those subdivision parts which have not yet received Final Plat approval. No impact fees shall be paid for those subdivision parts which have already received Final Plat approval at the time of the enactment of the impact fee ordinance. However, if the School District uses the site to construct a school and accepts conveyance of the site, the City and/or the School District will rebate to the Owner all fees previously paid and Owner shall not be required to pay any additional impact fees for subdivision parts which may subsequently be submitted for final plat approval. If at any time. during the fifteen (15) years following execution of this Conditional Zoning Agreement, the School District determines that the reserved site will not be used for a public school, the School District will notify the City and Owner, and the City will execute a release of the covenant upon receipt of written notice that Owner has paid the required impact fees, if any. k. Owner shall pay all costs associated with providing infrastructure for development of the subject tract, including oversized costs, except for the oversized costs for an east -west arterial street if such an arterial street is located through the development. 1793 racE 222 -4- 5. The Owner acknowledges that the conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code § 414.5 (1993), and that said conditions satisfy public needs which are directly caused by the requested zoning change. 6. The Owner acknowledges that in the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this Agreement. 7. The Parties that this Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant running with the title to the land unless or until released of record by the City. The Parties further acknowledge that this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and bind all successors, representatives and assigns of the Parties. 8. Owner acknowledges that nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to relieve the applicant from complying with all applicable local, state and federal regulations. 9. The Parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the Ordinance rezoning the subject property; and that upon adoption and publication of the Ordinance, this Agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office. Dated this 15 day of 1994. SYCAMORE FARMS COMPANY CITY OF IOWA CITY By C) 'JJ�• Stephen F. Br4dht, General Partner Approved by: City Attorney's Office Byr Susan M. Horowitz, Mayor Attest: �f • 9fi Marian K. Karr, City Clerk CORPORATE SEAL ;:.1793 'acl 223 a rind. r..aly puVlex mN. snidl La Sini4 t'n,dy I,mnhWv.. srannrnrh,.ne n,nJ.r yi-3a .ei'arlmml.� PuLF. Oen, SP..r - OIM1rr Uren yw'e * ni.h.d. rrnryw.. Exhibit A - Gemval l'unm.aa'ua - VeiiMnrchaN Cnrvnadd _ InlmenH b,mnmd - IneliM1.V.mt �J Nner rwlun 4.umry Stun N.mle � � � CnnaWud artrnal +4al dlpmaelLL Exhibit B Lo Medium Density Single Family Residential LcwMedium Density Mixed Residential Multitarlily Commercial Mixed use Commercial Schod 4 Public Park/Opm Space Private Open Space/Sensitive Area Other Public Property >♦' Historic Property Dear Planning and Zoning Commission: I'm writing in regards to the rezoning application for almost 40 acres of land in southeast Iowa City on the Planning & Zoning Commission's agenda for Thursday. I would appreciate it if you would share the comments with the commissioners. I have lived in Iowa City since 1990 and the south planning district since 2003, and love the growth and development the area has seen since that time. The mix of housing is a great strength of our neighborhood. However I am deeply concerned that the approval of this rezoning application will inexorably harm our neighborhood, and urge the commission to deny the rezoning request. Despite the applicant's claims, this area is far from commercial centers, requiring additional car traffic. The roads are hardly adequate to serve the multi family housing in the county and already adjacent to Lehman Avenue. The developer's seeming unwilling to invest in the upgrades necessary to serve their property suggests an unwillingness to be a cooperative partner in the neighborhood. The former Lakeside Apartments is a constant reminder of the negative long-term effect large, dense multi family development has had this neighborhood. And this proposed rezoning covers about twice as much area as that complex. Additionally, I'm deeply concerned by the impact such a zoning designation and the following development would have on the newly build Alexander and the older Grant Wood elementary schools, as well as on the unique, important and environmentally sensitive wetlands adjacent to the property. I strongly urge the commission to deny the rezoning request. Thank you for your time, Nick Bergus 2231 California Ave., Iowa City From: Meggan Fisher <meggfisher@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2015 5:35 PM To: Bob Miklo Subject: Development in SE Iowa City Good afternoon - Today on Facebook I saw a post that said there was an unnamed development company looking to re -zone an area of 40 acres in Iowa City near the wetlands for the purpose of a very large scale apartment living. Is there any public information available on this? Based on what I know of it, which isn't much admittedly, I would like to express my disapproval at the threat to the wetlands of the SE side. I also have some real questions about a complex of buildings at that scale and how it could/would be supported by the infrastructure, economically, etc. Thank you for your time. Megg Fisher anu0134muelS 6L ApJog alai 'Alajaou!S •8u!ualsil Jo} s:Iueyl 'Ali:) enrol iseay;nog u! sluawdolanap 2uisno4 ainin} 2uiuiwjalap uaym--awo3 o; sje9A Auew jo; aaj;-awij3 pue 'A4lleay'algels poo4jog42!au ino clavi o; aj!sap ino pue--u0!lejapisuo3 olui sjogy8iau molla; Aw pue aw se 4ons sluapisaj }o swa3uoo a4l qei l!!m Ai!o 941 leyi adoy Aw s jI •anil s,Iey1 aas of sluawdolanap Aempeag pue (SM asoa mou) lu!od uigdloQ ayl le 1001 01 sey Aluo auo--pooyjog48!au a!gels as!mjaylo ue uo 13edwi amieflau a aney uea aoeds asuap a ul wayl}o Auew ool •pooM;Mg aJil spoo4jogy2!au pays!Ige;sa jo} 8uiy; Isaq ay; sAemle lou aue Aayl'Allunwwoo a u! 8uisno4 algepjol;e jo; puewap 041laaw dla4 uea sliun 8sa4l aI!yM •AemAue 1aA lou --shun Allwe;-!llnw Aue aney l,usaop leyl pooyao949!aN pooM;uejE) a4110 ped a ui an!I o; aleun:wo; laa} am •sn punole do 8u!ma2 aie le4l sluawdolanap;o sadA1 ay1 lnoge pauwa3uo3 aj,am 'sjoggSiau ano;o Auew mill Ing 0412u!op s,leyi auo snsaaA 2UIMa8 s,1eyl umoi a u! 9A!I a84lel 4onw pInom ! pue puegsny AW •alisoddo ';ea�2 s! ssaa8ad palana;suoa uaaq aney sasnoy AI!we;-a12u!s mau uazop oml ueyl aaow pue 'p!el uaaq aney slaaals mau 'padolanap uaaq aney suo!s!A!pgns mau 'lllnq uaaq sey !oo43s Ajeluawa!a mau a 'pooyjogy8!au s!41 ul pan!l aA,9M saeaA omi ayl ul ,Ali:) enrol inoge anol am s2uiy; aqj lie pue sgof ano wa; solnu!w isnf aa,aM •aaay awoy le pue ales Iaa; am •poo4aog48!au ano;o Ai!s1aA!p ayl anol am -spew aana am su01913ap Isaq ayl}o auo uaaq s,l! pue'g Aem42IH }o ylnos asnoy a i48noq am'>Joys Ajols 8uol •1eaj8 ale 1241 slapod Auew ajayl Inq 'lea12 os 1,uaae le4l slalood ale auayi'saA'pauiwaalap pue pueasaa umo AW p!p ! �Wa41 an!! a!doad Auew os op A4m 'algijjal os s! g }o 41nos 2uin!l }I :aw uo paumep 11 Aep auo uayl 'paj!I Alleaa am 2uiylAue pug l,up!p pue g Aem43!H }o yliou pa4ojeas am og •saii!Iiq!ssod Auew paleu!wila am '4oaeas ino ui 11 8wpnloui lou Aq 'pue eaje a0jel a si si4i'mou�i noA sy •salel awia3 y8iy y;im s;a�laod 2uiney;o uoilelndai s,eaje s!41 of anp g Aemy2!H;o y;nos sasnoy Ie 8u!�i001 pone of s�Ilo; ma; a Aq pas!Ape ajam am'4aaeas mo ueflaq am sy •sgof jno;o yaea }o sainu!w SI -0I u!41!m an!I of sem Ai!ioud puoaas.inp •asnoy mau e ]o; yaaeas Ino u! A;uoud;sn}ino sem ;eyl seaae 8u!punoams a4l;o Aue lou --Al!:) enrol u! 2u!AII lnoge luewepe aaam am ,All:) emol 01 avow Alleug of 9aue4a ayi ie podwnf am •alllMeaoO u! Al!unpoddo mau a paaa}}o sem puegsny Aw uaym Alp emol 3S u! qof Aw of auileasnW wa; 2ui;nwwoo uaaq pe4 I -Ali:) emol u! Anq of asnoy a n; 8ui:lool aaam I pue puegsny Aw 'o2e saeaA omi ApeaN ,All:) enrol iseaylnoS ui s;!un Al!we;-!Ilnw }o Al!suap 48!4 a4l'A!leogioads 'pue Iuawdolanap 2u!snoy--aw 1o} waouoo leai8 }o loafgns a ssaippe of a�I!l pinom pue poo4jogy2!aN pooh Iueag ayl u! an!l I '�Iaam s141 ma!Aaa 1o; do Su'WOa old wyead uageH 42nd woa; isanbai 8wuozal ayl of ple8aa u! 8u!1!Im we ! :sjagwaw uo!ss!wwo:) Z'8d Alp emo! pue qog aea0 Old w4wd ua6eH y6nd wo1};sanbal 6u!uozaa :;oafgng Wd ZZ:6 9I,0Z 'LZ jagwa;dag 'Aepung ques <tuo3•I!ew6@Apao6wa;> Ap1oE) wal :wad From: Rebecca Bergus <rbergus@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 3:43 PM To: Bob Mildo Subject: rezoning REZ 15-00019 I do not think the rezoning of this parcel of land in the southern part of Iowa City is appropriate at this time. It would put a large number of people in an undeveloped and environmentally sensitive area. The developer is unknown and there seem to be no preliminary designs. I don't think there is adequate information for the city to move ahead with a change of this magnitude. Thank you. Rebecca Bergus 418 Wales Street Iowa City, IA 52245 Dear Mr. Miklo, Could you please pass along this correspondence to the members of the Planning & Zoning Commission? I am writing to request that the Commission deny the application by Pugh Hagen Prahm PLC for rezoning of approximately 42 acres to the RM -20 zone, item D on the agenda for the October 1, 2015 meeting. I am a lifelong Iowa City resident. I grew up on Regal Lane, a short distance due north of the requested rezoning. I now live on California Avenue, just a few blocks from where I grew up. My family and I frequently use the Sycamore Greenway Trail and also run and bike on the adjacent roadways, all times of year. I am very familiar with the area proposed for rezoning, and the fact that it is in no way primed for multifamily development. The rezoning requested should be denied for several reasons. First, it goes against the current and proposed plans for the South District for medium -density single family and mixed low-to-medium density uses. This request is for a huge, potentially homogeneous section of what would be very high density housing given the surrounding area. This is not the place for hundreds of units that would be separated from any contiguous development. Second, the whole of Iowa City deserves and should demand a better allocation of public resources than this rezoning would allow. Water, sewer, refuse, bus service, roads, and fire and police protection would have to be extended far beyond their current (and planned) capacity to serve this development. All while the City is facing years of anticipated budget shortfalls due to changes in property tax law. The proposed density would require disproportionate infrastructure and support for many services that must leap -frog over undeveloped land. That is wasteful and unfair to the public. Third, non -City entities should not have to accommodate this intensity of use when it is not in the public plans. For example, telecommunications, and energy providers could not anticipate the level of infrastructure required for hundreds of units this far out of town, and such a build -out could easily harm their ability to serve existing customers. The County of Johnson County must deal with impacts on its infrastructure so near this development. And the Iowa City Community School District would be faced with terrible overcrowding and renewed boundary concerns in its new school that was not built to serve anything like the requested rezoning. Fourth, the South District's history teaches us that big chunks of multifamily housing have not worked out well. Look no further than the former Lakeside and Broadway Apartments for examples of failed or struggling multifamily developments here. The developer is correct that we need more affordable housing. But we do not need 42 acres of RM -20. What Iowa City needs here is more like a planned area development with mixed uses and a variety of housing a building types, including commercial opportunities closer than the three miles away. This rezoning proposal appears to seek to maximize the number of units on property that is not adequately served, with an unwillingness to even pay for all the basic infrastructure improvements to make it possible. Please deny the request for rezoning this property to RM -20. Sincerely, Laura Bergus 2231 California Avenue Iowa City, Iowa 52240 319-541-9677 To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: REZ16-0008/SUB16-00012 Larson Subdivision GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact Person: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Bob Miklo Date: March 16, 2017 Kevin Hanick 88 Hickory Heights Lane Iowa City, IA 52245 Mark Seabold Shive Hattery 2839 Northgate Drive Iowa City, IA 52245 319-354-3040 Rezoning to OPD -12 and preliminary plat and sensitive areas development plan approval Development of a single family residential lot and one lot with 60 multi -family dwellings 2201 North Dubuque Road (the property also has frontage on Scott Boulevard) 12.28 acres Residential RS -5 and ID -RS (in process of being rezoned to RM -12) North: Office (ACT Campus) - ORP East: Office (ACT Campus) - ORP South: Undeveloped - ID -RS West: Residential and undeveloped — RS -5 and ID - RS Northeast District Plan — office park with residential as a potential alternative use. February 23, 2017 April 9, 2017 5e(3) The applicant, Kevin Hanick, is requesting approval of the preliminary plat of Larson Subdivision, a 2 -lot, 12.28 -acre residential subdivision located at 2201 North Dubuque Road. The northern tract, Lot 1 is planned to be the location of a new single family dwelling for the property's current 2 owners. The existing house and accessory buildings are planned to be removed from Lot 2. The City Council has approved first reading of an ordinance rezoning Lot 2 to Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM -12) with a Conditional Zoning Agreement allowing a maximum of 60 dwelling units. The property contains regulated slopes and woodlands. The preliminary plat includes a sensitive areas development plan indicating grading and tree clearing within the 50 -foot buffer for the protected slope located in the southeastern portion of Lot 2. The zoning ordinance requires approval of a Planned Development Overlay where disturbance of a protected slope buffer is proposed. Therefore this application requires a rezoning from Low Density Multifamily (RM -12) to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Multifamily (OPD/RM-12). The applicant has indicated that they have chosen not to use the "Good Neighbor Policy". ANALYSIS: Comprehensive Plan: As noted in the staff report for the recent rezoning of this property (REZ16- 00008) The Northeast District Plan map shows the area north of Scott Boulevard, including this property, as being appropriate for Office Research Park development, but the text of the Plan notes that alternative uses, including residential should be considered. The text of the Plan also encourages a diversity of housing including multifamily near Scott Boulevard. In Staff's view, the proposed subdivision for two residential lots is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning: Lot 1 is currently zoned RS -5. The proposed lot exceeds the minimum 60 foot lot width and 8,000 square foot minimum lot area required in that zone. The sensitive areas plan shows that there will sufficient land area for a single family dwelling and associated accessory buildings outside of the sensitive areas. Lot 2 is in the process of being rezoned to RM -12. Lot 2 exceeds the minimum 60 foot lot width and 8125 square foot lot area required in the zone. The sensitive areas plan illustrates that development will be in conformance with the Conditional Zoning Agreement currently be considered by the City Council. Subdivision design: No new streets are proposed for this subdivision. Access to Lot 1 will be from Dubuque Road. Lot 2 will have one driveway access to Scott Boulevard. The proposed driveway onto Scott Boulevard has been located where it will provide for adequate site distance. The steep ravines located on this and adjacent properties would make the creation of an interconnected street network typically required in residential subdivisions infeasible. The portion of Dubuque Road adjacent to the north side of Lot 1 is currently in an easement. The subdivision plat includes dedication of the owners half of the road to the City as street right- of-way (Outlot A.) Sensitive Areas: The property contains regulated slopes and woodlands. Lot 1 includes a construction limit line that confines potential development areas to the portions of the property that do not contain regulated slopes and woodlands. On Lot 2, disturbance of woodlands and slopes is generally limited to the area necessary for the stormwater management facilities proposed in the southern part of the ravine. Smaller areas of disturbance will occur along the west edge of the driveway for Lot 2. Tree removal and grading necessary for the stormwater management facilities will impact the 50 -foot protected slope buffer. Stormwater detention facilities are permitted within buffer areas if they are designed and constructed to minimize their impact upon the protected sensitive PGMStaH Rep OsWaR report preliminary platdo"z areas and associated buffers. The design and construction should include measures to protect against erosion, pollution and habitat disturbance, and result in minimal amounts of excavation and filling. The City Engineer is currently reviewing a revised stormwater management plan and anticipates completing the review prior to the March 16 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. As proposed the 17.5% of the steep slopes, 2.5% of the critical slopes and 18.9% of the woodlands will be affected. This may change depending on City Engineer review of the stormwater management facilities. Neighborhood Open Space: A subdivision of this size requires the dedication of .70 acres of neighborhood open space or fees in lieu of. The Parks and Recreation Department has determined that fees are appropriate in lieu of land dedication. The fee will be equivalent to the value of 30,867 square feet of property. This requirement will need to be addressed in the legal papers for the final plat. Infrastructure fees: The water main extension fee of $435 per acre will apply to this subdivision and should be noted in the legal paperwork. There are no sanitary sewer tap fees that apply to this area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends deferral pending resolution of any deficiencies identified on the recently submitted preliminary plan and sensitive areas development plan. Upon resolution of any identified issues, staff recommends approval of a rezoning of approximately 10.26 acres from Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM -12) to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Multifamily Residential (OPD/RM-12) zone and a preliminary plat and sensitive areas development plan of Larson Subdivision, a 2 -lot, 12.28 -acre residential subdivision located north of Scott Boulevard between Hickory Heights Lane and First Avenue. (R EZ 16-00008/sub 16-00012 ) DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES: Revised Plan: A revised preliminary plat and sensitive areas development plan were submitted on March 10. Staff is in the process of reviewing the plans to assure that all deficiencies and discrepancies have been resolved. We anticipate the staff review will be completed prior to the March 16 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan Approved by: John Yapp, DeveloprAent Sefvices Coordinator, Department of Neighborhood and Development Services PCIMStaH Repons%Wff report preliminary plec.d= W E SUB16-00012 S Larson Subdivision 0 0.0275 0.055 0.11 Miles Prepared By: Marti Wolf I Date Prepared: Dec. 201 y,- t t , t rZ,1 Y� �i 11 • �� ■ IA on lip ■ ■ Y X� At % ■ 00 a m ..