The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008-06-03 Ordinance03- 6c yynn ~ 'U~ Prepared by: Karen Howard, PCD, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5251 (REZ08-00003) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATELY 10.08 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 6, EAST OF SCOTT BOULEVARD, AND WEST OF COMMERCE DRIVE FROM INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (CI-1) ZONE TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC-2) ZONE. (REZ08- 00003) WHEREAS, Streb Investment Partnership, L.C., has applied for a rezoning of approximately 10.08 acres of property from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) Zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) Zone; and WHEREAS, said property is located north of Highway 6, east of Scott Boulevard, and west of Commerce Drive; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area at the intersection of Highway 6 and Scott Boulevard as appropriate for general commercial uses; and WHEREAS, the applicant has agreed to comply with the terms of the 1997 conditional zoning agreement regarding this property, notwithstanding the rezoning to Community Commercial; and WHEREAS, other owners of portions of the subject property, namely Fareway Stores, Inc. and Hawkeye Oil Company have indicated their support for the rezoning and agreed to the terms of the attached conditional zoning agreement; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed rezoning and determined that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan, provided that it meets certain conditions that will ensure appropriate development of properties along Scott Boulevard, an important entryway into Iowa City; and WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2007) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs directly caused by the requested change; and WHEREAS, the applicant and other owners have agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement, attached hereto, to ensure appropriate development along this entryway into the city. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. APPROVAL. The property described below is hereby reclassified from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) Zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) Zone: LOTS 16 THROUGH 24, ALL OF SCOTT-SIX INDUSTRIAL PARK, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA IN ACCORDANE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 38 AT PAGE 137, OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, CONTAINING 10.08 ACRES, AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance by law. SECTION IV. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same, at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, at the owner's expense, all as provided by law. SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION VI. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Ordinance No. Page 2 Passed and approved this day of , 20_ MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by City Attorney's Office 3/,~~~~ ppdadm/ord/REZOS-00020. doc Prepared by: Karen Howard, PCD, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5251 (REZOS-00003) CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"), and Streb Investment Partnership, L.C., Hawkeye OiI Company, and Fareway Stores, Inc. (hereinafter "Owners"). WHEREAS, Owners are the legal title holders of approximately 10.08 acres of property located north of Highway 6, east of Scott Boulevard, and west of Commerce Drive (hereinafter "Property'); and WHEREAS, Streb Investment Partnership, L.C. has requested that these 10.08 acres be rezoned from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Community Commercial (CC-2); and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area at the intersection of Highway 6 and Scott Boulevard as appropriate for general commercial uses; and WHEREAS, the applicant acknowledges that this 10.08 acres was subject to a 1997 Conditional Zoning Agreement, and that the City wishes to continue to impose certain obligations contained therein upon the Owners, notwithstanding the rezoning of the property to Community Commercial; and WHEREAS, Fareway Stores, Inc. and Hawkeye Oil Company have indicated their support for the rezoning; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed rezoning and determined that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan, provided that it meets certain conditions that will ensure appropriate development of properties along Scott Boulevard, an important entryway into Iowa City; and WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2007) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs directly caused by the requested change; and WHEREAS, the Owners acknowledge and agree that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable and necessary to ensure that the development of the Property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and to ensure appropriate site and building design along Scott Boulevard, an arterial street and important entryway into Iowa City; and WHEREAS, to satisfy public needs directly caused by the requested rezoning, the Owners agree to develop the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: Streb Investment Partnership, L.C., is the legal title holder of the Property legally described as follows: LOTS 19 THROUGH 24, ALL OF SCOTT-SIX INDUSTRIAL PARK, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 38 AT PAGE 137, OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, CONTAINING 3.48 ACRES, AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 2. Hawkeye Oil Company is the legal title holder of the Property legally described as follows: pptladMagVCZa rez00A0003 soctl six doc LOT 16 OF SCOTT-SIX INDUSTRIAL PARK, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 38 AT PAGE 137, OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, CONTAINING 2.94 ACRES, AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 3. Fareway Stores, Inc. is the legal title holder of the Property legally described as follows: LOTS 17 AND 18, ALL OF SCOTT-SIX INDUSTRIAL PARK, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 38 AT PAGE 137, OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, CONTAINING 3.66 ACRES, AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 4. The Owners acknowledge and agree that, as a component of the requested rezoning, the City wishes to ensure conformance with the principles of the Comprehensive Plan and applicable provisions of the original conditional zoning agreement established for these properties in 1997, such that the development of individual lots along Scott Boulevard occur in a manner appropriate for this entryway into the community. Further, the parties acknowledge and agree that Iowa Code §414.5 (2007) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs directly caused by the requested zoning. 5. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject Property, Owners agree that development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the zoning and subdivision ordinances, as well as the following additional conditions: a) As each lot subject to this rezoning is developed or redeveloped, public sidewalks shall be installed by the owner/developer according to City specifications; b) On all lots with frontage on Scott Boulevard or Highway 6, all building elevations visible from Scott Boulevard or Highway 6 shall be primarily masonry, which may include fired brick, stone, or similar material, and dressed concrete block and stucco or like material when used in combination with other masonry finish. Alternative buildings materials, such as architectural metals or other materials used for decorative treatment may be substituted if the Director of Planning and Community Development determines that the use of such other materials satisfies the intent of this agreement. All elevations visible from Scott Boulevard shall have a finished face. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened; c) Loading docks and receiving areas, garbage dumpsters, outdoor storage areas, mechanical equipment and other service areas and functions typically associated with the rear of buildings shall not be located in front of or along any building wall facing Scott Boulevard. When located elsewhere on a lot and visible from Scott Boulevard, these items shall be screened from view with landscaping or a combination of fencing and landscaping, as approved by the City; d) Landscape beds a minimum of 5 feet in width shall be provided along at least 50% of building elevations facing Scott Boulevard, and shall be planted with a variety of evergreen and deciduous shrubbery. A landscaping plan to that effect shall be ppCatlmlagV¢a rez08-00003 sodt six.tloc submitted to the City during site plan review; and e) Freestanding signs within the development shall be limited to one located at each vehicular access point from an arterial street. Individual development lots within the development may provide monument, fascia, or other signs as permitted by the City's sign regulations on a lot-by-lot basis, but shall not provide additional freestanding signs beyond that specified above. If signs are to be lighted, they shall be internally illuminated and in compliance with the City's sign regulations; The Owners and City acknowledge and agree that the conditions contained herein are reasonable and necessary additional conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2007), and that said additional conditions are imposed to satisfy public needs that are directly caused by the requested zoning change. 5. The Owners and City acknowledge and agree that in the event the subject Property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment, divisions, and subdivisions will conform to the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. 6. The parties acknowledge and agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect, unless or until released of record by the City of Iowa City. The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties. The Owners acknowledge and agree that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owners from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 8. The parties acknowledge and 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 at the Applicant's expense. Dated this day of , 2008. CITY OF IOWA CITY Streb Investment Partnership, L.C. Regenia Bailey, Mayor By: Attest: K. Karr, City Clerk Appro~v d b~yl: ,,- o City Attorney's Office ~lii~~ Fareway Stores, Inc. By: Hawkeye Oil Company By: pptladmlagVCZe rezOB-00003 soot six.doc CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: STATE OF IOWA ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this day of A.D. 2008, before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared Regenia Bailey and Marian K. Karr, to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of said municipal corporation executing the within and foregoing instrument; that the seal affixed thereto is the seal of said municipal corporation; that said instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City Council; and that the said Mayor and City Clerk as such officers acknowledged that the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said corporation, by it and by them voluntarily executed. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa My commission expires: LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: STATE OF IOWA ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this day of , A.D. 2008, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared , to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did say that he or she is (title) of the Streb Investment Partnership, L.C., and that said instrument was signed on behalf of the said limited liability company by authority of its managers and the said acknowledged the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said limited liability company by it voluntarily executed. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa My commission expires: pptlatlMagVCZa rez08-00003 sodl six.tloc CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: STATE OF IOWA ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this day of , A.D. 2008, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared and , to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the (title) and (title), of said corporation executing the within and foregoing instrument to which this is attached; that said instrument was signed on behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors; and that the aforementioned officer(s) acknowledge the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said corporation, by it and by aforementioned officer(s) voluntarily executed. Notary Public in and for said County and State My commission expires: CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: STATE OF IOWA ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this day of , A.D. 2008, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared and , to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the (title) and (title) of said corporation executing the within and foregoing instrument to which this is attached; that said instrument was signed on behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors; and that the aforementioned officer(s) acknowledge the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said corporation, by it and by aforementioned officer(s) voluntarily executed. Notary Public in and for said County and State My commission expires: ppdatlmlagVCZa rezOB-00003 socd six doc STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Karen Howard Item: REZ08-00003 Date: April 17, 2008 Lots 16-24 Scott-Six Industrial Park GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Streb Investment Partnership, LC. 1700 Country Club Drive Coralville, IA 52241 338-3498 Contact Person: AI Streb (same as above) Owners: Streb Investment Partnership, LC. & Inland Transport Co. 572 10"' Street SW Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52404 & Fareway Stores, Inc. 2300E 8`" Street Boone, Iowa 50036 Requested Action: Rezoning from CI-1 to CC-2 Purpose: To allow a change in the allowable land uses on certain undeveloped lots within the Scott-Six Industrial Park Location: Area bounded by Scott Boulevard, Liberty Drive, Commerce Drive and Highway 6; Specifically, Lots 16-24 Scott-Six Industrial Park; Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Comprehensive Plan: File Date: 10.08 acres Grocery store, gas station and convenience store & undeveloped lots; (CI-1) North: Residential; County residential zoning South: Agricultural; County residential zoning East: Industrial (I-1) West: Industrial (I-1) Industrial March 13, 2008 /revised April 8 45 Day Limitation Period: May 22, 2008 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION The applicant, Streb Investment Partnership, L. C., is requesting to rezone lots 16-24 from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Community Commercial (CC-2). These lots include the Fareway Grocery Store and the convenience store located at the intersection of Highway 6 and 420"' Street and 6 vacant parcels. In 1997 the Scott-Six Industrial Park was annexed into the City to fill the need for more industrial land as the BDI Industrial Park was nearing build-out. A number of economic development incentives were offered by the City to the developer, including waivers of sidewalks, sewer and water tap-on fees. The subject lots along Scott Boulevard were zoned Intensive Commercial with the intent that they be used for commercial uses and quasi-industrial uses that would be compatible with larger industrial uses that might located in the industrial park. In 2001, the applicant requested a similar request for CC-2 zoning for lots 17-22 in response to a purchase offer by Fareway Stores, Inc., who wished to develop a grocery store in this location. The rezoning request generated a considerable amount of public interest and controversy. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended against the rezoning and the City Council concurred due to the intent for this area to be reserved for industrial uses and compatible intensive commercial uses and concerns about mixing industrial and retail commercial traffic. However, the City Council did agree to amend the Intensive Commercial Zone to allow modest-sized grocery stores by special exception. Subsequently, Fareway Stores, Inc. applied for and was granted a special exception in 2002 to build a grocery store on lots 17 & 18. When the City's Zoning Code was updated in 2005, the Intensive Commercial Zone was revised to exclude land uses that were deemed incompatible with industrial orquasi-industrial uses. Retail commercial uses that generate large amounts of customer traffic, including grocery stores, medical offices, and restaurants, were disallowed. Residential uses were also disallowed because the potential noise, dust, outdoor work activities, and late night operations associated with many industrial and intensive commercial uses were deemed incompatible with residential living. As a consequence of these changes to the CI-1 Zone, the Fareway Store is now considered a legally nonconforming use, which may continue for as long as the current owner and any future owner chooses, but may not be expanded. Gas stations and associated convenience stores are still an allowed use in the Intensive Commercial Zone. ANALYSIS: Comprehensive Plan The Scott-Six Industrial Park was zoned and infrastructure provided to encourage expansion of industrial uses and compatible intensive commercial uses to fulfill a deficiency in Iowa City and to implement the Comprehensive Plan for this area. If conditions have changed since the adoption of the 1997 comprehensive plan such that a rezoning is warranted, an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan will also be necessary to change the designation of the area from industrial to general commercial. When deciding whether a change in the Comprehensive Plan is appropriate, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council should determine 1) what circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors have come to light such that the proposed rezoning is in the public interest; 2) whether or not additional retail commercial land is needed in this part of Iowa City; 3) if so, is this the best location for such development. If the Commission determines that the answers to these questions are yes, then a comprehensive plan amendment may be warranted and a public hearing should be set to consider this amendment at the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on May 1 Distinctions between the Intensive Commercial and Community Commercial The Intensive Commercial (CI-1) Zone is intended for to provide areas for those sales and service functions and businesses whose operation are typically characterized by outdoor display and storage of merchandise, by repair and sales of large equipment or motor vehicles, by outdoor commercial amusement and recreational activities or by activities or operations conducted in buildings or structures not completely enclosed. The types of retail trade in this zone are limited in order to provide opportunities for more land-intensive commercial