HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 8.03.2022PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Wednesday, August 3, 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. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
Development Items
4. Case No. REZ22-0010
Location: 518 Bowery Street
An application for a rezoning of approximately 1,470 square feet of land from High Density
Multi-Family Residential zone with a Historic District Overlay (OHD/RM-44) to Neighborhood
Commercial zone with a Historic District Overlay (OHD/CN-1).
5. Case No. REZ22-0001 & SUB22-0001
Location: East of Camp Cardinal Blvd and west of Camp Cardinal Rd
An application for a rezoning of approximately 27.68 acres of land from Interim
Development-Research Park (ID-RP) zone to Low Density Multi-Family zone with a Planned
Development Overlay (OPD/RM-12) and an application for a preliminary plat of Cardinal
Heights, a residential subdivision with 22 duplex lots and 1 multi-family lot.
6. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: July 6, 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: August 17 / September 7 / September 21
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ22-0010 518 Bowery St
Prepared by: Emani
Brinkman, Planning Intern
Date: August 3, 2022
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Connor Moellenbeck
Daydrink Coffee
connor@daydrink.coffee
Contact Person: See above.
Owner: M&W Properties
Ryan Wade
ryanwade1000@gmail.com
Requested Action: Rezone from High Density
Multi-Family Residential
with a Historic District
Overlay (OHD/RM-44)
Zone to Neighborhood
Commercial with a Historic
District Overlay (OHD/CN-
1) Zone
Purpose:
To allow for a coffee shop
on the property
Location:
518 Bowery Street
Location Map:
Size: 1,470 Square Feet
Existing Land Use and Zoning: High Density Multi-Family
Residential with a Historic
District Overlay (OHD/RM-
44), Commercial building
2
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residential
(RM-44)
South: Residential
(RM-44)
East: Residential
(RM-44)
West: Residential
(RM-44)
Comprehensive Plan:
25+ DU/A
District Plan:
Central
Neighborhood Open Space District:
C3
Public Meeting Notification: Properties within 500’ of the
subject property received
notification of the Planning
and Zoning Commission
public meeting. A rezoning
sign was posted on the site
July 5, 2022.
File Date: July 5, 2022
45 Day Limitation Period:
August 19, 2022
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Connor Moellenbeck, is seeking a rezoning from High Density Multi-Family
Residential with a Historic District Overlay (OHD/RM-44) to Neighborhood Commercial with
a Historic District Overlay (OHD/CN-1) for a 1,470 square foot property located at 518
Bowery Street. The applicant intends to open a coffee shop at the subject property.
The subject property contains a one and a half story building with a one-story addition. The
building was originally constructed sometime between 1856-1864 as a grocery store by
John M. Haas. Having been established as a commercial business prior to the adoption of
a zoning code by the City in the mid-1920s, the property has continued to be used for non-
residential purposes on the ground floor throughout its existence. The existing 720 square-
foot building was originally used as a grocery store, and historic records show continued
use as a grocery store from 1895 until the early 1970s when it served as the first home of
the New Pioneer Cooperative Society. A retail establishment, the House of Jade, moved in
when the New Pioneer moved out in 1975. Records show a brief tenancy by Helen Caldicott
Community School in 1983. More recently the building was used by Zaza’s Pasta and then
as an office.
In 2012, the property was designated a Local Historic Landmark. The historic designation
protects the building from demolition as well as exterior modification that would diminish its
historic integrity. The designation also makes the property eligible for certain exceptions
3
and zoning waivers to allow the continued use of the property.
In 2012 the property was granted a special exception to allow for sales-oriented retail use
and then in 2016 was granted a special exception for general office and commercial retail
(EXC12-000010 and EXC16-00010). These special exceptions allowed the continuance of
commercial uses within a residential zone. Since the building has remained vacant for over
a year, the property has lost its non-conforming use status and cannot receive a special
exception for a different non-conforming use. In 2013 there was another special exception
application submitted to convert the sales-oriented retail use to a coffee shop, the
application was ultimately withdrawn. Given the size of the property and structure, it is not
possible for the property to be re-adapted for a multi-family use and single-family residential
is not allowed within the zoning district.
The applicant wishes to establish another Daydrink coffee shop location at the property.
Their mission is to provide high quality coffee while preventing continued adoption of
“single-use” plastic. Daydrink only use glass jars for to-go containers with the hope of
creating a more sustainable focused community.
The applicant held a good neighbor meeting on July 27, 2022, but no one from the public
attended.
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning: The property is currently zoned as High-Density Multi-Family
Residential with a Historic Preservation Overlay (OHD/RM-44). RM-44 zoning provides
areas for development of high-density, multi-family dwellings and group living quarters but
does not allow single-family or duplex dwellings. The zone allows, as a provisional use,
hospitality-oriented retail (hotels, guest houses, meeting or event facilities), but does not
allow any other retail or commercial uses. Through a special exception, community
service uses are allowed. The purpose of High-Density Multi-Family Residential is for
high-density multi-family housing located in proximity to downtown, the University, or
other employment centers. The minimum lot requirement for a non-residential use in RM-
44 zoning is 5,000 square feet; minimum frontage is 35 feet; front setback is 20 feet; the
required side setback is 10 feet. The property does not meet any of these minimum
dimensional standards. The property does meet the rear 20 feet setback standards.
The property is a Local Historic Landmark and is listed in the National Register of Historic
Places. Changes to the exterior of the building would require review by the Historic
Preservation Commission. The Historic District Overlay will still apply if the underlying
zone is changed to CN-1.
Proposed Zoning: The purpose of the Neighborhood Commercial Zone (CN-1) is to
promote small-scale retail sales and personal service uses in a neighborhood shopping
area. The zoning encourages neighborhood shopping areas that are conveniently located
and that primarily serve nearby residential neighborhoods and promote pedestrian-
oriented development at an intensity level that is compatible with surrounding residential
areas. Allowed uses are restricted in size to promote smaller, neighborhood-serving
businesses and to limit adverse impacts on nearby residential areas. Unlike the RM-44
zone, the CN-1 zone does not have a minimum lot area requirement nor a minimum
frontage requirement. The front setback requirement is 5’ and the side and rear
4
setbacks are 0’ unless the property abuts a non-residential zone, which is the case with
the rear boundary of the subject property.
Uses allowed in the CN-1 zone are outlined in Table 1.
Table 1 – Uses Allowed in CN-1
Household living uses Group Households PR
Multi-family dwellings PR
Animal Related Commercial
Use
General PR
Commercial Recreational
Uses
Indoor PR/S
Eating or Drinking
Establishments
PR/S
Office Use General PR
Medical PR
Quick Vehicle Servicing
Uses
S
Retail Uses Alcohol sales-oriented retail PR
Hospitality oriented retail PR
Personal service oriented PR
Sales oriented PR
Basic utility uses PR/S
Community Service Uses General community service S
Daycare uses PR
Educational facilities Specialized PR
Parks and open space uses PR
Utility-scale ground-
mounted solar energy
systems
S
Communication
transmission facility uses
PR/S
P = Permitted; PR = Provisional; S = Special Exception
Coffee shops are classified as Eating Establishments. Eating establishments are
provisionally allowed in CN-1 if they meet certain standards (see 14-4B-4-B-10), such
as a maximum occupancy load of 100, which can be increased through a special
exception. Additionally, drive-throughs are prohibited.
Given the proximity to adjacent residential uses, staff recommends a condition that
commercial uses may not be open to the public between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. This helps to ensure the commercial use of the property remains compatible
with nearby residential properties and to minimize activities that may be injurious to the
use and enjoyment of residential uses in the vicinity. A similar condition was also
recommended for Deluxe Bakery’s rezoning (REZ17-0006).
Parking: The property has two parking spots. Eating establishments require 1 space
per 150 square feet or 1/3 the occupant load, whichever is less. Depending on the
floorplan, which is yet to be determined, the proposed use could require 4 off-street
5
parking spaces. Staff has notified the applicant that the property is eligible for a parking
reduction via special exception due to its local historic landmark status and one may be
needed for the proposed coffee shop. On-street parking along the portion of Bowery
Street is prohibited during daytime business hours. Additionally, there is a high demand
for on-street parking in the surrounding neighborhoods.
Rezoning Review Criteria:
Staff uses the following two criteria in the review of rezoning:
1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan.
2. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan:
The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this property as
appropriate for multi-family residential development at a density of 25+ dwelling units per
acre. The Central District Plan Future Land Use Map has the subject property designated
as High-Density Multi-Family Redevelopment. This land use category is targeted at the
redevelopment of existing multi-family where living conditions are less than ideal due to
a lack of adequate pedestrian amenities and little open space. The plan category notes
that possible redevelopment scenarios will need to be assessed prior to redevelopment.
Due to the subject property’s local landmark status, demolition of the building will not
happen unless the building was structurally unsound.
Although the proposed rezoning does not directly align with the land use policy direction
outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan, there are several goals
and policies within the plans that support the rezoning. The Comprehensive Plan
encourages sustainable and walkable neighborhoods and envisions neighborhood
commercial uses as contributing to the quality of life within neighborhoods. The Plan
states:
Neighborhood commercial areas can provide a focal point and gathering place
for a neighborhood. The businesses within a neighborhood commercial center
should provide shopping opportunities within convenient walking distance for
the residents in the immediate area. The design of the neighborhood
commercial center should have a pedestrian orientation with the stores placed
close to the street, but with sufficient open space to allow for outdoor cafes and
patios or landscaping. Parking should be located to the rear and sides of stores
with additional parking on the street (IC2030: Comprehensive Plan Update
page 22).
The Comprehensive Plan also has goals about establishing strategies to retain and
encourage growth of existing locally owned businesses, and recognize that small, and
independently owned, local businesses are integral to Iowa City’s ‘brand’ and sense of
identity (IC2030: Comprehensive Plan Update page 32). Also, to promote economic
growth, encourage a healthy mix of local businesses and support entrepreneurial activity.
Allowing the rezoning of this property, allows for the city to create space for neighborhood
commercial. Additionally, since this building is currently vacant, a rezoning can help with
infill development which is another goal in the comprehensive plan (IC2030:
Comprehensive Plan Update page 7).
6
The Central District Plan acknowledges several properties originally developed with
buildings that served as neighborhood grocery stores and have remained, over time as
non-conforming commercial uses. These include the Design Ranch Building on Dodge
Street, the former Seaton’s Meat Market, Watt’s Grocery on Muscatine, and Deluxe
Bakery on South Summit Street. This property is like the other properties in that it has
historically been commercial in a residential zone. Keeping these buildings as their
original type of use create neighborhood commercial areas that serve as the focal point
of a neighborhood (Central District Plan page 3).
Iowa City’s Historic Preservation Plan also has goals to protect historic resources through
efficient legislation and regulatory measures (Goal 2). The Plan also recommends that
the City adopt strategies to conserve historic neighborhoods which reflect their organic
development, historical roles and traditions, modern needs, and economic health and
stability (Goal 10).
Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood Character: This building has operated
with non-residential uses since the building was built. This property has contained a
grocery store, retail businesses, and offices, all as non-conforming uses. Those
previous uses were compatible with the surrounding neighborhood character. As noted
by the Comprehensive Plan, neighborhood commercial contributes to the quality of life
in the neighborhood.
When the building was built over 150 years ago, it was deliberately built along a main
thoroughfare near a high traffic area, to attract business (National Register of Historic
Places nomination, page 11, 16, and 19). The building being in a high-density area
allows for pedestrian traffic for people who live in the immediate area.
Traffic Implications: Due to the size of the lot, the limited ability to provide off -street
parking, and the small amount of street parking on the surrounding streets, these would
be a deterrent to people driving to the site. Any business on this property will have to
rely on customers coming on foot or bike from the surrounding neighborhood. The
property is in an established, high-density neighborhood. The neighborhood has easy
pedestrian and biking access and is close to the University and downtown.
SUMMARY: In summary, Staff supports the rezoning of 518 Bowery Street from High
Density Multi-Family Residential with a Historic District Overlay (OHD/RM-44) Zone to
Neighborhood Commercial with a Historic District Overlay (OHD/CN-1) Zone. Both the
Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan contain language about having
commercial uses in neighborhoods to help strengthen the community and increase the
diversity of neighborhoods. The Historic Preservation Plan contains goals to protect
historic resources through regulatory measures and conserve historic neighborhoods.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the rezoning will be
considered by the City Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the application submitted by Connor Mollenbeck for a rezoning from
High Density Multi-Family Residential with a Historic Preservation (OHD/RM-44) to
Neighborhood Commercial with a Historic Preservation Overlay (OHD/CN-1) for a 1,470
7
square foot property located at 518 Bowery Street be approved, subject to the following
conditions:
1.Any commercial use may not be open to the public between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00
a.m.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Location Map
2.Zoning Map
3.Aerial Photograph
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
BOWERY STS VAN BUREN STS JOHNSON STREZ22-0010
518 Bowery Streetµ
Prepared By: Emani Brinkman
Date Prepared: July 2022
An application submitted by Connor Moellenbeck for approval of a
rezoning of 1,470 square feet of 518 Bowery Street from High
Density Multi-Family Residential Zone with a Historic District
Overlay (OHD/RM-44) to Neighborhood Commercial Zone with a
Historic District Overlay (OHD/CN-1).
0 0.01 0.020.01 Miles
BOWERY STS VAN BUREN STS JOHNSON STRM44
REZ22-0010
518 Bowery Streetµ
0 0 00 Miles
Prepared By: Emani Brinkman
Date Prepared: July 2022
An application submitted by Connor Moellenbeck for approval of a
rezoning of 1,470 square feet of 518 Bowery Street from High
Density Multi-Family Residential Zone with a Historic District
Overlay (OHD/RM-44) to Neighborhood Commercial Zone with a
Historic District Overlay (OHD/CN-1).
LYON'S 2ND ADDITION E 21' OF S 70' LOT 15 BLK 6
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ22-0001 & SUB22-0001
Prepared by: Esther Tetteh, Associate Planner
Date: August 3, 2022
Cardinal Heights
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Jason Walton
Navigate Homes
jason@navigatehomesiowa.com
Contact Person: Brian Vogel
Hall & Hall Engineers, Inc
1860 Boyson Road
Hiawatha, IA 52233
319-362-9548
brian@halleng.com
Owner: Jason Walton
IC Grove East, LLC
Requested Action: Rezoning from interim Development – Research
Park (ID-RP) to Low Density Multi-Family with a
Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-12) and
approval of a preliminary plat
Purpose:
To create Cardinal Heights and allow for the
development of 78 dwelling units
Location:
East of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and West of
Camp Cardinal Road.
Location Map:
Size: 27.68 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Undeveloped, zoned for Interim Development-
Research Park (ID-RP)
2
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: OPD/RS-8 - Medium Density Single-
Family Residential with a Planned
Development Overlay
South: OPD/CC-2 - Community Commercial
with a Planned Development Overlay
East: OPD/RS-5 - Low Density Single-Family
Residential with a Planned
Development Overlay and
ID-RS - Interim Development Single-
Family Residential
West: OPD/RM-12 - Low Density Multi-Family
Residential with a Planned
Development Overlay
Comprehensive Plan:
8-16 units / acre
District Plan: None
Neighborhood Open Space District:
NW1
Public Meeting Notification: Property owners in the surrounding areas have
been notified of the proposed subdivision and
rezoning and received notification of the Planning
and Zoning Commission public meeting. A
rezoning and a subdivision sign were posted on
the site on Camp Cardinal Boulevard.
File Date: April 19, 2022
45 Day Limitation Period:
The applicant has waived the 45-day review
period.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Navigate Homes, is requesting approval for the rezoning of 27.68 acres from Interim
Development—Research Park (ID-RP) zone to Low Density Multi-Family Residential with a
Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-12) and a preliminary plat for land located east of Camp
Cardinal Blvd and west of Camp Cardinal Road. The Preliminary Plat, Planned Development
Overlay, and Sensitive Areas Development Plan is provided in Attachment 3. The proposed
development would allow for the development of 22 duplexes, 4 townhomes and 30 multi-family
units. For renderings of the multi-family building see Attachment 4.
The development proposes the extension of Deer Creek Road off Camp Cardinal Blvd through the
parcel connecting to Camp Cardinal Road. The proposed preliminary plat for the development is a
cul-de-sac - loop layout running north and south, lined by 22 duplexes. Following Deer Creek Road
east toward Camp Cardinal Road, the proposal includes a 30-unit multi-family complex (13 two
bedroom, 17 one-bedroom units) and 4 townhomes with additional duplexes on the south side of
Deer Creek.