�F. 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN LEOEJa LARSON SUBDIVISION' IOWA C TY. JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA Ify iceAL - r A 'r O ry� 1 I I UTILITY NOTE i ✓•' ,' t dsGa�Pr s 11� i J' d' V�b °✓ H Q ,� j� r .,.. LL rNJ CI LL OF ,J LuZ Z 4F � L Af e o A �-------- -��-/' D SITE GRADING, EROSION CONTROL AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN `- CARSON SUBDIVISION -__ IOWA cm.RNsoN couNrv, IMA .roCOU.IV 51 - -- — EROSION CONTROL LEGEND SENSR AREAS LEGEND ----- ,f s i ,I vanr n. J ` 12 "'"""� nmw�avraxa wmzemwxx. u 'I G }� ��br� �,+�. wenn wrcuawemai �'_' in.crto vran v i, e, cr 0 yo; o / prmr '✓� pli�Wf� T c i X k / ' ���� sTAMLIM0CDNSTRu TIM w � -- Z ENTRA CONTRACTOR MGM O ,I AN �ARE WTI � 1 i' r tl � Z 0i� J D _ _ ot...e s — sl e T COMPOST FILTER TUBE DETAIL LOT 3 SILT FENCE DEGIL `/werr G e c PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE CARSONS AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON E Iowa ,.roNNsON ary oN COU couNrv, Iowa w aA PAVING LEGEND^ 1T aT,O i rc.aaw. O .Pim—� Low'x.°".°.°.�.r� -WK .o /IV iY a \.� A,: tL .o..,, p wm.,wm xvmxwrcLwmrw.n xa p a. x.,.u[ O C3 J NO 311 K _.._ o "SLY:;:=" cD�irtEO6M /.i.. ;Ea W rt D EDED eE xpn xrtaisoo. -- Z LOQ P°calro'.1°O.six°mwo x�• < ~ RD. S pDEoc.D m U 0 ZLL 11EMpµ'iEDiOelae?YICMOGx�. oExBRv c ° J y I -""-"—"l L enn.nwre av n .u,wro Z W Z - 1 r" maax nxii rEp z. rporoE wE DMEG1CNOrlMl2L Z 1 \ a O ------ la r��J e Z SYr 9HE LlEWL Q ' .__ v ro aMuMDMwO RWlSxDEWK fg0>F�• MEt.oO T.OaCwiMiCre[DMro&Ivr r� P. W�MCPON 2 ' 3 D E r PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN LARSON SUBDIVISION IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA z 0 0 m m z 0 N K 5 tr 0 LL 0 z B C B E ;•mow ______ PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN _ 3 ' — — —'—'— ----- `� LARSON SUBDIVISION �. - �•�•- - IOWA CITY, JOHNSONCOU�, IOWA 3 • � m�xoewem •xcmm�mcxnw �aauxmffT �ui"r"`i.smi" wuu,..ums w,um..uwc w.wan.inanu ES ' O � 1 , PIANTING AREAS 1- j5 I N: ae s I I � I � I I .oma , I , xooxw.m I I �x I O I i i I i m I vum Z g � T9C�LBpS NE ELTB LL JZU) ....: ...: / `•' I I Z O %i `\ E•xvmnaw rrvww I Ytl a B E CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: March 30, 2017 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Bob Miklo, Senior Planner Re: Larson Subdivision REZ16-0008/SUB16-00012 Date: March 16, 2017 This application was deferred at the March 16 meeting pending correction of deficiencies and approval of the stormwater management plan. Revised plans have been received and reviewed by staff and the City Engineer has approved the stormwater management plan. Staff recommends approval of a rezoning of approximately 10.26 acres from Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM -12) to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Multifamily Residential (OPD/RM-12) zone and a preliminary plat and sensitive areas development plan of Larson Subdivision, a 2 -lot, 12.28 -acre residential subdivision located north of Scott Boulevard between Hickory Heights Lane and First Avenue. (REZ16-00008/Sub16-00012) PRELIMINARY PUTT AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN LARSON SUBDIVISION IOWA C".J NS COUNTY, IOWA sm.xeae m�m,xmw vm�vrr.xmu .xmo ~�wua�rewwsmr�— sR. aaOima.x e waMwaruire'.w e e..rw.imx.saws� arr c�raru�. a �w.xir.exem xmq�u Moan--~eY a'••4r a _ _ 0 � e�emxryaTM� UTILIWN e o..x�...�� e � �IMPAm0m z 0 N O m z 0 O w O LL F O Z SITE GRADING, EROSION CONTROL AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN CARSON SUBDIVISION Iowa cDr,.roNNsoN couNrv, Iowa EROSIONCONTROLIEGEND O r w . emrwrn�a SENSIT EAREAS LEGEND FT-- wc�m v�aw vx STABILIZED CONSTRUCRON ENTRANCEI CONTRACTOR STAGING n ANDYLAVOOWN AREA ! OI vwais=.a..ecmnm,m. OlOmfwneFNZNimwawsmuw�na O] xec M=�wK.rs..=mx. Ow..mumwm=aoxv w.�.wic�wR WnM.wwvc�w, U gIp�FENCE DETAIL PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN LARSON SUBDIVISION IOWA CRY, JOHNSON 000N ,IOWA w.avw.xme vwma.uevu owrn.xmw uem PAVING LEGEND rwwwsmz vljj ' resse.,.i. >aesesuv� mr xolEs i .Des<mlM anaoxiwisilx"`olwa•orre �oxaGmxrEL � v w.wwm. smoua w.wxm ynr was .wess..u,w r8,sai � r s wxenororx. �maor � uom�rxeria amu ion LoumxM tix �EE rro.FOE vocwir Erom EHe Avswll BE xxnxrt'•BOMm mwus r o w. auw,nax la suswE casvxl+romx asnxwaDsxoclDxoExzrc �nern em BE svarlsnroncevm OF 1ru xEcavxsr®ro sax naV wao mxrox oanam 1 1 f xolEs i .Des<mlM anaoxiwisilx"`olwa•orre �oxaGmxrEL �l PCC SIDEWALK U.,..la wssanlwmsro �nern em BE svarlsnroncevm OF 1ru xEcavxsr®ro sax naV wao mxrox oanam xolEs i .Des<mlM anaoxiwisilx"`olwa•orre �oxaGmxrEL �l PCC SIDEWALK U.,..la wssanlwmsro xwE.m wn Gs� r- RS �' wvsxEn xacx slreaesE slue ce rovr xED auazvSE 1tlYM*Gw xD, la) Ys91FlE0ro.a OA F1 OE91N CF [£ISONDRECCalOgC1ED RJ /:ITYP B'PCC DRIVE CROSSSECTION w O LL H z Z m. i, A § A ƒ I \� SIM WILIW _ m� e»# mn, ® a LOT. , s "ETrERY | S| . ,..0: ||( . || ! J` SIM WILIW _ m� e»# mn, ® a LOT. , s "ETrERY Q � � C _ — PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN ---- LARSON SUBDIVISION i =_ {Fj IOWA CRY. JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA N 1` PIANRNG ARFAS 1 I v¢[a < jY� 1 I � � I 1 am nu l 1 1 � ocw wwa 1 1 aw/ Z 0 O U Z� U I 0 N m N 0 2 v a.� I 1 C LL aw/ Z 0 O U Z� U I r ��1�E �'.p° �CITY OF IOWA CITY 5e(4) � ',�� MEMORANDUM Date: April 6, 2017 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner Re: Zoning Code amendments to create the Riverfront Crossings — Orchard (RFC -0) Zone, a new form -based zone in Riverfront Crossings Background: In spring of 2016, The City Council amended the City's Comprehensive Plan based on the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation to expand the boundaries of the Riverfront Crossings District to include properties north of Benton Street that front on Orchard Street and Orchard Court and along an unused east -west remnant of City right-of-way that extends west from the intersection of Orchard Street and Orchard Court (see attached Comprehensive Plan Map). This new area of Riverfront Crossings, the Orchard Subdistrict, was established to encourage redevelopment that would provide a better transition from the low - scale single-family neighborhood to the west and the higher intensity mixed-use development along Riverside Drive in the West Riverfront Subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings. The attached pages from the Orchard District section of the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan describe the master plan objectives, desired development character, and recommended development program of this new district. Implementation: In order to facilitate redevelopment in the Orchard District consistent with the master plan objectives and desired development character, staff has drafted zoning standards for the Orchard District and incorporated them into the Riverfront Crossings form -based zoning code. The standards are intended to ensure that buildings are complementary in mass and scale to the adjacent single family neighborhood by limiting the building height to three stories with upper floor stepbacks along street frontages and along the single family zone boundary to the west. A 30 foot yard is also required along the western boundary of the subdistrict, which in addition to the natural drainageway that extends along this west boundary, will create a green buffer between new development and RS -8 zoned property to the west. Following is a more detailed summary of the provisions that would apply in the Orchard Subdistrict. Regulating Plan The Orchard subdistrict currently includes a limited street network. Benton Street and Orchard Street are the major streets that provide for both vehicular and pedestrian travel from this area to other areas in the community. These streets are both designated as primary streets on the attached regulating plan for the Orchard District. New buildings constructed along these streets must be designed with active frontages and street -facing entries. Parking must be located behind active ground floor building space in mid -block locations. Benton Street is an arterial street that was widened years ago to add travel lanes and turn lanes near the intersection with Riverside Drive. Unfortunately, the public right-of-way was not widened sufficiently at the time to Page 2 provide for adequate pedestrian infrastructure, leaving little space for a sidewalk, a parkway buffer and street trees. When properties with frontage on Benton Street are rezoned to the new Orchard designation, additional right-of-way will need to be dedicated to the City for pedestrian improvements necessary to accommodate the increased residential density allowed with the upzoning to Riverfront Crossings. As illustrated on the regulating plan, a new block pattern will be established with a new pedestrian street west of and parallel to Orchard Street extending north from Benton to an intersection with the east -west portion of the Orchard Court cul-de-sac. Since residential entries and active building uses will likely front on this street, as illustrated in the master plan concept drawing, it will be considered a primary street. The existing Orchard Court cul-de-sac is also designated as a primary street on the regulating plan, which will ensure that active uses are located along this street with parking located behind. In order to allow a more efficient pattern of development in the future, the cul-de-sac should be reconfigured through a subdivision process to intersect at a right angle with a new east -west street that would extend west from Orchard Street in the location where the remnant City right-of-way is currently located. This future street is designated as a secondary street on the regulating plan. When property is rezoned in this area of the subdistrict, the right-of-way will need to be widened to 60 feet to create a complete street to access rear parking locations and with sidewalks and street trees to create a safe and comfortable environment for pedestrians. Dimensional Standards • Building setbacks: o Primary street and secondary streets: 6' minimum, 12' maximum (porticos, terraces, stoops and other allowed frontage features may extend into the setback) o Side setback: 10' minimum o Rear setback: 10' minimum or 5' minimum if along an alley o Setback from RS -8 Zone boundary: 30' minimum • Maximum Building Height: 3 stories, with a 10' stepback above the 2"' story along street frontages and along any lot line that abuts the RS -8 Zone. Alternatively, if approved by the form -based code committee, the required stepback may occur above the 1s` story. This allowance may be particularly useful to encourage residential liner units that would screen ground level structured parking. • Parking located behind buildings or within buildings with access from the alley or private lane. Along primary streets parking must be located behind active building uses. Surface parking is allowed along secondary streets behind buildings that front on a primary street, but must be screened with low masonry walls and landscaping. Parking must also be setback a minimum of 30 feet from the RS -8 Zone boundary. • Building Types and Allowed Land Uses: The Orchard District is primarily a residential district, so all residential building types are allowed. As this is such a small district with a limited street network, mixed-use, commercial, and civic/institutional buildings are not allowed. Live -work townhouses are the only building types allowed in the district that would be designed to accommodate small commercial uses, which due to the size and Page 3 constraints of construction of this building type would be self-limiting. In addition, the only location that may be suitable for live -work townhouses, would be along the Orchard Street frontage, which faces existing commercial uses located across the street and along Benton Street and Riverside Drive. Therefore, the code restricts live -work townhouses to the Orchard Street frontage and limits the types of commercial uses to those that would be compatible with residential living, similar to the restrictions adopted in the Eastside Mixed Use District. • Streetscape and frontage area improvements, open space requirements, and building design standards will be the same as required in other Riverfront Crossings subdistricts. To ensure that buildings are appropriately scaled to provide a transition from the lower - scale single family neighborhood to the west, bonus height will not be allowed in the Orchard subdistrict. Additional proposed changes to the Riverfront Crossings Code: There have been a number of new buildings proposed in Riverfront Crossings that are designed with residential units on the ground level floor along a street frontage that screen structured parking. In the more urban subdistricts of Riverfront Crossings and the Eastside Mixed Use District, the minimum required setback for structured parking is 30 feet behind active building uses. While 30 feet is an appropriate minimum depth for ground floor commercial, attractive and livable residential units can be designed with a minimum 20' depth. For example, the Sabin Townhomes that line the new City parking structure along South Dubuque Street are approximately 20 feet in depth and several of the residential buildings planned for "The Crossings" development in the South Gilbert Subdistrict have ground floor residential units that are 20' in depth. The first building planned for the Orchard District has residential units that are 25 feet deep. While the code does allow the FBC committee to grant a minor adjustment to reduce the parking setback for these types of situations, since this type of building design will likely occur on a regular basis, staff recommends amending the parking setback standard for buildings with ground level residential units that screen structured parking to from 30 feet to 20 feet and making this standard consistent across all the subdistricts of Riverfront Crossings. Staff also recommends making several changes to Table 2G-5, Permitted Frontage Types. For Apartment Buildings and Multi -Dwelling Buildings that have ground floor units with individual entries, terrace frontages would be an attractive and appropriate choice. Staff recommends adding this frontage type to the table for these building types. There is also a typo in the column for forecourt frontages. Since a forecourt is always a subordinate frontage type that has to be combined with another frontage type, note 1 should also apply to Apartment Buildings. Recommendation: Staff recommends amending Title 14, Article 2G, Riverfront Crossings and Eastside Mixed Use District Form -based Development Standards, as described in this memo and as indicated on the attached pages. A red -lined version of the new code language (without the graphics) is attached, which highlights the changes. The underlined text is new language to be added to the code and the strike -through notation indicates language to be deleted. Graphics in the code will not change Page a other than modifications adding the Orchard District to the Riverfront Crossings regulating plan, height diagram, and subdistrict locator map. The amended regulating plan and height diagram are attached. Attachments: 1. Excerpts from the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan related to the Orchard District 2. Proposed amendments to the zoning code language 3. Amended Riverfront Crossings Regulating Plan and Height Diagram Approved by: '4 and Development Services orchard district ` t •d ° y x O e Orchards District 4 a _ Sri• ° . o f a r� -• .