operations and also to prevent conflicts between retail customer traffic and industrial truck traffic. The Intensive Commercial Zone does not generally include the types of retail commercial uses, restaurants, and personal service uses that tend to be large traffic generators, nor does it include the type of retail uses that rely on the customer exposure provided from frontage along a high traffic volume street. The Communitv Commercial (CC-21 Zone is intended to provide major business districts that serve a significant segment of the total community population. The CC-2 zone allows for a variety of retail uses that generate significant customer traffic and require the access and often the exposure that major thoroughfares provide. The zone allows all types of retail uses and personal service uses, motels, restaurants, and both general and medical offices. This zone also allows residential apartments located above commercial uses. Have circumstances changed and/or additional information or factors come to light such that the proposed rezoning is in the public interest? Is additional retail commercial land is needed in this part of Iowa City? If so, is this the best location for it? Since a grocery store is already located on lots 17 and 18 and the gas station/convenience store is located on lot 18, there are only 6 remaining undeveloped CI-1 lots at this corner of the Scott-Six Industrial Park. These lots are fairly small in size and may be more conducive to small retail, office, and restaurant uses that might get some economic boost from adjacency to the grocery store and its associated retail traffic. Since the die has already been cast by the establishment of the grocery store, it may be in the public interest to acknowledge this corner of two arterial streets as a commercial node. There may be a need to establish a small commercial node in this part of town to serve nearby residential areas, employees from the surrounding industries, and future development as the city grows to the east. When McCollister Boulevard is eventually extended from the Iowa River and across the South District to connect with Scott Boulevard traffic volumes will likely increase to a point that will better support a small concentration of retail businesses in this location. In addition, the City has plans to reconstruct 420"' Street in the next several years to support further economic growth in this area and in the area to the east. The City's policy is to concentrate commercial growth within established nodes near the intersection of arterial streets rather than encouraging strip commercial development. This intersection may be a good candidate for such a commercial node given these factors. Staff remains somewhat skeptical of the adjacency of community commercial and industrial zoning due to the potential conflict between retail traffic and industrial truck traffic. In addition, the outdoor work area, outdoor storage and noise often associated with industrial areas may limit the owner's ability to market these lots to retail and restaurant users that may find these factors will detract from the business potential and may be a nuisance to their potential customers. However, given that more of the industrial area has been built out since the last rezoning request, this industrial character will be apparent to potential users prior to purchase of the lots. Staff recommends that the conditions agreed upon in the 1997 conditional zoning agreement 4 between the City and the applicant remain in force. Of particular note are the following requirements: • Sidewalks must be provided along all commercially zoned lots within the development. • On lots with frontage on Scott Boulevard or Highway 6, all building elevations shall be primarily masonry, as specified in the agreement, and all elevations visible from Scott Boulevard must have a finished facade; • On all commercially zoned lots within the development, loading docks and receiving areas, garbage dumpsters, outdoor storage areas, mechanical equipment and other service areas and functions typically associated with the rear of the buildings shall not be located in front of or along any building wall facing and/or visible from Scott Boulevard. When located elsewhere on a lot and visible from Scott Boulevard, these items shall be screened from view with landscaping or a combination of fencing and landscaping; • Landscape beds a minimum of 5 feet in width shall be provided along at least 50% of building elevations facing Scott Boulevard, and shall be planted with a variety of evergreen and deciduous shrubbery; • Freestanding signs within the development shall be limited to one located at each vehicular access point to the property from an arterial street. Individual lots within the development may provide monument, fascia, or other signs as permitted by the City's sign regulations on a lot-by-lot basis, but shall not provide additional freestanding signs beyond that specified above. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ08-00008, a rezoning of approximately 10.08 acres from Intensive Commercial to Community Commercial (CC-2) for property located along Scott Boulevard and Liberty Drive between the Iowa Interstate Railway and State Highway 6, be approved, subject to compliance with the terms of the 1997 conditional zoning agreement, notwithstanding the change to Community Commercial zoning. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Rezoning Exhibit 3. Applicant's statement Approved by: Robert Miklo, Department of Planning and Community Development M O O O O O N W !!1 l I It __ ~ '~~ _J V O " O r~ ~J V I __ \\\~\ v T av r U __ U e v ~ y y o ~ ~ Q a ~ `o 3 mnc awn u N r N ~_ ~ p V N U _-- -- o ,.. ~. i T U I .SC ____ I N '~ X 3 ~.+ ~~ U ~~jj ~S~ ~ F-~ 0 b ~^ 1! q ` li 1 O1 .a um»l p.y ~ wiww W ', a mnwal ~ REZONING EXHIBIT IOWA CITY, IOWA ~° P TI PR A~6T RY' O1MER/ARPI~ICA11? PI~.AN'I' ATIOflNPY~ ~ I I YY9 CONSULTANTS RIG. 9TREB DR'F9TIBNT PARTHERSHD', LC. ROBERT N. DOENER J 181'i SOUTH CILBERf 9T. 1'/DO COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE IOWA CITY, IDEA 62210 CORALVILLE IONA 52241 l22 SOUTH LDIN STREET IOEA CITY, IOTA 62240 $ ~~ ~ Ql~ Q~ 9SR 4W ffi &U ~ INLAND TRANSPORT CO. \ PAREEAY 37URE3, D7C. GRAPHIC SCALE D7 P~1 bT2 10TH STREET SE I-~ P ~ 2300 E STH STREET IDEA fi009fi OO E 1'=app' ~j+- CEDAR RAPIDS, IDEA 62404 ®\ , R N _.~ 1E@WY R®AO _ ~I 6~~~~~~~~ \ ~aw ---~ ~ ~~ ~ I { ~ b e ~~ ~ T ~~~q,~ p-~ T II II '„ cl-~ ~ ~~~ a-i ~~ ~p m I-~ ~ I ~I / / J 'ARM, IOWA CITY, \T WEflEOf RECONDED gHN50N CODNLT DJECT i0 EASEMENTS rcu r \~ so ~ 3 ~~ g ~ o`ooXo m~ "~ o~>>~ g Q .. O DNDO j =N pa 3 am ~ [may' ~' 3 ~ 3 ~ O~ym ~}TO ~ p~pU' ~ ~J ~~o~C~ r Z ~p W ~ ~Ny ' ~~tn ~mrn ~~~ Z o O D O ~ ~ Z EF ~ Wfm ~''~'~ `d F W Z ~ T ~ maN O R O II ~ ~ Z ~ ~~ ~ m~C m ND~ ~~ g O n 7c o .~ Na. M 1VI~iS CONSULTANTS, INC. M IOWA CITY IOWA I CEDAR RAPIDS IOWA OFFICE: 319-351-8282 OFFICE. 319-841-5188 March 19, 2008 n `< r m ~ To: Bob Miklo z m m From: Duane A. Musser Re: Lots 16-24, Scott-Six -Rezoning Application r a z ° On behalf of Al Streb, a rezoning application is being submitted fora 10.08 acre tract located in Scott-Six, which lies east of Scott Boulevard, and North of Highway 6. The requested tract is ,`~~ currently zoned CI-1 and the requested zoning is CC-2, Community Commercial Zone. 0 N Rezoning Lots 16-24 to CC-2 brings these lots into compliance with the existing uses located in this area. These current uses located in the existing CI-1 zoning are no longer permitted under > the CI-1 zoning. z ° r a ~ If you have any questions or require any additional information, please contact us accordingly. a Respectfully submitted: Duane A. Musser, A.S.L.A MMS Consultants Inc. T:~o ~ oo~o I ozo6o~o 1 ozo6oLi .Doc 1917 SOUTH GILBERT STREET IOWA CITY • IOWA 52240 WEBSITE: WWW MMSCONSULTANTS.NET EMAIL: MMS@MMSCONSULTANTS.NET J, 6- 3- 8 ~{/ 6d ~~~7 Prepared by: Karen Howard, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5251 (REZ08- 00001) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 9.48 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF OLIVE COURT AND LEAMER COURT AND EAST OF MARIETTA AVENUE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (RS-8) ZONE TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (OPD-8). (REZ08-00001) WHEREAS, the applicant, Jeff Hendrickson, with consent from the owners, Otella, LLC and Gregory B and Carol Neuzil, filed with the City Clerk of Iowa City, Iowa an application for a rezoning of approximately 9.48 acres of property from Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) Zone to Overlay Planned Development 8 (OPD-8) to allow a Sensitive Areas Development consisting of 31 residential condominium units; and WHEREAS, said property is located south of Olive Court and Learner Court and east of Marietta Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Southwest District Plan identifies the area as appropriate for medium density single-family/duplex residential development; and WHEREAS, the proposed development will encroach on sensitive features, namely a wetland buffer, and steep, critical, and protected slopes in a partially wooded ravine, said proposed development therefore requiring a Level II Sensitive Areas Review; and WHEREAS, certain variations from the underlying zoning and subdivision requirements are necessary to allow clustering of dwelling units away from the sensitive areas within the ravine; and WHEREAS, the Department of Planning and Community Development and the Public Works Department have examined the Sensitive Areas Development Plan, soil stability analysis, and Preliminary Planned Development Plan and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission examined the Preliminary Planned Development Plan and Sensitive Areas Development Plan and after due deliberation and consideration of the application materials, staff recommendations, and public input recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. APPROVAL. The property described below is hereby reclassified from Medium Density Single Family Residential Zone (RS-8) to Overly Planned Development 8 (OPD- 8) and the associated Sensitive Areas Development Plan is hereby approved: Ottella L.L.C. Prooertv Lot 426 University Heights, Third Subdivision, according to the plat thereof recorded in Book 3, Page 140, Records of Johnson County, Iowa; and, The southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 16, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th P.M. excepting therefrom the following: Commencing at the northeast corner of the said southwest quarter of northeast quarter of northwest quarter of said Section 16, thence westerly along the north line of said southwest quarter of northeast quarter of northwest quarter of Section 16, 200 feet, thence south (included angle 88 degrees 17 minutes) 170 feet, thence easterly parallel with said north line Ordinance No. Page 2 200 feet to a point 164 feet south of the point of beginning, thence northerly 164 feet to the point of beginning, as shown by plat recorded in Plat book 4, page 245, Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa, subject to easements as shown of record. Also excepting therefrom Commencing at the Southeast Corner of Lot 412, University Heights Third Subdivision, as shown on the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 140, Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa; thence South 240 feet to the place of beginning; thence West parallel to the South line of said Lot 412, University Heights, Third Subdivision, 124.2 feet; thence South 80 feet; thence East 124.2 feet; thence North 80 feet to the place of beginning. Greoorv B and Carol Neuzil Property Commencing at the Southeast Corner of Lot 412, University Heights Third Subdivision, as shown on the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 140, Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa; thence South 240 feet to the place of beginning; thence West parallel to the South line of said Lot 412, University Heights, Third Subdivision, 124.2 feet; thence South 80 feet; thence East 124.2 feet; thence North 80 feet to the place of beginning. SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance by law. SECTION IV. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance and the associated Sensitive Areas Development Plan, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and the Preliminary Plat and the Sensitive Areas Development Plan (sheet nos. 1 through 7) and to record the same, at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, at the owner's expense, all as provided by law. SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provi- sions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION VI. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconsti- tutional. SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of , 20 MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK A+ proved by City Attorney's Office ~'~ djj City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: April 25, 2008 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner RE: REZ08-00001 -Hendrickson-Lytham Condominiums Since your last meeting, the applicant has made some adjustments to their plans based on comments from the public and have submitted documents that resolve the deficiencies noted in the staff report. The applicant's engineer walked the site with the Assistant City Engineer and planning staff to examine the western portion of the ravine where there is currently standing water. Several members of the public commented at your last meeting regarding the stagnant nature of the standing water in this area and expressed concern about ongoing drainage issues on this portion of the property. The problems noted in this area are due to poorly functioning stormwater management facilities leading from streets to the west and south of the subject property. The applicant has offered to try and resolve the issue. Staff suggests that the applicant or his engineer describe at the meeting what was observed at the site and their suggested remedies for the situation. Staff agrees that additional grading along the bottom of the ravine will be necessary to improve the drainage and will likely result in a more livable environment for area residents and future residents of the development. The revised preliminary plans illustrate where this additional grading and development activity will occur (See attached plan). We have received the following revised plans and documents: • The final geotechnical report from Terracon -indicates that based on soil borings taken at the site, the stability of the slopes is adequate for the proposed development. They note that a more detailed structural analysis should be done prior to construction of retaining walls and buildings. • Preliminary side and rear elevation drawings of the proposed dwellings. • Notes have been added to the plans regarding tree preservation. An on-site pre-development meeting between the grading contractor, construction manager, the City Engineer and the Development Regulations Specialist will be required prior to any grading or construction on the site to ensure that construction area limits are honored and trees are protected by safety fence. ^ A note has been added to the plan stating that the building designs and materials shall be consistent with the submitted elevations and the fagade designs and paint colors of the dwellings shall vary so that immediately adjacent dwellings shall not have the same design. April 25, 2008 Page 2 The City will require a construction site run-off permit and finalized grading and construction plans including a structural analysis for buildings and retaining walls built on slopes, and a tree protection plan prior to approval of the Final OPD Plan. Given that issues have been resolved to the extent possible at this preliminary plan stage, staff is now recommending approval of REZ08-00001 and SUB08-00002, a 2- lotsubdivision and a rezoning of 9.48 acres from Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) to Planned Development Overlay (OPD-8) for property located south of the terminus of Olive Court and Learner Court and north of Tower Court. Approved by: ~' - `'~~~ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development Gt' !ti ~) ~~~ 6P6 E~ie ~d~y wla ci ~~~~~~ I° liQ ~~ aIQ ~ o....,~ ~ _....,,~,., ~~~~ x ~ ~~~ai ~g a~Sc~ t a ~~ ~~~~ w~°a~a f i 1 is S~U_ ~~~~ ~~.p~ !P ~ i p ! ~~ ~ ~~°6gs~i~~e~~ d ~5q~ il~4 98 9 ~ ~ P ~ ~ ~~ a ppppgg Is?~s95p p@9 a aqS °z ~ iEA5§~~~91! ~SSCiiS~B~@Qi~~39 ~ 8 ~ B ~ ~!~ ~ Ali .,,.Y r°a~~,.., l ( ~,s.o I iI (Ei I~ ~' ~~I~I ~ (`i EO~Ya5~ ~~ ¢ ~~ g'e = g ~3z3 ~~; 4 Y~E bg ° t i9 P ~~? Sa ~ y~~~ ~~~ 0 q ~ 83 ~ i`~ ~~ ~q ~ €E~ S°2:t~~ ~ ~ h @q 4e9 pp ~ } w s ~~ l a s p y9 tl ~ C ~~ a $ t 3~~~ J ! 9 ~ R I ~ yy 9SRA 9fs ~ ~SSB e ddd ~ : ~~X9 z d a ~ ~ -~ z ~ ' w ~ ~ ' .'. a. ~ ~ _ w ~ I I ~ µ ~ n Q ~ _ I --- '~ vi Z ~ I ' ~ - I w O~ I- O z '> ~ i~'~l r ~ 7 i G? ,~ 6 I i ' -7 ~ - _ ~j_~ ~~~~' I _ Gl z ;G,O o -- ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ a ~ !( 1I x ~ ~ w ix - - __r o. - - - ~ ~I ~~, ~~-, ~ ~ J 1~--- j~ ~--_ +~ ~ spF r g gg9 g 4gq g g4 B e` f3 pp pp pp gg 9 5 i 9F ~ ~ ~ 9p ' ! 4 l 5y 4 ~ q E0 x is : • a €P 5 ~ a ~ ' '3 i Q ~e-v 6 q9 { t e ! f l ' ~ NB ~ !~ e~ ~ GpB~ ~~ ~~ li~~, ~P~@, 1a~v 4' ~ ~~ q a !'. I~ il'~ ~! geiq i° 9i' '!°! S~ q~ ~ q' i qi 4 gtlii q' ~IM9i I~! q~gt g°g ~ `B@4(~(~Stg ~Ir t~iqq =9 S6 l;iiq ~q' ~^f~'g q`13 -° ~~lli !~P li~4i f~! °~!! W qt, L. i ° ~ Iil ~q'.q qr; ! r r 4 eta :~; ~ f! Fj~ ~~ ~ ` 4 s ~~~ ~~! ~;~il ~~~ ~! t!~ 1S Ptgq P° :Et ! qt tl !i"'~ q+E, aii d,i gEfi: uql .. ~\ GEOTECHNICAL'ENGINEERING REPORT SLOPE STA$ILITY ANALYSIS PROPOSED HENDRICKSON LYTHAM CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT IOWA CITY, IOWA Job No. 06085611,02 April 25, 2008 Prepared for: JEFF MENDRICKSON clo MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. 1917 South Gilbert Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Prepared by: l~~rr~con Consultants, Jnc. Iowa City, Iowa lfe~rr~can April 25; 2008 Jeff Hendrickson c/o MMS Consultants, Inc. 1917 South Gilbert Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Attention: Mr. Ron Amelon, P.E. 1~~rracon Consulting l:nglneers 8 Sdentists Tenacon Consultants, Inc. 2339 Fielnz Roatl, Unit H Iowa Clty, Iowa 52240 Phone 319.688:3007 Fax 319.688.3008 vhvw.terracon.com Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report Slope Stability Analysis for the Hendrickson Lytham Condominium Development Iowa City, Iowa Terracon Job No: 06085611.02 Dear Mr. Amelon: Subsurface exploration for the proposed slopes for the condominium Development, in Iowa City, Iowa has been completed. In summary, soft to medium stiff clays were encountered .over stiff to hard sandy lean clays. Our analyses indicate that even with the weight of the new fill associated with the retaining walls and the weight of the new condominium structures, the existing slopes will remain stable with factors of safety greater than 1.3. We appreciate the opPoRunity to be of service to you during the design phase of your project, and Gook forward in assisting you during the construction phase. