Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-08-02 OrdinanceItem Number: 10.a. r CITY OE IOWA CITY www.icgov.org August 2, 2022 Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 64.37 acres of property located north of Rochester Avenue and west of N. Scott Blvd. from Interim Development — Single Family Residential (ID -RS) to Low Density Single - Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and 0.31 acres to Interim Development — Single Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/ID-RS) (REZ22-0008). ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Report with Preliminary OPD and SADP Revised Preliminary OPD & SADP P&Z 7-6-22 Minutes Correspondence from Welch design + development Correspondence - Kelly Terrill Ordinance Conditional Zoning Agreement STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ22-0008 Monument Hills GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact Person: Owner: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Location Map: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Prepared by: Parker Walsh, Associate Planner Date: July 6, 2022 Michael Welch Welch Design and Development michael@welchdesigndevelopment.com See above. Douglas Paul Monument Farms LLC PO Box 455 North Liberty, IA 52317 drpau1507(a�yahoo.com Rezoning from Interim Development - Single Family Residential (ID -RS) to Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Interim Development - Single Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/ID-RS) Construction of 64 single-family detached residences, 12 senior single-family units, 3 duplexes, and 29 senior multi -family units West of N. Scott Boulevard and north of Rochester Avenue. 64.68 Acres Undeveloped/Vacant Open Space, Interim Development - Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) North: ID -RS, Interim Development -Single- Family Residential South: RS -5, Low Density Single Family 2 Residential East: ID -RS, Interim Development -Single- Family Residential West: RS -5, Low Density Single Family Residential Comprehensive Plan: Conservation Design, Single -Family, Townhome, and Small Apartment District Plan: Northeast Neighborhood Open Space District: NE1 Public Meeting Notification: Property owners within 500' of the subject property received notification of the Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting. Rezoning signs were posted on the site at Rochester Ave. File Date: May 31, 2022 45 Day Limitation Period: July 15, 2022 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, Welch Design and Development, has requested a rezoning from Interim Development Single -Family (ID -RS) to Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) for approximately 64.36 acres located west of N. Scott Boulevard and north of Rochester Avenue. The applicant intends to develop 64 single-family homes and a senior living community consisting of 12 single-family units, 3 duplex units, and 29 multi -family units. Approximately 0.31 acres of the subject property will remain ID -RS (with the OPD) to accommodate an existing communications tower, which received a special exception in 2009. The communications tower currently has access to the property through an easement on the abutting home property. In order to maintain access to the tower, as a condition of the rezoning an access easement agreement to allow access to Lot 66 as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development and Sensitive Areas Development Plan will be required. Additionally, there is one single-family home on the property that fronts Rochester Ave that will remain. The Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan and Sensitive Areas Development Plan is included in Attachment 3. The Preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan proposes removal of critical slopes in excess of what is allowed per 14-51-8E-4 and also impacts wetlands. Therefore, a Level 11 Sensitive Areas Review is required, which requires review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approval by the City Council as part of the OPD rezoning process. The applicant conducted a Good Neighbor meeting on May 25, 2022. A summary of the meeting is included in Attachment 4. ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: The property is currently zoned Interim Development -Single-Family (ID -RS). The purpose of the ID -zones is to provide for areas of managed growth in which agricultural and other nonurban uses of land may continue until such time as the city is able to provide city services and urban development can occur. The interim development zone is the default zoning district to which all undeveloped areas should be classified until development occurs. Upon provision of city services, the city or the property owner may initiate rezoning to zones consistent with the comprehensive plan. In ID -RS zones, only plant related agricultural is allowed by right. 3 The ID -RS zone allows a limited number of land uses such as detached single-family homes, animal related commercial use, parks and open space, and agricultural uses. Approximately 0.31 acres of the subject property will remain ID -RS to accommodate an existing communications tower that received a special exception in 2009. Communications towers are not an allowed use in the RS -5 zone. Proposed Zoning: The planned development overlay zone (OPD) is intended to permit flexibility in the use and design of structures and land in situations where conventional development may not be appropriate. The Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5) zone is intended to provide housing opportunities for individual households. The zone allows larger lot sizes and setbacks creating neighborhoods with a limited density. While the proposed development contains duplexes and a multi -family building, the OPD process allows for a mixture of uses in the RS -5 zone. General Planned Development Approval Criteria: Applications for Planned Development Rezonings are reviewed for compliance with the following standards according to Article 14-3A of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance. 1. The density and design of the Planned Development will be compatible with and/or complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass and scale, relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout. Density — The OPD/RS-5 zone allows for a density of 5 dwelling units per net acre of land area (total land minus public and private streets right-of-way). The proposed development includes 112 dwelling units on 57.65 net acres, including the existing home at 3106 Rochester Ave. The proposed density is 1.94 dwelling units per acre, which complies with the OPD/RS-5 density standard. Land Uses Proposed — The applicant is proposing 64 single-family detached residences and a senior living community consisting of 12 single-family units, 3 duplexes, and 29 senior multi -family units. The addition of the senior housing will increase the diversity of housing types and help to satisfy an ongoing need for senior housing in the city. To the north of the subject property is Harvest Preserve, which is a privately held, membership based open space area. It is staff's understanding that the property owner has no intention of developing this area. To the west is a small community off of Larch Lane that consists of a mix of two-family and three-family homes. Per the Preliminary OPD plans this community will be bordered by Outlot A, which consists of 18 acres of land that will be put into a conservation easement. To the south, across Rochester Avenue, is an existing single-family neighborhood. With the exception of the multi -family building, which is located at the intersection of two arterials and diagonally from the neighborhood's commercial center, the proposed development is an extension of the single-family community. In summary, the proposed plan continues the existing pattern of single-family development and concentrates the more intense land uses near the existing commercial center and major streets. Mass, Scale and General Layout — The development will be predominately house -scale buildings, including both single-family and duplex units. The multi -family building will be larger in scale; however, it will only be 2 stories. Additionally, the multi -family building will be required to comply with the Multi -Family Site Development Standards, which aim to promote attractive, pedestrian friendly neighborhoods by regulating parking, requiring screening of unsightly features and ensuring clearly identified pedestrian connections. Additionally, the applicant has requested two waivers. One waiver from the RS -5 lot width standards, and the other from the duplex corner lot standard. 4 The first waiver is from the RS -5 minimum lot width standard of 60' for the single-family units within the senior community. Instead, the applicant has requested a 56' lot width. The OPD rezoning process allows applicants to request waivers from certain development standards, including lot width. However, the following approval criteria must be met (14 -3A -4K -1c): 1. The proposed modifications will not result in increased traffic congestion or a reduction in neighborhood traffic circulation. At the request of Transportation Planning staff, the applicant provided a traffic study. The study shows that the proposed development will not overburden the existing street system. More information on the traffic study is provided below. 2. Garages and off street parking areas must be located so that they do not dominate the streetscape. Alley or private rear lane access will be required, unless garages are recessed behind the front facade of the dwelling in a manner that allows the residential portion of the dwelling to predominate along the street. The applicant has provided staff with renderings and elevations of each of the future housing options that residents will have to choose from (Attachment 3), all of which have garages that are recessed from the front facade of the dwelling. The second waiver is related to the duplexes, three of which are proposed. Two of the duplexes are not located on a corner lot, which is typically required in an RS -5 zone. Through the OPD rezoning process, the corner lot requirement may be waived if convincing evidence is submitted that the configuration of the property or other existing physical condition of the lot makes the application of this standard impractical. If this standard is waived the units must be designed and located in a manner that prevents monotony by varying aspects such as facade detailing, window pattern, building materials, and color (14-3A-4C-1a(2)(C)). The proposed duplexes increase the level of housing diversity and provides a transition between the proposed multi -family and the single-family. Also, locating the duplexes along Rochester Ave ensures that the higher intensity uses, as opposed to the single-family units, are located along the arterial street. In summary, the approval criteria needed to waive the corner lot standard is met. Open Space — The proposed development will need to comply with private open space standards, outlined in section 14 -2A -4E of the City Code. The multi -family complex will be required to accommodate 10 square feet of private open space per bedroom, for a total of 540 square feet of private open space. The single-family homes will be required to provide a minimum of 500 square feet of open space. The OPD plan for the senior living community proposes providing approximately 15,400 square feet of on-site shared private open space, which not only includes open space areas, but also a community clubhouse and walking paths. These standards will be reviewed for compliance at site plan and at building permit. Based on the policy direction in the comprehensive plan, which strongly supports trail connections to open space areas, staff requested that the developer construct a 10' wide trail to provide easier access to Calder Park, a nearby public park. Staff recommends as a condition of the rezoning that the developer dedicate a public access easement agreement to allow a public trail from the proposed development to Calder Park and install the 10' wide trail connection. Traffic Circulation — The proposed development would include the construction of Allison Way, Heron Drive, and a private drive for the senior living community, which is proposed off of Heron Drive to the east. The development will be accessed off of Rochester Ave via Allison Way and the extension of Heron Circle. No access is proposed off of N. Scott Blvd. 5 Allison Way proposes two raised pedestrian crossings to help calm traffic and a roundabout along Heron Drive, which would provide additional traffic calming within the neighborhood. Staff recommends as a condition of the rezoning that at the time of platting traffic calming measures be incorporated into the development in locations approved by and designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This condition must be satisfied in order to meet the traffic circulation criteria. 