• °.mss,@ ° ^ °'" 7� �'� orchard district The Orchard District is fully developed with duplexes along Orchard Street, small mubi-family buildings around the cut - de -sac and a few single family dwellings. Three of the single family homes were moved onto Orchard Court and have no paved street frontage (the only access is via an unpaved drive from Benton Streel). There currently is an abrupt change from the larger scale multi -family and mixed commercial development east of Orchard Street to the residential on the west side of the street. Redevelopment at a higher density than exists today will provide an incentive to create a better transition and a more pleasant neighborhood. Development should be restricted to building typologies, such as cottage clusters, townhomes, live -work townhomes and multidwelling buildings that are designed and scaled in a manner that is complementary to the rhythm and scale of the single family neighborhood located to the south and west, where the goal is to preserve the existing housing stock. Orchard District Summary Master Plan Objectives: > Encourage redevelopment that is complementary in mass and scale to the adjacent single family neighborhood r Create a transition from larger -scale mixed-use and commercial buildings along Riverside Drive to single family r Improve design quality of development > Create better and more visible street access Development Character: > Buildings that are articulated and scaled in a manner appropriate for transition from the larger -scale, mixed-use corridor to the adjacent single family neighborhood > Buildings fronting treelinedstreets > Parking located away from street frontages with minimal surface parking lots ) Use rear or side yard setbacks, upper floor stepbacks, and landscaping to create transitions to single family neighborhood Development Program: r Limited to cottage homes, rowhouses, townhouses, liv-work townhouses, and two to three-story mufti -dwelling buildings with third floor stepback. r High level of design in exchange for increased density Rendering showing redevelopment north of Benton Street -, rJI�iG Landscaping to create transitions Orchard Street redevelopment WE� Riverfront Crossings Height Diagram Downtown .. ':�. Bo AN = H ♦ mom • a.:. Prentiss St. Legend - 3 stories max. _ 4 stories max. 2 stories min., 6 stories max. - 2 stories min., 8 stories max. - 8 stories max. with Iowa River frontage Public Parks and Open Space Green Space Amend 14 -2G -1B, Subdistricts (in Riverfront Crossings), by adding a new paragraph 8, as follows: 8. Orchard Subdistrict (RFC -0) Amend Figure 2G-1: Regulating Plan for the Riverfront Crossings District, to include the Orchard Subdistrict (as attached). Amend Figure 2G-2: Building Height Diagram for the Riverfront Crossings District to include the Orchard Subdistrict (as attached). Amend subparagraphs related to setbacks for building/structured parking along primary streets, pedestrian streets, and Ralston Creek frontages in all Riverfront Crossings subdistricts and the Eastside Mixed Use District, as follows: Building/Structured Parking: 30' min. from primary street building facade and located behind fully -enclosed, occupied building space. For buildings with ground -level residential uses the setback may be reduced to 20'. Amend 14 -2G -3B, as follows: B. Central Crossings and Orchard Subdistricts and Eastside Mixed Use District 1. INTENT The Central Crossings subdistrict (shaded in dark in Figure 2G-6) is intended for moderate intensity mixed-use development in buildings with entries opening onto pedestrian -friendly public streets and streetscapes. The Eastside Mixed Use District (shaded in dark in Figure 2G - 6b) is intended for lower intensity mixed use and residential development in buildings with street -facing entries opening onto pedestrian -friendly streetscapes that provide a transition between higher intensity mixed-use areas in downtown Iowa City and residential neighborhoods to the east. The Orchard District (shaded in dark in Figure 2G -6c) is intended for lower intensity residential development in buildings with street -facing entries opening onto pedestrian -friendly streetscapes that provide a transition between higher intensity mixed-use areas along Riverside Drive and low -scale residential neighborhoods to the west. Buildings are designed with facades aligned along primary streets and parking located within buildings behind active uses and in mid -block parking lots and structures. Figure 2G-6: Subdistrict Locator— Central Crossings & Orchard Figure 2G -6b: District Locator— Eastside Mixed Use 2. USES The principal uses allowed in the Central Crossings and Orchard Subdistricts, and Eastside Mixed Use District are the same as allowed in the CB -5 Zone, as specified in Table 2C-1 within Article 14-2C , except as noted below. Provisions and special exception approval criteria that apply in the CB -5 Zone also apply in these districts as set forth in Article 14-4B, except as noted below. In addition, the following restrictions and allowances shall apply: a. In the Orchard Subdistrict commercial and industrial uses are not allowed, except in live - work townhouses which may contain commercial uses allowed in the CB -5 Zone, provided the building is constructed to accommodate such uses and provided the use is not prohibited in the list below. b. In the Central Crossings Subdistrict, Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses are not allowed on any frontage designated as Primary Street or Ralston Creek Frontage, as specified in the Riverfront Crossings Regulating Plan. In the Eastside Mixed Use District, Quick Vehicle Service Uses are not allowed, except by special exception on property at the corner of Burlington and Van Buren Streets. Quick Vehicle Service Uses are not allowed in the Orchard Subdistrict. c. Household Living Uses shall be allowed within permitted Building Types as specified in Section 14-2G-5. For Multi -Family Uses, the provisions in Section 14-413-4 are superseded by the standards in this Article and, therefore, do not apply, unless specifically listed in this section. Residential occupancy is limited to one "household" per dwelling unit, as this term is defined in Article 14-9A, General Definitions. The maximum number of bedrooms per dwelling unit is three, except for single family uses within Cottage Homes, where the number of bedrooms is unrestricted. Residential density (units per acre): No maximum. However, in the Central Crossings Subdistrict, for Apartment Buildings, Multi -Dwelling Buildings, and Mixed -Use Buildings, the number of 3 -bedroom units per lot may not exceed 30% of the total number of units on the lot, except for south of the Iowa -Interstate Rail line, where the number of 3 -bedroom units for these building types may not exceed 20%. In the Eastside Mixed -Use District and Orchard Subdistrict, the number of 3 -bedroom units for these building types may not exceed 20%. d. Residential Uses are not allowed within required retail storefronts, as specified in the Riverfront Crossings Regulating Plan. e. Assisted Group Living Uses shall be allowed within permitted Building Types as specified in Section 14-2G-5. Residential occupancy is limited to 1 roomer per 300 square feet of floor area, not including floor area within a garage or structured parking area. f. Drinking Establishments are not allowed. g. Animal -Related Commercial, Repair -oriented Retail, and Alcohol Sales -oriented Retail uses are not allowed in the Eastside Mixed Use District or the Orchard Subdistrict. h. In the Eastside Mixed Use District and Orchard Subdistrict, Commercial Recreational Uses, Eating Establishments, Sales -oriented Retail, and Personal Service-oriented Retail uses shall not be open to the public between the hours of 11:00 PM and 6:00 7:00 AM, except if located in a storefront with frontage on Van Buren Street or Burlington Street. 3. PRINCIPAL BUILDING PLACEMENT AND FORM a. Building Types (1) Principal buildings shall comply with Section 14-2G-5, Building Type Standards. The following Building Types are permitted in the Central Crossings and Orchard subdistricts and in the Eastside Mixed Use District (see also Table 2G-6): Table 2G-2: Permitted Building Types - Central Crossings Notes: 1. Only allowed on properties with frontage on Van Buren Street or Burlington Street, 2 Only allowed on properties with frontage on Orchard Street. b. Building Placement (1) Principal buildings shall be placed to the front and corner of lots and aligned along setbacks in compliance with the following requirements as shown in Figure 2G-7. Figure 2G-7: Building Placement Diagram (a) Primary (A) and Secondary (B) Street Setback: Permitted Building Types m C_ ° W °1 c V °c c v O1 c o Subdistfists v m c 3 •� v ;_, Districts d g m g E d m 5 12 A m C N 2 Vi 'o °= r c d E 41 o v ° V N N 7 m C E `0 5 3 3 ' " E m x d v v U 4°' F°- Qm :J U J U m Central Crossings x x x x x x x x Eastside Mixed X X X x x x X(1) X(1) x Use Orchard x x x x x X(2) x Notes: 1. Only allowed on properties with frontage on Van Buren Street or Burlington Street, 2 Only allowed on properties with frontage on Orchard Street. b. Building Placement (1) Principal buildings shall be placed to the front and corner of lots and aligned along setbacks in compliance with the following requirements as shown in Figure 2G-7. Figure 2G-7: Building Placement Diagram (a) Primary (A) and Secondary (B) Street Setback: Central Crossings: 10' min., 16' max. Orchard: 6' min.. 12' max. Eastside Mixed Use: Primary (A) 20' min., 30' max. Secondary (B) 10' min. 20'max. (b) Lots Fronting on Pedestrian Streets: 5' min., 10' max. from public right-of-way or access easement. See Section 14 -2G -7B for additional requirements. (c) Ralston Creek Frontage Setback: 5' min. from stream corridor buffer line. (d) Side Setback (C): 10' min. or 0' if building abuts or will abut the adjacent building, except for apartment buildings and multi -dwelling buildings where the minimum is always 10'. For mixed-use buildings, facades on residential floors must be set back at least 10' from the side lot line. (e) Rear Setback (D): 10' min. or 5' min. if set back along public alley or private rear lane. (f) In the Central Crossings Subdistrict and Eastside Mixed Use District, above the 3rd flGGF (OF abeve the Pnd floor Of the height of the first 2 stgr'e of least 30' above grade) -the maximum setback does not apply above the 2"d floor. In the Orchard District the maximum setback does not apply above the 2nd floor and is increased to a max. of 25' above the 1't floor. (g) Approved forecourt frontages may exceed the maximum setbacks stated above. (h) In the Orchard District 30' min. from RS -8 Zone boundary. c. Building Height and Facade Stepbacks (1) Central Crossings: Except as provided below, principal buildings shall be 4 stories max. in height above grade. (a) Additional building height may be granted through transfer of development rights or through bonus height provisions as set forth in the Section 14 -2G -7G, Building Height Bonus Provisions. (b) Building heights may be further restricted by FAA regulations. (2) Eastside Mixed Use and Orchard: Principal buildings shall be 3 stories max. in height above grade., not to aid 3 (3) In the Central Crossings Subdistrict, above the 3rd floor, building facades facing and visible from streets, plazas, or parks shall step back 10' min. from the lower floor facade. (a) At street corners, tower elements or similar corner emphasis treatments may be exempt from the stepback requirement for up to one fagade bay (max. 35 feet) as approved by the FBC Committee. (b) The required facade stepback may be established at a lower floor than stated above, provided it is established at least 30' in height above grade. (4) In the Orchard Subdistrict above the 2nd floor, building facades facing streets and RS -8 zone boundaries shall step back 10' min. 25' max. from the lower floor facade. At street corners tower elements or similar corner emphasis treatments may be exempt from the stepback requirement for up to one facade bay (max. 35 feet) as approved by the FBC Committee. Alternatively, if approved by the FBC, the required facade stepback may be established above the 1st floor or may be tiered with the 10' min stepback achieved with smaller stepbacks above both the 15` and 2"' stories. d. Building Projections (1) The following building features may project into setbacks as follows: (a) Bay windows, eaves, roof overhangs, cornices, belt courses, buttresses, sills, and other similar features: 2' max. (b) Balconies on upper floors may project up to 6' into front setbacks. Balconies may project beyond non -street -facing facades on upper floors up to 4' max., but shall extend no closer than 8' from a side or rear lot line, unless said lot line abuts an alley or permanent open space. (c) Canopies, awnings, stoops, terraces, covered building entries, and similar elements as permitted in Section 14-2G-4, Frontage Type Standards. (2) Awnings and canopies may also project into public rights-of-way according to the applicable provisions of the Building Code. Certain permitted signs may also project into public rights-of-way according to applicable standards set forth in Article 14-5B, Sign Regulations. Projections into the right-of-way shall not interfere with utilities, street trees and other important right-of-way features. (3) Arcades and galleries projecting beyond ground -level street -facing building facades are not permitted. (An arcade is a fagade with an attached colonnade that projects over the sidewalk/walkway with upper story building space above. A gallery is a colonnade that is attached to a ground level fagade that projects over the sidewalk/walkway). Upper floor facades may not project closer to the streetside property line than the ground -level building fagade, except for building features noted above. e. Building and Frontage Types (1) Principal buildings and building facades shall be designed in compliance with Section 14-2G-4, Frontage Type Standards, and Section 14-2G-5, Building Type Standards. f. Facade Continuity (1) Central Crossings and Orchard: To define pedestrian friendly streetscapes and create a mostly continuous frontage of buildings along primary streets, principal buildings shall occupy a min. of 75% of the primary street lot frontage. In Central Crossings, in the absence of a building along the remainder of the lot frontage, a streetscreen shall be built in compliance with Section 14 -2G -7D. (2) Eastside Mixed Use: To define pedestrian friendly streetscapes while maintaining a lower intensity development character along primary streets, principal buildings shall occupy a min. of 50% and a max. of 75% of the primary street lot frontage. 4. PARKING, LOADING, AND SERVICE AREAS a. Parking shall be provided using a permitted Parking Type appropriate for the selected Building Type in compliance with Section 14-2G-6, Parking Type Standards, and at the minimum ratios specified in 14-5A-4, Minimum Parking Requirements. b. Parking, Loading, and Service Area Placement & Screening Parking, loading, and service areas shall be located within and behind principal buildings in compliance with the following requirements as shown in Figure 2G-8. Figure 2G-8: Parking and Service Placement Diagram (1) Primary Street, Pedestrian Street, and designated Ralston Creek Frontage Setback (E) and Screening (a) Surface Parking and Service Areas: 30' min. from primary street building facade and located behind fully -enclosed, occupied building space. (b) Building/Parking Structure: For parking in the ground floor of a building or structure, 30' min. from primary street building facade and located behind fully -enclosed, occupied building space. FoF paFkinge. flOOFS 1' Fnin. f.S^, Street fci ^ h 'Lt' f.. a;d rJ e.t f......View by aFGh'te.d .^IL. finished building faGades. For buildings with ground -level residential uses, the setback may be reduced to 20'. (c) Underground Parking: 0' min. from primary street building facade. (2) Secondary Street Setback (F) and Screening (a) Surface Parking, Loading, and Service Area: 10' min. and set back 3' min. from the secondary street building facade and screened by low masonry walls and landscaping as specified for S2 standard - alternative materials (option B), set forth in Article 14-5F, Screening and Buffering Standards. (b) Building/Structured Parking: 'n' min ^^' Cet h^^� 1' min. from the secondary street building facade and screened from public view by architecturally -finished building facades, according to the standards for structured parking set forth in 14 -5A -5F. (c) Underground Parking: 10' min. and set back 0' min. from secondary street building facade. (3) Side (G) and Rear (H) Setbacks and Screening (a) Surface Parking, Loading, and Service Area: Must comply with the same side and rear setback requirements as principal buildings, or 0' where parking is shared with the adjacent property. Setback area shall be landscaped to the S2 standard. (b) Building/Structured Parking: Must comply with the same side and rear setback requirements as principal buildings. Parking must be screened from view by architecturally -finished building facades, according to the standards for structured parking set forth in 14 -5A -5F. (c) Underground Parking: Must comply with the same side and rear setback requirement as principal buildings. (4) Underground parking shall be designed to ensure ground floor finished floor elevations meet elevation requirements for permitted frontage types. (5) For buildings with ground floor residential use, no surface parking shall be closer than 10' to any residential portion of a building (i.e. not including portions of the building containing garage space). This 10' area must be used for walkways and landscaping and/or may be included as part of a larger open space area. If parking spaces are located where headlights of vehicles shine onto a wall containing ground floor windows, said parking spaces must be screened from view of the windows to at least the S2 standard. c. Access to Parking, Loading, and Service Areas (1) All parking, loading, and service areas shall be accessed from public alleys, private rear lanes or driveways on secondary streets consistent with the applicable regulating plan, except as allowed in paragraph (2), below. (2) If access from an alley, private rear lane, or driveway from the secondary street is not feasible due to topography, site conditions, configuration of the lot, and/or other constraints, access to a primary street may be granted by the FBC Committee. Any request for a curb cut on an arterial street will be reviewed according to the applicable provisions set forth in Section 14-5C-6, Arterial Street Access Requirements. d. Construction and Design Standards for Parking and Loading Areas (1) The following subsections of Section 14-5A-5, Construction and Design Standards, shall apply: A. Purpose B. Paving Materials C. Parking and Stacking Space Size D. Drainage E. Location F. Standards for Structured Parking H. Design and Layout of Surface Parking Areas Landscaping and Tree Requirements within Parking Areas J. Screening and Setback Areas K. Design of Bicycle Parking Areas. 