The site contains regulated sensitive features including wetlands, woodlands, and slopes. The
Preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan proposes impacts to wetlands and modifications to
the 100’ wetland buffer requirement (14-5I-6), which requires a Level II Sensitive Areas Review. A
Level II Sensitive Areas Review requires submission of a Sensitive Areas Development Plan
3
(SADP). Furthermore, a Level II sensitive areas review is considered a type of planned development
and as such, must comply with the applicable approval criteria set forth in chapter 3, article A,
"Planned Development Overlay Zone (OPD)".
Good Neighbor Policy: The surrounding property owners have been notified of the proposed
rezoning and preliminary plat. A virtual Good Neighbor meeting was scheduled and took place on
February 1, 2022. A summary of the meeting is included in Attachment 5.
ANALYSIS:
Current zoning: The area is zoned as Interim Development—Research Park (ID-RP). This zone
is intended for areas of managed growth in which agricultural and other nonurban uses of land
may continue until the city is able to provide services and urban development can occur. The
interim development zone is the default zoning district to which all undeveloped areas should be
classified until city services are provided. Upon provision of city services, the City or the property
owner may initiate rezoning to zones consistent with the comprehensive plan, as amended.
Proposed zoning: The applicant is requesting to rezone the entire area (27.68 acres) to Low
Density Multi-Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-12). The purpose of the Low-
Density Multi-Family Residential Zone (RM-12) is to provide for the development of high density,
single-family housing and low density, multi-family housing. In this case, a mix of multi-family
housing units and duplex units provides a diverse variety of housing throughout the neighborhood,
as intended by RM-12 zoning. Because of this mixture, attention to site and building design is
important in this zone to ensure that these housing types are compatible with one another. Due to
impacts to the sensitive areas, a Planned Development Overlay is required. The OPD process
allows for a mixture of uses, provided that additional criteria in section 14-3A-4 and 14-3A-5 of the
City Code are met.
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 applicant is requesting a rezoning to an OPD/RM-12 zone, which allows for a density
of 15 dwelling units per net acre of land area (total land minus public and private streets right-of-
way). The proposed 30-unit complex, 4 townhomes, and 22 duplexes adds up to 78 total units
across the 25.02 acres of net site area, which equals 3.1 dwelling units per acre.
Land Uses Proposed: The applicant is proposing a mix of duplex and multi-family residential. There
are currently two areas to the west zoned RM-12 and one area to the southeast. The property to
the immediate west was rezoned to OPD/RM-12 in 2017 but remains undeveloped. The property
to the northwest also has RM-12 zoning with townhomes constructed, as well as ongoing townhome
development. Cardinal Villas Condominiums located southeast of the subject property is also zoned
as OPD/RM-12 with two multi-family buildings on the property. The area to the north is zoned
OPD/RS-8 and contains duplexes similar to those proposed. The addition of more duplexes and
multi-family housing to the area will complement the existing, ongoing, and future development
plans in the area.
Mass, Scale, and General Layout: Due to the potential impacts of the sensitive areas, the
development layout is more compact instead of spreading out over the property. The proposed
duplexes are located on the western edge of the site off a cul-de-sac street to the north of Deer
Creek Road and a loop street to the south of Deer Creek Road. Additional duplexes front Deer
4
Creek Road to the east along with the proposed 30-unit multi-family buildings and townhomes. The
multifamily and townhomes cannot exceed 35 feet in height and have a footprint of 12,000 square
feet and 3,660 square feet respectively.
The OPD plan shows duplex footprints with the access to garages from the front façade. 14-3A-
4K-1c-(2) requires garages and off-street parking areas 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. This standard will be reviewed at site plan and building
permitting stage to ensure full compliance to the requirement.
Open Space: The proposed development will need to comply with private open space standards,
outlined in section 14-2B-4E of the City Code. For the 30-unit complex, the calculation comes out
to be 430 square feet of private open space required (10 SF per bedroom, 43 total bedrooms in
complex). The duplexes require a minimum of 300 SF per dwelling and the townhomes require
minimum 150 SF of useable open space. The applicant is aware of these open space standards as
they are listed on the preliminary plat. The OPD plans shows 10,000 square feet of on-site open
space for the multi-family uses. Additionally, the preliminary plat includes two outlots totaling 16.76
acres that contain regulated sensitive areas that will be placed in conservation easement at final
platting.
Traffic Circulation: The proposed development will have access off of Camp Cardinal Blvd through
an extension of Deer Creek Road. The extension of Deer Creek Road will provide access to the
entire site and, until Camp Cardinal Rd and a proposed traffic circle at the intersection of Deer Creek
Road and Camp Cardinal Road are constructed, Deer Creek Road will provide temporary access
to Camp Cardinal Road. This will provide a secondary access, if needed. The subdivision code 15-
3-2K authorizes the City to request an applicant to contribute 50% of the reconstruction cost of
bringing the segment of the subject street that abuts the subject property to city standards. As a
condition to the rezoning, owner shall contribute 50% of the cost of upgrading Camp Cardinal Road
to City standards prior to issuance of building permit. The infrastructure also requires traffic calming
devices. The contribution shall include 50% of the cost of construction of the traffic circle at the
intersection of Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal Road.
2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities.
The property can be serviced by both sanitary sewer and water. Access to the site will be provided
through the extension of Deer Creek Road, which will connect to both Camp Cardinal Blvd and
Camp Cardinal Road.
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 nearest neighbors to the north of the subject property are separated by a woodland
preservation area and a stream corridor. The nearest neighbors to the east and southeast will
also remain separated due to the preservation of woodlands. The proposed development does
not adversely affect views, light and air, property values and privacy of neighboring properties any
more than would 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 purpose of this Title, and with other building regulations.
The proposed development is not seeking any waivers or variations from the underlying zoning
requirements. Additionally, the proposed RM-12 zone allows the proposed mix of residential land
5
uses proposed. The proposed multi-family building, duplexes, and townhomes provide a range of
housing options. When factoring in both the total building area occupied (approximately 2.27
acres or 98,800 SF) and the total area occupied by R.O.W. (2.61 acres), the total lot coverage is
equal to approximately 15.5%. Meaning, approximately 84.5% of the net site area will remain free
of buildings, parking, and vehicular maneuvering areas. The mix of housing, the extension of Deer
Creek Road, and the preservation of sensitive features are in the public interest.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The area does not have a district plan hence, the
proposed development is reviewed according to the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan.
The Future Land Use Map of the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject property as
appropriate for residential development at a density of 8-16 dwelling units per acre. As previously
stated, the subject property proposes around 3.1 dwelling units per net acre. This density is
actually below what is envisioned in the plan; however, the site is constrained due to the sensitive
features.
The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan encourages urban growth through compact and connected
neighborhoods. The Preliminary Plat, Planned Development Overlay, and Sensitive Areas
Development Plan demonstrates a commitment to these goals by providing wide interconnected
sidewalks and a variety of housing types that as noted in the Comprehensive Plan, “Ensure a mix
of housing types within each neighborhood to provide options for households of all types and
people of all incomes”.
The Comprehensive Plan is also aimed at encouraging pedestrian-oriented development and
attractive and functional streetscapes that make it safe, convenient, and comfortable to walk. The
applicant is showing sidewalks along both sides of Maclan Court and Dear Creek Road. The plan
also shows a sidewalk along Maclan Loop and connected to the Deer Creek sidewalk on the
subject property. The sidewalk along Deer Creek will connect to the existing sidewalk along Camp
Cardinal Blvd.
Although the comprehensive plan discourages cul-de-sacs and emphasizes stub streets for future
connectivity, the proposed development is limited due to sensitive areas and existing
neighborhood constraints. Specifically, due to the layout of the neighborhood to the north, which
incorporates a loop street, connecting with that existing neighborhood is not possible. By
proposing development on the most buildable portion of the property, and thereby preserving the
natural areas of the property, the development aligns with the goals of the comprehensive plan.
Subdivision Design: The proposed subdivision contains 23 residential lots and two outlots. Outlot
A is noted on the preliminary plat as open space area to be maintained by the homeowner’s
association. Outlot B will also contain open space to be maintained by the HOA, but it will also
include a storm water management area. Additionally, the preliminary plat shows a conservation
easement area that will ensure the preservation of sensitive resources. The subject plat proposes
the designation of 2.61 acres of public right of way though the extension of Deer Creek Road. This
also includes the construction of Maclan Court and Maclan Loop from Deer Creek Road. Maclan
Court is proposed as a cul-de-sac lined by 12 duplexes. Maclan Loop is a loop street lined by
another 7 duplexes proposed. East of these streets and along Deer Creek Road are the proposed
4 townhomes, housing complex, and the remaining 3 duplexes.
According to section 15-3-2A-4 of the City Code, cul-de-sacs should be avoided unless it can be
demonstrated that existing constraints prevent the extension of the street to access existing
streets within or abutting the subdivision. Due to sensitive area constraints, as well as the northern
neighborhoods providing no access point due to loop street systems, there is not an outlet for
through street access. Because of these constraints on the property, the applicant proposes
Maclan Court ending in a cul-de-sac. Staff supports the proposed cul-de-sac design since
previous iterations with a loop street resulted in greater impact on sensitive features.
6
Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The subject property contains regulated wetlands,
woodlands, and slopes. 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
buffers, 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 southeastern
corner of the subject property. According to 14-5I-6E-3b of the City Code, a wetland buffer may
be reduced by up to 50’ 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 0.90 acres. Approximately 14% of the existing
wetlands will be disturbed or 0.059 acres to accommodate leveling of some lots and stormwater
management. Per 14-5I-6G, staff has required the applicant to provide mitigation for the proposed
disturbance to the existing wetland. Compensatory mitigation for the impacts to a 0.015-acre
forested wetland will be provided at a ratio of 1:2. Compensatory mitigation for the southern
wetland areas will be provided at a ratio of 1:1.5. The applicant has proposed to meet the City’s
wetland mitigation requirements by providing onsite wetland mitigation. Specifically, the applicant
will provide 0.096 acres of wetland to mitigate the loss of 0.059 acres of wetlands.
Woodlands – As shown in Table 2, the subject property has approximately 22.9 acres of woodlands.
The preliminary SADP shows that the development proposes to disturb 9.35 acres (55.8%) of
woodlands on the subject property. An additional 3.43 acres will remain unimpacted but located
within the 50’ woodland buffer area. The disturbed woodlands and buffer area total 12.78 acres
(55.8%), leaving roughly 44.2% (10.12 acres) unimpacted which is above the 20% woodland
retention allowed per the sensitive areas ordinance.
Table 2 – Summary of Woodlands
Existing Disturbed & Buffer Area Woodlands Preserved
22.9 acres
100%
12.78AC
(55.8%)
10.12AC
(44.2%)
Steep, Critical, and Protected Slopes – The subject property contains critical and protected
slopes. The impacts to these slopes are outlined in Table 3. Approximately 19.3% of critical
slopes are proposed to be impacted, which is below the 35% of critical slopes that are allowed to
be impacted per the sensitive areas ordinance. The sensitive areas ordinance only allows impacts
to protected slopes if they are manmade or needed for necessary infrastructure through a Level II
sensitive areas review. The approximately 10.3% of protected slopes that will be impacted are
either manmade slopes or for the construction of the storm water basin.
Table 3 – Summary of Regulated Slopes
Slopes Existing Impacted % Non-impacted (%)
Critical 328,991(100%) 63,473 (19.3%) 276,327 (84.1%)
Protected 55,031(100%) 5,575 (10.3%)
(manmade)
49,456 (89.7%)
7
Archaeological Sites – Staff reached out to the State archaeologist and inquired about needing
an archaeological study for the site. Staff was informed that a study was conducted in 2004 and
there are no current concerns with 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 27.68 acres of RM-12 zoning, the developer would be required to
dedicate 1.87 acres to the City or pay a fee in-lieu of land dedication.
Storm Water Management: All storm water management requirements for this site are being
met in the existing regional retention basin located on the west side of Camp Cardinal Blvd and
the proposed stormwater detention basin in Outlot B. Public Works staff have reviewed and
approved the preliminary storm water management plans. Additional review will occur at the time
of final platting.
Sanitary Sewer Service: The development is serviced by a previously approved sanitary sewer
plan of improvements that was originally proposed for development on the west side of Camp
Cardinal Blvd. The proposed sanitary sewer line is located at the north end of the subject property.
Correspondence: Staff has received public correspondence (Attachment 6) from neighboring
residents voicing both concern and support for the proposed development. Generally, the
concerns expressed relate to traffic and impacts on property values.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be
scheduled for consideration by the City Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of REZ22-0001, a proposal to rezone approximately 27.68 acres of
land located east of Camp Cardinal Blvd and west of Camp Cardinal Road from Interim
Development – Research Park (ID-RP) zone to Low Density Multifamily Residential with a
Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-12) zone subject to the following condition:
1. Prior to issuance of building permit, Owner shall contribute 50% of the cost of upgrading
Camp Cardinal Road to City standards. This contribution shall include 50% of the cost of
construction of the traffic circle at the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal
Road.
Staff also recommends approval of SUB22-0001, a preliminary plat for Cardinal Heights.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Aerial Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Preliminary Plat, Planned Development Overlay, and Sensitive Areas Development Plan
4. Multi-Family Building Renderings
5. Good Neighbor Meeting Summary
6. Public Correspondence
Approved by: _______________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
PRESTONLNCAMPCA R D I N A LRDDEER CREEK RD BUTTERNUTLN
KENNEDYPKWY
B U T T E R NUTCTCAMPCARDINALBLVD SHAGBARK C T
G ATH E R IN G P L ACELNR Y A NCTHIGH
WAY 218
CAMP CARDINAL BLVD
218
SB
TO
M
ELR
O
S
E
A
V
E
MELROSEAVETO218NB
REZ22-0001 and SUB22-0002Cardinal Pointe Heightsµ
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles Prepared By: Emani BrinkmanDate Prepared: January 2022
An application submitted by Hall & Hall Engineers, INC, on behalf ofIC Grove East, LLC, for approval of a rezoning and subdivision of 27.68 acres located east of Camp Cardinal Blvd from Interim Development-Research Park (ID-RP)zone to Low Density Multi-Family Residential with a PlannedDevelopment Overlay (OPD/RM-12) zone.
PRESTONLNCAMPCA R D I N A LRDDEERCREEK RD BUTTERNUTLN
KEN
NEDYPKWY
B U T T E R NUTCTC
A
M
P
CARDINALBLVD SHAGBAR K C T
G ATH E R IN G P L ACELNR Y ANCTHIGH
WAY 218
CAMP CARDINAL BLVD
218
S
B
TO
M
ELR
O
S
E
A
V
E
MELROSEAVETO218NB
P1 P2
ID-RSRM12ID-RP
RS8
RR1
RS5
REZ22-0001 and SUB22-0002Cardinal Pointe Heightsµ
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles Prepared By: Emani BrinkmanDate Prepared: January 2022
An application submitted by Hall & Hall Engineers, INC, on behalf ofIC Grove East, LLC, for approval of a rezoning and subdivision of 27.68 acres located east of Camp Cardinal Blvd from Interim Development-Research Park (ID-RP)zone to Low Density Multi-Family Residential with a PlannedDevelopment Overlay (OPD/RM-12) zone.
S
IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
(SCALE: 1"=500')
LOCATION MAP
PRELIMINARY PLAT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY, AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
CARDINAL HEIGHTS
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
UTILITY AND EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBERS
HALL AND HALL PROJECT NUMBER:
CITY FILE NUMBER:
WASTEWATER DIVISION - COLLECTIONS
MID-AMERICAN ENERGY
IOWA ONE CALL (UTILITIES)
WATER DEPARTMENT
POLICE DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
EMERGENCY
EMERGENCY
(319)-339-1156
(800)-292-8989
911
911
PLAN APPROVED BY:
CITY CLERK DATE
(319)-356-5140
(319)-356-5275
(319)-356-5260
(319)-356-5166
(319)-631-1144
THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NORTHERLY PORTION OF THIS
SITE IS BEING MET IN THE EXISTING REGIONAL RETENTION BASIN LOCATED ON THE WEST
SIDE OF CAMP CARDINAL BLVD. THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE SOUTHERLY PORTION WILL BE ARCHIVED WITHIN THE PROPOSED DETENTION BASIN.PRELIMINARY PLAT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY, AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN FORCARDINAL HEIGHTSTOTAL SITE AREA:1,205,744 SQ.FT.(27.68 AC)
NET SITE AREA (EXCL. R.O.W.):1,091,316 SQ.FT.(25.05 AC)
TOTAL NUMBERED LOTS : 23
TOTAL DWELLING UNITS: 78 UNITS
GROSS AREA PER UNIT: 15,458 SQ.FT.(0.35 AC)
NET AREA PER UNIT (EXCLUDING R.O.W.):13,991 SQ.FT.(0.32 AC)
TOTAL POST-DEVELOPED OPEN SPACE:723,554 SQ.FT. (16.61 AC)
(OUTLOT A AND OUTLOT B)
BRIAN VOGEL, PE
1860 BOYSON RD.
HIAWATHA, IA 52233
PH: 319-362-9548
FAX: 319-362-7595
EMAIL: BRIAN@HALLENG.COM
EXISTING:ID-RP
PROPOSED: OPD RM-12
AREA TO BE REZONED: 27.68 AC.