2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities. The subject property can be serviced by both sanitary sewer and water. Public Works staff has indicated that both sanitary sewer and water mains have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed development. However, at the time of platting, Public Works staff will require that the applicant submit a water pressure flow analysis to ensure adequate water pressure. Transportation Planning staff requested that the applicant submit a traffic study which examined how the proposed development would impact traffic along Rochester Avenue. The traffic study (excerpt included in Attachment 5) indicates that the total average daily trips generated by the proposed development is 823 new daily trips, which includes 58 new AM peak -hour trips, and 77 new PM peak -hour trips by the anticipated date the site is fully developed and occupied, 2026. The study shows that the peak -hour level -of -service (LOS) analysis is expected to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better rating in 2022 and in the 2026 future development conditions. The traffic study determined that the construction of the proposed street system and units would not increase traffic to the point of overburdening the existing street system. Staff has reviewed the traffic study and concurs with the analysis. Staff recommends a condition of the rezoning include dedication of public right-of-way at the intersection of Rochester Ave and N. Scott Blvd. Additional right-of-way is needed by the City for potential future improvements in this area, which may include a roundabout. 3. The development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property values and privacy of neighboring properties any more than would a conventional development. The proposed development continues the single-family development pattern that exists to the south and concentrates the more intense residential development at the intersection of two arterial streets near the neighborhood commercial center. Although the development will impact some woodlands, the development includes three outlots, which will be placed in conservation easements at the time of platting for the protection of sensitive areas. These outlot areas total approximately 33 acres. In terms of privacy, the closest neighbors will be those to the south across Rochester Avenue and the community on Larch Ln to the west, which is separated by 18 acres of sensitive areas. There is no development to the north and east. For these reasons staff finds that this development will not impact neighboring residences more than a conventional development. 4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying zoning requirements or from City street standards will be in the public interest, in harmony with the purposes of this Title, and with other building regulations of the City. The Preliminary OPD plan incorporates single-family, two-family, and multi -family uses. The combination of land uses provides a diversity of housing options and helps to satisfy an ongoing need for senior housing. Outlots A, B, and C, which makes up approximately 33 acres and roughly 50% of the land area, will remain free from development. In summary, the proposed project balances the need for environmental protection with the need for an increased housing supply and diversity of housing types. 6 Rezoning Review Criteria: Staff uses the following two criteria in the review of rezonings: 1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan; 2. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan's future land use map has identified this area as appropriate for conservation design. Conservation design is appropriate in areas containing steep slopes, woodlands, stream corridors, and other sensitive features. Building sites are identified to take advantage of the preserved land and create streets that minimize disturbance of natural areas. Developments with a conservation design should be more compact with less pavement and more open space than conventional development. The project area is approximately 65 -acres and roughly half of the area will remain undeveloped to preserve and protect woodlands, wetlands, and sensitive slopes. The Northeast District Plan future land use map for the Bluffwood neighborhood (Figure 2) shows a concept containing three centrally located cul-de-sacs lined with single-family homes. Moving east, the housing options transition into townhomes and small apartment buildings lining Rochester Ave and North Scott Blvd. The map also shows a street connection to N. Scott Blvd and two access points off Rochester Ave. The applicant submitted two exhibits (Attachment 8), which provide an overlay of the development on the existing land conditions, as well as an overlay of the development on the Northeast District Plan's future land use map. The proposed development generally aligns with the concept and policy vision of the Northeast District Plan. The proposed development is predominately single-family homes and concentrates the more intense housing units at the intersection of Rochester Ave and N. Scott Blvd, consistent with Northeast District Plan future land use map (see Figure 2). Figure 2. Northeast District Plan Future Land Use Map ! JJ i '•.L ..►.. , 3 t,... . 16, r• • 115 X11 mss,. •w+ In terms of street connections, the Northeast District Plan envisioned the extension of Amhurst Drive north across Ralston Creek to improve street connectivity and community connections. The most logical connection would be north to Tamarack Trail. Tamarack Trail is currently stubbed to the edge of the Harvest Preserve property, which is outside the bounds of this rezoning proposal. Due to the fact that land uses have changed since the adoption of the Northeast District Plan, specifically with the creation of Harvest Preserve, staff is not 7 recommending a stub street to the north that could eventually tie into Tamarack Trail. This connection is unlikely given Harvest Preserve's goal to maintain a private, undeveloped, conservation area that can be enjoyed by its members. Provide Pedestrian/Bicyclist Connections — One of the neighborhood planning principles of the Northeast District Plan is to provide pedestrian/bicyclist connections. Specifically, the plan calls for locating recreational trails along waterways, around ponds, and through parks; incorporating trail connections at the end of cul-de-sacs; and planning for trail connections between major destinations, such as commercial areas, parks, and schools. Specific to the Bluffwood neighborhood, the plans call for an interconnected sidewalk system augmented by a trail system which will provide opportunities for people to walk, bike, or jog to various destinations. Trails are strongly encouraged so that all neighborhood residents are within walking distance of parks and open space. The plan also notes that pedestrian connections between the Bluffwood neighborhood and Hickory Hill Park should be enhanced, and a connection between Hickory Hill Park and the neighborhood park (Calder Park) should be designated. This is further supported by the City's Bicycle Master Plan, which shows a proposed Multi -Use Trail/Shared-Use Path from Hickory Trail to Scott Blvd. Supported by this policy direction, staff has requested that the developer construction a 10' wide trail between the proposed development to the edge of Calder Park. The development will also include the construction of a 5' wide sidewalk along Rochester Ave, a current gap in the city's sidewalk network. Encourage a Reasonable Level of Housing Diversity — The majority of the proposed development consists of single-family, which aligns with the land use policy vision. That said, the plan does encourage townhomes and small apartment houses at the edge of the neighborhood where slightly higher density housing can take advantage of being located near major arterial streets, such as Scott Blvd and Rochester Ave and neighborhood commercial centers. By incorporating duplexes and multi -family, the proposed development does include other housing types beyond just detached single-family. Elevations, renderings, and floor plans for the proposed housing types are included in Attachment 3. Compatibility with the Existing Neighborhood Character: The proposed 64 single-family units, 12 senior single-family units, 3 duplexes, and 29 multi -family units is generally consistent with the existing neighborhood character. Existing single-family homes are located northwest and south of the subject property. Through the extension of Heron Circle into Heron Drive, the proposal includes a connection between an existing single-family neighborhood to the south and future single-family development north of Rochester Ave. Although Larch Ln to the west of the subject property contains attached single-family units, as mentioned previously, there will remain a buffer between the existing neighborhood and the proposed development of approximately 18 woodland acres. To the northwest, the proposed trail would provide connectivity to the existing neighborhood along Hickory Trail, access to Calder Park, and an alternate route to Hickory Hill Park and Regina High School. The proposal locates the higher density development in the southeast corner of the development. Concentrating the senior living single-family units, two-family units, and multi- family development on this portion of the property along the arterial streets provides a transition of land uses from single family neighborhoods, to higher density units, and Olde Towne Village directly southeast of the subject property. Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The subject property contains steep slopes, critical slopes, woodlands, and wetlands. The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan as part of the OPD rezoning. Due to the proposed disturbance of wetlands and associated 8 buffers and the disturbance of more than 35% of critical slopes, a Level 11 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 (14-51-6E-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 14-51-6E-2, no buffer will be reduced by more than 50% and all provided buffers will be equal to or greater than what is reduced. Additionally, the applicant proposes a buffer reduction for the wetland located at the southwestern corner of the subject property. According to 14 -51 -6E -3b of the City Code, a wetland buffer may be reduced by up to 75' if the standards of the of the previously mentioned section are met, as demonstrated by a wetland specialist. A wetland specialist has determined that all standards of 14-51-6E-2 and 14 -51- 6E -3b are met. Staff finds that the proposed buffer averaging and buffer reduction can be justified as demonstrated by a wetland specialist and will meet the requirements of the City Code. The existing wetland is comprised of approximately 3.03 acres. Approximately 14% of the existing wetlands will be disturbed or 0.43 acres, mostly to accommodate the proposed street network. Per 14-51-6G, staff has required the applicant to provide mitigation for the proposed disturbance to the existing wetland. Compensatory mitigation will be provided at a ratio of 1:1. The applicant has proposed to meet the City's wetland mitigation requirements by purchasing wetland mitigation credits from an established wetland mitigation bank. Specifically, the applicant will purchase a total of 0.43 credits from a local wetland bank to mitigate the loss of 0.43 acres of "emergent" wetland. Steep, Critical, and Protected Slopes — The subject property contains critical and steep slopes. The impacts to these slopes are outlined in Table 1. Approximately 51 % of critical slopes and 49% of steep slopes are proposed to be impacted. Table 1: Slopes Total Critical Slopes Impacted Critical Slopes Total Steep Slopes Impacted Steep Slopes 9.3 acres 4.7 acres 4.95 acres 2.41 100% 51% 100% 49% Woodlands — As shown in Table 2, the subject property has approximately 40.27 acres of woodlands. The Preliminary SADP shows that the development will preserve approximately 50.2% of woodlands, which is above the 50% required per the sensitive areas ordinance. Table 2 summarizes the impacts to woodlands. Table 2: Woodlands Total Woodlands Impacted Woodlands Woodland Buffer Woodland Preserved 40.3 acres 14 acres 6.1 acres 20.2 acres 100% 34.7% 15.2% 50.1% Archeological Sites — The Phase 1 archaeological survey of the subject property noted that the subject property was not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places due to a lack of historical significance. Additionally, no further archaeological work is recommended for the site. Neighborhood Open Space: According to section 14-5K of the City code, dedication of public open space or fee in lieu of land dedication is addressed at the time of final platting for residential subdivisions. Based on the 64.39 acres of RS -5 zoning, the developer would be