5. ACCESSORY USES, BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES a. Accessory uses, buildings and structures shall comply with the provisions of Article 14-4C. However, if the provisions contained in this article are more specific or restrictive, said provisions shall supersede the provisions of Article 14-4C. b. Garages and parking structures must be located and constructed in compliance with the provisions of paragraph 4, Parking, Loading, and Service Areas. c. Accessory buildings other than garages and parking structures must be located behind principal buildings according to the same setback standards as surface parking. Facades of accessory buildings within public view must be architecturally finished in a manner that is consistent with the principal building. Amend Table 2G-5: Permitted Frontage Types as follows: Table 2G-5: Permitted Frontage Types Notes: 1. Subordinate frontage type —to be used in conjunction with other permitted frontage type(s) 2. Frontage type may be allowed by the FBC for appropriate horizontal mixing of uses. e.g. for large mixed-use buildings with multiple street frontages. 3. Allowed for access to individual dwelling units or live -work units. Permitted Frontage Types Building Types XLL C C Q V O. c m .c V M cOi 0 O mO a O C3v LL Cn 7 F r%) O. } O- Cottage Home x x Rowhouse x x x Townhouse x x x Apartment Building X(3) Xg x X(1) Multi -Dwelling Building XX($i X(3) x x(1) Live -Work Townhouse x x x Commercial Building x x x(1) Mixed -Use Building x x X(2)(3J X(2)(M X(2) X(1) Liner Building x x X(3) X(3) Civic or Institutional Building x x x x x(1) Notes: 1. Subordinate frontage type —to be used in conjunction with other permitted frontage type(s) 2. Frontage type may be allowed by the FBC for appropriate horizontal mixing of uses. e.g. for large mixed-use buildings with multiple street frontages. 3. Allowed for access to individual dwelling units or live -work units. Amend Table 2G-6: Permitted Building Types, as follows: Table 2G-6: Permitted Building Types Notes: 1. Only allowed on properties with frontage on Van Buren Street or Burlington Street. 2. Only allowed on properties with frontage on Orchard Street. Amend 14 -2G -7G -1d.(5), as follows: (5) Height bonuses are not allowed in the Eastside Mixed Use District or the Orchard Subdistrict. Form -based Zoning Districts Permitted Building C c N 0 w o V Types 5 ami p K O ,, m ,r > a v •. °� ,v_ 7 7 > ° U) a in U C9 O w Cottage Home x x x Rowhouse x x x x Townhouse x x x x x x x Apartment Building x x x x x x x x x Multi -Dwelling Building x x x x x x x x x Live -Work Townhouse x x x x x x xu x Commercial Building x x x x x x x x(1) Mixed -Use Building x x x x x x x x(1) Liner Building x x x x x x x x Civic or Institutional Building x x x x x x x x Notes: 1. Only allowed on properties with frontage on Van Buren Street or Burlington Street. 2. Only allowed on properties with frontage on Orchard Street. Amend 14 -2G -7G -1d.(5), as follows: (5) Height bonuses are not allowed in the Eastside Mixed Use District or the Orchard Subdistrict. To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ17-00003 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Karen Howard Date: April 6, 2017 M & W Properties P.O. Box 5152 Coralville, IA 52241 319-430-5991 rsanwade 1000agmail. com Contact: Michael Muhlenbruch — Shive Hattery 2839 Northgate Drive Iowa City, IA 52245 319-354-3040 m mulenbruch(ashive-hatters. com Property Owner Requested Action Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: Illim 5e(5) Thomas Bayliss and Hartwig Properties, LLP 627 and 619 Orchard Court Iowa City, IA 52240 Rezone 619 and 627 Orchard Court from Low Density Residential Planned Development (OPD -5) to Riverfront Crossings -Orchard (RFC -O) Redevelop the property according to the Riverfront Crossings — Orchard District Standards 619 and 627 Orchard Court Approximately .705 acres (.495 and .21 acres, respectively) A single family dwelling and a MF dwelling(4-plex) OPD -5 North: Iowa Interstate Railroad South: Residential duplexes (RS -8) East: MF dwelling (RFC -WR) West: four MF dwellings (4-plexes) (OPD -5) February 23, 2017 Undetermined. 45 day period begins from the date the RFC -O zone is adopted by Council 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION The applicant, M & W Properties, has requested a rezoning from Planned Development Overlay — Low Density Single Family Residential (OPD -5) Zone to Riverfront Crossings Orchard (RFC -0) Zone for 0.705 acres at 619 and 627 Orchard Court. The applicants have indicated they would like to redevelop the properties with a new 3 -story multi -dwelling building designed according to the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code once the Orchard District standards are approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. The applicants requested the change to the Comprehensive Plan in 2016 that resulted in the expansion of the Riverfront Crossings District to include the new Orchard Subdistrict, which encompasses properties located along Orchard Street and Orchard Court north of Benton Street. The Orchard Subdistrict was created to encourage residential redevelopment that would create a better transition between the higher intensity mixed-use area along Riverside Drive and the lower -scale single family residential neighborhood to the west. If the subject properties are rezoned, the new form -based standards for the Orchard Subdistrict will apply. In early March, the City Council adopted a resolution of support for M&W Properties' application for Workforce Housing Tax Incentives from the Iowa Economic Development Authority to construct multi -family housing on the subject properties. If the tax incentives are approved by the State and provided the applicant obtains zoning and building approvals for the proposed building, the City Council has committed to provide a local match equal to at least $1000 per dwelling unit. The applicants held a Good Neighbor meeting prior to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in 2016, but have not held a Good Neighbor meeting for this specific rezoning application. ANALYSIS: Proposed zoning: With this proposed rezoning, the new form -based zoning standards of the Orchard Subdistrict (RFC -0) will apply to these two properties, including the affordable housing requirement that applies in Riverfront Crossings. The form -based zoning standards for the Orchard District are described in detail in a staff memo dated April 6, 2017, which was also included in your agenda packet for this meeting. It should be noted that the requested rezoning cannot be approved until the zoning code amendments are adopted that create the new RFC -O Zone. Comprehensive Plan: The subject properties are located in the Orchard Subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings as described in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Following is an excerpt from the master plan that lists the plan objectives, desired development character for the district, and the types of development envisioned for this area. Rezoning the property to the new designation will facilitate the type of redevelopment envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Orchard District Summary Master Plan Objectives: > Encourage redevelopment that is complementary in mass and scale to the adjacent single family neighborhood > Create a transition from larger -scale mixed-use and commercial buildings along Riverside Drive to single family > Improve design quality of development > Create better and more visible street access Development Character: > Buildings that are articulated and scaled in a manner appropriate for transition from the larger -scale, mixed-use corridor to the adjacent single family neighborhood Buildings fronting tree -lined streets > Parking located away from street frontages with minimal surface parking lots > Use rear or side yard setbacks, upper floor stepbacks, and landscaping to create transitions to single family neighborhood Development Program: r Limited to cottage homes, rowhouses, townhouses, live -work townhouses, and two to three-story multi -dwelling buildings with third floor stepback. High level of design in exchange for increased density Compatibility with neighborhood: The goal of the Orchard Subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings is to improve the aesthetics of development in the area and encourage the development of high- quality housing that meets the needs of the community. The form -based standards will ensure that development on the properties will be designed in a manner consistent with the residential character envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan and provide new affordable housing options consistent with to the Riverfront Crossings inclusionary zoning ordinance. While the rezoning to RFC -O would provide a number of different options for redevelopment of the subject properties, the applicant is currently contemplating a 3 -story, multi -dwelling building containing approximately 45 efficiency/1-bedroom units. A preliminary concept for the building shows the main entry to the building opening to the south along the east -west portion of Orchard Court and entries to individual ground level units will be located along the west side of the building, which will front on the existing north -south portion of the cul-de-sac. Shared open space would be provided on a second floor terrace and private open space will be provided on street level terraces and upper level balconies. All parking for the residents will be enclosed within the structure. Along the west side of the building upper floors will step back from the ground level floor 20-25 feet. The applicants are exploring the feasibility of installing a green roof system on the large terrace created with this stepback. They have successfully implemented this type of system on a smaller scale on a previous multi -family project located near the UI medical campus. The upper floor fagade will also step back on the south side of the building. The proposed concept demonstrates that the applicants have a good understanding of the new zoning standards that would apply with this rezoning. Traffic and Pedestrian circulation: The proposed rezoning will result in a considerable increase in the residential density in the area. The subject properties front on Orchard Court, which has a 50 -foot right-of-way leading to the wider 100 -foot right-of-way at the bulb of the cul- de-sac. The City's current width standard for a local residential street is 60 feet, which provides adequate space for a 5 -foot sidewalk and a 10-12 foot parkway buffer to support healthy street trees. One of the objectives of the Riverfront Crossings Plan is to create high quality residential neighborhoods with tree -lined streets that encourage walking and biking. As properties are 4 rezoned along this frontage, staff recommends requiring a dedication of land on both sides of Orchard Court to ensure that the streetscape and frontage area improvements required in the Riverfront Crossings form -based code can be achieved. The applicants have agreed to dedicate land along the frontage of the subject properties to create a right-of-way with a minimum 10 -foot parkway for street trees and a new 5 -foot sidewalk. The applicants will be responsible for installing the new sidewalk and street trees at the time of development according to the standards in the form -based code. In the future as more of the properties along Orchard Court are proposed for redevelopment, reconfiguring and re -aligning the streets as illustrated on the regulating plan should be encouraged during the rezoning process. Such a re -alignment would require a re -subdivision of some of the properties in the area. However, the properties that are the subject of this rezoning can develop as envisioned in the master plan without a subdivision. Therefore, with a conditional zoning agreement to widen the right-of-way as described above, staff finds that the street right-of-way will be adequate to support this rezoning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ17-00003, a proposal to rezone approximately 0.705 acres of property at 619 and 627 Orchard Court from Planned Development Overlay - Low Density Single Family (OPD -5) Zone to Riverfront Crossings -Orchard (RFC -O) Zone, subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring dedication of land along the Orchard Court frontage to widen the pedestrian area within the public right-of-way to a minimum of 15 feet measured between the street curb and the new front property line. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map Approved by: A John Yapp, Develooment Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services w J 0 OPD5 " RS8 0 An application submitted by M & W Properties for a rezoning of .705 acres from OPD-RS5 Zone to Riverfront Crossings — Orchard (RFC -0) at 619 and 627 Orchard Court .y A'll R� cis c `' m RFC -WR (n 0 M i4 RFC -WR ,4 cn ... r �• • w • • , cc2 _tel arro RM d By: Marti Wolf !pared: Dec. 2011 To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ17-00004 202 N. Linn Street GENERAL INFORMATION: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Sarah Walz Date: April 6, 2016 Applicant: Ross Nusser 1519 S. Gilbert Street Iowa City, IA 52240 319-331-5206 rossnusser@urbanacres.com Owner: Central State Bank 2530 Corridor Way Coralville, IA 52241 319-625-2050 Requested Action Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: Abbe.stensland @centralstate. bank Rezone from Central Business Service Zone (CB -2) Zone to Central Business Support Zone (CB -5) To allow redevelopment for mixed use based on lower parking requirements in the CB -5 zone. 202 N. Linn Street 4,550 square feet Commercial bank; CB -2 North: Commercial (CB -2) South: Commercial (CB -5) East: Commercial (CB -2) West: Commercial (CB -5) February 23, 2017 April 11, 2017 5e(6) BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, Ross Nusser, is seeking a rezoning from CB -2, Central Business Service Zone, to CB -5, Central Business Support Zone for a 4,520 square foot property located at the northeast corner of the Market Street/ Linn Street intersection. The property includes a one-story commercial building that was the former site of Pearson's pharmacy and more recently has served as home to the Corridor State Bank. The lot includes a non -conforming surface parking area with 5 parking spaces located between the building and the Market Street right-of-way. The applicant proposes to redevelop the property for a mixed use building with commercial uses on the ground floor and residential units above. ANALYSIS: Comprehensive Plan: The Central District Plan contains a discussion of the Northside Marketplace, which includes this property (see Central District Plan pages 55-59). The plan notes a desire to preserve the "distinct identity and scale" of the commercial district as different from the Downtown: "Locally owned businesses that have become institutions in the community, such as John's Grocery, Pagliai's Pizza, and the Hamburg Inn, serve as commercial anchors for the neighborhood, which is defined by an eclectic mix of small-scale, locally owned specialty shops and restaurants. Many participants describe the area as 'Old Iowa City'—an urban commercial district that is not dominated by the undergraduate student market." The Central District plan identifies the historic character of the Northside Marketplace as one of its greatest assets. While redevelopment of vacant and non -historic property is considered appropriate, the Central District Plan notes a concern that too much redevelopment or development at too large a scale or density may diminish the traditional mainstreet character of the neighborhood. Development that is sensitive to the neighborhood's history and architectural elements is encouraged. The subject property is not considered a historically significant structure and does not currently contribute to other goals of the Northside Marketplace. The following goals of the Northside Marketplace consistent with the mainstreet character of the area the building. Northside Marketplace Goals and Objectives: include encourage development that is with parking located behind or underneath Goal 1: Preserve and promote the unique aspects of the Northside Marketplace a. Establish policies and regulations that will preserve the existing scale and mainstreet commercial character of the Northside Marketplace c. Adopt zoning rules that ensure that redevelopment occurs in a manner that promotes pedestrian• oriented street frontages e. Explore and implement initiatives to clean up, maintain and improve service alleys Goal 4: Encourage development and redevelopment that will maintain the character and economic vitality of the Northside Marketplace: a. Adopt zoning regulations to ensure that new development is consistent with the existing mainstreet character of the area and compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods, i.e. encourage 2.3- story building located close to the street, storefront windows, accessible and attractive building entrances and parking located behind or beneath buildings. b. Establish policies and regulations that encourage mixed-use buildings with 1- to 3- bedroom apartments above commercial storefronts in order to provide opportunities for a variety of tenants. Goal 7: Improve public safety b. Study pedestrian activity at the intersection of Linn and Market Streets and implement changes that will improve safety for all pedestrians This stated desire to maintain a small scale commercial character in the Northside Marketplace has influenced zoning and development decisions for other properties in the business district: The 2012, a rezoning of the corner property at 221-225 North Linn Street from a RNS-12 to CB - 2 included requirements for design review approval, a maximum number of dwelling units, and a 3 limit on the height of the building to 3 stories with a step -back at the third story. In addition the developer was required to make improvements to the streetscape and alleyway. This property is adjacent to and across the street from residential properties. In 2013, the Board of Adjustment granted a variance from the parking requirements to allow redevelopment of property at 211 North Linn Street within the CB -2 zone. (The property had no alley access and was too narrow to provide vehicle access from the street.)The new building was required to secure design review approval and was limited to 3 stories with a step back at the third story. This property is at a mid -block location. In 2014 the City approved the rezoning of 203 North Linn Street (the former Northside and Haunted Bookshop), a 4,000 sq. foot property directly to the west of the subject property, from CB -2 to CB -5 with a historic landmark designation. The rezoning was requested by the owner specifically to alleviate the commercial parking requirements (similar to this application), which greatly limited the kinds of uses permitted in the rather large ground -floor space. Based on concerns regarding future redevelopment of the property if the historic building were ever destroyed, the City Council approved a CZA requirement that "any redevelopment of the property shall comply with the CB -2 building standards". Other corner properties at the intersection, which are all zoned (CB -5), include the 2 %2 -story, historic Brewery Square building on the southwest corner of Market and Linn Streets and the recently developed Writers Block, a 4 -story building on the southeast corner. Properties located along Jefferson Street, west of Linn Street, are zoned CB -5. East of Linn Street, properties that front onto Jefferson are zoned Mixed Use (MU) zone. Differences between the CB -2 and CB -5 zone: There are a number of ways that rezoning the property would better enable redevelopment of the property. 