C. JOSEPH HOLLAND
123 NORTH LINN STREET
SUITE 300
IOWA CITY, IA 52245
EXISTING: VACANT LAND
PROPOSED: MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
OWNER'S ATTORNEY
CONTACT PERSON
USE
ZONING
APPLICANT/OWNER
AREA CALCULATIONS
PLAN DATE:CAD File: I:\projects\20000\20034\20034-20\20034-20-2 CP Heights (27 AC)\DWG\Plats\20034-20-2 PP v6.dwg Date Plotted : Jul 27, 2022 - 7:49am Plotted By : BDVSHEET
P1.0
P1.0)COVER
P2.0)SITE LAYOUT AND UTILITIES
P3.0)SITE GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL
P4.0)WETLANDS DISTURBANCE AND PRESERVATION
P5.0)WOODLAND DISTURBANCE AND PRESERVATION
L1.0)LANDSCAPE PLAN
L2.0)LANDSCAPE PLAN DETAILS
SHEET INDEX
HORSESHOE CATCH BASIN W/FLUME
HORSESHOE CATCH BASIN W/O FLUME
CABLE TV-OVERHEAD
CABLE TV-UNDERGROUND
CABLE TV PEDESTAL
TELEPHONE MANHOLE
FLARED END SECTION
CLEANOUT, STORM OR SANITARY
TRAFFIC SIGNAL W/MAST
UTILITY/CONTROL CABINET
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
SANITARY MANHOLE
LIGHT POLE W/MAST
LIGHT POLE W/O MAST
TELEPHONE-UNDERGROUND
FIBER OPTIC-OVERHEAD
FIBER OPTIC-UNDERGROUND
ELECTRIC-UNDERGROUND
TELEPHONE-OVERHEAD
ELECTRIC-OVERHEAD
FORCE MAIN W/SIZE
WATER MAIN W/SIZE
STORM SEWER W/SIZE
SANITARY SEWER W/SIZE
GAS VALVE
OR
RA-5 INTAKE
RA-8 INTAKE
RA-6 INTAKE
STORM MANHOLE
RA-3 INTAKE
GRATE INTAKE
GUY ANCHOR
GUY POLE
POWER POLE
TELEPHONE POLE
STEAM
<><><><><><><><>
(S)(S)
(OHF)(OHF)
////
800
SILT FENCE
FENCE LINE
CONTOUR LINE
(FM6)
(W8)
(ST15)
UTILITY LEGEND-EXISTING
(SS8)
GAS
SUBDRAIN
FOUND RIGHT OF WAY RAIL
SECTION CORNER FOUND AS NOTED
SECTION CORNER SET AS NOTED
PLAT OR SURVEY BOUNDARY
DECIDUOUS SHRUB
TREE STUMP
TREE LINE DRIP EDGE
CONIFEROUS SHRUB
PLANT LEGEND
1/4-1/4 SECTION LINE
DECIDUOUS TREE
CONIFEROUS TREE
BUILDING SETBACK LINE
EXISTING LOT LINE
( )
EASEMENT LINE
SECTION LINE
1/4 SECTION LINE
PLAT LOT LINE
CENTERLINE
CUT "X" IN CONCRETE
RECORDED AS
FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT AS NOTED
SET ___ REBAR W/CAP NO.____
SURVEY LEGEND
WATER SHUTOFF
WATER VALVE
WATER BLOWOFF
FIRE HYDRANT
BOLLARD
STREET SIGN
SOIL BORING
WELL
BENCHMARK
NOTE: THIS IS A STANDARD LEGEND. SOME ITEMS MAY NOT APPEAR ON DRAWINGS.
UTILITY LEGEND-PROPOSED
SS8
FM6
W12
ST18
SANITARY SEWER W/SIZE
STORM SEWER W/SIZE
FORCE MAIN W/SIZE
WATER MAIN W/SIZE
SANITARY MANHOLE
STORM MANHOLE
GRATE INTAKE
RA-3 INTAKE
RA-5 INTAKE
RA-6 INTAKE
RA-8 INTAKE
HORSESHOE CATCH BASIN W/O FLUME
FLARED END SECTION
CLEANOUT, STORM OR SANITARY
FIRE HYDRANT
WATER VALVE
WATER SHUTOFF
WATER BLOWOFF
OR
FLOODWAY LIMITS
CITY CORPORATE LIMITS
(FP)
(FW)
(CORP)
FLOODPLAIN LIMITS
CITY CORPORATE LIMITSCORP
www.halleng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
LAND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
HALL & HALL ENGINEERS, INC.
1860 BOYSON ROAD, HIAWATHA, IOWA 52233
PHONE: (319) 362-9548 FAX: (319) 362-7595
LAND SURVEYING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
PLANS SCALE CORRECTLY WHEN PLOTTED ON 22"x34" PAPER CAMP CARDINAL BOULEVARDHIGHWAY 218SITE LEGAL /REZONING DESCRIPTION
DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS (RM-12)
MULTI-FAMILY (30-PLEX BUILDING - 1 BLDG)
MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 8,175 SF
AREA PER UNIT: 2,725 SF
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH: 60'
MINIMUM FRONTAGE: 40'
FRONT YARD SETBACK: 20'
SIDE YARD SETBACK: 10'
REAR YARD SETBACK: 20'
MAX. BLDG HEIGHT: 35'
MIN. BLDG WIDTH: 20'
MAX. LOT COVERAGE: 50%
MAX. BEDROOM PER UNIT: 3
MIN. BEDROOM SIZE: 100 SF
MIN. OPEN SPACE: 10 SF/ BEDROOM, NO LESS THAT 400 SF
ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY (4-UNIT TOWNHOMES - 1 BLDG)
MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 3,000 SF
AREA PER UNIT: 3,000 SF
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH: 20'/28'
MINIMUM FRONTAGE: 20'
FRONT YARD SETBACK: 15' (25' AT CUL-DE-SAC)
SIDE YARD SETBACK: 0'/10'
REAR YARD SETBACK: 20'
MAX.BLDG HEIGHT: 35'
MIN. BLDG WIDTH: N/A'
MAX.LOT COVERAGE: 50%
MAX.BEDROOM PER UNIT: 4
MIN. OPEN SPACE: 150 S.F.
DUPLEX (22 BLDGS)
MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 6,000 SF
AREA PER UNIT: 3,000 SF
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH: 55' WITH ALLEY ACCESS, 80' WITHOUT ALLEY ACCESS
MINIMUM FRONTAGE: 40'
FRONT YARD SETBACK: 15' (25' AT CUL-DE-SAC)
SIDE YARD SETBACK: 5' FOR FIRST 2 STORIES PLUS 2' FOR EACH ADD. STORY
REAR YARD SETBACK: 20'
MIN.BLDG HEIGHT: 35'
MIN.BLDG WIDTH: N/A'
MAX.LOT COVERAGE: 50%
MAX.BEDROOM PER UNIT: 4
MIN. OPEN SPACE: 300 S.F. PER UNIT
OUT
L
O
T J
RR-
1
RM
-
1
2
RM
-
2
0 RS-12RS-
8
ID
-R
P RS-8
AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2011054 AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 56, PAGE 37 IN THE OFFICE OF
THE JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA RECORDER.
D
E
E
R
C
R
E
E
K
R
O
A
D
CAMP CARDINAL ROADR
Y
A
N
C
O
U
R
T
PRES
T
O
N
L
A
N
E
CARDINAL POINTE
WEST PART 3
CARDINAL POINTE
SOUTH PART 3 RS-
5
ID
-RSRS-5CC2
RM-
1
2
EX
IS
T
ING
:
ID
-R
P
PRO
POS
ED
:
RM
-1
2
NOTES
EX
IS
T
INGREG
IONA
LRET
EN
T
IONBASIN
RM-12RS-8
ID
-RS
ID
-RS
ID
-RS
PARKING REQUIREMENTS (30-PLEX BUILDING)
MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL:
1 BEDROOM UNITS = 17
2 BEDROOM UNITS = 13
TOTAL VEHICLE PARKING REQUIRED = 43 SPACES
17 UNITS X 1.0 SPACE PER UNIT = 17 SPACES
13 UNITS X 2.0 SPACES PER UNIT = 26 SPACES
TOTAL VEHICLE PARKING PROVIDED = 43 (INCLUDES 4 ACCESSIBLE SPACES)
14 OUTDOOR PARKING LOT PARKING (2 ACCESSIBLE)
29 INDOOR GARAGE PARKING (2 ACCESSIBLE)
TOTAL BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED = 22 SPACES
17 UNITS X 0.5 SPACES PER UNIT = 9 SPACES
13 UNITS X 1.0 SPACES PER UNIT = 13 SPACES
TOTAL BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED = 22 SPACES
IC GROVE EAST, LLC
%DAVE OYLER
755 MORMON TREK BOULEVARD
P.O.BOX 1907
IOWA CITY, IA 52246
PH:319-337-4195
FAX:319-337-9823
EMAIL: DAVE@NAVIGATEHOMESIOWA.COM
OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS
REQUIRED OPEN SPACE
LOT 23:
30 PLEX:
10 SF/BDRM X 43 BDRM = 430 SF
4 UNIT TOWNHOME:
150 SF
TOTAL REQUIRED FOR LOT 23 = 580 SF
TOTAL PROVIDED FOR LOT 23 = 10,000 SF
DUPLEX LOTS:
300 SF/UNIT TO BE PROVIDED ON-SITE
STANDARD VARIATIONS
NO VARIATIONS TO THE RM-12 STANDARDS ARE BEING REQUESTED
WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.
PROJECT
LOCATION
TYPICAL 28' STREET CROSS SECTION
(NOT TO SCALE)
14'
28' B-B
1/2 R.O.W - 30'1/2 R.O.W. - 30'
STANDARD
6" CURB
14'
2.0%2.0%
NOTES:
1. REFER TO PLANS FOR LOCATION OF STORM SEWER LINES. SUBDRAIN SHALL BE INSTALLED ON BOTH SIDES OF STREET EVEN IF STORM
SEWER IS PRESENT. WHERE PLANS SHOW THESE LINES UNDER PAVEMENT LONGITUDINALLY, SUBGRADE SHALL BE SHAPED TO DRAIN TO
TRENCHES FOR THESE LINES. THIS WORK IS ALSO REQUIRED FOR LINES UNDER INTERSECTION RETURNS. DEPTH OF SUBBASE SHALL BE
INCREASED AS REQUIRED FOR THIS WORK.
2. SUBBASE SHALL BE EXTENDED OVER STORM SEWER AND/OR SUBDRAIN TRENCHES WHERE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN PROPER SUBBASE
DRAINAGE. SUBBASE SHALL BE EXTENDED TO CENTERLINE OF STORM SEWER TRENCH AND COMPLETELY OVER SUBDRAIN TRENCH.
3. SEE SUDAS DETAIL 7030.104 FOR GRADING BEHIND CURB.
4. LONGITUDINAL JOINTS SHALL BE THIRD POINT JOINTING PER SUDAS DETAIL 7010.901
2.5'
TYP
1.0'
TYP 5.0'10.0'
4.0%1.5%
SEE NOTE 2
JOINT SEE
NOTE 4
PROFILE
GRADE
SUBDRAIN (TYP) AS SHOWN ON
PLANS SEE NOTE 1
COMPACTED SUBGRADE AS SPECIFIED
6" MIN. SUBBASE AS SPECIFIED
7" PCC PAVEMENT DEPTH
STORM SEWER WITH GASKETED
JOINTS AS PER PLANS SEE NOTE 1
COMPACTED
FILL
PROFILE LINE, ℄ ROW, AND SURVEY
BASELINE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE
3.5
1
(MAX.)
10.0'5.0'
TYPICAL 26' STREET CROSS SECTION
(NOT TO SCALE)
13'
26' B-B
1/2 R.O.W - 30'1/2 R.O.W. - 30'
STANDARD
6" CURB
13'
2.0%2.0%
NOTES:
1. REFER TO PLANS FOR LOCATION OF STORM SEWER LINES. SUBDRAIN SHALL BE INSTALLED ON BOTH SIDES OF STREET EVEN IF STORM
SEWER IS PRESENT. WHERE PLANS SHOW THESE LINES UNDER PAVEMENT LONGITUDINALLY, SUBGRADE SHALL BE SHAPED TO DRAIN TO
TRENCHES FOR THESE LINES. THIS WORK IS ALSO REQUIRED FOR LINES UNDER INTERSECTION RETURNS. DEPTH OF SUBBASE SHALL BE
INCREASED AS REQUIRED FOR THIS WORK.
2. SUBBASE SHALL BE EXTENDED OVER STORM SEWER AND/OR SUBDRAIN TRENCHES WHERE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN PROPER SUBBASE
DRAINAGE. SUBBASE SHALL BE EXTENDED TO CENTERLINE OF STORM SEWER TRENCH AND COMPLETELY OVER SUBDRAIN TRENCH.
3. SEE SUDAS DETAIL 7030.104 FOR GRADING BEHIND CURB.
4. LONGITUDINAL JOINTS SHALL BE THIRD POINT JOINTING PER SUDAS DETAIL 7010.901
2.5'
TYP
1.0'
TYP 5.0'11.0'
4.0%1.5%
SEE NOTE 2
JOINT SEE
NOTE 4
PROFILE
GRADE
SUBDRAIN (TYP) AS SHOWN ON
PLANS SEE NOTE 1
COMPACTED SUBGRADE AS SPECIFIED
6" MIN. SUBBASE AS SPECIFIED
7" PCC PAVEMENT DEPTH
STORM SEWER WITH GASKETED
JOINTS AS PER PLANS SEE NOTE 1
COMPACTED
FILL
PROFILE LINE, ℄ ROW, AND SURVEY
BASELINE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE
3.5
1
(MAX.)
11.0'5.0'
TYPICAL 22' STREET CROSS SECTION
(NOT TO SCALE)
11.0'
22.0' B-B
11.0'
2.0%
SEE NOTE 2
KT-2 OR L-2 JOINT
SEE NOTE 4 PROFILE
GRADE
SUBDRAIN (TYP) AS SHOWN ON
PLANS SEE NOTE 1
COMPACTED SUBGRADE AS SPECIFIED
6" MIN. SUBBASE AS SPECIFIED
7" PCC PAVEMENT DEPTH
STORM SEWER WITH GASKETED
JOINTS AS PER PLANS SEE NOTE 1
COMPACTED
FILL
PROFILE LINE, ℄ ROW, AND SURVEY
BASELINE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE
6.0'
1.5%
5.0'
4.0%
1.0'
TYP
23' TO ROW
STANDARD
6" CURB
2.0%
NOTES:
1. REFER TO PLANS FOR LOCATION OF STORM SEWER LINES. SUBDRAIN SHALL BE INSTALLED ON BOTH SIDES OF STREET EVEN IF STORM
SEWER IS PRESENT. WHERE PLANS SHOW THESE LINES UNDER PAVEMENT LONGITUDINALLY, SUBGRADE SHALL BE SHAPED TO DRAIN TO
TRENCHES FOR THESE LINES. THIS WORK IS ALSO REQUIRED FOR LINES UNDER INTERSECTION RETURNS. DEPTH OF SUBBASE SHALL BE
INCREASED AS REQUIRED FOR THIS WORK.
2. SUBBASE SHALL BE EXTENDED OVER STORM SEWER AND/OR SUBDRAIN TRENCHES WHERE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN PROPER SUBBASE
DRAINAGE. SUBBASE SHALL BE EXTENDED TO CENTERLINE OF STORM SEWER TRENCH AND COMPLETELY OVER SUBDRAIN TRENCH.
3. SEE SUDAS DETAIL 7030.104 FOR GRADING BEHIND CURB.
4. LONGITUDINAL JOINTS SHALL BE THIRD POINT JOINTING PER SUDAS DETAIL 7010.901
SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10
W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8
W8W8
W8
W8
W8
W8
W8
W8
W8
W8
W8W8
W8
W8SS8SS8SS8SS8SS8
SS8SS8SS8SS8
SS8
SS8
SS8
SS8
SS8
SS8
SS8
OUTLOT B
145,613 SF
3.34 AC
OUTLOT A
577,941 SF
13.27 AC
33'95'
92'
375'621'332'
31
'20'60'20'31'24'
427'
156'
290'81'300'654'
372'
602'40'105'8'85'61'52'15'
22'
92'
60'
41'
104'
48'
LOT A (R.O.W.)