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further service to you, please contactus: Sincerely, 1lerra~on Cons//ul/fit/ants, Inc. ~ / Timothy T. 1 es, P.E. Iowa No. 12939 ~`'' ~~ ~ . Gisi, P.E. i" Iowa No. TTW1aFG: sab/n: !Projects/2008/ 06085811.02.tloc Enclosures COples To: Adtlrassee (3) Delivering Success for Chants and Employees Sinae 1985 Mote'rlten 95 Offrceis•N~tionwide TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..............------•---...-----°°----°------°•-----------...._.---------.__..........._.~ PROJECT DESCRIPTION -•-•---------...._._._---------•---°--•-••----°••_.._..---------°----•--'I . SITE EXPLORATIONPROCEDURES----•----••----•--------•--•-•--••--°•••••"".._..__.._..-._..._q Field Exploration -°----------•°----------------------°----...----•---------..........q Laborato Testin --------•--._...------------------•----....-°-°----------°p SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS---°•----....---------••-•---°-...---•-•----•°•--------------------------•--3' Soil Conditions-----------•-----••---••--•-•---------------------•-•---------------•-•---•-•-----------3 Groundwater Conditions--------.__......._._.__.----•°-•--••--°-••----------°•----------•--3. slope stability anaylsis -.-----------------------•-------------°-•---°---°--------°---------°-4' GENERAL COMMENTS---•----------•----------._--------------•--•---------•----•-•--------5 APPENDIX A Location Diagram Boring Logs SlopeW Printout UU Triaxial Test Results APPENDIX B General Notes Unified Soil Classification System GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS PROPOSED HENDRICKSON LYTHAM CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT IOWA CITY, IOWA Job No. 06085611.02 April 25, 2008 INTRODUCTION Subsurface exploration for the proposed slopes for the condominium development in Iowa City, Iowa has been completed. Twelve (12) borings were drilled at the proposed site. The individual boring logs and a Boring Location Diagram are enclosed with this report. This report describes the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings, evaluates the test '. data, and provides the results of our slope stability analyses. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project v~ill consist of the construction of a condominium complex comprising of iwo-story buildings (12 single unit and 12 duplex buildings), and associated parking and drive areas. The project site is located on Marietta Avenue and Learner Court in Iowa City. Based on the supplied preliminary development plan, we understand the proposed 8.1 acre site has steep slopes in the form of a valley with existing ground elevations varying between about 725 to 759 feet. In general, the steepest part of the existing slopes is about 3'/x:1 (horizontal:vertical). The proposed buildings will be located on either side of the valley near the tops of the slopes. New fill placed between the buildings and on the uphill side of the buildings varies from about 3Y: to 6 feet. A retaining wall will also be constructed about halfway down each slope. These retaining walls will be about 8 to 10 feat in height. The types of retaining walls are unknown at this time, but it is anticipated that they will be some sort of reinforced earth structure. SITE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES Field Exploration The field exploration consisted of performing a total of twelve (12) borings to depths of about 25 to 50 feet below existing grade. The boring locations were selected by Terracon personnel based on the site plan provided and staked in the field by MMS Consultants personnel. The ground surface elevations at the individual boring locations were also determined by MMS; however, the elevations Indicated on the attached boring logs have been rounded to the nearest %: foot. The locations and elevations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the means and methods used to define them. Slope Stability Analysis for the Hendrickson l~erracon Lytham Condominium Development Iowa City, Iowa Terracon Project: 06085611.02 April 25, 2008 The borings were drilled with attack-mounted, rotary drilling rig using continuous flight, hollow-stemmed augers to advance the boreholes. Representative samples were obtained using either thin-walled tube or split-barrel sampling procedures. In the thin-walled tube sampling procedure, athin-walled tube or seamless steel tube with a sharp cutting edge is pushed hydraulically into the ground to obtain relatively undisturbed samples of cohesive or moderately cohesive soils. In the split-barrel sampling procedure, a standard 2-inch O.D. split-barrel sampling spoon is driven into the ground with a 140-pound hammer falling a distance of 30 Inches. ACME automatic SPT hammer was used to advance the split-barrel sampler in the borings performed on the site. The number of blows required to advance the sampling spoon the last 12 inches of a normal 18-inch penetration is recorded as the . standard penetration resistance value. These values are indicated on the boring logs at the depths of occurrence. The samples were sealed and returned to the laboratory for testing and classification. Field logs of each boring were prepared by the drill crew. These logs included visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling as well as the driller's interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. The boring logs included with this report represent an interpretation of the field logs by a geotechnical engineer and include modifications based on laboratory observation and tests of the samples. Laboratory Testing During the field investigation, a representative portion of each recovered sample was sealed in containers and transported to our laboratory for further visual and laboratory examination. Selected samples retrieved from the borings were tested for moisture content. Dry unit weight and unconfined compressive strength tests were also performed on select undisturbed samples obtained from the thin-walled tubes to aid in the soil classification and to provide input for our analysis. A hand penetrometer was used to measure the approximate unconfined compressive strength of some of the relatively cohesive samples. The hand penetrometer test provides a better estimate of the soils consistency and strength than visual classification alone. Additionally, an unconsolidated undrained triaxial shear strength test was performed on one of the samples to provide input to our slope stability analysis. The results of the laboratory tests are shown on the boring logs, adjacent to the soil profiles, at their corresponding sample depths. The results of the triaxial shear strength test are shown on a separate attachment. As a part of the laboratory testing program, the soil samples were classified in the laboratory based on visual observation, texture, plasticity, and the limited laboratory testing described 2 Slope Stability Analysis for the Hendrickson lferracon Lytham Condominium Development Iowa City, Iowa Terracon Protect: 06085611.02 April 25, 2008 above. Additional classification testing could be performed to more accurately classify the samples. Portions of the recovered samples were placed in jars, and the samples will be retained for at least 1 month If additional testing is requested. The soil descriptions presented on the boring logs for native soils are in accordance with our enclosed General Notes and Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The estimated group symbol for the USCS is also shown on the. boring logs, and a brief description of the Unified System is included in this report. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Soil Conditions Subsurface conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual boring logs. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate depths of changes in soil types. In-situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Please review the attached boring logs for a detailed description of the conditions encountered at the Individual boring locations. Based on the results of the borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized as follows. All depths discussed in the following paragraph are referenced below existing grade. Borings 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11 and 12 encountered about 1'/z to 9 feet of existing fill. The existing fill generally consisted of brown, dark brown and gray brown, lean clay with varying amounts of sand and gravel with the exception of the existing fill in Boring 5, where the existing fill consisted of concrete rubble. Below the existing fill in these borings and from the ground surtace in the remaining borings, soft to stiff, lean or silty clay with a trace of sand was encountered to depths of about 12 to 21 feet. Below the lean or silty clay, Borings 2, 3 and 4 encountered gray brown, medium stiff to stiff, sandy lean to fat clay (weathered glacial till) to depths of about 21 to 26 feet. Below this, and below the upper lean or silty clay in the remaining borings, gray brown and gray, stiff to hard, sandy lean clay with a trace of gravel and occasional sand seams and layers (glacial till) was encountered to the borings' termination depths of about 25 to 50 feet. Groundwater Conditions The borings were monitored while drilling for the presence and level of groundwater. Groundwater levels observed are noted on the individual boring logs. At the time of drilling, groundwater was observed in the borings in the depth range of about 0 to 19 feet below the 3 Slope Stability Analysis for the Hendrickson lferraeon Lytham Condominium Development ~ Iowa City, Iowa Terracon Project: 06085611.02 April 25, 2008 existing grade, with the exception of Boring 12 where groundwater was not observed at the time of drilling. Delayed groundwater measurements were taken on April 2, 2008. At that time, groundwater was measured in the borings drilled at the tops of the slopes (Borings 1 through 4 and Borings 9 through 12) at depths of about 5 to 15 feet below existing grade. Delayed groundwater measurements in the borings drilled et the bottom of the slopes (Borings 5 through 8) indicated water at depths of about 0 to 5 feet below existing grade. It should be noted that these groundwater level measurements were made during a relatively wet period with melting snow in the area. Due to the low permeability of the cohesive soils encountered at this site, a relatively long period of time may be required for groundwater to develop and stabilize in a bore hole. Longer term monitoring in cased holes or piezometers would be required for a better evaluation of the groundwater conditions and potential for water level fluctuations. It should be recognized that fluctuations of the groundwater table are expected due to seasonal variations in adjacent drainage features, the amount of rainfall, runoff, and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. In addition, perched water can develop within higher permeability soils overlying less permeable soils following periods of heavy or prolonged precipitation. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the future will be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the boring logs. Groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project. SLOPE STABILITY ANAYLSIS Existing fill was noted in several of the borings as discussed In the Soil Conditions part of our report. This is an indication that some earthwork has been performed in these areas and the slopes may have been altered in the past. As requested, a global stability analysis of the slopes with the new construction was performed using a computer program (GeoStudio SLOPE/W) that utilizes the Morgenstern- Price force and moment equilibrium method of slices for circular failure arcs. Global stability evaluates the ratio of resisting to driving forces, and is referred to as a factor of safety. The magnitudes of these forces depend on the slope geometry, soil characteristics (texture, density, shear strength, and moisture content), surcharge loading, and groundwater . conditions. A factor of safely of 1.0 indicates that these forces are in equilibrium and no movement occurs. A factor of safety greater than 1.0 indicates that there is a margin of 4 Slope Stability Analysis for the Hendrickson lferra~on Lytham Condominium Development Iowa City, Iowa Terracon Project: 06065677.02 April 25, 2008 safety against movement. The closer the factor of safety is to 1.D, the probability of movement increases. The degree of risk or the magnitude of the factor of safety which is considered acceptable is generally established .by industry standards and depend on many factors such as variability of the soil conditions, groundwater conditions, surcharge loading, ; and cost of repair. It should be noted that current U.S Army Corps of Engineers and Iowa Department of Transportation standards recommend a minimum factor of safety of 1'.3 for an end-of-construction condition. Based on the limited data available, our understanding of the site geometry, and our analyses, it is our opinion that the factor of safety against adeep-seated, slope stability failure will be greater than 1.3 for the proposed project slopes. Our analysis indicates that a cross-section from north to south, near Borings 3, 7 and 12 (see the attached Boring Location Diagram) represents the worst case scenario if one of the condominiums was included. The load from the condominium was modeled as a uniform load of about 1500 psf. ; The attached printout of the analysis of this section summarizes the slope geometry, position of the proposed retaining wall and condominium structure, soil stratification, and soil properties. We understand that the project plans call for slope protection using erosion mats. It is our opinion that, if installed correctly, these mats should provide sufficient protection against erosion that could lead to future slope instability. Our analysis indicates that the proposed slopes with the proposed construction and retaining walls should have factors of safety greater than 1.3. It should also be noted that this analysis pertains to the global stability of the proposed slopes. Analysis of the internal stability of the proposed retaining walls is beyond our scope of work. Also, , recommendations regarding the construction of the condominium structures and other related earthwork are beyond the scope of this report. GENERAL COMMENTS Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical analysis and recommendations in the design and specifications. Also, Terracon should be retained to provide observation and testing services during grading, and other earth-related construction phases of the project. The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based on the data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed 5 Slope Stability Analysis for the Hendrickson lperra~on Lytham Condominium Development Iowa Clty, Iowa Terracon Protect: 06065611.02 April 25, 2006 in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur beiween borings, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of weather. Tha nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties (express or Implied), are intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatedng requirements are the responsibility of :. others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing. I hereby codify that this engineering document was prepared by me or pFE83fON ~ under my direct personal supervision and that I am a duly Ilcensed QP.•' • q< ~ Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Iowa, ~Q • '~2 TIt~107HYT. Wi WILES •m ` U; 12939 • am~ ~ % ,~/ • ~~~ L' 2s O d >:• ' TtmothyT. Wile Date Y`" w~iuwwww ••* My license renewal date is December 31, 2009. 6 i } P'~j $3~~~1 a y y~~[o1~~n~y~~J ~ ~,I~j ,~Aq~nnFf It~CY~Y:I ,k~u,~ 1 CI±±~~~~f~~~Ll ~ : ~ I 1 ..: ~ iS~j I II t i °' i i I': C 1 ~~;~ d'i ~r~ !' i 3]i{ +F~F ~~ d„ -- ~ -- N ~ it ~ 1~ +'. I Ir ~ f ~, ~ i 1 f~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ . ~~ ~ 1~ ~~ i Y` ' i ~ ~ ~'~' ? a ~ ~ 1 4 .v ClL ~R ~~ i ~ t. i' - ----~ s ~~~~ t~ ~`~~ ~ dal! s s d ~~ .~ ~ ~l y S .i i t __ ~ c ~~~ _ ~ - ~_ I i i .. 1 ~. _" ~ _ ~"', _tJ..„.s.. ?i; it 1 ` _ I U_. ~ ,saw e ~L O I~ I I' '',~ I ,C i i~_.~i ~ { ~ ~ ~~~ ,. ,1~ t ~ ~ T ~- ~ ~ - i - ~,~ i ~; _ i.. _ tr'~ ,_i_. I _._ _ ,~-.,-..-.~-~ i I i ~ i '~ a U (A I Q } v-_, ft~f~1y .1-_ 'I . ~._ i I~ 1.., .. f+__._ i z° w ~ c'~ _ ~' LL .~ O ~ ~ C Z_ a ~ ~ Z p a v3 ~ ~~ Y 0 ~ - O ~ ~ _ ~ U p O ;'3 ~ J Q [Y1 O 0 ~ K - \VVVTTTiii ~ W~ U r ~ N 4 O ? Y m a w r m ~ ~ s o 0 ~ p a W m Z oa ~,,, ~~ J N ~ 2 ao ~m o~~ Z of Z W v Q m ~'~ N 1411 N ow z aW m LLpp FW- N OW ZQ z ~~, STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: REZ08-00001 & SU608-00002 Hendrickson Lytham Condominiums GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Prepared by: Karen Howard Date: April 17, 2008 Jeff Hendrickson 2601 Flagstone Court Coralville, IA 319-351-6186 Contact: Property Owner: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: same as above Otella, LLC 83 Woodside Avenue Chalfont, PA 18914 Rezoning from RS-8 to OPD-8; Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan approval Development of a 2-lot planned development with 9 detached single family dwellings and 24 attached dwelling units South of Melrose Avenue as an extension of Olive Court, Learner Court, and Marietta Avenue 9.48 acres / 8.10 net acres (acreage less street ROW) Three dwellings and associated outbuildings, remainder of the land is undeveloped; RS-8 North: Single family residential; within the city of University Heights South: Single Family residential; RS-5 East: Multi-family residential; OPD-8 West: Single family residential; within the city of University Heights The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for duplex and small lot single family residential Neighborhood Open Space District: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Brookland/Roosevelt (SW3) February 28, 2008 Revised plan submitted April 8, 2008 May 22, 2008 The subject property is an approximately 9.48-acre parcel containing three single family homes and a number of smaller accessory buildings. All of these homes currently have access from Olive Court. The remainder of the property is undeveloped land surrounded by developed residential neighborhoods in University Heights and Iowa City. The demolition plan indicates that all of the existing structures on the property will be torn down to make way for the new development. While the parcel is located in Iowa City, the only street access to the property is from University Heights. The parcel is located south of Melrose Avenue at the southern terminus of Olive Court and Learner Court and northeast of the terminus of Marietta Avenue. The southern boundary of the property abuts the back yards of homes along Tower Court, a cul-de-sac that provides no access to the subject property. There is a steep ravine running east-west through the center of the property, making development challenging. Another unique aspect of this property is that it has been used for years as an informal parking lot during Iowa Hawkeye football games. This property and others in the area have dealt with associated nuisance issues and also profited from the thousands of football fans parking and walking through the neighborhood during football weekends. The applicant has indicated that they have used the "Good Neighbor Policy" and have had a meeting and discussions with neighboring residents. ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting a rezoning of 9.48 acres of land from Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) to a Planned Development Overlay (OPD -8). The applicant has noted that the proposed planned development falls into several planned development categories: Sensitive Areas Development; Alternative ownership -condominium development; and Infill Development. Staff concurs with this characterization, since the development is proposed on property that contains regulated sensitive features, the property is surrounded by existing residential development, and a condominium regime is proposed. A two-lot subdivision with a total of 31 dwelling units is proposed with 9 detached single family dwellings and 22 attached single family dwellings. All the units will be sold as condominiums with the land held in common. A Level II Sensitive Areas Review, a type of planned development, is required due to proposed disturbance of steep, critical, and previously altered protected slopes and a request to reduce a required wetland buffer. General Planned Development Approval Criteria Applications for Planned Development Rezonings are reviewed for compliance with the following standards according to Article 14-3A of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance. 3 1. The density and design of the Planned Development will be compatible with and/or complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass and scale, relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout. Densit -The existing RS-8 Zoning is a medium density single family zone, which allows a mix of single family detached homes with attached single family or duplexes allowed on corner lots at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per net acre. After accounting for streets, storm water management and open space, RS-8 zoned areas have typically developed with approximately 5.2 units per acre. The overall density of the proposed planned development is approximately 3.8 dwellings per net acre, well below the maximum allowed. This housing density is consistent with the pattern of modest-sized home lots along Leamer Court, Olive Court and Marietta Avenue. The density of the existing development adjacent to Leamer and Olive Courts is approximately 4.9 units per acre. Land uses proposed and general lavout -Given that this property is completely surrounded by existing development and is bisected by a steep ravine, there is limited opportunity to create a typical block pattern of intersecting streets that provide opportunities for duplex units on corner lots. The planned development process encourages a mix of housing types and allows the flexibility to locate those housing types in a manner that fits the site. The land uses proposed are attached single family units and detached single family dwellings. To provide a transition between the largely single family neighborhood along Olive Court and Leamer Court, the applicant is proposing single detached units along the extension of these streets, transitioning to the larger 2-unit buildings that will back up to the ravine. Attaching some of the units will provide the opportunity to combine side yards to create more space between the buildings; 20 feet instead of the10 feet that would be required between single family detached dwellings. Staff finds that the proposed land uses are compatible with the intent of the underlying zoning and with the surrounding neighborhood. Mass and Scale -The proposed dwellings are considerably larger in square footage that most of the homes in the area. The detached units will be approximately 4300 square feet in total floor area (the building footprints are approximately 2,300 square feet including the garage) and the attached units range in size from approximately 3600 square feet to 4300 square feet (the building footprints range from approximately 5,000 square feet to 5,400 square feet including the garage). The larger floor area notwithstanding, the height and scale of the detached units as viewed from the street are similar to existing homes. The proposed units are one story units as viewed from the street with walk-out basements at the rear. The applicant has designed the front facades to mimic house styles existing in the neighborhood. Four different fagade designs are proposed within the development. The largertwo-unit buildings are located interior to the property, which will provide a transition between existing homes and these larger buildings. The applicant is proposing to vary the fagade designs in a similar manner to the single family detached units. To prevent monotony, staff recommends that the designs vary such that immediately adjacent buildings do not have the same exterior fagade design. Staff also recommends varying the paint colors of the units to provide some visual relief to these buildings that have very similar building footprints. Staff notes that the garages, particularly for the two-unit buildings are larger and in a more 4 prominent position than for other homes in the area. The applicant is proposing several design solutions to help reduce the mass and visual presence of garages along the street. The proposed garages take up approximately 55% of the front facade of each dwelling unit, but are set back from the front facade to reduce their mass and appearance from the street. An entry porch and bays will help emphasize the residential aspects of the buildings. A variety of garage door designs are proposed with multiple window openings and other architectural features, such as roof overhangs and columns, that provide visual relief to the facade. The applicant is also proposing to separate and taper the driveways to the two-unit buildings to reduce the amount of paving in the front yard. These design solutions are consistent with the garage placement standards suggested in the zoning code. Oaen space -According to the submitted plat, about 72% of the property will remain open space. Much of this area will be concentrated in the rear yards of the detached single family units and in the ravine located behind the two-unit buildings. These areas will be retained as private open space to be shared by residents of the development. A 6-foot-wide trail will cross the ravine to provide pedestrian access to the open space and to the other part of the development. This trail will coincide with the sanitary sewer easement so will not require additional grading in the ravine. Staff notes that the grade of this trail as proposed will not meet ADA requirements. While compliance with these standards is not a requirement for private trails, staff suggests that the applicant explore ways to reduce the steepness of the grade. Front yards can also provide open space in a neighborhood. While the required front setback in the RS-8 zone is 15 feet, the applicant is proposing a setback of 25 feet for the east and west facing units along Leamer and Olive to be consistent with the setbacks of existing homes along these streets. The existing homes along Marietta Avenue also have front setbacks of approximately 25 feet. However, the applicant would like to use a smaller 15-foot setback for the units along Marietta in order to keep the homes further from the steep slopes of the ravine. To mitigate for the change in the front setback, to preserve existing mature trees, and to create a transition between the existing homes and the new homes in the development, the applicant is proposing a larger side yard buffer of approximately 33 feet between the existing home at the end of Marietta and the first new building of this development. Staff finds this to be a good compromise to balance the goals of reducing impacts on sensitive features and creating compatibility with neighboring properties. Traffic circulation -Olive Court, Leamer Court, and Marietta Avenue are all currently dead-end streets. The fact that these streets do not end with housing built around cul-de-sac bulbs or other types of turn-grounds provides some notice and indication to surrounding property owners that these streets could at some point be extended to provide for future development of this tract of land. The developer is proposing to connect Olive and Leamer into a loop street rather than end each street in a cul-de-sac. This will allow the developer to maximize the number of dwelling units that have access and views of the open space in the ravine and to provide a more logical transition from the single unit buildings to the two-unit buildings. When compared to cul-de-sacs the loop street design has the public benefit of providing better access for emergency vehicles, provides an alternative route in the event the either Leamer or Olive are blocked, will allow more efficient deliver of services and snow removal and provides for better pedestrian access. There has been some concern expressed by neighboring property owners that connecting the two streets will encourage cut through traffic for drivers not willing to wait for the traffic signal at the intersection of Koser and Melrose. Since the intersection of Koser and Leamer is so close to the Melrose traffic signal, City transportation planners find it unlikely that this will be a route that would provide any advantage to drivers, who would have to drive out of their way and then have to wait an undetermined length of time at the stop sign at the intersection of Olive and Melrose or when traveling the opposite direction at the intersection of Leamer and Koser. The projected increase in the level of traffic and the requested increase in the length of the Marietta Avenue cul-de-sac are addressed in following sections of this report. 2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities. City sewer and water is available to this property. Capacity is adequate to accommodate development of these additional dwelling units. Onsite storm water management is required. Preliminary storm water calculations indicate that the capacity of the proposed storm water basin is adequate to handle the projected run-off from the site. According to policy guidelines used by the City, a local street is considered overburdened if traffic exceeds 500 vehicle trips per day. The applicant has submitted a traffic analysis that describes the projected increase in traffic from the additional dwelling units proposed (see attached). This analysis is consistent with the analysis completed by the City's transportation staff. Transportation staff note that we do not have traffic counts for the existing affected streets, however we can make some assumptions based on traffic studies in the metropolitan area. We assume approximately seven trips per day for a single family home and fewer trips for each apartment unit. The following table summarizes the existing and projected traffic volumes and provides a comparison with other similar low volume residential streets in Iowa City where we have recently completed traffic counts. As the table indicates, the projected post-development traffic level is well within the accepted norms for a low volume residential street. Current vehicle tri s er da estimated Pro ected vehicle tri s er da Marietta Avenue 49 126 Leamer Court 98 182 Olive Court 170-200* 226-256 Vehicle tri s er da ** Lee Street 252 Beldon Avenue 359 McLean 294 *depending on occupancy of the apartments on this street ** based on recent traffic counts 3. The development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property values and privacy of neighboring properties any more than would a conventional development. While the proposed development will be a significant change to what has been appreciated for many years by surrounding neighbors as open space, staff finds that the proposed development is not a significant departure from what would be allowed under the current RS-8 zoning with regard to views, light and air, property values and privacy of neighboring properties. In most locations the proposed building setbacks from the streets and between buildings are similar or greater than the existing development in the neighborhood. 4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying zoning requirements or from City street standards will be in the public interest, in harmony with the purposes of this Title, and with other building regulations of the City. All planned developments must comply with all the applicable requirements and standards of the underlying zoning district and the subdivision regulations, unless specifically waived or modified through the planned development process. Variations to the dimensional requirements of the underlying base zone and subdivision regulations are allowed: • to facilitate the provision of desired neighborhood amenities or open space; • to preserve or protect natural, historic, or cultural features; • to achieve compatibility with surrounding development; or • to create a distinctive or innovative neighborhood environment for area residents. For developments such as this one where dwellings are located on a common lot, imaginary lot lines must be illustrated on the plan for purposes of determining when modifications to the underlying dimensional standards are being requested. See Sheet No. 7 in the set of plans submitted by the applicant to review the following requests for variations to the zoning requirements. The applicant is requesting the following variations from City Code standards and requirements: • Attached single family dwellings other than on corner lots; (See staff comments on page 3 under Land uses regarding this requested variation.) • Reduction of the required front setback from 25 feet (based on setback averaging of existing development) to 15 feet for dwellings located on the extension of Marietta Avenue. (See staff comments on page 4 under Ooen space regarding this requested variation.) • Reduction of the required lot width for five of the units, reduction of the frontage requirement for 6 of the units, and request to allow front setback coverage to exceed the maximum for 5 of the units. The minimum lot width and frontage requirements are intended to ensure that a lot is of a width and frontage that is appropriate for the uses proposed, ensures a minimum spacing between dwellings, and ensures that dwellings are visible and accessible from the street. These standards are particularly important for the provision of public and emergency services. The subject lots are located on the curves of the loop street and at the end of the cul-de-sac bulb on Marietta Avenue. The applicant has oriented these dwellings to face the street, reduced the driveway width, and set the units back further from the street to provide for some additional front yard area to mitigate for the reduced lot width, frontage, and increased setback coverage. The fire department has reviewed this lot layout and determined that it meets public safety standards with regard to access and visibility in cases of emergency. While the lot dimensions are narrower than the standard, the proposed lot layout allows for clustering the allowed density away from the steep ravine and provides for preservation of a significant amount of open space on the property. The zoning code states that in cases where lot width and frontage are reduced, garages and off-street parking areas must be located so that they do not dominate the streetscape. Garages must be located on an alley or rear lane or must be recessed behind the front fagade of the dwelling in a manner that allows the residential portion of the dwelling to predominate. As mentioned above the applicant has designed the units so the garage is stepped back from the front plane of the house and has provided garage door windows and other architectural elements that reduce the visual presence of the garages. To prevent monotony, City staff recommends varying the front buildings facades and paint colors as suggested above. • A request to reduce the street pavement width to 26 feet; Staff finds that the proposal to reduce the pavement width from 28 feet to 26 feet is reasonable given that this is a low volume residential street and the width will match the existing width of Learner Court and Marietta Avenue. There are many existing streets in Iowa City that have pavement widths narrower than 28 feet that function well. The decreased pavement width will help to slow traffic. Olive Court has a pavement width of approximately 19 feet, so the new street will have to taper to this narrower width to match the existing pavement width. • A request to allow a cul-de-sac longer than the maximum standard of 900 feet. The City discourages the use of cul-de-sacs because they reduce street connectivity, create inefficiencies for the provision of public and emergency services, and make it difficult to walk or bike to neighborhood destinations. Increasing the length of a cul-de- sac increases the extent of the inefficiency inherent to cul-de-sac design. That being said, the street pattern in this part of Iowa City is already established. Extending Marietta Avenue is the only means of access to the portion of the property south of the ravine. Tower Court, another long cul-de-sac located south of the subject property, is fully developed, so a street connection to the south is not possible. Extending the cul-de-sac another 100 feet allows the developer to fully utilize the relatively flat portion of the property where unit 19 is proposed. Given that the extended street will be single-loaded with dwellings only on one side, thus reducing the number of units and number of residents affected, the request to increase the length appears to be reasonable. Pedestrian facilities Planned developments must include pedestrian facilities to ensure that residents and visitors have access to public streets and sidewalks, building entrances, parking areas, shared open spaces, natural areas, and other amenities. In addition, providing street trees and a variety of building facades that address the street with visible doors and windows make for a more comfortable environment along the street for pedestrians. Staff finds that the sidewalks, building designs, and street trees proposed will meet the standard described above. As noted previously, the trail proposed to cross the ravine should be designed with a more gentle grade to make it functional for residents. 