HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Packet 8.15.2019PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
August 15, 2019
Formal Meeting – 7:00 PM
Emma Harvat Hall
Iowa City City Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
4. Case Nos. ZCA19-03 and REZ19-07
Applicant: Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC
Location: 305 and 315 E. Prentiss Street and 625 S. Gilbert Street
a. An application submitted by Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC for an amendment to the
Riverfront Crossings regulating plan to include the property located at 625 S. Gilbert Street in the
Central Crossing Subdistrict. (ZCA19-03)
b. An application submitted by Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC for a rezoning of
approximately 1.6 acres of property located at 305 and 315 E. Prentiss Street and 625 S. Gilbert
Street from Community Commercial (CC-2) and Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Riverfront
Crossings-Central Crossings (RFC-CC). (REZ19-07)
5. Case No. SUB19-08
Applicant: TRD, LLC
Location: South of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack Trail
An application submitted by TRD, LLC for a preliminary plat for Tamarack Ridge subdivision, a
36.81 acre, 60-lot residential subdivision with one outlot located south of Scott Boulevard and north
of Tamarack Trail.
6. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: July 18, 2019
7. Planning & Zoning Information
8. Adjournment
If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact Anne Russett,
Urban Planning, at 319-356-5251 or anne-russett@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow
sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: September 5 / September 19 / October 3
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Jade Pederson, Planning Intern and
Anne Russett, Senior Planner
Item: REZ19-07 / ZCA19-03 Date: August 15, 2019
E Prentiss & S Gilbert
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Davis Maxwell
Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC
431 Office Park Drive
Birmingham, AL 35223
dmaxwell@capstonemail.com
205-414-6438
Property Owner: Boyd Investments
625 S Gilbert Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-321-5152
Requested Action: Regulating plan amendment from Gilbert
Subdistrict to Central Crossings Subdistrict
Rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) and
Community Commercial (CC-2) to Riverfront
Crossings – Central Crossings (RFC-CX).
Purpose: Redevelopment of the site per the Riverfront
Crossing’s form-based code
Location: 305 & 315 E Prentiss St. & 625 S Gilbert St.
Iowa City, IA
Location Map:
2
Size: 1.6 Acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Two office buildings zoned Intensive Commercial
(CI-1) and one apartment zoned Community
Commercial (CC-2)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: RFC-SD – Riverfront Crossings-South
District (Office and Commercial)
PRM – Planned High Density Multi-
Family Residential (Condominiums)
South: CC-2 – Community Commercial (Mixed-
Use and Commercial)
CI-1 – Intensive Commercial (Office)
East: RM-44 – High Density Multi-Family
Residential (Residential)
CC-2 – Community Commercial
(Commercial)
West: RFC-CX – Riverfront Crossings-Central
Crossings (Multi-family residential)
Comprehensive Plan: Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan
Neighborhood Open Space District: C7
Public Meeting Notification: Property owners located within 300 feet of the
project site received notification of the Planning
and Zoning Commission public meeting.
File Date: August 1, 2019
45 Day Limitation Period: September 16, 2019
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Davis Maxwell representing Capstone Collegiate Communities, LLC, has
requested the following:
1. An amendment to the Riverfront Crossings regulating plan (14-2G-2):
The project site is located within the Central Crossings and Gilbert Subdistricts of the
Riverfront Crossings District. The properties located at 305 and 315 East Prentiss are
within the Central Crossings Subdistrict while the 625 South Gilbert Street property is
within the Gilbert Subdistrict. The applicant has requested that the regulating plan be
amended to include the 625 South Gilbert Street property in the Central Crossings
subdistrict.
2. A rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) and Community Commercial (CC-2) to
Riverfront Crossings – Central Crossings (RFC-CX) for 1.6 acres at 305 and 315 East
Prentiss Street and 625 South Gilbert Street.
3
At the time this staff report was published the applicant had not held a good neighbor
meeting.
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning:
Zone District:
The property at 305 East Prentiss Street is currently zoned Community Commercial (CC-2).
The additional two properties, at 315 East Prentiss Street and 625 South Gilbert Street, are
currently zoned Intensive Commercial (CI-1). The purpose of the Community Commercial
(CC-2) zone is to provide services, that are in a major business district, to a significant portion
of community. The primary uses of the CC-2 zone are for commercial, retail, and office. The
Intensive Commercial Zone (CI-1) zone is intended “to provide areas for those sales and
service functions whose operations are typically characterized by outdoor display and
storage of merchandise, repair and sales of large equipment or motor vehicles, outdoor
commercial amusement and recreation activities, or by operations conducted in buildings or
structures that are not completely enclosed.” Residential uses are not an allowed use in the
CI-1 zone.
Regulating Plan:
The project property falls into two different subdistricts of the Riverfront Crossings District.
The lot located at 625 South Gilbert Street is in the Gilbert Subdistrict and the lots located at
305 and 315 East Prentiss Street are in the Central Crossings Subdistrict. While the two
subdistricts do still fall within the same general guidelines of the Downtown & Riverfront
Crossings Master Plan, they both have distinctive objectives, regulations, and standards that
they follow.
The most notable differences and similarities between the subdistricts include standards
pertaining to land uses, base max height, and max bonus height. Figure 1 shows some of
the standards of the Central Crossings and Gilbert Subdistricts.
Figure 1.
Central Crossings Subdistrict Gilbert Subdistrict
Land Uses Same as CB-5 zone:
-Provisional residential use
-Most commercial use
-Provisional industrial use
-Most institutional and civic uses
Same as CB-5 zone:
-Provisional residential use
-Most commercial use
-Provisional industrial use
-Most institutional and civic uses
Base Height Maximum 4 floors 3 floors
Bonus Height
Maximum
8 floors 5 floors
4
Proposed Zoning:
Zone District:
The proposed Riverfront Crossings – Central Crossings Subdistrict (RFC-CX) zone is
“intended for moderate intensity mixed use development in buildings with entries opening
onto pedestrian friendly streets and sidewalks.” Other properties that surround the subject
property and have the RFC-CX zone are to the west. RFC-CX allows most of the uses
permitted in the Central Business Support (CB-5) zone: eating establishments, office uses,
retail and service uses, and residential uses. This zone permits a variety of residential
building types, including apartment buildings, townhouses, and mixed-use buildings.
There are no restrictions on the residential density for this zone, however, there is limitations
on maximum building height. The maximum building height is four stories, with an upper
story setback of ten feet required along street frontages above the third story. There are
opportunities for bonus height provisions up to an eight-story maximum.
The attached development concept included in the applicant’s statement of intent shows an
8-story, 178-dwelling unit building [Attachment 3]. The building concept would have 3 lower-
levels for 259 residential parking spaces and 5 upper-levels for dwelling units. The concept
also shows improvements along Ralston Creek and a pedestrian way that connects to S.
Gilbert Street. The applicant will be requesting building height bonuses on the basis of Public
Art, which allows one additional floor, and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design,
which allows up to four additional floors. A bonus height request of four stories would need
to be reviewed by the staff Form-Based Code Design Review Committee prior to review and
approval by the City Council.
Projects zoned Riverfront Crossings and with residential uses are subject to the private Open
Space Requirements of The Riverfront Crossings and Eastside Mixed Use Districts Form
Based Development Standards. These require that open space shall be provided at a ratio of
10 square feet per bedroom. The proposed development will be conducted with this
requirement and verified at Design Review.
Since this proposed zoning would be within Riverfront Crossings if it is approved, all future
development will be subject to the Affordable Housing Requirement. The development
would be required to designate 10 or more percent of dwelling units as affordable housing
units. Alternatively, a fee in lieu may satisfy the requirement and would be put into an
affordable housing fund.
Regulating Plan:
The applicant has proposed a regulating plan amendment. Specifically, the request is to
include approximately 0.5 acres, located at 625 South Gilbert Street, in the Central Crossing
subdistrict. This area is currently identified on the regulating plan as within the Gilbert
subdistrict. Figure 1 on the previous page displays the most notable standards of the two
subdistricts.
Existing Land Uses:
The subject property is the former site of City Electric. The site also contains at least two
residential uses, office uses, and some more intense commercial uses. Directly to the north,
east, and west are multi-family residential buildings. The Iowa State Railroad runs to the
5
south of the subject lot.
Rezoning Review Criteria:
Staff uses the following two criteria in the review of rezonings:
1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan; and
2. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan:
The subject property is located in the Central Crossings and Gilbert Subdistricts of the
Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. The southern portion resides in the
Gilbert Subdistrict and the larger, northern portion resides in the Central Crossings
Subdistrict.
The table below outlines the objectives and development character of the two subdistricts
per the master plan.
Figure 2.
Central Crossings Gilbert
Objectives: -Encourage contextual infill
-Restore and enhance
conditions along Ralston
Creek
-Provide new housing options
-Manage infill
-Restore and enhance
conditions along Ralston
Creek
-Improve pedestrian and
bicycle connectivity
-Retrofit suburban
development
Development Character: -Integrate with South
Downtown and Park
subdistricts
-Build on ongoing efforts to
improve quality residential
design
-Maintain moderate scale and
intensity of use
-District largely built out, no
major transformation north of
the railroad
-Maintain smaller scale and
lower intensity of use south of
the railroad.
Due to the proximity of Ralston Creek, both subdistricts have objectives to restore and
enhance the conditions along Ralston Creek. The Central Crossings District goes a step
further and has a key goal to turn the creek into an asset that will stimulate development
along its banks. This will encourage new residential development and also provide open
spaces along the creek. Additionally, Central Crossings strives to maintain moderate
scale and intensity of use as a development characteristic.
The Gilbert Subdistrict differs from the Central Crossings Subdistrict in this aspect. One of
the development character points of the Gilbert Subdistrict is to “maintain smaller-scale
and lower intensity of use south of the railroad.” The subject property, more notably the
southern part of the subject property, falls on the northern side of the railroad where the
envisioned intensity is not stated. In the Gilbert Subdistrict, the northern side of the
railroad calls for no major transformations.
By rezoning the subject property into a zone that allows residential uses, residential
development will be encouraged along the creek. Therefore, staff is proposing a condition
6
to the rezoning to require improvements along Ralston Creek including removal of invasive
species, stream bank stabilization, and tree planting subject to review by the City Forester.