required to dedicate 1.38 acres of land or pay fee in -lieu. Staff originally requested that the applicant dedicate 9 land to expand the size of Calder Park. The applicant was not interested in dedicating that land, changed the boundary of the proposed rezoning, and requested to pay a fee in -lieu instead. However, the portion of land that was excluded from the rezoning will be required to be included as an outlot when this land is subdivided. Correspondence: Staff has received public correspondence (Attachment 9) from neighboring residents voicing their concerns to the proposed development plan. Generally, the concerns received were for single-family units 1-6 along Rochester Ave, which have since been removed by the applicant from the plans. Additional correspondence received include concerns related to traffic and removal of woodlands. NEXT STEPS: Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed rezoning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ22-0008, a proposal to rezone approximately 64.36 acres of land located north of Rochester Avenue and west of North Scott Boulevard from Interim Development Single -Family Residential to Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and 0.31 acres to OPD/ID-RS zone subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of building permit, Owner shall: a. Dedicate an access easement agreement to allow access to Lot 66 as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development and Sensitive Areas Development Plan. b. Dedicate a public access easement agreement to allow a public trail from the proposed development to Calder Park as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development and Sensitive Areas Development Plan. c. Install the 10' wide trail connection shown on the Preliminary Planned Development and Sensitive Areas Development Plan. d. Dedicate to the City, with no compensation to Owner, additional right-of-way along Rochester Ave and N. Scott Blvd, the area of which shall be determined by the City Engineer in a form approved by the City Attorney. 2. The final plat for any of the above-described land shall incorporate traffic calming devices in locations approved by and designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer ATTACHMENTS: 1 Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Preliminary OPD/SADP Plan 4. Good Neighbor Meeting Summary 5. Traffic Study 6. Applicant Statement 7. Rezoning Exhibit 8. Exhibits Submitted by Applicant 9. Public Correspondence Approved by: Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services 0 0,05 0,1 I I I 0.2 Miles • r . FCKORYTRL L` At Cz O 0 O • P ,72 3 F r. • • • • • • • ■ ■, • ' 1. ■ • ti ■ • • • Ft CH ESTER A Tr —", r EENMOU Attachment 1 -0008 Mounument Hills ushir � a 4 a Ji 0 W i w • 0 • a + .~ 4104.: An application submitted by Welch Design and Development, on behalf of Monument Farms LLC. for approval of a rezoning of approximately 65 acres of property located west of N. Scott Boulevard and north of Rochester Avenue from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) to Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Overlay Deve]opment[OPD,..RS-5J. ieLvkv • •• W • .41 e 4 Prepared Byr tnani Brinkman Date Prepared, April 2022 MARVUST113QaSE `i i - f v. = v 4x Rezoning of approximately 0.3t acres of property located north of Rochester Avenue from Interim Development Single -Family Residential SID -RS) to Interim Development Single -Family esidential with a Planned Overlay Development (OPD/ID-RS). 1 • } 62. �4�OVEFiC�*� -r :,. 'A NCH RD Ee e 2 5VELN; 0 0.05 0.1 I i I 0.2 Miles i I REZ22-0008 Attachment Mounument Hills 1 I csai 1:g&CITY OF IOWA CITY Prepared By: Emani Brinkman Date Prepared: April 2022 Rezoning of approximately 0.31 acres of property located north of Rochester Avenue from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) to Interim Development Single -Family esidential with a Planned Overlay Development (OPD/ID-RS). An application submitted by Welch Design and Development, on behalf of Monument Farms LLC. for approval of a rezoning of approximately 65 acres of property located west of N. Scott Boulevard and north of Rochester Avenue from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) to Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Overlay Development(OPD/RS-5j 11 MINN =I= -- - H NOVER CT 1.1 HASTINGS AVE P1 Attachment 3 . -.-( 4 • ^SIL r Lai a I'' HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC H• r #-1 \ ., 4 a 4 • HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC • NICKOR'tT PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN MONUMENT HILLS CALDER PARK CIY OF IOWA CIS' ROCHESTER HILLS CONDOMINIUM z Lu J w z w L) Aft co 0 0 • r. IOWA CITY, IOWA APPLICATION NOTES THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND ASSOCIATED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WILL IMPACT MORE THAN 35% OF THE CRITICAL SLOPES AND WILL IMPACT WETLANDS AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERS. THEREFORE, A LEVEL II SENSITIVE AREA REVIEW WILL BE REQUIRED. NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS WILL BE MET VIA "FEE IN LIEU" PAYMENT AT TIME OF FINAL PLATTING. IN ADDITION, THE DEVELOPER WILL SECURE AN EASEMENT FROM HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PUBLIC TRAIL BETWEEN THIS DEVELOPMENT AND CALDER PARK. LEGEND REGULATED SLOPES: STEEP SLOPE (18%-25%) CRITICAL SLOPE (25%-40%) PROTECTED SLOPE (>40°I❑) PROTECTED SLOPE - BUFFER WOODLANDS: TREELINE CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS WETLANDS: WETLANDS BUFFER - 100' 0 75 WL 150 225 WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 1" = 150' 300 APPLICANT INFORMATION PROPERTY OWNER MONUMENT FARMS, LLC 3810 PERTERSON PL NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 DEVELOPER MONUMENT HILLS, LLC 221 E BURLINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52240 (319) 631-1894 CIVIL ENGINEER WELCH DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT MICHAEL). WELCH, PE PO BOX 679 NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 (319) 214-7501 SHEET INDEX SHEET C1,00 01.10 C1.20 C1.30 C2.00 C2.10 ENGINEER: SHEET NAME COVER SHEET REGULATED SLOPES WOODLANDS WETLANDS OVERALL CONCEPT PLAN CO-OPERATIVE SITE PLAN welch design +development CLIENT: MONUMENT HILLS, LLC PROJECT NAME: MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA REVISION LOG: REV B C D E DESCRIPTION REZONING - CITY COMMENTS DATE 04-27-22 REZONING - WETLANDS UPDATE 05-10-22 REZONING - REMOVE AMHURST ST 05-20-22 REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-20-22 REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-30-22 SHEET NAME: COVER SHEET - PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY & SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT NO: 1026 REVISION: F PROJECT MANAGER: WELCH ISSUED DATE: 06-30-2022 SHEET NUMBER: C 1 . 00 AND DEVELOPMENT 6 U 3 0 d E_ u O • N ▪ o Ln> N .� u N • 'O d 0T.0 N 0 C - da f.•-, f 44 II I �I �ti F II r' rl yL HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATN „JLCu. ~ f . 1 41$L r7 w- - n At. 0 HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC O MONUMENT FARMS, LLC • / / f (''', 1/ 1 ACT, INC CITY OF IOWA CITY' ' 7 ;:t • 4t,s41^ _- HARVEST MONUV ENT FARMS, LLC P R E SERVE / ra FOUNDATION, INC ILLS - // r LS- `AGN D N�L1 j`R}[nyf / ,; 1 _. 1 f. •__ 1 ,l 1' _J 1 \ l [k0 IMPACTED STEEP SLOPES: LOCATION AREA (SF) 1,069 7,018 4,274 3,275 13,122 2,538 24,467 5,536 9,428 5,291 12,468 6,937 9,549 TOTAL IMPACTED TOTAL STEEP SLOPE PERCENT IMPACTED 105,026 215,827 49% • J IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPES: LOCATION is oa _oV4 m 01 1+..+ 01 B.10 8.14 AREA (SF) 10,349 7,791 23,809 15,342 9,769 21,592 46,010 8,001 19,596 11,465 13,193 2,846 7,743 4,132 3,624 TOTAL IMPACTED TOTAL CRITICAL SLOPE PERCENT IMPACTED 205,262 403,791 51% LEVEL II REVIEW REQUIRED AS MORE THAN 35% OF THE CRITICAL SLOPES ARE IMPACTED. LEGEND: REGULATED SLOPES STEEP SLOPE (18%-25%) STEEP SLOPE - IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPE (25%-40%) CRITICAL SLOPE - IMPACTED PROTECTED SLOPE (>40%) PROTECTED SLOPE - BUFFER CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY N/A N /A NOTE: THERE ARE NO PROTECTED SLOPES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY REFER TO SHEET C2.00 FOR GRADING PLAN 0 50 100 150 200 WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 1" = 100r ENGINEER: welch design + development CLIENT: MONUMENT HILLS, LLC PROJECT NAME: MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA REVISION LOG: REV B DESCRIPTION REZONING - CITY COMMENTS DATE 04-27-22 C D E REZONING - WETLANDS UPDATE 05-10-22 REZONING - REMOVE AMHURST ST REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 05-20-22 06-20-22 F REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-30-22 SHEET NAME: REGULATED SLOPES - PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY & SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT NO: 1026 REVISION: F PROJECT MANAGER: WELCH ISSUED DATE: 06-30-2022 SHEET NUMBER: C1.10 z W LU W z 6 0 tOr N O 0 E N O 0 0 a0- 3-o NN 0 m N 1!. occ N ti e -i HARVEST PRESERVE u FOUNLDAT�ON CALDER PARK �OITY OF IOWA CITY.-__ y4Ci 1�hylY4l S ` T --- a tUt7 1 / VL HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC MONUMENT FARMS, LLC L ACT, INC HARVEST �P EESEAVE rFSU 1 DA VI O N �� j n L \: ./1-;;;.; • 47 MONUMENT FARMS, LLC %i • r • 77D \ \ \ f e i IMPACTED WOODLANDS DEVELOPMENT -RELATED IMPACTS LOCATION AREA (SF) 230,671 12,735 13,217 81,293 74,609 20,687 36,850 52,066 80,800 5,543 IMPACTED AREA BUFFER AREA TOTAL EXISTING AREA PERCENT RETAINED II H 608,471 34.7% 266,365 15.2% 1,754,016 50.1% PER IOWA CITY CODE, RS -5 ZONE MUST RETAIN AT LEAST 50% WOODLANDS. WOODLANDS WITHIN THE BUFFER AREAS DO NOT COUNT TOWARDS RETENTION VALUES. LEGEND: WOODLANDS DEVELOPMENT RELATED: PRESERVED WOODLAND BUFFERED WOODLAND (50') IMPACTED WOODLAND CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY 0 50 100 150 200 WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 1" = 1001 ENGINEER: welch design+development CLIENT: MONUMENT HILLS, LLC PROJECT NAME: MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA REVIS REV B C D E F ON LOG: DESCRIPTION DATE REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 04-27-22 REZONING - WETLANDS UPDATE 05-10-22 REZONING - REMOVE AMHURST ST 05-20-22 REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-20-22 REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-30-22 SHEET NAME: WOODLANDS - PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY & SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT NO: 1026 REVISION: F PROJECT MANAGER: WELCH ISSUED DATE: 06-30-2022 SHEET NUMBER: C1.20 JU AND DEVELOPMENT 6 N a w n E Lo 0 U r. 0 2 N E Noo d N 0 d N lL HARVEST PRESERVE FOLJNDATLON „JTC„ VL 4L 4L �7 qF 1 4L HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC MONUMENT FARMS, LLC ACT, INC WETLAND FILL REQUIRED FOR ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION a4 /CI -Y OF IOWA CITY ROCHESTER HILLS CONDOMINIUM -- x '.r. MONUVENT FARMS, LLC 1/HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC 4. WETLAND FILL R , QUIRED .FOR ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION 100' -• _ BUFFER REDUCED PER SECTION 14 -5I -6E-3 L -II CONSTRUCTION LIMIT DICTATED BY PUBLIC SIDEWALK ALONG ROCHESTER AVE PFl 11 1. 1. R ��5 1 5C°Cdk\ CQS) � �V CONSTRUCTION LIMIT DICTATED y BY PUBLIC SIDEWALK ALONG�� ROCHESTER AVE WETLAND AREA 1 TAG AREA (SF) 27,717 THE BUFFER ASSOCIATED WITH WETLAND 1 WILL BE REDUCED BY 75' TO MAINTAIN NO LESS THAN 25' OF BUFFER AROUND WETLAND 1 PER SECTION 14 -5I -6E-3. WETLAND AREA 2 TAG AREA (SF) 9,230 8,399 TOTAL 17,629 BUFFER (100 -FOOT) 103,782 BUFFER - REDUCTIONS 3,063 830 SUBTOTAL BUFFER - ADDITIONS cp 3,893 65,300 BUFFER - NET CHANGE + 61,407 WETLAND AREA 3 TAG AREA (SF) 6,782 3,314 23,805 TOTAL 33,901 BUFFER (100 -FOOT) 236,372 BUFFER - REDUCTIONS 51,549 9,149 1,739 SUBTOTAL BUFFER - ADDITIONS 62,437 77,881 BUFFER - NET CHANGE + 15,444 WETLAND AREA 4 TAG AREA (SF) 21,830 BUFFER (100 -FOOT) 242,503 BUFFER - REDUCTIONS 0.48 566 3,776 6,052 SUBTOTAL BUFFER - ADDITIONS 10,394 7,120 4,662 21,096 SUBTOTAL 28,799 BUFFER - NET CHANGE + 18,405 1 WETLAND AREA 5 TAG TI � I H AREA (SF) 11,956 WETLAND IMPACTS LOCATION F.68 AREA (SF) 3,314 4.337 2,513 7,839 501 363 TOTAL IMPACTS (SF) 18,867 NOTES: 1. ALL WETLANDS FILLED WILL BE COMPENSATED THROUGH THE PURCHASE OF WETLAND BANK CREDITS AS REQUIRED BY UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (USACE) NATIONWIDE PERMIT #29. THE RATIO OF CREDITS PURCHASED TO WETLANDS FILLED WILL BE 1:1. 