1. The CB -5 allows a greater residential density than is permitted in the CB -2 zone: 2. The CB -5 zone also allows a taller building than would be permitted in the C113-2 zone: The maximum building height in the CB -2 zone is 45 feet with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.0. This means that the building can have a maximum of 2 square of floor area for each one square foot of lot area. Through bonus provisions, the FAR of building may be increased to 3. The maximum building height in the CB -5 zone is 75 feet with a FAR of 3.0. Similar to the CB -2 zone, bonus provisions may allow an increase the FAR up to 5.0. The applicable bonus provisions in the CB zones include the following: Masonry finish or architectural metal; not including metal siding, on all non -fenestrated areas of walls. +0.75 floor area ratio. zone CB -5 zone Minimum Lot area per Dwelling Unit (in square feet) 1 bedroom or efficiency 425 10 units NO MINIMUM lot area per unit. Number of 3 -bed units may not exceed 30'1oftotal unifs. 2bedroom unit 875 5units 3 bedroom unit 1,315 3 units 2. The CB -5 zone also allows a taller building than would be permitted in the C113-2 zone: The maximum building height in the CB -2 zone is 45 feet with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.0. This means that the building can have a maximum of 2 square of floor area for each one square foot of lot area. Through bonus provisions, the FAR of building may be increased to 3. The maximum building height in the CB -5 zone is 75 feet with a FAR of 3.0. Similar to the CB -2 zone, bonus provisions may allow an increase the FAR up to 5.0. The applicable bonus provisions in the CB zones include the following: Masonry finish or architectural metal; not including metal siding, on all non -fenestrated areas of walls. +0.75 floor area ratio. 4 Provision of a theater. 5 square feet of floor area for every 1 square foot of theater area. Provision of pedestrian activity areas, such as sidewalk cafes, adjacent to but not within the public right-of-way, provided such areas do not exceed a depth of 12 feet from the front lot line. +3 square feet of floor area for every 1 square foot of pedestrian activity area. Usable open space for passive recreational use of the residents (i.e. balconies, terraces, and rooftop gardens designed and improved for outdoor activities. Balconies serving individual dwelling units and required setback areas are not eligible. +2 square feet of floor area for every 1 square foot of usable open space. An additional FAR bonus provision may be granted for the provision of funds for all street furniture, lighting and landscaping improvements along the adjacent street right-of-way in accordance with any adopted streetscape plan approved by the City, however an approved streetscape plan has already been installed for this area and so this provision would not apply. 3. As with the dimensional standards above, the parking requirements in the CB -5 zones better enable redevelopment. That is to say, there is a reduction in the minimum parking requirement for both commercial and residential uses in the CB -5. In both the CB -5 and CB -2 zone, parking requirements for residential uses are lower than in most other zones due to the location of these zones in the near Downtown and campus area. The CB -2 zone requires a minimum of 0.75 parking spaces for one bedroom and efficiency apartments and 1.5 spaces for two-bedroom units. The CB -5 zone is slightly lower with 0.5 spaces for one -bedroom units and 1 space for two-bedroom units. Both zones require 2.5 parking spaces for 3 -bedroom units. In the CB -5 zone, elder apartments require 1 space for every 2 dwelling units. Residential parking requirements Minimum 1 bedroom or Parking efficiency 0.75 0.5 Requirement per 2 bedroom unit 1.5 1 unit 3 bedroom unit 2.5 2.5 The parking requirement for elder housing (a permanent designation) is 1 space for every two units. A parking benefit is only realized with 2- or 3- bedroom elder units, since the 0.5 parking space per unit for 1 bedrooms is equivalent to 1 space per two units of elder housing. The most significant difference in terms of parking is for commercial uses. The CB -2 zone requires parking for all commercial uses permitted in the zone, while the CB -5 zone has no minimum parking requirement for commercial uses. Changing the zoning of this property to CB -5 would therefore eliminate the commercial parking requirement. On a small lot such as this one, on which there is very limited parking potential, the reduction in parking of the CB -5 significantly increases the development potential. By alleviating the parking requirement for commercial uses a greater variety of commercial uses is possible, and a pedestrian -oriented building is much more feasible. Commercial parking requirements Minimum Salesoriented retail 1per 300sgftNOMINIMUM Parking parking Personal Serine 1 per 300 sq it Requirement General office 1 per 300 sq ft requirement for Medical office 1.5 spaces per commercial office or exam uses room Eating 8 Drinking 1 per 150 sq ft or 1/3 of the occupant load Business owners cite the availability of on -street and surface parking, in addition to affordable rents and pedestrian traffic, as reasons for locating in the area. However finding and maintaining the right balance of parking is critical as much of the surface parking in the area is privately owned and could be developed. There is also a City public parking lot on the north side of Market St, east of the subject property. A small, publicly owned service alley that runs between the subject property and the CB -2 property to the east (George's Buffet) allows for the opportunity to provide access to parking at or below grade. The applicant will propose that the City re -open this 10 -foot wide lane as right -of way. This would contribute to a 22 -foot wide alley providing access to any parking required for the residential uses, with the additional 12 feet coming from the subject private property. (The zoning code recommends that garage entrances and exits should be provided along a building wall that does not face a public street and is accessed from a rear lane or alley.) This proposal and the design of the access drive would be reviewed as part of eventual design plans for the property. Structured parking may not be provided within the ground floor level of the building for the first 30 feet of lot depth. Because the subject property is fairly small, just 65 x 70 feet, there is somewhat limited space to meet the parking requirements for the residential uses at grade—there is room for 3-4 cars to park off an alley at the ground level, which would allow 6-8 one -bedroom apartments. The applicant has indicated that he is able provide 7 spaces underground, which would allow up to 14 one -bedroom or efficiency units. The residential parking requirements address parking demand but also influence the development potential and the scale of the building that can be built. While the supply of on -street parking and parking in surface lots (public and private) is currently fixed in the Northside Marketplace, alleviating the commercial parking requirement will allow for a more pedestrian -oriented building which is consistent with the goals of the Central District Plan. There is a public parking garage, the Clock Tower Place facility located on Iowa Avenue, two blocks to the south, which also has capacity for short-term parking needs. Summary: The lower parking standards required for the CB -5 zone along with the additional density and FAR would greatly enhance the development potential of this somewhat small corner lot. The Floor -to -Area ratio requirement of 3.0 built -into the CB -5 zone (with design -related incentives the FAR may be increased to up to 5.0), combined with the limited ability to provide parking on-site, will help keep redevelopment to an appropriate scale. The redevelopment of the property with a pedestrian -oriented building, designed to complement the main street character and scale of the historic Northside Marketplace as envisioned in the Central District Plan, would contribute to the commercial vitality of the neighborhood and be consistent with recently approved zoning changes for other properties in the neighborhood. Staff believes that the rezoning of this small, corner property will allow it to redevelop in a manner that is in keeping with the goals of the Central District Plan by removing the non -conforming surface parking in front of the building and bringing the building closer to the side walk with the sort of retail store windows and entrances required by code. Allowing redevelopment will also create a better balance in scale with the other corner properties at the intersection, which all have CB -5 zoning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ17-00004, a request for a rezoning from CB -2, Central Business Services Zone, to CB -5, Central Business Support Zone be approved subject to design review. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Images 3. Application materials Approved by: John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator CITY OF IOWA CITY A � Alo]VIC ,ft. A or A � w 4 L View of the subject property at 202 North Linn Street. View of the subject property at 202 North Linn Street. View looking west on Market Street. The property at 202 S. Linn is on the right. A ten -foot alley between the subject property and George's to the east could help to provide access to at -grade or underground parking. View to the south along Market Street—the Writers Block (a 4-story building) and Brewery Square ( a 2 Yz story building) are located on adjacent comers. 10 View of the commercial mixed use building (3 stories) on the northwest comer of Linn and Market. Streets. Recently developed commercial mixed use building on the comer of Linn and Bloomington Streets. „4r AW hs ”`^i fib`'. � '�•��,'.' 4r Am ® -Askilk HOLLAND, MICHAEL, RAMER & SITTIG PLC Attorneys at Law 123 North Linn Street, Suite 300 Iowa City, Iowa 52245 319-354-0331 www.icialawyers.com C. Joseph Holland Crystal Raiber iholland@icialaw.com craiber@icialaw.com Robert Michael rmichael@icialaw.com April 5, 2017 Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission Civic Center RE: REZ17-00004 (202 N. Linn St.) Dear Commission Member: Erek Sittig esittie@icialaw.com I just recently became aware of an application to rezone the property at 202 N. Linn Street. I tend to agree that the site is under utilized and redevelopment is appropriate. However, I have serious reservations about yet another property in the neighborhood with seriously limited on-site parking. I have had an office in Brewery Square, which sits on the opposite corner from 202 N. Linn for nearly 25 years. During that time I have seen redevelopment of properties in the area and significant changes in the existing land uses. Changes in the area, in addition to residential units, has been some increased retail activity and a shift of uses to food and beverage to an extent greater than the past. Two of my clients have built significant structures with mixed residential and commercial uses. Both of those properties provide significant below grade parking beneath the building. Both have some additional at grade parking.. Those redevelopments and changed land uses have put serious strain on the parking resources in the neighborhood. If you look at the aerial photo accompanying the staff report on this rezoning application, you will see the Market Street municipal parking lot, which sits just east of the site. Notice that every parking space in that parking lot is occupied. Also, every surface parking space along Market Street is occupied. This is not at all unusual. r' r There are no available parking permits for that lot. In fact, there is a lengthy waiting list. I have has a permit for that lot for close to 25 years I have regularly seen people who work in the area repeatedly putting additional time on meters, with increasing frequency in recent years.. As a business owner in this area we have clients and visitors who come to our office for a variety of purposes. We have very limited on-site parking, and encourage clients to use that when it is available. However, often that limited parking is all taken and they must rely on parking on the street or in the Market Street municipal lot. Just today I had a meeting with a client and some consultants. The client was late because she had to circle the area looking for a parking space. I am not convinced that seven parking spaces adequately addresses the residential use, let alone adding additional commercial uses to the area. The current commercial use, Central State Bank, utilizes virtually no parking. They have their own surface parking, which I have almost never seen fully occupied. There is also reference in the staff report to a 10 foot wide publicly owned service alley. That it is used for parking on a nearly around the clock basis by some of the businesses in the area. I do not know that I have ever seen it passable from north to south, so if the City does open that as a public right of way, something will need to be done to replace the parking for those businesses. I like the location of my Firm in the near northeast side of Iowa City and I have watched this neighborhood transition over the years. I think very careful attention needs to be paid to not disrupting the current businesses in the area by overburdening the parking which is already in very, very tight supply. Less parking for visitors is going to make the area less attractive to some businesses. I am not able to attend your meeting on April 6'', so I wanted to pass along my comments in writing. Very truly yours, C. Joseph Holland CJH:ses Julie Subject: FW: Langenberg Ave. From: Philip Hauck [mailto:phauck6@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 03, 2017 12:58 PM To: Council Subject: Langenberg Ave. Dear Mr. Dickens, My wife and I live on 1531 Langenberg Ave. in Iowa City. We moved there in 2013 and have resided happily on the south side of town ever since. We appreciate being close to several amenities and have a peace of mind that comes with knowing all our neighbors. As you know, Langenberg was recently extended to accommodate new housing construction. While we can appreciate the nature of progress and the benefits to our city, this has caused a tremendous amount of stress and anxiety to many of us who live on Langenberg and the surrounding streets. The extension of Langenberg Ave. has caused a "cut through" effect of citizens from west of Sand Rd. traveling to Sycamore and vice versa. It's important to note, most of the traffic is now from citizens who don't live in our neighborhood, but are just "passing through" trying to get to other locations in south Iowa City such as P&G/Highway 218 etc. We routinely see traffic speeding down our street in excess of the posted 25 mph speed limit. Some drivers even appear to be on their cell phone as they pass our sidewalks and lawns. And since Langenberg is being used as a cut through, we experience this phenomenon several times throughout the day without regard to time or weather conditions. Last August the City installed traffic calming measures that included speed humps. Apparently this type of technique is new to Iowa City, and may have been controversial in some areas. Let me say we were happy about the City's response to this safety issue! We believe