Compatibility with the Existing Neighborhood Character:
The development resulting from this rezoning would be compatible with the other multi-
story buildings and new residential development surrounding the subject lot. The property
on the west side of Ralston Creek, adjacent to the subject property, was rezoned to RFC-CX
and the Form-Based Code Design Review Committee approved a 4-story building, which is
currently under construction. Across E. Prentiss Street and to the north of the subject
property there is a five-story multi-use building. To the east of the subject property is a
three-story apartment building. Massing studies submitted by the applicant [Attachment 3]
conceptually show what the proposed 8-story building will look like from the street-level
view of all directions. Due to the lower elevation of the subject property the scale of the
proposed building is similar to that of the surrounding properties.
Traffic Implications and Access:
The concept plan for the site shows access to the proposed building off of both E. Prentiss
Street and S. Gilbert Street via existing curb cuts. An access agreement will need to be
executed with the adjacent property owner to utilize these access points. Although the access
off of E. Prentiss St. appears to be an alley it is actually private property. Should an access
agreement with the adjacent property owner not be achieved, alternative access to the site
will need to be identified through the design review process.
Additionally, staff is recommending a condition to obtain additional public right-of-way along
S. Gilbert Street. The additional right-of-way will allow the City to reconfigure the sidewalk
along S. Gilbert Street. Currently, the sidewalk is adjacent to the curb. Staff would like to
push the sidewalk further west to provide an additional buffer between pedestrians and
vehicular traffic.
There are a couple of utility structures for which staff has requested access easements for
any necessary future maintenance. One of these easements is necessary for access to a
manhole for a trunk sewer located just inside the Ralston Creek right-of-way, near the
southwest corner of the subject property. The other easement is needed for access to a
sanitary sewer line that runs through the old Maiden Lane right-of-way, through the
southeast portion of the subject property.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas:
Ralston Creek, to the western edge of the subject property, is an environmentally
sensitive area. The City’s Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires a 30-foot buffer between
development activity and the Ralston Creek floodway. Once a licensed engineer
determines the floodway, a 30-foot buffer will start at the edge of the floodway. A
sensitive areas site plan will need to be submitted with the floodway and buffer
delineated.
Floodplain:
The 100- and 500-year floodplains of Ralston Creek, determined by FEMA, both
encompass some of the subject property. Any development will need to comply with the
City’s floodplain management regulations. Floodproofing requirements and minimum
floor elevations will be determined during site plan and building plan reviews.
7
Storm Water Management:
Staff anticipates that the existing stormwater infrastructure will be able to accommodate
runoff from the proposed development. At the site plan stage staff will analyze whether the
re-development of the site results in an increased amount of impervious surface. This is
unlikely, since the current site is nearly all impervious.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public
hearing for the consideration of these applications will be scheduled with the City Council.
Pending approval by the City Council, the applicant may submit plans for review by the Form-
Based Code Design Review Committee. A request for a 4-story height bonus would need to
be reviewed by the Form-Based Code Design Review Committee, which would make a
recommendation to the City Council for final review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of ZCA19-03, an amendment to the Riverfront Crossings
regulating plan to include the property located at 625 South Gilbert Street in the Central
Crossing subdistrict.
Staff recommends approval of REZ19-07, a proposal to rezone approximately 1.6 acres of
property at 305 and 315 East Prentiss Street and 625 South Gilbert Street from Intensive
Commercial (CI-1) and Community Commercial (CC-2) to Riverfront Crossings – Central
Crossings (RFC-CX), subject to the following conditions:
1) Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall dedicate right-of-way along the
west side of S. Gilbert Street. The additional right-of-way needed is approximately
20’ in width at the southern property line and 0’ at the northern property line.
2) Provision of an access easement for City Wastewater Division vehicles and
equipment to access the manhole for the trunk sewer located near the southwest
corner of the subject property.
3) Provision of an access easement for City access to the sanitary sewer line that runs
through the former Maiden Lane right-of-way through the southeast end of the
subject property.
4) Improvement of Ralston Creek in accordance with the Form-Based Development
Standards for Riverfront Crossings as follows:
1. Removal of invasive trees.
2. Stream bank stabilization including necessary grading and addition of rip-rap.
3. Planting of trees in accordance with a plan approved by a City forester.
4. Dedication of temporary construction easements for the reconstruction of the
Prentiss Street Bridge.
5. The above work shall be done according to a plan prepared by the Owner and
approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit.
5) Execute an affordable housing agreement to satisfy the affordable housing
obligations imposed pursuant to Iowa City Code of Ordinances 14-2G-8 through the
8
provision of on-site owner-occupied dwelling units, on-site rental dwelling units,
and/or the payment of a fee in lieu of the remaining dwelling units not provided on-
site or as otherwise agreed to between Owner and the City.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Aerial Photograph
3. 315 E. Prentiss Street, Statement of Intent, Dated July 2, 2019
Approved by: __ __________________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
RFC-SD
RM44
RS8
PRM
RFC-SD
RFC-CX
RFC-SD
RM12
RFC-SD
RFC-SD
RM44
PRM RFC-SD
RM44
CI1
RFC-CX
PRM
RM44
CI1
PRM
RM44
RM44
RM44RFC-SD
CC2
CC2
RFC-SD
RM12
RFC-SD
RS8
CC2
RM44
RM44
RFC-CX
RM44
PRM PRM
RFC-SD RM44
RM12
RS8
RFC-SD
RFC-SD
RS8
CI1
CC2
RFC-SD
RM44
RM44
RFC-SD
CI1
RM44
RM12
RM44
PRM
RM44 RM44
CI1
RFC-SD RM12
RM12
RM12RFC-SD
RFC-SD
RM12
RFC-SD RM44
CB5
RM44
RS8
RM44
CI1
PRM
RFC-SD
RM44
RM44
RM44
RFC-SD
RM44
RS8
RFC-SD
RM12
RM44
RNS12
CI1
RFC-SD
RM12
RM44
RFC-SD
RM44
RM44
RM44
RM44
RM44
RM44
RM44
RS8
RS8
RM12
RM44
RM44
RM12
RFC-SD
PRM
PRM
RS8 RS8
I1
RFC-SD RM44
RM44
RFC-SD
RM44
RM44
RM44
RM44
PRM RM44
RS8
RS8
RFC-SD
RFC-SD
RNS12
RFC-SD
RFC-SD
RS12
RNS12
CI1
CC2
PRM
RFC-SD
PRM
RFC-CX
RM44
P2
RM44
RS8 RS8
RM12
PRM
RFC-SD
RM44
RM44
PRM
RM44
RM44
RM44
RM44
RM12
CI1 CC2
RS8
RM44
P2
RS8
RM44
CI1
RS8
RFC-CX
RM44 RM12
I1
P1
RM44
RS8
RM12
RM12
RM44
RM12
RM44
RM44 RM44
RM44
P2
P2
RS8
RFC-SD
RFC-SD
RFC-SD
RM44
RM44
RM12
P2
RM44
RM44
PRM
CC2
PRM
RS8
PRM
RS8
RS8
RFC-CX
PRM
RS8
RM12
RFC-CX RM44
PRM
RS12
RFC-SD
RM44
RS8
RM12
P1
CI1
P1
CC2
RFC-CX
CI1 RM44
RM44
RM12
PRM
RS8CI1
CI1
RM44
RM44
RS8
RM44
RS8
RFC-SD
RM12
RS8
RM44
CC2
RNS12
RM44
RS8
PRM
PRM
CC2
RM44
RS8
RM12
RFC-CXCI1
RM44
RM44
I1
CI1
RM44
RS8RS8
CC2
P1
CC2
P1
RM44
RS8
CI1
CC2CI1
RS8 RS8
RFC-SD
RM12
RNS12
CI1
RM44
PRM
RM44
RM44
I1
RFC-CX
RM44
RFC-SD
RS8
RM44
RM44
RM12
RM12
RM12
RS12
PRM RNS12
RM44
RS8
CC2
RS8
RM44
RM44
PRM
PRM
RM44
RS8
RFC-SD
RM44
RS8
RM44
RS8
I1
P2
CC2
RM44
RS8
RNS12
CI1
RM44
RM12
CC2
RS8
PRM
RM44 RNS12
CC2
P1
CC2
PRM
RM12
RS8
RFC-SD
RS8
PRM
RM44
RM44
RS8
RM12
RS8
PRM
RS12
CC2
RM44
RM12
RM44
RFC-SD
RM44
RM44
I1
RFC-SD
RM12
CI1
RM44
RS8
RM44
PRM
RM12
RNS12
PRM
P2
RM44
RS8
RM44
PRM
RM12
CC2
RM44
RS12
RM44
CI1
PRM RM44
RM44
RS8
RS8
PRM
I1
RS8
PRM
P1
RFC-SD
RM12
RFC-SD
P1
PRM
RM44
RS8
RM44
I1
RM44
RS8
CI1 RS8
CI1
P2
RS8
RM12
P1
CC2
PRM
CI1 CI1
RM44
RM44
RFC-CX
RS8
PRM
RM44
RM44
RS8
RS8
RM12
RM44
I1
PRM
RM44
RM12
RM44
PRM RM44
RM12
RM44
CC2
RS8
RM44
I1 RS8
RM44
CC2
RM44
PRM
RM44
RM44
RS8
RM12
RM44
RFC-SD
P2
CI1 RM44
RS8S DODGE STMAIDEN LNS GILBERT STGILBERT CTS DUBUQUE STS VAN BUREN STE PRENTISS ST
E HARRISON ST
WEBSTER STE HARRISON ST
BOWERY ST
E BENTON STS CAPITOL STS CLINTON STPAGE STS VAN BUREN STS LINN STLAFAYETTE ST S JOHNSON STREZ19-7301/315 E Prentiss Street & 625 S Gilbert Streetµ
0 0.065 0.130.0325 Miles Prepared By: Jade PedersonDate Prepared: May 2019
An application submitted by Davis Maxwell, Capstone Collegiate Communities LLC for the rezoning of approximately 1.6 acres at 305 & 315 E Prentiss St & 635 S Gilbert Street from Community Commercial (CC-2) and Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Riverfront Crossings - Central Crossings Subdistrict (RFC-CX).