113,644 SF
2.61 ACST15
ST15ST15ST15ST15ST15
W8W8W8W8W8W8
LOT 13
11,597 SF
0.27 AC
LOT 16
14,999 SF
0.34 AC
LOT 17
14,736 SF
0.34 AC
LOT 18
10,170 SF
0.23 AC
LOT 19
12,478 SF
0.29 AC
LOT 15
14,222 SF
0.33 AC
LOT 14
10,170 SF
0.23 AC
LOT 1
14,384 SF
0.33 AC
LOT 2
11,741 SF
0.27 AC
LOT 3
11,609 SF
0.27 ACLOT 4
11,596 SF
0.27 AC
LOT 8
14,403 SF
0.33 AC
LOT 12
13,811 SF
0.32 AC
LOT 9
13,319 SF
0.31 AC
LOT 11
11,288 SF
0.26 AC
LOT 10
11,413 SF
0.26 AC
LOT 23
78,884 SF
1.81 AC
LOT 20
14,647 SF
0.34 AC
LOT 21
10,424 SF
0.24 AC
113'106'
90'12'171'199'164'
21'
90'
11'
112'
99'
90'
12'
57'67'
55'21'
90'
98'113'113'113'113'113'21'
124'111'105'
105'
107'
91'110'110'110'109'102'63'
65'200'135'165'141'
154'142'112'
97'
8'
102'13'
99'108'108'108'458'123'40'126'41'47'121'110'
110'
LOT 22
13,046 SF
0.30 AC
LOT B (R.O.W.)
784 SF
0.02 AC58'40'33'50'32'140'54'47'89'37'ST15 ST15ST15
LOT 5
16,633 SF
0.38 AC
LOT 6
16,950 SF
0.39 AC
LOT 7
15,244 SF
0.35 AC
78'
6'
7
6
'64'90'
6'
107'
105'
87'19'115'
22'15'57'38'218'136'37'ST1512,000 SF FOOTPRINT30 UNIT MULTIFAMILY(3-STORY)13 x 2 BEDROOM17 x 1 BEDROOMLOWER LEVEL PARKINGSCALE: 1"=50'
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
1007550250
FIELD BOOK:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
NO.REVISION DESCRIPTION
BDV
APPROVED DATE
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
SITE LAYOUT & UTILITIES
CAD File: I:\projects\20000\20034\20034-20\20034-20-2 CP Heights (27 AC)\DWG\Plats\20034-20-2 PP v6.dwg Date Plotted : Jul 27, 2022 - 7:49am Plotted By : BDVwww.halleng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
LAND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
HALL & HALL ENGINEERS, INC.
1860 BOYSON ROAD, HIAWATHA, IOWA 52233
PHONE: (319) 362-9548 FAX: (319) 362-7595
LAND SURVEYING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
P2.0
CJZ
BDV
PROJECT NO: 20034-20-2
LOT BREAKDOWN
LOT #
23
1 - 22
PURPOSE
DUPLEX
OVERSTORY TREE
ORNAMENTAL TREE
LEGEND
CONIFEROUS TREE
15' UTILITY EAS
E
M
E
N
T
PRELIMINARY PLAT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY,
AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
CARDINAL HEIGHTS
IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA07/27/22 15'
UT
IL
ITY
EASEMENT15'
UT
IL
ITY
EASEMENT
4 UNITS
(3,660 SF)
1.5%
4.5%
0.80%
1.8%1.0%3.0%
EXIS
TI
N
G
4
0'
S
A
NI
T
A
R
Y
SEW
E
R
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
40' SETBAC
K
EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD
60' ROW28'B-BR60'PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SANITARY SEWER
PLAN OF IMPROVEMENTS FOR "THE GROVE -
OFFSITE SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION"22'46'22'PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
20' MIN
5' WALK60' ROW
26'
B-B
5' WALK
70'62.34'85.33'61.33'68.46'
SANITARY AND STORM
SEWER EASEMENT
CONSTRUCTION LIMITS (SEE SHEET
P.3-P.5 FOR SENSITIVE AREA
IMPACTS)184.05'EXISTING PCC ROAD
7.1%2.0%2.7%2.1%1.0%EXISTING TREE LINE
15'114'DUPLEX
(3,400 SF)
DUPLEX
(4,030 SF)DUPLEX
(4,030 SF)DUPLEX
(4,030 SF)
DUPLEX
(4,030 SF)
DUPLEX
(4,030 SF)
DUPLEX
(4,030 SF)
DUPLEX
(4,030 SF)
DUPLEX
(4,030 SF)
DUPLEX
(4,030 SF)
DUPLEX
(4,030 SF)DUPLEX
(4,030 SF)
DUPLEX
(4,030 SF)
DUPLEX
(3,400 SF)DUPLEX(3,400 SF)DUPLEX
(3,400 SF)
DUPLEX
(3,400 SF)
DUPLEX
(3,400 SF)
DUPLEX
(3,400 SF)
15' U
TI
LI
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
8' EXISTING TRAIL14
262.24'
25'25'27'27'20'
3
4
.
8
1
'
30.8'92.67
'
40'25.66'25.66'21.08'
2
0
.
3
4
'25.66'25.68'25'21.42'21.67'21.67'20'20'20'20'21.18'
20.36'61.33'85.33'34.48'18'
26'
11'
6'
5' WIDE
SIDEWALK
TOTAL LENGTH
O
F
C
U
L
-
D
E
-
S
A
C
5
5
9
L
F
F
R
O
M
C
E
N
T
E
R
O
F
B
U
L
B
T
O
C
E
T
E
R
L
I
N
E
O
F
D
E
E
R
C
R
E
E
K
R
O
A
D
28'POTENTIAL FUTURE
TRAFFIC CIRCLE
TEMPORARY PCC CONCRETE TO CONNECT
DEER CREEK ROAD TO CAMP CARDINAL ROAD
MULTI-FAMILY
PROPOSED DETENTION
SEE SHEETS L.01 AND L.02 FOR
DETAILED LANDSCAPE PLAN25'CONNECT 8" DIA WATER MAIN INTO EXISTING
CAMP CARDINAL ROAD WATER MAIN
20' STORM SE
W
E
R
A
N
D
DRAINAGE EAS
E
M
E
N
T30'
STORM
SEWER
EASEMENT
MAILBOX
CLUSTER
DETENTION
ACCESS
OUTLOT A SHALL BE OPEN SPACE MAINTAINED
BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
OUTLOT B SHALL BE FOR STORM WATER
MANAGEMENT AND OPEN SPACE TO BE
MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
408.27'
MAILBOX CLUSTER AND
GRASS ISLAND TO BE
MAINTAINED BY THE HOA
GRASS ISLAND TO BE
MAINTAINED BY THE HOA 21.13'7'
6'25.43'25.43'25.09'27.23'90' LOT WIDTH
AT 25' SETBACK
6.81'
20'
23.
7
2
'
6.86'7.38'7.24'
6'
6'
7.44'7'
6'
6'20'26.26'
25.02'
21.4'
21.15'10.75'25'6'10.3'DUPLEX
(3,400 SF)
DUPLEX
(3,400 SF)
DUPLEX
(3,400 SF)
ALL DUPLEXES SHOWN
ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE
PURPOSES ONLY, ACTUAL
DUPLEX FOOTPRINTS WILL
VARY. DUPLEX
COMPLIANCE WITH
14-3A-4C-1(a) WILL BE
REVIEWED AT THE TIME OF
BUILDING PERMITTING
CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY
EXISTING HYDRANT LOCATION AND
RELOCATE OFF MAIN IF NECESSARY
FOR WATER MAIN EXTENSION
107' LOT WIDTH
AT 25' SETBACK
104' LOT WIDTH
AT 25' SETBACK
94' LOT WIDTH
AT 25' SETBACK
96' LOT WIDTH
AT 25' SETBACK
100' LOT WIDTH
AT 25' SETBACK
SHARED USABLE OPEN SPACE
(OUTSIDE OF EXISTING
WOODLANDS) = 10,000 SF
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
CONSTRUCTION LIMITS (SEE SHEET
P.3-P.5 FOR SENSITIVE AREA
IMPACTS)
R17'R45'R25'5' SIDE
W
A
L
K
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
7
1
0
7157207257
3
0
7
4
0
745
750
755
765
7
7
0775 76575576
0
750 745740755
7757657
5
5
750755 745
730
740
7
5
0 735740730
725
760
765
770770760765755750745740
750
76
0 76577
0
760
755
750
74
5
740
7307
2
0
7257307157207157057006956
9
0
755740725755
760 77076
5
760
750740735
755750745
735730720
770760SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10
W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8
W8W8
W8
W8
W8
W8
W8
W8
W8
W8
W8W8
W8
W8SS8SS8SS8SS8SS8
SS8SS8SS8SS8
SS8
SS8
SS8
SS8
SS8
SS8
SS8
OUTLOT B
145,613 SF
3.34 AC
OUTLOT A
577,941 SF
13.27 AC
33'95'
92'
375'621'332'
31
'20'60'20'31'24'
427'
156'
290'81'300'654'
372'
602'40'105'8'85'61'52'15'
22'
92'
60'
41'
104'
48'
LOT A (R.O.W.)
113,644 SF
2.61 AC
745750755760765765770
769
771
7
7
2
77
3 760763760
765 765764766760765
770
765
760760771770765770765738
739
754
760
761 75575676075075177
1
765
766
760749
756 ST15ST15ST15ST15ST15ST15
W8W8W8W8W8W8
LOT 13
11,597 SF
0.27 AC
LOT 16
14,999 SF
0.34 AC
LOT 17
14,736 SF
0.34 AC
LOT 18
10,170 SF
0.23 AC
LOT 19
12,478 SF
0.29 AC
LOT 15
14,222 SF
0.33 AC
LOT 14
10,170 SF
0.23 AC
LOT 1
14,384 SF
0.33 AC
LOT 2
11,741 SF
0.27 AC
LOT 3
11,609 SF
0.27 ACLOT 4
11,596 SF
0.27 AC
LOT 8
14,403 SF
0.33 AC
LOT 12
13,811 SF
0.32 AC
LOT 9
13,319 SF
0.31 AC
LOT 11
11,288 SF
0.26 AC
LOT 10
11,413 SF
0.26 AC
LOT 23
78,884 SF
1.81 AC
LOT 20
14,647 SF
0.34 AC
LOT 21
10,424 SF
0.24 AC
113'106'
90'12'171'199'164'
21'
90'
11'
112'
99'
90'
12'
57'67'
55'21'
90'
98'113'113'113'113'113'21'
124'111'105'
105'
107'
91'110'110'110'109'102'63'
65'200'135'165'141'
154'142'112'
97'
8'
102'13'
99'108'108'108'458'123'40'126'41'47'121'110'
110'
LOT 22
13,046 SF
0.30 AC
LOT B (R.O.W.)
784 SF
0.02 AC58'40'33'50'32'140'54'47'89'37'ST15 ST15735733729740ST15
762
761
76
0
75
9
762
764766 7
5
7
761760
761
7
6
0 76176
1
760
755
752762766767 762758754748765770771
7647
6
4 740735731LOT 5
16,633 SF
0.38 AC
LOT 6
16,950 SF
0.39 AC
LOT 7
15,244 SF
0.35 AC
78'
6'
7
6
'64'90'
6'
107'
105'
87'19'115'
22'15'57'38'218'136'37'75775
6 ST15FIELD BOOK:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
NO.REVISION DESCRIPTION
BDV
APPROVED DATE
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
SITE GRADING & EROSION CONTROL
www.halleng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
LAND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
HALL & HALL ENGINEERS, INC.
1860 BOYSON ROAD, HIAWATHA, IOWA 52233
PHONE: (319) 362-9548 FAX: (319) 362-7595
LAND SURVEYING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
P3.0
CJZ
BDV
PROJECT NO: 20034-20-2
07/27/22
NOTES:
1.CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY DEPTH AND LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES AND
STRUCTURES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.
2.CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN TO PROTECT ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES AND UNDERGROUND
FACILITIES.
3.ALL SITE WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GEOTECHNICAL
EXPLORATION REPORT OF RECORD FOR THE SITE, WHERE APPLICABLE.
4.THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) SHALL BE KEPT ON THE
CONSTRUCTION SITE AT ALL TIMES FROM THE DATE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES BEGIN TO
THE DATE OF FINAL STABILIZATION. ALL OPERATORS/CONTRACTORS WORKING ONSITE
MUST SIGN THE CERTIFICATION STATEMENT PROVIDED AND WILL BECOME CO-PERMITTEES
ON THE NPDES GENERAL PERMIT NO. 2 FOR THIS SITE. ALL OPERATORS/CONTRACTORS
WORKING ONSITE SHALL BE SUPPLIED A COPY OF THE SWPPP AND MUST BE FAMILIAR WITH
ITS CONTENTS. THE SWPPP MUST BE PERIODICALLY UPDATED TO SHOW CURRENT
EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES. UPDATED VERSIONS OF THE SWPPP WILL BE PROVIDED TO
ALL OF THE OPERATORS/CONTRACTORS WHOM ARE AFFECTED BY THE CHANGES MADE TO
THE SWPPP. IT WILL BE THE DUTY OF THE PERMITTEE (OWNER OR GENERAL CONTRACTOR)
TO SEE THAT THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE MET.
5.CONTRACTOR SHALL STRIP ALL ORGANIC MATERIAL WITHIN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS. A
MINIMUM 6” DEPTH. REFER TO IOWA CITY AND SUDAS FOR All OTHER GRADING
REQUIREMENTS.
6.PRIOR TO ANY SITE GRADING ACTIVITIES, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A CSR PERMIT
FROM THE CITY OF IOWA CITY.
7.ALL DISTURBED AREAS NOT PAVED OR HARD SURFACE ON THE SITE SHALL RECEIVE
MINIMUM 6" TOPSOIL.
8.MAINTAIN SUBSTANTIAL VEGETATED AREA AROUND ENTIRE PROJECT PERIMETER TO ACT AS
VEGETATED FILTER STRIP. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ADDITIONAL SILT FENCE OR
EQUIVALENT TO ENSURE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
GENERAL PERMIT NO. 2.
9.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL ADJOINING PROPERTIES FROM DISRUPTION DURING
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.
10.FILL AREAS WITHIN STREETS AND AREAS OF 4' 0R GREATER FILLS WlTHIN BUILDING AREAS
AS SHOWN ON THE GRADING PLAN REQUIRE SOIL TESTING BY AN APPROVED
GEOTECHNICAL FlRM. THESE AREAS TO RECEIVE STRUCTURAL FlLL AND TESTING PER LOCAL
BUILDING DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS. PROVIDE TESTING RESULTS TO OWNER AND
ENGINEER OF RECORD.
11.PROPER PERMITS SHALL BE IN PLACE FOR ANY GRADING ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE CITY
RIGHT OF WAY.
12.FINISHED CONTOURS REPRESENT FINISH GROUND ELEVATIONS.
