HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 07.06.2022PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Wednesday, July 6, 2022
Formal Meeting – 6:00 PM
Emma Harvat Hall
Iowa City City Hall
410 E. Washington Street
Agenda:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Election of Officers
4. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
Development Items
5. Case No. REZ22-0008
Location: Northwest corner of N. Scott Blvd. & Rochester Ave.
An application for a rezoning of approximately 64.37 acres of land from Interim Development
Single-Family (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family with a Planned Development Overlay
(OPD/RS-5) and approximately 0.31 acres of land to Interim Development Single-Family
with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/ID-RS).
6. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: June 15, 2022
7. Planning and 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 arussett@iowa-city.org. Early requests are
strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: July 20 / August 3 / August 17
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ22-0008 Monument Hills
Prepared by: Parker Walsh, Associate Planner
Date: July 6, 2022
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Michael Welch
Welch Design and Development
michael@welchdesigndevelopment.com
Contact Person: See above.
Owner: Douglas Paul
Monument Farms LLC
PO Box 455
North Liberty, IA 52317
drpaul507@yahoo.com
Requested Action: Rezoning from Interim Development - Single
Family Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density
Single-Family Residential with a Planned
Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Interim
Development - Single Family Residential with a
Planned Development Overlay (OPD/ID-RS)
Purpose:
Construction of 64 single-family detached
residences, 12 senior single-family units, 3
duplexes, and 29 senior multi-family units
Location:
West of N. Scott Boulevard and north of
Rochester Avenue.
Location Map:
Size: 64.68 Acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Undeveloped/Vacant Open Space,
Interim Development - Single-Family
Residential (ID-RS)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: ID-RS, Interim Development -Single-
Family Residential
South: RS-5, Low Density Single Family
2
Residential
East: ID-RS, Interim Development -Single-
Family Residential
West: RS-5, Low Density Single Family
Residential
Comprehensive Plan:
Conservation Design, Single-Family,
Townhome, and Small Apartment
District Plan:
Northeast
Neighborhood Open Space District:
NE1
Public Meeting Notification: Property owners within 500’ of the subject
property received notification of the Planning
and Zoning Commission public meeting.
Rezoning signs were posted on the site at
Rochester Ave.
File Date: May 31, 2022
45 Day Limitation Period:
July 15, 2022
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Welch Design and Development, has requested a rezoning from Interim
Development Single-Family (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned
Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) for approximately 64.36 acres located west of N. Scott
Boulevard and north of Rochester Avenue. The applicant intends to develop 64 single-family homes
and a senior living community consisting of 12 single-family units, 3 duplex units, and 29 multi-family
units. Approximately 0.31 acres of the subject property will remain ID-RS (with the OPD) to
accommodate an existing communications tower, which received a special exception in 2009. The
communications tower currently has access to the property through an easement on the abutting
home property. In order to maintain access to the tower, as a condition of the rezoning an access
easement agreement to allow access to Lot 66 as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development
and Sensitive Areas Development Plan will be required. Additionally, there is one single-family
home on the property that fronts Rochester Ave that will remain. The Preliminary Planned
Development Overlay Plan and Sensitive Areas Development Plan is included in Attachment 3.
The Preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan proposes removal of critical slopes in excess
of what is allowed per 14-5I-8E-4 and also impacts wetlands. Therefore, a Level II Sensitive Areas
Review is required, which requires review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approval
by the City Council as part of the OPD rezoning process.
The applicant conducted a Good Neighbor meeting on May 25, 2022. A summary of the meeting
is included in Attachment 4.
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning: The property is currently zoned Interim Development -Single-Family (ID-RS).
The purpose of the ID-zones is to provide for areas of managed growth in which agricultural and
other nonurban uses of land may continue until such time as the city is able to provide city
services and urban development can occur. The interim development zone is the default zoning
district to which all undeveloped areas should be classified until development occurs. Upon
provision of city services, the city or the property owner may initiate rezoning to zones consistent
with the comprehensive plan. In ID-RS zones, only plant related agricultural is allowed by right.
3
The ID-RS zone allows a limited number of land uses such as detached single-family homes,
animal related commercial use, parks and open space, and agricultural uses. Approximately 0.31
acres of the subject property will remain ID-RS to accommodate an existing communications
tower that received a special exception in 2009. Communications towers are not an allowed use in
the RS-5 zone.
Proposed Zoning: The planned development overlay zone (OPD) is intended to permit flexibility
in the use and design of structures and land in situations where conventional development may
not be appropriate. The Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone is intended to provide
housing opportunities for individual households. The zone allows larger lot sizes and setbacks
creating neighborhoods with a limited density. While the proposed development contains
duplexes and a multi-family building, the OPD process allows for a mixture of uses in the RS-5
zone.
General Planned Development Approval Criteria: Applications for Planned Development
Rezonings are reviewed for compliance with the following standards according to Article 14-3A of
the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance.
1. The density and design of the Planned Development will be compatible with and/or
complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass and scale,
relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout.
Density – The OPD/RS-5 zone allows for a density of 5 dwelling units per net acre of land area (total
land minus public and private streets right-of-way). The proposed development includes 112
dwelling units on 57.65 net acres, including the existing home at 3106 Rochester Ave. The proposed
density is 1.94 dwelling units per acre, which complies with the OPD/RS-5 density standard.
Land Uses Proposed – The applicant is proposing 64 single-family detached residences and a
senior living community consisting of 12 single-family units, 3 duplexes, and 29 senior multi-family
units. The addition of the senior housing will increase the diversity of housing types and help to
satisfy an ongoing need for senior housing in the city.
To the north of the subject property is Harvest Preserve, which is a privately held, membership
based open space area. It is staff’s understanding that the property owner has no intention of
developing this area. To the west is a small community off of Larch Lane that consists of a mix of
two-family and three-family homes. Per the Preliminary OPD plans this community will be bordered
by Outlot A, which consists of 18 acres of land that will be put into a conservation easement. To the
south, across Rochester Avenue, is an existing single-family neighborhood. With the exception of
the multi-family building, which is located at the intersection of two arterials and diagonally from the
neighborhood’s commercial center, the proposed development is an extension of the single-family
community.
In summary, the proposed plan continues the existing pattern of single-family development and
concentrates the more intense land uses near the existing commercial center and major streets.
Mass, Scale and General Layout – The development will be predominately house-scale buildings,
including both single-family and duplex units. The multi-family building will be larger in scale;
however, it will only be 2 stories. Additionally, the multi-family building will be required to comply
with the Multi-Family Site Development Standards, which aim to promote attractive, pedestrian
friendly neighborhoods by regulating parking, requiring screening of unsightly features and ensuring
clearly identified pedestrian connections. Additionally, the applicant has requested two waivers. One
waiver from the RS-5 lot width standards, and the other from the duplex corner lot standard.