8 Public Open Space Requirement: Based on the City's neighborhood open space formula, 0.41 acres of public open space will be required or a fee paid in lieu. The Parks and Recreation Commission will review this application and make a recommendation regarding the dedication of open space or fees in lieu of. In the past the Parks and Recreation Commission has indicated that this property is not conducive for park use. If it is determined that fees should be paid in lieu of dedication, the fee can be used for acquisition of new park land or improvements to existing parks within the SW3 open space district, including Tower Court Park, Brookland Park, and public open space at Roosevelt School. The fee will be equal to the fair market value of the land that othenruise would have been required for dedication. The fee must be paid in full by the developer prior to the issuance of the first building permit for any lot within the development. Private Shared Open Space The applicant must submit a legally binding instrument setting forth the procedures and financing structure to be followed for maintaining the common areas. The developer has indicated that a homeowner's association will be established to maintain the common areas. The details of this arrangement will need to be addressed in the legal papers submitted when the final planned development plan is submitted. Level II Sensitive Areas Review The applicant has applied for approval of a Sensitive Areas Development, a type of planned development. The purpose of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is to permit and define the reasonable use of properties that contain sensitive environmental features and natural resources, and allowing reasonable development while protecting these resources from damage. The following paragraphs describe the impact this development will have on the sensitive features of this site. Steep Critical and Protected Slopes -The purpose of regulating development on and near steep slopes is to: 1. Promote safety in the design and construction of developments; 2. Minimize flooding, landslides and mudslides; 3. Minimize soil instability, erosion and downstream siltation; and 4. Preserve the scenic character of hillside areas, particularly wooded hillsides. To build the development as proposed a significant portion of the steep, critical, and protected slopes will be disturbed: 60% of the steep slopes; 42% of the critical slopes; and 34% of the protected slopes. The sensitive areas ordinance requires that disturbance of steep and critical slopes be minimized and sets a maximum of 35% for critical slope disturbance with administrative staff approval. Disturbance beyond this threshold is proposed, which has triggered the requirement of this Level II Sensitive Areas Review with Planning and Zoning Commission review and City Council approval required. Development activity is not allowed on protected slopes or in the 50 foot buffer required around protected slopes, unless the slopes were previously humanly altered. In addition, disturbance of altered protected slopes or a reduction of a protected slope buffer may only be approved if a geologist or professional engineer demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the proposed development activity can and will be designed to eliminate hazards and will not undermine the stability of the slope or the buffer area. The applicant has indicated that most, if not all, the slopes on the property have been humanly altered and is requesting permission to encroach into protected slope areas. There is evidence that this assessment is correct. It appears that previous owner(s) graded the site. This made it easier to park and move cars around on the property during Hawkeye football game days. This previous grading is particularly evident in the central portion of the ravine where it appears that the slopes were altered to allow vehicles to drive from one side of the ravine to the other. In addition, grading for and construction of the dam that created Melrose Lake is also apparent. However, there are a number of mature trees on the site, which indicates that certain portions may not have been previously disturbed or at least not for a very long time. The proposed plan generally avoids the slopes that contain mature trees. To assess the stability of the slopes and likelihood of slope failure during and after construction of the proposed condominiums, the applicant hired Terracon, an engineering firm with experience in this type of analysis. Terracon's preliminary report is attached. In summary, the report states, 'At this time, our analysis indicates that the proposed slopes with the proposed construction and retaining walls should have factors of safety greater than 1.3.' As we continue with the completion of our laboratory testing of the soil samples and our analysis, we anticipate this will be confirmed for all areas; however, it should be noted that soil conditions maybe discovered that would affect this conclusion. It should also be noted that this analysis pertains to the global stability of the proposed slopes. Analysis of the internal stability of the proposed retaining walls is beyond our scope of work. " Staff recommends that the final report from Terracon be submitted and reviewed prior to approval of the preliminary planned development. In addition, given the limited information submitted regarding the design of the extensive network of retaining walls proposed, the City will require an analysis and certification from a structural engineer to ensure that the retaining walls are designed in a manner that will support the proposed buildings. This analysis and certification will be required at the time of site plan review and prior to issuance of building permits for the retaining walls. A building permit is required for any retaining wall over 6 feet in height. Staff recommends that healthy, mature trees located in or near the ravine be preserved and protected from construction activity to the extent possible. A tree protection plan should be submitted and approved at the time of the final OPD plan. The applicant has indicated that the individual mature trees and groves of trees near the western end of the ravine will be preserved. Building 15, the first building along the extended Marietta Avenue will be setback approximately 33 feet from the property line in order to preserve mature trees in this area. Grading at the east end of the ravine will be necessary to install stormwater facilities and the sewer line. Disturbance of sensitive features is allowed for installation of necessary uitilities. Since grading in this area will be necessary for installation of essential utilities, it makes sense to locate the trail in this area as well. Some additional grading and filling may be necessary to make the trail functional for pedestrians and also provide a route for maintenance vehicles if work needs to be done on the sewer line. A Construction Site Run-off (CSR) Permit will be required before any grading activity commences According to Terracon, current U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Iowa Department of Transportation standards recommend a minimum factor of safety of 1.3 for an end-of-construction condition. 10 on the site. This permitting process will ensure that erosion control methods are adequate to prevent erosion during construction. Provided all conditions are satisfied to prevent erosion, ensure long term stability of the slopes, and the structural integrity of the proposed buildings, staff finds that the proposed encroachment into what appear to be previously altered slopes is reasonable. Wetlands: The subject property contains less than 1 acre of jurisdictional wetlands located in the southeast corner of the property next to Melrose Lake. A 100 foot natural buffer is required. However, a buffer reduction may be requested, if it can be demonstrated by a wetland specialist that the wetland: 1. Is less than 5 acres in area; and 2. Does not contain species listed by the Federal or State government as endangered or threatened, or critical or outstanding natural habitat for those species; and 3. Does not contain diverse plant associations of infrequent occurrence or of regional significance; and 4. Is not located within a regulated stream corridor. The applicant has submitted an analysis from a wetland specialist that indicates that the criteria for reducing the wetland buffer to 50 feet have been met. (See attached report.) Staff finds that the proposed reduction of the buffer is reasonable given the limited extent and limited quality of the jurisdictional wetlands on the property. Emergent wetlands in the ravine are not considered jurisdictional and so are not regulated under the City's sensitive areas ordinance. PRELIMINARY PLAT Subdivision Design: The applicant is requesting to divide the property into two lots. Lot 1 includes the area bounded by the newly proposed loop street. Lot 2 includes the remainder of the property. The lot layout and street design is discussed in detail in the preceding paragraphs of this report. Street design and connections: As noted above, Leamer and Olive Courts will be extended and connected into a loop street. Given there are two existing street names involved, a street sign will need to be posted to indicate for addressing purposes where Leamer ends and Olive begins. To that end, the City will require a street sign to be posted at the southeast corner of the loop. The homes along the east-west segment (bottom) of the loop will be addressed as Leamer Court and Olive Court will terminate before the street curves to the west. Marietta Avenue will be extended and terminate in a cul-de-sac bulb. As mentioned previously, the applicant has requested to exceed the recommended maximum length of this cul-de-sac from 900 feet to approximately 1003 feet. The proposed street design and connections are analyzed in a previous section of this report. There appear to be a number of private access easements that provide access to the existing buildings on the property and to the apartments located adjacent to the property near the end of Olive Court. These access easements will no longer be needed since Olive Court will be extended to provide access to the remaining properties. Staff notes that Outlots A and B will need to be dedicated to those adjacent property owners prior to final planned development approval so that these properties have frontage on and access to the public street. 11 Sanitary Sewer: A sewer connection is available from the property to the east. According to the City Engineer it will be necessary to reconstruct 50 feet of the sanitary sewer line east of the subject property in order to make this connection. Water Service: Water mains will need to be extended to serve this development. A water main extension fee of $395.00 per acre is required. Resolution of some technical deficiencies on the plan will need to be resolved prior to approval of the preliminary plan. Storm water management: Stormwater management will be handled on site with adry-bottom basin in the ravine. Preliminary Stormwater calculations indicate that the proposed facility will be able to handle the projected run-off from this development. Any overland overflow routes should be located so that water will not run over any of the extensive network of retaining walls proposed for this site. The submitted plan indicates that stormwater will be directed around and away from the retaining walls so as not to jeopardize the integrity of these walls. SUMMARY: The proposed planned development of 31 dwelling units on this 9.48-acre parcel will not increase the density allowed under the current RS-8 zoning. The proposal complies with the land use map and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. In staffs opinion its design and density is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. A planned development is required due to proposed disturbance of steep, critical, and protected slopes located in the ravine that bisects the subject property, to allow a condominium development rather than a standard subdivision, and to allow adjustment of certain zoning and street standards. Given the developer's desire to cluster the development in a manner that limits encroachment into regulated slopes, but also takes advantage of the views inherent to the natural areas in the ravine, certain modifications to zoning and street standards have been requested. Staff finds that these requested modifications are reasonable as a means of balancing the goals of encouraging infill development that is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods and protection of environmentally sensitive lands. Staff recommends compliance with the submitted building elevations and a requirement to vary the use of those designs to prevent monotony along the streets in the development. Staff also recommends that best practices be observed with regard to erosion control and slope stabilization during and after construction to prevent environmental damage and ensure public safety. Specific staff recommendations and conditions are specified below. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ08-00001 and SUB08-00002, a 2-lot subdivision and a rezoning of 9.48 acres from Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) to Planned Development Overlay (OPD-8) for property located south of the terminus of Olive Court and Learner Court and north of Tower Court, be approved subject to resolution of technical deficiencies, receipt of the final report from Terracon verifying the stability and suitability of the slopes for the proposed development, and a note on the plan documents indicating that the facade designs and materials will be consistent with the submitted elevation drawings and facade designs and paint colors of the dwellings will vary so that immediately adjacent dwellings will not have the same design. 12 DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES: 1. Final report from Terracon required 2. Technical discrepancies and deficiencies as noted by the City Engineer and water department 3. Typical elevations of all building sides should be submitted. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan 3. Preliminary soil stability analysis from Terracon 4. Supporting documents and written statements from the applicant 5. Wetland analysis 6. Public correspondence received to date Approved by: G~~``~7~ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development Applicant's statement as to why zone change is warranted. This site contains sensitive areas including steep slopes, critical slopes, altered protected slopes, groves of trees, and wetlands. The zone change from RS-8 to SAO-8 will allow the site to be developed with a minimal impact to the sensitive features. A mix of single units and duplex units will allow a neighborhood that will have a variety of housing types. O l L l ~\ ~i i •_ ~. (__ ~~ -V r n N ~7 CD ~~~~ Q) N CJ {~_~._ '~ I ~ ~° ~ i O ~~l~ ` i,i ~~ ' ~ ~ ~jj'I ~~ ' i~i~,,,~,,,itiiii ~i Illi~~l~~~• i'~'~~11~ ~l ~til ~ ~ s '•b r ~~ i ~ ~j iu~ ~, I q, i ~ ~! ~~ i ;~~~ ~~ ~~ az s~ Wo AQ z ~ ~o ~~ z ~" a~ zo 0 F U R. r-"~ '~'~ ~ '' az x ~W i ~~ ~i ICI ~{ I ICI liii .' '' 1!y ~td~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ €~ ~~~R~ i~, ; ~ t~ t~ !'• ~!~:I:~ ., ~' ~~~ I!!h Il~,~r ~~~~: ~1~~`:~!! ~~~III.~I ~~ --~~~~ ~~~ Il~~la~~l ~ ~~~~ a~8~~ ~ ~ ° g ~~ Ii ~~ ~~~o~l ~~ ~~! 9j13~f ~~ ~1~~~~~I~~ ~lil I i S ~ ~~ ~ ~ IOlly ~plrplIII I I I6 ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r li III ... f!F Re. I ~ IE! ~:~ I~r I ;l39 ~~s r, III IFi ~I, ~ij Ilel ~ Iie 6g ~I! 1 y 41I~ ~~~ a ~--~ ~n z ~ ' ~ ~ az ~ ~-~ s~ o AQ ~~, z ~ °~ , o ~ ---~- ~ ~. ~~ ~ __ ~~ x ~. W a~ ' I zo ~~ F ~ ~ ~-- U ~ ' a. ~ z ~~~~ w ~x ~--- w a a I - r- I~ ~-- X14 ~~: I ~~ ~~j ~~ ~_. -' i l ®@@@@ yy g3 ~ Z m ^~ y@C@a~I6~I3 yEl ~ ~~~ ~~ ZF si$ 999666 ~~ oio ~& 2~U ~O'p_ ~]~ ® ~ _ ~' ,~ illl~l II ~ ~ 'll ~~ ! I I i ~ I ~ Idly ~ f~fll~l~ll I I I I ~E~ ~ A•tlCee ~illllll~ll~ ~ ~f~ffl Ili (![° ~~! li ~I;g e• ~ Ij!~ ~r ilk ~I~ Ilil diii e r e e I~ I~ i; 6~ s~® ~ ~ iK ~--- w~ a '-' sz , ~ -~- o "z ~ ~ o ~ - ~- ~ ~ ~ ~__ x~ - z ~ ~ I (~i ~ a~ ~a a z o ~ ~I ~o ~~ ~ a. ~ ~ ' ~ z ~I~ z ~,- ~ - ~x w ~ _ a a ~ -f ``: ~ 9, ~~j~~~i ~f ~~i III ~s,! I I i 0 ~ E~ f Wss~l~lr ~~Ire,~~l I~IIII61 ~I~ ~ {^ JI~IIIJIjII~,11III fII {e{{(t E I~IIIIIIIII!I• Ti•o~C ~~III~~ I I I I~ tO i~~ yle II!~ ~'; U11 ~I 1 lie I~ I ~I, 1~ i~ ~ re' ,(, z 0 Q z~ o~ U ~ ~~ .'-~ F' ~'! U a zo 0 c~ Q z w x w E z w w s w A z w w r i~ a :t ~E 6~ .~ I~ ~1i i I~ ~ I~ I ~~ ;I ~ Iww !' E• i~~ ' ~ ! ~i"N'~~~ i N~~~i~~ +`~j~ jN a ~ :. .. ~I ~~~~~ ~~ ~ i ~~ iii'aI d ~ , . ~~~~i~i~~,iiihill III ~~I~eli {III}I}Illlill~{~ I EE I I ~~~ ~~ ~I ~ll~e I~•tl~0•~1~l l~l I' I II f© ~~f fi ~I~i ~i {~!~ ~ I ~i; ~i; Ilel ie w F-I z 0 Q z~ o~ U ~ ~~ x~ U a~ zo 0 x U Q z w x w w s w A z w w w a a peB p g N _....~ ~ ~~ ; 3`~ ~ 3 s E `~ ~ `~ i S ~~~i~l§§G~~l?3'I ~ a~ ~ O~~ a 'a . i ~ €oo 11 i ~I f ', ~ $ ~~ ~fe~I~ I~~~slfi~~ Il~ell~ ~~eli~l~~i~E S S I I 1$ ~~ ~ a ~ @ i; I {+ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ 4 :e IIII it 4a..u-0.. II~~I I 11i EO ~!i ~ # $ ~ ~~ ~ ~3 l ~ ~ ~ i4 ~ w ~ ~f ~ {' ~fj 9 F ! ~ ~ pp ~ ~I ~ ~ [ F ~ ~y IixL~Y) ~ ~ ~ l i~ ~ p § # a~; ~€ ~ ~ F t ~ j e~ S 3 FE ®~~ ~ pp ~ ~ ~~ll ~g$I~ ~il + ~ $ ~~ i ~e~ ~i I.e _ ~~!e ~~~I -~ 1' !"i !I~ col, w lel !ie ~ , Vl -_-I z ~ w ~ ~ ~, sz --~ ~o ~ AQ I ~ o~ C.J ~ O ' ~~ Qi y" i ~ i ' E vl C "' U i ~ ~ ~ I --`- Zi 0 i u ~ i ~~ ~ -~- ~z !~~ ~ ~ ~~[ W a ~~~~, ~~~:' ki C le~E5 i ~ ggE6 s $ ~~~~ ! ~Y a~g~ A~~~ $EE s ~~ I[! ~~'~ @~@€~€~~ ~ 3. 3 3 :S _r .$ . . ~~ ~$ S 18 R ~~~ ~~ ~ e Eg° 8~: sce A ~~ 66 pplpg ~~ $ ~ ~'q§ $EE/~#; H6f$$ ~ ~P ~ ~~~3~ ~~5_ 1~1! ~ 5 ! ! lSEE ! . , x > , , .. > ,, , , . 9 : : i : i : :i i ii i : i ~ t i t d ~ a ,~ + +t d t a t ~ 3 ~ a 1 1 ~ p o e ! 9P9 ~ 89 9 3 ~i 4 $ i1 ~ 3 e ! $ 9 € 4 $ p i ~ t ~ i i ~ a ~ i$ i $$ $ ~ p a a . f x e e ee . .. a : ~ . . . . . . . x- . .. . _ v_ a n ~~z a ~~ W a~ sz ~o AQ U~ O ~ ,~'~,' F z ~~ ~' air ~ zo 0 E U a ~ ~z ~x W x ~~ee a~i I.i ~1 iii 1 r 'i ~i~i 9;~~ }C ~ s~ ~_ ~', ~,~ ',! __ ~;~ I!~~ ~', ___~; ~~ h -- -I __ __~'~ it it ~ry V Ih L~ -iii }nl IY I 11111 Ifs l V i V h ___ , ~' ~' _U~ __~, 'h -~ r~ ~~ i~ ~~ __~' i u~ i M a '< r n 'z m m z m K 0 a z 0 A y MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. IOWA CITY IOWA OFFICE: 319-351-8282 cEOAx xAFros Iowa OFFICE: 319-641-5188 Your Vision + Our Innovation =Inspired Results Apri17, 2008 Kazen Howazd City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Re: Hendrickson Lytham Condominiums Planned developments must comply with all the applicable requirements and standazds of the underlying zoning district and the subdivision regulations, unless specifically waived or modified through the planned development process. The following is a list of the vaziations from the zoning and subdivision standards that the developer requests. 1) RS-8 Zone -Allows attached units only on corner lots. Variance Request: Developer requests a planned unit development overlay rezoning to allow attached units along the street. Sunnort Points: A mix of duplex buildings and single units throughout the development will help prevent the monotony. Front elevation wall plane variations, including garage setbacks, also add visual interest. The plan calls for 11 duplex buildings and 9 single, free standing units. The implementation of duplex structures along each side of the ravine allows for increased spacing between buildings (20 feet), providing more open space and much better views from the street. There are four different elevation views, four different color schemes and four different floor plans to help prevent the perception of uniformity. This allows for 64 different appearances of the buildings. In order to achieve compatibility with surrounding development, photos of existing neighborhood homes were used in the design of exterior facades. A 1930's/1940's craftsman styling is evident in four separate architectural themes. By mixing themes and colors, the result is a distinctive neighborhood environment along all street frontages that blends in comfortably with the existing community. On Olive Court and Learner Court, the development is transitioned with smaller detached units and increased front setbacks, to more closely match the existing homes on these streets. On Marietta Avenue, the development is transitioned with a substantially increased side setback as a buffer to the first condo building. 