13.ALL SLOPES TO BE NO STEEPER THAN 3.5:1.<><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><>EXISTING TREE
LINE (TYP)
INSTALL STABILIZED
CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCE PER SUDAS
DETAIL 9040.20 (TYP)
CONCRETE
WASHOUT AREA
PORTA-POTTY
AREA
WASTE
/
CHEMIC
A
L
STORA
G
E
A
R
E
A
INSTALL SILT FENCE, FILTER
SOCK OR EQUIVALENT PER
SUDAS DETAILS 9040.19 &
9040.20
TOPSOIL
STOCKPILE
AREA
INSTALL FILTER SOCK
BEHIND ALL DROP CURBS AT
SIDEWALK RAMP LOCATIONS
(TYP.)<><><><>
3.5:1 MAX
(TYP)
CRITICAL 25% - 39%
TOTAL ONSITE CRITICAL SLOPES = 328,991 SF (7.55 ACRES)
TOTAL DISTURBED CRITICAL SLOPES = 63,473 SF (1.46 AC)
19.3% DISTURBED
EXISTING PROTECTED 40% - 100%
TOTAL ONSITE PROTECTED SLOPES = 55,031 SF (1.26 AC)
TOTAL DISTURBED MANMADE PROTECTED SLOPES = 5,575 SF* (0.13 AC)
*10.3% DISTURBED PROTECTED MANMADE SLOPES
TOTAL TEMPORARY DISTURBED PROTECTED SLOPES = 80 SF** (0.002 AC)
**FOR STORM SEWER INSTALLATION
SCALE: 1"=50'
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
1007550250
30 UNIT
12,000 SF
(3 STORY)
EXIS
TI
N
G
4
0'
S
A
NI
T
A
R
Y
SEW
E
R
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD
22'46'EXISTING SLOPES LEGEND
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS (TYP)<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>
<
>
<
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>
<
>
<
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>
<>
<><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
<
>
<><><><>
INSTALL SILT FENCE, FILTER
SOCK OR EQUIVALENT
AROUND ALL INTAKES.<><><>15' UTILITY EAS
E
M
E
N
T
15' UTILITY EAS
E
M
E
N
T
15' UTIL
I
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
15' UTIL
I
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T15'
UT
IL
ITY
EASEMENT15'
UT
IL
ITY
EASEMENT<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>
<>
<>
<>
<>
<>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<
>
<>
<><><><><><>
<><><>
<>
<>
<>
PRELIMINARY PLAT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY,
AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
CARDINAL HEIGHTS
IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
EQUIPMENT/
MATERIAL STORAGE
& STAGING AREA
90'75'
60'40'<><><><><><><><>PROPOSED 8' WIDE
BERM @ 740.0
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>
<>
<
>
<
>
<>
<><><><><><><>
<
>
<
>
<>
<>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>
<><><><><><><><><>44'44'38'26'
26
'
34'
16'30'28'
28'38'38'38'22'22'10'10'34'34'10'38
'
38'20'20'PROTECTED SLOPES BUFFER - 2' OF BUFFER PER VERTICAL FOOT (50' MAX)
TOTAL BUFFER AREA = 160,919 SF (3.69 AC)*
0.9% BUFFER AREA DISTURBED (1,375 SF)
*BUFFER FOR MANMADE PROTECTED SLOPES NOT INCLUDED, TEMPORARY DISTURBED
PROTECTED SLOPE AND BUFFER AREA IS FOR STORM SEWER INSTALLATION
MANMADE
PROTECTED
SLOPES
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
7
1
0
71572072573
0
7
4
0
745
750
755
765
7
7
0775 76575576
0
750 745740755
7757657
5
5
750755 745
730
740
75
0 735740730
725
760
765
770770760765755750745740
750
76
0 76577
0
760
755
750
74
5
740
7307
2
0
7257307157207157057006956
9
0
755740725755
760 77076
5
760
750740735
755750745
735730720
770760SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10
W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8
W8W8
W8
W8
W8
W8
W8
W8
W8
W8
W8W8
W8
W8SS8SS8SS8SS8SS8
SS8SS8SS8SS8
SS8
SS8
SS8
SS8
SS8
SS8
SS8
OUTLOT B
145,613 SF
3.34 AC
OUTLOT A
577,941 SF
13.27 AC
33'95'
92'
375'621'332'
31
'20'60'20'31'24'
427'
156'
290'81'300'654'
372'
602'40'105'8'85'61'52'15'
22'
92'
60'
41'
104'
48'
LOT A (R.O.W.)
113,644 SF
2.61 AC
745750755760765765770
769
771
7
7
2
77
3 760763760
765 765764766760765
770
765
760760771770765770765738
739
754
760
761 75575676075075177
1
765
766
760749
756 ST15ST15ST15ST15ST15ST15
W8W8W8W8W8W8
LOT 13
11,597 SF
0.27 AC
LOT 16
14,999 SF
0.34 AC
LOT 17
14,736 SF
0.34 AC
LOT 18
10,170 SF
0.23 AC
LOT 19
12,478 SF
0.29 AC
LOT 15
14,222 SF
0.33 AC
LOT 14
10,170 SF
0.23 AC
LOT 1
14,384 SF
0.33 AC
LOT 2
11,741 SF
0.27 AC
LOT 3
11,609 SF
0.27 ACLOT 4
11,596 SF
0.27 AC
LOT 8
14,403 SF
0.33 AC
LOT 12
13,811 SF
0.32 AC
LOT 9
13,319 SF
0.31 AC
LOT 11
11,288 SF
0.26 AC
LOT 10
11,413 SF
0.26 AC
LOT 23
78,884 SF
1.81 AC
LOT 20
14,647 SF
0.34 AC
LOT 21
10,424 SF
0.24 AC
113'106'
90'12'171'199'164'
21'
90'
11'
112'
99'
90'
12'
57'67'
55'21'
90'
98'113'113'113'113'113'21'
124'111'105'
105'
107'
91'110'110'110'109'102'63'
65'200'135'165'141'
154'142'112'
97'
8'
102'13'
99'108'108'108'458'123'40'126'41'47'121'110'
110'
LOT 22
13,046 SF
0.30 AC
LOT B (R.O.W.)
784 SF
0.02 AC58'40'33'50'32'140'54'47'89'37'ST15 ST15735733729740ST15
762
761
76
0
75
9
762
764766 7
5
7
761760
761
7
6
0 76176
1
760
755
752762766767 762758754748765770771
7647
6
4 740735731LOT 5
16,633 SF
0.38 AC
LOT 6
16,950 SF
0.39 AC
LOT 7
15,244 SF
0.35 AC
78'
6'
7
6
'64'90'
6'
107'
105'
87'19'115'
22'15'57'38'218'136'37'75775
6 ST15CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
EXISTING ONSITE WETLANDS
TOTAL EXISTING ONSITE WETLAND AREA = 39,114 SF (0.90 AC)
EXISTING 100' WETLANDS BUFFER (AVERAGED)
TOTAL ONSITE 100' BUFFER AREA REQUIRED= 264,950 SF (6.08 AC)
TOTAL ONSITE BUFFER AVERAGE AREA PROVIDED = 318,050 SF (7.30 AC)
EXISTING WETLANDS TO BE REMOVED AND MITIGATED ONSITE
TOTAL AREA = 2,575 SF (0.059 AC)
EXISTING 50' WETLANDS BUFFER (BUFFER REDUCTION)
TOTAL ONSITE 50' BUFFER AREA = 49,422 SF (1.13 AC)
PROPOSED ONSITE MITIGATED WETLANDS
TOTAL PROPOSED ONSITE WETLAND AREA = 40,739 SF (0.94 AC)
FIELD BOOK:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
NO.REVISION DESCRIPTION
BDV
APPROVED DATE
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
WETLANDS DISTURBANCE AND PRESERVATION
www.halleng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
LAND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
HALL & HALL ENGINEERS, INC.
1860 BOYSON ROAD, HIAWATHA, IOWA 52233
PHONE: (319) 362-9548 FAX: (319) 362-7595
LAND SURVEYING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
P4.0
CJZ
BDV
PROJECT NO: 20034-20-2
07/27/22
EXISTING TREE
LINE (TYP)
SCALE: 1"=50'
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
1007550250
4 UNITS
(3,660 SF)
30 UNIT
12,000 SF
(3 STORY)
EXIS
TI
N
G
4
0'
S
A
NI
T
A
R
Y
SEW
E
R
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD
22'46'20' MIN
WETLANDS LEGEND
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS (TYP)
15' UTILITY EAS
E
M
E
N
T
15' UTILITY EAS
E
M
E
N
T
15' UTIL
I
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
15' UTIL
I
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T15'
UT
IL
ITY
EASEMENT15'
UT
IL
ITY
EASEMENT
EXISTING 0.015 AC
WETLAND TO BE REMOVED
MITIGATED ONSITE (SEE
WETLAND REPORT)
100' WETLAND
BUFFER AVERAGE
50' WETLAND
BUFFER (BUFFER
REDUCTION)
NOTE:
EXISTING DELINEATED WETLANDS SHOWN ARE FROM
EARTHVIEW WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT #SOUTHGATE-004
PRELIMINARY PLAT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY,
AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
CARDINAL HEIGHTS
IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
EXISTING 0.020 AC WETLAND TO
BE REMOVED MITIGATED ONSITE
(SEE WETLAND REPORT)
EXISTING 0.024 AC WETLAND TO
BE REMOVED MITIGATED ONSITE
(SEE WETLAND REPORT)
PROPOSED WETLAND 0.030 AC
PROPOSED WETLAND 0.066 AC
50'50'50'
5
0
'
50
'100'100'
100'100'1
0
4
'100'100'100'
6
0
.
0
5
'101'
1
0
0
'100'146'230'210'50'
SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10
W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8
W8W8
W8
W8
W8
W8
W8
W8
W8
W8
W8W8
W8
W8SS8SS8SS8SS8SS8
SS8SS8SS8SS8
SS8
SS8
SS8
SS8
SS8
SS8
SS8
OUTLOT B
145,613 SF
3.34 AC
OUTLOT A
577,941 SF
13.27 AC
33'95'
92'
375'621'332'
31
'20'60'20'31'24'
427'
156'
290'81'300'654'
372'
602'40'105'8'85'61'52'15'
22'
92'
60'
41'
104'
48'
LOT A (R.O.W.)
113,644 SF
2.61 ACST15
ST15ST15ST15ST15ST15
W8W8W8W8W8W8
LOT 13
11,597 SF
0.27 AC
LOT 16
14,999 SF
0.34 AC
LOT 17
14,736 SF
0.34 AC
LOT 18
10,170 SF
0.23 AC
LOT 19
12,478 SF
0.29 AC
LOT 15
14,222 SF
0.33 AC
LOT 14
10,170 SF
0.23 AC
LOT 1
14,384 SF
0.33 AC
LOT 2
11,741 SF
0.27 AC
LOT 3
11,609 SF
0.27 ACLOT 4
11,596 SF
0.27 AC
LOT 8
14,403 SF
0.33 AC
LOT 12
13,811 SF
0.32 AC
LOT 9
13,319 SF
0.31 AC
LOT 11
11,288 SF
0.26 AC
LOT 10
11,413 SF
0.26 AC
LOT 23
78,884 SF
1.81 AC
LOT 20
14,647 SF
0.34 AC
LOT 21
10,424 SF
0.24 AC
113'106'
90'12'171'199'164'
21'
90'
11'
112'
99'
90'
12'
57'67'
55'21'
90'
98'113'113'113'113'113'21'
124'111'105'
105'
107'
91'110'110'110'109'102'63'
65'200'135'165'141'
154'142'112'
97'
8'
102'13'
99'108'108'108'458'123'40'126'41'47'121'110'
110'
LOT 22
13,046 SF
0.30 AC
LOT B (R.O.W.)
784 SF
0.02 AC58'40'33'50'32'140'54'47'89'37'ST15 ST15ST15
LOT 5
16,633 SF
0.38 AC
LOT 6
16,950 SF
0.39 AC
LOT 7
15,244 SF
0.35 AC
78'
6'
7
6
'64'90'
6'
107'
105'
87'19'115'
22'15'57'38'218'136'37'ST15FIELD BOOK:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
NO.REVISION DESCRIPTION
BDV
APPROVED DATE
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
www.halleng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
LAND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
HALL & HALL ENGINEERS, INC.
1860 BOYSON ROAD, HIAWATHA, IOWA 52233
PHONE: (319) 362-9548 FAX: (319) 362-7595
LAND SURVEYING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
CJZ
BDV
PROJECT NO: 20034-20-2
07/27/22
SCALE: 1"=50'
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
1007550250
15' UTILITY EAS
E
M
E
N
T
15' UTILITY EAS
E
M
E
N
T 15'
UT
IL
ITY
EASEMENT15'
UT
IL
ITY
EASEMENT
15' UTIL
I
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
15' UTIL
I
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
EXIS
TI
N
G
4
0'
S
A
NI
T
A
R
Y
SEW
E
R
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS (TYP)
WOODLAND DISTURBANCE & PRESERVATION P5.0
EXISTING TREE LINE
TOTAL SITE AREA: 27.68 AC.
TOTAL WOODLAND AREA ONSITE: 22.9 AC
DISTURBED WOODLAND AREAS ONSITE = 12.78 AC (55.8%)*
TOTAL WOODLAND ONSITE PRESERVATION AREA = 10.12 AC (44.2%)
*DISTURBED AREA INCLUDES ALL TREES WITHIN 50 FEET OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS TO ACCOUNT FOR POSSIBLE ROOT DAMAGE
WOODLAND DISTURBANCE CALCULATIONS
WOODLANDS HATCH LEGEND
DISTURBED WOODLAND AREA
WITHIN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
(9.35 AC)
50' WOODLAND BUFFER AREA*
(3.43 AC)
WOODLAND PRESERVATION AREA
(10.12 AC)
EXISTING TREE
LINE (TYP)
50' BUFFER
OFFSET LINE (TYP)
PRELIMINARY PLAT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY,
AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
CARDINAL HEIGHTS
IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
15'
SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10SS10
W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8W8
W8W8
W8
W8
W8
W8
W8
W8
W8
W8
W8W8
W8
W8SS8SS8SS8SS8SS8
SS8SS8SS8SS8
SS8
SS8
SS8
SS8
SS8
SS8
SS8
OUTLOT B
145,613 SF
3.34 AC
OUTLOT A
577,941 SF
13.27 AC
33'95'
92'
375'621'332'
31
'20'60'20'31'24'
427'
156'
290'81'300'654'
372'
602'40'105'8'85'61'52'15'
22'
92'
60'
41'
104'
48'
LOT A (R.O.W.)
113,644 SF
2.61 ACST15
ST15ST15ST15ST15ST15
W8W8W8W8W8W8
LOT 13
11,597 SF
0.27 AC
LOT 16
14,999 SF
0.34 AC
LOT 17
14,736 SF
0.34 AC
LOT 18
10,170 SF
0.23 AC
LOT 19
12,478 SF
0.29 AC
LOT 15
14,222 SF
0.33 AC
LOT 14
10,170 SF
0.23 AC
LOT 1
14,384 SF
0.33 AC
LOT 2
11,741 SF
0.27 AC
LOT 3
11,609 SF
0.27 ACLOT 4
11,596 SF
0.27 AC
LOT 8
14,403 SF
0.33 AC
LOT 12
13,811 SF
0.32 AC
LOT 9
13,319 SF
0.31 AC
LOT 11
11,288 SF
0.26 AC
LOT 10
11,413 SF
0.26 AC
LOT 23
78,884 SF
1.81 AC
LOT 20
14,647 SF
0.34 AC
LOT 21
10,424 SF
0.24 AC
113'106'
90'12'171'199'164'
21'
90'
11'
112'
99'
90'
12'
57'67'
55'21'
90'
98'113'113'113'113'113'21'
124'111'105'
105'
107'
91'110'110'110'109'102'63'
65'200'135'165'141'
154'142'112'
97'
8'
102'13'
99'108'108'108'458'123'40'126'41'47'121'110'
110'
LOT 22
13,046 SF
0.30 AC
LOT B (R.O.W.)
784 SF
0.02 AC58'40'33'50'32'140'54'47'89'37'ST15 ST15ST15
LOT 5
16,633 SF
0.38 AC
LOT 6
16,950 SF
0.39 AC
LOT 7
15,244 SF
0.35 AC
78'
6'
7
6
'64'90'
6'
107'
105'
87'19'115'
22'15'57'38'218'136'37'ST15SCALE: 1"=50'
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
1007550250
FIELD BOOK:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
NO.REVISION DESCRIPTION
BDV
APPROVED DATE
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN
CAD File: I:\projects\20000\20034\20034-20\20034-20-2 CP Heights (27 AC)\DWG\Plats\20034-20-2 PP v6.dwg Date Plotted : Jul 27, 2022 - 7:50am Plotted By : BDVwww.halleng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
LAND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
HALL & HALL ENGINEERS, INC.
1860 BOYSON ROAD, HIAWATHA, IOWA 52233
PHONE: (319) 362-9548 FAX: (319) 362-7595
LAND SURVEYING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
L1.0
CJZ
BDV
PROJECT NO: 20034-20-2
LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS
IOWA CITY CODE 14-2B-6: C-3, 14-5E, & 14-5F
LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING
ZONING:
EXISTING: ID-RP PROPOSED: RM-12
RM-12: LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
ADJACENT ZONING:
NORTH: RS-8 SOUTH: CC2
WEST:RM-12 EAST: ID-RS, RS-5
TREE REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTI-FAMILY:
14-5E-8
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
1 TREE/550 SF BUILDING SPACE
BUILDING SPACE:
24 BUILDINGS TOTALING: 98,800 SF
98,800/550= 179.64
TREES REQUIRED/PROVIDED: 180
BUFFERS/SCREENING
PER 14-2B-6:C-3 LANDSCAPE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS
NO SCREENING REQUIRED AS PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY
BUILDINGS BLOCK VIEW OF DRIVEWAYS FROM ADJACENT
PROPERTIES.
LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS
TREES REQUIRED/PROVIDED: 180
OVERSTORY TREE
ORNAMENTAL TREE
LEGEND
CONIFEROUS TREE
PRELIMINARY PLAT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY,
AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
CARDINAL HEIGHTS
IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA07/27/22 15'
UT
IL
ITY
EASEMENT15'
UT
IL
ITY
EASEMENT
EXIS
TI
N
G
4
0'
S
A
NI
T
A
R
Y
SEW
E
R
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
40' SETBAC
K
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
60' ROW
28'
B-B
5' WALK
SANITARY AND STORM
SEWER EASEMENT
CONSTRUCTION LIMITS (SEE SHEET
P.3-P.5 FOR SENSITIVE AREA
IMPACTS)
EXISTING TREE LINE
15' U
TI
LI
T
Y
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
8' EXISTING TRAIL14
3
4
.