2. BUFFER AVERAGING IS BEING UTILIZED TO INCREASE THE BUFFER AREAS PRIMARILY UPSLOPE OF THE WETLANDS TO OFFSET FOR IMPACTS TO BUFFER RESULTING FROM GRADING NECESSARY FOR ROADWAY AND/OR PUBLIC SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS. 3, REFER TO WETLAND REPORT AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING NEED FOR WETLAND FILL, OFFSITE MITIGATION, AND BUFFER AVERAGING. LEGEND: WETLANDS WELTIAND BOUNDARY WETLAND BUFFER (100') WETLAND BUFFER REDUCTION WETLAND BUFFER ADDITION WETLAND WITHIN AVERAGED BUFFER AREA WETLAND FILL CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURE* EXISTING CONSERVATION EASEMENT WL -+-•- * PROVIDE SILT FENCE ALONG CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS WHERE RUNOFF WILL FLOW TOWARD WETLAND AND WETLAND BUFFER AREAS. DETAILED DESIGN OF THESE MEASURES TO ACCOMPANY CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AND FINAL SADP 0 50 100 150 200 WHEN PRINTED ON 22534' SHEET 1" = 100' ENGINEER: welch design+development CLIENT: MONUMENT HILLS, LLC PROJECT NAME: MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA REVISION LOG: REV DESCRIPTION DATE B REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 04-27-22 C REZONING - WETLANDS UPDATE 05-10-22 D REZONING - REMOVE AMHURST ST 05-20-22 E REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-20-22 F REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-30-22 SHEET NAME: WETLANDS - PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY & SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT NO: 1026 REVISION: F PROJECT MANAGER: WELCH ISSUED DATE: 06-30-2022 SHEET NUMBER: C1.30 AND DEVELOPMENT 6 W U J W 0 ❑ E_ d O d pU N r+o N ❑ m N p0 �N N 0 d 0 d F HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC 401- 4 0E WL /r � --V HARVEST PR SERVE I FOUNDATION', INC- r NL --VL • NL - 11L 101 -WIDE TRAIL CONNECTION T41 CALDER PARK WL WLl 7 nr • HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC SHA 'V.EST- FD'JN D TI -- — 740 (514— MONUMENT FARMS, LLC A • mar_ h \\'I\\t i OUTLOT C 6.55 Ac ti285,496 SF ''‘,4 k, '‘C\ li }.'/ ) a. l IOWA CIT i Ei 1 2 CIL 1 ACT, I N C 0 50 100 150 WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 1" = 1001 0 €- H . L. ---- 200 MONUMENT FARMS, LLC - NOTES & LEGEND: UNIT TYPES: SENIOR TWIN -HOME 45'x55' • PARCEL "A" 0.55 Ac 23,820 SF 1� 20' ACCESS EASEMENT FOR LOT 66 LOT 107 tfA LOT 61 SENIOR CONDO : RANCH 421x72'-8" (UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE SENIOR LIVING CO-OP: 2 -STORY CLUB HOUSE WOODLAND REMOVAL LIMIT CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS EXISTING CONSERVATION EASEMENT RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION ALONG ROCHESTER SIDEWALK / TRAIL - BY DEVELOPER SIDEWAL / TRAIL - BY LOT OWNER SITE DATA: DEVELOPMENT AREA PARCEL "A" - ROCHESTER AVE ROW PARCEL "B" - PUBLIC STREET ROW PRIVATE DRIVE ROW (WITHIN LOT 65) NET DEVELOPMENT AREA SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS CO-OP SINGLE-FAMILY CO-OP TWIN -HOMES CO-OP CONDO TOTAL 64.68 AC 0.55 AC 5.48 AC 0.98 AC 57.67 AC 65 DU 12 DU 6 DU 29 DU 112 DU DENSITY = 111 DU / 57.65 ACRES = 1.94 DUJAC OPD / RS -5 MAX DENSITY 5 DU / ACRE OF NET LAND AREA OUTLOT A, B, & C RESERVED FOR CONSERVATION OF SENSITIVE AREAS PARCEL "A" IS FOR THE DEDICATION OF ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG ROCHESTER AVENUE TO ACCOMMODATE THE ADDITION OF A PUBLIC SIDEWALK. IT ALSO PROVIDES RIGHT-OF-WAY AT THE INTERSECTION OF ROCHESTER AVENUE & NORTH SCOTT BOULEVARD FOR FUTURE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS. AT LEAST 18.5 FEET IS PROVIDED FROM THE EXISTING BACK OF CURB TO THE PROPOSED ROW LINE. PARCEL "B" IS FOR THE DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT. LOT 65 IS TO BE DEVELOPED AS AN ALTERNATIVE OWNERSHIP (COOPERATIVE) DEVELOPMENT. REFER TO SHEET C2.10. LOT 66 CREATES A PARCEL FOR THE EXISTING TELECOM TOWER. THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF THIS PARCEL WILL BE OPD/ID-RS TO AVOID CREATING A NON -CONFORMING USE. LOT 67 IS FOR THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AT 3106 ROCHESTER AVENUE. LOT WILL NEED TO MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS OF RS -5 ZONING. THE DEVELOPER WILL PROVIDE A PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION TO CALDER PARK AND SECURE THE NECESSARY EASEMENT FROM HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC. THE FINAL ALIGNMENT AND GRADES WILL BE ESTABLISHED DURING PLATTING. LOT 49 PROVIDE RAISED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING TO PROVIDED TRAFFIC CALMING ALONG ALLISON DRIVE LOT 9 vO OUTLOT A LOT 8 LOT 5 1A RAISED CROSSING - SOUTH R15' HERON DRIVE R50' OUTLOT A RAISED CROSSING - NORTH LOT 23 LOT 22 TRAFFIC CIRCLE LOT 21 ENGINEER: welch CLIENT: MONUMENT HILLS, LLC PROJECT NAME: MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA REVISION LOG: REV DESCRIPTION DATE REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 04-27-22 REZONING - WETLANDS UPDATE 05-10-22 REZONING - REMOVE AMHURST ST 05-20-22 REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-20-22 REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-30-22 SHEET NAME: OVERALL CONCEPT PLAN - PRELIM. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY & SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1026 PROJECT MANAGER: WELCH REVISION: ISSUED DATE: 06-30-2022 SHEET NUMBER: C2.00 AND DEVELOPMENT 6 U 3 ED d E d 0 a. N n o N u N O • o • N 0 d • dEl_ iT N PRIVATE OPEN SPACE (TYPICAL) 0 343,468 EXISTING WETLANDS WILL BE FILLED VIA USACE NATION-WIQ PERMIT #29 r' 1 20 40 60 WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 1" = 40' 80 ,� .: t � ; V 1 1 40.07' - � 111.9' zAAcc. 9 138` 45.57' 5‘)1C01G °5141( MEN � >�Y 13 1 PRIVATE OPEN SPACE (TYPICAL) 26,864 [Cm t ut 1, 1 GENERAL NOTES: CODE MODIFICATIONS APPLICANT REQUESTS A MODIFICATION TO THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FOR SINGLE-FAMILY, DETACHED UNITS FROM THE CODE -REQUIRED 60 FEET TO 56 FEET AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN. �2. AREA SHOWN WITH EACH UNIT NUMBER CORRESPONDS TO THE IMAGINARY LOT LINES REQUIRED TO BE SHOWN BY CITY CODE. BUILDING FOOTPRINTS: SINGLE-FAMILY PATIO HOMES CO-OPERATIVE MEMBERS WILL BE ABLE TO CHOOSE A SPECIFIC FLOOR PLAN FROM A GROUP OF PRE -DESIGNED MODELS. EACH MODEL WILL FIT WITHIN THE BUILDING ENVELOPE SHOWN. BUILDING FOOTPRINTS: TWIN -HOMES, MULTI -FAMILY BUILDING, AND CLUBHOUSE THE BUILDING FOOTPRINTS SHOWN REPRESENT THE OVERALL BUILDING ENVELOPE. FINAL SADP AND SITE PLANS WILL INCORPORATE THE FINAL BUILDING PLANS, INCLUDING REQUIRED STEP BACKS AND OTHER DETAILS. TWIN -HOME DESIGN STANDARDS PER 14-3A--4C-1a(2)(C) THE SENIOR TWIN -HOMES MUST BE DESIGNED AND LOCATED IN A MANNER THAT PREVENTS MONOTONY BY VARYING ASPECTS SUCH AS FACADE DETAILING, WINDOW PATTERN, BUILDING MATERIALS, AND COLOR. SITE DATA - LOT 65 TOTAL LOT AREA 7,88 AC DEVELOPMENT DATA SINGLE-FAMILY PATIO HOMES SINGLE-FAMILY TWIN HOMES TOTAL MULTI -FAMILY BUILDING 1 -BEDROOM 2 -BEDROOM TOTAL TRASH COLLECTION MULTI -FAMILY SINGLE-FAMILY INTERNAL EXTERNAL SETBACKS AND PARKING: SETBACKS AND YARDS (MULTI -FAMILY) FRONT YARD FRONT YARD (ARTERIAL) SIDE YARD REAR YARD HEIGHT 12 UNITS 6 UNITS 18 UNITS 4 UNITS 25 UNITS 29 UNITS 4 BEDS 50 BEDS 54 BEDS PRIVATE HAULER PRIVATE HAULER 20 FEET 40 FEET 10 FEET 20 FEET 35 FEET SETBACKS AND YARDS (SINGLE-FAMILY) FRONT YARD* 15 FEET * GARAGE MUST BE SETBACK 25 FEET FRONT YARD (ARTERIAL) 40 FEET SIDE YARD 5 FEET REAR YARD 20 FEET HEIGHT 35 FEET MULTI -FAMILY PARKING REQUIREMENTS: UNIT TYPE 1 BEDROOM 2 -BEDROOM TOTAL NUMBER 4 25 REQUIRED SPACES VEHICLES BICYCLES VEHICLES BICYCLES 1 / UNIT 0.5 / UNIT 4 2 2 / UNIT 1.0 / UNIT 50 25 54 27 BICYCLE PARKING WILL BE PROVIDED WITHIN THE TWO-STORY MULTI -FAMILY BUILDING MULTI -FAMILY PARKING PROVIDED INTERIOR EXTERIOR - STANDARD EXTERIOR - ACCESSIBLE TOTAL 70 STALLS 12 STALLS 4 STALLS 86 STALLS OPEN SPACE: OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS MULTI -FAMILY 10 SF / BEDROOM 54 BEDROOMS 540 SF SINGLE FAMILY 500 SF / UNIT LOCATED ADJACENT TO EACH UNIT TWO-FAMILY 300 SF / UNIT LOCATED ADJACENT TO EACH UNIT OPEN SPACE PROVIDED COMMON AREAS (SEE PLAN) SINGLE-FAMILY (SEE PLAN) LEGEND: UNIT TYPES: TWIN -HOME BUILDING ENVELOPE SINGLE FAMILY HOME BUILDING ENVELOPE SENIOR LIVING CO-OP: 2 -STORY CLUB HOUSE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE SHARED OPEN SPACE WOODLAND LIMIT CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS SIDEWALK / TRAIL - BY DEVELOPER SIDEWALK / TRAIL - BY LOT OWNER e.rirrInrrInrrIrn 15,400 SF ENGINEER: welch design+development CLIENT: MONUMENT HILLS, LLC PROJECT NAME: MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA REVISION LOG: REV B DESCRIPTION REZONING - CITY COMMENTS DATE 04-27-22 C REZONING - WETLANDS UPDATE 05-10-22 D REZONING - REMOVE AMHURST ST 05-20-22 E REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-20-22 F REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-30-22 SHEET NAME: COOPERATIVE SITE PLAN - PRELIM. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY & SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT NO: 1026 REVISION: F PROJECT MANAGER: WELCH ISSUED DATE: 06-30-2022 SHEET NUMBER: C2.10 OF 101WA CI fri SULL VAN, ELt7-AffETH L. Site 1 I-64,68 Ac III 2,817,318 SF HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC wL WL WL WL w HARVEST PRESERVE } FOUNDATION, INC 1 HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC MONUMENT FARMS, LLC 0 0\ ACT, INC CI 46 12,923 01-LTT 01-QBS 01-OVE 01 -QX W 01 -OMC 01-QBS 01-OVE 02 -CCT 9,750 01-GDE 8,700 01-GDE 01 -CCT • 01-GDE 01-PXA Q1 -NSB ' 01-Qxw C4 01 -TMH 15,110 01-COH 01-PXA 01 -NSB 01 -TMH 01-QMC 9,498 6.55 Ac 285,496 SF MONUVENT FARMS, LLC • 01-QMC 01-QRC 01-COH 01 -AAS STREET TREES SHALL BE INSTALLED BY LOT OWNER DURING HOME CONSTRUCTION. 01 -LIT 01-QRC 01-GDE 01 -COS 1fo1-TTP 9,8 01-QRL 01 -CBF 17 10,042 PARCEL "A" rf ' 01-LTT • 01-QMC 01-QRL 01-OVE 01-QMC 01-QxW 01-COH 9,592 01-PXA 01-QRC 01 -CBF 01 -TMH 01 -GIRL 01-LSR 01 -CCT 01-QMC 01 -TMH 0i -TTP 01 -COS 01-QRC \T LANDSCAPE LEGEND 01-QRC 01 -NSB 01-QBS 01 -CCT o1-QRL 01-PTN L 4 I H l 1 1 zikocd ,p1\10\i's PLANTS: PROPOSED LARGE DECIDUOUS TREE" PROPOSED SMALL DECIDUOUS TREE* PROPOSED EVERGREEN TREE* PROPOSED SHRUB ""SPECIES AS LABELED; PLANTING LOCATION TO BE VERIFIED BY DRIVES. SIGHT TRIANGLES, AND UTILITIES- STREET TREES SHALL BE INSTALLED BY LOT OWNER DURING HOME CONSTRUCTION** PLANT LIST LOCATED SHEET L-03 LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS 0.55 Ac 23,820 SF 1 L_ 14-5E-7: STREET TREE REQUIREMENTS: A. STREET TREES ADJACENT TO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY: 1, ON SINGLE FRONTAGE LOTS, ONE LARGE TREE IS REQUIRED FOR EVERY FORTY (40) LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE OR ONE SMALL TREE FOR EVERY THIRTY (30) LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE, BUT NOT LESS THAN ONE TREE PER LOT. (73 LOTS TOTAL) 4,181 LF FRONTAGE 140 = 104.53 REQUIRED 105 PROVIDED 2. ON LOTS WITH MORE THAN ONE FRONTAGE, ONE TREE IS REQUIRED FOR EVERY SIXTY (60) LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE. (LOTS 12,18, 21-22, 25-26,37-38, 45, 57, 61, 64, 67, 69, 74) 3,335 LF FRONTAGE 160 = 55.58 REQUIRED 56 PROVIDED 14-5E-8: TREE REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES: A. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS: 1 FOR LOTS CONTAINING TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS, MULTI -FAMILY DWELLINGS, OR GROUP LIVING USES, TREES MUST BE PLANTED ON SITE ATA MINIMUM RATIO OF AT LEAST ONE TREE FOR EVERY FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY (550) SQUARE FEET OF TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE OF THE LOT. ANY COMBINATION OF SMALL AND LARGE TREES IS ALLOWED, PROVIDED THIS COVERAGE RATIO IS MET. (LOT 73) = 77,943 SF 1550 SF = 141.71 REQUIRED 143 PROVIDED RS -5 ZONE MUST RETAIN AT LEAST 50% EXISTING WOODLANDS EXCLUDING BUFFER AREAS. IMPACTED AREA = 608,471 0 50 100 150 200 WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 1" = 100' ENGINEER: welch design+development CLIENT: MONUMENT HILLS, LLC PROJECT NAME: MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA REVISION LOG: REV DESCRIPTION REZONING APPLICATION A REZONING - CITY COMMENTS S REZONING - CITY COMMENTS DATE 04-28-22 06-16-22 06-30-22 SHEET NAME: LANDSCAPE PLAN OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO: PROJECT MANAGER: SHEET NUMBER: 1026 WELCH REVISION: ISSUED DATE: L -01 B 06-30-2022 0 7M 51 10,481 21 8,523 01 -PAN 02-LTT 03-PXA 19 8,706 18 9,880 I 02-PFV S 01-PAN 02-LT-1- 01-ORL 02-PFV X01-LSR 01-AXG T 1 02 -CAP 02-PFV 02 -SPD MONUMENT FARMS, LLC 65 343,468 1 01 -BPF 01-CVW 02 -NSB 01-LSR 04-GBT W 03-LSR Q 03 -NSB H LU 01-QRL 01-GDE a 02 -BPF m t. 17 10,042 01 -SPD 02-GDE 07 -CCM 01-LTT 1 I'- 1 01 -TMH 02-AxG 15-JXP 15 -CAS 07 -CCH 01 -BPF 01-GDE 02-PXA 16 10,050 162 4 13 26,864 15 10,095 W - 01 -BPF 01 -SPD O I u 01 -BPF I I 01 -NSB 01 -TMH 05 -CAP I— wz I I I I 1 awl l l I I I l Il 1 1 1sA .1- L A i iftialomp 1 I 1 1 Ili ilftli. 11 101 I 111 fvei, L_______ OS 0. � L !_ Ir ,._/-"----:4001°-1,44 % ., LTi �i 41 - 1 _ 1 1 15 ►TILiTY E N1 * �1......ziIrmilialm 44 I WA ,MT --.0r-,...