2) Setback Requirements: Setback averaging along Marietta Avenue results in an approximate front setback of 25 feet. Lots around cul-de-sac bulbs also call for a front setback of 25 feet. Vaziance Request: Developer requests setback variances to reduce the front yazd setback along Marietta Avenue to 15 feet. Sunroort Points: Reducing the setback on Marietta to (15) feet allows for the reduction of unit encroachment further into the ravine, preserving more of the natural slopes of the property. The garages have been setback at least 25 feet to allow space for off-street parking and to reduce the appearance of the garage. The side setback of the unit closet to the first existing house on Marietta has been substantially increased to preserve mature trees and to reduce any perception of crowding or blocking of homeowner views. 3) Lot Width, Frontage, and Front Setback Coverage Standards Variance Requested: The developer is requesting a reduction in the lot width, frontage, and maximum front setback coverage. The required lot width for detached single family lots is 45 feet. The required lot frontage for detached single family lots is 40 feet. The required maximum front setback coverage is 50%. Units 10A, l OB, 14B, 19A and 19B do not meet the lot width requirement. Units 10A, l OB, 13A, 14A, 14B, 19A and 19B do not meet the frontage requirement. Units I OA, l OB, 14B, 19A and 19B do not meet the maximum front setback coverage. Suroroort Points: Buildings are positioned so that they aze clearly visible from the street and are accessible for emergency and public services. There will be a similar amount of private open space for these units, as compazed to other units in the development. Driveway curb cuts and widths have been reduced to maximize yazds, creating ample green space and room for tree plantings. 4) Street Pavement Width Variance Request: Developer requests a variance to allow for (26) foot wide paving for the extension of Learner Court, Olive Court and Marietta Avenue. Sunroort Points: The cun•ent standard width is 28 feet for a local street. A street paving width of 26 feet will comply with the new (forthcoming) subdivision code requirements and will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood streets. A paving width of 26 feet will match the existing street width of Learner Court (approx. 26 feet) and the street will taper to meet the existing width of Olive Court (approx. 19 feet). The existing paving on Marietta Avenue is approximately 24 feet wide. The new 26 foot wide paving on Mazietta will taper slightly to meet the existing street. 5) Marietta Avenue - Cul-de-sac Length Variance Request: The developer requests a variance to allow for the cul-de-sac length to be longer than (900) feet. Sunoort Points: In order to preserve the natural topography of the site, it is not possible to connect Marietta Avenue with Learner Court or Olive Court. Marietta Avenue will be single loaded; units will be located on the north side of the street only, matching the existing portion of Marietta Avenue. This means that the number of homes located along Marietta Avenue will be approximately half the number found on a normal cul-de-sac. Consequently, vehicle traffic projections will remain well below city guidelines: Traffic projections for Marietta Avenue are 49 daily trips from existing homes and 126 total daily trips after development. The City of Iowa City standazd for "local streets" (25 mph or less) is "less than 500 vehicles per day". The total length of Mazietta Avenue east of George Street (after development) is 1003 feet. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please contact us accordingly. Respectfully submitted: ~~ ~~~~~~ Ronald L. Amelon, P.E. MMS Consultants Inc. T:\1200\1235074\1235074L 1.DOC ~~ l ~~~~ ~Ir~~ y~y ~~~e~9 /?r~jr~rz BQ-~t~. D~~~l~;;,;P,,f 7 ~~~~ - ~f~ = 4 9 ,~ g~~« /~~~~~~i~c~7 ? /,~ ~ 11 ~,,,;f = i~• 7f y, _ ~ Z 6 ~eq,nP~ ~ti~f ~~,~ ae,~;~,~-nf ~y lG~ -~~~t,~; i~~~ 4P~~o~llhi2~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~Z C1nil9 = 26- 7f%~~ +r ~~,i /~/J~~~j~urf ;; pPfoit //PY~~~. q,,: RP~~r~ ~7~0~ ~,f f~~,; ~~` ~r~s ape/ ~~ 9~ ~~~, ~~, ~ ~~ tBZ ya~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~4/o Q(~7i(lilhl~yr/~'1 / /!7, __/~ ~!!f/)' C( N°/1' '` II 7 / 7p f~~~~~ ~'(r ~'~ r; _._ _ _ _ _. _ _ i ~lelros~ fwelinr. IS S00 /~!? Fi',~~ ~GoT I P~i~e~j 3~6 fiDT wP>~ ~~ G~o~~ ~Irt 2 Z 6 f~~.5 ,~~; ~a ~_ _ l6/ Po~~ ~ f0i1~t'~ M ~ ~QNSULTANTS~, INC, M IOWA Cn7IOWA I CEDAR RAPIDSIOWA OFFICE: 319-351-8282 OFFICE: 319-841.5166 Your Vision + pur Innovatton = Inspired Results April 11, 2008 Karen Howard ~, F Iowa City Planning Department ~ 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 RE: Hendrickson-Lytham Condominiums Slope Stability Measures The developer of this project is taking several steps to ensure the stability of the existing and proposed slopes on this property. The first measure that will be used and probably the most important measure for the existing slopes is to preserve the existing vegetation as much as possible. Other measures that will be used during and after construction include the placement of ~ rolled erosion control mat on finished slopes, the extensive use of silt fence to help control °~ erosion and stabilization seeding of finished slopes. The retaining walls will be designed by a structural or geotechnical engineer to ensure their stability. The preliminary geotechnical report prepared by Terracon indicates that the proposed construction of buildings and retaining walls > and slopes will all be stable after construction. In addition, Iowa DNR NPDES and City of Iowa d City CSR permits will be obtained for this project and these permits require weekly inspections and maintenance of erosion control measures. The City of Iowa City inspectors will ensure these permits are being followed. The developer is committed to ensuring the stability of the slopes and to controlling erosion on this site during and after construction. ~ Respectfull submitted, i~%~~~ a b m ~ Ronald L. Amelon, P.E. ~ MMS Consultants, Inc. -~ ti T:\ 1200\ 1235074\1235074L2.DOC O z y ro ~i s r rn y y 1917 SOUTH GII.BERT STREET; ~ IOWA CTrY• IOWA 52240 WEBSTCE: ply MMSCONSULTANTS NET EMAII.: MMS(n7MMSCONSULTANTS.NET April 7, 2008 Jeff Hendrickson c/o MMS Consultants, Inc. 1917 South Gilbert Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Attention: Mr. Ron Amelon Re: Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Hendrickson Lytham Condominiums Iowa City, Iowa Terracon Job No: 06085611.01 Dear Mr. Amelon: 1 r~rracon Consultng Engineers 8 Scientists Tertacan Consultants, lnc. zs4o lztn street sw Cedar Rapids, Iowa 82404-3440 Phone 319.366.8321 Fax 319.366.0032 Soil borings for the referenced project are completed and laboratory testing of the samples is in progress. Based on the conditions encountered in the borings and a limited amount of laboratory testing, we have analyzed the stability of some of the critical slopes for the project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project will consist of the construction of a condominium complex comprising of two-story buildings (12 single unit and 12 duplex buildings), and associated parking and drive areas. The project site is located on Marietta Avenue and Learner Court in Iowa City. Based on the supplied preliminary development plan, we understand the proposed 8.1 acre site has steep slopes in the form of a valley with existing ground elevations varying between about 725 and 759 feet. In general, the steepest part of the existing slopes are about 3Y:1 (horizontal:vertical). The proposed buildings will be located on either side of the valley near the tops of the slopes. New fill placed between the buildings and on the uphill side of the buildings varies from about 3'/z to 6 feet. A retaining wall will also be constructed about halfway down each slope. These retaining walls will be about 8 to 10 feet in height. The types of retaining walls are unknown at this time, but it is anticipated that they will be some sort of reinforced earth structure. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Soil Conditions Based on the results of the borings and limited laboratory testing and observation, subsurface conditions at the project site can be generalized as follows. In general, the borings encountered silty clay or lean clay (loess) to depths of about 14 to 21 feet below grade in the borings performed at the top of the slopes and to depths of about 12 to 18 feet below grade in the borings performed in the valley. The silty or lean clay was generally soft to stiff in consistency. Below this, the borings encountered sandy, lean to fat clay to depths of about 17 Delivering Success for Clients and Employees Since 1965 Mora Than 95 Offices NaBonwide Hendrickson Lytham Condominiums Slope Analysis Iowa Clty, Iowa Job No. 06085611.01 April 7, 2008 l~erra~on to 28 feet below grade in the borings performed at the top of the slopes and to depths of about 7 to 8 feet below grade in the borings performed in the valley. The sandy lean to fat clay was generally stiff to very stiff in consistency. Below this, the borings encountered sandy lean clay with a trace of gravel (glacial till) to the boring's termination depths of about 25 to 50 feet below grade. The sandy lean clay was generally very stiff to hard in consistency. Groundwater Conditions The borings were monitored during and after drilling operations for the presence and level of groundwater. At the time of boring, groundwater was observed in the borings at depths of about 12 to 23 feet below existing grade. Delayed groundwater measurements were taken approximately 24 hours after drilling. At that time, groundwater was measured in the borings at the top of the slopes at depths of about 5 to 15 feet below existing grade and was measured in the borings in the valley at depths of about 1 to 5 feet below existing grade. Due to the low permeability of the cohesive soils encountered at this site, a relatively long period of time may be required for groundwater to develop and stabilize in a bore hole. Longer term monitoring in cased holes or piezometers would be required for a better evaluation of the groundwater conditions and potential for water level fluctuations. Fluctuations of the groundwater level will occur due to seasonal variations in rainfall, runoff, and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. Perched water can develop within sand seams and layers overlying lower permeability soils following periods of heavy or prolonged precipitation. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the future may be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the boring logs. As such, groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION As requested, a global stability analysis was performed using a computer program (GeoStudio SLOPE/W) that utilizes the Morgenstern-Price force and moment equilibrium method of slices for circular failure arcs. Global stability evaluates the ratio of resisting to driving forces, and is referred to as a factor of safety. The magnitudes of these forces depend on the slope geometry, soil characteristics (texture, density, shear strength, and moisture content), surcharge loading, and groundwater conditions. A factor of safety of 1.0 indicates that these forces are in equilibrium and no movement occurs. A factor of safety greater than 1.0 indicates that there is a margin of safety against movement. The closer the factor of safety is to 1.D, the probability of movement increases. The degree of risk or the magnitude of the factor of safety which is considered acceptable is generally established by industry standards and depend on many factors such as variability of the soil conditions, groundwater conditions, surcharge 2 Hendrickson Lytham Condominiums Slope Analysis Iowa Clty, Iowa Job No. 06065611.01 April 7, 2008 lfercacon loading, and cost of repair. It should be noted that current U.S Army Corps of Engineers and Iowa Department of Transportation standards recommend a minimum factor of safety of 1.3 for an end-of-construction condition. Based on the limited data available, our understanding of the site geometry, and our analyses, it is our opinion that the factor of safety against adeep-seated, slope stability failure will be greater than 1.3 for the proposed project slopes. At this point in our analysis, it was determined that across-section from north to south, near borings 3, 7 and 12 (see the attached Boring Location Diagram) represents the worst case scenario if one of the condominiums was included. The load from the condominium was modeled as a uniform load of about 1500 psf. The attached sheet summarizes our slope stability analysis for this section. We understand that the project plans call for slope protection using erosion mats. It is our opinion that, if installed correctly, these mats should provide sufficient protection against erosion that could lead to future slope instability. At this time, our analysis indicates that the proposed slopes with the proposed construction and retaining walls should have factors of safety greater than 1.3. As we continue with the completion of our laboratory testing of the soil samples and our analysis, we anticipate this will be confirmed for ail areas; however, it should be noted that soil conditions may be discovered that would affect this conclusion. It should also be noted that this analysis pertains to the global stability of the proposed slopes. Analysis of the internal stability of the proposed retaining walls is beyond our scope of work. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this phase of your project. We will continue with laboratory testing and further analyses that will be summarized in our final report. If you have any questions concerning this preliminary report, or if we may be of further service to you, please contact us. Sincerely, lferracon Consultants, Inc. Lisa S. Burch, M.S., E.I. (~~ Project Engineer TimothyT. Wiles, P.E. Geotechnical Services Manager N:1Prolects1200e\08085611\wp\06085811.01; Allachmenls 3 N N O7 O a> y J N V '- t ~ O ~ O O C N O e J d m v E ;: os mm m o Z ^ c E ;_ J N 4 U d O m°'p ui D O ~ J N -. .. U d ,C G 'C 'a a3 m mE ~? ~ O N ~~oU~ c L OO d ~ N N O ~ r ._ t t ~v~a ~o yNE°o y o d' ~~~~°,° t~ o~U (mil O~ L ~ N L ~ O E~~~ ~ y J_ p V H a V ~ m O _ ~ ~ C ~ O m ~ v t o0}g J ~ . ~.~V d J'gLLo J J ~}U }Q~ ~I-ZJ W J Q J Zlq fqH C C C C N ch .d. 0 0 0 0 a $ a o. it a# aF U U U U ~ ~ ~ N N N W 'C '~'C N d d m .~, ~ .~_, 0 0 ~ ~ ~ N ~ a II II II #~~~ ZZZ m'mmm 000 m m m m C7 C7 t9 ~~~~ WWW ~~~g ~~~ N N L t O m ~~ ~~ .- N W W Z Z J J d m '~ m a o. 8 S 00 ~pD V m N 0 0 O N 0 g~ Y 0 O 0 rn 0 0 N °v N i m s N N n 8 m U C (}aa~) uogena~~ M m z n M m ti a 0 r a 0 a a a n x =~ -~ M1VIS CONSULTANTS, INC. IOWA CITY IOWA OFFICE: 319-351-8282 CEDAR RAPIDS IOWA OFFICE: 319-841-5188 The following pertains to the proposed wetland buffer for the development of the 9.4 acre Neuzil Tract property in Iowa City. The developer is pursuing a buffer reduction of 75% of the required 100' based on the following reasons, which reference Chapter 6, Section 14-6K-1, subsection Gab of the Iowa City ordinance rules. - Wetland areas identified on the wetland delineation report as areas B and C have been deemed non-jurisdictional by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The ordinance defines wetlands as sensitive areas only if they are jurisdictional wetlands. Therefore, the required buffer areas will only apply to wetland area A. - The three wetland areas on the site comprise a combined total of 0.56 acres. Wetland A is only 0.02 acres. This is well under the 5 acre maximum size required for buffer reduction. - During site visits there were no sightings of state or federal listed endangered, threatened, or critical species. Granted, the site visits were conducted in late October and early November, which is not necessarily a time of easily observed activity in many species. However, the type and condition of the existing wetland does not constitute outstanding natural habitat for the listed species. Lack of sandy areas on the site eliminate possible Ornate Box turtle habitat. Other listed reptiles or amphibians are not known to be prevalent to the Iowa City area. Listed fish and mussel species would not be found in the emergent wetlands on the site. The presence of shagbark hickory, silver maple, oak, and American elm in the uplands adjacent to the wetlands combined with the permanent water of Lake Melrose indicate possible Indiana bat habitat. The density of trees present is very marginal to the minimum 15% required for suitable bat habitat. A solution is to limit tree removal, if required for the project, between September 16 and April 14, which is considered outside the summer habitat period for the bat in Iowa. Furthermore, the location alone, being a small space surrounded by residential development and other actions of humans, limits the potential for habitats that support species listed as endangered, threatened, or critical. The main reason for decline in such species is the lack of adaptation to the activities of man, so it's highly unlikely that this property could support them. - The wetlands do not contain diverse plant associations of infrequent occurrence or regional significance. Reed canarygrass and cattail are the two species that dominate the existing plant community in areas B and C, with only reed canarygrass in area A; both are known for their invasive and mono-culturistic tendencies. There is a very sparse presence of swamp milkweed, sedge (likely Carex lupulina, but unconfirmed), and smartweed in area B. Woody vegetation on the fringe, and sometimes outside, of the wetlands include red-osier dogwood, red raspberry, black willow, American elm, and riverbank grape. All the species listed above are very common to the area and the plant community is degraded by the non-native reed canarygrass. - The wetland is not located in a stream corridor, as there is no river, stream, or drainage way that is shown in blue on the USGS quad map. Lake Melrose is shown in blue as a lake. 1917 SOUTH GILBERT STREET IOWA CITY • IOWA 52240 WEBSITE: WWW.MMSCONSULTANTS.NET EMAIL: MMS@MMSCONSULTANTS.NET - Inundation was present during the site investigation in areas B and C, but the wetlands on the property are not the types that contain standing water throughout a year of normal rainfall. The plant community is dominated by reed canarygrass, a facultative wetland plant that does not thrive in permanently inundated landscapes. Also, the soil colors in the low areas of the wetlands show brown, dark brown, and dark reddish brown redoximorphic features in the top 12 inches of a dark gray matrix. These colors can only form from the presence of oxygen at certain time periods, which indicates a periodic lack of soil saturation. - While there is a presence of fringe trees and shrubs azound some of the wetland areas, the plant community is dominated by herbaceous plants. The wetlands are classified as palustrine emergent wetlands. Wetlands A and B are persistent emergent, while Wetland C isnon-persistent emergent. - The conditions of the wetlands on the property do not provide a known habitat for migratory birds of local or regional significance. The cattail and reed canarygrass, which are the dominant plants present, are not significant food sources or resting areas for most migratory birds. The quality of the existing wetlands is low. They are a product of man made dams and berms constructed to create Lake Melrose. The drainage way that Wetlands B and C lie in has had a history of berming and piping to create the current conditions and are the reasons they are non- jurisdictional. They do function to buffer the runoff into Lake Melrose, although the lake appears to be suffering from intense sedimentation. The water source that feeds the wetlands is piped through the surround neighborhood to the west, as well as back yard runoff, and produces a variable flow that is high after rain events and low in-between. Since the majority of the wetlands watershed is already permanently compromised, it seems unlikely that new development with a 100' buffer around the wetlands will provide a significant benefit difference from a 25' buffer. Mike Barker Wetland Specialist MMS Consultants, Inc. obi u 7 ~W~ e, ~~:~ ::.. ..:.,. rr.....