8
1
'
FUTURE TRAFFIC CIRCLE
03 - PFV
01 - PAN
03 - PFV
03 - PTN
04 - PSE
06 - MIP
01 - PAN
03 - PSE
05 - MIP
02 - PTN
04 - PAN
04 - PAN
05 - PSE
01 - PTN
03 - PFV
01 - MIP
02 - CAP
01 - CCF
02 - CCS
02 - CCN
01 - NSB
01 - MIP
01 - COS
01 - CCF
01 - QMC
01 - QRL
03 - PSE
03 - LSR
04 - NSB
01 - PXA
03 - PFV
04 - PSE
03 - PFV
01 - PXA
01 - MIP05 - PSE
02 - PXA
02 - PAN
01 - LTT
02 - COS
02 - QRC
03 - QBS
02 - QRL
02 - QMC
06 - PSE
02 - QBS
04 - PFV
03 - CBF
03 - GDE
01 - QXW
05 - PSE
02 - PAN
02 - QBS 02 - COH
03 - TMH
02 - CCT
02 - OVE
02 - CCN
01 - AAD
01 - SPD
02 - AAD
03 - AXG
02 - SPD
01 - SPD
01 - AAD
01 - CAP
02 - CVW
02 - AXG
02 - CAP
03 - CVW
02 - AXG
01 - LSR
02 - CVW
01 - LTT
01 - QRC
05 - PSE
01 - PFV
01 - PSE
FIELD BOOK:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
NO.REVISION DESCRIPTION
BDV
APPROVED DATE
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
PLANTING DETAILS
CAD File: I:\projects\20000\20034\20034-20\20034-20-2 CP Heights (27 AC)\DWG\Plats\20034-20-2 PP v6.dwg Date Plotted : Jul 27, 2022 - 7:50am Plotted By : BDVwww.halleng.com
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
LAND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
HALL & HALL ENGINEERS, INC.
1860 BOYSON ROAD, HIAWATHA, IOWA 52233
PHONE: (319) 362-9548 FAX: (319) 362-7595
LAND SURVEYING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
L2.0
CJZ
BDV
PROJECT NO: 20034-20-2
PRELIMINARY PLAT, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY,
AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
CARDINAL HEIGHTS
IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA07/27/22
GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES
1.CONTRACTOR TO LOCATE ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK, CONTACT IOWA ONE CALL (1-800-292-8989) OR 811 AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO DIGGING.
CONTRACTOR TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES IMMEDIATELY AT CONTRACTORS EXPENSE.
2.PRIOR TO PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE SHALL APPROVE PLANT LOCATIONS. FIELD ADJUSTMENTS OF PROPOSED PLANT LOCATIONS MAY
BE REQUIRED TO MINIMIZE POTENTIAL INTERFERENCE WITH EXISTING UTILITIES, TO MINIMIZE HAZARDS TO PLANT GROWTH AND TO IMPROVE MAINTENANCE CONDITIONS AND/OR IN CONSIDERATION
OF OTHER FACTORS.
3.PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, ALL TREE PLANTING LOCATIONS SHALL BE FLAGGED AND PLANTING BEDS SHALL BE DELINEATED FOR APPROVAL BY THE PROJECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER'S
REPRESENTATIVE. CONTACT THE PROJECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE ONE WEEK PRIOR TO ANTICIPATED PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION DATE FOR LAYOUT APPROVAL.
4.ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL AT LEAST MEET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS SHOWN IN THE "AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK" (ANSI Z60.1-LATEST EDITION).
5.PLANT QUANTITIES ARE FOR CONTRACTOR'S CONVENIENCE. DRAWINGS SHALL PREVAIL WHERE DISCREPANCIES OCCUR.
6.NO PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE SUBSTITUTED WITHOUT THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.
7.PROVIDE A MINIMUM 3" DEPTH OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH IN ALL PLANTING BEDS AND TREE RINGS. MULCH RINGS FOR TREES SHALL BE A MINIMUM SIX FOOT (6') DIAMETER. ALL MULCH BEDS
AND TREE RINGS SHALL CONTAIN SPADE/SHOVE CUT EDGING AT MULCH EDGE.
8.NURSERY TAGS SHALL BE LEFT ON PLANT MATERIAL UNTIL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS COMPLETED THE INITIAL ACCEPTANCE.
9.CONTAINER GROWN STOCK SHALL HAVE THE CONTAINER REMOVED AND THE ROOT BALL CUT THROUGH THE SURFACE IN TWO VERTICAL LOCATIONS.
10.ALL PLANTS SHALL BE BALLED AND WRAPPED OR CONTAINER GROWN AS SPECIFIED. NO CONTAINER STOCK WILL BE ACCEPTED IF IT IS ROOT BOUND. ALL ROOT WRAPPING MATERIAL MADE OF
SYNTHETICS, METALS, OR PLASTICS SHALL BE REMOVED AT TIME OF PLANTING.
11.AS NEEDED, STAKE ALL NEWLY PLANTED TREES RELATIVE TO WIND EXPOSURE. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE SET PLUMB TO GROUND AND FACED FOR BEST APPEARANCE. AS NECESSARY, PRUNE DEAD
BRANCHES OR THOSE THAT COMPROMISE APPEARANCE AND STRUCTURE TO A MAX OF 13 THE PLANT.
12.CONTRACTOR SHALL WATER AND MAINTAIN ALL SEEDED AREAS AS WELL AS ALL PLANT MATERIAL UNTIL GROUND FREEZES. MAINTENANCE IS INCIDENTAL AND INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO,
WEEDING, MULCHING, AND OTHER NECESSARY RELATED OPERATIONS UNTIL INITIAL ACCEPTANCE. INITIAL ACCEPTANCE IS CONSIDERED TO BE THE DATE AT WHICH PLANTING AND MULCHING, ETC.,
PER LANDSCAPE PLAN, HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.
13.ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE GUARANTEED TO BE IN VIGOROUS GROWING CONDITIONS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR FROM DATE OF INITIAL ACCEPTANCE. REPLACE ALL PLANT MATERIAL UP TO
ONE YEAR OF INITIAL ACCEPTANCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LANDSCAPE PLANS. ALL PLANTS THAT ARE DEAD OR IN AN UNHEALTHY OR UNSIGHTLY STATE ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPLACED AT NO
ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER.
14.ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL HAVE FULL SURFACE RESTORATION IMPLEMENTED BY MEANS OF TURF GRASS LAWN SEED AND/OR SOD, CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY/COORDINATE WITH
OWNER UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.
15.ALL SEEDING APPLICATION NOTES ARE LISTED IN SOD/SEED APPLICATION NOTES. CONTRACTOR SHALL FOLLOW SEED MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATIONS FOR PRODUCT INFORMATION
& INSTALLATION, OR SUDAS SPECS/DESIGN STANDARDS OR CITY STANDARDS, AS APPLICABLE.
16.FOR ALL OTHER LANDSCAPING WORK NOT ADDRESSED VIA MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS OR NOT COVERED WITHIN THESE GENERAL NOTES, CONTRACTOR SHALL FOLLOW SUDAS OR CITY
STANDARDS AS APPLICABLE. THE PLAN AND NOTES ON THIS SHEET SHALL SUPERCEDE SUDAS OR CITY STANDARDS AS APPLICABLE
17.ALL TREES TO BE PLACED WITHIN PARKING LOT ISLANDS ARE TO STRICTLY FOLLOW APPLICABLE SUDAS OR CITY STANDARDS.
18.ALL LANDSCAPE TO BE INSTALLED PER APPLICABLE SUDAS OR CITY STANDARDS.
19.NURSERY SOURCE FOR LANDSCAPE PLANTS SHOWN HEREON SHALL BE WITHIN A 500 MILE RADIUS OF IOWA CITY, IOWA AND GROWN IN A CLIMATE ZONE OF 5A OR COLDER.
20.PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN POSITIVE DRAINAGE THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION. DO NOT ALLOW ADDITION OF TOPSOIL, PLANTING SOIL OR MULCH TO DETER POSITIVE DRAINAGE OR
TO CREATE AREA OF LOCALIZED PONDING.
BED PREPARATION AND MULCHING NOTES
1.IMPORTED TOPSOIL, IF REQUIRED, SHALL BE:
FERTILE, FRIABLE, NATURAL TOPSOIL, WITH A CLAY CONTENT NOT
EXCEEDING 30% AND ORGANIC MATTER CONTENT NOT LESS
THAN 5% FREE FROM LUMPS, COARSE SANDS, STONES, ROOTS,
STICKS, AND OTHER FOREIGN MATERIAL, WITH ACIDITY RANGE
OF BETWEEN Ph 6.0 and 6.8.
2.PLANTING SOIL:
PLANTING SOIL (i.e. BACKFILL AREAS AROUND ROOT BALLS AS
SHOWN ON TREE/SHRUB INSTALLATION DETAIL) SHALL BE
AMENDED. THOROUGHLY MIX 4 PARTS TOPSOIL, 1 PART COMPOST,
1 PART SAND.
TOPSOIL SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED WITHIN THE NOTE ABOVE.
COMPOST SHALL BE FINELY SCREENED GRADED TO PASS SIEVE
AS FOLLOWS:
-MINIMUM OF 85% BEING 1/4" OR SMALLER (DRY BASIS
RESULT).
-MINIMUM OF 70% BEING 5/32" OR SMALLER (DRY BASIS
RESULT).
-WITH CLUMPS OR PARTICLES 3/4" DIAMETER OR GREATER.
SAND SHALL BE C33 WASHED CONCRETE SAND, OR APPROVED
EQUAL.
3.PRIOR TO MULCHING ALL PLANTING BED AREAS, APPLY COMMERCIAL
GRADE PRE-EMERGENT HERBICIDE (PREEN OR APPROVED EQUAL),
PER MANUFACTURE'S DIRECTIONS, TO ALL PLANTING BEDS.
SURFACE RESTORATION APPLICATION NOTES
1.ALL TURF GRASS LAWN SEED, SHALL BE PER SUDAS TYPE 1 LAWN
MIX APPROVED EQUAL
2. ALL TURF GRASS LAWN AREAS, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ARE
TO BE PLANTED AND INSTALLED AS PER THE SUDAS
SPECIFICATIONS.
SEED/ SOD APPLICATION NOTES
1. IF TURF GRASS LAWN SEED ALTERNATE IS USED IN LIEU OF SOD,
ALL SEEDING APPLICATION AREAS SHALL PER SUDAS TYPE 1
LAWN MIX. ALL TURF GRASS SEEDED AREAS SHALL HAVE S150
EROSION CONTROL BLANKET INSTALLED.
2. ALL TURF GRASS LAWN AREAS, WHETHER SODDED OR SEEDED,
UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ARE TO BE PLANTED AND
INSTALLED AS PER SUDAS SPECIFICATIONS FOR SEEDING OR
SOD.
3. ALL TURF GRASS SOD TO BE OF THE SAME PERFORMANCE QUALITY
AND SPECIES OF SUDAS TYPE 1 SPECIFICATIONS.
SEE PLANTING
PLAN
TREE & SHRUB PLANTING NOTES:
1.REMOVE TOP 2
3 OF WIRE BASKET AND BURLAP ONCE PLACED
INTO PLANTING HOLE. REMOVE ALL SISAL AND SYNTHETIC
TWINE.
2.TRUNK FLARE SHOULD BE EXPOSED BEFORE DETERMINING
PLANTING HOLE DEPTH.
3.PLANT TREE WITH TRUNK FLARE 1-2" MAXIMUM ABOVE
ORIGINAL GRADE, AVOID PLANTING TREE TOO DEEPLY.
4.PLANTING HOLE TO BE AT MINIMUM 3 TIMES THE WIDTH OF
ROOTBALL AT SOIL SURFACE, SLOPING TO THE WIDTH OF ROOT
BALL AT BASE. PLANTING HOLE WIDTH NEAR SURFACE IS
INCREASED TO 5 TIMES THE WIDTH OF ROOTBALL WHEN SOILS
ARE HIGHLY COMPACTED OR HEAVY IN CLAY CONTENT.
5.SCARIFY PLANTING HOLE TO HELP ELIMINATE THE CREATION OF
A SOIL INTERFACE.
6.PLACE ROOTBALL ON COMPACTED & LEVELED SUBGRADE
7.REMOVE EXISTING SOIL FROM EXCAVATED PLANTING PIT AND
REPLACE WITH PLANTING SOIL. WHILE BACKFILLING, WORK
PLANTING SOIL AROUND ROOTBALL TO MINIMIZE LARGE AIR
POCKETS AND ENSURE BETTER VERTICAL SUPPORT.
8.AVOID MOUNDING MULCH & MAKING CONTACT WITH TRUNK.
FORM MULCH RING SAUCER TO HELP HOLD WATER DURING
ESTABLISHMENT. DIAMETER OF MULCH AREA SHOULD BE CLEAR
OF GRASS, WEEDS, ETC. TO REDUCE COMPETITION WITH TREE
ROOTS.
9.SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH
10.UNDISTURBED SOIL
STAKING NOTES:
(SEE GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES FOR MORE DETAIL).
S1.STAKING WIRE
S2.RUBBER HOSE SET LOOSE TO ALLOW FOR TRUNK TAPER AND
LESS DETRIMENTAL GROWTH.
S3.STEEL FENCE POST STAKE DRIVEN INSIDE MULCH RING
DIAMETER. DRIVE STAKES 6" TO 1'-0" INTO UNDISTURBED SOIL
BELOW ROOTBALL.
10
5 7 6 7 3
10
7
98
4
2
S1
9
9030.101
REVISION
10-18-11
SHEET 1 of 1
New
PLANTING PIT
PLANTING PIT
(Bare Root Plants)
3
3" Deep Mulch
Finished
Grade
2Spread root system in natural position
with soil excavated from pit.
Over-excavate 6 inches. Place 6 inches
of loose soil in pit prior to planting.
Install with root collar at or slightly above
grade. Do not place mulch within 2
inches of trunk.
Begin transition at edge of root ball.
Cut and completely remove all twine,
burlap, and wire baskets from root ball
prior to placing backfill material.
1
2
3
4
5
Scarify sides
of pit.
1 1/2 to 2 Times
Root System Depth asRequired3
5
Finished
Grade
3" Deep Mulch
Depth of Root Ball or Container Root System 1 1/2 to 2 Times
Root Ball Diameter
Place root ball on
undisturbed soil.
PLANTING PIT
(Balled and Burlapped Plants)
1
Scarify sides of pit.
3
3" Deep Mulch
Finished
Grade
PLANTING PIT
(On Slopes)
Original
Grade
4
Place root ball on
undisturbed soil.
4
Form 3''
deep
saucer.
Scarify sides
of pit.FIGURE 9030.101SHEET 1 OF 1Form 3"
deep
saucer.
Form 3"
deep
saucer.
5 Depth of Root Ball or Container Root System 1 1/2 to 2 Times
Root Ball Diameter
SUDUS Standard Specifications
9030.102
REVISION
10-18-11
SHEET 1 of 2
New
TREE STAKING, GUYING,
AND WRAPPING
Wrap trunk from ground line to first
branch when specified in the contract
documents.
1
STAKING
STAKING PLAN
(Trees 2 1/2 inch diameter or smaller)
1/4 to 1/3
Tree Height
(2'-0" min.) 1/2 to 2/3Tree Height (4'-0" min.)Garden Hose
1
Planting Pit
per Figure
9030.101
Steel Post
6''STAKING PLAN
(Trees larger than 2 1/2 inch diameter)2'-0"min.Flagging
Material
Flagging
Material
Place one stake
to southwest.FIGURE 9030.102SHEET 1 OF 2Place one stake
to southwest.
Place one stake
to southwest.
SUDUS Standard Specifications
REVISION
10-18-11New
SHEET 2 of 2
9030.102
Flagging
Material
Earth Anchor 1/3 to 1/2 Tree HeightGUYING PLAN
GUYING
1/3 Tree HeightFIGURE 9030.102SHEET 2 OF 2Garden Hose
One anchor to
the southwest.
Cable or Manufactured
Restraint System
Planting Pit
per Figure
9030.101
1 Wrap trunk from ground line to first
branch when specified in the contract
documents.