-470 ---or Air • 01-GDE 01-LSR 01 -SPD 02-AXG 01-LSR 01-CVW 02 -SPD 03 -BPF 01 -PAN 04 -CAS 04-JXP 02 -SPD 40' BUILDING SETBACK (ARTERIAL) 2 -STORY BUILDING 29 UNITS 0 OC 1 LA es[9n HERON CIRCL 02 -PSE 03-PTN 03-AXG 01-GDE 02 -CCH 01 -PAN 02 -NSB 01-QRL 01 -SPD 03-PTN 01-AxG 03 -PSE 02-QRL 02 -TMH 07-CVW 1 02 -PGD 01-LSR 02 -TMH 01-QRL 04-PTN 0 20 40 60 80 WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 1" = 40' LANDSCAPE LEGEND PLANTS: PROPOSED LARGE DECIDUOUS TREE' PROPOSED SMALL DECIDUOUS TREE* PROPOSED EVERGREEN TREE* PROPOSED SHRUB 'SPECIES AS LABELED; PLANTING LOCATION TO BE VERIFIED BY DRIVES. SIGHT TRIANGLES, AND UTILITIES. STREET TREES SHALL BE INSTALLED BY LOT OWNER LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS 14-5E-7: STREET TREE REQUIREMENTS: A. STREET TREES ADJACENT TO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY: 1- ON SINGLE FRONTAGE LOTS, ONE LARGE TREE IS REQUIRED FOR EVERY FORTY (40) LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE OR ONE SMALL TREE FOR EVERY THIRTY (30) LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE, BUT NOT LESS THAN ONE TREE PER LOT. (73 LOTS TOTAL) 4,181 LF FRONTAGE 140 = 104.53 REQUIRED 105 PROVIDED 2- ON LOTS WITH MORE THAN ONE FRONTAGE, ONE TREE IS REQUIRED FOR EVERY SIXTY (60) LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE - (LOTS 12,18, 21-22, 25-26,37-38. 45. 57. 61, 64. 67. 69. 74) 3,335 LF FRONTAGE / 60 = 55.58 REQUIRED 56 PROVIDED 14-5E-8: TREE REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES: A. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS: 1 FOR LOTS CONTAINING TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS, MULTI -FAMILY DWELLINGS, OR GROUP LIVING USES, TREES MUST BE PLANTED ON SITE AT A MINIMUM RATIO OF AT LEAST ONE TREE FOR EVERY FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY (550) SQUARE FEET OF TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE OF THE LOT. ANY COMBINATION OF SMALL AND LARGE TREES IS ALLOWED, PROVIDED THIS COVERAGE RATIO IS MET. (LOT 73) = 77.943 SF 1 550 SF = 141.71 REQUIRED 143 PROVIDED RS -5 ZONE MUST RETAIN AT LEAST 50% EXISTING WOODLANDS EXCLUDING BUFFER AREAS. IMPACTED AREA = 608.471 BUFFER AREA = 266,365 TOTAL EXISTING AREA = 1,754,016 PERCENT RETAINED = 50.1% ENGINEER: welch design + development CLIENT: MONUMENT HILLS, LLC PROJECT NAME: MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA REVISION LOG: REV DESCRIPTION DATE REZONING APPLICATION 04-28-22 REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-16-22 REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-30-22 SHEET NAME: LANDSCAPE PLAN LOT 65 D ETAI L PROJECT NO: 1026 PROJECT MANAGER: WELCH REVISION: B ISSUED DATE: 06-30-2022 SHEET NUMBER: L-02 REVISION LOG: REV DESCRIPTION DATE A B REZONING APPLICATION REZONING - CITY COMMENTS REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 04-28-22 06-16-22 06-30-22 GENERAL LANDSCAPE PLANTING NOTES: 01 CONTRACTOR TO LOCATE ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK, CONTACT IOWA ONE CALL 11.800.292-8989] AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO DIGGING. REPAIR DAMAGE TO UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES IMMEDIATELY. 02PRIOR TO PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION, THE LANDSCAPE OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE SHALL APPROVE PLANT LOCATIONS. FIELD ADJUSTMENTS OF PROPOSED PLANT LOCATIONS LISTED ON PLAN MAY BE REQUIRED TO MINIMIZE POTENTIAL INTERFERENCE WITH EXISTING OR RELOCATED UTILITIES OR IMPROVE MAINTENANCE CONDITIONS. 03 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 FINAL LAYOUT APPROVAL 04 ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL AT LEAST MEET MINIMUM RECt1JIREMVMENTS SHOWN IN THE "AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK" (ANSI MO -LATEST EDITION). 05 PLANT QUANTITIES ARE FOR CONTRACTOR'S CONVENIENCE DRAWINGS SHALL PREVAIL WHERE DISCREPANCIES OCCUR. 06 NO PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE SUBSTITUTED WITHOUT THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 07 BED PREPARATION ANO MULCHING NOTES: 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. 08 PLANTING 501L: PLANTING 501L (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 A5 SPECIFIED WITHIN THE NOTE ABOVE. COMPOST SHALL BE FINELY SCREENED GRADED TO PASS SIEVE A5 FOLLOWS: - MINIMUM OF 85% BEING 1/4" OR SMALLER IDRY 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. 09 UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED, ALL GRASS/PERENNIAL MASSINGS ARE TO BE EVENLY SPACED IN TRIANGULAR PATTERN ARRANGEMENT. 10 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. 11 PROVIDE A MINIMUM 3" DEPTH OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD AND/OR RIVER ROCK MULCH IN ALL TREE PLANTING BEDS. ALL RIVER ROC< MULCH BEDS TO BE 3"-4" IN DEPTH, WITH FILTER FABRIC SEPARATING SOIL FROM ROCK MULCH. 12 PROVIDE 2" DEPTH MIN. OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD AND/OR RIVER ROCK MULCH IN ALI SHRUB/ORNAMENTAL GRASS/PERENNIAL BEDS. 13 PROVIDE ALL TREES WITH A MINIMUM 3" DEPTH OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. MULCH RINGS FOR TREES SHALL BE A MINIMUM SIX FOOT (6') DIAMETER AND CONTAIN SPADE EDGING AT MULCH RING EDGE 14 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. 15 NURSERY TAGS SHALL BE. LEFT ON PLANT MATERIAL UNTIL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS COMPLETED THE INITIAL ACCEPTANCE, 16 CONTAINER GROWN STOCK SHALL HAVE THE CONTAINER REMOVED AND THE ROOT BALL CLJT THROUGH THE SURFACE IN TWO VERTICAL LOCATIONS. 17ALL PLANTS SHALL BE BALLED AND WRAPPED OR CONTAINER GROWN AS SPECIFIED. NO CONTAINER STOCK WILL BE ACCEPTED IF ITIS ROOT BOUND_ ALL ROOT WRAPPING MATERIAL MADE OF SYNTHETICS OR PLASTICS SHALL BE REMOVED AT TIME OF PLANTING. 18 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 1/3 THE PLANT. 1_9 CONTRACTOR SHALL WATER AND MAINTAIN ALL SODDED AREAS A5 WELL AS ALL PLANTS UNTIL GROUND FREEZES. MAINTENANCE INCLUDES 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. 20 ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE GUARANTEED TO BE IN VIGOROUS GROWING CONDITIONS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR FROM DATE OF INITIAL ACCEPTANCE. 21 ALL PLANT MATERIALS THAT ARE DEAD OR IN AN UNHEALTHY OR UNSIGHTLY STATE ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPLACED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER FOR UP TO ONE YEAR OF INITIAL ACCEPTANCE. 22 SURFACE RESTORATION FOR ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE TURF GRASS LAWN SOD, WITH AN ALTERNATE OPTION TO BE TURF GRASS LAWN SEED, ALL SEED & 500 APPLICATION NOTES ARE LISTED SEPARATELY, CONTRACTOR SHALL FOLLOW MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATIONS FOR PRODUCT INFORMATION & INSTALLATION. FOR ALL SURFACE RESTORATION, PLANTING PRACTICES, AND ANY OTHER LANDSCAPING WORK NOT ADDRESSED VIA MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS, CONTRACTOR SHALL FOLLOW IOWA SUDAS SPECIFICATIONS DIVISION 09; SITE WORK AND LANDSCAPING OF IOWA. 23 ALL TREES TO BE PLACED WITHIN PARKING LOT ISLANDS ARE TO STRICTLY FOLLOW THE CEDAR RAPIDS METROPOLITAN AREA STANDARD DETAIL'2910-010 STANDARD PLANTING PIT'. FOR SPECIAL USE SITUATIONS WHEN PLACING TREES WITHIN A PARKING LOT WITHOUT A PROTECTIVE ISLAND, THE DETAIL '2910-015 SPECIAL USE PLANTING PIT' SHALL BE USED - ILA Design STAKING NOTES: LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCHEDULE: SHEET L-01 ID QTY. I BOTANICALICOMMON NAME ROOT NOTES STREET TREES AAS 6 Aesculus 'Autumn Splendor' AUTUMN SPLENDER BUCKEYE BS 30-45 H X 30-35 W; PLANT SIZE' MIN, OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE GDE 10 Gymnocladus dioicus'Espresso' KENTUCKY COFFEETREE BB 40-50' H X 25-35 W PLANT SIZE: MIN, OF 1-5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE BPF 6 Betula platyphylla 'Fargo' DAKOTA PINNACLE DAKOTA PINNACLE BIRCH BB 30-40' H X 10-15' W PLANT SIZE- MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT6" ABOVE GRADE CBF 7 Carpinus betulus'Fastigiata' COMMON HORNBEAM BB 30-40' H X 20-30' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5 TRUNK DAME EER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE CCT 7 Corylus caluma TURKISH FILBERT BB 40-60' H X 25-35 W; PLANT SV: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE C01-1 9 Celtis occidentalis 'Prairie Pride' HACKBERRY BB 40-50' H X 40-60' W; PLANT SIZE' MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE COS 7 Carya ovata SHAGBARK HICKORY BB 60-60' H X 30-50' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1 5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE LSR 7 Liquidambar syraciflua 'Rotundiloba' FRUITLESS SWEETGUM BB 60-75' H X 20-40' W; PLANT SIZE MIN, OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE LTT 7 Linodendron tulipifera TULIP TREE BB 70-130' H X 30-60' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN, OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE NSB 8 Nyssa sylvatica BLACK GUM BB 30-50' H X 20-30' W PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE OVE 7 Ostrya vi'giniana EASTERN HOP HORNBEAM BB 35-45' H X 15-20' W; PLANTSLZE_ MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE PXA 7 Platanus x acerifolia 'Liberty' LONDON PLANE TREE BB 40-50 H X 50-601W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 15" TRUNK DLAME I ER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE OBS 7 Quercus bicolor SWAMP WHITE OAK BB 50-75' H X 40-70' W; PLANT SDE: MIN- OF 1-5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE OMC 8 Quercus muehlenbergii CHINKAPIN OAK BB 40-601H X 50-70' AN; PLANT SDE: MIN- OF 1 5" TRUNK DIAMEI ER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE CIRC 9 Quercus rubra 'Clemons' RED OAK BB 60-80' H X 60-80' W: PLANT SIZE: MIN- OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE QRL 7 Quercus rubra 'Long' RED OAK BB 60-75 H X 45-50' W; PLANT SDE' MIN, OF 1.5" TRUNK D1AME I ER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE QXW 8 Quercus xwarei'Long' REGAL PRINCE REGAL PRINCE OAK BB 40-60' H X 20-25' W; PLANT SIZE- MIN, OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE TMH 6 Tilia mongolica Harvest Gold' MONGOLIAN LINDEN BB 25-45' H X 20-30' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN- OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE TTP 5 Tilia tomentosa 'PNI 6051' SILVER LINDEN BB 50-70' H X 30-40' W: PLANT SIZE: MIN, OF 1 5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE 138 TOTAL TREES PROVIDED ALL PLANTS SHALL BE NURSERY MATCHED, QUALITY SPECIMEN: American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z60.1 TREE & SHRUB PLANTING NOTES: 00 TREE STAKING SHALL ONLY BE USED IF NOTED. IN HIGH WIND AREAS, OR AREAS OF HEAVY ADJACENT PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC_ 01 STAKING WIRE THROUGH RUBBER HOSE SET LOOSE TO ALLOW FOR TRUNK TAPER AND DETRIMENTAL GROWTH. TREE SHOULD ALLOW LIMITED MOVEMENT. 02 STEEL FENCE POST STAKE DRIVEN INSIDE MULCH RING DIAMETER. DRIVE STAKES 1'-0" INTO UNDISTURBED SOIL BELOW ROOTBALL. h • frt.. t► .■ 4 • 1 ip 48.• nil il•• ' •SS 10•41 r•• ., . •■w Aorta ■ a• ??. s • i .16. • • • : '•' Itt f ■••11 •• ■ 4N.6.8.1:": •.•. ro, • :i: g. • 12 • ••.:f • r 03 REMOVE WIRE BASKET AND BURLAP ONCE PLACED INTO PLANTING HOLE. REMOVE ALL SISAL AND SYNTHETIC TWINE. 04 TRUNK FLARE SHOULD BE EXPOSED BEFORE DETERMINING PLANTING HOLE DEPTH. PLANT TREE WITH TRUNK FLARE 1.2" MAXIMUM ABOVE ORIGINAL_ GRADE, AVOID PLANTING TREE TOO DEEPLY. 05 PLANTING HOLE TO BE AT MINIMUM 3 TIMES THE WIDTH OF ROOTBALL AT SOI, 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. 06 SCARIFY PLANTING HOLE TO HELP ELIMINATE THE CREATION OF A SOIL INTERFACE. 07 PLACE ROOTBALL ON COMPACTED & LEVELED SUBGRADE. 0S 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, 09 AVOID MOUNDING MULCH & MAKING CONTACT WITH TRUNK. FORM 2-3" SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH RING SAUCER TO HELP HOLD WATER DURING ESTABLISHMENT. DIAMETER OF MULCH AREA SHOULD BE KEPT CLEAR OF GRASS, WEEDS, ETC. TO REDUCE COMPETITION WITH TREE ROOTS. 10 • •• r • 11 13 14 UNDISTURBED 501L. ONLY LIGHTLY PRUNE AND REMOVE DAMAGED OR DEAD BRANCHES. SPADE EDGING, TYP. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON PLAN. REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR PLANT SPACING, LOCATIONS. 