4
The first waiver is from the RS-5 minimum lot width standard of 60’ for the single-family units within
the senior community. Instead, the applicant has requested a 56’ lot width. The OPD rezoning
process allows applicants to request waivers from certain development standards, including lot
width. However, the following approval criteria must be met (14-3A-4K-1c):
1.The proposed modifications will not result in increased traffic congestion or a reduction in
neighborhood traffic circulation.
At the request of Transportation Planning staff, the applicant provided a traffic study. The study
shows that the proposed development will not overburden the existing street system. More
information on the traffic study is provided below.
2.Garages and off street parking areas must be located so that they do not dominate the
streetscape. Alley or private rear lane access will be required, unless garages are
recessed behind the front facade of the dwelling in a manner that allows the residential
portion of the dwelling to predominate along the street.
The applicant has provided staff with renderings and elevations of each of the future housing
options that residents will have to choose from (Attachment 3), all of which have garages that are
recessed from the front façade of the dwelling.
The second waiver is related to the duplexes, three of which are proposed. Two of the duplexes
are not located on a corner lot, which is typically required in an RS-5 zone. Through the OPD
rezoning process, the corner lot requirement may be waived if convincing evidence is submitted
that the configuration of the property or other existing physical condition of the lot makes the
application of this standard impractical. If this standard is waived the units must be designed and
located in a manner that prevents monotony by varying aspects such as facade detailing, window
pattern, building materials, and color (14-3A-4C-1a(2)(C)). The proposed duplexes increase the
level of housing diversity and provides a transition between the proposed multi-family and the
single-family. Also, locating the duplexes along Rochester Ave ensures that the higher intensity
uses, as opposed to the single-family units, are located along the arterial street. In summary, the
approval criteria needed to waive the corner lot standard is met.
Open Space – The proposed development will need to comply with private open space standards,
outlined in section 14-2A-4E of the City Code. The multi-family complex will be required to
accommodate 10 square feet of private open space per bedroom, for a total of 540 square feet of
private open space. The single-family homes will be required to provide a minimum of 500 square
feet of open space. The OPD plan for the senior living community proposes providing approximately
15,400 square feet of on-site shared private open space, which not only includes open space areas,
but also a community clubhouse and walking paths. These standards will be reviewed for
compliance at site plan and at building permit.
Based on the policy direction in the comprehensive plan, which strongly supports trail connections
to open space areas, staff requested that the developer construct a 10’ wide trail to provide easier
access to Calder Park, a nearby public park. Staff recommends as a condition of the rezoning that
the developer dedicate a public access easement agreement to allow a public trail from the
proposed development to Calder Park and install the 10’ wide trail connection.
Traffic Circulation – The proposed development would include the construction of Allison Way,
Heron Drive, and a private drive for the senior living community, which is proposed off of Heron
Drive to the east. The development will be accessed off of Rochester Ave via Allison Way and the
extension of Heron Circle. No access is proposed off of N. Scott Blvd.
5
Allison Way proposes two raised pedestrian crossings to help calm traffic and a roundabout along
Heron Drive, which would provide additional traffic calming within the neighborhood. Staff
recommends as a condition of the rezoning that at the time of platting traffic calming measures be
incorporated into the development in locations approved by and designed to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer. This condition must be satisfied in order to meet the traffic circulation criteria.
2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities.
The subject property can be serviced by both sanitary sewer and water. Public Works staff has
indicated that both sanitary sewer and water mains have sufficient capacity to accommodate the
proposed development. However, at the time of platting, Public Works staff will require that the
applicant submit a water pressure flow analysis to ensure adequate water pressure.
Transportation Planning staff requested that the applicant submit a traffic study which examined
how the proposed development would impact traffic along Rochester Avenue. The traffic study
(excerpt included in Attachment 5) indicates that the total average daily trips generated by the
proposed development is 823 new daily trips, which includes 58 new AM peak-hour trips, and 77
new PM peak-hour trips by the anticipated date the site is fully developed and occupied, 2026.
The study shows that the peak-hour level-of-service (LOS) analysis is expected to operate at an
acceptable LOS C or better rating in 2022 and in the 2026 future development conditions.
The traffic study determined that the construction of the proposed street system and units would not
increase traffic to the point of overburdening the existing street system. Staff has reviewed the traffic
study and concurs with the analysis.
Staff recommends a condition of the rezoning include dedication of public right-of-way at the
intersection of Rochester Ave and N. Scott Blvd. Additional right-of-way is needed by the City for
potential future improvements in this area, which may include a roundabout.
3.The development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property values and privacy
of neighboring properties any more than would a conventional development.
The proposed development continues the single-family development pattern that exists to the south
and concentrates the more intense residential development at the intersection of two arterial streets
near the neighborhood commercial center. Although the development will impact some woodlands,
the development includes three outlots, which will be placed in conservation easements at the time
of platting for the protection of sensitive areas. These outlot areas total approximately 33 acres. In
terms of privacy, the closest neighbors will be those to the south across Rochester Avenue and the
community on Larch Ln to the west, which is separated by 18 acres of sensitive areas. There is no
development to the north and east. For these reasons staff finds that this development will not
impact neighboring residences more than a conventional development.
4.The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying
zoning requirements or from City street standards will be in the public interest, in harmony
with the purposes of this Title, and with other building regulations of the City.
The Preliminary OPD plan incorporates single-family, two-family, and multi-family uses. The
combination of land uses provides a diversity of housing options and helps to satisfy an ongoing
need for senior housing. Outlots A, B, and C, which makes up approximately 33 acres and
roughly 50% of the land area, will remain free from development. In summary, the proposed
project balances the need for environmental protection with the need for an increased housing
supply and diversity of housing types.
6
Rezoning Review Criteria:
Staff uses the following two criteria in the review of rezonings:
1.Consistency with the comprehensive plan;
2.Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan’s future land use map has
identified this area as appropriate for conservation design. Conservation design is appropriate in
areas containing steep slopes, woodlands, stream corridors, and other sensitive features.
Building sites are identified to take advantage of the preserved land and create streets that
minimize disturbance of natural areas. Developments with a conservation design should be
more compact with less pavement and more open space than conventional development. The
project area is approximately 65-acres and roughly half of the area will remain undeveloped to
preserve and protect woodlands, wetlands, and sensitive slopes.
The Northeast District Plan future land use map for the Bluffwood neighborhood (Figure 2)
shows a concept containing three centrally located cul-de-sacs lined with single-family homes.
Moving east, the housing options transition into townhomes and small apartment buildings lining
Rochester Ave and North Scott Blvd. The map also shows a street connection to N. Scott Blvd
and two access points off Rochester Ave. The applicant submitted two exhibits (Attachment 8),
which provide an overlay of the development on the existing land conditions, as well as an
overlay of the development on the Northeast District Plan’s future land use map.
