HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Packet 9.5.2019PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
September 5, 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
(Continued from 8/15/2019)
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. SUB19-09
Applicant: The Governor Group, LLC
Location: South of Southgate Avenue between S. Gilbert Street and the Crandic Railroad
An application submitted by the Governor Group, LLC for a preliminary plat and sensitive areas
development plan for South Gilbert Commercial Development subdivision, a 7.07 acre, 2-lot
commercial subdivision with one outlot located south of Southgate Avenue between S. Gilbert
Street and the Crandic Railroad.
6. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: August 15, 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 19 / October 3 / October 17
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: Jesi Lile, Associate Planner
Item: SUB19-09 Date: September 5th, 2019
South Gilbert Commercial Development
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant/Contact Person: Adam Brantman
The Governor Group, LLC
2000 James Street
Suite 111
Coralville, IA 52241
Owner: Patrick Kennedy
Kennedys, LLC
1043 Briar Drive
Iowa City, IA 52240
Requested Action: Approval of preliminary plat and sensitive areas
development plan
Purpose: Create two lots for commercial development
Location: South of Southgate Ave between S. Gilbert St. and
the Crandic Railroad.
Location Map:
Size: 7.06 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Vacant/Commercial; Intensive Commercial (CI-1)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Commercial; Community Commercial (CC-2)
Vacant; Intensive Commercial (CI-1)
South: Vacant; Interim Development Multi-Family
2
Residential (ID-RM)
Park; Neighborhood Public (P-1)
East: Vacant & Commercial; Intensive Commercial
(CI-1)
Residential; High Density Single-Family
Residential with a Planned Development
Overlay (OPD RS-12)
West: Commercial; Intensive Commercial (CI-1)
Comprehensive Plan: South District
Neighborhood Open Space District: S1
File Date: July 25, 2019
45 Day Limitation Period: September 9, 2019
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, The Governor Group, LLC, has requested preliminary plat approval for The South
Gilbert Commercial Development subdivision, a 7.06-acre, 2-lot commercial subdivision located
south of Southgate Avenue between S. Gilbert Street and the CRANDIC Railroad. The new lots will
contain one existing building located on Lot 1 and allow for construction of a new commercial
development on Lot 2. Upon approval of the preliminary plat and sensitive areas development plan,
the applicant will pursue approval of a final plat from City Council.
The applicant has chosen not to use the Good Neighbor Policy for this preliminary plat application.
ANALYSIS:
Zoning:
The subject property is zoned Intensive Commercial (CI-1) and is appropriate for businesses that
include: outdoor display and storage of merchandise, repair and sales of large equipment or motor
vehicles, outdoor commercial amusement and recreational activities or activities/operations
conducted in buildings or structures not completely enclosed, eating establishments, office uses,
and retail uses. The CI-1 zone does not allow for any residential uses aside from assisted group
living uses allowed through a special exception.
There is an emphasis on substantial buffering between CI-1 zones and any neighboring residential
zones. The only residential zone nearby is across the CRANDIC Railroad to the east. The railroad
and woodland will buffer the residential area from these more intensive uses allowed in the CI-1
zone.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan:
The subject property is located in the South District, and both the Future Land Use Map of the
Comprehensive Plan and the South District Plan identify the subject property as Commercial. This
property is located in the South Gilbert Street Commercial Corridor, and has been zoned Intensive
Commercial for years but remained vacant. The South District Plan calls for development of this
corridor, specifically along Southgate Avenue, with a focus on creating a more attractive, well
landscaped entrance to the City. The plan also calls for development of this area as the Riverfront
Crossings District to the north redevelops and new residential development occurs to the south.
3
Subdivision design:
The proposed 2-lot subdivision design allows for access to Lot 1 off Southgate Avenue with a
building fronting Southgate Avenue. Lot 2 could be accessed from either S. Gilbert Street or
Southgate Ave. Outlot A will serve as stormwater detention for both Lot 1 and Lot 2 and as a
wetland buffer area for the wetlands on the south side of the property at the intersection of S.
Gilbert Street and the CRANDIC Railroad.
Transportation:
The preliminary plat shows an existing sidewalk along S. Gilbert Street and a proposed sidewalk
along the south side of Southgate Ave. There is an existing sidewalk on the north side of
Southgate Ave, and the addition of a sidewalk on the south side of the street will help to provide
pedestrian access to the new commercial development.
There are two bus stops along Southgate Ave that will serve this subdivision, one at Southgate
Ave & S. Gilbert St, and another at Southgate Ave and Waterfront Dr. Both stops are served by
the Broadway and Cross Park bus routes. Both routes have stops downtown and the Broadway
route has stops as far east as Sycamore Street.
Neighborhood Open Space:
The City’s neighborhood open space requirement applies to properties that contain residential
uses and planned developments. The final intended uses for the property are not yet identified;
however, the only residential use allowed in the Intensive Commercial zone are group households
by special exception. Therefore, the neighborhood open space requirement is not applicable to
this subdivision.
Floodplain:
According to FEMA data, this entire property is located within the 500-year floodplain, with most
of the property located in the 100-year floodplain as well. The developer plans to fill the entire
property to the 100-year floodplain elevation and remove it from the floodplain. Compliance with
the City’s floodplain management ordinance will be required at site plan review.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas:
Wetlands: A wetland delineation study conducted April 2019 determined the subject property
contains three types of wetlands totaling 0.08 acres; seep (0.03 acres), wet prairie (0.04 acres),
and floodplain forest (0.01 acres). These wetlands are located along the southern edge of the
property in the area designated as Outlot A.
Municipal Code requires a 100-foot buffer between any development and the edge of any
jurisdictional wetland, but provides an option for reducing this buffer if certain qualifications are
met. The applicant has proposed using buffer averaging as allowed by the code in order to provide
a larger buffer for the majority of the wetlands. When using wetland buffer averaging, the width of
the buffer may be reduced by up to 50%, but the total area of the provided buffer must be equal
to or greater than the total area of a 100-foot buffer.
The applicant proposes to decrease the buffer around a seep wetland less than 25’ wide. The plat
shows the remaining 50-foot buffer area as allowed by code. The buffer area removed by
averaging is proposed to be 2,502 square feet, while the added buffer is proposed to be 16,792
square feet. Though wetland seeps are a relatively rare type of wetland, in this instance, wetland
buffer averaging is being requested instead of the normal 100-foot wetland buffer for the following
reasons:
1) The combined size of the wetlands is less than 1/10 of an acre.