S DODGE STMAIDEN LNS GILBERT STGILBERT CTS DUBUQUE STS VAN BUREN STE PRENTISS ST
E BENTON ST
S CLINTON ST
E HARRISON ST
WEBSTER STE HARRISON ST
BOWERY STMAIDEN LNE BENTON STS CAPITOL STS CLINTON STPAGE STMAIDEN LNS VAN BUREN STS LINN STWRIGHT ST
LAFAYETTE ST S JOHNSON STREZ19-7301/315 E Prentiss Street & 625 S Gilbert Streetµ
0 0.065 0.130.0325 Miles Prepared By: Jade PedersonDate Prepared: May 2019
An application submitted by Davis Maxwell, Capstone Collegiate Communities LLC for the rezoning of approximately 1.6 acres at 305 & 315 E Prentiss St & 635 S Gilbert Street from Community Commercial (CC-2) and Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Riverfront Crossings - Central Crossings Subdistrict (RFC-CX).
DEVELOPER:
CAPSTONE COLLEGIATE COMMUNITIES, LLC
SUBMITTED TO:
THE CITY of IOWA CITY
Planning Staff
JULY 2, 2019
315 East Prentiss Street
STATEMENT OF INTENT
Project INTRODUCTION
On behalf of Capstone Collegiate Communities and
their Project Team, I am pleased to present to you our
vision for the re-development of the properties located
at 305 & 315 E. Prentiss and 625 S. Gilbert Street in
Iowa City. Commonly referred to as 315 E Prentiss,
the project promises to be a vibrant addition to Iowa
City and the River Front Crossings District. The project
will deliver high-quality, residential housing to a
property that is on the east bank of Ralston Creek and
currently used for an industrial use .
The new residential tenants will be located close to
public transportation, surrounded by highly regarded,
locally owned dining establishments, and within a 10 -
minute walk of downtown. All parking for the project
will be located within the building footprint and the 4th
level of the building will feature roof-top terraces, a
clubroom, and fitness center for the private use of the
building occupants. At street level, the banks of Ralston
Creek will be stabilized and the floodplain buffer will be
enhanced to create publicly accessible open space.
Further, a pedestrian walkway will be added along the
south side of the property to provide an opportunity for
pedestrians on S. Gilbert Street to access Ralston
Creek and enjoy the enhancements located along the
banks.
The Project Team and I look forward to working with the
City of Iowa City to create a successful project for the
developer and the city.
MICHAEL WELCH
Project Lead
The project team consists of:
OWNER / DEVELOPER:
CAPSTONE COLLEGIATE COMMUNITIES, LLC
OWNER’S REPRESENTATIVE
AXIOM CONSULTANTS, LLC
PROJECT ARCHITECT:
NILES BOLTON ASSOCIATES
CIVIL, STRUCTURAL, AND MEP ENGINEER:
AXIOM CONSULTANTS, LLC
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
LMO PARTNERS
9 MONTHS 18 MONTHS
PHASE 1
Rezoning/Height Bonus
PHASE 2
Design
PHASE 3
Construction
May 2019
The rezoning phase of the project began
in May of 2019 with the submission of a
rezoning application. A change to the
Regulating Plan will be sought
concurrently with rezoning the property to
River Front Crossings—Central Crossings
District.
A Level II Design Review will be required
to achieve the desired eight-floors. The
Project Team will commence work on the
Design Review submissions once it is
clear that P&Z and Council are supportive
of rezoning.
Winter 2019– Spring 2020
A significant portion of the design process
will occur during the Design Review
process. This effort will continue upon the
completion of the Design Review process
and include geotechnical investigation and
Phase II ESA. These efforts will culminate in
an approved Site Plan and Building Plans
early Spring of 2020 to allow construction to
begin in 2020. The Project Team will work
closely with city staff throughout the process
to streamline the design to the extent
possible.
Summer 2020—Summer 2022
Construction is expected to begin
in Summer 2020 upon the approval
of a building and site design. The
building is expected to take
approximately 15-17 months,
including Ralston Creek stabilization
and right-of-way improvements.
The building should be ready for an
August 2022 occupancy.
Project PROCESS
THREE DISTINCT PHASES
Section 2
SITE NARRATIVE
Master Plan COMPARISION
FOOTPRINTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AS COMPARED TO THE MASTER PLAN (PAGE 66)
Plan diagram of the Central Sub-District from the Downtown and Riverfront
Crossings Masterplan document with the 315 East Prentiss site outlined in red.
Note that in the Masterplan, the site lies within two sub-districts: Central Cross-
ings and Gilbert Districts.
Plan diagram of the Central Crossings Sub-District from the Downtown and
Riverfront Crossings Masterplan document with the 315 East Prentiss site out-
lined in red and the proposed building footprint diagram overlaid. The Central
Crossings Boundary has been adjusted to reflect the proposed changes to the
Regulating Plan.
The project will be comprised of a single eight (8) story building and a variety of improvements to Ralston Creek. The buildi ng consists of
three floors of parking with five floors of residential, including a club room, fitness room, and 4th level terraces. Ralston Creek improvements
cover creek stabilization and removal of invasive species as well as the construction of a pedestrian greenway along the east side of the
creek. The space will be designed to encourage public use and pedestrian access to this under-utilized natural resource which flows through
River Front Crossings
Project FOOTPRINT
A GENERAL OVERVIEW OF WHAT COMPRISES THIS EFFORT
REDISCOVERING A NATURAL FEATURE
The restoration of the Ralston Creek corridor would include a multi-step design approach to restoring and improving portions of the creek to
create an inviting amenity that will enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Iowa City.
The first suggested step would be to remove the existing concrete structures and re -shape the creek channel and bank to mimic a more
natural pattern. Stabilizing the banks with a combination of rock boulders or outcroppings and native plantings suitable for the riparian zone
of the lower banks.
Secondly, swales and pools running parallel to the creeks banks would be incorporated to reduce the floodwater velocity from upstream
channelization. These features combined with the riparian plantings also provide an opportunity to capture stormwater from t he adjacent
sites and filter contaminants.
Finally, engaging the public with the creek by connecting pathways and plazas through public open spaces along the creek can bring
awareness that not only the creek exists, but can be made into an attractive natural amenity. Ultimately, restoring this por tion of the creek
could be used as a model for future developments along the creek corridor.
Ralston Creek IMPROVEMENTS
SAMPLE OF POTENTIAL CREEK ENHANCEMENTS
Section 3
SCALE
Scale of BUILDINGS
SIMILAR BUILDING SCALE COMPARISON MATRIX
PROJECT 315 E Prentiss
CAPSTONE
602 S Dubuque
DUBUQUE STREET
620 S Dubuque
DUBUQUE STREET
225 E Prentiss
DUBUQUE PH IV
Court & Linn
THE RISE
YEAR 2022 (proposed) 2017 2018 2019 2018
STORIES ABOVE
GRADE 8 (proposed) 4 4 4 15
APPROXIMATE
HEIGHT 742 FT 724 FT 736 FT 710 FT 831 FT
NARRATIVE:
315 E Prentiss will be located near the bottom of the Prentiss Street hill nestled along Ralston Creek in the valley between Gilbert Street and
Dubuque Street. The natural rise in the topography surrounding the project site allows for the proposed 8–stories to meld into the
neighborhood. The structure will compliment rather than dominate the surrounding buildings
This exhibit shows a number of buildings and how they compare to the proposed construction of the 315 E Prentiss Project. Th e view of this
exhibit is looking direction north with a west -to-east cut through the center of the property.
Section diagram illustrating the elevational height of the tallest buildings in the South Downtown and Central Crossings dis-
tricts visible along Prentiss, from Gilbert to Dubuque
The Rise
831 FT
620 Dubuque
736 FT
315 S Prentiss
742 FT
Ralston
Creek
S Gilbert St Dubuque St
620 Dubuque
736 FT 225 Prentiss
710 FT
601 S Gilbert
713 FT
The Mansion
538 S Gilbert
729 FT
Project MASSING
CONCEPTUAL STREET-LEVEL VIEW OF SITE PLACEMENT
Rendered street-level view looking Southeast from the intersection of Dubuque and Prentiss.
NEIGHBORHOOD POINT-of-REFERENCE DIAGRAM:
Northeast Corner of Dubuque Street and Prentiss Street
Conceptual view showing the project located
behind the Dubuque Phase IV—Pacha building
at 225 E. Prentiss Street) (currently under
construction) building at the center of the image
(in gray). The Dubuque Phase I can be seen at
the right of the image.
Project MASSING
CONCEPTUAL STREET-LEVEL VIEW OF SITE PLACEMENT
Rendered street-level view looking North from the South Gilbert.
NEIGHBORHOOD POINT-of-REFERENCE DIAGRAM:
Intersection of South Gilbert and Maiden Lane
Conceptual view showing the project located
behind the Iowa Interstate Railroad. World of
Bikes is located to the left of the image and
Kennedy Plaza is right of the image.
Project MASSING
CONCEPTUAL STREET-LEVEL VIEW OF SITE PLACEMENT
Conceptual view showing the project located behind
various apartments along Court Street. Proposed building
just visible through tree line at right-center of image.
Rendered street-level looking South from The Rise on Linn Street.
NEIGHBORHOOD POINT-OF-REFERENCE DIAGRAM:
The Rise Courtyard along Linn Street
Project MASSING
CONCEPTUAL STREET-LEVEL VIEW OF SITE PLACEMENT
Conceptual view showing the project located behind 601
S Gilbert St. Although the proposed building is
substantially larger than the existing building located at
601 S Gilbert Street, the site topography reduces the
overall impression of the mass of the building.
Rendered street-level looking west from the intersection of Prentiss and Gilbert
NEIGHBORHOOD POINT-of-REFERENCE DIAGRAM:
The intersection of Prentiss and Gilbert
Section 4
HEIGHT BONUS
REQUEST PER CODE:
Per the City of Iowa City Riverfront Crossings District General Requirements, Article G, 14 -2G-7, Section G: BUILDING HEIGHT
PROVISIONS our team is requesting consideration for:
The granting of additional bonus height in the amount of four (4) stories for the proposed building to be constructed at 315 East
Prentiss Street. This would allow for construction of one 8-story structure on the site which is the maximum allowed under the
RIVER FRONT CROSSING: CENTRAL CROSSINGS SUB-DISTRICT.
The code provides for a number of incentives for developments to incorporate features that provide both public benefits as well as important
goals towards furthering the objectives of the overall downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan.
This project is eligible in a number of areas and we are specifically requesting to utilize two (2) different means in our overall request. Both
of these areas is detailed in the subsequent sections to identify how we aim to achieve the associated goals.