The proposed development generally aligns with the concept and policy vision of the Northeast
District Plan. The proposed development is predominately single-family homes and
concentrates the more intense housing units at the intersection of Rochester Ave and N. Scott
Blvd, consistent with Northeast District Plan future land use map (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Northeast District Plan Future Land Use Map
In terms of street connections, the Northeast District Plan envisioned the extension of Amhurst
Drive north across Ralston Creek to improve street connectivity and community connections.
The most logical connection would be north to Tamarack Trail. Tamarack Trail is currently
stubbed to the edge of the Harvest Preserve property, which is outside the bounds of this
rezoning proposal. Due to the fact that land uses have changed since the adoption of the
Northeast District Plan, specifically with the creation of Harvest Preserve, staff is not
7
recommending a stub street to the north that could eventually tie into Tamarack Trail. This
connection is unlikely given Harvest Preserve’s goal to maintain a private, undeveloped,
conservation area that can be enjoyed by its members.
Provide Pedestrian/Bicyclist Connections – One of the neighborhood planning principles of the
Northeast District Plan is to provide pedestrian/bicyclist connections. Specifically, the plan calls
for locating recreational trails along waterways, around ponds, and through parks; incorporating
trail connections at the end of cul-de-sacs; and planning for trail connections between major
destinations, such as commercial areas, parks, and schools.
Specific to the Bluffwood neighborhood, the plans call for an interconnected sidewalk system
augmented by a trail system which will provide opportunities for people to walk, bike, or jog to
various destinations. Trails are strongly encouraged so that all neighborhood residents are
within walking distance of parks and open space. The plan also notes that pedestrian
connections between the Bluffwood neighborhood and Hickory Hill Park should be enhanced,
and a connection between Hickory Hill Park and the neighborhood park (Calder Park) should be
designated. This is further supported by the City’s Bicycle Master Plan, which shows a proposed
Multi-Use Trail/Shared-Use Path from Hickory Trail to Scott Blvd.
Supported by this policy direction, staff has requested that the developer construction a 10’ wide
trail between the proposed development to the edge of Calder Park. The development will also
include the construction of a 5’ wide sidewalk along Rochester Ave, a current gap in the city’s
sidewalk network.
Encourage a Reasonable Level of Housing Diversity – The majority of the proposed
development consists of single-family, which aligns with the land use policy vision. That said,
the plan does encourage townhomes and small apartment houses at the edge of the
neighborhood where slightly higher density housing can take advantage of being located near
major arterial streets, such as Scott Blvd and Rochester Ave and neighborhood commercial
centers. By incorporating duplexes and multi-family, the proposed development does include
other housing types beyond just detached single-family. Elevations, renderings, and floor plans
for the proposed housing types are included in Attachment 3.
Compatibility with the Existing Neighborhood Character: The proposed 64 single-family
units, 12 senior single-family units, 3 duplexes, and 29 multi-family units is generally consistent
with the existing neighborhood character. Existing single-family homes are located northwest
and south of the subject property. Through the extension of Heron Circle into Heron Drive, the
proposal includes a connection between an existing single-family neighborhood to the south and
future single-family development north of Rochester Ave. Although Larch Ln to the west of the
subject property contains attached single-family units, as mentioned previously, there will
remain a buffer between the existing neighborhood and the proposed development of
approximately 18 woodland acres. To the northwest, the proposed trail would provide
connectivity to the existing neighborhood along Hickory Trail, access to Calder Park, and an
alternate route to Hickory Hill Park and Regina High School.
The proposal locates the higher density development in the southeast corner of the
development. Concentrating the senior living single-family units, two-family units, and multi-
family development on this portion of the property along the arterial streets provides a transition
of land uses from single family neighborhoods, to higher density units, and Olde Towne Village
directly southeast of the subject property.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The subject property contains steep slopes, critical slopes,
woodlands, and wetlands. The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Sensitive Areas Development
Plan as part of the OPD rezoning. Due to the proposed disturbance of wetlands and associated
8
buffers and the disturbance of more than 35% of critical slopes, a Level II Sensitive Areas Review
is required.
Jurisdictional Wetlands - The City’s Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires a 100 ft. buffer to be
maintained between a regulated wetland and any development activity (14-5I-6E-1). The Ordinance
does allow for buffer averaging to be permitted where an increased buffer is deemed necessary or
desirable to provide additional protection to one area of a wetland for aesthetic or environmental
reasons. The applicant has chosen to request buffer averaging, as wetlands and wetland buffers
are proposed to be impacted. As required by 14-5I-6E-2, no buffer will be reduced by more than
50% and all provided buffers will be equal to or greater than what is reduced. Additionally, the
applicant proposes a buffer reduction for the wetland located at the southwestern corner of the
subject property. According to 14-5I-6E-3b of the City Code, a wetland buffer may be reduced by
up to 75’ if the standards of the of the previously mentioned section are met, as demonstrated by a
wetland specialist. A wetland specialist has determined that all standards of 14-5I-6E-2 and 14-5I-
6E-3b are met. Staff finds that the proposed buffer averaging and buffer reduction can be justified
as demonstrated by a wetland specialist and will meet the requirements of the City Code.
The existing wetland is comprised of approximately 3.03 acres. Approximately 14% of the existing
wetlands will be disturbed or 0.43 acres, mostly to accommodate the proposed street network. Per
14-5I-6G, staff has required the applicant to provide mitigation for the proposed disturbance to the
existing wetland. Compensatory mitigation will be provided at a ratio of 1:1. The applicant has
proposed to meet the City’s wetland mitigation requirements by purchasing wetland mitigation
credits from an established wetland mitigation bank. Specifically, the applicant will purchase a total
of 0.43 credits from a local wetland bank to mitigate the loss of 0.43 acres of “emergent” wetland.
Steep, Critical, and Protected Slopes – The subject property contains critical and steep slopes. The
impacts to these slopes are outlined in Table 1. Approximately 51% of critical slopes and 49% of
steep slopes are proposed to be impacted.
Table 1: Slopes
Total Critical Slopes Impacted Critical
Slopes Total Steep Slopes Impacted Steep
Slopes
9.3 acres 4.7 acres 4.95 acres 2.41
100% 51% 100% 49%
Woodlands – As shown in Table 2, the subject property has approximately 40.27 acres of
woodlands. The Preliminary SADP shows that the development will preserve approximately 50.2%
of woodlands, which is above the 50% required per the sensitive areas ordinance. Table 2
summarizes the impacts to woodlands.