1
TREE STAKING, GUYING,
AND WRAPPING
SUDUS Standard Specifications
PlyGem Vinyl
Wicker
PlyGem Vinyl
Modern Iron
PlyGem Vinyl
Vintage Dublin
Fox River Ridgestone
Exterior Elevation
1/16" = 1'-0"
PlyGem Vinyl
Vintage Dublin
Fox River
Ridgestone
PlyGem Vinyl
Wicker
PlyGem Vinyl
Modern Iron
Cardinal Heights
March 11, 2022
Summary Report for
Good Neighbor Meeting
Project Name: ___________________________Project Location: _________________________
Meeting Date and Time: ________________________________________________________
Meeting Location: _____________________________________________________________
Names of Applicant Representatives attending: ______________________________________
______________________________________
Names of City Staff Representatives attending: _______________________________________
Number of Neighbors Attending: ________ Sign-In Attached? Yes ______ No ______
General Comments received regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary)-
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Concerns expressed regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary) -
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Will there be any changes made to the proposal based on this input? If so, describe:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Staff Representative Comments
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Cardinal Heights East of Camp Cardinal Blvd, west of Camp Cardinal Rd
February 1st, 2022 - 5:30pm to 6:30pm
Zoom Meeting
F. Joe Hughes - Navigate; Jason Walton - Navigate
Brian Vogel -Hall and Hall; Susan Forinash -HHE
Anne Russet - Senior Planner
7 X
Neighbors were not particularly excited about potentially losing some privacy and seeing the private
woodland area behind their home being disturbed. Applicant explained the closest proposed home will be
approximately 400' from any existing home and will be buffered by existing woodlands and drainage way.
The proposed development will be at an elevation of at least 50' higher than the existing homes.
Old trees were cut down but never removed from previous work that started but was never completed.
Project will cause increased traffic
Storm water runoff
Proposed building proximity to existing homes
Construction trash
Added additional stormwater detention basin
Added proposed trees along north boundary to provided additional screening for existing homes
From:Tom Bender
To:Anne Russett
Cc:Rob Bender
Subject:Rezoning REZ22-0001
Date:Tuesday, July 12, 2022 10:00:00 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image008.png
image009.png
image010.png
Anne,
I am an owner of Cardinal Villas at 30 and 80 Gathering Place Lane. I received notification of the
rezoning request for IC Grove East and while I am generally in favor of the request, I do have some
comments;
It appears that Deer Creek Road will be stubbed to Camp Cardinal Road with the intention of later
adding a traffic circle. If this connection is to provide 2ndary egress, it would be potentially putting
an increased amount of traffic on a section of gravel road from the intersection southward to
Gathering Place Lane.
This section of road has been the source of erosion in the form of gravel washing down into the
intersection of Camp Cardinal Road and Gathering Place Ln. The increase in traffic on the gravel
portion will create more dust and the intersection of Camp Cardinal Road and Camp Cardinal Blvd is
already a dangerous place to pull out of due to the reduced visibility on the curve and the high speed
of traffic (well above posted limit) on Camp Cardinal Blvd. Perhaps a signal at that intersection
would help.
All that being said, I like the project and I believe it will add synergy to the area.
Tom
Thomas J Bender
Assurance Property
Management
52 Sturgis Corner Drive
Iowa City, IA 52246
Partner
319-530-7333
319-358-0556
tom@assurancepm.com
www.assurancepm.com
From:Jo Emerson
To:Anne Russett
Subject:East of Camp Cardinal Blvd
Date:Wednesday, July 20, 2022 2:47:48 PM
Consideration should be given to Increase in traffic on Camp Cardinal Blvd, which has already increased
substantially in the last nine years.
Aesthetically the new development could impact property value of some existing homes in that area. In my
opinion, townhomes and duplexes would fit in best rather than large apartment complex.
Sincerely,
Mary Jo Emerson
839 Camp Cardinal Rd
Sent from my iPhone
This email is from an external source.
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 6, 2022 – 6:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Maria Padron, Mark
Signs, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Nolte
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Hektoen, Anne Russett, Parker Walsh
OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Welch, Heather Robb, Joe Clark, Lawrence Luebbert, Rex
Clemmensen, Jo Scott
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission 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:
• Dedicate an access easement agreement to allow access to Lot 66 as shown on the
Preliminary Planned Development and Sensitive Areas Development Plan.
• 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.
• Install the 10’ wide trail connection shown on the Preliminary Planned Development and
Sensitive Areas Development Plan.
• 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
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Item moved to end of agenda.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 6, 2022
Page 2 of 15
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).
Craig disclosed she saw this on the agenda and contacted Hektoen to see if there would have a
conflict of interest as she had heard that Vintage was building a senior living complex on the
corner of Scott and Rochester, which isn't too far from where she lives and she contacted them
because she has some interest in that model of senior living. Hektoen stated she thought there
would not be a conflict of interest as long Craig could be impartial, which she can be and no
contract has been executed.
Walsh began the staff report with an aerial map of the property for the proposed development.
He next showed the zoning map as well as how it fits in with the surrounding area. The current
zoning is interim development single family, which is typically used for plant-related agriculture,
provisional detached single-family homes and also used to post development for a property until
a preferred use can be developed. The proposed zoning is 64.37 acres to low density single
family residential (RS-5) zone, which 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
Planned Development Overlay (OPD) process allows for a mixture of uses in the RS-5 zone.
0.31 acres will be rezoned to interim development single family with a planned development
overlay to accommodate an existing cell tower that is allowed by right through a special
exception in 2009. Walsh showed the current existing uses on site which is lot 67 (3106
Rochester Ave) and lot 66 which is the cell tower. Recommended condition includes the
dedication of an access easement to allow continued access to lot 66. The preliminary OPD and
Sensitive Areas Development Plan proposes 65 single family lots and a private senior living
community with an additional 12 single family units, three duplexes and 29 multifamily units. A
private senior community clubhouse is also proposed.
Walsh next went over the planned development approval criteria and how the proposed
development fits in with the policy vision of the City. The first approval criteria is the density and
design compatible with adjacent development. Starting with density, five dwelling units per acre
are allowed in the OPD/RS-5 zone. Currently there are proposed 112 dwellings which includes
the existing property and that comes out to be 1.94 dwelling units per acre. The land uses
proposed include single family, two-family and multifamily, the extension of the existing single
family development pattern in the area and concentrating more intense zoning on the corners.
The applicant requested a waiver from 60-foot minimum lot with standard four units within the
senior living community. The proposed modification will not result in increased traffic congestion,
garages and off-street parking will be recessed ensuring garages do not dominate the
streetscape. The applicant also requested a waiver from the duplex corner lot standard. If
waived, duplexes must vary in design to prevent monotony. Staff finds that the approval criteria
is met. Walsh showed some renderings for the options residents will have to choose from for the
single-family (patio homes) and duplexes. The multifamily unit would be facing the private drive
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 6, 2022
Page 3 of 15
with the rear at the intersection of Rochester and Scott with the west side visible from Heron
Drive.
Regarding the requirement of open space, the applicant proposes 15,400 square feet of private
open space for the senior living community which exceeds the required 540. It proposes
providing 840 square feet for each single-family home and 600 square feet for each twin home.
Staff recommends the dedication of an access easement and construction of a 10-foot-wide trail
to Calder Park as a condition of the rezoning.
With regards to traffic circulation, Walsh noted the development will include the construction of
Allison Way, Heron Drive and private drive for the senior living community. The development will
be accessed off Rochester Drive so there'll be no Scott Boulevard access. Proposed traffic
calming features include two raised pedestrian crossings and a roundabout. A rezoning condition
includes staff recommendation that at the time of platting traffic calming features be incorporated
in locations approved by the City Engineer.
Next approval criteria is the development will not overburden existing streets and utilities. The
subject property can be serviced by both sanitary sewer and water and have sufficient capacity
to accommodate the proposed development. Transportation staff requested a traffic study which
found 823 new daily trips with full development and occupancy which is estimated to be in 2026.
The study found that traffic at peak hour level of service would operate at an acceptable level-of-
service or a better rating. The study determined that development would not overburden existing
streets and staff concurs. Staff does recommend a condition of the rezoning to include
dedication of public right-of-way at the intersection of Rochester Avenue and North Scott
Boulevard for potential future improvements that may include a roundabout. Recently receiving
new information from Public Works, the applicant submitted a concept which would require a
setback modification from 40 feet to 30 feet along portions of Rochester and staff finds that the
approval criteria in 14-3A-4K-1A to be met.
Moving onto approval criteria three, development will not adversely affect views, property values
and privacy. Walsh stated the proposed development continues the single-family development
pattern that exists south of Rochester Avenue and concentrates more intense uses at the
intersection of two arterial roads and includes three outlots of approximately 33 acres to be
placed in conservation easements. The closest neighbors will be to the south and to the west. To
the west is Larch Lane which would be separated by approximately 18 acres (outlot A) and to the
south it will be separated by Rochester Avenue so staff finds of this development will not impact
existing residents more than a conventional development.
Next is the approval criteria for land use and the building types will be in the public interest. The
proposal incorporates single-family, two-family and multifamily uses, provides diversity of
housing and helps satisfy an ongoing need of senior housing. Outlots A, B and C make up
roughly 33 acres or 50% of the land area and will remain undeveloped. The proposed
development balances environmental protection with the need for increased housing.
Regarding consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan identifies this
area as conservation design and encourages the preservation of sensitive areas by guiding
development away from sensitive areas. Conservation design is appropriate in areas with
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 6, 2022
Page 4 of 15
sensitive features this development has an interconnected system with open space, wide
sidewalks and trails to connect the community. Looking at the North District Plan, the North
District Plan future land use map shows a vision of single family residential, townhomes, and
small apartment buildings. The Plan encourages cul-de-sacs when appropriate, encourages
more intense housing near arterial roads and envisions an extension of Amherst Drive across
Ralston Creek. However, due to the fact that land uses have changed since the adoption of
Northeast District Plan, specifically with the creation of Harvest Reserve, staff is not
recommending a stub street to the north that would eventually tie into Tamarack Trail.
The Northeast District Plan calls for trail connections along waterways, around ponds and
through parks to encourage trail connection at the end of cul-de-sacs. The Plan shows
connections between major destinations and strongly encourages a trail system to connect
neighborhoods with open space, a connection between Bluffwood and Hickory Hill Park, a
connection between Hickory Hill Park and the neighboring park, which is now called Calder Park.
To support this policy direction, staff has requested a 10-foot wide trail between the proposed
development to the edge of Calder Park. The development will also include the construction of a
5-foot wide sidewalk along Rochester Ave, a current gap in the City’s sidewalk network.
Regarding compatibility with existing neighborhood, the proposed development is generally
consistent with the existing neighborhood character, the development would provide a
continuation of single family from south to north across Rochester Avenue, the proposal locates
high density units in the southeast corner, providing a transition of uses from single family to
multifamily and then to Old Towne Village directly southwest of the property. Larch Lane to the
west contains attached single-family units and as mentioned earlier, they'll have an approximate
18-acre natural buffer which will separate it from development.
Regarding sensitive areas, a review of sensitive areas by the Commission and City Council is
required due to the impacts to wetlands, modification to buffers, and impacts of more than 35%
on critical slopes. Looking at wetlands, the sensitive area ordinance requires 100-foot buffer
between wetlands and development. Wetland buffer averaging may be permitted when
necessary and is justified by wetland specialist. Wetland buffer reduction may also be used when
necessary as justified by wetland specialists and the reduction proposed is only for the
southwest corner wetland to accommodate the installation of a sidewalk. The existing wetlands
are approximately 3.03 acres with 0.43 proposed to be disturbed. Mitigation requires
replacement ratio of one to one which will be accomplished through offsite wetland bank credits.
Regarding critical and protected slopes, 9.3 acres are critical slopes and 4.7 are proposed to be
disturbed or 51%. The subject property contains no protected slopes. There are 40.3 acres of
woodlands with 14 acres proposed to be impacted or 34.7%. Woodland buffers proposed to be
impacted are 6.1 acres or 15.2%. Woodlands preserved will be 20.2 acres or 50.1%.
Regarding archaeological sites, Walsh stated the Phase One archaeological survey of the
subject property noted that the subject property is not eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places. No further archaeological work is recommended for the site.
Finally, regarding 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 64.37 acres and a RS-5 zone the developer would
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 6, 2022
Page 5 of 15
be required to dedicate 1.38 acres or pay a fee in lieu of land dedication. The applicant has
requested a fee in lieu of land dedication.
Staff has received correspondence regarding this item in the form of emails from neighboring
residents. Concerns expressed include single family units one through six along Rochester
Avenue, which have since been removed by the applicant, traffic and removal of woodlands.
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:
• Dedicate an access easement agreement to allow access to Lot 66 as shown on the
Preliminary Planned Development and Sensitive Areas Development Plan.
• 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.
• Install the 10’ wide trail connection shown on the Preliminary Planned Development and
Sensitive Areas Development Plan.
• 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
Next steps would include upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a
public hearing will be scheduled for consideration by City Council. The anticipated timeline would
be at the July 12, 2022 meeting Council votes to hold a public hearing and at the August 2, 2022
meeting Council there is a public hearing and first consideration.
Hensch has a question regarding the request for the waiver to decrease width of the residential
lots to less than 60 feet, was there a reason for that other than just to put more lots in there.
Walsh stated the reason was when they had the applicant put in the imaginary lot lines, it
showed that the units they had proposed would not be able to accommodate a 60 foot lot width
and so to make sure that they could fit the units proposed, they requested a waiver which will
require the garage setback and they later submitted floor plans which showed all of the garages
would be recessed.
Hensch also asked about woodlands, with 49.9% of the woodlands being disturbed does any of
the development ordinances address replacement of woodlands. Russett replied there is a
mitigation requirement if the impact is above 50% but since they’re below that threshold, there is
no mitigation required for the woodlands.
Townsend asked if any of these new units being developed are considered affordable housing.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 6, 2022
Page 6 of 15
Hektoenn stated nothing is obligating them to provide affordable housing, whether they choose
to or not, it's up to them, but it's not part of this process.
Padron asked why a change was made on the corner. Walsh explained that would be to
accommodate the requested additional right-of-way for a potential future roundabout. After Public
Works contacted the applicant they noticed that the 40-foot setback would not be met along the
entirety of that right-of-way, which is the need for the requested modification. Russett added that
request that was not included in the agenda packet as it was a new request that came up on
Friday after the packet was published and the Public Works staff had provided a sketch of the
amount of right-of-way they needed for the roundabout.
Craig had a question about the trail to the park, which is quite long and goes over water and it
goes through the Harvest Preserve area, which is her understanding is private land and the
public don't have access to Harvest Preserve, so how's that going to work. Walsh deferred to
the applicant to answer that question.
Hektoen noted there's a conservation easement that is necessitated by the mitigation activity that
was required, so the public will be able to walk on that trail even if the trail will still be on private
land.
Craig understands why it's preferred that both the entrance/exit options are coming from
Rochester, but to not even have a pedestrian option over to Scott Boulevard seems less than
ideal. Russett noted staff did have conversations about access but noted it's really hard with the
environmental resources on this site, and Harvest Preserve to the north, to have an
interconnected street network. There's also an existing conservation easement in outlot A, that
restricts any street network to the west. A very small portion of the development actually fronts
Scott Boulevard so providing access to Scott Boulevard would have required a change in the
rezoning boundary, and it would have also impacted the wetland that's within outlot C.
Craig noted there's a lot of jointly held land here, she assumes there's going to be a
homeowner's association or something that has to take care of all those acres and it just
concerns her when the next derecho comes through and half the trees are laying on the ground,
who's going to take care of it or invasive species and all that. She feels the City needs to have
something that addresses those things.
Signs asked if the sidewalk that's existing on Scott Boulevard goes all the way from Rochester
north or does it stop. Walsh confirmed it does go all the way. Signs asked about on Rochester
along the southern border this property, is there an existing sidewalk. Russett confirmed one will
be required as part of this project.
Signs also asked to confirm the trail to Calder Park will include a public easement which will
allow the public to go through the trail. Is that conservation easement already in existence.
Walsh explained the outlots would be placed into conservation easements at final platting, which
would restrict them from any future development.
Craig and just wanted to reinforce her point, who's going to plow that trail in the wintertime.
Russett replied the trail will be maintained by the City.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 6, 2022
Page 7 of 15
Padron noted the proposed sidewalk on Rochester doesn’t look as wide as the sidewalk on Scott
Boulevard, why aren’t’ the sidewalk going to be the same size. Russett is not actually sure, in
certain instances the City requires wider sidewalks and they did with the development of Scott,
but for Rochester, she doesn’t believe they would be requiring anything more than five feet.