PUBLIC ART (14-2G-7-G-6)
HEIGHT BONUS FOR LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN (14-2G-7-G-7)
Level II design review will be required for this project. As a result, the requested Height Bonus will be put before both th e City’s Design
Review Committee and the City Council.
Height BONUS
JUSTIFICATION FOR REQUEST
NARRATIVE of ELIGIBILITY:
Per item 14-2G-7-G-6 of the Iowa City code, one additional floor of building height may be granted for a contribution to the City's public art
program equal to one percent (1%) of threshold value of the project. Threshold value is the sum of all construction costs sho wn on all
building permits associated with the project, including site preparation. Funds contributed shall be used by the City for pub lic art within the
Riverfront Crossings District as approved by the Public Art Committee.
JUSTIFICATION of REQUIREMENTS:
The Project Team believes that the project will improve the aesthetics and pedestrian experience along E. Prentiss Street. T he creation of
publicly accessible open space between the proposed building and the banks of Ralston Creek may lend itself to creating a loc ation for
public art. The team is looking forward to working with the members of the city’s public art program to evaluate the opportunities to make
the public art more than a check written to the city. Placing public art within the public space may add one more amenity an d incentive to
attract additional pedestrian traffic to the banks of Ralston Creek.
REQUESTING: 1 floor
Public Art
14-2G-7-G-6
NARRATIVE of ELIGIBILITY:
Per item 14-2G-7-G-8 of the Iowa City code, up to four (4) additional floors of building height may be granted for projects that are designed
to meet high standards with regard to energy efficiency and environmental stewardship, according to LEED or other similar env ironmental or
energy efficiency rating system. In general, the higher the level of energy efficiency or environmental stewardship demonstra ted, the greater
the bonus. The amount of bonus granted will be based on the overall quality of the project. Bonus height may also be granted for projects
that are designed to minimize the impact of stormwater runoff on the environment through the use of bioswales, rain gardens, green roofs,
rainwater harvesting, and stream bank stabilization and restoration along Ralston Creek or the Iowa River, as described in th e riverfront
crossings district subarea plan adopted in April 2011. A long term maintenance plan must accompany any proposal for such gree n features.
JUSTIFICATION of REQUIREMENTS:
The Project Team believes that this property is uniquely situated to create a catalyst for the development of a pedestrian fr iendly and inviting
place along Ralston Creek. The enhancements to Ralston Creek, the areas within the city right -of-way along Ralston Creek, and the
floodway buffers associated with the waterway could serve as a greenway between Riverfront Crossings Park located at the sout h end of the
District and E. Prentiss Street. The measures implemented on this Project could well be the template and standard for the nu merous
properties and projects located along Ralston Creek within Riverfront Crossings
The Project Team is suggesting that the project go beyond the minimal measures required by adjacent CZAs (removal of invasive species
and stream bank stabilization) and a fuller, bigger picture plan be implemented. Thsi plan could included pedestrian access directly to the
waterway for canoe/kayak launch, stabilization with native vegetation or other measures that would ultimately result in a mor e sustainable
and natural waterway, incorporation of a pedestrian access under the Iowa Interstate Railroad Bridge for future trail extensi on, inclusion of
public education signage or components, and many other options.
The project team truly believes that Ralston Creek is an amenity that has been overlooked and ignored for too long and welcom e the
opportunity to work with city staff and City Council to develop the right mix of amenities and improvements to the waterway and adjacent
land.
The building design will incorporate many features that are in accordance with the LEED certification system; however, consis tent with City
requirements, the Project Team will not seek LEED certification.
REQUESTING: 3 floors requested (4 allowed)
Height Bonus for Energy Efficiency and Environmental
Stewardship
14-2G-7-G-7
NARRATIVE of ELIGIBILITY:
The City of Iowa City code allows for ten (10) different methods for a developer to request additional height for a project. We are planning
to make requests within two of these categories at the current time.
REQUEST NARRATIVE:
Our team will be requesting the additional height for this project in order to maximize the site to its full potential. The project is consistent
with the Master Plan and will create a strong anchor for the north end of Ralston Creek rehabilitation south of Downtown.
REQUEST NUMBERS: 4 total floors requested
FLOORS ALLOWED IN BASE ZONE = 4
FLOORS REQUESTED BY BONUS HEIGHT = 4
TOTAL FLOORS PROPOSED ACROSS THE SITE = 8
# NAME SECTION ALLOWED REQUESTED JUSTIFICATION
1 Public Art 14-2G-7-G-6 1 1 1% of threshold value contribution
2 LEED 14-2G-7-G-7 4 2 LEED Pursuant and Ralston Creek
Height BONUS
SYNOPSIS OF THE REQUEST
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner
Item: SUB19-08 Date: August 15, 2019
Tamarack Ridge
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: TRD, LLC
221 E Burlington St
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-631-1894
gjc1974@outlook.com
Property Owner: Monument Farms, LLC
319-331-4113
Requested Action: Approval of preliminary plat
Purpose: Tamarack Ridge Subdivision; To create 60 single-
family lots and one outlot
Location: South of Scott Blvd and North of Tamarack Trl
Location Map:
2
Size: 36.81 Acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Undeveloped, Interim Development Single-
Family Residential (ID-RS)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: ID-RS – Interim Development Single-
Family Residential
South: RS5 – Low Density Single-Family
Residential
East: ID-RS – Interim Development Single-
Family Residential
ID-RP – Interim Development Research
Park
West: ID-RP – Interim Development Research
Park
ORP – Office Research Park Zone
Comprehensive Plan: Conservation Design
District Plan: Northeast District, Single-Family
Neighborhood Open Space District: NE1
Public Meeting Notification: Property owners located within 300’ of the
project site received notification of the Planning
and Zoning Commission public meeting.
Subdivision signs were also posted on the site.
File Date: July 19, 2019
45 Day Limitation Period: September 2, 2019.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, TDR, LLC has submitted an application for a preliminary plat for the
Tamarack Ridge Subdivision, an approximately 36.81-acre subdivision containing 60 single-
family lots and one outlot located south of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack Trail.
The applicant has also requested a rezoning for this area from the Interim Development
Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to the Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5)
zone. The Commission reviewed the rezoning at its meeting on July 18, 2019 and
recommended approval subject to the following two conditions:
1. Substantial compliance with the preliminary plat (attached) in that the identified
traffic circles are incorporated into the final design of the extension of Tamarack
Trail.
3
2. Owner shall develop a landscaping plan that identifies the location and species of
75 right-of-way trees to be planted by Owner or its successor(s) in interest along
Tamarack Trail. Said trees shall be planted prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for each lot, or, if said certificate of occupancy is issued during a poor
planting season, by May 31 following issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Said
landscaping plan shall be approved by the City Forestry Division prior to the
approval of any final plat subdividing any of the above-described real estate. Said
landscaping plan shall include a diverse mix of trees planted generally 30’ apart,
though the City recognizes that exact locations may vary depending on driveway
locations, signage and other utility conflicts. Final location and species of the trees
shall be approved on a lot-by-lot basis prior to issuance of a building permit for
each lot.
The applicant has used the good neighbor policy. A good neighbor meeting was held on
Monday, June 10. The summary of the meeting is attached.
ANALYSIS:
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive
Plan has designated this area for Conservation Design. The Conservation Design land use
designation is applied to areas containing steep slopes, woodlands, or other sensitive
features. The Northeast District Plan identifies this area mostly for single-family residential
development with some more intense residential and commercial uses allowed closer to
Scott Blvd. Furthermore, the comprehensive plan supports development that is contiguous
and connected. The preliminary plat shows the extension of Tamarack Trail north to Scott
Boulevard, which will help to achieve the plan’s goal of interconnected street networks.
Interconnected street networks provide multiple travel routes resulting in diffusion and
distribution of traffic, efficient routes for public and emergency services, and provide direct
and continuous vehicular and pedestrian travel routes.
Subdivision Design: The subdivision includes 60 single-family lots, which meet the
dimensional requirements of the RS-5 zone. The minimum lot frontage in the RS-5 zone is
45 feet and the proposed lots meet the minimum requirement. The proposed lot sizes range
from 9,297 square feet to 33,684 square feet, which exceed the minimum lot size
requirement of 8,000 square feet in the RS-5 zone.
The subdivision design includes the extension of Tamarack Trail north to Scott Boulevard,
as well as the creation of a new street, Buckle Down Circle. Buckle Down Circle, located
approximately halfway between Scott Boulevard and the current terminus of Tamarack
Trail, ends in a cul-de-sac due to the steep topography further west.
Considering the existing topography, sensitive areas, and development constraints, street
connections to the west and the east of the proposed development are highly unlikely.
Without these connections the block length is longer than desired, which results in
concerns related to travel speeds. Therefore, the preliminary plat incorporates two traffic
circles. These physical barriers will be the most effective means of reducing travel
speeds. In addition, the curb-to-curb pavement width of the Tamarack Trail extension is
26 feet, which is the minimum allowed per code and allows on-street parking on one side
of the street. The traffic circles and the reduced pavement width will help with traffic
calming.
4
The subdivision also shows the continuation of the existing sidewalks north to Scott
Boulevard and incorporates pedestrian crossings at Buckle Down Circle and Scott
Boulevard across Tamarack Trail. The sidewalks throughout the subdivision are 5 feet.
Traffic Implications: Using the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual (9th
Edition), staff estimates that the total traffic generated by the proposed (60) lots would
produce approximately 571 trips per day to/from the development. The anticipated trips
generated would either access N. 1st Avenue (via Hickory Trail) or Scott Boulevard (via the
proposed connection of Tamarack Trail).
For comparison, the existing development that accesses N. 1st Avenue via Hickory Trail
has approximately 121 households and produces approximately 1,152 trips per day using
one access point. Provided the additional access to Scott Boulevard (via Tamarack Trail),
the total trips accessing N. 1st Avenue would likely be reduced even when adding the
proposed 60 lots.
In 2018, Scott Boulevard had an average daily traffic count of approximately 5,100 near
the proposed connection of Tamarack Trail and N. 1st Avenue had an average daily traffic
count of approximately 7,500 near the intersection of Hickory Trail (Iowa DOT). Given that
the theoretical capacity of a two-lane arterial street is conservatively more than 14,000
trips per day, the additional traffic generated by the development alone will not over-
burden Scott Boulevard or N. 1st Avenue as currently constructed.