6" MINIMUM WIDER HOLE THAN CONTAINER ON ALL SIDES. TREE PROTECTION FENCING NOTES: LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCHEDULE ID QTY. BOTANICALICOMMON NAME ROOT NOTES COOPERATIVE LARGE DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTINGS GDE L_ 6 Gymnocladus dioicus 'Espresso' KENTUCKY COFFEETREE BB 40-50' H X 25-35' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE BPF 12 Betula platyphylla'Fargo' DAKOTA PINNACLE DAKOTA PINNACLE BIRCH BB 30-40' HX 10-15' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE GBT 7 Ginkgo biloba The President' GINKGO BB 45-50' H X 30-40' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE LSR 8 Liquidambar syraciflua'Rotundiloba' FRUITLESS SWEETGUM $$ 60-75' H X 20-40' W: PLANT SFZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE LTT 4 Liriodendran tulipifera TULIP TREE BB 70-130' H X 30-60' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE NSB 8 Nyssa syivatica BLACK GUM BB 30-50' H X 20-30' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE P T N 10 Populus tremufoides'NE-ARB' PRAIRIE GOLD ASPEN BB 35-40' H X 10-20' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE PXA 6 Platanus x acerifolia'Liberty' PLANE TREE BBLONDON 40-50' H X 50-60' W; PLANT SIZE- MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE ORL 6 Quercus rubra 'Long' RED OAK BB 60-75' HX 45-50' W: PLANT SIZE: MHN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE TMH 6 Tilia mongolica 'Hanest Gold' MONGOLIAN LINDEN BB 25-45' H X 20-30' W: PLANT SIS: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE COOPERATIVE SMALL DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTINGS CCN 10 Cards canadensis'Northern Strain' EASTERN REDBUD BB 20-30' H X 25-35' W; PLANT SI7F MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE CCH 9 Cercis canadensis'Hearts of Gold' PP #17,740 HEARTS OF GOLD RED -BUD BB 25-35' H X 20-25' W; PLANT SI7F: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE CAR 7 Comus altemifolia PAGODA DOGWOOD BB 15-25' H X 20-35' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE AXG g Arnelanchier X grandiflora'Autumn Brilliance' AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY BB 15-25' I -f X 20-25' W: PLANT SLZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE SPD 10 Syringa pekinensis'DTR' 124 SUMMER CHARM TREE LILAC BB 15-20' H X 10-15' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE CVW g Crataegus IA ridis 'Winter King' GREEN HAWTHORN BB 15-20' H X 10-15' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE COOPERATIVE EVERGREEN TREE PLANTINGS PAN 4 Picea abies NORWAY SPRUCE BB 40-60' H X 25-30' W; MIN. OF 3' HEIGHT TO TOP OF TREE PFV 4 Pinus flexilis'Vanderwoffs Pyramid' LIMBER PINE BB 20-30' H X 10-15' W: MIN. OF 3' HEIGHT TO TOP OF TREE PSE 5 Pi nus strobus EASTERN WHITE PINE BB 50-80' H X 20-40' W; MIN. OF 3' HEIGHT TO TOP OF TREE PGD 3 Picea glauca 'Densata' BLACK HILLS SPRUCE BB 30-40' H X 20-25' W, MIN. OF 3' HEIGHT TO TOP OF TREE 143 TOTAL TREES PROVIDED COOPERATIVE SHRUB PLANTINGS JXP 19 lunipellls x pfitzeriana 'Gotd Coast' GOLD COAST JUNIPER CONT. 2-3' H X 3.4' W; 2 GAL @ 18" MIN. HEIGHT CAS 19 Clethra alnifolia'Sixteen Candles' SIXTEEN CANDLES SWEET PEPPERBUSH CONT. 3-4' H X 3-4' W; 2 GAL @ 18" MIN. HEIGHT ALL PLANTS SHALL BE NURSERY MATCHED, QUALITY SPECIMEN: American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 260.1 00 TYPICAL ALL TREES NOTED FOR PROTECTION ON SITE PLANS. 01 04'-0" HIGH VISIBILITY ORANGE CONSTRUCTION FENCE. 02 STEEL FENCE POSTS AT MIN. 8'-0" D.C. 03 INSTALL FENCING 5' BEYOND DRIP LINE OF PROTECTED TREE. ELEVATION to ••��,.. �i ••••:...:21/:6461 :21 28 rs6. ••ftri f'sil' J.?. • • •. 5 PLAN • • i ■• • • rw %. "41 .:�maw i• VARIES VARIES ENGINEER: welch design + development CLIENT: MONUMENT HILLS, LLC PROJECT NAME: MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA III=1 I I I -III -I I I -I III I H ma I I=I I -I 11-111111 j 1-I =I v SHEET NAME: LANDSCAPE NOTES, DETAILS, AND PLANT SCHEDULE PROJECT NO: 1026 REVISION: B PROJECT MANAGER: WELCH ISSUED DATE: 06-30-2022 SHEET NUMBER: L-03 NeynOte Lagena Kw Value I Keynote Text BRACKET BNTwngxawE COLUMN WRAP • OR • TRIM OUT UMN L ALUCI 6" ALUMINUM FASCIA OR SY MINUM M NAS EXTERIOR WALL LIGHT 141 MASONRY- CULTURED STONE MASONRY- STONE CAP 51 cRI � EMANATED NORMEnLANK OF 41916-T 43809996 59 (succu PANEL19100E PANEL (BOARD AND BATTEN SINNER, K1 BATTENS ON 511100TH PANEL MINNS 54 (SNAKE SIDING) MINTED HARDIE CORNER TRIM C. PAINTED MINTED TRIM n 7" OYER Ir PAINTED TRIM 4. TRIM AT NIMOWS CR FRONT ELEVAION OH, ...RIO OFRONT 0 LEFT CONCRETE SLOPE TO GRADE OBACKSCALE ISE I' p HOLD ALL SIDING AND TRIM MIN. 6. ABOVE GRADE MAIN PLT. HT. $ 9'-11/8" MAIN WIN. 6' H.H. MAIN FLOOR$ 0" T.O.F. 19-137.2 0 ELEVATIONS VINTAGE ESTATES - A200 s 1 NOTE ADD BLACK FELT BEHIND ALL DORMER WINDOWS 3036 FXD LI MAIN PLT. HT. 9'-11%8" 14__a__ MAIN WIN. H.H. h 8.98.9. 1 Nap. Text DECOR/212E BRACKET • FYPON CRAFTSMAN BRACKE,MOwX1021WS COLUMN WRAS • OR • TRIM OUT COLUMN S" ALLNANUM FASCIA OR S" ALUMINUM RARE EXTERIOR WALL LIGH( MI MASONRY- CULTURED STONE MASONRY- STONE CAP LAMINATED ASPNALT ROOF SHINGLES SI (LAP SIDING) MARIE -PLANK MO Mo -r MAX EXPOSURE (STUCCO PANEL) HARDIE PANEL (BOARD AND BATTEN WINO) VERTICAL WINO AND MARIE IgM (SNAKE WING) PANTED ((ARDIE CONNER TRIM a" PAINTED TRIM Ta V' OYER S. PANTED TRIM r OYER 12" PAINTED 1211M SA X 2" PAINTED TRIM a. TRIM AT INAMOWS ON FRONT ELEVATION ONLY I OFRONT CONCRETE SLOPE TO GRADE MI I 1 MAIN FLOOF OBACK-0 0 O RIGHT OLD ALL SIMS AND TRIM MIN. 6' ABOVE GRADE N PLT. HT. MAIN WIN. H.H. 6' - 10' _MAIN FLOOR J� Mo snLABOVE D ALL NG AND M_—Com_—__ ---0. T.O.F. RI OPTION TANSOM OW 19-137.2 frir pft .12 A200 ASO BLACK FELT EDAM ALL DORMER WINDOWS I I Ty MAINPLT.1e"� HT. 8'- I R1 Keynote i.BonN Key Value I Kenwi.TAM 13.9 DECO:WIVE Oi flEn COLUMN WRAP • oB: • MI= O FRONT CONCRETE - SLOPE TO GRADE 0 LEFT MAIN FLOOR it _ 1 Ts K.Rwi. Legend Kap. UM COLUMN BRAME., I, MOE K zr HIGH a3 DECORATIVE BRACKET • EVA,. BK11027 CI COLUMN WRAP - OR - TRIM OUT COLUIN.I 6" ALUMINUM FASCIA OR 6" ALUMINUM RAKE EXTERIOR WALL LIGHT MI MASONRY. CULTURED STONE MASONRY. STONE C. LAMINATED ASPHALT ROOF SHIMMER CLAP MONO)HARM-P LANK aaxo-rMAX E POSURE (BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING) IXS BATTENS ON SMOOTH PANEL SIDING PADDED HARDIE CORNER TRIM 4" PANTED TRIM 6" OVER IM PANTED TRIM r OVER 12. PAINTED TFON11 ...TRIM AT VANDOWS ON FRONT ELEVATION ONLY OBACK SCALE, 1W I, 0 m TI 19-137.4 ELEVATIONS w 1- w 0 z_ .0 U0 w� Oz w a2 VINTAGE ESTATES 1.7.2022 =LT` `1=e TRIM Ci)RIGHTSCALE I. I RI A200 RI TI 0 FRONT SCALE, NO ME I LI CONCRETE - SLOPE TO GRADE ®LEFT SCALE: I, arkLATIV1 T"' O BACK l- Kerala Legend Keynote UM COLUMN WRAB• OR • M OUT COLUMN b" ALUMINUM FASCIA ORE' ALUMINUM RAKE laTERIOR WALL LIGHT MI MASONRY. CULTURED STONE 444SONRIN STONE CAB LAMINATED ASP., ROOF SHINGLES ,LAP varve HARMER LANK MING, MAX EXPOSURE ,BOARO arra BATTEN SIDING)US BATTERS ON SMOOTH PANEL SIDING PAINTED HARDIE CORNER ISM 4, PAINTED TRIM 6" OVER r PAINTED ORM r OVER Ir PNNTEDINIM 4" TRIM AT NANOOWS ON FIVSNT ELEVATION ONLY 19-137.4 ELEVATIONS Lu 1- w >w CC U Luw O0 a� VINTAGE ESTATES A200 O RIGHT TS NOTE: ADD BLACN FELT BEHIND ALL DORMER WINDOWS MAIN PLT. HT MAIN WIN. H.H. 6'-10"Y CI IMrnM. I..oMM Nap. Text DECORATIVE BRACKET • PYPON CRAFTSMAN BRACKET IMKTa«12%161E COLUMN WRAP • OR • TRIM OUT COLUMN S" ALLANNUM FASCIA OR S" ALUMINUM RARE EXTERIOR WALL LIGHT MI MASONRY- CULTURED STONE MASONRY- STONE CAP LAMINATED ASPHALT ROOF SHINGLES SI (EAP MMHO) HAIME-PLANK MMNo-r MAX E[PoEUAE (STUCCO PANEL) HARDIE PANEL (SNAKE NNW PANTED NA W IE CONEH TRIM TS 4" PAINTED TRIM Ta a" OYER 8" PAINTED TRIM TE 7" OYER IP" PAINTED TRIM 5/4 %7" PAINTED TRIM 4.1111M AT I/ENDOWS ON FRONT ELEVATION ONLY OBACK -0 HOLD ALL SDP. AND TRIM MIN. 6' ABOVE GRADE GABLE WIN. 2'H:_ MAN N PLT. HT. h 9' N. H.H. lr MAIN WIN. H.H. 6' - 10' MAIN FLOOR 0' T.O.F. -8' 19-137.2 VINTAGE ESTATES /07/2022 A200 11111111111 133E13 E3 — EA O LEFT o T.O. F. Ha u 2 1/4 4'-0" Y 19-137.4 Lu cn Lu Lu o co cc CC Z 01-07.2022 ig A200 UNIT A UNIT B 22% 19' - 4 1/2" 56% 51'-2" 22% 19' -4" �IFRONT ` 1 / SCALE: 1/4" = BAC KK SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" � 2- IOWA CITY TWIN HOME 1,756 S.F. EACH UNIT • 1 IMPRINT ARCHITECTS VINTAGE COOPERATIVE OF IOWA CITY 133' - 10 1 /8" 2022.06.13 WILKUS ,RCHITECTS S D FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL ❑NE 29 U N ITS 40-45 GARAGE STALLS 30-34 STO RAGE U N ITS COOPERAI/VE VINTAGE COOPERATIVE OF IOWA CITY ,NP 2022.06.13 133' - 10 1/8" PINE 2 i I U inW W 11 W 2 H MAGNOLIA LOCUST GUESTS W I LKUS ,RCH ITECTS S D FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL TWO VINTAGE COOPERATIVE OF IOWA CITY 1 38' - 3 1/8" SD - V2 2022.06.13 L3 - Roor Bearing Lo 111111111111111111111 i1 -3• - FRONT - MAIN ENTRY - NORTHWEST ELEVATION 5 4 KEY PLAN 8 W I LKUS ,RCH ITECTS 2' STONE VENEER PRIMARY - GRAY LEDGESTONE BY CENTURION • - 2' STONE VENEER SECONDARY - TULSA RUBBLE BY CENTURION EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1!1 VINYL SHAKES 7" EXPOSURE - RED CEDAR OR SIM FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING W/ 5" EXPOSURE - SW 7066 'GRAY MATTERS' OR SIM BUILDING TRIM, COLUMN WRAPS & EAVES - SW 6252 'ICE CUBE' OR SIM VINTAGE COOPERATIVE OF IOWA CITY 2 2022.06.13 111111111111111111111 FRONT - WEST ELEVATION 3 FRONT - N RTH ELEVATI ON WILKUS ,RCHITECTS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS VINTAGE COOPERATIVE OF IOWA CITY UNIT HVAC LOUVER TYP GARAGE HVAC LOUVER 4 •• 20'-0" END - NORTH ELEVATION 5 END - WEST ELEVATION 6 REAR - SOUTHEAST ELEVATION WILKUS ,RCHITECTS 1111111 11W 111111111111I11111i 11!'11111I1I11111111111101111 ....... 1111111111111111 11111111:1..... °"°00•000111!!!!!R!!!!!!!00110001011 000000•0001____ - GATE TO PUBLIC WAY EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SD - V2 2022.06.13 VINTAGE COOPERATIVE OF IOWA CITY 7 2022.06.13 REAR - S 0 UTH ELEVATION 8 REAR - EAST ELEVATI 0 N WILKUS ,RCHITECTS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS c) c) N N N N Cr) c0 OFRONT 1/8" = 1'-0" OLEFT 1/8" = 1'-0" MAIN PLT. HT. 110'-1 1/8" ELEVATION GENERAL NOTES 1. ARCHITECTURAL 100' - 0" = SURVEY XXXX.XX 2. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. DRAWN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE. NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES IMMEDIATELY. 3. REFER TO DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULES FOR MORE INFORMATION. 4. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS. 5. GRADE SOIL AWAY FROM BUILDING TO DRAIN. SEE CIVIL AND LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR MORE INFORMATION. 6. ALL SIDING BY "LP SMARTSIDE EXPERT FINISH SIDING" 11 �I�N�INwmtim r--�� 1 II PICKLEBALL PLT. HEIGHT 113'-04 T. MAIN PLT.1-1 110'-1 1/8" V OBACK 1/8" = 1'-0" .. IV V1�7 MI MIM. PICKLEBALL PLT. HEIGHT 113'-0 /4" ®RIGHT 1/8" = 1-0" v I ILLI J ILJ MAIN PLT. HT. iL 110'-1 1/8" PICKLEBALL PLT. HEIGHT L 113'-0 3/4" MAIN PLT. HT. 110'-1 1/8" Z 0 V 1 19-137 w 0 z m U d 0 0 U >- H0 U Q w O > K 0 0_ DATE: DRAWN BY: CHK'D BY: 06/13/2022 MT KC REVISED: Z 00 wQ X wJ w A200 ARCHITECT* 1605 N. ANKENY BLVD #130 ANKENY, IOWA 50023 PHONE: (515) 965-5336 FAX: (515) 965-5335 info@imprintarchitects.com Attachment 4 Summary Report for Good Neighbor Meeting Project Name: Monument Hills CITY OF IOWA CITY Project Location: N. Scott & Rochester Ave Meeting Date and Time: May 25, 2022 © 5:30 - 6:30pm Meeting Location: Pond House at Harvest Preserve (1645 N. Scott Boulevard) Names of Applicant Representatives attending: Michael Welch - Engineer, Joe Clark - Developer Heather Ropp & Ray Bisbee - Ewing Development Names of City Staff Representatives attending: Parker Walsh Number of Neighbors Attending: 24 + Sign -In Attached? Yes X No General Comments received regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary) - See Attached Concerns expressed regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary) - See Attached Will there be any changes made to the proposal based on this input? if so, describe: Yes - See attached Staff Representative Comments welch design + development Monument Hills Good Neighbor Meeting Summary General Comments regarding the project: The meeting was well attended and the response from the neighbors was generally positive. People were happy to see the trail connection to Calder Park as they recognized this would create an important link from the neighborhoods north of Ralston Creek to the Olde Towne Village commercial development and to Lemme School. They also like that it gave access to Calder Park to the neighborhoods south of Ralston Creek, including the future property owners within this development. The addition of public sidewalk along the north side of Rochester Avenue was also seen as a positive improvement for the area. Regarding the development itself, we received positive feedback with the addition of lots on the eastside of Iowa City. Neighbors liked that there were a mix of housing types (single-family and the Senior Living Community) and lot sizes. The two points to enter and exit the development along Rochester Avenue (Allison Way and Heron Drive) were also positively received. Neighbors were happy to see the Senior Living Community on the corner of N. Scott & Rochester and liked that it would be owner occupied units instead of rental units. The cooperative ownership concept was well received. Concerns expressed regarding the project: The neighbors did express some concerns. The concerns were related to misunderstanding who owns the property, increased traffic on Rochester, the loss of wooded areas, potential wildlife impacts, the six narrow lots that front Rochester Avenue, and changes to the view for some existing homeowners adjacent to the project area. Some neighbors were under the impression that this property was part of Harvest Preserve and not owned by a separate entity. This resulted in a believe that this property was part of