2) The buffer average increases the size of the buffer for the majority of the wetlands in the
subdivision.
3) The wetlands are not buffered to the east near the railroad.
4
4) The wetland seep with the reduced buffer are on the opposite bank of the drainage ditch
and outside the grading limits of the detention basin.
The applicant proposes to place a stormwater detention basin within the wetland buffer area. This
is allowed by the Municipal Code as long as the stormwater detention facilities are designed and
constructed to minimize their impact on the protected sensitive features. The plat states that
construction activity within Outlot A shall be limited to the construction of the stormwater detention
basin and that a silt fence will be installed to provide erosion control and reduce disturbance within
the wetlands.
Archeological Resources: A Phase 1A archeological study was conducted in April 2019. The
study concluded that there is low potential for archeological sites as this area was not suitable for
human habitation in the past and recommended no further archaeological investigations in the
project area.
Storm Water Management:
The preliminary plat identifies a storm water management basin at the southern point of the
subject site, identified as Outlot A. Public Works staff is reviewing the grading plan and storm
water management calculations. Any deficiencies identified must be addressed prior to the
approval of the preliminary plat.
Infrastructure Fees:
No public utilities will be installed for this plat. Each lot will connect to the existing watermain and
sanitary sewer. The City requires developers to pay a $456.75 fee per acre 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.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation and approval of the preliminary plat and sensitive areas development plan
by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council will consider approval of the preliminary
plat. After approval of the preliminary plat, the applicant may submit an application for the final plat.
After approval of the final plat, the applicant will be required to submit a Final Sensitive Areas
Development Plan for staff review and approval prior to any development activity.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Upon resolution of the deficiency listed below, staff recommends approval of SUB19-09, an
application submitted by The Government Group, LLC, for a Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas
Development Plan for the South Gilbert Commercial Development Subdivision, a 2-lot, 7.06-acre
commercial subdivision located south of Southgate Avenue between South Gilbert Street and the
CRANDIC Railroad.
DEFICIENCIES:
1) Public Works staff must approve the preliminary grading plans and the preliminary storm
water management calculations.
5
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Exhibit
3. Preliminary Plat, received August 29
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
CARRIAGE RDRIV ER SIDEDR BOYRUM STMAIN ST
4THAVEIRONWOODCIR
CHERRY AVE
IR
O
N
W
O
O
D
CIR
CHESTNUT CTSTEVENS DRPEPPER DR
4TH AVE
C ST
3RD AVE
BALSAM CTS RIVERSIDE DRSANDUSKY DRIMPERIAL CT
OLYMPIC CT
B ST
A STWATERFRONT DRSOUTHGATE AVE
1ST AVE
2ND AVE
OLD HIGHWAY 218 SS RI
VERSI
DE DRS GI
LBERT STSUB19-09South Gilbert Developmentµ
0 0.08 0.160.04 Miles Prepared By: Jade PedersonDate Prepared: July 2019
An application submitted by The Governor Group, LLC for preliminary plat approval for the South Gilbert Development, a 7.06-acre, 2-lot and one outlot subdivision, located on the SE corner of South Gilbert Street and Southgate Avenue.
CARRIAGE RDRIV ER SIDEDR BOYRUM STMAIN ST
4THAVECHERRY AVE
IR
O
N
W
O
O
D
CIR
CHESTNUT CTSTEVENS DRPEPPER DR
4TH AVE
C ST
3RD AVE
BALSAM CTS RIVERSIDE DRSANDUSKY DRI M P E R I A L C T
OLYMPIC CT
B ST
A STWATERFRONT DRSOUTHGATE AVE
1ST AVE
2ND AVE
OLD HIGHWAY 218 SS RI
VERSI
DE DRS GI
LBERT STRS5
P1
CC2
RM12RS12
CI1 ID-RM
I1
SUB19-09South Gilbert Developmentµ
0 0.08 0.160.04 Miles Prepared By: Jade PedersonDate Prepared: July 2019
An application submitted by The Governor Group, LLC for preliminary plat approval for the South Gilbert Development, a 7.06-acre, 2-lot and one outlot subdivision, located on the SE corner of South Gilbert Street and Southgate Avenue.
8" STUB8" STUB
N88° 46' 49"E 612.34'C1
C2
C3
C4
2
3.26 AC
141,945 SF 120'400'293'437'
OUTLOT A
1.82 AC
79,360 SF275'4 3 5 '
166'
4 6 9 '320'1
1.98 AC
86,163 SF
646647648648646647648648645
64
0
6
3
8
63
9
64
1
64
2
6
4
3
64063
8
639641642643644645 643644645645645646647
85'49'71'SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:ISSUED FOR:PROJECT N0.:DATE ISSUED:PROJECT MANAGER:CURRENT REV:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Aug 29, 2019 - 9:21pm S:\PROJECTS\180036\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Plats\180036 prelimplat.dwg 18-0036PAGE 1WELCHTHE GOVERNOR GROUP, LLCPRELIMINARY PLATAUGUST 29, 2019SOUTH GILBERTCOMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTADDRESS CITY COMMENTSC0 25 50
APPLICANT:
ADAM BRANTMAN
THE GOVERNOR GROUP, LLC
2000 JAMES STREET
SUITE 111
CORALVILLE, IA 52241
APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY:
MATTHEW ADAM
SIMMONS PERRINE MOYER
BERGMAN, PLC
1150 5TH STREET, SUITE 170
CORALVILLE, IA 52241
PREPARED BY:
AXIOM CONSULTANTS, LLC
MICHAEL J. WELCH, PE
60 E. COURT STREET
UNIT 3
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
THAT PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW ¼) LYING SOUTH OF SOUTHGATE AVENUE, EAST OF SOUTH
GILBERT STREET AND WEST OF THE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILWAY IN SECTION 22, AND ALL OF
AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2015045 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 59 PAGE 247 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S
OFFICE, ALL IN TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY,
IOWA DESCRIBED AS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1 OF KENNEDY'S WATERFRONT ADDITION - PART FOUR, AS
RECORDED IN BOOK 51 PAGE 237 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE ALONG THE EAST
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTH GILBERT STREET 174.87 FEET ON A 5066.16 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE EAST
(CHORD BEARING S03°39'29”E, 174.86 FEET) TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SOUTHGATE AVENUE AND THE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT AWAY LINE 903.98 FEET ON A 5066.16 FOOT RADIUS
CURVE CONCAVE EAST (CHORD BEARING S09°45'38”E, 902.78 FEET) TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID CHICAGO, ROCK
ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILWAY; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 156.91 FEET ON A 1879.38 FOOT RADIUS
CURVE CONCAVE WEST (CHORD BEARING N30°18'05”E, 156.86 FEET); THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 256.54
FEET ON A 34997.23 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE WEST (CHORD BEARING N30°14'58”E, 256.54 FEET); THENCE
ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 603.16 FEET ON A 1879.86 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE WEST (CHORD BEARING
N24°40'50”E, 600.57 FEET) TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTHGATE AVENUE; THENCE ALONG SAID
SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE S88°46'49”W, 612.34 TO POINT OF BEGINNING.