Currently, the intersection of N. 1st Avenue and Scott Boulevard experiences congestion
during peak travel times. While the estimated additional trips from the development are
relatively low compared with total average daily traffic volumes, the additional trips will
have an impact on the intersection during peak hours. However, the City currently has a
Capital Improvements Project scheduled for 2020 to address this issue either by
constructing a roundabout or by signalizing the intersection.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The site contains several sensitive areas, including
critical and protected slopes and woodlands. The preliminary plat indicates that the
development will disturb 12% of the critical slopes and none of the protected slopes. The
City’s sensitive areas ordinance allows the disturbance of up to 35% of critical slopes
before a level II sensitive areas review is required.
In terms of woodlands, the preliminary plat indicates that the development will meet the
retention requirement of 50% per the sensitive areas ordinance. Table 1 provides a
summary of the woodlands. The preliminary plat shows a conservation easement over
the preserved woodland and the woodland buffer areas.
Table 1. Woodlands Summary
Existing
Woodlands
Disturbed
Woodlands
Woodland
Buffer
Preserved
Woodland
Retention
Requirement
(per code)
18.5 acres 5.0 acres
(27%)
3.9 acres
(21%)
9.5
(52%)
50%
5
The City’s sensitive areas inventory also identifies this area as having potential
archaeological resources. The applicant has contracted with the Office of the State
Archaeologist who is currently conducting an archaeological study.
Neighborhood Open Space: Open space dedication or fees in lieu of are addressed at the
time of final platting. Based on the 36.81 acres of RS-5 zoning, the developer would be
required to dedicate 0.79 acres of land or pay fees in-lieu. Due to the proximity of Calder
Park, which is 0.3 miles from the southern edge of the project site, an in-lieu fee payment
would be appropriate.
Storm Water Management: The preliminary plat identifies three storm water management
basins. Public Works staff has reviewed the preliminary grading plans and the preliminary
storm water management calculations. Staff has identified some developed areas where
run-off is not being captured in the storm water management basins. These areas have
topographic constraints that will make it difficult for all run-off to be captured in the storm
water management basins. Public Works staff is currently working with the applicant to
identify the amount of flow not captured in the basins and ways to mitigate this run-off.
Infrastructure Fees: The City requires developers to pay a $456.75 per acre fee for water
service. The project site is not located in one of the City’s sanitary sewer districts, and
therefore, the City collects no sanitary sewer tap on fees. The developer will be responsible
for costs associated with the water and sanitary sewer improvements needed to serve the
project site.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation of approval of the preliminary plat and sensitive areas development
plan by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the preliminary plat will be considered with
the proposed rezoning by the City Council. After approval of the rezoning and preliminary
plat the applicant may submit an application for the final plat.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Upon resolution of the deficiencies listed below, staff recommends approval of SUB19-08,
an application submitted by TDR, LLC for a Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas
Development Plan for Tamarack Ridge subdivision, a 60-lot, 36.81-acre residential
subdivision located south of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack Trail.
DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES:
1. Applicant must submit an archaeological study for compliance with the sensitive
areas ordinance.
2. Public Works staff must approve the preliminary grading plans and the preliminary
storm water management calculations.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Aerial Photograph
3. Good Neighbor Meeting Summary
6
4. Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan, Received August 1, 2019
Approved by: __ ________________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
BLUFFWOODDRTAMARACK TRLLARCH LNSTUART
CT
H I C K O R Y T R L
B L U F F W O O D C I R
R O C H E S T E R A V ECYPRESSCTACT DRN DODGE STB
L
U
F
F
WO
O
D
L
NN 1ST AVEACT PLHICKORYHEIGHTS LNN DUBUQUE RD
HARVEST RD SEN SCOTT BLVD
RS8
ID-RS
P1
CC2
RS5
ORP
CO1
RM12
RR1
MU
RDP
ID-RP
SUB19-8Tamarack Ridgeµ
0 0.15 0.30.075 Miles Prepared By: Jade PedersonDate Prepared: July 2019
An application submitted by TRD, LLC for preliminary plat approval for Tamarack Ridge, a 36.81-acre, 60-lot and one outlot subdivision, located South of Scott Blvd and North of Tamarack Trail.
BLUFFWOODDRTAMARACK TRLLARCH LNSTUART
CT
HICKORY TRL
HICKORY PL
EASTBURYDRB L U F F W O O D C I R
R O C H E S T E R A V ECYPRESSCTEVERGREEN CTACT DRN DODGE STB
L
U
F
F
WO
O
D
L
NN 1ST AVEACT PLHICKORYHEIGHTS LNN DUBUQUE RD
HARVEST RD SEN SCOTT BLVD
SUB19-8Tamarack Ridgeµ
0 0.15 0.30.075 Miles Prepared By: Jade PedersonDate Prepared: July 2019
An application submitted by TRD, LLC for preliminary plat approval for Tamarack Ridge, a 36.81-acre, 60-lot and one outlot subdivision, located South of Scott Blvd and North of Tamarack Trail.
CIVIL STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL SURVEY SPECIALTY
IOWA CITY: 60 East Court Street #3 – Iowa City, IA 52240 319.519.6220 - office
CEDAR RAPIDS: 1901 16th Ave SW #3 – Cedar Rapids, IA 52404 319.519.1257 - conference
CEDAR FALLS: 200 State Street, Unit V – Cedar Falls, IA 50613 www.axiom-con.com
QUAD CITIES: 1607 W River Drive #1 – Davenport, IA 52802 facebook.com/axiomconsultants
DIXON: 501 West 1st Street – Dixon, IL 61021 instagram.com/axiom_consultants
MEMORANDUM
PROJECT: Tamarack Ridge (190042)
DATE: July 10, 2019
TO: Anne Russett – City of Iowa City
SUBJECT Good Neighbor Meeting Summary
A Good Neighbor meeting was held on June 10, 2019 for the Tamarack Ridge Development. Invitations were mailed to
each household located on Tamarack Trail, Hickory Trail, Hickory Place, Cypress Trail, Bluffwood Drive, and Evergreen
Court. This exceeds the 300-foot requirement, but the development team felt it was important to make all thos e potentially
impacted aware of the project. The meeting was held at First Presbyterian Church of Iowa City located at 2701 Rochester
Avenue in Iowa City. The meeting lasted from 5:30pm until 7:00pm and an open house format was used. In addition to
myself, the developers, Joe Clark and Doug Paul, were present. We had two large concept plans laid out for the
neighbors to review and Doug, Joe, and I answered questions and provided an overview of the development.
The meeting was well attended; however, only one of the meeting attendees signed in on the available sign in sheet.
The concerns expressed by the neighbors can be summarized as follows:
- What will be proposed zoning be? Will there be multi-family development?
- The proposed single-family lots are narrower than those currently on Tamarack Trail. At time of the meeting the
narrowest lots were 68-feet wide. Will this negatively impact the property values for the existing residents?
- The proposed side yard setbacks are only 5-feet (consistent with city RS-5 zoning). Will houses being built closer
together have a negative impact on the character of the existing neighborhood?
- There will be additional traffic on Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail as the new residents travelled south to 1st
Avenue rather than north to N. Scott Boulevard.
- Will the extension of Tamarack Trail to N. Scott Boulevard encourage drivers to cut through the neighborhood to
avoid the 4-way stop and N. Scott Boulevard and 1st Avenue?
- Will the existing wooded areas be removed or cleared for the development?
- Some neighbors were under the impression that the land within the proposed development was part of a
preservation area and could not be developed.
Other neighbors expressed support for the project and were please to learn that the development would be RS -5 single-
family zoning, would preserve wooded areas within the conservation easements, and would incorporate traffic ci rcles
along the extension of Tamarack Trail to provide traffic calming measures and discourage traffic from traveling too fast
through the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Welch, PE
Associate Principal
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
J ULY 17 , 2019 – 7:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Max Parsons, Billie
Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Phoebe Martin, Mark Signs
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Welch, Joe Clark, Terry Protextor, Steven Polyak, Mary Ann
Berg, Knute Carter, Michelle Edwards, Claude Laroche, Debra
Brandt, Jan Kardos, Stephen Locher, Ruth Bradley (2669 Hickory
Trial)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ19-08, a proposal to rezone
approximately 36.81 acres of property located south of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack
Trail from Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-5), subject to the following conditions:
1. 90 street trees will be installed, either by payment of a tree planting fee at a cost of $500
per tree for the plantings of street trees within the public right-of-way or through
installation prior to certificate of occupancy as determined though staff and developer
negotiation. Trees will generally be located every 30’ with modifications allowed due to
drive-way distances. The Parks and Recreation Department will be responsible for
identifying the appropriate locations for the trees.
2. Compliance with the preliminary plat in that traffic calming measures, like the traffic
circles, are required and incorporated into the final design of the extension of Tamarack
Trail.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Dyer moved to elect Hensch as Chair. Parsons seconded the motion and the vote passed 5-0.
Hensch moved to elect Parsons as Vice Chair. Townsend seconded the motion and the vote
passed 5-0.
Parsons moved to elect Signs as Secretary. Townsend seconded the motion and the vote
passed 5-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 18, 2019
Page 2 of 14
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CASE NO. REZ19-08:
Applicant: TRD, LLC
Location: South of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack Trail
An application submitted by TRD, LLC for a rezoning of approximately 36.81 acres of property
located south of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack Trail from Interim Development Single-
Family Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5).
Russett began the staff report with a map of the proposed rezoning area. The property is
currently zoned Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) and most of the area
around the proposed rezoning is also zoned ID-RS except the area to the south and southwest
where there is an existing single-family neighborhood that is zoned RS-5. In addition to the
proposed rezoning, the applicant has also submitted an application for a preliminary plat for this
area which will be discussed at a future Planning & Zoning meeting. The applicant also held a
good neighbor meeting in June, the meeting was well attended as the applicant sent out
invitations beyond the required distance in the good neighbor policy. All the neighbors along
Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail were invited.