Table 2: Woodlands
Total Woodlands Impacted Woodlands Woodland Buffer Woodland Preserved
40.3 acres 14 acres 6.1 acres 20.2 acres
100% 34.7% 15.2% 50.1%
Archeological Sites – The Phase I archaeological survey of the subject property noted that the
subject property was not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places due to a
lack of historical significance. Additionally, no further archaeological work is recommended for
the site.
Neighborhood Open Space: According to section 14-5K of the City code, dedication of public
open space or fee in lieu of land dedication is addressed at the time of final platting for residential
subdivisions. Based on the 64.39 acres of RS-5 zoning, the developer would be required to
dedicate 1.38 acres of land or pay fee in-lieu. Staff originally requested that the applicant dedicate
9
land to expand the size of Calder Park. The applicant was not interested in dedicating that land,
changed the boundary of the proposed rezoning, and requested to pay a fee in-lieu instead.
However, the portion of land that was excluded from the rezoning will be required to be included
as an outlot when this land is subdivided.
Correspondence: Staff has received public correspondence (Attachment 9) from neighboring
residents voicing their concerns to the proposed development plan. Generally, the concerns
received were for single-family units 1-6 along Rochester Ave, which have since been removed by
the applicant from the plans. Additional correspondence received include concerns related to
traffic and removal of woodlands.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council will hold a
public hearing on the proposed rezoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of REZ22-0008, a proposal to rezone approximately 64.36 acres of
land located north of Rochester Avenue and west of North Scott Boulevard from Interim
Development Single-Family Residential to Low Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned
Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and 0.31 acres to OPD/ID-RS zone subject to the following
conditions:
1.Prior to issuance of building permit, Owner shall:
a. Dedicate an access easement agreement to allow access to Lot 66 as shown on the
Preliminary Planned Development and Sensitive Areas Development Plan.
b.Dedicate a public access easement agreement to allow a public trail from the proposed
development to Calder Park as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development and
Sensitive Areas Development Plan.
c.Install the 10’ wide trail connection shown on the Preliminary Planned Development
and Sensitive Areas Development Plan.
d.Dedicate to the City, with no compensation to Owner, additional right-of-way along
Rochester Ave and N. Scott Blvd, the area of which shall be determined by the City
Engineer in a form approved by the City Attorney.
2.The final plat for any of the above-described land shall incorporate traffic calming devices in
locations approved by and designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Location Map
2.Zoning Map
3.Preliminary OPD/SADP Plan
4.Good Neighbor Meeting Summary
5.Traffic Study
6.Applicant Statement
7.Rezoning Exhibit
8.Exhibits Submitted by Applicant
9.Public Correspondence
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
Attachment 1
!!!!!HICKORY TRL
LOWERWESTBRANCHRD
HUMMINGBIRD LNALLEY
NMOUNTVERNONDRLARCH LNALLEY
WINDMILL PLLARCH L
N
L A K EF O R E S TAVEHASTINGS AVEVAILCIR
PENN CIR
W E S T B U R Y
D R
M I D D L E B U R Y R D
TETONCIROBERLIN STROCHESTER A
V
E
AUD U B O N
PLHER
O
N
C
I
R
WESTBUR Y C TEASTBURY DR
CONCORD CIR HANOVER CTGEORGETOWNCIR
N WES
T
MI
NSTERSTAM
H
U
RSTSTBOYD
C
T
TULANE
CTGR E E N M O UNTA IN DR
W E L L E S L E YWAYG O LD F IN C H C IR
G L A S T O N B U R Y S T
LOWERWESTBRANCHRDSTTHOMASCTBL
U
FFWOODLNPINEGROVE LN
TULANEAVE
COLUMBIA DR HARVEST RD SENSCOTTBLVDMU
CO1
P1
ID-RS
RS12
RS8
RS5
CC2
REZ22-0008Mounument Hillsµ
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles Prepared By: Emani BrinkmanDate Prepared: April 2022
An application submitted by Welch Design and Development, on behalf of Monument Farms LLC. for approval of a rezoning of approximately 65 acres of property located west of N. Scott Boulevard and north of Rochester Avenue from Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned Overlay Development(OPD/RS-5).
Rezoning of approximately 0.31 acres of property located north of Rochester Avenue from Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) to Interim Development Single-Family esidential with a Planned Overlay Development (OPD/ID-RS).
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