DESCRIBED PARCEL CONTAINS 7.06 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF
RECORD.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
CR
A
N
D
I
C
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
SOUTHGATE AVENUE(CONCRETE)SOUTH G
I
L
B
E
R
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
(CONCRETE)IowaRiverPROJECT
LOCATION
KEY NOTES:
EXISTING 84" SANITARY TRUNK SEWER
EXISTING 50' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT
PERIMETER EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. SITE-SPECIFIC MEASURES WILL BE
REQUIRED FOR EACH LOT.
PROPOSED 15' PRIVATE UTILITY EASEMENT.
PROPOSED 20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT
PROPOSED 20' PRIVATE STORM SEWER EASEMENT
PROPOSED 10' PRIVATE ELECTRIC UTILITY EASEMENT
FILL SLOPES TO BE 4H:1H OR FLATTER. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURE ALONG
BACK OF EXISTING SIDEWALK AND STABILIZE ACCORDING TO FINAL GRADING PLAN
NO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS PERMITTED OUTSIDE OF THE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WITHIN OUTLOT A SHALL BE
LIMITED TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE STORMWATER BASIN. AT A MINIMUM, SILT
FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE TOE OF ALL FILL SLOPES PRIOR TO PLACING FILL
OR OTHER LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY.
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
B
B
PROPERTY OWNER:
NEXT LEVEL REAL ESTATE, LLC
2000 JAMES STREET
SUITE 111
CORALVILLE, IA 52241
PLAT APPROVED BY
CITY OF IOWA CITY
CITY CLERK DATE
LEGEND:
WETLAND AREA
EXISTING WETLAND BUFFER REMOVED VIA BUFFER
AVERAGING (2,502 SF)
PROPOSED WETLAND BUFFER ADDED VIA BUFFER
AVERAGING (16,792 SF)
100 FOOT WETLAND BUFFER
50 FOOT WETLAND BUFFER
CONSTRUCTION LIMITS. REFER TO KEY NOTE "I"
NOTES:
1.CURRENT PROPERTY ZONING IS CI1 - INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL. ZONING AND
ASSOCIATED MINIMUM LOT INFORMATION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
MINIMUM MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT)
FRONTAGE AREA (SF)FRONT SIDE REAR
NONE NONE 10 0 0
2.THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTED FOR THIS PLAT
3.THIS PROPERTY LIES WITHIN FEMA PANEL 19103C0195E (2/16/2007). THE
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION IS 643.5 AND THE 500-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
ELEVATION IS 646.5.
4.ALL BUILDINGS MUST BE SET 1-FOOT ABOVE THE 500-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
ELEVATION (PER IOWA CITY CODE)
5.ENTIRE PROPERTY WILL BE FILLED TO AT LEAST 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
ELEVATION AND REMOVED FROM FLOODPLAIN VIA LOMR-F FILLED WITH
FEMA.
6.OUTLOT A IS INTENDED TO BE USED FOR STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
WITH ASSOCIATED BLANKET EASEMENT FOR THE ENTIRE OUTLOT. AN
ASSOCIATION SHALL BE ESTABLISHED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTENANCE
AND MANAGEMENT OF THE OUTLOT A
OUTLOT SIZE (AC)INTENDED USE
A 1.70 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT &
CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA
7.NO PUBLIC UTILITIES WILL BE INSTALLED AS PART OF THIS PLAT. EACH LOT
WILL CONNECT TO EXITING WATER MAIN AND SANITARY SEWER AND SAID
SERVICE CONNECTIONS WILL BE REVIEWED AS PART OF THE SITE PLAN
APPROVAL PROCESS FOR EACH LOT
8.NO CONNECTIONS WILL BE PERMITTED TO THE EXISTING 84" SANITARY
TRUNK SEWER
9.THE STORMWATER BASIN WITHIN OUTLOT A HAS BEEN SIZED FOR FULLY
DEVELOPED CONDITIONS FOR THE ENTIRE PLAT. THE DEVELOPER OF EACH
LOT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DIRECTING RUNOFF FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE
LOT TO THE BASIN WITHIN OUTLOT A.
10.THE WETLANDS SHOWN ARE DELINEATED AS FOLLOWS:
WETLAND AREA (AC)KEYNOTE
SEEP 0.03
WET PRAIRIE 0.04
FLOODPLAIN FOREST 0.01
TOTAL WETLAND AREA 0.08
1
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
ST
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
PRELIMINARY PLAT
& SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SOUTH GILBERT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
D
D
D
E
H
H
H
F
E
E
F
G
EXISTING
SIDEWALK
EXISTING
SIDEWALK
PROPOSED
5' SIDEWALK
PROPOSED
5' SIDEWALK
H
G
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 15, 2019 – 7:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Max Parsons, Mark
Signs, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Phoebe Martin
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Welch, Debra Brandt, Terry Protextor, Kristina Thiel, Michelle
Edwards, Scott Rude, Bruce Tarwater, Jan Kardos, Willaim Thiel
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of SUB19-08 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.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
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)
Russett noted staff received a request from the applicant to defer both agenda items 4a and 4b
to the September 5 meeting and staff is recommending the Commission make a motion to defer.
Dyer moves to defer items 4a and 4b to the September 5, 2019 meeting. Parsons
seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 15, 2019
Page 2 of 14
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.