~-::::: ~ ::::::::::::::: ~:::::: C ::_ a ,...... :'.J EMERGENT WETLAND - 0.56 TOTAL ACRES NORTH LAKE - 0.09 TOTAL ACRES Deslgried key, Score: FIGURE 4 WETLAND DELINEATION MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. Dote ~ rzevislon MFB 1 "=100' IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 °r'°"" ~ °abei NEUZIL TRACT, 96 OLIVE CT (319) 351-8282 ^~ MFB 1117107 CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA 52404 Il/l Checked by: Protect No: IOWA CITY (319) 8415188 MFB IC 1235-075 IOWA www.mmsconsulTants.net April 8, 2008 Steven C. & Kristine L. Schooley 124 Marietta Avenue Iowa City, Iowa 52246-3231 Ms. Janet Dvorsky Administrative Secretary Department of Planning and Community Development Planning t{, Zoning Commission 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 5224p Ms. Dvorsky, ,_ _----------_ , f soot e ddd ~I. Your letter of notification regarding proposed rezoning changes to 69 Olive Ct & 91 Olive Ct. (REZ08-00001/SIIB08-00002) has been received, along with the enclosure of the pamphlet `A Citizen's Guide to the Rezoning Process". Please find enclosed comments/opinions from property owners affected regarding the above site intended as public input available to the Planning and Zoning Commission staff to be shared and included for review and evaluation during this process. As stated in the enclosed brochure regarding the `Rezoning Process ; changing the proposed site to higher density development increases intensity of use and does not seem in the best interests of the surrounding neighborhood/property oumers/property tax payers/citizens of the community. For example, high density development presently exists along Woodside Drive and Oakcrest in the area immediately adjoining the proposed rezoning site. Yet another `condominium/duplex/apartment' complex development exists between 5`unset and George. Those units remain uncompleted and unoccupied detracting from the nature of a residential neighborhood. Furthermore, more high density/intense usage units/sites all ready exist along Highway 1, Melrose, Oakcrest, Emerald, Westgate, West Benton, Mormon Trek, and beyond. Tending to raise the question as to whether further high density/high intensity usage of the proposed re-zoning site is truly needed, is part of the formal plans of the planning and zoning commission, and desirable not only by the community but also by citizens' vision of the community. Secondly, increasing traffic by at least thirty automobiles contributes to noise and air pollution detracting from the nature of a residential neighborhood. Further high density/intense usage in tum also translates into increased infrastructure needs and cost for roads and services. At the same time, one must note that most individuals/families today tend to own more than one vehicle. Traffic would also be increased by the necessity of usage by city services such as trash pick-up, snow removal, and mail delivery vehicles not counting deliveries by private businesses in an area of the community ail ready congested. Increasing density/intensity of usage also contributes to traffic issues such as congestion and traffic control adequacy along Melrose Avenue and in the surrounding area. Therefore, we would hope that the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission would deny the application for the proposed rezontng to 69 Olive Ct & 91 Olive Ct. (REZ08-00001/SIIB08-00002) as incompatible with community development in this residential neighborhood. Thank-you, /~~-~c Krist~ ne L Sc~~hoocctt~e Karen Howard From: Hettmansperger, Sue E [sue-hettmansperger@uiowa.edu] Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 1:44 PM To: PlanningZoningPublic; Karen Howard Cc: louise-from@university-heights.org; amy-moore@university-heights.org; d avid-g i e se@university-he ig hts. o rg Subject: Zoning proposal (REZ08-00001/SUB08-00002) Dear Planning and Zoning Commission, As a homeowner located near the proposed rezoning of 9.48 acres for property located south of Melrose Avenue, Olive Court and Learner Court, and east of the terminus of Marietta Avenue, I am in receipt of your notification of a zoning change. As a neighboring property owner, my views of the application (REZ08-00001/SUBOS-00002) are as follows. I am in opposition to what I see as a high density development such as the one proposed by Henrickson Lytham Condominiums, (31 dwelling units). This area of Iowa City-University Heights already has too much high density housing. The proximity of the Hospital and Stadium makes this property attractive to developers eager to cash in on access, but the character of the entire neighborhood is at risk of deterioration. If this open space sensitive area is developed at all (and I do not believe it should be), then the only result in character with the quality of the surrounding homes would be the construction of a few more single family homes. The developer has obviously chosen not to propose such a plan because it would not be as lucrative. We must respect the charm, quality and character of this university heights neighborhood by not allowing further in-fill of multiple family residences. Thank you for inviting our comment. Sincerely, Sue Hettmansperger, Professor of Art, University of Iowa Lawrence Fritts, Associate Professor of Music, University of Iowa 114 Highland Drive, Iowa City, IA. 52246 1-319-354-8712 phone 1 From: Chris Anderson [canderso2@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 8:43 AM To: PlanningZoningPublic Subject: proposed development of Neuzil property Hello, My name is Christine Anderson and I live at 22 Learner Court. I am currently the city clerk for University Heights and a past city council member. I have lived in my house for the past 10+ years. My purpose in writing you is to offer an opinion on the proposed development on the Neuzil tract of land. At the meeting, the developer had with interested UH's citizens, the comment was made, many times, that "the city" was requiring that Leamer and Olive hook-up into one continuous street. The explanation given was so the fire trucks could access the houses. As you know, Leamer and Olive are dead end streets; several years ago, my neighbor had an electrical problem that necessitated the fire trucks coming on our street and there was no problem accessing the house. We have young children on our streets and I have a strong concern that creating a thru-street would turn Leamer and Olive into a race course. Please consider turning the street into a cul-du-sac or having a gate across the street that only the firemen have access to open. (a la the Lodge) My second concern is the length of time for building--4 years. That is simply too long. As an accountant, that tells me the developer doesn't have the financipg in place to do this development at one time. He is obviously depending on the sale of the first units to subsidize his cash flow. we should not be penalized with 4 years of construction noise, debris and traffic due to his lack of cash. In a perfect world, the Neuzil property would be turned into a park but I know the city is looking at this property to increase its tax base. Please strongly consider "tweaking" the development in consideration of the people in University Heights. Many of us bought our homes with the specific purpose of living on streets that were dead- ends so that we wouldn't deal with large traffic volumes. Hopefully, you have required the developers to do a traffic study; something they hadn't done when they spoke to the UH's citizens. Thank you for your time and consideration Chris Anderson Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/; _ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8WCj9tACJ 1 r From: Goethe, Renee L [renee-goethe@uiowa.edu] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 3:18 PM To: Bob Miklo Subject: Planned zoning variance for the Olive Court field Dear Sir, I am writing as a property owner who is deeply concerned about the planned development currently before the Iowa City Planning and Zoning committee. This rezoning proposal, which would allow for the construction of 31 double or single unit high-end condominiums on the lot currently owned by the Neuzil Family and accessible through Learner Court, Olive Court and Marietta, requires at least more careful consideration that it has currently received by the committee. While the principles of infill development are ecologically friendly, the land in question slated for development is not conducive to this sort of project; otherwise, it would not still be green and open space. While the section of the field just off those streets or the area at the end of Marietta is reasonably flat, the field is split by a ravine, which is part of a local watershed. The report read at the last meeting of the Planning and Zoning committee indicates that much of the critical, steep, and protected slope areas will be disturbed by this project, and therefore Mr. Hendrickson is requesting a variance. However, although the committee seems inclined to accept Mr. Hendrickson at the word of an engineer whom he hired and has used for several similar projects in the past, no independent analysis of the affect of such a project on those slopes has been performed, nor has the committee indicated any intention to initiate one. Given the steepness of those slopes, the existence of a watershed which affects several ajoining properties and is fed by water run-off from at least a mile in every direction, this is an obvious measure that should be taken to protect the interests of the people of Iowa City. Mr. Hendrickson, has requested that the Planning and Zoning committee entertain his plan to allow him to cluster his buildings on those sections of the property which can sustain development. The land has been zoned for medium density housing, but current guidelines would not permit him to construct his units as closely as he has planned to do. Were he to build as planned, each condominium unit will extend as closely as possible to its neighbors, both within the condominium area and to those houses owned by families in adjacent streets. People who have been accustomed to looking out their windows at open spaces and having access to direct light in their kitchens and living rooms will be confronted by retaining walls and the vinyl siding of a new condominium if his plan is accepted as currently outlined. Some of the planned units will be separated by no more than 5 to 7 feet from existing houses on Olive and Leamer. These are not the only concerns many of us have expressed in earlier meetings. The most important of our objections are as follows: 1. The density of the condominiums on this property will result in most of the property at higher elevations to be covered either by concrete or by the homes themselves. This will increase run-off by a considerable amount. As this property is part of a watershed, this will become a problem for the neighbors of the property. The current proposal seems to call for the water to drain into the ravine, where it will be maintained between two artificial damns. Yet the developer has no plans to either build a drainage system that will remove the water from the vicinity altogether, nor has he indicated an intention to set up an aeration system that would reduce both the amount of algae and the number of mosquitoes. In this era of West Nile Virus, all the neighbors who would be affected by this plan sincerely hope that the committee takes this concern very seriously. 2. Residents of Leamer and Olive Court have indicated that, given the density of traffic on Melrose during rush hour, many motorists will take the opportunity to cut down Olive and onto the loop planned by the new development. This loop will be a road that connects Olive and Leamer and allows access to the new development. If the motorists take this option, they can then avoid the traffic light at Koser Street. This loop will pose a traffic hazard and decrease the safety of pedestrians, cyclists, and residents in the neighborhood. Although the committee has expressed doubt that such things will happen 1 routinely, those who live in the neighborhood have seen this in action frequently. 3. Mr. Hendrickson's plans for this development call for continuous construction over the course of the next four years. As his Berkdale units on Melrose indicate, his business plan has been to begin construction on a new unit once he's sold the previous one. Should the housing market falter in this part of the country as it has elsewhere, his half million dollar units will not sell quickly, and residents will have to withstand the constant transport of heavy machinery and loud construction for at least 48 months, if not longer. Should his business plans fail and the units don't sell, neighbors will be saddled with a half-completed condominium development with no buyers. To this end, residents in these neighborhoods would ask that, if the plan for development is passed, certain modifications be added to make it more palatable. A decrease in the density of the units would be a place to start. The developer should also consider an alternative to building a road which connects Olive and Learner Court. He should plan to either install an aeration system or find a way to drain the resultant run-off out of the area entirely. Finally, Mr. Hendrickson should be required to develop a plan for the speedy construction of his condominium units and worry about his sales afterward. Mr. Hendrickson wishes to prove that he is a "green developer", yet his plans differ little from the usual "Cover it with concrete" crowd. His intentions to subject the land and the surrounding neighborhood to constant construction for at least four years would result in the loss of topsoil and an severe increase in erosion. As yet, the Planning and Zoning committee has accepted the report of an engineer hired and working for Mr. Hendrickson, and no independent analysis of the property or the probable effects of development on the land has been performed. 2 humbly ask the Planning and Zoning committee to hold Mr. Hendrickson to his word and perform the necessary investigations that would clarify the long term implications of development for such a sensitive piece of property. Sincerely, Renee Goethe 103 Highland Dr. Iowa City 2 Page 1 of 1 From: Ahmad Wehbe [ahmad.wehbe@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 8:46 AM To: PlanningZoningPublic; Karen Howard; louise-from@university-heights.org; amy-moore@university- heights.org; david-giese@university-heights.org Dear Planning and Zoning Commission, I am a homeowner located near the proposed rezoning of 9.48 acres for property located south of Melrose Avenue, Olive Court and Learner Court, and east of the terminus of Marietta Avenue (REZ08-00001/SU608- 00002). Due to the nature of my job I was unable to make it to the meeting. I am in complete opposition to what I see as a high density development such as the one proposed by Henrickson Lytham Condominiums, (31 dwelling units). When we first moved in three years ago, we were attracted to the charm and beauty of our neighborhood. It was the perfect environment to start up our family. This is our first home and it was one of the main reasons 1 have decided to stay in Iowa City after the completion of my training. It has the serenity of a small town and the convenience of location. Adding the high density complex would destroy the calm and serene enviroment that we adore so much and would endanger the charm of our beautiful neighborhood. This area of Iowa City-University Heights already has too much high density housing. The proximity of the Hospital and Stadium makes this property attractive to developers eager to cash in on access, but the character of the entire neighborhood is at risk of deterioration. If this open space sensitive area is developed at all (and I do not believe it should be), then the only result in character with the quality of the surrounding homes would be the construction of a few more single family homes. The developer has obviously chosen not to propose such a plan because it would not be as lucrative. We must respect the charm, quality and character of this university heights neighborhood by not allowing further in-fill of multiple family residences. One more thing I wanted to add. I am originally from Lebanon. A country torn with turmoil. In University heights I found the warm home miles away from home. Please help us preserve that. Thank you for inviting our comment. Sincerely, Ahmad Wehbe, M.D. Fellow, Division of Hematology/Oncology University of Iowa Health Care 200 Hawkins Dr, Iowa City IA, 52242 Homeowner: 124 Highland Dr 5/5/2008 ~~ Marian Karr From: Fritts, Lawrence N [lawrence-frills@uiowa.edu] Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 1:43 PM To: Council Subject: Rezoning of Neuzil's field Dear Council Members: I am opposed to the proposal to rezone Neuzil's field from single-family dwellings to multiple-family dwellings in order to support the development project proposed by Mr. Hendrickson. The condominiums that he proposes to build are too large and numerous for our area. We are a small, quiet neighborhood and value our quality of life. This project would diminish that quality of life. I would support a development project for single family homes, for which the property was originally zoned. Cordially, Lawrence Fritts, PhD 114 Highland Drive Iowa City, Iowa 52246 319 354 8712 Neuzil Property development Page 1 of 1 u Marian Karr From: Hettmansperger, Sue E [sue-hettmansperger@uiowa.edu] Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 12:57 PM To: Council Cc: Wehbe, Ahmad M; Mast, Caroline M Subject: Neuzil Property development > Subject: Zoning proposal (REZ08-00001/SUB08-00002) > Dear City Council, As a homeowner located near the proposed rezoning of 9.48 acres for property located south of Melrose Avenue, Olive Court and Learner Court, and east of the terminus of Marietta Avenue, I am in receipt of the notification of a zoning change. As a neighboring property owner, my views of the application (REZ08-00001/SUB08-00002) are as follows. I am in opposition to what I see as a high density development such as the one proposed by Henrickson Lytham Condominiums, (31 dwelling units). If this open space sensitive area is developed at all (and I do not believe it should be), then the only result I would accept as being in character with the quality of the surrounding homes would be the construction of a few more single family homes. This area of Iowa City-University Heights already has too much high density housing. The proximity of the Hospital and Stadium makes this property attractive to developers eager to cash in on access, but the character of the entire neighborhood is at risk of deterioration. The developer has chosen not to propose such a plan because it would not be as lucrative. We must respect the charm, quality and character of this university heights neighborhood by not allowing further in-fill of multiple family residences. Thank you for inviting comment. > Sincerely, > Sue Hettmansperger, Professor of Art, University of Iowa > Lawrence Fritts, Associate Professor of Music, University of Iowa > 114 Highland Drive, > Iowa City, IA. 52246 > 1-319-354-8712 phone 6/2/2008 Page 1 of 2 ~~ c~ Marian Karr From: Goethe, Renee L [renee-goethe@uiowa.