the commissioners made the right decision with the best interest of the citizens in mind. Unfortunately, the speed humps have not achieved the intended outcome, as we still get people routinely driving faster than the established speed limit. Now, not only do cars still surpass speeds in excess of the 25 mph limit (many don't even slow down for the speed humps) but now we hear "engines revving" as cars pass between speed humps. Even when we drive the speed limit, we get motorist who tailgate us and give us dirty looks because we aren't "speeding" through our own neighborhood. We have a newborn child at home and fear for her safety when she begins to venture outside. We also know and respect our neighbors, and feel concern for their children as they walk the sidewalks outside their home. My wife and I are of humble background, not coming from families of any means or privilege. We worked very hard to purchase our first home on Langenberg Ave. We love our neighborhood and know and respect all our neighbors. The traffic situation has not been solved or alleviated with the new speed humps. And, when I brought the issue up to the City of Iowa Transportation/Planning Department back in September, we were told to wait until the McCollister Blvd. extension scheduled for 2019. Having to wait over 2 years for the possibility of a solution isn't really a solution to our problems. We don't want to leave our neighborhood because we take pride in where we live. All we ask is for people who pass through our neighborhood to respect the speed limit and help ensure the safety of us who live there. We know several other neighbors who feel this way too. Can you communicate with us as to how we can change our situation? Is there anything else we can do to restore our peaceful neighborhood? Please let me know what I can do to help solve this pressing neighborhood problem. I'm willing to dedicate time and effort to making our neighborhood safe again. Sincerely, Philip Hauck 1531 Langenberg Ave. Iowa City, Iowa (956)451-7464 Julie Voparil Late Handouts Distributed From: Stevie Toomey <toomeynow@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 8:15 AM w/1-1 '_ To: Jennifer Jordan Cc: Stephen Murley; Duane Van Hemert; Dave McKenzie; Julie Robins(©*�ncil; Nancy Bird; Stevie L.H. Toomey; Chris O'Brien Subject: Re: District recycling pilot Jen, A big thanks to you for opening this conversation and to Chris for entertaining the pilot at Mann Elementary. I now know that the City of Iowa City does residential only, so your time reviewing this project for a school means a lot to me, I plan to report to the Environmental Club on Wednesday this week. Going forward, I will contact each of you at different times to obtain vital information pertaining to this project. Looking forward to having our community acting responsibly with our waste on many different platforms (residential, commercial, and public). Living along side you, Stevie On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Jennifer Jordan <Jennifer-Jordan(a,iowa-city.org> wrote: Hi Stevie, Thanks again for your inquiry. I discussed this with my director Chris O'Brien (copied). I appreciate your excitement about recycling and recycling education in the schools. However, the City offers curbside trash, recycling and composting services to single family homes through four -unit apartments and condominiums. We are currently not set up to provide service beyond those residential, including to institutional to commercial entities. If the school district representatives would like assistance in exploring recycling program options, I would be happy to meet to discuss ideas and possibilities. Thank you, Jen ,Jewwtfer,Jovdah. Recycling Coordinator City of Iowa City 319-887-6160 ren n fifer-rorda n (a) iowa-city. org From: Stephen Murley [mailto:Murley.Steohen(a)iowacitvschools.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2017 10:14 AM To: Duane Van Hemert; Dave McKenzie Cc: Jennifer Jordan; Stevie Toomey; Julie Robinson; Council; Nancy Bird; Stevie L.H. Toomey Subject: RE: District recycling pilot Good Morning Duane and Dave, Please see the email dialog below. Please connect with the people on this email to see how this may fit in with the sustainability initiatives currently underway in the District. Steve Sti7th", T. Murrey Superintendent of Schools Iowa City Community School District 1725 North Dodge Street Iowa City, IA 52245-9589 Phone: 319-688-1000 Fax: 319-688-1009 Web: httn //www.iowacitywhwls.org IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT From: Stevie Toomey [mailto:toomevnow@Rmail.coml Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 9:57 AM To: Julie Robinson <Robinson.Julie@iowacityschools.orR>; Dave McKenzie <McKenzie.Dave@ iowacitvschools.ore>; Stephen Murley <Murlev.Stephen@iowacityschools.ors>; council@iowa-citv.or¢; Nancy Bird <nancv@downtowniowacitv.com>; Stevie L.H. Toomey <inbox.fashion@amail.com> Cc: Jennifer Jordan <lennifer-iordan@iowa-citv.ore> Subject: Fwd: District recycling pilot Hi Everyone, This is the email from our Recycling Coordinator at the City of Iowa City. I am forwarding this because I had two emails bounce back on my initial send. Now we are all on the same thread as intended. Thank you for putting your thoughts into this project. Best, Stevie ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jennifer Jordan <Jennifer-Jordannd,iowa-citv.org> Date: Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 8:56 AM Subject: RE: District recycling pilot To: Stevie Toomey <toomevnownd,gmail.com>,"murley.stephen(oDiccsd.kl2.ia.us" <murlev.stohennd,iccsd.kl2.ia.us> Hi Stevie, Thanks for your email. I've forwarded your request to my director and will touch base with you next week after we've had a chance to chat about it. Jen Jennifer Jordan Recycling Coordinator City of Iowa City 319-887-6160 0enn fer-iordanCcDiowa-city.org From: Stevie Toomey [mailto:toomevnowCalamail.coml Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 8:37 PM To: Jennifer Jordan; murley.stephenCaliccsd.kl2.ia.us Subject: Fwd: District recycling pilot Cc: Julie Robinson<robinson.iulie(&iowacityschools.org>, murley.stevenCa.iccsd.kl2.ia.us. mckenzie.dave(&iowacityschools.org council(i ,iowa-citv.org, nancy(adowntowniowacity.com, "Stevie L.H. Toomey" <inbox.fashionAgmail.com> Hello All: My name is Stevie Toomey and I am an Iowa City resident, mother, environmental activist, educator to the young, and former downtown Iowa City business owner. I am e -mailing all of you because, in one way or another, you play important roles in the education of our young concerning environmental preservation and sustainability. Each one of us can play a different role in the sustainability of this project. Please find attached a letter dated March 7, 2017, to Jennifer Jordan from the Mann Elementary Environmental club, wherein we describe our recycling pilot program and request the involvement of the City of Iowa City. Currently the School District has contracted a recycle hauler that does not recycle milk cartons or plastic. We believe that it is time to work together to make the money the District is spending work for the students and the environment. Only three simple things need to happen in order for the City to help the Mann Elementary recycling pilot program to work: 1. For the City to add Mann Elementary to the Tuesday neighborhood recycling route; 2. One standard blue City recycling container would be required for plastic recyclables; and 3. Two (2) 32 gallon or 50 gallon waste buckets would be required for milk carton recycling. If this seems simple, it is because it is. I would like to take on the role of organizing the project for the remainder of the 2016-2017 school year (and possibly beyond) and seek your cooperation and approval. This will give me the summer to work on the rest of the logistics and have a tentative plan for the 2017-2018 year and future. Going back to throwing Mann cartons and plastic into the landfill would be a disappointment to the students at Mann. The operation of the program at Mann is easy and I am willing to go into other schools in the District to teach it on a volunteer basis. I sincerely and humbly request your blessings and support for these endeavors. My excitement will be contained until I hear from you. Stevie Toomey NOTICE: All email communications to and from the District's email server are archived in accordance with District policy and procedures. This email communication, including attachments, contains information which may be confidential and/or legally privileged, and may otherwise be exempt from disclosure under applicable law. The information is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient or believe you received this communication in error, please reply to the sender indicating that fact and delete the copy you received. In addition, if you are not the intended recipient or believe you received this communication in error, any unauthorized retention, copying, disclosure, distribution, or other use of the information is strictly prohibited. Thank you. Julie From: Stevie Toomey <toomeynow@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2017 9:57 AM To: Julie Robinson; mckenzie.dave@iowacityschools.org; Stephen Murley; Council; Nancy Bird; Stevie L.H. Toomey Cc: Jennifer Jordan Subject: Fwd: District recycling pilot Hi Everyone, This is the email from our Recycling Coordinator at the City of Iowa City. I am forwarding this because I had two emails bounce back on my initial send. Now we are all on the same thread as intended. Thank you for putting your thoughts into this project. Best, Stevie ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jennifer Jordan <Jennifer-Jordan(a-�,iowa-city.org> Date: Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 8:56 AM Subject: RE: District recycling pilot To: Stevie Toomey <toomeynow(a),gmail.com>,"murlev.stephenna,iecsd.kl2.ia.us" <murley.stephen(a,iccsd.k l2.ia.us> Hi Stevie, Thanks for your email. I've forwarded your request to my director and will touch base with you next week after we've had a chance to chat about it. Jen Jennifer Jordan Recycling Coordinator City of Iowa City 319-887-6160 ien n fifer-iordanO iowa-city. oro From: Stevie Toomey [mailto:toomeynow(nlgmail.coml Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 8:37 PM To: Jennifer Jordan; murlev.steohen(la iccsdAl2.ia.us Subject: Fwd: District recycling pilot Cc: Julie Robinson <robinson.iulie ,iowacitvschools.org>, murley.stevenaa,iccsd.kl2.ia.us, mckenzie.dave(a iowacitvschools.org council(a,iowa-city.org, nancy&downtowniowacity.com, "Stevie L.H. Toomey" <inbox.fashionna,email.com> Hello All: My name is Stevie Toomey and I am an Iowa City resident, mother, environmental activist, educator to the young, and former downtown Iowa City business owner. I am e -mailing all of you because, in one way or another, you play important roles in the education of our young concerning environmental preservation and sustainability. Each one of us can play a different role in the sustainability of this project. Please find attached a letter dated March 7, 2017, to Jennifer Jordan from the Mann Elementary Environmental club, wherein we describe our recycling pilot program and request the involvement of the City of Iowa City. Currently the School District has contracted a recycle hauler that does not recycle milk cartons or plastic. We believe that it is time to work together to make the money the District is spending work for the students and the environment. Only three simple things need to happen in order for the City to help the Mann Elementary recycling pilot program to work: 1. For the City to add Mann Elementary to the Tuesday neighborhood recycling route; 2. One standard blue City recycling container would be required for plastic recyclables; and 3. Two (2) 32 gallon or 50 gallon waste buckets would be required for milk carton recycling. If this seems simple, it is because it is. I would like to take on the role of organizing the project for the remainder of the 2016-2017 school year (and possibly beyond) and seek your cooperation and approval. This will give me the summer to work on the rest of the logistics and have a tentative plan for the 2017-2018 year and future. Going back to throwing Mann cartons and plastic into the landfill would be a disappointment to the students at Mann. The operation of the program at Mann is easy and I am willing to go into other schools in the District to teach it on a volunteer basis. I sincerely and humbly request your blessings and support for these endeavors. My excitement will be contained until I hear from you. Stevie Toomey Julie Vooaril From: Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition <jcaffordablehousing=gmail.com@mail 184.wdc02.mcdlv.net> on behalf of Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition <jcaffordablehousing@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 1:34 PM To: Council Subject: Universities and Affordable Housing News and Updates from the Johnson County Is this email not displaying Affordable Housing Coalition! correctly? View it in Your browser. Dr. Robin Bachin to discuss Universities and Affordable Housing on 4/27 at 5:30pm! rN `14, CS Free and open to the public! Dr. Robin Bachin, Assistant Provost for Civic and Community Engagement, and Associate Professor of History at the University of Miami, will discuss "Scholarship, Service and Affordable Housing: How the University of Miami Makes Connections " on Thursday, April 27th from 5:30 to 7:00pm, in room W-151 of the Pappajohn Business Building. Dr. Bachin recognizes that there is a disconnect between grassroots organizations promoting affordable housing, the people who need that housing, and the government agencies overseeing housing policy. She will discuss how and why universities have a key role to play in fostering connections among those groups, promoting change in the community, and translating local activism into policy. Please join us for this important presentation! FA Click here for additional information. Co-sponsored by the Oberman Center for Advanced Studies, the University of Iowa Office of Outreach and Engagement, Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition, The School of Urban and Regional Planning, and The School of Social Work. Copyright© 2017 Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you signed up at an event or meeting. Our mailing address is: Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition 205 Black Springs Cirde Iowa City, IA 52246 Add us to your address book unsubscribe from this list I update subscription preferences I view email in browser Julie From: Carol deProsse <lonetreefox@mac.com> Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 7:27 AM To: Council Subject: Golf course Council: Received reply from Simon re putt -putt course, which I assume you did as well. A putt -putt course does not belong in Black Hawk Mini Park. The area needs more benches, tables, a few more plantings perhaps, and nothing else. These is very limited people space downtown, the mini park is one place it's available. Additionally, here is a copy of a post I came upon on Facebook today, from an area resident. I agree with what he says. "The creeks running through Iowa City are ridiculously foul. Dead animals, lawn chemical runoff, dog feces (some people pick it up, then throw the bag into the creek!) and tons of trash coming from people walking or driving down the street, overflowing dumpsters, and the mud and trash pouring down from construction sites. There is the huge mess under the Gilbert Street Bridge. With every big rain it all flows down to the Iowa River. Even bars, convenience stores and at least a couple Hyvee stores bleed a steady stream of trash. No doubt there are many more sources. The point I want to make is that this has gone way too far. People have become inured, blind to the slow decay of our quality of life. Retreating indoors with TV and internet is definitely more comfortable than speaking out and way easier than spending a few hours cleaning up locally. I feel we should do something before this becomes the only reality our children know." Carol deProsse Julie Voparil From: Simon Andrew Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 10:45 AM To: 'Carol deProsse'; Council Subject: RE: Black Hawk Mini Park Hi Carol, Thank you for your email. We are still working on the details of the block party event and putt -putt game. You are correct that supervision of the game and liability concerns are key issues to be worked out and will be carefully reviewed during the planning process. As to long-term plans for Black Hawk Mini Park — potential uses of the space will be influenced by design efforts that the City is currently leading. The adopted master plan and Council feedback at last year's work session before the design kicked off is helping to guide design, and there will be continued opportunities for the public to weigh in on the project. The City Council will need to schedule a public hearing on plans and specs for the larger improvements and subsequently formally accept bids. We look forward to the input we receive throughout that process, which includes feedback on how the community envisions that space being used. Thank you again for your email. Have a great day. Sincerely, Simon Andrew Assistant to the City Manager City of Iowa City 410 East Washington St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (319)356-5010 simon-andrew@iowa-city.org From: Carol deProsse [mailto:lonetreefox@mac.com] Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 6:37 PM To: Council Subject: Black Hawk Mini Park I have a few questions about this: The Downtown Association is seeking design proposals from artists, engineers, clubs, groups and more to build and install a 9 -hole putt -putt course for a new night Block Party Event in June and for a longer installation in Black Hawk Mini Park. Proposals will be for groups to design and build one imaginative golf hole to be put together into a putt - putt