Russett noted this is an application for a preliminary plat and showed a map of the proposed plat,
it is located south of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack Trail. Regarding the application
background, in addition to the application for a preliminary plat, the applicant has requested a
rezoning from Interim Development Single Family to Low-Density Single Family. The
Commission considered that rezoning at their last meeting and recommended approval subject
to two conditions, the first substantial compliance with the preliminary plat, particularly the
incorporation of the traffic circles and the planting of trees in the right-of-way. Additionally the
applicant has held a good neighbor meeting for both the rezoning and the preliminary plat on
June 10. In terms of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, the land use map identifies this
area as appropriate for conservation design due to the environmentally sensitive areas. The
Northeast District Plan identifies this area as appropriate for single-family residential and also
identifies that higher density uses could be more appropriate close to Scott Boulevard. Lastly,
Russett noted the Comprehensive Plan does have goals of achieving an interconnected street
network, which this plat is accomplishing through the extension of Tamarack Trail.
Russett showed the preliminary plat and sensitive areas development plan. The applicant is
proposing 60 single family lots and an extension of Tamarack Trail north to Scott Boulevard.
There will be no street connections to the east or west due to development constraints and
sensitive areas. Due to the long block length that has been created by Tamarack Trail, staff has
concerns with travel speed. Therefore the plat incorporates two traffic circles and a pavement
width of 26 feet, which allows parking on one side of the street. The traffic circles and the
reduced pavement width will help with traffic calming. In terms of traffic implications, Russett
said staff has estimated the total trips generated by the 60 lots to be around 571 trips per day to
and from the development and staff estimates the extension of Tamarack Trail and the additional
access point will reduce total trips accessing North 1st Avenue. Scott Boulevard and 1st Avenue
are both arterial streets and have the capacity to handle the additional traffic generated by the
proposed development. Staff is aware there are congestion issues during peak hours at the
intersection of 1st Avenue and Scott Boulevard and the City has a program planned for 2020 to
address those congestion issues.
Russett noted there are environmentally sensitive areas on the site, there are critical and
protected slopes. The proposed development would disturb 12% of the critical slopes and the
Code allows up to 35%. No protected slopes will be impacted by the proposed development.
Russett added there are also woodlands on the site, around 18.5 acres, and the development
would preserve 52% of those woodlands, and the retention requirement for the Code is 50%.
The plat does identify a conservation easement over both the persevered woodland areas and
the woodland buffer. In terms of archeological resources, Russett stated it was listed as a
deficiency in the staff report, but since the publication of the staff report the applicant has
provided the Phase 1 Study which was completed by the Office of the State Archeologist and the
OAS concluded that no further archeological work is recommended. Therefore this is no longer
a deficiency. In terms of public open space, it is addressed at final platting, dedication
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 15, 2019
Page 3 of 14
requirement of around 0.79 acres or a payment of an in-lieu fee would be required and based on
the proximity of another park an in-lieu fee would be appropriate. Russett next discussed the
stormwater management stating the preliminary plat identifies three stormwater management
basins. Public Works staff has approved the preliminary grading plan and the preliminary
stormwater calculations. Stormwater management was originally listed as a deficiency in the
staff report because Public Works staff identified some developed areas where runoff would not
be captured by the stormwater management basin. The applicant’s consultant has provided
some additional information to the Public Works staff, which has been reviewed and accepted,
and the Public Works staff will work through the additional stormwater management details
during the review of the construction drawings which will happen at final platting.
Regarding neighborhood correspondence, Russett noted staff has received some
correspondence from residents in the area with concerns expressed regarding the preliminary
plat. The Commission has been given copies of all the correspondence but to summarize the
concerns are related to traffic, the extension of Tamarack Trail and stormwater management.
Russett noted the role of the Commission in the review of the preliminary plat is for the
Commission to determine whether or not the plat complies with the subdivision regulations and
other applicable Codes and whether or not it complies with the Comprehensive Plan.
Next steps will be a public hearing and first reading held by City Council next Tuesday for the
rezoning, pending recommendation of approval regarding the preliminary plat that will also move
onto Council. Pending City Council approval of the preliminary plat and the proposed rezoning,
the applicant could submit an application for a final plat.
Staff recommends approval of SUB19-08 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.
Baker asked about the traffic estimates of 60 units producing 571 trips per day, which would be
about 10 trips per household per day, and that seems high to him. Russett said those figures
came from the Transportation Planner who uses a trip generation manual to determine the
approximate trips per day based on the use.
Hensch noted in the staff report there were two different deficiencies listed, one the archeological
study and the other the stormwater management calculations and asked for confirmation that
both those items have been resolved. Russett assured the Commission that both those items
have been resolved to staff satisfaction.
Dyer asked if the stormwater management basins shown on the map modified from earlier
versions. Russett stated those have not changed, what is shown on the preliminary plat now is
the most recent version and have not changed, there were modifications through the review
process.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Mike Welch (Axiom Consultants) is representing the applicant and was the one to prepare the
plans and the preliminary plat. He acknowledged staff did a nice job summarizing plat but he
would like to talk about the changes they did make with the stormwater management. The
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 15, 2019
Page 4 of 14
applicants worked with staff to do more analysis than required by Code to discover where the
runoff was being generated, where it was going and how it was impacting the existing
development to the south. They did then modify the basin outlets to hold back more water. They
began by looking at the area today, before any development, and determined the run-off was
going and were able to make modifications to their plans to help with the current issues. The
water that flows to the southeast, to the existing development, will be reduced with the new
development and the stormwater basins because it will reduce the run-off rates. This reduction
in run-off can be seen in 5, 10 and 100 year storm scenarios. With the new development and
the grading plan the stormwater flow to the south will be reduced from what it is currently.
Welch also stated they had a meeting a couple weeks ago with a few of the neighbors and City
engineering staff and went through some of the stormwater concerns.
Baker asked Welch to clarify the time process of getting the 60 units built. Welch said he cannot
say how long it will be for the development of each house, for the development itself if things go
according to schedule they would do utility work this winter, paving in the spring, and then the
developer could sell lots. Baker noted one of the concerns raised by the neighbors was
construction traffic, is it possible even if the road is in place to have it blocked off so all of the
construction traffic would have to come from Scott Boulevard. Welch said all the construction
traffic before the road is constructed will have to come from Scott Boulevard, but once the road is
complete and the City accepts the road, it would be up to Public Works if they would be able to
or willing to block off access through Tamarack Trail. As the developer they have no ability to
keep the road closed. Baker asked if they would have any objection to having it closed during
the construction process, Welch stated he personally would not.