MAIN FLOOR0"MAIN PLT. HT.9' -1 1/8"MAIN WIN. H.H.6' -10"L1CONCRETE SLOPE TO GRADET5T1T7M2M1T2ADD BLACK FELT BEHINDALL DORMER WINDOWS3535 CSMT 3535 CSMT16' - 10 1/2"B3S4T7T1S4R1B3F1T4S4F1T5C1S1M2M1B3T4T7S4S1MAIN FLOOR0"MAIN PLT. HT.9' -1 1/8"MAIN WIN. H.H.6' -10"R1F1C1M1F1HOLD ALL SIDING AND TRIMMIN. 6" ABOVE GRADEF1T2M2S4S1F1L1T2HOLD ALL SIDING AND TRIMMIN. 6" ABOVE GRADET. O. F.-2 1/4"B. O. F.-4' -0"R1B3S1T1T2T5HOLD ALL SIDING AND TRIMMIN. 6" ABOVE GRADET. O. F.-2 1/4"B. O. F.-4' -0"FIREPLACE OPTION BWINDOW LOCATIONSS1F1R1C1M2M11605 N. ANKENY BLVD #130ANKENY, IOWA 50023PHONE: (515) 965-5336FAX: (515) 965-5335info@imprintarchitects.comPROJECT:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHK'D BY:DATE: ISSUED FOR:01-07-2022 FOR CONSTRUCTIONA20019-137.401-07-2022LR KCVINTAGE ESTATES PROVENCE ESTATEELEVATIONSSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1FRONTSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2BACKSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3LEFTSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"4RIGHTKeynote LegendKey Value Keynote TextB3 DECORATIVE BRACKET - FYPON BKT25X27C1 COLUMN WRAP - OR - TRIM OUT COLUMNF1 6" ALUMINUM FASCIA OR 6" ALUMINUM RAKEL1 EXTERIOR WALL LIGHTM1 MASONRY- CULTURED STONEM2 MASONRY- STONE CAPR1 LAMINATED ASPHALT ROOF SHINGLESS1 (LAP SIDING) HARDIE-PLANK SIDING-7" MAX EXPOSURES4 (SHAKE SIDING)T1 PAINTED HARDIE CORNER TRIMT2 4" PAINTED TRIMT4 6" OVER 8" PAINTED TRIMT5 7" OVER 12" PAINTED TRIMT7 4" TRIM AT WINDOWS ON FRONT ELEVATION ONLY
0
19' - 4 1/2"51' - 2"19' - 4"
56%22%22%
UNIT A UNIT B
IOWA CITY TWIN HOME
1,756 S.F. EACH UNIT
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 FRONT
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 BACK
LOCUST LOCUSTPINE PINEELEV/ MECH/ TRASHGREAT
ROOM CEDARCEDARBIRCHBIRCHSTAIRWILLOW - AWILLOWCHESTNUTMAGNOLIAMULBERRYSTAIRMULBERRY182' - 1"6
3' -
0
"
133' - 10 1/8"135' - 4 1/4"WILKUS ARCHITECTS SD Floor Plan - Level One
Vintage Cooperative of Iowa City 2022.06.13
29 UNITS
40-45 GARAGE STALLS
30-34 STORAGE UNITS
COMMON AREA133' - 10 1/8"133' - 10 1/8"LOCUSTPINECEDARCEDARSTAIRWILLOWWILLOWLOCUSTMULBERRYBIRCHBIRCHCHESTNUTMAGNOLIAPINEELEV/ MECH/ TRASHMAGNOLIA
GUESTSMULBERRYSTAIR182' - 1"135' - 4 1/4"63' - 0"WILKUS ARCHITECTS SD Floor Plan - Level Two
Vintage Cooperative of Iowa City 2022.06.13
L0 -Garage
652' -0"
L1 -1st Floor
661' -8"
L2 -2nd Floor
672' -9 7/8"
L3 -Roor Bearing
683' -11 3/4"
Roof Peak
699' -11 1/8"15' - 11 3/8"11' - 1 7/8"11' - 1 7/8"9' - 8"38' - 3 1/8"1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
WILKUS ARCHITECTS Exterior Elevations
Vintage Cooperative of Iowa City 2022.06.13
SD - V2
FRONT -MAIN ENTRY -NORTHWEST ELEVATION
Key Plan
1
2" STONE VENEER -
PRIMARY - GRAY
LEDGESTONE by
CENTURION
2" STONE VENEER -
SECONDARY
- TULSA RUBBLE by
CENTURION
VINYL SHAKES 7"
EXPOSURE - RED
CEDAR OR SIM
FIBER CEMENT LAP
SIDING W/ 5"
EXPOSURE
- SW 7066 'GRAY
MATTERS' or SIM
BUILDING TRIM,
COLUMN WRAPS &
EAVES - SW 6252 'ICE
CUBE' or SIM
WILKUS ARCHITECTS Exterior Elevations
Vintage Cooperative of Iowa City 2022.06.13
SD - V2
FRONT -WEST ELEVATION
FRONT -NORTH ELEVATION
2
3
20' - 0"
GARAGE HVAC
LOUVER
UNIT HVAC
LOUVER TYP
GATE TO
PUBLIC WAY
WILKUS ARCHITECTS Exterior Elevations
Vintage Cooperative of Iowa City 2022.06.13
SD - V2
END -NORTH ELEVATION END -WEST ELEVATION
REAR -SOUTHEAST ELEVATION
4 5
6
WILKUS ARCHITECTS Exterior Elevations
Vintage Cooperative of Iowa City 2022.06.13
SD - V2
REAR -SOUTH ELEVATION
REAR -EAST ELEVATION
7
8
1. ARCHITECTURAL 100' -0" = SURVEY XXXX.XX'2. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. DRAWN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE. NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES IMMEDIATELY.3. REFER TO DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULES FOR MORE INFORMATION.4. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS.5. GRADE SOIL AWAY FROM BUILDING TO DRAIN. SEE CIVIL AND LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR MORE INFORMATION.6. ALL SIDING BY "LP SMARTSIDE EXPERT FINISH SIDING"ELEVATION GENERAL NOTESMAIN PLT. HT.110'-1 1/8"PICKLEBALL PLT.HEIGHT113'-0 3/4"MAIN PLT. HT.110'-1 1/8"PICKLEBALL PLT.HEIGHT113'-0 3/4"MAIN PLT. HT.110'-1 1/8"PICKLEBALL PLT.HEIGHT113'-0 3/4"MAIN PLT. HT.110'-1 1/8"1605 N. ANKENY BLVD #130ANKENY, IOWA 50023PHONE: (515) 965-5336FAX: (515) 965-5335info@imprintarchitects.comPROJECT:PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONDATE:DRAWN BY:CHK'D BY:REVISED:\\imprintserver\data\projects\_2019 Projects\19-137.6 Iowa City\BIM\3_Architectural\19-137.6 Iowa CityCooperative Living-Clubhouse.rvt6/13/2022 11:42:33 AMA20019-137----IOWA CITY COOP CLUBHOUSEEXTERIORELEVATIONS06/13/2022MTKC1/8" = 1'-0"2BACK1/8" = 1'-0"3LEFT1/8" = 1'-0"4RIGHT1/8" = 1'-0"1FRONT
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Attachment 6
PARCEL "A"
64.37 Ac
2,803,876 SF
N88°49'39"E 421.58
N04°16'56"E
140.65
N59°
3
2'
4
3"
E
5
6
8.
8
8
S5
6
°
1
3
'
4
4
"
E
8
0
7
.
7
4
S19°29'26"E 549.93
S69°0
0'
0
8
"
W
1
,
1
4
8
.
8
5
L7
N87°42'14"E 617.81
L5L
4
L3
L2S73°10'
1
6
"
W
3
8
4
.
2
3N01°10'21"W 1,365.66C???
PARCEL "B"
0.31 Ac
13,443 SF
L1
L6
CURVE SEGMENT TABLE
CURVE
NUMBER
C???