course that incorporates fun challenges for players. Specifically, 1. Have they received Council approval to put this in BHMP for a'longer installation'? How long? Who will supervise it (hand out clubs, retrieve stray balls, assume liability for someone getting hurt, etc.) 2. Can you schedule some period of comment from the Council about weighing in on long-range plans for the park? It is my opinion that the DTA should not be making this determination. Thanks, , Carol Julie Voparil From: Carol deProsse <lonetreefox@mac.com> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 6:37 PM To: Council Subject: Black Hawk Mini Park I have a few questions about this: The Downtown Association is seeking design proposals from artists, engineers, clubs, groups and more to build and install a 9 -hole putt -putt course for a new night Block Party Event in June and for a longer installation in Black Hawk Mini Park. Proposals will be for groups to design and build one imaginative golf hole to be put together into a putt - putt course that incorporates fun challenges for players. Specifically, 1. Have they received Council approval to put this in BHMP for a'longer installation'? How long? Who will supervise it (hand out clubs, retrieve stray balls, assume liability for someone getting hurt, etc.) 2. Can you schedule some period of comment from the Council about weighing in on long-range plans for the park? It is my opinion that the DTA should not be making this determination. Thanks, Carol Fields of Opportanitles STATE OF IOWA TERRY E. BRANSTAD, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES KIM REYNOLDS, LT. GOVERNOR CHUCK GIPP, DIRECTOR April 4, 2017 City Council City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 To Whom It May Concern: Please find enclosed a copy of a Public Notice which is being published by IDNR in the Des Moines Register and the Iowa City Press -Citizen regarding the application of the University of Iowa for a proposed modification to a PSD permit. This notice is being sent to you pursuant to the public participation requirements of Iowa Administrative Code (IAC) 567-33.3(17). If you have any questions or concerns on this, please call me at (515) 725-9560. Sincerely, Karen Kuhn Air Quality Bureau Iowa Department of Natural Resources CITYQFIC-CITYCLERK 2017 APR 7 AM11:44 7900 Hickman Road, Suite 1 /Windsor Heights, Iowa 50324 515-725-9500 FAX 515-725-9501 http://www.iowacleanair.gov/ Public Notice Iowa Department of Natural Resources Notice is hereby given that the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) has under review an application submitted by the University of Iowa, located in Iowa City, Iowa for a unit previously permitted under Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) rules. Based upon the information provided by the applicant, IDNR has determined that this project is a modification to an existing unit. The permit application has met the requirements of 40 CFR 52.21 and 567 Iowa Administrative Code 33.3(455B). A copy of the complete permit file, the draft permit, the Fact Sheet (Technical Support Document) and the application are available for public inspection at the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Air Quality Bureau, 7900 Hickman Road, Suite #1, Windsor Heights, Iowa 50324 and also the Iowa City Public Library, 123 South Linn St, Iowa City, Iowa 52240. In addition, a copy of the permit file, fact sheet and draft permits can be found on the Department's website at www.iowacleanair.gov. All comments regarding the draft permits must be received on or before the end of the public comment period, which will run from April 5 to May 5, 2017. Only comments on the amended portions of the permit will be considered. A public hearing may be held if requested prior to April 21, 2017. Written and signed comments may also be directed to Karen Kuhn, PE, Air Quality Bureau, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 7900 Hickman Road, Suite #1, Windsor Heights, Iowa 50324; Phone: (515) 725-9560; Fax: (515) 725-9501; or Email: karen.kubn@dnr.iowa.gov Upon the issuance of the permits, all comments and the permit will be available to the public at the IDNR office and for one month at the Iowa City Public Library. CITYdFIC-CITYCLERK 2017 RPR 7 aw11:44 Julie From: Laurie Nash <Inash@co.johnson.ia.us> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 12:49 PM Subject: Save the Date April 29 Attachments: WOYCLegBreakfastlnvite 2017.pdf Please pass along to City Councilors and Mayor. Thank you. We hope you will join us for a breakfast for elected officials that is hosted as part of Johnson County's annual Celebration of the Young Child, highlighting the importance child development birth through eight. The breakfast will begin at 9:00 am on Saturday, April 29 at the Iowa Children's Museum, with a presentation beginning at 9:15. The Celebration of the Young Child includes local events that are held in conjunction with the annual Week of the Young Child, sponsored by the National Association for the Education of Young Children. This year we are honored to host speakers Deidra Benser and Jill Dodds. Deidra is a preschool teacher at Little Angels Learning Center and the vice president for the Iowa Association of the Education of Young Children Iowa City Chapter. Jill is an owner/operator/early educator at Simple Abundance Child Care and a member of the Coralville City Council. Deidra and Jill will share their experiences of JOYFUL LEARNING in child care center and child development home settings. Early childhood and preschool education has taken the forefront of a lot of the conversations about community livability, economic development, and preparing children for school success. This will be an engaging continuation of our conversation about how children learn and the importance of joyful play to facilitate the most impactful experiences. We hope to see you on April 29! Laurie Nash Celebration of the Young Child Planning Committee Laurie Nash Johnson County Empowerment/Early Childhood Iowa Area 855 S. Dubuque Street, Suite 202B Iowa City, IA 52240 319-339-6179(p) 319-688-5711 (f) www.Ocempowerment.org www.facebook.com/JohnsonCountyEmpowerment Celebration of the Young Child Legislative Breakfast A community conversation about early childhood education in our community because children need a strong early learning foundation to succeed in school and in life. Saturday, April 29, 2017 9:15 - 10:00 AM at THE IOWA cH LDRe is MUSeUM Hosted by: The Iowa City Chapter of The Iowa Association for the Education of Young Children, 4Cs Community Coordinated Child Care, Johnson County Empowerment, The Coralville Public Library and The Iowa Children's Museum. Julie Voparil Late Handouts Distributed From: Shams Ghoneim <shamsghoneim@mchsi.com> Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 5:11 PM y%-7 �/-7 To: Jim Throgmorton; Joe [LEGIS] Bolkcom; sups@co.johnson.ia.us; C i HarryO Olmstead; Kingsley Botchway; Jean Lloyd -Jones; Jody Matherly; Mark Pries; CV*�astham; John Greve; Micah Ariel James; Jesus J Renteria; Jacob N Yarrow; Barr, John; Janette Rettig; Lisa Green - Douglass Cc: Ousainou Keita; Asghar Bhatti; Imam Molhim Bilal; Mohammad Amarneh; Samir Amin Subject: Thank you for being with us last night Dear Mayor Throgmorton, Senator Bolkcom, IC Councilor Botchway, JC Board of Supervisors, ICPD, Faith leaders, Friends, Neighbors, and Supporters, On behalf of the Iowa City Mosque community and leadership I thank you so much for taking the time to be with us last night at the Iowa City Mosque Open House. We so appreciated having you all with us including several of our Iowa City Police Department officers. It was a blessed gathering and an evening of community unity and friendship. Your ongoing support and counsel are very much appreciated. We are thankful for your leadership and goodwill. Many thanks Best regards. Shams Ghoneim, Member, Iowa City Mosque Board of Trustees/Directors From: Shams Ghoneim <shamsghoneim@mchsi.com> Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 5:30 PM To: sups@co.johnson.ia.us; Council; HarryO Olmstead; Jean Lloyd -Jones; Dorothy Paul; Nellie Kremenak; LaTasha DeLoach; Diane Finnerty; Dorothy Whiston; Mark Pries; Beverly Jones; Roger Dykstra; barrjohno Barr; Charlie Eastham; Aleksey Gurtovoy; Jo Butterfield; Jennifer Hemmingsen; Connie Ryan; Miriam Amer; Yarrow, Jacob N; James, Micah Ariel; Renteria, Jesus J Subject: You are cordially Invited on April 14. Dear Friends, neighbors, and Supporters; On behalf of the Iowa City Mosque and Muslim community we are delighted to announce that an Open House at the Mosque will be held on Friday, April 14th from 5:30Pm to to express our deep appreciation to the greater Iowa City and Coralville communities for their support and goodwill. Please join us on the 14th. Many thanks. Best regards Shams Ghoneim,Member Iowa City Mosque's Board of Directors. Julie Voparil From: Miriam Amer <mzmea611 @yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 6:02 PM To: Shams Ghoneim Cc: sups@co.johnson.ia.us; Council, HarryO Olmstead, Jean Lloyd -Jones; Dorothy Paul; Nellie Kremenak; LaTasha DeLoach; Diane Finnerty; Dorothy Whiston; Mark Pries; Beverly Jones; Roger Dykstra; barrjohno Barr; Charlie Eastham; Aleksey Gurtovoy; Jo Butterfield; Jennifer Hemmingsen; Connie Ryan; Yarrow, Jacob N; James, Micah Ariel; Renteria, Jesus J Subject: Re: You are cordially Invited on April 14. Thank you. Sent from my Whone > On Apr 9, 2017, at 5:30 PM, Shams Ghoneim <shamsghoneim@mchsi.com> wrote: > Dear Friends , neighbors, and Supporters; > On behalf of the Iowa City Mosque and Muslim community we are delighted to announce that an Open House at the Mosque will be held on Friday, April 14th from 5:30Pm to to express our deep appreciation to the greater Iowa City and Coralville communities for their support and goodwill. > Please join us on the 14th. > Many thanks. > Best regards > Shams Ghoneim,Member > Iowa City Mosque's Board of Directors. Julie Voparil From: Dorothy Paul <dorothypaul@oaknoll.com> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 4:12 PM To: Miriam Amer Cc: Shams Ghoneim; sups@co.johnson.ia.us; Council; HarryO Olmstead; Jean Lloyd -Jones; Nellie Kremenak; LaTasha DeLoach; Diane Finnerty; Dorothy Whiston; Mark Pries; Beverly Jones; Roger Dykstra; barrjohno Barr; Charlie Eastham; Aleksey Gurtovoy; Jo Butterfield; Jennifer Hemmingsen; Connie Ryan; Yarrow, Jacob N; James, Micah Ariel; Renteria, Jesus J Subject: Re: You are cordially Invited on April 14. Hi Miriam and Shams, How I wish I could join you at your Open House on Friday evening, April 15, but I have tickets for the Fred Hersch program at Hancher program that evening. Thanks for the invitation. I hope that I will be able to attend another time. Dorothy Paul > On Apr 9, 2017, at 6:01 PM, Miriam Amer <mzmea611@yahoo.com> wrote: > Thank you. > Sent from my Whone >> On Apr 9, 2017, at 5:30 PM, Shams Ghoneim <shamsahoneim@mchsi.com> wrote: >> Dear Friends, neighbors, and Supporters; >> On behalf of the Iowa City Mosque and Muslim community we are delighted to announce that an Open House at the Mosque will be held on Friday, April 14th from 5:30Pm to to express our deep appreciation to the greater Iowa City and Coralville communities for their support and goodwill. >> Please join us on the 14th. >> Many thanks. >> Best regards >> Shams Ghoneim,Member >> Iowa City Mosque's Board of Directors. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and any included attachments are from Oaknoll Retirement Residence and are intended only for the addressee. The information contained in this message is confidential and may constitute inside or non-public information under international, federal, or state securities laws. Unauthorized forwarding, printing, copying, distribution, or use of such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the addressee, please promptly delete this message and notify the sender of the delivery error by e-mail or you may call Oaknoll, Iowa City, U.S.A at (+1) (319)351-1720. Julie From: Karyl Bohnsack <karyl@hbaofic.org> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 10:35 AM To: Council Subject: Economic Development Committee Attachments: Letter to Iowa City Economic Development Committee.pdf Please find attached a letter from The Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association regarding the Economic Development Committee's consideration of the City's Tax Increment Financing Policies. Thank you for your time and attention. KarylBohnsack Executive Officer Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association PO Box 3396 Iowa City IA 52244 Phone: 319-351-5333 Fax: 319-358-2443 E-mail: Karel@HBAofIC.ore Website — iowacityhomes.com NAHB Member Discounts www.nahb.ora/ma j� 11 South Gilbert 000 P.O. Box 3396 The Greater Iowa City Area Iowa City, Iowa 52244 HBA Phone: (3191351-5333 Fax: [3191 358-2443 E-mail: Karyl@hbaofic.org F EBUILDERSAssouATION www.iowacityhomes.com April 10, 2017 To: Iowa City Economic Development Committee; Iowa City, City Council From: The Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association Dear Committee and Council Members, On behalf of the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association (HBA), I would like to comment on the Economic Development Committee's consideration of the City's Tax Increment Financing (TIF), Policies. While it is good to have a well-defined economic development policy on TIF, the HBA believes the City's policy should articulate public policy goals and aspirations, rather than memorialized requirements. These public goals should include several key considerations that are also important to our HBA members: affordable workforce housing; functionality and use (such as Class A office space); community amenities; degree of sustainability (LEED Silver, Gold or Platinum); and preference for the mechanics of the TIF requested. Ultimately, each of these public policy considerations are likely to add expense to any project. However, because TIF is really gap financing, the City should retain flexibility to approve projects that achieve many, but perhaps not all, aspirational goals. A point system that credits public policy goals is a better methodology for implementing TIF than instituting rigid TIF requirements. Projects that meet a greater number of stated outcomes should receive a greater degree of TIF assistance and vice -versa. In any event, it is shortsighted for the City to require certain defined criteria (such as LEED Gold) which may discourage many development opportunities. Rather, the City should retain flexibility to approve projects on a case by case basis based on the likely public outcomes and the City's commitment toward investment. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Please let me know if you would like further input from our organization Karyl Bohnsack Executive Officer Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association Affiliated with National Association of Home Builders & Home Builders Association of Iowa TO ALL CITY COUNCIL PERSON EXCEPT "YOU" CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY.. ANOTHER COMPLAINT; BECAUSE I SAID A BAD WORD ,I WAS KICK OUT OF THE VETERAN'S HOME -LESS SHELTER. AGAIN THE WELFARE PARISITES,COCKROACHES GOT TOGETHER AND CAME UP WE A SCAM TO PISS ME OFF..THIS TIME USING A "T.V." REMOTE AND A CUP OF COFFEE..AFTER A FEW CHOICE WORD BY ME AND THE A N OTHER WELFARE PARISITE. I WAS GIVEN A THREE DAY KICK OUT..BACK IN FRONT OF THE IOWA CITY,POLICE MON,TUES,WED..HAD YOU LIBERALS ALLOW THESE PEOPLE TO COME TO IOWA IN FIRST „THE CRIME LEVEL WOULD NOT BE INCREASING..BY THE SHERIFFS OWN WORDS. REGARDLESS HOW HARD I TRY I CANNOT EXCAPE THESE DISGUSTING BUM'S..THEY BRING NO REAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO IOWA.ONLY A DISGUSTING WAY OF LIFE„WELFARE,NO JOB SKILLS AT ALL..FREE EVERYTHING.. I CANNOT GETAWAY FROM BECAUSE THE SYSTEMS IS SET-UP FOR POOR,AND BEING DISABLE "I -AM"". 213 -840 -2960 -(cell) P.O.BOX 1905,IOWA CITY,IOWA 52244..AND ASA VETERAN HOMELESS AGAIN.. �'Zc TO ALL IOWA CITY, CITY COUNCIL PERSONS IOWA CITY,IOWA. J rte' V d t— CV U � BOARD OF SUPERVISOR 1ANELLE RETTIG u a LL¢ THIS IS THE BEGINNING OFA LAWSUIT AGAINST THE HOME -LESS SHELTER AT42p�®UTH- GATE,ST.IOWA CITY IOWA v N TO BEGIN WITH HARRASSMENT,BULLING,THREATS BY FEMALE,NAME'S LIKE -BUT -HOLE- BY ONE. ANOTHER CAME FROM BEHIND FRONT DESKTO THREATEN ME WITH BODILY HARM. ABOUT 25 -FEET. I AND OTHERS ARE VETERANS,ME BLIND IN ONE EYE AND UNABLE TO STAND FOR MORE THAN 5 -MINS. SHE BUM-RUSH,AND MADE THREATS TO MY FACE.THESE PEOPLE ARE HERE IN IOWA CITYTO COLLECT AND USE THE WELFARE SYSTEM TO HOUSE AND FEED THEM,WITH NO JOB OR INTENT OF WORKING LIKE I DID ON "U of I CONSTRUCTION,AND FOR THE CITY.. I WENTTO CALIFORNIA TO GETJOB TO PAY CHILD -SUPPORT TO MY TWO DAUGHTERS, I ALSO WENT TO UNION TRADE SCHOOL TO LEARN CARPENTERY,AS ON L.A. FREEWAYS.MADE FOREMAN AND SENT BACK HERE $ 1,000.00 CHECKS TO MY KIDS.THESE WELFARE PARISITE'S AND MAGGOTS,SOME I KNOW FROM THE "SLUMS" OF CALIFONIA. BECAUSE OF MY DISABILTY I HAVE TO LIVE BELOW THE PROVERTY LINE AND THAT PUTS ME IN THE SHELTER -HOUSE WITH THESE GOOD-FOR-NOTHING PEOPLE OF ALL RACES,BUT MAINLY HERE BECAUSE OF "FREE-WELFARE,AND HOUSING"LAKE-SIDE" YOU LIBERALS WHO YOUR DOING "GOD'S "WORK HAVE BUILD A SLUM WHERE THERE WAS NONE. BECAUSE WE ARE VETERANS WITH LITTLE MONEY WE STUCK WITH LIVING AS POOR WHICH WE ARE BUT DON'T NEED TO BE TREATED LIKE THESE PARISITS THAT ARE HERE FROM THE BIG CITY SLUMS. THESE WELFARE PEOPLE ARE LIVING BY SLUM (*******)AND GHETTO LAWS AND RULES THAT ALLOW THEM TO ACT LIKE ANIMALS. SUVIVILLE OF THE FATTEST. FIST FIGHTS SUNDAY APRIL 9.2017 PROVE IT.JUST CHECK THE IOWA CITY,POLICE REPORTS FOR THAT DAY.THIS WAS NOT THE FIRST ONE,BUT YOU PEOPLE ARE PAYING THE BILL'S IT IS NOT SAFE FOR SENIOR'S OR ANY WEAK PERSON TO LIVE WITH THEM. THIS LIFESTYLE HAS BEEN GOING FOR "400 YEARS" WEATHER YOU BELIEVE ME OR NOT LOOKUP BLACK HISTORY. I DON'T WANT TO LIVE LIKE THIS,REGARDLESS OF WHERE I LIVE I DO MY OWN THING,BUT THAT NO -LONGER POSSIBLE IN IOWA CITY..I AM NOT THE ONLY SENIOR THAT IS AFRAID TO COMEDOWN TOWN -PET -MALL. IF YOU DON'T DO SOME BLAME ONLY YOURSELVE'S 213-840-2960 (cell) JOUNERYMAN CARPENTER -FOREMAN. JERR SA'OS4Q 1L 0 N ) P.O. BOX 1905,IOWA CITY 52244 From: Juli Seydell Johnson Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 3:39 PM To: 'mugawump@mchsi.com'; Council Subject: RE: Lower City Park not a good site for Easter Egg Drop this Saturday, maybe use a soccer park instead? Ms. Atkinson, Thank you for your email letting us know of your concerns regarding the Scheels Egg Drop to be held at City Park on April 15th. This event is being held through a permitted rental of the park by Scheels. The event is open to the public and the park will remain open for public use during the event. A fee was paid to the City for the use of the park. All other expenses for the event are being incurred by Scheels. Scheels is responsible for clean-up after the event and restoring the park to the condition it was prior to the event. The event sponsors provided me with enough details of the event and their plans that I am confident that damage to the park is unlikely. However, if damage occurs, it will be repaired at the expense of the rental group. The actual egg drop will take place over Ballfields A, B and C. This part of the park was chosen so as to make the eggs easier to locate when dropped, to be accessible to large parking lots and to facilitate clean-up after the event. The Kickers Soccer Park was also considered for this event but was not available due to a prior booking of the area for soccer. Please let me know if you have further questions or concerns. Sincerely, Juli Seydell Johnson Director of Parks & Recreation City of Iowa City 319-356-5104 Juli-siohnson@iowa-citv.ore www.ictoy.org/pr -----Original Message ----- From: mugawump@mchsi.com [mailto:mugawump@mchsi.