Debra Brandt (973 Tamarack Trail) stated she is a researcher so when staff mentioned a study
the City had based some of their decisions on her first indication was to do to Google Scholar
and find the study. Brandt showed the Commission the article Russett sent her that the City is
using to base their decision to put trees on the parkway, the $45,000 worth of trees. On the left
hand side of the article it states “this pilot” and as a researcher Brandt said this is a pilot study
and a pilot study is used to see if there is something to look at, if a study is feasible, how much
the study may cost, and how many participants are needed to do a real study of the question.
Brandt showed the conclusion of the pilot study was they did not have any conclusions, but they
should study it more, the study was done on a simulator, not on a real street, and the simulator
had an entire canopy of trees. Brandt found a study, but it was really a literature review, which is
where someone looks at all the articles that have been written, and what was found is the
canopy, while it initially reduced speed by one mile per hour, it actually became a risk. Brandt
showed an image of Brown Street as an example of trees along the streets, and asked how
many grandchildren they see on the image, in the next slide she showed there are three kids in
the image, hidden behind each tree. She stated that by narrowing the street and putting trees
out there and that means the driver has less time to react to children darting out. Brandt also
noted there are studies that look at these canopies and found it actually changes the
environment under them. Concrete is destabilized and it may actually deteriorate the road more
quickly. By obligating the use of these trees the City is providing false reassurance to the
neighborhood and increasing costs to the future homeowners. Her concern is if the City is
basing this decision on evidence that is poorly collected, what other decisions are being based
on speculation rather than evidence. Brandt showed from the City’s own information regarding
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 15, 2019
Page 5 of 14
zoning it states “one cannot grow trees where they become an impedance to sight or traffic” and
here the City is putting those out there knowing there are risks but doing it anyway. Brandt
asked what else could be done to make these streets safe. She showed an article about cul-de-
sacs and the benefits of cul-de-sacs of which the most important one is they are safe, one
cannot drive as fast on a cul-de-sac, they also promote neighborhoods, they promote reduced
costs, they are beneficial to neighborhoods. Brandt noted if one were to ask any realtor in Iowa
City if they had a house on a cul-de-sac to sell versus a through-street they will take the cul-de-
sac. Knowing that, Brandt reviewed Iowa City to look at the evidence, she pulled crash data
from July and no crashes occurred on a cul-de-sac – all on through-streets. With regards to
crash related to speed, same information, none on cul-de-sacs. Next she pulled crime data,
again no crimes were on cul-de-sacs. She did a search of pedestrians hit by cars, none
happened on a cul-de-sac. Therefore Brandt would encourage this Commission to reconsider
the plans. This should be a combined effort between the developer, the City and the residents.
She does not oppose the development of this area, but there is a large neighborhood concern
about traffic.
Terry Protextor (1007 Tamarack Trail) noted he sent an email to the Commission so would not
reiterate those points. He has spent a lot of time in the past two weeks exploring all the City
Codes pertaining to street access, meeting requirements, Commission and City staff process
and after looking at all this he developed a concern about where the citizen fits into this process.
There are really four parties that have standing, the developer, City staff, the Commission and
City Council. Clearly the citizens have no standing, other than five minutes to speak at a public
hearing, so it is difficult for him to understand how 75 tax paying citizens (who all signed a
petition) have no standing other than this presentation this evening. When decisions are being
made about their neighborhood, their street, their safety, their children and their physical
environment as far as the tranquility of where they live, citizens should be able to sit down with
City staff and the developer and have discussions to try to come up with what is a reasonable
and fair solution for all parties. Protextor questions why the City Code or City staff doesn’t have
any process to do that. It feels like no one wants to hear from the citizens. Protextor stated the
citizens feel they have a reasonable solution to this, even the City Code pertaining to streets and
circulation states “use of cul-de-sacs and other roadways within a point of access should be
avoided” but the key word is “should”, and one does not have to be a lawyer to understand that is
not an absolute term. Using the word should allow for flexibility on the part of City staff and the
Commission to come up with a reasonable solution for this problem and winners on all sides of
the issue. Protextor mentioned at an earlier meeting, the Peninsula neighborhood, which was
developed by the City, not by a development group, and the City chose to ignore all the coding
rules and created the Peninsula with a single access point. Apparently since the city was
developing the project the Code went by the wayside. Protextor asks that the Planning and
Zoning Commission postpone the decision tonight and request the City staff, the developer and
the neighborhood concerned citizen group meet and sit down and work out a fair and appropriate
response on how they can prevent the traffic issues and come up with a better solution.
Protextor acknowledged the Commission is to represent the citizens just as the City Council
does and asks that they do so.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 15, 2019
Page 6 of 14
Kristina Thiel (2755 Hickory Trail) Dr. Thiel and her husband William just closed on a house on
Hickory Trail on June 19. Therefore they weren’t property owners in this subdivision for the June
10 good neighbor meeting. They were also not aware of a subdivision being planned that would
significantly increase the traffic flow on Hickory Trail prior to them closing on this house. She has
lived in Iowa City for 12 and her husband for 14 years, they have chosen to stay here and build
their careers here, have children here and raise their families here. They chose this
neighborhood because it had a single access point, it was a quiet street, and it was a safe
neighborhood. As Deb Brandt pointed out (she and Brandt are actually colleagues at the
University of Iowa Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology) she compels the Commission to
please consider the extra traffic on Hickory Trail, things can be unpredictable and an increased
traffic flow of 571 cars per day is more than 60% increase in the current traffic flow now. This is
not the kind of neighborhood she and her husband wanted to move into. She is in agreement
with a development, it will likely increase all their property values, but they need to make sure the
existing neighborhood is not impeded and their children can be safe. Additionally there are the
other issues of water run-off, her house abuts the creek that runs behind and they already have
drainage and water issues and are concerned how that will increase. Therefore she compels the
Commission to think about how they will be affecting their current taxpayer in Iowa City (they
could have easily bought in Coralville).