a long-term conservation easement and would not be subject to development. The traffic concern is related both to the additional traffic once the development is complete and the construction traffic as the necessary public improvements are installed and the construction of the individual homes. The woodland impacts are primarily caused by the grading necessary to create buildable lots, the construction of Allison Way between Heron Drive and Rochester Avenue to provide a second entrance to the development, the six lots proposed along Rochester Avenue, and the grading necessary to construct a public sidewalk along the north side of Rochester Avenue. The potential impacts to wildlife are related to the loss of woodlands and the conversion of the land from hay production and pasture to a housing development. Welch Design and Development, LLC Page 1 welchdes igndevelo pment.com welch The six lots fronting Rochester Avenue create concern for some of the neighbors for several reasons including the impact to the existing wooded area in this location, the change to the view form existing homes, and the creation of smaller, rear -loaded lots. These proposed lots are 50' wide and, per city code, would need to have garage and driveway access off a shared drive rather than directly onto Rochester Avenue. There was some concern that these smaller lots would have a negative impact on adjacent property values. The concern regarding the change to existing views is primarily focused on the six lots on Rochester Avenue and the lots in the northwest corner that are visible from the homes on Hickory Trail. The neighbors who expressed these concerns were those who would be directly impacted (i.e., their view would change). Will there he any charges made to the proposal based on this input? The development team reviewed the concept plan presented at the meeting and the concerns expressed by the neighbors. The strongest objections to the proposed plan were centered around the 6 lots along Rochester Avenue. These lots have been removed from the plan as a result. The removal of these lots reduces the amount of woodland impact, alleviates the concern of the residents of Rochester Hills Condominiums and those along the south side of Rochester Avenue that their view would change, and eliminates an access point on Rochester Avenue. This does not completely remove the woodland impacts along Rochester Avenue as the public side and associated grading are still necessary. The development team as completed additional work related to the other concerns raised. The Traffic Impact Study has determined that the additional traffic is well within the acceptable limits for Rochester Avenue an arterial street). The overall woodland impact meets the requirements of the city code (at feast fifty percent of the existing woodlands will remain), including an area of old-growth timber located on Outlot B. A threatened and endangered species study was completed that determined that the construction of the development can be completed in such a way as to avoid impacts to potential bat habitat. Changing views are unfortunately a reality of land development. Other than the changes along Rochester Avenue, the nearest properties impacted by changing views are more than 500 feet away from the development. This includes the properties along Hickory Trail on the north side of Ralston Creek Welch Design and Development, LLC Page 2 we I chd esigndevel o p me nt.co m Lvelch design # development 1 June 30„ 2022 Attachment 5 On behalf of Monument Hills, LLC, Welch Design and Development partnered with Kimley-Horn and Associates to prepare a Traffic Impact Study for the Rochester Avenue corridor adjacent to the proposed Monument Hills development, The study evaluated the impacts of the proposed development on the traffic an Rochester Avenue. Specifically, the intersections of Rochester Avenue and N. Scott Boulevard, Heron Circle, Amhurst Street, Teton Circle, and Windmill Place were evaluated_ The conclusion of the study Is that the intersections indicated above and the new intersection of Rochester Avenue and Allison Way function well within the acceptable levels of an arterial street. Further, there are no warrants for additional turn lanes along Rochester Avenue because of the proposed development, The complete report is attachecd. Sincerely, Michael J. Welch, PE yy5yy;i,1�►++U��++lJ1 ,,,00: 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS. ENGINEERING DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY €q �.DIRECT 5{J{'ERV15101V AND THAT I AM AIY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE '.G LAWS OF THE STATE OF IOWA. WELCH ' j C4 . JUNE 30, 20n 19636 err+; MICHAEL! WELCH, PE DATE j '-. { $.'` LICENSE NUMBER 19635 *'I» / Pi i �% MY LICENSE RENEWAL DATE 15 DECEMBER 31, 2022 � .... i11I1UI tie ti Welch Resign and Development, LLC Page 1 we lc h d esignd evelop me nt, lam Kimley I--lrr introduction The Monument Hills development will consi5it of 69 single -#amity detached residences. 18 senior single-family units and 29 seniorrnulti-family units_ The development is located on the north side of Rochester Avenue. west of N Scott Boulevard. The development is anticipated to be constructed and fully occupied by 2026, Methodology The trip generation rot the Monument Hills development is calculated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (1TE) Trip Generation, 1 fth Edition (202/). The average trip generation rates for the ITE Land Use Code (LUC) 210, single-family detached residential, LUC 251, Senior Single -Family, and LUC. 252, Senior Multi -Family, have been used. The fi I1owine intersections are being analyzed as part of this report: 1. N Scott Blvd at Rochester Ave - All -way top -Controlled ?, Heron Cir at Rochester Ave - Two-way Stop Controlled 3. Amhurst St at Rochester Ave - Two-way Stop Controlled 4, Teton Cir al Rochester Ave - Two-way Stop Controlled 5, Site Access 3 at Rochester Ave • Two -war Stop Controlled The development is expected to be fully built out and occupied by the year 2026: therefore, the year 2026 was used for future analysis. The analysis has been performed for the existing conditions, 2026 baseline conditions, and 2026 future with development conditions during the AM and PM peak -hours. Existing counts were collected by Welch Design Development, on Wednesday, Marchi 2, 2022 for the AM and PM peak -hours at the study intersections. The 2026 baseline turning movements were calculated by applying an annually compounding growth rate of 1% to the existing turning movement volumes. The l"A growth rate is based on conversations with lora City staff, The 2026 future with development turning movements have been calculated by adding the development's trips to the 2026 baseline turning movements. '-_: L'4" DJ SI: s;12_ RN, Scala, I' A 14111_12i 1425 i 3314 Er., Kimley »> Horn The peak -hour level of service (LOS) analysis calculations were completed using the S'vnchr•o / 1 soil -ware, This software applies the operational analysis methodology of the current ifrghikui, Caper'/ry Mwn:af (IIC I), Traffic congestion is generally measured in terms of level of service. In accordance with the HC.M 6`t' Edition, road Facilities and intersections are rated between LOS A arid LOS F, with LOS A being free flow and LOS F being !breed flow or over -capacity conditions. The level of service criteria is summarized in Table 1, The level of service at two-way stop -controlled intersections is based on the avenge delay of the worst approach, The level of service at signalized find ail -way stop -controlled intersections is based on the average delay for all approaches,Geo-metric characteristics and conflicting traffic movements are taken into consideration when determining leve of service values. Table 1: Level of Service Criteria for 1uteraeetituns Level of 1 Service Expected Delay 1ntei i ctinn Control Delay {Seconds pair Velifele} tJnsignalized Intersections Signalised Intersections. A LitileiNo Delay _ ...11.) <1 U B SJtortLelays =.t0and 15 >1.0 and 5110 C Average Delays >15 and<2.5 >20 and.<33 D Long Doll Lir'. >25 and <35 >3N and <55 E Very Lang Detayi >35 and ti5o >5'3 and <80 F Extre no Del yw- >5 ›gli The acceptable level of service for intersections within Iowa City is LOS CJD and the significance of impacts on intersections operating at LOS E or LOS F is taken on a case-by-case basis_ _ ' Source: Highway Cupac`r!rj- Manua'. Err, LOS A: Free -flaw traffic conditions_ with mtu.unal delay to snapped vehicles Int} vehicle is delayed longer than one cycle at signalized intersection}. LOS E: Generally stable traffic flow conditions_ LOS C- Nasional back-ups stay develop, but delay to vehicles 6 shoo term and still Tolerable_ LOS ID: During short periods of the peak hour, delays to approaching vehicles ivay be substantial but are tolerable during times of less dernaiid {i.e. vehicles delayed one cycle or less at signall_ LOS E. Interscttions operate at or near capacity, %yitl' Tong queues developing on all approaches and long delays. LOS F: Jnnutied conditions on all approaches with excessively Tong delays and vehicles unable to move at times. i When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane. extreme ticiayrr will he encountered with queuing which may Tau severe cnrig ition ac ting other traffic mow sic is in the intersect inn, Monument Hills Traffic Impact Analysis 1 May 2022 Kt #090222040 Kimley Hary TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION Trip generation calculations for the Monument 1 -tills development are based on national statistics contained in 1.1w ln4tituic of Transportation Engineers' t 1TE) Trip Generalion4 1 Ph Edition (2021). The average trip generation rates for the ITE. Land Use (Thele (LUC) 210, Single -Family Detached, .LUC 251, Senior Singly -Family. and LUC 252, SeniorMulti-Family, have been used. There are total of 69 single-family detached residences, 18 senior single-family and 29 senior mien -family units. The Monument Hills development is anticipate to generate 823 new daily trips. 58 rrcw AM peak - hour trips and 77 new PM peak -hour trips. The trip generation is sunimariaed in Table 2, Table 2: Trip Generation Summary Lund Uses Average Daily Trips AM Peak-ilol!r Trips PM Peak-flourTeips 'nbrlund Outbound 1 Trial inbound 1 Outbound Total lohoirnrl 11911t} -i -id 1 Total LUC 21(I* Detached fig Unit: {irn ratign RutsSingle-Family Triw Fr Unii Q43 Trips 0,70 Trips per Unit (-04 Trips of Unit _ 1a1.5 50% 5Ci . - 100% 26% 74% 1 fl0% 63% 37 n 100%. trips 326 325 651 12 36 4K 41 14 65 LUC 251. Senior Single-Farnily. 18 Units Generation Rat' 4,31 Trips per Unit 0.24 Trips per Unit 0.30 Trips per Unit SPlitR . — 0 - -- 50% 100% R.34'r, 67(!,* I0(1% 61% - — 39"b -- I0O'i Trips 39 39 71 I 3 4 3 3 5 251 Senior Mutti-Family, 29 Uoi1i Generating Rate 3,24 Trips per Unit 020 Trip% per Unit 0.25 Trip per UnitLUC Splits 50%.' 5fl(I. I 5Er!..1 34% 66:`ir 1011 ,r WY. 44% 1009ire, Ttip 47 47 &J4 2 4 6 4 3 7 TOTAL 412 411 I 823 15 43 58 48 29 77 The trip generation calculations are include in the attachments. Trip distribution and traffic. assignments t`or the development are based on the existing turning movement counts, It iw anticipated that 75% of the development traffic would travel to and from the west on Rochester Avenue and 25% to and from the east un Rochester Avenue. Of the 25°G traveling east, five percent is anticipated to travel to and from the north along Scott Boulevard, five percent to and from the south on Scott Boulevard and fifteen percent wi 11 continue to travel to and from the east along. Rochester Avenue. The development trips are included to the turning movement sheets for the AM and PM peak -hours. rvioiiument Hells May 2022 Traffic Impact Analysis 3 KH #090222040 40 Kimley Horn Level of Service Analysis The existing channelizatiL>rn at the study intersections as well as the existing peak -hour factors were utilized in determining the level of service analysis- The tinning movements are included in the attachments. Tile level of service analysis for the normalized existing, 2026 beeline, and 2026 future with development conditions is summarized in Table 3, Table 3: intersection Level of Service Summar intersection Time Period 2022 Existing Conditions 2026 C'oaditions Baseline �ilelay 2026 with Development Conditions LO Future I Delay— .- LOS i Delay LOS 1. Scott Boulevard m Rochter Avenue A1V1 B 13_{} gerz 13 13.x+ sec 13 13.4 sec PM C 15.6 set C 1 [3.7 see C 17.? sou *, Heron Circle al Rochester Avenue AM B 10,7 seo B 10.8 sec 13 11.6 pec PM B ] I.1 sec 1-5 1 L2 wee II 12_0 sec 3, Amhurst Street at Rocliestor Aventine AM 13 1 1-{ } Msec 13 1 1.2 sec 13 11-4 sec PM B 1 I , 5 set: 13 - 1 t."7 sec - 13 .— 11.1 sec 4- TiuCircle al Rocinnier Avenue A PM R R 13.' wee 1: 3 s c 13 13 12.4 sec — 12.6 sec 13 14.11 sec 13 14.3 See 5, A11ison Way INeve Access) a1 Rgchster AVenste AM --- --• --- --- 13 11.1.5 sec PM -- — -- -- 13 110.1 Sin The study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better in the 2022 existing. 