DELTA
006°27'55"
RADIUS
1120.59'
ARC
LENGTH
126.45'
CHORD
LENGTH
126.38'
CHORD
BEARING
S76°24'13"W
LINE TABLE
LINE ID
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
LENGTH
129.67
145.05
107.05
54.95
139.59
157.11
79.51
BEARING
S69°04'09"W
N20°55'51"W
N84°57'19"W
S38°38'53"E
S20°55'51"E
S69°04'09"W
S69°04'09"W
SHEET NUMBER:
PAGE 1
PROJECT NO:
1026
ISSUED DATE:
06/20/2022
PROJECT MANAGER:
WELCH
REVISION:
A
IOWA CITY
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
MONUMENT HILLS
PROJECT NAME:
MONUMENT HILLS, LLC
CLIENT:
REZONING EXHIBIT
SHEET NAME:
ENGINEER:
REVISION LOG:
REV DESCRIPTION DATE
--CITY SUBMITTAL #1 04-14-22
ROCHE
S
T
E
R
A
V
E
N
U
E N. SCOTT BOULEVARDHERON CIRCLELOWE
R
W
E
S
T
B
R
A
N
C
H
R
D AMHURST STTETON CIRWINDMILL PLRALST
O
N
C
R
E
E
K
=1"
WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET
0 75 150 300225
150'HARVEST ROAD SEN. SCOTT BOULEVARDROCHES
T
E
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
EASTBURY DRIVEMIDDLEB
U
R
Y
R
O
A
D
GOLDF
I
N
C
H
C
I
R
LO
W
E
R
W
E
S
T
B
R
A
N
C
H
R
D
HICKORY TR
LHI
C
KOR
Y
P
LTAMARACK TRL
GREEN MOUNTAIN DR
RALST
O
N
C
R
E
E
K
APPLICANT INFORMATION
PROPERTY OWNER
MONUMENT FARMS, LLC
3810 PETERSON PL
NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317
DEVELOPER
MONUMENT HILLS, LLC
221 E BURLINGTON ST
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
(319) 631-1894
CIVIL ENGINEER
WELCH DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT
MICHAEL J. WELCH, PE
PO BOX 679
NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317
(319) 214-7501
REZONING EXHIBIT
MONUMENT HILLS
IOWA CITY, IOWA
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ZONING INFORMATION
CURRENT ZONING:ID-RS
PROPOSED ZONING - PARCEL "A" OPD / RS-5
PROPOSED ZONING - PARCEL "B" OPD / ID-RS
POINT OF BEGINNING
PARCEL "A"
A CITY SUBMITTAL #2 06-20-22
PARCEL "A":
PARCEL "A" BEING PART OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 200033 IN BOOK 41 PAGE 192 AND PART OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 200034 IN BOOK 41 PAGE 191 OF
THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M.,
IN IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 200034 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 41 PAGE 191 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY
RECORDER'S OFFICE, THENCE N01°10;21"W, 1,365.66 FEET; THENCE N88°49'39"E, 421.58 FEET; THENCE N04°16'56"E, 140.65 FEET; THENCE
N59°32'43"E, 568.88 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M.; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE
N87°42'14"E, 617.81 FEET, THENCE S56°13'44"E, 807.74 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF N. SCOTT BOULEVARD; THENCE ALONG SAID
LINE S19°29'26"E, 549.93 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ROCHESTER AVENUE; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE S69°00'08"W, 1,148.85
FEET, THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY S69°04'09"W, 129.67 FEET; THENCE N20°55'51"W, 145.05 FEET; THENCE N84°57'19"W,
107.05 FEET; THENCE S38°38'53"E, 54.95 FEET; THENCE S20°55'51"E, 139.59 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ROCHESTER AVENUE;
THENCE ALONG SAID LINE S69°04'09"W, 157.11 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY S69°04'11"W, 493.99 FEET, THENCE
CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY S73°10'16"W, 384.23 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY ON A 1,120.59 FOOT
RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY (CHORD BEARING S76°24'13"W, 126.38 FEET) TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 64.37 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
PARCEL "B":
PARCEL "A" BEING PART OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 200033 IN BOOK 41 PAGE 192 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., IN IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 200033 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 41 PAGE 192 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY
RECORDER'S OFFICE, THENCE S69°04'09"W, 129.67 FEET ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ROCHESTER AVENUE TO THE POINT OF
BEGINING; THENCE N20°55'51"W, 145.05 FEET; THENCE N84°57'19"W, 107.05 FEET; THENCE S38°38'53"E, 54.95 FEET; THENCE S20°55'51"E, 139.59
FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ROCHESTER AVENUE; THENCE N69°04'09"E, 79.51 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 0.31 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
Attachment 7
Attachment 8
Dear Parker,
I wish to thank you and the city for providing residents with the listening posts.
These sessions were invaluable for residents to view the proposed development,
get information from the developers and more importantly let their concerns be
heard.
I am not surprised the area is considered for development. I believe Low-Density
Single Family residential (RS-5) designation is keeping with the adjacent
neighborhood. Senior housing is badly needed in the city and Vintage
Cooperative offers an attractive element to the development.
My support is not without concerns. My 3 concerns are:
1.Rochester Avenue is heavily used by residents, delivery trucks and tractor
trailers. I am concerned about the increase in the volume of traffic, and the
added Regina school traffic which already creates a bottleneck. Excessive
speed by motorist is another problem.
2.The 6 proposed homes along Rochester do not fit the size and scope of the
development. I would like to see the lot sizes closer in size of the homes in
the development.
3.Rochester Hills is a unique setting -- surrounded by woods, fields and prairie
–with abundant wildlife. The proposed development will disrupt and
change all that is unique to our neighborhood. Much of the proposed
development include Bradford Pear trees which are now considered
undesirable and an invasive tree. I suggest the developers try to maintain
as many of the native Iowa trees and increase the diversity of the native
tree population as a buffer between the development and Rochester Hills.
I am keenly interested in following the review and approval process for this
proposed development. Please provide me with official notification of any
meetings -- planning and zoning meetings and Iowa City Council Meetings -- that
include this on the agenda.
Respectfully yours,
Sue Zaleski
631 Larch Ln
Attachment 9
From:Anne Russett
To:"Dylan Salisbury"
Cc:Parker Walsh
Subject:RE: Proposed development north of Rochester
Date:Wednesday, June 15, 2022 9:36:15 AM
Hi, Dylan –
Thank you for your email. We will pass this along to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Please note that
the Commission will not be considering this application at their meeting tonight. It will be placed on an
upcoming agenda. You can check here: https://www.icgov.org/city-government/boards/planning-and-
zoning-commission or reach to us if you have any questions.
Also, I am not aware of the applicant offering land to the City for a future park as part of this rezoning. City
staff requested that the applicant dedicate a portion of land adjacent to Calder Park to the City for
additional parkland; however, the applicant did not agree to this. We are currently working with the
applicant to figure out a way to get a trail connection from the proposed development to Calder Park.
Thanks, Anne
From: Dylan Salisbury <salisbury.dylan@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 12:34 AM
To: Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Proposed development north of Rochester
Hello Ms. Russett,
I am writing out of concern for the development planned north of Rochester Ave. between Larch Ln.
and n. Scott Blvd. My concern stems from the fact that this development has the potential to take a
significant amount of value out of the community without returning value in other ways.
Examples of value detraction:
Increased traffic and demand on infrastructure:
As the father of small children living on Rochester I am already surprised and concerned at
the current volume and speed of traffic on this road. It is not uncommon to see cars
traveling over 60mph or for long lines of congestion stuck behind slow drivers or machinery.
An increase of traffic which will result from this development will increase risk to
pedestrians, decrease air quality, and increase noise pollution.
The intersection of Rochester and Scott Blvd is already dangerous to pedestrians and
untenable for children. Increased traffic and longer wait times at the intersection will make it
more dangerous.