Michelle Edwards (2745 Hickory Trail) is Thiel’s next door neighbor and wants to speak also
about the traffic. She feels the Commission needs to come to Hickory Trail to see what it would
mean to have an extra 571 trips on that street. It will adversely affect the neighborhood. She
cannot speak to the water drainage, she can only have faith in engineers for that, but she does
not need an engineer to tell her how this traffic will impact her street, what she needs is for you
people to understand and to come see their street and how it will change. Edwards cannot
believe that the best interest for the City of Iowa City in increasing development would be to take
a peaceful existing neighborhood and make it a city neighborhood with city traffic and that is
what they will be doing. She agrees they all need to stop a moment and take some time and
look at what they will be doing. They would not be people coming on summer evenings to
repeatedly plead their cases if this wasn’t important to them. It is important to them because
their neighborhood is a place of peacefulness right now, it is quiet, kids feel safe, and that is all
about to change and there isn’t anyone up and down Hickory Trail and up and down Tamarack
Trail that doesn’t know that. The only people that don’t seem to know that are the people sitting
here and making these decisions. She implores them to take some time, visit the neighborhood
and see how it will all change.
Scott Rude (1035 Tamarack Trail) wants to concur with previous speakers and asks the
Commission to take in to consideration the 75 people who have signed the petition and asks how
many more do they need to see, they can get them. The neighborhood wants to slow this
process down because they have great solutions, they can make it a great development, but
they need the help to do that.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 15, 2019
Page 7 of 14
Bruce Tarwater (2669 Hickory Trail) also concurs with everything that has been said by his
neighbors and implores the Commission to take into consideration the concerns raised today.
Baker asked Protextor about the two concerns, one being the stormwater run-off which will be
handled by people smarter than they, but the other is if Tamarack Trail is extended it will
increase the traffic flow on Tamarack and Hickory Trails and it is the position of the citizens that
the increased traffic is inherently dangerous. Protextor said from his standpoint yes for two
reasons, one even though the developer along with engineers have tried to do their best by using
roundabout circles that may slow it a little bit but by the time someone gets to his end of
Tamarack Trail and around their little cul-de-sac circle it is a straight shot down to Hickory and
then full speed on Hickory. The other thing, that hasn’t been mentioned, is when one drives
down Tamarack Trail and turn right onto Hickory, it is a sharp turn and the mailbox for the house
on the end has been knocked down four or five times just because people weren’t slowing down
to turn, or a snow plow didn’t make the corner. So that is a concern. Baker stated the only way
to mitigate that concern is to not have Tamarack Trail extended. Proxtextor agrees and notes
they have suggested keeping their current cul-de-sac and have another cul-de-sac abutting it on
the new development side and have sidewalks connected so everyone can have access but not
through traffic. Baker asked if Tamarack Trail were extended there is no speed reducing
mechanism that would help. Protextor doesn’t, and is concerned that speed bumps and circles
don’t slow people down enough to protect the children. Baker said then the sitting down with the
citizens, developer and the City will lead to an either or situation, either the Tamarack Trail is
extended or it is not, there is no other alternative being suggested. Protextor confirmed that was
correct. Baker asked if there were any comparable streets in Iowa City of length and traffic flow.
Protextor said the Peninsula was a classic example of people making poor decisions and having
one access route. Baker asked if that example also includes the same data on accidents,
injuries, etc. Protextor does not know the answer to that question, all he knows is what Brandt
was suggesting which is cul-de-sacs don’t produce issues like through-streets. Protextor looked
at the east side of Iowa City and there are cul-de-sacs all over the place, he stopped circling
them on the map at eight. His subdivision has been there for over 30 years, if they felt there had
been a problem with a cul-de-sac they would have been the first to say something. Baker said if
there were a comparable street somewhere in Iowa City in length and traffic flow that does not
seem to have the accident and injury problems you seem to think will happen, would that make a
difference. Protextor said they have the research that shows it doesn’t happen on cul-de-sacs, it
happens on through-streets and they will become a busy through-street if this goes development
goes though as proposed. They point they are trying to make is if they can all come together
and look at facts. Baker noted the facts will lead to assumptions. Baker noted he lives on the
east side of Iowa City, and he is looking for comparable examples of traffic flow and
neighborhoods and the first that comes to his mind is Friendship Street which has higher traffic
flows than what is anticipated on this development extension and doesn’t seem to have a
problem with injuries or accidents from the length of road or intensity of traffic. Baker
understands the concerns of the residents of Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail but there are
examples of similar neighborhoods in Iowa City without those concerns. Protextor suggests
they give them all time to look at Friendship or other streets and see if the concerns they have for
their neighborhood are warranted. Baker said they could sit down and study but they already
know the extension will increase the number of cars on their street, but the question from that is
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 15, 2019
Page 8 of 14
if one can assume danger based on increase traffic because it is not shown elsewhere.
Decisions are made based on experiences of other neighborhoods.
Jan Kardos (956 Tamarack Trail) has two quick points, one is everyone on the Commission
needs to come see their neighborhood, taking from the new subdivision down Tamarack is
downhill and comes to a steep turn and that is where accidents happen and while she doesn’t
agree there will be 571 new trips per day, even half that number would make it more dangerous.
Debra Brandt (973 Tamarack Trail) noted that when it is said research leads to assumptions as a
researcher she takes great offense to that, research leads to conclusions which is much different
than assumptions. With regards to Friendship Street, she grew up in that neighborhood and she
noted Friendship Street just put in speed bumps because it was a dangerous area, there was
enough concern by those neighbors, who by the way all would say they prefer a cul-de-sac.
Baker acknowledged everyone would prefer a cul-de-sac, which is not feasible. Baker wants to
know what the distinction is between the increased traffic and increased speed because is the
danger increased traffic or increased speed. Brandt said if you have more attempts then you
probably increase your probability of a hit. But her point is this shouldn’t be her research study,
this should be the City’s research study, the onus of burden shouldn’t be on the citizens, this is
why the Commission was appointed, to take data and come to conclusions. Baker said then
they need to find a comparable street and study the traffic and accident rate. Brandt asked isn’t
that was City Engineering is supposed to do. Signs confirmed that is who they rely on for their
data and information and they use nationally recognized methods. Brandt asked if those
statistics are released anywhere for citizens to see. Signs said the comments and details are in
the staff report. Brandt also noted that when doing research and looking at studies is if they can
be generalized to our area, it is the problem with the pilot study where they based the decision
on for $45,000 worth of trees, it was taken out of context, when doing research one must look at
the results and look at who they are applying them to.