Hektoen added City policy is usually that one side of the street has the wider sidewalk.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Mike Welch (Welch Design and Development) representing the developer, the developer, Joe
Clark is here as well as Heather Ropp from Ewing Properties in case there are specific questions
about Ewing properties on lot 65. Welch began by noting Walsh did a great job in the staff report
hitting the high points, but Welch wanted to talk about the process they've gone through over the
last few months with staff and then also with the Good Neighbor meeting they had. An important
piece of this development and this project was the iterative nature, and they did a really good job
of working through issues. As alluded to, they talked about the possibility for access off Scott
Boulevard and looked at that both from a sensitive areas for topography and wetlands, and just
from general logistics, and getting that connection proved to be exceedingly difficult with the
street grades that they would have ended up with and they wouldn’t be code compliant with
those and the landowner was interested in keeping the northeast corner of the development not
developed. Another important point is their north boundary is the south boundary of Harvest
Preserve and the land that they're developing is actually not owned by Harvest Preserve but it's
owned by an entity called Monument Farms. So there are two separate entities in that
conservation easement. The conservation easement does stop at that north boundary of the
development and Harvest Preserve does own currently the piece of land in the northwest corner,
but it's not part of their overall conservation area. Welch noted at the good neighbor meeting a lot
of the public didn't understand that too, that there was a line where Harvest Preserve stops, and
it doesn't continue all the way to Rochester Avenue. That took some people by surprise at that
Good Neighbor meeting. Welch showed the Commission what they had presented at the Good
Neighbor meeting. On the photo the white boxes are what they're showing as currently
corresponding with the lots, they did have those six homes fronting on Rochester, they have
been required to have rear access off the back and then a little narrower, smaller house, and
they were bringing those in as a way to further increase that housing diversity in Iowa City and
get a different price point house wise. At that meeting with the neighbors, which was really well
attended (they had 24 homeowners sign in, which included husbands and wives or two people
on the same address sign in) and a lot of good questions came from the neighbors. Welch noted
the biggest takeaway they got was questions about traffic, questions about woodland impacted
but the one that really stood out was the six lots on Rochester and what the impact would be for
people who live south of Rochester and are used to looking at that wooded area which would
now go away and they would see houses. Welch stated the development team regrouped after
that meeting and looked at the feedback and felt like given that opposition and the concerns,
they eliminated those six lots from the development. The other piece that came up in talking to
staff and understanding it a little bit better is that existing conservation easement precludes any
utilities from crossing it and any trail or any kind of access so that forced them to take and snake
that trail around to the north and to do that they work closely with Harvest Preserve. It took a few
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 6, 2022
Page 8 of 15
days but they got an agreement in place to allow that pedestrian access across that piece of land
to get that connection to Calder Park.
Welch noted they're really excited about this project, not only is it good for the people who live
over on the north side of Rochester, or Ralston Creek, as gives them a way to get to the south,
but for the people who end up living in the development, whether they're in the single family
homes, or in Ewing's parcel on the corner, to have access to a neighborhood park is a really nice
benefit. It also provides a nice scenic trail that then follows Hickory Trail into Hickory Hill Park,
just down the road. The other piece that they think is really good about that connection is an
elementary school student who goes to Lemme has a way to connect through and cut through
and walk to school. For those who aren't school age, but maybe want to go get a Dairy Queen, it
takes three quarters a mile off the walk by going on the trail. As one of the neighbors said, now
he can take his ebike to Blackstone so there's lots of benefits for all ages.
Welch also wanted to highlight the scale of this development in the scale of the overall
neighborhood. Their development is 65 acres, they're removing 14 acres of woodland, but
there's 33 acres that's been set aside in those outlots which will be conserved forever. It was
important to note the balance of development versus preserving what's there. This is essentially
an infill development, taking that last piece that's available there, and making use of road and
utility infrastructure that's there. The other piece important to highlight is outlot B is the only piece
of this property that has mature trees on it. Looking at the aerial photos, going back to the 30s,
this area was pasture. The archeological study shows that there were two farmsteads close to
Rochester Avenue and if you go back through and poke around, you can find some of the
remnants of those there. But most of this land was pasture at some point, other than the woods
in outlot B and that's the original mature trees that are being preserved.
Welch addressed the question about the trail and crossing Ralston Creek. He stated they will be
doing the study as part of the planning process to determine if that's a bridge or a culvert and
look at what they need to do. There'll be DNR and Corps of Engineer permitting required for that.
Same with the wetland impacts that they do have, they've started that permitting process with the
Core for those mitigation impacts, they're mitigating off site and that's the Corps of Engineers
preferred method for that wetland mitigation, they will be taking advantage of the wetland banks
that exist now in the Johnson County area.
Hensch noted Welch said that on outlot B those trees existed pre-1930s aerial photographs and
the remainder was all pastureland so that's just trees that have voluntarily grown up since that
time since the pastures have been taken away. Welch confirmed that was correct and noted it’s
actually pretty dramatic looking at the 90s and on.
Hensch asked if they did a tree inventory. Welch stated as far as the woodland areas, they use
the aerial mapping to determine those boundaries and a little bit of field survey. They did consult
with Impact 7G on the wetlands and as part of that they did a threatened and endangered
species analysis so they do have a little bit more information, and it's in their report as far as
what species are in there.
Speaking of trees, Hensch noticed one of the public comment comments was about having
Bradford Pears in the planting schematics. He just wondered where they got that. Welch agreed,
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 6, 2022
Page 9 of 15
he’s not sure if those are in there, because typically the City Forester would not allow those to be
in there and the City Forester has reviewed the landscape plan.
Hensch noted Welch stated on the six houses that were originally proposed for Rochester he
asked if they were going to have a different price point. Were those going to be more affordably
priced. Welch stated just based on the lot size, because they were fronting Rochester and they
can't get driveway access directly onto Rochester, they would have been rear loaded with a
shared drive, allowed a smaller footprint house on those six lots.
Hensch stated merely because this is an area that he finds very curious, the main concerns the
adjacent property owners had was it would interfere with their view shed. Welch confirmed and
added it was the impacts of those houses on their property values and their views.
Heather Ropp (Regional Director for Ewing Properties) covers the eastern Iowa territory. She
noted they currently have two communities complete in the Johnson County area and one under
construction in North Liberty. What they are proposing here on the east side is 55 and above
housing, it's an ownership model, so these aren't rentals and don't become Airbnb’s, these are
owned and operated and controlled by the owners or the members that live there. They are
shareholders buying a share into the entire property. They are going to have a mix of individual
homes, patio homes (slab on grade homes), optional basements, universal design concepts,
designed to age in place. They're also going to add a few duplexes in there, just so they can get
some more density on the site again, universal design concept, duplexes, and then a two-story
building which sits at the corner of Rochester and Scott. The units will be ranging in size from
1000 square feet up to potentially 1800 square feet. Again, the universal design concept
designed to age in place with underground parking. The entire community will enjoy the
common spaces that will be on the property, in the two-story building there will be a great room,
there will be a workshop in the garage area, in the clubhouse a fitness center, an outdoor grilling
area, meeting spaces, game rooms, and other activities to do. They are really promoting this as
community and building beautiful places to live. Their mission is to provide a community where
people know each other and they interact, it is known that as people get older sometimes they
lose that social aspect of their life and they are here to bring that back to the people in the
community.
Hensch asked how many units they are hoping to build there. Ropp replied it’s 28 or 29 in the
two-story building, 12 individual homes and then 6 homes in the duplexes.
Hensch asked about the only 55 and over. Ropp replied the state of Iowa has a law that 20% of
that population can be under the age of 55, but over the age of 18, but there are minimum
income requirements to financially qualify to live in any of their communities.
Craig had a question about parking noting the visitor parking for 37 units seems inadequate.
Can people park on the street there. Ropp noted the two-story building will have heated
underground parking so the people that are shareholders in the building will have a dedicated
parking spot below and it should allow for a second car parking below. The garages will have
attached two car garages and then they'll have some driveway access and then they usually try
to allow for a common parking area near the clubhouse for visitors. She hasn’t really seen a
parking plan yet to give any input on that.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 6, 2022
Page 10 of 15
Craig noted if they got three book clubs meeting on the same night, they are in trouble. Welch
noted the street is a 26 foot wide private drive so that's a typical city street and would allow for
parking on one side.
Signs asked if there is a pool in the clubhouse. Ropp said they are proposing an outdoor pool.
Padron noted this is all independent living so people will be able to purchase the properties, so
when someone passes away will the property go back to the company or can the family resell it.
Ropp explained being in a senior housing cooperative the members are the shareholders so
they're buying a share of the entire property. When somebody passes away, they can set it up
however they want, they can set it into a trust and state a transfer on death. When that happens,
it's the responsibility of the community manager to resell that person’s share and it goes back to
the beneficiary named, but the transactions are all handled in house by the community manager
on site.
Padron asked then could someone younger come and stay or would it always have to be
someone 55 and over. Ropp said visitors are definitely allowed and encouraged but to live there
full time, residents have to be over the age of 18. This is a senior community with ownership 55
and above, but visitors that are staying with somebody for a long term have to be over the age of
18. Grandkids and guests can come visit, but to live there long-term they must be over age 18.
Craig asked what the vision for the maintenance of all the woodlands is. Welch stated that would
be monitored by the homeowner’s association with the typical language that invasive species
removal can happen, dead trees can be taken down, and it can be used for recreational
purposes, but someone can't come in and just start clearing or anything like that. Ropp added
their community is maintenance free, the community manager and maintenance technician on
site will be handling all the maintenance of the members living there, not only outside the home,
but everything inside the home as well.
Padron asked regarding the heating parking underneath the two-story building, will there be solar
panels or EV charging station for cars or anything like that. Ropp said they will probably put in
those things as requested. If some of the early people that purchase have an electric vehicle,
they will work with them and plan on that. Since the garage in a co-op is a community space,
they would have to figure out how to monitor or meter that outlet specifically for use of an electric
car but it is definitely something they'll consider. In the individual homes and duplexes, that's
something if people purchase early, they can build into the construction.
Joe Clark (Developer) is also present to answer questions.
Padron noted sometimes the trails can be very hidden and then people don't really know that
they are there to use them. Are they planning on having a sign or something to identify the trails.
Clark replied that's going to be on the City as to what sort of sign they want coming in. He thinks
the City could probably put something over at Calder Park that says there's trails going back
through there. They'll probably need to be a connection from Hickory and Tamarack that comes
down through Calder Park so he’s guessing people will see the trail heading down through there.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 6, 2022
Page 11 of 15
Lawrence Luebbert (3269 Rochester Avenue) has lived there for 22 years, the house he built
was a parade home in 2000. Before he bought that lot, he researched the whole area about what
was to go in there and it's been great because he’s had wildlife, too much wildlife actually, all
these years. But he thinks this is a great plan and likes the idea. In terms of the trees and the
land, there were cows across the street when he bought his house, it was all grassland and cow
pasture. He was a little bit concerned about the small houses, he thought that was awful tight
because of the terrain but that sounds like that's gone. He is also a fairly serious bicycle rider so
the trail will be nice. It's just a really good layout for the area.
Rex Clemmensen (15 Heron Circle) is a neighbor of Luebbert’s and also likes the development
but has one concern and that is the corner where Heron runs into Rochester. Because Heron is
a cul-de-sac that's the only way they can get out and he looked at the traffic study and it says it's
going to be 831 more trips, about 300 more cars. Also it decided at that intersection the average
wait time would increase by nine tenths of a second which he finds wildly implausible because all
these cars that are going to be coming out on there and there's just a stop sign on either side.
While he’s in favor of development, he would like to see on the senior center where the private
drive is, it looks like there's a short shot out to Scott Boulevard. He understands why they can't
do it in the far northeast but why not there where it would alleviate some of the congestion at that
corner. The study may say that is not that busy of intersection, but it can be busy in the mornings
and at night. If there is traffic on Rochester, those on Heron are going to wait some time to get on
there and they have no other way to get out except there. So he’d suggest either doing a little
blurb out of there to Rochester or at the minimum take Rochester Avenue to three lanes all the
way back to Tetons Circle, so they can at least have a turn lane to get out of there. He’s afraid
people are going to be waiting at that intersection all day.
Luebbert noted he has a point, he’s complained to the city a number of times about Rochester
strip after dark coming from that four way stop. He’s seen cars doing 50-60 miles an hour
through there.
Craig noted the City is reserving the option someday of putting a roundabout there and that
might actually help that kind of thing.
Jo Scott (608 Larch Lane) stated she doesn’t have any objection to the plan and thinks it looks
really pretty good. She is glad that they took the six houses out, that would have been her
objection because that would impact their area. The one thing that she thinks about when she
looks at the number of homes in here is the traffic on Rochester, the speed limit right now is 35.
She would hope that the City would change that speed limit to 25 as it is already hard for them to
get out of their area, people do just come flying down Rochester. She hopes that if this
development is approved, they will seriously consider lowering that speed limit to 25 with that
much traffic that this would entail.
Hensch noted unfortunately as much as they'd like to this Commission doesn’t have the authority
to reduce speed limits but that is certainly something that they can address the City with and ask.
Unfortunately, studies have shown that lowering the speed limit does not slow down traffic, it's
other factors that actually slow down the traffic, not the speed limits. When this goes forward to
the City Council, that would be a time to bring up the speed limits.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 6, 2022
Page 12 of 15
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend approval of REZ22-0008, a proposal to rezone approximately
64.37 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:
• Dedicate an access easement agreement to allow access to Lot 66 as shown on
the Preliminary Planned Development and Sensitive Areas Development Plan.
• 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.
• Install the 10’ wide trail connection shown on the Preliminary Planned
Development and Sensitive Areas Development Plan.
• 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
Townsend seconded the motion.
Hensch noted when he saw this drawing, it reminded him of the development on Cherry Street,
that new development going on Cherry between Pepper and Gilbert, it has multiple family,
townhouses and a looped road with single family dwellings and that's progressing very nicely
there. That pushed him to be predisposed to this because it reminded him so much of it.
Additionally the neighbors’ concerns have largely been addressed, traffic is always an issue and
that's why people need to be persistent, addressing the City Council. He will support this
application.
Signs wanted to commend everyone involved in this project, he doesn’t recall ever having seen a
proposal that matched the Comprehensive Plan and the neighborhood plan vision so well. He
commends them for doing this conservation design, preserving the sensitive areas and the
woodlands and trying to maximize space and that's why he don't have a problem with smaller
lots because that's the price to pay to get some more open space. He is very supportive of this
project, he is always concerned about these outlots, because they always say the outlots are just
going to be there and then five years later someone comes with a plan for the outlot. He doesn’t
see anything in here that requires conservation easements but will trust that staff is going it taken
care of along the way. He also noted this may be the first time they've had a development of this
size where neighbors were all generally supportive of the project so that speaks a lot to the
quality of it.
Craig noted she is an eastsider and likes all this development on this side of town. The
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 6, 2022
Page 13 of 15
combination of senior living with the single-family housing is a good one. She wishes there was
an affordable option but understands why it was taken out. She is in support of the plan.
Padron agrees that she would like to have seen those six units that were going to be affordable
to stay. Senior living is a big issue as big as affordable housing here in Iowa City, Oaknoll has a
very long wait list, but thinks the affordable units should have stayed in in the project.
Townsend noted it wasn't considered affordable housing, it was less pricey housing. So that is
different from affordable.
Padron agreed but noted they need affordability for different income levels. They have to
remember that affordability is needed for all income levels, not only for lower income people.
Townsend agreed it's great that there are some finally some 55 and over housing that isn't just
dependent living because there are quite a few seniors that enjoy being able to do what they
want to do and still have a place they can call their own. So this is a great project for the more
mature adults.
Padron had one more comment, that corner at Scott and Rochester can get very, very busy.
Maybe the City can think about adding a light there or something because it's a four way stop
sign and it can get really busy especially very early in the morning and at five. Adding more cars
to the traffic is going to have an impact.
Hensch agrees, four-way stops are so inefficient because everyone just sits there and looks at
each other.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JUNE 15, 2022:
Craig moved to approve the meeting minutes of June 15, 2022.
Townsend seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett gave one update from the last City Council meeting. Council adopted the code cleanup
text amendment that was all the minor code changes approved at the last meeting.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Motion by Townsend and seconded by Signs for Hensch to remain Commission Chair. A vote
was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 6, 2022
Page 14 of 15
Motion by Townsend and seconded by Elliott for Signs to become Vice-Chair. A vote was taken
and the motion passed 4-1-1.
Motion by Craig and seconded by Signs for Townsend to become Secretary. A vote was taken
and the motion passed 6-0.
ADJOURNMENT:
Elliott moved to adjourn.
Townsend seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2022-2023
7/6
CRAIG, SUSAN X
ELLIOTT, MAGGIE X
HENSCH, MIKE X
NOLTE, MARK O
PADRON, MARIA X
SIGNS, MARK X
TOWNSEND, BILLIE X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member