Increasing burden on schools:
With 70 additional single-family homes moving to the area what impact will this have on
Lemme Elementary? I’m concerned the resources per child will be diminished and the
quality of education overall will suffer.
Loss of natural space:
I recognize that this area is private land and inaccessible to the public however this
development will have a dramatic shift on the character of the neighborhood. It will detract
from the tranquility of the area and deprive wildlife of habitat.
Increased burden on Ralston Creek
We as a community already ask a lot of this tributary to the Iowa River. This loss of natural
filtration and introduction of greater volumes of storm runoff and more pollution will only
further damage this shared resource.
A collection of houses alone does not make for a community. I was surprised to learn that the
development will offer nothing in the way of community resource facilities or parks. I was informed
that the area in the proposal that was undevelopable due to it being too steep was offered to the
city for potential park development which the city turned down due to it being too steep. The city
should consider approval of fewer houses with that manageable terrain instead set aside for
community resources or a park.
The proposal now only allows for traffic to enter and exit the development by the way of Rochester
Ave. There needs to be other access to alleviate what would be even greater burden on this road
and the resulting congestion at the Rochester Ave. and Scott Blvd. intersection. This intersection
needs to be improved to accommodate pedestrian use as well as the increased traffic flow which will
result from this development.
Given the degree of detraction that this project will have I would like to see the private developers in
cooperation with the city more explicitly provide value to existing neighborhoods that this project
will disrupt.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
Dylan Salisbury
541 Amhurst St.
Iowa City, IA
52245
From:JANET WILLIAMS
To:Parker Walsh
Subject:proposed development
Date:Thursday, May 26, 2022 4:17:43 PM
Hello Mr. Walsh,
I am a resident of the Rochester Hills development, and I live on Larch Lane. I am writing to
express my concern regarding one component of the proposed Rochester Ave/Scott Blvd
development. My concern is the proposed 6 lots for homes to be located across from
Windmill PL and Teton Circle. This strip of land is steeply sloped and currently is the home of
large deciduous trees. These trees provide an important barrier to allow privacy for those of
us on Larch Lane.
I fear that the proposed plan would remove these trees, and the privacy we currently enjoy...
replacing the trees with a view of the back side of houses.
I urge you to reconsider this component of the plan. Although, at the neighborhood meeting,
we were told that these lots were necessary to raise money for the sidewalk installation. I do
not find this to be a compelling reason to remove the trees and compromise the privacy that
they provide to residents in Rochester Hills. Please reconsider this aspect of the plan and
other ways to reach the developer's goals without compromising the Rochester Hills
neighborhood.
Best regards,
Janet Williams, Rochester Hills
To: Parker Walsh, City of Iowa City
Date: May 26, 2022
Dear Parker,
My husband and I (Jay Semel and Joan Kjaer Kirkman, residents at 498 Windmill Place) attended the
May 25 neighborhood meeting with Welch developers regarding the proposed rezoning of property
located along the north side of Rochester Avenue between Larch Lane and North Scott Boulevard.
You were in attendance representing the City of Iowa City and we expressed our deep concerns about
the six proposed lots positioned directly facing Rochester Avenue between Windmill Place and Teton
Circle to the developers and to you. You indicated that we should send a letter expressing our concerns
to you and you told us you would be certain to share our letter with the Planning and Zoning
Commission. You also invited us to attend the June 15 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, which
we plan to do.
The lovely, dense, tree-lined section of Rochester Avenue between the home on the corner of Larch
Lane and the street entrance to Teton Circle contains many graceful, old-growth trees, in addition to
smaller trees and undergrowth, all of which provide a restful and green streetscape to those passing
along Rochester as well as a healthful, aesthetically enriching landscape to the residents who live in the
area of Windmill Heights, the condo development along Larch Lane, and the hundreds of walkers,
runners, bikers, and others who enjoy this natural landscape on a daily basis in a city that has already
lost a great deal of mature tree cover and natural, undeveloped pockets such as the area where the
Welch proposal indicates they plan to put six lots for homes or townhouses.
Our home is on the corner of Windmill Place and Rochester Avenue. We look directly onto the section
of the proposed development where the six lots are placed. We find it incredible that the developers
would even consider building homes on this section of Rochester as there is a sheer drop-off in the
height of the land. The developers claim that they will bring in dirt to make that area level with
Rochester. They kept referring to the need to build sidewalks there and this, alone, would require them
to rip out the trees. We disagree most forcefully. There is enough room to create sidewalks with only
minimal removal of trees in this section and we beg the members of this commission to carefully look at
the area in person. This is not a desirable building location for any number of reasons. We understand
that developers try to squeeze every possible building location out of a plot of land, but this part of the
proposal will bring them very little in the way of end profits (because of the immense effort to level that
land), will destroy the aesthetics of this section of Rochester Avenue, and will add to the traffic density
that will already be greatly increased by the rest of the proposed development.
We all recognize the health benefits human beings derive from tree and plant life, both physically and
emotionally. We hope this will be an important consideration as you examine the proposed
development. But the animal, bird, and insect life that thrives in this small section of the proposed
development deserves respect and accommodation, as well, as it enriches the livability of our entire
area, not only those who are most directly affected. If we flatten anything that gets in our way in the
interest of profit, we lose too much of our lovely city. We don't object to the other elements of the
development (except for the fact that increased traffic will no doubt be problematic), but we and many
Rex Clemmensen
15 Heron Cir
Iowa City, 52245
Dear Mr. Walsh,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the proposed Monument Hills Development
off Rochester.
While we understand and support development in our area, we are concerned with the traffic at
intersection of Heron Circle and Rochester. We live about 50 yards from that intersection. Rochester is
already a fairly busy street. At peak times, it can be difficult to access Rochester from Heron. The
proposed development will add a lot of traffic given that over 70 homes plus the Senior Cooperative
would add many people in the area. The US Census Bureau says that there are about 1.88 vehicles per
single family home in the US. That would mean roughly 130 more vehicles in the area from the houses
alone and probably 50 or more from the cooperative. So, about 180 more. All of those vehicles will exit
onto Rochester because there are no exits to any other roads in the proposal. If Allison is not built, ALL
of the vehicles will enter and exit via the Heron/Rochester intersection 50 yards from our home. I
understand that a vehicle count was done and that the conclusion was that Rochester, as an arterial, can
handle it. Frankly, I doubt that conclusion. During busy travel times, the Heron intersection will be a
mess.
Of course, we prefer that there be an exit constructed onto Scott to spread out the traffic. We ask that,
at a minimum, the city consider widening Rochester from the Scott intersection to at least Heron to
make it three lanes. Part of Rochester is already three lanes near the Scott intersection. A widening may
alleviate some of the traffic problems that the proposed development would inevitably create.