Michelle Edwards (2745 Hickory Trail) appreciates the attention the Commission is giving to
Brandt and Protextor’s research on this subject, but what she cares about is the feeling in the
neighborhood and what it is like on their street and that is the concern for a lot of people. Even
since the creation of Tamarack Trail there has been a lot more traffic on the street, kids going
down the hill fast, it’s hard not to go down that hill fast, and Hickory Trail is a straight shot. They
do have a petition now about the speed on that street, so increasing the number of cars it is just
logical they will increase the number of cars driving fast on that street. Whether it increase
accidents or not, she can’t speak to that, but she can say it will change what the street is like for
the people who live there. Adding 60 houses, 571 new trips going right past her house everyday
will change the complexion and feeling of the neighborhood.
Kristina Thiel (2755 Hickory Trail) showed a study published in 1995 in the International Journal
of Epidemiology “A case control study of traffic risk factors and child pedestrian injury” noting the
data is over 25 years old. She read the abstract:
Background: Pedestrian injuries in children constitute an important cause of mortality and
morbidity. Specific hazards which contribute to these injuries need to be identified to
enable the development of preventive strategies.
Methods: A population-based case-control study was conducted in which 40 aspects of
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 15, 2019
Page 9 of 14
traffic and road environment that contribute to the likelihood of childhood pedestrian injury
were examined. The factors of interest were measured at 100 places of injury and 200
control sites between December 1991 and December 1993.
Results: The volume of traffic (odds ratio [OR] = 2.16 for an increase of 100 vehicles per
hour) in combination with the proportion of vehicles exceeding the speed limit (OR = 1.04)
for each 1% increase in average speed, and the presence of footpaths (OR = 11.0) were
associated with significant increase in the risk of injury. A graded inverse relationship was
present between socioeconomic status and the odds of pedestrian injury.
Conclusions: These findings have obvious implications for public health as features of the
physical environment are potentially modifiable.
Baker said he really is trying to work this out, he is looking at other neighborhoods, other
comparable experiences and he doesn’t see how the increase in traffic on Tamarack is going to
be more dangerous than a situation that already exists in Iowa City in other comparable
neighborhoods. He acknowledged increase traffic is one problem, it does affect the ambiance of
a neighborhood, but it is when does the increase in traffic become dangerous and increased
danger probably comes from increase in speed. Thiel noted in this study the odds ratio for
increase in speed was 1.04 which means there was only a 4% increase in incidents whereas the
volume had increase odds ratio of 2.16 as an increase of 100 vehicles per hour. Baker asks
where does this show up in Iowa City. Thiel said this is data across the country, Iowa City is a
representative sampling of data across the country. City Planners should take knowledge from
other cities and apply that knowledge to their city.
Bruce Tarwater (2669 Hickory Trail) asked Russett about increased traffic safety that was
mentioned in her presentation. Russett said they had the transportation planner look at the
traffic that would be generated from the new development and based on trip generation manuals
he had estimated 571 more trips per day from the new development. But he also estimated with
the additional access along Scott Boulevard trips could be diverted and traffic that accesses 1st
Avenue could be reduced.
Terry Protextor (1007 Tamarack Trail) noted the averting traffic to 1st Avenue is not helpful, they
are already backed up. He also noted that if the citizens cannot ask questions why they don’t
have standing. Where are their rights, the City Codes are not cast in stone, they were written to
protect the citizens but in this case are they really protecting the citizens or really preventing the
citizens from having a say.
William Thiel (2755 Hickory Trail) stated a concern regarding traffic is off Hickory Trail is 1st
Avenue and 1st Avenue is a lot of traffic off the highway, the main thoroughfare to get to a lot of
schools. To make a left turn off Hickory Trail onto 1st Avenue is hard and must be done quickly.
His concern is having more traffic coming down Hickory Trail and increased left hand turns onto
1st Avenue. After a quick search he found 61% of all accidents typically involve a left-hand turn,
so it is logical that if there are more left hand turns, there will be more accidents. If the new
development is kept as a separate subdivision those cars would be forced to take Scott
Boulevard which is actually a fairly empty road because there are not any other roads that dump
out onto Scott Boulevard. He wonders if it was taken into consideration the increase number of
left hand turns from Hickory Trail onto 1st Avenue by the traffic planners. Russet said they do
not have specific counts on that they just have estimates.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 15, 2019
Page 10 of 14
Parsons moved to recommend approval of SUB19-08 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.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Hesnch stated he has not only driven through the neighborhood, he has gotten out and walked
around twice. He does this for every case that comes before the Commission. As far as citizen
standing, this Commission is very strong and vocal advocates for good neighbor meetings and of
course any citizen can schedule a meeting with City staff anytime they want to. Regarding the
postponement issues, there are City Codes that state within 45 days of a completed application
submitted if it is not acted upon it is assumed by default to be approved by the City Planning &
Zoning Commission and goes directly to City Council so that is why the Commission cannot just
on their own postpone things, there are rules they have to follow. Hensch also stated as a
former police officer and state trooper and 15 years as a medical examiner he does know a lot
about accidents and death investigations so it is very difficult when one tries to cherry pick
information and try to draw conclusions from that.
Hektoen also noted regarding standing the State Code allows property owners within 200 feet of
property being rezoned to file a protest with City Council and that will trigger a super majority
requirement. The same rights don’t apply to plat approvals.
Hensch also stated the Commission has a defined role, they do like public input, and they are
here as unpaid public members to represent the public to make sure the views are looked at.
However their role is to look at if this subdivision complies with the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance, does it comply with the Comprehensive Plan, and does it comply with State Law.
That is the fundamental responsibility of the Commission and the public helps them look at the
examination.
Signs wants to talk about process and was offended by accusations from the public that the
Commission is not paying attention to the public. In Iowa City, the public involvement process in
everything they do is extensive. The Comprehensive Plan is reviewed every 10 years, the
neighborhood plans are reviewed, traffic studies are updated, projects come before this
Commission twice a month, he has been on this commission for three years and hasn’t seen
anyone in the audience here prior to this application. That is because it didn’t matter what else
was going on, it only matters when it is in your backyard, and it is very frustrating to have people
come with that approach. The truth is nothing would ever get done because everyone doesn’t
want something in their backyard, the process is there to set what can happen in your backyards.