Russett next showed the preliminary plat and sensitive area map to show the general layout of
the proposed lots as well as the sensitive areas. She noted there are two areas staff analyzes
for rezonings, the first is compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan
has designated this area for Conservation Design due to the areas containing steep slopes,
woodlands, or other sensitive features. The Northeast District Plan identifies this area for single-
family residential development. The RS-5 zone is consistent with the general intended land uses
and vision identified in the comprehensive plan and the Northeast District Plan. The second
criteria staff looks at is compatibility with the existing neighborhood. Most of the area around the
proposed rezoning is undeveloped, however to the south is an existing single-family residential
neighborhood so this project would extend that single-family residential neighborhood further
north to Scott Boulevard.
Russett noted there are some environmentally sensitive features on the site which include critical
and protected slopes. Based on the preliminary sensitive area plan the proposed development
would disturb around 12% of the critical slopes and the Code allows for disturbance of critical
slopes up to 35%. The project is also showing no protective slopes being impacted. With
regards to the woodlands on the site, 18.5 acres, and the Code has a retention requirement of
50% of woodlands to be preserved and remained. The proposed preliminary plat shows that
52% of the woodlands would be preserved with the development. Russett added there is also
the potential for archaeological resources and the applicant is working with a consultant on an
archaeological study.
In terms of traffic implications and access Russett stated the preliminary plat identifies 60 single-
family lots as well as the extension of Tamarack Trail to Scott Boulevard. Staff estimates the
extension of Tamarack Trail and the additional access point to Scott Boulevard could reduce
total trips accessing North 1st Avenue to the west. Scott Boulevard and North 1st Avenue are
both arterials and have the capacity to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 18, 2019
Page 3 of 14
proposed development. During peak hours there is congestion at North 1st Avenue and Scott
Boulevard and the City is proposing improvements at that intersection, which is budgeted in the
2020 Capital Improvements Program to address the congestion issues. The preliminary plat
does show Tamarack Trail extending to Scott Boulevard, due to the topography and heavy
terrains street extensions to the west and east of this development are not feasible which will
result in a longer block length. With those longer block lengths staff has concerns with traffic
travel speed and therefore the preliminary plat does incorporate components to help reduce
those speeds. One is reduced curb to curb paving of the roadway to 26 feet which is the
minimum allowed by the Code and the other is the incorporation of traffic circles to reduce
speed. To further address concerns to speeding staff proposes two conditions:
1. At the time of final platting, payment of a tree planting fee at a cost of $500 per tree for the
plantings of street trees within the public right-of-way. The Parks and Recreation Department
will be responsible for identifying the appropriate locations for the trees and planting of the
trees. Parks and Recreation Department will not be responsible for watering or upkeep on
the trees. Staff is proposing 90 trees along the public right-of-way.
2. General compliance with the preliminary plat in that traffic calming measures, like the traffic
circles, are incorporated into the final design of the extension of Tamarack Trail.
Russett noted the benefits of street trees as it relates to traffic calming, the National Association
of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) identity street trees as a speed reduction mechanism.
Street trees can create vertical walls within a roadway creating a physical and psychological
barrier for drivers that result in lower speeds compared to non-treed streets. Adding these street
trees will also help achieve the vision in the North District Plan to create a pleasant streetscape
to slow down traffic and encourage bicycle and pedestrian traffic.
Russett acknowledged staff has received several calls and correspondence related to this
proposed rezoning, she handed out three emails to the Commission that she received after the
publication of the agenda packet. The concerns in the emails are primarily related to the
preliminary plat and the extension of Tamarack Trail as well as width of the proposed lots.
In terms of next steps, upon recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning
Commission, a public hearing will be scheduled for consideration of the application by the City
Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission will also review the preliminary plat at an
upcoming meeting.
Staff recommends approval of REZ19-08, a proposal to rezone approximately 36.81 acres of
property located south of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack Trail from Interim Development
Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5), subject to
the following conditions:
1. At the time of final platting, payment of a tree planting fee at a cost of $500 per tree for
the plantings of street trees within the public right-of-way. Trees will generally be located
every 30’ with modifications allowed due to drive-way distances. The Parks and
Recreation Department will be responsible for identifying the appropriate locations for the
trees and planting of the trees.
2. General compliance with the preliminary plat in that traffic calming measures, like the
traffic circles, are incorporated into the final design of the extension of Tamarack Trail.
Hensch asked if something is found on the archeological survey what happens to the project.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 18, 2019
Page 4 of 14
Russett said it depends on the result, it is possible to require a planned development overlay
rezoning and need to come back for a new approval.
Hensch is concerned about the traffic calming condition and feels it is very vague and wondered
if there was a way to make sure whatever recommendation the City has about traffic calming
must be adopted. Hektoen stated staff has reviewed the preliminary plat and it reflects the
recommendation regarding traffic calming, but they could change the language to drop general
compliance and specifically state inclusion of traffic circles.
Baker asked about road width on Tamarack Trail, if the proposed curb to curb distance is 26 feet
for the new road. Russett said it is 28 feet, so it will narrow just a bit. Baker also commented on
the estimated number of trips per day and asked if there were any traffic studies that could
anticipate north/south traffic. Russett said that is usually done through an estimate traffic
engineers and transportation planners would come up with, it may be 50/50 but would be an
estimate. Finally Baker asked about the trees as a traffic slowing device and how trees would
slow down traffic. Russett stated if trees are planted in the right-of-way and closer to the
roadway they can create a canopy and a visual wall for the driver. There are studies that
demonstrate drivers do slow down and drive slower on tree-lined streets as it creates a sense of
the driver being enclosed and not so open. Baker asked if there would be on street parking
allowed. Russett said parking would be allowed on one side of the street.
Dyer questioned whether the outlots are suitable to have trails in them and access from the road.
Russett stated that Outlot A shown on the preliminary plat is very steep but she can’t answer for
certain if it would be appropriate. Dyer noted some developments the Commission has approved
has had a walkway between the houses so people could get to the wild areas and wondered if
that was possible in this development.
Hensch asked what the percent of grade was on the protected slopes. Russett replied 40% or
greater.
Parsons asked when Tamarack Trail was constructed. Russett is unsure, Dyer believes maybe
five years ago.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Mike Welch (Axiom Consultants) is representing the applicant. Generally speaking they agree
with staff’s findings, and when they look at what was available from a practicality standpoint for
the preliminary plat compared to the North District Plan they feel they are putting a lot less
density in the development than what was shown in the North District Plan. He noted that
Tamarack Trail is stubbed to the north, the water main and sanitary sewer are all set to extend
so it seems as this development is consistent with the intentions of the previous development
and the overall North District Plan.
Hensch thanked the applicant for inviting neighbors from the surrounding area, more than just
the 300 feet, to the good neighbor meeting. He added the report of the meeting was also very
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 18, 2019
Page 5 of 14
well written and appreciated by the Commission. Hensch noted on the Comprehensive Plan it
notes multifamily on the north side but this proposal is only single-family. Welch confirmed that
is correct. Welch also noted the concept plan they presented at the good neighbor meeting did
show 61 lots but after the feedback from neighbors on lot widths they did reevaluate and
changed it to 60 lots.
Dyer asked about the access to the undeveloped land and if any of it was suitable for trails.
Welch replied that most of the area is very steep but on the east side, there are some woods in
the southeast corner in a conservation easement and the lots extend back into that easement.
On the west side the lots all back up to Outlot A which will be owned by the subdivision so
depending on how the covenants is written there could be access granted to that area. Dyer
reiterated that in some developments there is access between a couple lots to get back to the
undeveloped area.
Hensch asked if the stormwater management basins will be dry most of the time. Welch
confirmed those are designed as dry bottom basins. Hensch asked if they do fill will they have
controlled drainage off or just stay full and evaporate out. Welch said it is restricted drainage out,
they will meet City Code on the release. Welch acknowledged there was concerns it would drain
out to the backyards on Tamarack Trail but the way the grades are it will go further west into the
ravines and cross Hickory Trail by 1st Avenue. Hensch asked if the City Engineer has signed off
on all the stormwater plans. Welch said they have submitted preliminary plans and tomorrow
they will submit a response to the preliminary plat and will include responses to the stormwater
plans.
Parsons asked since Scott Boulevard is an arterial street had they considered a variety of
housing, especially close to Scott Boulevard, such as townhouses or duplexes or any of that
mixture. Welch said it was considered briefly, but right now there is a demand for single family
lots, especially in this part of town, so the developer chose to go that direction.
Joe Clark (359 Green Mountain Drive) is one of the developers of this land, he wanted to talk
about the condition regarding the trees. It is a new concept for everyone, but he has no problem
with the condition, neither of the conditions, he wants it to be safe and for traffic to go slow. He
would like to set it up the trees in the covenants rather than paying a fee upfront, so he
wondering if they could work through that. If not, then he understands but was just alerted today
they would have to put in 90 trees at $500 apiece and it was unexpected. He isn’t sure it will
calm people, the trees will take years to grow up to a point where they will actually calm. He is
asking today for an opportunity to put it into a covenant and have the homeowners association
pay for them at the end of the 10 year period it takes to build out this subdivision or to have each
lot owner responsible for putting two trees on each lot as they finish their homes.
Hensch said he has seen data on trees as traffic calmers and is a believer, how to go about this
is likely a legal question. Parsons asked if $500 is what each tree is anticipated to cost. Russett
said the $500 amount was given by the Parks and Recreation Department, based on what they
are generally charged for trees from other contractors, but it does not include maintenance and
watering of the trees. Hensch stated it is best to put in a variety of good trees and not scrub
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 18, 2019
Page 6 of 14
trees to enhance the neighborhood. He also is an advocate of getting those trees in as soon as
they can so they can start growing, and not happen over a 10 year period.
Clark said the trees will not be able to be put in early because there will be construction going on.
The quickest way to do it would be to put it onto the lot owner, the trees would be put in at
different times and the size of the trees may grow differently. As a lot gets a certificate of
occupancy it should be the owner’s responsibility to put in the trees within six months or a year.
It would be a requirement and enforced by the HOA. Clark said he is willing to put down some
earnest money to make sure this happens.
Dyer asked if the developer could just put the trees in as the houses are finished so there would
be some control over what the trees would be. Clark said they can control all that through the
covenants, what types of trees, how many, where they are placed, etc. Dyer responded they
don’t have good experience with developers putting in the trees that were required to be put in.
Clark is willing to take the guidance of the Commission on what types of trees they want to see
on the sites. Hensch said they usually defer to whatever the City Forester recommends.