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 12:57 PM To: Council Subject: Neuzil property development proposal Honorable City Council Members: I am a neighbor living within the 200 foot zone of the Neuzil property, scheduled for development by Mr. Hendrickson and for a vote by you in the next council meeting on Tuesday June 2nd. I am writing to you to make sure you are aware of the deep level of concern in this area in regards to his plans. While few of us would object to a reasonable and sustainable plan for the development of this property, the proposal before you is not that. I will summarize what I know to be the local objections briefly: 1. As much of the property is undevelopable due to the ravine that cuts through the field, Mr. Hendrickson has asked for an adjustment in the zoning which will allow him to cluster his condominium units very closely together on the rest of the property. Therefore, all the land that can be build upon will be built upon; little or no green space between units or between the new development and surrounding neighborhoods will be left. He still intends to construct 31 units -- most double, some single -- and many buildings will have a footprint of over 5000 square feet with garages larger than surrounding homes. While he may claim to be a "green developer", to those of us who will live in this area, his plan will only cover the field with hard surfaces, increasing the average temperature in the area as well as the level of run-off into the ravine. I ask you to think of the affect of up to 31 new air conditioner condensors operating on summer days, and the heat radiating from concrete surfaces and roof tiles; his designs are hardly energy efficient. Of course, the development will also be an eyesore to those neighbors who, once the units have been completed, will find the view from their kitchen or living room windows arrested by the sight of retaining walls or aluminum siding within, in some cases, five to seven feet of the property line. 2. Mr. Hendrickson intends to use the same business model as he did for the Birkdale units on Melrose. Therefore, he will break ground for a new condominium as soon as he has sold the previous one. He thus intends to subject this neighborhood to at least four continuous years of construction, longer if the units don't sell quickly. As access to this field can only be gained through three quiet residential and NARROW streets, populated with children, cyclists, and pets, the daily conveyance of contractors, earth moving equpiment and construction workers will be a serious and even dangerous situation for the residents of Marietta, Olive and Learner Courts. This is not acceptable and is a terrible imposition upon the neighborhood. 3. Mr. Hendirckson intends to sell these massive units for between $550,000 and $700,000 dollars apiece to empty nesters who will use them as second homes. In this time when housing costs are falling (second quarter housing market figures nationally show a decline of home prices of a staggering 17%, according to the New York Times), the likelihood that these condominiums will sell or, once sold, remain sold is very low. This is not a development project that will benefit the community, the neighborhood, or the city. Empty condominiums do not generate tax revenues, and should Mr. Hendrickson find the market more restricted than he believed, the project may be abandoned before completed. For these reasons and many others, largely having to do with the increase of traffic, noise, drainage issues that will negatively affect properties up to a block away, and the profound alteration upon this neighborhood which will be brought about by the imposition of an expensive, frequently empty, and above all, private residential area which will not welcome casual pedestrian traffic from the surrounding neighborhood, I ask in my own name and in the name of my concerned neighbors that you vote against this proposal. While many of us would welcome a developer who planned to construct private family homes, complete with yards and garden space, which would blend in with the surroundings, we are not happy about Mr. Hendrickson's plan. If you feel you must support the proposal, we therefore ask that you reform his plans, restricting the number of properties from 31 units to less 5/29/2008 Page 2 of 2 than 20 (without an increase in the size of each unit), require that his construction take no longer than one year to complete, and ask that he increase the space between his condominiums and the surrounding neighborhood to allow for privacy, light, and breathing room. Yours sincerely, Renee Goethe 103 Highland Dr. Iowa City, IA renee-goethe@ u iowa ed u 5/29/2008 i4~ ~~ Marian Karr From: Doris Eckey [deckey@iowadsl.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 3:35 AM To; Council Subject: Rezoning of Neuzil Property To: Honorable Mayor and Iowa City Council 1 would like to register my opposition to the rezoning of Neuzil's Field at 69 and 91 Olive Court (REZOB-00001/SUBOB-00002). I believe that the development planned by MMS Consultants, Inc. would be harmful to the neighborhood for the reasons outlined below. The 31 planned luxury condos, priced at $550,000 - $700,000 each, and with footprints of up to 5,000 square feet, are disproportionately large and expensive for the area. Houses in the surrounding neighborhood are typically modest, costing $200,000 with 1,000 square feet. Who will buy these luxury condos? The developer seems to think that they will be snapped up by wealthy alumni who will purchase them as second homes. These alumni, perhaps ardent Hawkeye fans, would occupy them for part of the year, particularly during football season, and abandon them the rest of the time. The condos would be too expensive for young medical residents working at University Hospitals who have medical school loans to pay off. They can afford the $200,000 houses in the surrounding neighborhood, but most could not afford luxury condos. Young families starting out could not afford them either. Those who are financially well-established would likely prefer living in a uniformly high- end area, not being marooned on an island in a sea of modest starter homes. So it all comes down to the wealthy second home buyers... Will they purchase these condos? A dozen years ago the answer would have been yes. Home prices were rising. The condos would have made excellent investments, in addition to the fun and convenience of having a congenial place to stay during football weekends or while attending concerts at Rancher or visiting friends. But the current financial climate is vastly different. I believe that now the answer is no. Many of these condos would not sell. Home prices are dropping not rising. The condos would be a very risky investment indeed. "Home prices nationally fell 14.1 percent in March from a year earlier," and "sales of new homes have fallen 42 percent over the last year," according to the New York Times (May 28, 2008). Furthermore, food and fuel prices have risen dramatically, adding to inflation pressures. At some point interest rates will likely rise, making homes less affordable and much less attractive as investments. The developers plan to stretch out construction of the condos, financing each subsequent building from proceeds of the sale of the previous one. Construction is projected to last at least four years and could take considerably longer. During this extended period, the quality of life in the surrounding neighborhood will be diminished, as residents are forced to put up with construction noise and pollution, equipment traffic, and various eyesores. Property values in the neighborhood will drop substantially during this time. It wouldn't be so bad if the properties actually sold and were completed in a timely manner, say within two years. But it is likely that many will not sell. The project may run out of money and be abandoned halfway through. Unoccupied and unfinished structures are magnets for crime, especially considering the high population density in the area. "On an average day, 15,500 people are in the hospital complex....UI officials say it is the most densely populated area of the state." (Press Citizen, May 17, 2008) Add in 80,000 Hawkeye revelers on football Saturdays, converging on a field containing empty buildings, a field in which hundreds of people are accustomed to parking and tailgating, and you have a recipe for vandalism and petty crimes if not worse. What is the alternative to the condo project? Most residents of the area would naturally prefer that the land remain an empty field, or be converted into a lovely park. But if this heaven on earth is not possible, then the most logical and best option would be to simply extend Learner, Olive Court, and Marietta, ending each of them in a separate cul-de- sac, and building modest single family homes along these extensions in the size and price range of houses in the surrounding area. The market for such houses would be far broader than the market for the proposed condos. Consequently, it is far more likely that they 1 would sell. They would also be occupied year-round, and the occupants, unlike their part- year condo counterparts, would be true members of the community, contributing to its stability and richness. Houses in the $200,000 - $250,000 range might not seem as profitable as luxury condos to developers, and they might not seem as attractive to the City of Iowa City, seeking to increase its tax base. However, modest houses that sell are more profitable and contribute more to the tax base than luxury condos that do not sell. A development of modest homes could yield developers a modest profit, and that is probably the most that can be expected in these economic times. Thank you for taking the time to consider my views. Doris Eckey 33 Highland Drive 2 6~ Marian Karr From: Rick Gienapp [rickddr@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 10:56 AM To: Council Subject: Neuzil Property Please share with council members. I live at 38 Highland Dr. My back yard adjoins this property. As a realtor, I do not wish to be actively involved and visible. I have to live with the neighbors regardless of their positions. I do want to say that I support this project. Other options may be much less desirable. There was no guarantee that this proberty would not ever be developed and that there may be more traffic. The petition stated that the project dwellings would be within ten feet of my back yard line. I was told that it would be more like 25-26 or more feet. That would be more of my specific concern if it were 10 feet. I am O.K. with the single story and higher end market. Most people who live across the street on Highland cannon see into that field because of trees and closeness of the houses adjoining the property. Rick Gienapp 1 a ~f .~ ,~ ;, h k> ~: wr°.. :9._ ~--- _-~ -_ "~ -~~ ':. ~- ~"~~,~ _ -,_, r ~ ~« Arches r ;. Porch Carpenter .:-` mss- s - . - n, ~ r ~~ ~;~. ... ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~~ - ~ aoosmr+ ap ~, 'tas~~ ~ ~ ~ ®~ nI - ~-- ,. i __ __ i _.. _ .. .. . ~. _~ ~ - I - ___ ~~_ __ _._z~ ---- - =-_ _-- - 9. L i -~_ '}z, -~_ ~~ --~.. ~_ --~--__ . ~~ .-,- _-- _-_- ~- t -- ` _ -' ~--~ ~- .. ..r ~ ~' - 04.17.08.avi F--- ~ ~~s +- 1 Lower Level 1,535 Sq. Ft. 2,230 Sq. Ft. Main Level Lower Level 1,535 Sq. Ft. /Condo Main Level 2,230 Sq. Ft. /Condo C n DUPLEX PLAN -LOWER LEVEL ~~ DUPLEX PLAN -MAIN LEVEL 1/8" = 1' 0" ~~~ ~~ Prepared by: Adam Ralston, Planning Intem, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5230 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 11.7 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON RUPPERT ROAD WEST OF OLD HIGHWAY 218 FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC-2) TO INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (CI-1 ). (REZ08-00004) WHEREAS, the applicant, the City of Iowa City, has requested a rezoning of properties located on Ruppert Road west of Old Highway 218 from Community Commercial (CC-2) to Intensive Commercial (CI- 1); and WHEREAS, business uses conforming to a CI-1 zone are compatible with current surrounding land uses; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that these parcels are appropriate for uses consistent with the CI-1 zone; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed rezoning and determined that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval of the proposed rezoning; and WHEREAS, the Iowa City City Council concurs with the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I APPROVAL. The property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning classification of Community Commercial (CC-2) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) is hereby approved: Lots 8 through 17 of the North Airport Development as described in the Final Plat of North Airport Development recorded in deed book 43, page 182, dated October 17, 2001 in the records of the Johnson County, Iowa, Recorder. SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of the ordinance as approved by law. SECTION III. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance, and record the same in the Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law. SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of , 20 .MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Appro ed by City Attorney's Office y.~y f~j~ Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Bailey Champion Correia Hayek O'Donnell Wilburn Wright First Consideration 5/13/2008 Vote for passage: AYES: Champion, Correia, Bailey. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration 6/3/2008 Voteforpassage: AYES: Champion, Correia, Bailey. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. that the Hayek, O'Donnell, Wilburn, Wright, Hayek, O'Donnell, Wilburn, Wright, Date published ~G Prepared by: Adam Ralston, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5230 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 8.95 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON RUPPERT ROAD WEST OF OLD HIGHWAY 218 FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC-2) TO NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC (P-1 ). (REZ08-00004) WHEREAS, the applicant, the City of Iowa City, has requested a rezoning of properties located on Ruppert Road west of Old Highway 218 from Community Commercial (CC-2) to Neighborhood Public (P-1 ); and WHEREAS, these properties are currently under the ownership of the City of Iowa City and are intended to remain under said ownership; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed rezoning and determined that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval of the proposed rezoning; and WHEREAS, the Iowa City City Council concurs with the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I APPROVAL. The property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning classification of Community Commercial (CC-2) to Neighborhood Public (P-1) is hereby approved: Outlots B and C of the North Airport Development as described in the Final Plat of North Airport Development recorded in deed book 43, page 182, dated October 17, 2001 in the records of the Johnson County, Iowa Recorder. SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of the ordinance as approved by law. SECTION III. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance, and record the same in the Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law. SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of , 20 MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Appr ed by ` ity Attorney's Office Sj/~ ~~U~ Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by _ Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Bailey Champion Correia Hayek O'Donnell Wilburn Wright First Consideration 5/13/2008 that the Vote for passage: AYES: Correia, Hayek, O'Donnell, Wilburn, Wright,Bailey, Champion. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration 6/3/2008 Vote for passage: AYES: Correia, Hayek, O'Donnell, Wilburn, Wright, Bailey, Champion, NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Date published -`~/~ 6-03-OS Prepared by: Eric Goers, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 16, PUBLIC WORKS, CHAPTER 3A, CITY UTILITIES - GENERAL PROVISIONS, SECTION 6, BILLING AND COLLECTION PROCEDURES; DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS, TO ELIMINATE THE DELINQUENCY CHARGE FOR ALL STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES. WHEREAS, Iowa City Code section 16-3A-6, BILLING AND COLLECTION PROCEDURES; DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS: imposes a delinquency charge on all accounts after 22 days; and WHEREAS, Iowa Code Section 8A.514 prohibits delinquency charges for some State institutions until the passage of 60 days; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to apply the same delinquency policies for all state and local governmental entities, while preserving all other collection options; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to adopt this amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENTS. TITLE 16, PUBLIC WORKS, CHAPTER 3A, CITY UTILITIES -GENERAL PROVISIONS, SECTION 6, BILLING AND COLLECTION PROCEDURES; DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS, Subsection A, Delinquency, Paragraph 2 is hereby amended by deleting it in its entirety and replacing it as follows: 2. If payment in full is not received within twenty two (22) days of the billing date, the account(s) shall be deemed delinquent and a delinquency charge will be assessed as provided in title 3, chapter 4 of this code. For locations which receive city water, wastewater andlor solid waste services, the account holders shall be billed and collected as a single account, and in the event of a delinquency in payment as to either water, wastewater or solid waste services, subsequent payments shall be credited first to the delinquent billings and then to the current billing. This paragraph shall not apply to state or local governmental entities. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective upon publication. Passed and approved this _ day of , 2008. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK App ved by City Attorney's Office