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 8:01 PM To: Council; parksandrecreation Subject: Lower City Park not a good site for Easter Egg Drop this Saturday, maybe use a soccer park instead? Hi, I read an article in the Gazette today about Scheels' Easter Egg Drop this Saturday, which sounds like fun for the kids and all. However, I truly don't think Lower City Park is a good location for this, both for the sake of the wildlife in the area and for the kids' safety & well-being. Maybe a soccer or other sports field would be a better fit? Especially after the 2008 and subsequent floods, to my eye, the park has increasingly become home to a variety of geese, ducks, and other birds, maybe bluebirds. It seems like it's becoming more of a nature reserve and floodway, which makes the landscape a bit rougher and also means there's a fair amount of Canada goose droppings. There's also the construction project for the Park Street Bridge; the last time I walked in the park a few weeks ago, there were piles of construction debris set back a bit from the entrance. In addition, having a helicopter drop 10,000 plastic eggs feels kind of disrespectful to the park and the nearby neighborhoods. (Yes, I do live nearby.) I'm curious if the city is being paid for this and/or if the organizers will be cleaning up all debris, including broken plastic eggs. Again, I'm not trying to be anti -fun (really!), I just think it would be better off in a different location. I can't tell from the info provided where in the park this will take place, so I just have to guess. http://www.thega zette.com/sub iect/I ife/people-p laces/schee Is-hel icopter-ea ste r -egg -d rop-is-satu rd av-20170410 https://www.facebook.com/events/148612808996386 Thank you for your time & attention, Kathryn Atkinson Julie Voparil 5f(11 From: helena hillman <helena_hillman@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 9:46 PM To: Council; Geoff Fruin Subject: Deer I live over on the eastside on Tamarack Trail and wanted to let you know that like my neighbors I too am concerned about the deer population. They are eating everything and they are everywhere. Any help would be appreciated. Helena Laroche 931 Tamarack Trail ^. CI 1 Y OF IUWA CIT -`'°':jdlmh% COUNCIL ACTION REPO 5f(12) April 18, 2017 Install (1) STOP sign on North Riverside Drive for northbound motorists at the intersection with River Street. A Prepared By: Emily Bothell, Acting Senior Transportation Engineering Planner Reviewed By: Kent Ralston, Transportation Planner Fiscal Impact: No impact Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: None Executive Summary: As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3B of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council of the following action. Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A (5); Install (1) STOP sign on North Riverside Drive for northbound motorists at the intersection with River Street. Background / Analysis: This action is being taken to establish an all -way stop at this intersection. The all -way stop is necessary to reduce/eliminate conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians and to make the intersection function more predictably for the traveling public. Late Handouts Distributed Julie Voparil From: Christopher Clough -Hunter <cloughcb@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 5:29 PM To: Council (Date) Subject: Graduate Student Senate Statement on Collective Bargaining Attachments: GSS Statement on BOR, COGS and Collective Bargaining .pdf Dear Iowa City Council, I am wiring my behalf of the Graduate Student Senate in order to release an official statement on the controversy regarding the signing, on February 17th, 2017, of House File 291 into law by Governor Branstad. We, the Graduate Student Senate, oppose the official measures taken by the current state legislature to limit the rights of Iowa state employees to engage in collective bargaining. We have outlined a timeline of events and our concerns in the press lease attached to this email. You can reach me, Christopher Clough -Hunter, for comment at the listed email address or by phone at 330-242-3351. Thank you, Christopher Christopher Clough -Hunter PhD Student and Teaching Assistant University of Iowa Communication Studies Department 130 Becker Communication Studies Building L C �Sasee Giving Grad Statdents a Voice... On February 17, 2017, Governor Branstad signed House File 291 into law, significantly limiting the collective bargaining power of Iowa unions. Despite opposition from constituents, legislators pushed this bill forward, thereby limiting considerations of the laws impact on Iowa workers, as well as COGS's ability to negotiate on behalf of graduate students. In response to this legislation, the Iowa Board of Regents (BOR) drew out the bargaining process and redrafted their contract proposals, eliminating our rights to a safe workplace environment, grievance process, non-discrimination clause protections, and number of hours worked, among many others that COGS has fought for twenty years to secure. This law makes it more difficult for the University of Iowa graduate student community to maintain a union and subsequently to advocate for competitive compensation packages for current and prospective graduate students. The BOR's proposal only included the single required issue of base salary, to which they have proposed a 1.1% increase—half the current rate of inflation in the United States. The timing of this bill's passing and the BOR's actions once it was signed into law suggest that they bargained with COGS in bad faith, and that they were waiting for legislators to rush this bill through the legislative process. This sends the message to graduate students that the BOR is only willing to discuss compensation so long as they are legally obligated to do so. We, the Graduate Student Senate, want to publicly state our opposition to such pointed legislation, and to the BOR's use of this law to diminish the position of graduate students at the University of Iowa. The work we do not only facilitates increased teaching capacity and undergraduate education quality, but also enables faculty to conduct world-class research, both directly and indirectly. Therefore, having competitive graduate compensation packages and work conditions significantly affects the reputation and function of the University. The actions taken by the BOR, while ostensibly trying to reduce costs, harm the University and the people who work and research here. Because of the proposed cuts, talented students will choose to go elsewhere for their graduate education, and current graduate student retention rates will drop. This will, in turn, negatively affect the research and teaching mission of the University of Iowa. We wish to thank Dean Keller and the rest of the Graduate College, as well as the faculty, for their support. Faculty understand how crucial graduate students are to their own research, as evidenced by their statement of support for graduate students this past month. Dean Keller and the Graduate College's pledge to provide tuition, health insurance, and lower fees demonstrates that they recognize the necessity for these factors for Iowa's graduate students. The Graduate College understands that a well -supported graduate student body contributes to the academic rigor of this institution. We strongly encourage the Graduate College to continue to fight for graduate students, and to enact meaningful and binding policy at the University of Iowa that will protect graduate students and ensure our ongoing access to health care, safe working conditions, and competitive compensation. The University of Iowa Graduate Student Senate 205 Gihnore Hall • Iowa City, Iowa • 52242 • 319.335.3260 • Fax 319.335.2806 http://gss.grad.uiowa.edu • grad-senate@uiowa.edu s�(ILt) Julie Voparil Late Handouts Distributed From: Blair Frank <bfrankecorev@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 10:05 PM To: Council; sups@co.johnson.ia.us Subject: Fwd: An appeal and some clarity about Gaia's Peace Garden Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Blair Frank <bfrankecorevaemail.com> Date: April 15, 2017 at 8:41:16 PM CDT To: Blair Frank <bfrankecorev@.etrtail.com> Subject: Fwd: An appeal and some clarity about Gaia's Peace Garden On 4/15/2017 6:44 PM, Blair Frank wrote: 44 -1/1-1 (Date) To Iowa City Council and Johnson County Supervisors about Gaia's Peace Garden...... I am sending this to inform you that i am informed that Iowa City has issues with Gaia's Peace Garden....... Why I am writing you and what I am asking! I envision Gaia's as an asset and a gift to the community of Iowa City. Recently as I left town to travel to Findhorn, Scotland I received a "Notice of Violation" concerning the vacant lot I refer to as Gaia's Peace Garden. I am preparing an "official" letter to Iowa City Council and to the Iowa City Press Citizen which will be quite similar to this letter. The letter I received concerning my property is from the Code Enforcement Specialist Jann Ream. She is responding as her job title indicates to issues about my property also known as Gaia's Peace Garden at 2066 Bristol. I received a Notice of Violation as I was preparing to go on a 10 day extended trip. If you are interested in reading the letter I can share it with you. Now I am being asked by the city to meet me at the garden this week so my letter takes on a new sense of urgency. First..... I want to give you clarity. I take this letter very seriously and understand Jann is doing her job as a Code Enforcement Specialist. I immediately ceased preparing for my trip and responded to the letter by removing the items referred to on "city property" and depicted in I the enclosed picture. I intend to attend to the garden shed cited to be on city property when I return. So I have already responded to the immediate concern mentioned in the letter. A picture enclosed of a messy area down the service road which is nearly but not quite out of sight unless you drive the service city road. And my immediate neighbor who shares the service road with me and the city gave me clarity saying he is not complaining. Ironically the hose in the picture were dropped off on flowers in my front garden area by a neighbor! I did not give permission for this drop off however "well intended" this might have been. In the letter there are comments about the "signage" at the front of Gaia's Peace Garden. And I am told the Rainbow painting on the curb which is "city" property needs to be removed asap. What is the purpose of "signage" on the entrance to Gaia's Peace Garden? Signs welcoming people to a garden with a map showing people where things are. To briefly recap there are signs celebrating our certification by United Plant Savers- an organization that seeks to protect our rapidly decreasing flowers and herbs, our connection to Seed Savers- an organization that that celebrates heirloom seeds, a sign that Gaia's is a Monarch Way Station- we have milkweed and calendula and dozens of other prairie plants that support and give a lifeline to monarchs and other pollinators, a Green Light Renewable sign- highlighting the one solar panel at Gaia's promoting alternative energy as it powers the pump on the waterfall as an option for energy other than fossil fuels. At different times there have been some Garden banners celebrating nature and a few flags of Mother Earth and Rainbows celebrating the diversity of all. So I question my right to have these signs and would be quite sad to discover there is not enough support to keep them! Celebrations of our human family? Celebrating a reconnecting to Mother Earth experience? Modeling for a green Iowa City with biodiversity for all? Second..... I want to invite you to either visit Gaia's Peace Garden or if you have visited please share how you feel about your experience. Share on my page or on Gaia's Peace Gardens page on Facebook or write a letter to me that I can share. If you want to really help me write a letter of support to the Iowa City council or to the Iowa City Press Citizen! If you have not visited and want a tour please call me 319-721-7741. I think you will understand my letter better if you have been there but this is your choice obviously. 2 Third...... To be clear, I intend for Gaia's Peace Garden to be a safe place to be for people and nature to reconnect in the abundance and beauty and community we are! I rejoice that some have found it a safe place for friends to gather. Some have walked the labyrinth on their lunch hour. I am told neighbors in the Bristol neighborhood walk through in the evenings. I have communicated an openness to the neighbors as a space to reconnect to Gaia / Mother Earth both by word of mouth and as a letter I handed out to everyone. Nothing to buy or to sell! Just an invitation to participate if interested. Recently I planted 40 more fruit trees so there are over 70 now and intend to plant more paw paws soon. Those of you who have visited are aware there is a children's learning area, a small waterfall, a labyrinth and a larger learning area, a fairy garden and fire pit. I have invited unashamedly for anyone with a small group to come and meet there in the learning area or the fire pit area. And now see I might be violating city ordinances! Fourth..... A few more reflections in the hope you are still reading! I have moved from sadness to outrage to a sense of gratitude as I read the entire letter. The sadness and outrage were first elicited as Jan refers to a my property as a "vacant lot". Why? Because a house or residence makes it of value but a garden does not get any consideration? I intended for Gaia's as a place for people to visit. People cannot come and gather at my space? We are a green city? As I see the ways top soil is scraped away and old trees are taken out to prepare for construction of so many new developments in Iowa City I cringe. Economically and ecologically I use principles of pennaculture taught for years now in this community by Backyard Abundance and the principles of which are visible at Gaia's Peace Garden! A recent visit by a pennaculture class from Fairfield and a few years ago from young people from Grinnell and a couple from Cornell all shared their appreciation of Gaia's Peace Garden in Johnson County. I am observing Iowa City being community. I have created a garden with a vision of bringing community of nature together with people in a celebration of the biodiversity of all of life. A community that is compliment driven is different than a complaint driven community....: My question is simple.... Can Iowa City celebrate spaces like Gaia's! Finally...... Clarity..... Gaia's Peace Garden is a template and a safe place to practice a new way of being. If you do not understand what I 3 am saying ask or read some of the witnesses to Gaia's. I intend for Gaia's to be a visible space to view love in action as it supports a vision of a community that is at the edge of cocreating and collaborating to be a healing and empowering place to live for all people in their beautiful diverse way of being human. If not then Gaia's is a distraction? I love attention but this goes far beyond my personality. The planet is on the verge of destroying precious few of the remaining unpolluted reservoirs of water. We are finding ourselves at the brink of war on three or more fronts! This is a proactive gift for gatherings to promote a way of being focused on relationships. We have work to do to protect this beautiful blue orb we call Mother Earth or Gaia's. I invite you to envision Gaia's as an empowerment template for the future of Iowa City? Now is the best time for you and I to step into our power. Let's protect the Water! Let's defend the soil! Let's clear the air! Please visit Gaia's and /or ask me questions about Gaia's. And I thank you for your attention to a matter that I believe is integral to the identity and consciousness of Iowa City and Johnson county. Are we a green city? For your consideration! I am hoping to share a few thoughts at the upcoming city council meeting. Thanks for reading. Blair frank DDDDDOM Dr DDDDDD 4