Baker asked if this particular issue had to be settled tonight or can it be resolved at the platting
process. Russett said staff is proposing this as a condition of the rezoning.
Townsend asked if this had to be a through street and can’t just have a hub at the end. Russett
said it wouldn’t meet the City’s Subdivision Code regulations if it were a cul-de-sac. There are
restrictions on the locations of cul-de-sacs, the applicant would need to demonstrate it is
impossible to put the street through, there is clearly a stub there so we know it can go through,
there is also a maximum length on cul-de-sacs which this would exceed and finally from a
planning perspective the City wants interconnected neighborhoods to allow emergency access
and also give people the options to access to places from different ways.
Hektoen noted as far as the administration of the trees and fees they could craft something, it
doesn’t have to be decided tonight, it would have to be decided before the rezoning is approved
but if that is something the Commission wants to give staff and the applicant discretion to
continue discussing further they can craft the recommendation that way.
Baker noted the goal is to get the trees in within a timely manner, the applicant is suggesting the
owner be responsible within six months or a year and Baker feels that is too late and the
occupancy certificate should be contingent on the trees immediately being planted. He states
that is just one way to approach it but doesn’t feel it has to be resolved tonight.
Clark noted he would be totally fine with the trees having to be planted at the time of occupancy.
There will be times in the year when it may not be possible which is why he suggested six
months or so.
Townsend asked if the same result could be accomplished with speed bumps instead of trees.
Russett acknowledged speed bumps are a traffic calming measure but they also create issues
for snow plows, when staff reviewed this area they felt the best options were the traffic circles
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 18, 2019
Page 7 of 14
and the trees.
Terry Protextor (1007 Tamarack Trail) came forward to speak against the proposed application if
the new subdivision connects to Tamarack Trail. They are against Tamarack Trail being
extended north into a new subdivision. Protextor stated he has lived in the Bluffwood Addition
for over 23 years, they lived on Bluffwood Drive for 10 and then built their home on Tamarack
Trail 13 years ago. When Tamarack was developed, around 2004, they were told it would not be
extended, the harvest preserve was to the east and ACT owned to the north and it was their
decision to build their home on Tamarack because it was not a through street, it was a quiet
neighborhood. Protextor said he has spoken to a number of the neighbors and everyone is
concerned about the traffic issue going through. The proposed development does create
problems. They have a petition signed by 74 people (that were actually available for signature in
the last two days) out of the 120 homes to show the message that they are concerned. The new
development has proposed 60 homes which will result in approximately 120 cars transporting
that street on any given date, to the south, maybe to the north. Protextor noted there has been
no true traffic study of the Hickory Trail connection to 1st Avenue, nor has there been a traffic
study to connect Tamarack Trail north to Scott Boulevard. Therefore we are dealing with
algorithms or formulas to determine traffic flow where they really need to do a traffic study or live
in the community for which this is happening to. Protextor stated there will be bottlenecks, as
stated he has lived there for 23 years and there has always been traffic issues on 1st Avenue,
particular to get off Hickory Trail to go south on 1st Avenue. Protextor stated if the development
goes through it has been suggested in the report earlier that traffic may choose to go north and
dilute out the traffic coming south through Tamarack Trail, but that is not logical because it is
anywhere from a half mile to a mile and a quarter longer to go up Scott Boulevard and around to
1st Avenue or to the east. People will travel the shortest distance to get from point A to point B.
This is a common sense issue, not even a traffic study issue, the new subdivision will travel
down Tamarack Trail to Hickory Trail out to 1st Avenue. The only ones that will go north to Scott
Boulevard will be the ones going out for supper or to go to a few businesses that are that way or
east onto Dodge Street to get to the interstate. Protextor stated this additional access, which will
be at least 60-80 cars per day going through a quiet neighborhood with a lot of children (kids on
bicycles all the time) is seen as a major safety issue. The distance from the fire station on Dodge
Street and Scott Boulevard to the last house on Tamarack Trail is 1.5 miles. If you go north on
the new street it will be 1.3 miles, 783 feet difference, a five second difference. To say they need
additional access doesn’t make any sense, that subdivision has been around for over 40 years
and no one seemed to be interested until now. Protextor stated their recommendation is
basically to keep the existing cul-de-sac at the north end of Tamarack Trail and put a cul-de-sac
at the south end of this new street and not cutting it through. They can put sidewalks through for
pedestrians and bicycles. He also wanted to note there is concern about the stormwater basins,
there are developers in this community and city engineers who have made major mistakes in
some of their development of drainage systems. Churchill Meadows has a major issues that is
affecting a home to the south of that development. In closing Protextor stated this should be a
citizen friendly community, or neighborhood friendly community, not a development only friendly
community.
Baker asked who told them at the time they built their house that Tamarack would never be
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 18, 2019
Page 8 of 14
extended. Protextor believes it was their builder and other people in the neighborhood. Baker
asked if anyone from the City told them that and Protextor said no.
Steven Polyak (950 Evergreen Court) said on the west side of the proposed development there
is a dense wooded area with a significant slope that goes down into an environmentally sensitive
area. The area from Scott Boulevard north all the way down to the creek below Hickory Trail is a
significant elevation difference. Al the water goes from the high elevation to the creek through
the sensitive areas and he is concerned as an Evergreen Court resident that water drainage will
increase into his property. He feels there is no way the water flow will be unchanged, it may be
handled in a different way through the development but doesn’t feel enough study has been
done to see how it will affect the Evergreen Court neighborhood. Polyak said having all that
water flow into their area would affect their property values, affect mosquitoes, wildlife, it could
significantly the natural areas there not built upon. His biggest concern is when all those lots get
built the water has to flow somewhere, and it will flow down, and the first house to be affected will
be his. He is in the northwest corner and the lowest lot in the area. Polyak plans to hire a civil
engineering firm to come out and do a study to see how the area could be affected by the water
flow. And then he may hire counsel to advise him on what to do about it because if something
does happen in the future, he wants to have addressed it in advance. He wants to make sure his
property is protected, but also wants to note the possible significant environmental impact as the
water flows down on the east side between Evergreen Court and Tamarack Trail. He has
already seen a bit of change in that area due to all the rains, so as the environment continues to
change it may be affected more. Polyak reiterates to make sure the water drainage issues are
addressed before moving forward with this proposal.
Baker asked if Polyak has spoken with the City Engineer who studied this issue for the staff
report. Polyak said he got a letter in the mail about this meeting and that is the only way he
knew about the proposed development so he hasn’t had a chance to evaluate the situation, he
just knows how the water flows and wanted to address the issue at this meeting but why he will
be hiring a civil engineer to address any possible issues.
Russett stated the stormwater management will be reviewed at the platting stage, when staff
reviews the preliminary plat the Public Works department will be looking at the stormwater
management basins shown on the plat.
Mary Ann Berg (2775 Hickory Trail) stated she has lived in the neighborhood for 24 years and
saw a large increase in traffic when Tamarack Trail was built and her experience in the
neighborhood when she goes somewhere it is usually south and east so her feeling is many
people from the new neighborhood would be going on her street. Hickory Trail is a straight street
and speeds get pretty fast in front of her house. She is concerned about the increase of traffic.
She said in the report staff states they think traffic on Hickory Trail will be reduced and she
doesn’t agree with that with most houses being built and most people going in the direction of
south and east. Berg added she also lives on a creek which is at the bottom of the area Polyak
was just speaking about and she wanted to clarify that Axiom Consultants said these basins
would be draining into the ravines that go into further west and ends behind Cyprus Court.
Where will the three basins empty. Additionally, can the outlots that will be behind these lots
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 18, 2019
Page 9 of 14
only be used by people in that neighborhood, or can people in the area go in there. She also
wanted to know how wide the street wide easements would be where the trees will be, because
she has had people plant crabapple trees in their easements and then one cannot walk on the
sidewalks and the cars hit them on the streets. She is also curious about a home owners
association, she doesn’t believe she has one in her neighborhood and wonders if that would just
be a private club up in that area.
Knute Carter (922 Tamarack Trail) has a process question regarding the recommendations,
Hensch asked about the language on the second point and when reading it just says these
things need to be incorporated into the final design. So Carter asks what the lengths are
between the final design and final product. What are the ramifications for if the final product is
not done.
Hensch stated tonight the Commission may or may not vote on the rezoning and these are
conditions of the rezoning and the details will be worked out in the plat. Parsons added this will
not be the last time this application will be before the Commission.
Carter asked when does what is on the plat have to be realized. Russett said the condition is
recommending the traffic circles that are shown on the preliminary are then shown on the final
plat and then on the construction drawings of that roadway that are approved by Public Works
and then that is what is required to be built.
Michelle Edwards (2745 Hickory Trail) lives on the same side of the street on Hickory Trail as
Mary Ann Berg, her house is also by the creek. She wants to speak to the traffic problem she is
sure will happen with this development. She stated they already have a problem with speeding
on their street, which by the way is tree lined, so she doesn’t’ have much confidence trees are a
preventative measure. In addition, these are family housing, most of the people will be going to
Regina, Hoover, City High, HyVee places that will be the shortest way via Tamarack Trail and
Hickory Trail so she does not believe it will be less traffic. Also the kind of traffic developing on
Scott Boulevard is already quite a bit with the new addition by Blackstone and the new Oaknoll
development.
Claude Laroche (931 Tamarack Trail) and wanted to bring up the topic of speed bumps or
humps on Tamarack Trail and possibility Hickory Trail. Russett brought up a point he hadn’t
considered about the interference with snow plows which is a good point. He has however seen
a number of streets in Iowa City that have speed humps already. Laroche stated their
neighborhood has a number of small children, he counted 24 in just his little area on Tamarack
Trail, and so there is a concern about the safety with the increased number of traffic. He agrees
with the other commenters regarding the increase in traffic and people taking the shortest route.
Laroche questions what is the threshold for putting in a speed bump since there are some in
Iowa City, is it a population density issues or subjective up to the discretion of the staff.
Hensch replied he is unsure the process but assumes it is based on demonstrated problems and
could be discussed with City staff. Laroche asked then at the present time there are no plans to
put in any type of speed bumps or humps. Hensch replied not in this particular condition, the
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 18, 2019
Page 10 of 14
Commission usually follows what the City staff recommends. Laroche feels speed humps or
bumps would be far more effective than planting trees. He had read up on traffic calming
methods, a lot of them started over in Europe and are being adopted in cities around here now
and it may possibility make sense but he is still in favor of speed bumps. Russett acknowledged
she can talk with Laroche after the meeting about the speed hump process for their street.