There are many times the Commission votes based on what is said during public comments
when it is evident that it changes the information. The Commission relies on City staff for data
and information, who are trained professionals, who use industry proven methods to evaluate
applications. Signs noted there is a study that can be found for everything, he spent 10 years in
the tree business and knows the person that wrote that study and he believes from his years of
experience in the tree business it has been proven that trees and landscape plantings do slow
down traffic in an environment. Do they add a safety issue with children hiding behind trees,
possibility so, but they do take all this seriously. They do take public comment seriously and
then they must take those comments and go back to the Code and Comprehensive Plan and
Neighborhood Plans (that the citizens of Iowa City developed) and make decisions based on all
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 15, 2019
Page 11 of 14
that information, not just bits and pieces.
Parsons noted it states in the Comprehensive Plan they do not want more cul-de-sacs in the City
and he just doesn’t see this as a unique enough circumstance to warrant a cul-de-sac. They
have had plenty of discussions as a Commission that they want to see interconnected
neighborhoods across the City and while you can construct trails and such having two cul-de-
sacs with back to back houses facing each other doesn’t accomplish that goal. He cannot also
ignore the fact that the street is stubbed at both ends from the beginning which means the door
is open not only to the extension to the north but to the southeast as well. When looking at this
map it is a better use of City resources and planning that the road be connected.
Dyer noted that over time in any city you can see the standards for development change as lots
of things change. There are a lot of cul-de-sacs in Iowa City and while they may create safe
neighborhoods they also isolate people from each other and make it difficult for people to get
around. People who would live in lots 1 and 60 would probably just as likely want to go down
Tamarack Trail as the people who live on the other side of that development. Artificially
preventing them from making that trip doesn’t seem to be an appropriate thing to do when it is
possible for the street to go through. She has been on this Commission for seven or eight years
and many times when a new subdivision is proposed a big group of people come and say “not on
our street, the traffic will be too heavy” and they have not witnessed major increases in accidents
in those neighborhoods. Dyer thinks the plan is a good plan, she has a friend that lives on
Tamarack Trail, she has visited there quite often, she is quite familiar with that street and she is
not convinced the fears of people warrant changing this plan.
Baker thanked everyone for their input, he noted the reason he got into politics and city
government 30 years ago was because of comparable issues, he got angry and then got
involved. He understands the neighborhoods frustration, but he is trying to break this down into
the greatest public good, and yes traffic will increase if Tamarack is extended. There is a risk
involved, but there is a risk involved in any development in Iowa City which leads to higher traffic.
His concern is the safety involved and how to mitigate the danger of the extension. He likes
trees, but he doesn’t have a lot of faith in trees slowing down cars, nor does he think trees put
children in greater danger, children are in danger all the time, stepping in between parked cars.
His concern is if this is extended how they mitigate the impact on the neighborhoods. The circles
are a good start. Mr. Teal raised a good point about the 1st Avenue and Hickory Trail
intersection, the City is doing traffic studies on 1st Avenue and Scott Boulevard but they know
traffic will also increase at 1st Avenue and Hickory Trail, so something should be done at that
intersection as well. Baker does make a distinction between increased risk and danger,
everything they do in Iowa City that increases the population and increases the traffic increases
the risk of living in an area. He looks at comparable neighborhoods and how they have adjusted
and he doesn’t see the statistics that show them to be any more dangerous than they were in the
past. He admits he would be in the audience tonight with them if he lived on their street, but
sitting on the Commission and looking at the facts he does not see a compelling reason to deny
the application.
Townsend acknowledged change is difficult for everyone, she also has been in Iowa City for 30
years and has watched Iowa City grow from a small community to a pretty large metropolitan
area and we all have watched it change. Sometimes for the best, sometimes not for the best.
But to deprive 60 families from being able to go through their neighborhood and out more than
one exit we are asking a lot of those new families. She thought Iowa City was a place where
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 15, 2019
Page 12 of 14
people opened their arms and hearts to new people coming in and she is hoping we can do more
of that.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JULY 18, 2019
Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of July 18, 2019.
Signs seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett gave a few updates. First she introduced Jade Peterson in the audience, Jade is the
planning intern, an undergrad getting her degree in environmental planning and policy.
At the last meeting Commissioner Baker had a question regarding the noise at the Kum & Go on
1st Avenue and Muscatine Avenue. Russett passed that along to a colleague who went out and
investigated and did issue a violation because the noise from the speakers was too loud.
Russett noted several months ago the City Council recommended approval of a rezoning at 12
East Court (the Pentacrest Garden apartments) and that is now going through the design review
process, it will come before the Commission per the condition of the rezoning that the
Commission must approve the elevations.
The text amendment regarding the separation distance between fuel pumps and residential
zones was approved by Council, as were the two local landmark zonings on North Gilbert Street
across from Mercy Hospital.
Regarding the Forest View development, there has been a request from the applicant to change
what they are requesting in terms of their economic development incentives (Tax Increment
Financing) from what was originally proposed. They have come back to the City and are
requesting some additional funds to change the size of the single-family homes. This is
something the Council is looking at since it is related to TIF. Townsend asked if that would delay
the whole progress on that subdivision. Parsons said it may, he read a report from City Manager
Fruin where he said it would take months to put the TIF together.
Russett discussed the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council joint consult meeting
discussing the land development process. The City Council continued that discussion a couple
weeks ago and have directed staff to look into threshold projects.
Dyer asked to find out how much affordable housing has been located in the Riverfront
Crossings District as opposed to other areas of the City. Russett said they will look into it.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 15, 2019
Page 13 of 14
Baker asked how to get it so no music would be allowed at gas stations. Russett said there
would need to be a Code Amendment.
Adjournment:
Parsons moved to adjourn.
Townsend seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
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
2/21 3/7 3/21 4/4 4/18 5/16 6/6 6/20 7/18 8/15
BAKER, LARRY X X X X X X X O/E X X X X
DYER, CAROLYN O/E X X X X X X O/E X X X X
FREERKS, ANN -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
HENSCH, MIKE X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X
MARTIN, PHOEBE X O/E X X X O/E X X X X O/E O/E
PARSONS, MAX X 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 X
THEOBALD, JODIE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X O/E X X X X X X X X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member