Again, we understand and appreciate that the city needs to expand in this area. We are hopeful that
some new commercial property will also be created as there are already a lot of people living in the
area and very little commercial development. And we sincerely hope that some thought will be given to
the traffic congestion that seems inevitable on Heron. Heron Circle and Goldfinch have no entrance or
outlet other than Rochester. We have no choice but to use the Heron/Rochester intersection. The
proposed new development would also have no choice but to enter and exit via Rochester. We want
that intersection to be safe and manageable.
Thank you for your consideration.
Cordially,
Rex and Judy Clemmensen
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 15, 2022 – 6:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Maria Padron, Billie
Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Nolte, Mark Signs
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT:
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
By a vote of
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CASE NO. REZ22-0009:
Consideration of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning to clarify historic preservation related
regulations.
Russett began the staff report noting that the proposed amendment is considered by staff to be
code cleanup. There are four minor amendments that they're proposing tonight. The first is to
clarify Historic Preservation exception applicability. The second is to remove the list of local
landmarks, historic districts and conservation districts from being codified within the text of the
code. The third item is to add an abbreviation for conservation overlay zones or OCD and the
fourth is related to Public Hearing Notification procedures. All of these amendments have been
reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office’s CLG coordinator (certified local government
coordinator), which is the State employee who works with historic preservation programs across
the state and she had no concerns with the proposed amendment. The Historic Preservation
Commission also recommended approval of these amendments at their meeting last week
Russett stated the first proposed amendment is related to clarifying historic preservation,
exception applicability and the Iowa City zoning code includes exceptions for historic
preservation purposes. The code allows the Board of Adjustment to grant a special exception to
waive or modify dimensional or site development standards in residential and commercial zones
that would prevent use or occupancy of a property that's designated as a local historic landmark
or registered in the National Register. It also allows the Board to grant a special exception to
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 15, 2022
Page 2 of 5
adaptively reuse a building that's designated as an Iowa City landmark or listed in the National
Register to certain other uses that are typically not allowed in the zone. The proposed
amendment would clarify that the exceptions apply to properties located in a historic district
overlay zone (or zoned OHD), which includes both local historic districts and local historic
landmarks. This does not change how staff has interpreted this section over the years
historically, staff has applied this code section to both local landmarks and local districts, so this
is for clarification purposes.
The next amendment is to remove the list that's currently in the code of local historic landmarks,
local historic districts and local conservation districts. These districts and landmarks will still exist,
it will just take the list of all the districts and all the landmarks out of the code. Staff uses several
methods to track historic properties, the main one is through the rezoning process when City
Council adopts a rezoning and zones land OHD, or a historic district overlay. Staff also
administratively keeps a list of all landmarks in all districts within the City and that's available on
the City website. This separate list that's codified of all the districts and landmarks in the zoning
code is not regularly updated and is redundant from the rezoning ordinance that are adopted by
Council, so staff is recommending that they be removed from the code and instead rely on the
ordinances that are adopted by Council and the staff administrative lists.
The third is to add an abbreviation for conservation overlay zone or OCD. This abbreviation is on
the zoning map, but it's not within the zoning code. This will allow the zoning text to be consistent
with the zoning map.
The last proposed amendment is related to the public notification procedures for public hearings
at the Historic Preservation Commission. Russett explained after receipt of an application for a
historic landmark, or a local historic district or local conservation district, the zoning code requires
that a public notice be mailed. However, the current requirements have been a source of
confusion and complaints from property owners, so the proposed amendment would clarify the
staff’s mailing procedures and who gets notified of the proposed rezoning. The code also
requires that proposed local historic districts, local historic landmarks and local conservation
districts be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office for review, however, the State will
not review local historic landmarks or local conservation districts so the code is going to be
updated to clarify that the State will only review local historic districts and that will help align City
policy with State policy related to those reviews. Russett did note planning staff is also working
with the City Attorney's Office on some minor text changes to the mailing procedures.
Staff is recommending that the zoning code be amended as illustrated in the memo to address
numerous code cleanup items related to historic preservation.
Padron asked regarding the OCD when reading the entire wording, why doesn't it match.
Russett doesn’t know why it was set up that way but it's the same for historic district overlays,
which are OHD, so for some reason, the abbreviation has the O come first and this is just staying
consistent with how it's done.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 15, 2022
Page 3 of 5
Craig asked for some background on the State Historical Preservation Office, she looked at their
website briefly but couldn't really see where their charter came from or what they have the
authority to do. Russett explained they give some discretion to the historic preservation
commissions, but they operate the certified local government program and there are certain
benefits and incentives that come along with being a certified local government such as access
to grants and technical assistance. Craig asked if there are some state tax benefits of being in a
historical district, or just local. Russett confirmed that SHPO also deal with the state historic
preservation tax credits. She added they also would review any national register nomination that
the City would propose and review a proposal for a local historic district.
Hensch noted he is surprised that the was put in the code since it could be constantly changing,
therefore this amendment makes perfect sense. He also was surprised to learn that State
Historic Preservation Office isn't interested or won't review the local historic landmark
designations, he just assumed that's what they did.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one, Hensch closed the public hearing.
Padron moved to recommend that the Zoning Code be amended as illustrated in
Attachment 1 to address code clean-up items relating to historic preservation. Seconded
by Craig.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: MAY 18, 2022:
Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of May 18, 2022.
Martin seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett gave some Council related updates, first, Council recommended denial of the proposed
MidAmerican substation in the County. Council did recommended approval of the accessory
dwelling unit on American Legion Road in the County. They adopted the drinking establishment
text amendment related to the door between the drinking establishment and the retail use and
they adopted the text amendment related to private basic utilities in P zones. Council also
approved the final plat for Hickory Trail.
Russett also announced today is Commissioner Martin's last meeting and presented her with a
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 15, 2022
Page 4 of 5
certificate of appreciation for more than 10 years of service to the community as a member of the
Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission.
Craig wondered if staff could talk a little bit about the conversation about the North Side
becoming a SSMID. Russett noted the City hasn't received an application or anything. Craig
noted it might just be somebody floating an idea, there was an article in the Press Citizen.
ADJOURNMENT:
Townsend moved to adjourn.
Craig seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-1 (Martin in the negative as it was her last meeting).
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2021-2022
7/1 7/15 8/5 8/19 9/2 9/16 10/7 10/21 11/4 1/5 2/2 2/16 3/2 4/20 5/4 5/18 6/15
CRAIG, SUSAN X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
HENSCH, MIKE X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
MARTIN, PHOEBE X O/E O/E O/E X O/E X O/E X X O/E X X X X X X
NOLTE, MARK X X X O/E X O/E O/E X X O O X O/E X O/E X O
PADRON, MARIA X X X X X X X O/E X O/E X X X X X O/E X
SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X O/E
TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member