Mike Welch (Axiom Consultants) wanted to comment on the wooded area and where the
drainage will go. The three basins will discharge into the ravine that starts near Cyprus Court
and got towards Tamarack Trail. Even the south basin will discharge out of the north side of the
basin. The discharge will avoid completely the people on Evergreen Court. Welch noted as part
of their stormwater plans they do look beyond their property and see where the stormwater will
go and the downstream area. Another comment about stormwater basins is they do reduce that
stormwater flow that is seen, it will hold the water back. He does acknowledge with development
there is more runoff but the purpose of the basins is to control the runoff.
Baker asked about Outlot A and how will have access. Welch said that is up to the developer,
typically they see it as private, if it were to be public access then it would be a park and the City
is not interested in taking this on as a park. Since it will be private property owned by the
association access would be limited to association members. Russett added it would be owned
and maintained by the homeowner’s association.
Debra Brandt (973 Tamarack Trail) stated she is a researcher by training and when she hears
someone has a study the first thing she does is pull out Google Scholar and look. In reference to
the tree lining she looked at a literature review from a transportation company and tree lined
streets had little effect on speed limits, leading at less than a one mile per hour reduction of
speed. Therefore Brandt would like to read the study the City has that states it will benefit.
Secondly, she lives on Tamarack Trail and if anyone has been at the corner by ACT at 5pm,
when you say streets can handle traffic, what does that mean, does it mean they are deep
enough to handle the wait of traffic, or that there some formula they use to measure the amount
of time to get through an intersection.
Russett stated that both Scott Boulevard and 1st Avenue are arterial streets and based on them
being arterials, and the widths and the lanes, there is an average capacity of average vehicle
trips per day. Not wait times, number of vehicles. Brandt asked then when there is traffic
backed up from the corner of ACT backed up to almost the intersection of Hickory Heights that is
permissible. Russett acknowledged there are peak periods where there is congestion but the
number of vehicles on those streets is not greater than the number of vehicles the arterial streets
can accommodate. Brandt stated then getting through intersections or time waiting is not a
factor. She added Rochester and 1st Avenues have the same issue at peak times. Hensch noted
that intersection at 1st Avenue and Scott Boulevard is on the 2020 Capital Improvements Projects
to mitigate the congestion issues. Brandt feels more thought needs to be given and challenges
the traffic planners to think about those intersections and how an additional 60 houses averaging
2.5 cars per house will dump 120 more cars into these intersections and forecast what that will
do to these traffic patterns.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 18, 2019
Page 11 of 14
Brandt added that when planting trees on the side of the roads is not only trees that provide the
canopy and psychological barrier to driving fast, the thought is if you can’t see very well you will
slow down but as it has been pointed out if there are children in the neighborhood, those trees
can also hide children and going one mile per hour slower down the street, as the article
indicates, that is a bad combination. Brandt is not opposed to progress, she loves this City and
knows this area is going to be developed, but she feels they need to think about how to make it
neighborhood friendly, builder friendly and combining those.
Jan Kardos (956 Tamarack Trail) and wanted to pursue why does the road have to be
connected. She also would like to add what others have said, all this traffic is going toward
Regina and toward downtown Iowa City, and it will also come back and it definitely is the shortest
way for that subdivision to cut through. She is very concerned about traffic. She also questions
where the construction equipment will go, will it come down Tamarack Trail as well, and will they
have to suffer all that. It seems like it is possible to make a restriction that all construction
equipment come from Scott Boulevard. Finally the intersection of 1st Avenue and Scott
Boulevard is problematic and people do try to avoid it. She feels this development could go on
without the connection to Tamarack Trail.
Stephen Locher (839 Bluffwood Drive) has lived in this neighborhood since 1994 and stated the
1st Avenue and Hickory Trail intersection is a tricky intersection to get through, traffic is coming
downhill on both sides, Hickory Trail has a stop sign and people on that 25 mph street are going
35 and 40 mph. The problem of speeding on Hickory Trail has been a conversation point for
years, there are many children, and there will be even more bottleneck at that intersection if
people will be using Tamarack Trail from this new development. He asks for the Commission
and staff to think about any way to make that a safer intersection.
Ruth Bradley (2669 Hickory Trial) came tonight because of the concerns about traffic but as she
has been sitting and listening to the discussion about the water drainage issues. Her house is on
the south side of Hickory Trail and back up to the creek. The creek curves toward their house
and then away but often as the creek drains it does not make those curves very well and in the
five years they have lived in this house this spring has been the worse and the water had come
up four feet into their yard at least four times. She is concerned about the added water to that
creek and coming back into their backyard. Fortunately their house is up high enough they don’t
have flood issues but they spent $500 on plants and a consultant to fix the bank of the creek
from eroding into their yard. She would like the City Engineers to be aware of this potential
problem.
Hensch stated that is the advantage of the basins, it will allow all that extra water to stay in the
basin and wait for the large volume of water to pass through and a restrictive release will slowing
let the water out.
Terry Protextor (1007 Tamarack Trail) wanted to follow up on a couple things, first he shared
with the Commission the traffic flow options with the distances he was trying to express earlier
and reiterated no one is going to go north on Tamarack Trail to Scott Boulevard to get out of this
subdivision, they will come through Tamarack Trail. He also wanted to touch on the issues with
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 18, 2019
Page 12 of 14
water runoff, not through the basins and not through the storm drains, but basically because the
houses will be placed so close together in this development water will run down the front yards
and there is a slope between the top of Scott Boulevard at the first site to the entrance to
Tamarack Trail, it is about 1800 feet, there is a 20 foot drop in that elevation and obviously that is
a slope and water doesn’t care if it is a slow slope. So now he is concerned there will be water
going down everyone’s front yards. Additionally with regards to basins draining properly, if one
looks at the new development Churchill Downs on Rochester, that basin was constructed
incorrectly, the City is aware now, the City Engineers that did the work didn’t catch it, the
developers engineers didn’t catch it and the property to the south has already experienced over
$30,000 worth of runoff damage so he wants everyone to be cautious when they say the three
storm basins will take care of it. Hensch noted that is why professional engineers carry
professional liability insurance. Protextor said so did he when he was in health care but he also
didn’t try to harm any patients in the process, so please don’t harm their property in the process.
As far as cul-de-sacs he looked at all the rules and guidelines Russett alluded to and the key
word is “guidelines”. They are only guidelines and the City staff can interpret those as rules but
guidelines is a flexible term and as he looked at the reason for creating additional access points
there are five different items and if you look at them carefully none of them apply to the houses
on Tamarack Trail. Someone needs to review that, he will go back and look at it from a legal
standpoint. Also there is precedent for cul-de-sacs, the Peninsula has one access point, and he
could start circling in the city map all the different cul-de-sacs around Iowa City that have only
one egress point. So if the citizens of this community, development, say they don’t want that
access to come through and they want cul-de-sacs then someone needs to listen.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Parsons moved to recommend approval of REZ19-08, a proposal to rezone approximately
36.81 acres of property located south of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack Trail from
Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-5), subject to the following conditions:
3. 90 street trees will be installed, either by payment of a tree planting fee at a cost of
$500 per tree for the plantings of street trees within the public right-of-way or
through installation prior to certificate of occupancy as determined though staff
and developer negotiation. Trees will generally be located every 30’ with
modifications allowed due to drive-way distances. The Parks and Recreation
Department will be responsible for identifying the appropriate locations for the
trees and planting of the trees.
4. Compliance with the preliminary plat in that traffic calming measures, like the
traffic circles, are required and incorporated into the final design of the extension
of Tamarack Trail.
Dyer seconded the motion.
Baker asked if approving this motion is also approving the extension of Tamarack Trial. Hensch
replied no, the preliminary plat will come back before the Commission.
Baker asked if the property to the west and east could be potentially developed. Hensch said the
property to the west is protected slopes. Baker asked if there was a development to the east,
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 18, 2019
Page 13 of 14
there would need to be access off Scott Boulevard because there is no possibility from this
development to any other new development. Russett said based on what is on the preliminary
plat at this time there is no extension to the east. She added the land on the east side is in a
preserve.
Parsons feels RS-5 is appropriate for this area. Hensch agrees and says it is actually less than
what is in the Comprehensive Plan.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JUNE 20, 2019
Parsons moved to approve the meeting minutes of June 20, 2019 with typographic errors noted.
Baker seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett gave a couple updates, the rezoning at Orchard Court was adopted by the Council at the
last meeting. The rezoning on South Gilbert Street near Big Grove was also adopted by Council.
Russett reminded them there is a Planning & Zoning/City Council work session on July 24 at
5pm. There will be a packet sent out prior to the meeting.
Baker asked about current regulations, he recently stopped into the new gas station at 1st
Avenue and Muscatine Avenue and 12 gas pumps are blaring music all the time and wondered if
that is permitted use. Russett will look into that. Baker said it was extraordinarily irritating and
could be heard across the street.
Hensch thanked Russett for giving updates on Council adoptions. He also noted the good
neighbor report from Axiom Consultants was well done and extremely helpful.
Adjournment:
Townsend moved to adjourn.
Parsons seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2018 - 2019
3/15
(W.S.)
4/2
4/5
(W.S)
4/16
4/19
5/3
5/17
6/7
6/21
7/5
8/16
9/6
9/20
10/18
12/20
1/3
BAKER, LARRY -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X O/E X X
DYER, CAROLYN O/E X O/E X X X X X O/E X O O/E O X X X
FREERKS, ANN X X X X X O/E X X X ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- --
HENSCH, MIKE O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E
PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X
SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
THEOBALD, JODIE X X X X X X X X O/E ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- --
TOWNSEND, BILLIE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X O/E X
1/17
(W.S.)
2/4
4/2_)
2/21
2/21 3/7 3/21 4/4 4/18 5/16 6/6 6/20 7/18
BAKER, LARRY X X X X X X X O/E X X X
DYER, CAROLYN O/E X X X X X X O/E X X X
FREERKS, ANN -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
HENSCH, MIKE X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X
MARTIN, PHOEBE X O/E X X X O/E X X X X O/E
PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X X X X X X
SIGNS, MARK X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E
THEOBALD, JODIE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X O/E X X X X X X X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member