2026 baseline and 2026 future with development conditions during both the ANI and PM peak -hours. Collision Data Collision Data was compiled for the years 2019 through 2021 from .the Iowa DOT Iowa Crash Analysis Tool for the study intersections. There were four collisions (three broadside and one sideswipe) at the intersection of Soon Boulevard at Rochester Avenue and one collision (with an animal) at the intersection of Teton Circle at Rochester Avenue. The collision resulted in property damage only and no injuries. There were no other cu.Mllisions at the study intersection including the location where the development's New Access (Allison Way) will be onto Rochester Avenue. There was no collision trends or significant collision history :associated with the geometry of the road network at the study intersections. The detailed crash reports are included in the attacluneuts. diol -Fun -lent Hills May 2022 Traffic impact Analysis KH #090222040 KimleyAlorn Access Analysis The Monument Hill development is proposing three accesses to Rochester Avenue, Two of the proposed accesses are apposite existing public streets (Heron Circle and Teton Circle) while the new Allison Way access will be approximately fly 507 feet east of Teton Circle. This access spacing exceeds the existing public road access spacing for Ainhum Sweet and Heron Circle which is approximately 308 feet. Sight distance way; pertbrnied at the New Site Access (Allison Way) Cor stoppirgicntering sight distance. The posted speed limit along Rochester Avenue is 35 rnph_ Per AA HTO guidelines, this requires 250 feet of slopping sight distance and 390 feet of entering sight distance, There is clear stopping and entering sight distance for over 400 feet to the east and west of the proposed Allison Way access. Channelizat.ion analysis was performed during the PN1 peak -hour to d, tenii L1t if left -turn than m]iiatiun is warranted on Rochester Boulevard at Allison Way (Main Access nut opposite mother public intersection). The left -turn channelirmtion requirements at the intersecti€m have been evaluated using the WSDOT Design Manual. The ]eft -lure channelization has been evaluated using Exhibit 1310-7a ',di- Thi n SrorageGuidelines.' Two -Lave Liars r}natized. The analysis shows that the small number of left turns do not reach the percentage threshold for requiring a dedicated pocket. With the proposed Allison Way access exceeding the ertisting public greet separation along Rochester Avenue, the sight distance being met for the access location, no collision history and no chunnelization warn rated the access location should be approved. Attachments Trip Generation A-1 to A-5 Counts 13-1 to l3-8 Turning Movements C-1 to C-10 Level of Service Calculations D--1 to D-26 Coilisioi Data E -I to E-5 Channelization Warrant F- I Moiiumerit Hills May 2022 Traffic Impact Analysis 5 KH #090222040 June 20, 2022 Attachment 6 welch design+development APPLICANT'S STATEMENT FOR REZONING MONUMENT HILLS Please accept the following Applicant Statement submitted on behalf of Monument Hills, LLC. The proposed development area is approximately sixty-five acres of private property located west of N. Scott Boulevard and north of Rochester Avenue. The property is bounded on the north by property owned by Harvest Preserve Foundation and on the west by the Rochester Hills condominium development. Rochester Avenue comprises the southern boundary and N. Scott Boulevard comprises the east boundary. The current zoning classification is ID -RS — Interim Development Single -Family Residential. The Applicant is seeking to rezone the entire area shown as Parcel "A" on the image below to OPD / RS -5 — Low Density Single -Family Residential. The area shown as Parcel "B" will be rezoning to OPD / ID -RS to accommodate the • • ▪ _nU334 • •-.: d� o5 i•O. PARCEL "B�;_: 1,,i ...(4 : s�-;•"---.4.....r.,,- : ... r ❑�o��' a3: k nA.'s sFE P arhi.Esrc rMt� - rn rh, N � ,kr,.„1- r `a' � ''�-- FLOC co a N pc oc ,Q . - i f m -. r� INNlld-.. Welch Design and Development, LLC welchdesigndevelopment.com Page 1 Project #1026 welch existing communications tower located on that parcel. This tower was approved in the ID -RS district by special exception in 2009. Communications towers are not permitted in a RS -5 zone. As part of the request for OPD / ID -R5, the application will be seeking a waiver from the 10 -acre minimum lot size requirement. There is 2,459 feet of frontage on Rochester Avenue and 550 feet of frontage on North Scott Boulevard. The Future Land Use Plan within the Comprehensive Plan indicates this area as Conservation Design due to the presence of regulated slopes, woodlands, and wetlands on the property. The Northeast District Plan includes the property within the "Bluffwood Neighborhood" and shows a combination of single-family homes, townhomes, and small apartment buildings. The property to the north of this development is owned by the Harvest Preserve Foundation and has been placed in a state conservation easement. This precludes any development extending north of the subject property. The applicant is proposing a single-family development with approximately 8 -acres located in the southeast corner for a separate senior cooperative project that will feature a two-story multi -family building, three "twin -homes" (two attached units), twelve single-family homes, and a club house for the residents to use. The Low -Density Single -Family Residential (R5-5) zoning proposed is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the district plan. The plan meets for the code requirements for woodland preservation and maintains the required buffer areas from wetlands. The presence of these sensitive features results in an overall density that is less than the allowable maximum density allowed in the RS -5 zone. I have included two exhibits with this application. The first, Exhibit A, is the proposed development overlaid on the Bluffwood Neighborhood Plan from the NE District Plan. When this development is compared to the Bluffwood plan, it is apparent that the development seeks to preserve the open space envisioned in the NE District Plan. The proposed development creates single-family lots in the same areas as shown on the Bluffwood plan but with fewer roads and impervious area. This development provides a mix of housing types in the form of a senior cooperative featuring patio homes, twin -homes, and condo -style units in a multi -unit dwelling where the Bluffwood plan envisioned town homes and small-scale apartments. The creation of Harvest Preserve on the property to the north precludes any roadway connections to the north or northwest; however, an agreement to allow a pedestrian connection to Calder Park to the northwest of the development has been secured. The second exhibit, Exhibit B, shows the development in the context of the overall area. It is important to recognize the scale of this development compared to that of the Harvest Preserve property to the north. Harvest Preserve's land is approximately 110 acres while the Monument Farms development proposed to develop only thirty-two acres of the sixty-five acres in the development. The thirty-three acres that are not being developed will be preserved in the form of development -restricted outlots. Welch Design and Development, LLC welch designdevelo pment.com Page 2 Project #1026 welch There is city water along Rochester Avenue. The applicant will be extending water north along N. Scott Boulevard to the end of the development. There is sanitary sewer available a short distance off the property. The Applicant will secure an easement from the Harvest Preserve Foundation to extend this sewer into the development. The required analysis of the various sensitive features on the property has been completed. The Office of the State Archaeologist has completed a Phase I Archaeology Survey and found no significant cultural resources within the development area. A wetland investigation was also completed. Wetlands were found within the development area. These wetlands are identified in the Preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan (SADP) that accompanies this plan. The applicant will be purchasing credits in a Foca# wetland bank to mitigate the impacts to the wetlands. Refer to the wetland report and supplemental memo that accompanies this application for additional information regarding the wetlands. Thank you for your consideration of this rezoning application. Sincerely, Michael i. Welch, PE Welch Design & Development Welch Design and Development, LLC welchdes igndevelo pment.com Page 3 Project #1026 ISSUED DATE: 06/20/2022 SHEET NUMBER: PAGE 1 Attachment 7 HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC ZONING = ID -RS ACT, I N C ZONING: ID -RS FIRST & ROCHESTER PART 4 • ZONING: OPD RS -5 AUDITO'S PACEL 200034 3K41 PG191 HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC ZONING = ID -RS •., %Nit N87°42'14"E 617.81 ACT, I N C ZONING: ID -RS HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC ZONING = ID -RS MONUMENT FARMS, LLC CITY OF IOWA CITY ZONING: OPD RS -5 s`s6o`1, gg,F MONUMENT FARMS, LLC ZONING = ID -RS -J. oleg ROCHESTER HILLS ZONING: OPD RS -5 N88°49'39"E 421.58 N04°16'56"E 140.65 PAr f 1 PARCEL "N' :4v 64.37 Ac 2,803,876 SF _ 7. AU DITO�'S PACEL 200034 3K41 PG191 . r REZONING EXHIBIT MONUMENTHILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL "A": PARCEL "A" BEING PART OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 200033 IN BOOK 41 PAGE 192 AND PART OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 200034 IN BOOK 41 PAGE 191 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., IN IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 200034 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 41 PAGE 191 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, THENCE N01°10;21"W, 1,365.66 FEET; THENCE N88°49'39"E, 421.58 FEET; THENCE N04°16'56"E, 140.65 FEET; THENCE N59°32'43"E, 568.88 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M.; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE N87°42'14"E, 617.81 FEET, THENCE S56°13'44"E, 807.74 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF N. SCOTT BOULEVARD; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE S19°29'26"E, 549.93 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ROCHESTER AVENUE; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE S69°00'08"W, 1,148.85 FEET, THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY S69°04'09"W, 129.67 FEET; THENCE N20°55'51"W, 145.05 FEET; THENCE N84°57'19"W, 107.05 FEET; THENCE 538°38'53"E, 54.95 FEET; THENCE S20°55'51"E, 139.59 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ROCHESTER AVENUE; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE S69°04'09"W, 157.11 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY S69°04'11"W, 493.99 FEET, THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY S73°10'16"W, 384.23 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY ON A 1,120.59 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY (CHORD BEARING S76°24'13"W, 126.38 FEET) TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 64.37 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. PARCEL "B": PARCEL "A" BEING PART OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 200033 IN BOOK 41 PAGE 192 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., IN IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 200033 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 41 PAGE 192 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, THENCE S69°04'09"W, 129.67 FEET ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ROCHESTER AVENUE TO THE POINT OF BEGINING; THENCE N20°55'51"W, 145.05 FEET; THENCE N84°57'19"W, 107.05 FEET; THENCE 538°38'53"E, 54.95 FEET; THENCE S20°55'51"E, 139.59 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ROCHESTER AVENUE; THENCE N69°04'09"E, 79.51 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 0.31 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. MONUMENT FARMS, LLC 0.7 AUDITO'S PA 200033 3'<41 PG192 CEL ZONING = ID -RS ` `G OCH \ir a OLD TOWNE VILLAGE PART 2 ZONING: CC -2 - _ ._ _ •.. , r ?4 Af0A .5• • 1 F a . y ' 1s sr Q NJ 01 • N 0 i .• atiti 4k r• • I ti PARCEL'B.. • ,0.31 Ac.a„ "..13,443 SF ' PARCEL4."A" ' 111 Y 1 10.4 AO: • r 38'23, ,B. 1 OCH •- • .\ 5ecr id ROCHESTER RIDGE PART TWO ZONING: OPD RS- { ,'1 4 1 MARI CHESTER RID( PART ONE ZONING: OPD '77u- LD TbWNE VILLAGE E LOT 2 CONDOMINIUM ZONING: OPD RS -8 ', \ \ \, *•1 I In • �... -E11 I }U-NTAIrtt. MEADOW • 'ZONING: ZONING: OPD RS -5 RS -54)40 GREEN -I - MOUNTAIIN DR ( WINDMILL J -- HEIGHTS a. 11 ZONING: _1 ,iR ;F 5 ROCHESTE RIDGE PART ONE ZONING: OPD RS -5 TOWNEOWNE VILLAGE LOT 1 CONDOMINIUM ZONING: OPD RS -8 0 11 occIP z 0 w r u LINE TABLE LINE ID LENGTH BEARING Ll 129.67 S69°04'09"W L2 145.05 N20°55'51"W L3 107.05 N84°57'19"W L4 54.95 S38°38'53"E L5 139.59 S20°55'51"E L6 157.11 S69°04'09"W L7 79.51 S69°04'09"W CURVE SEGMENT TABLE CURVE NUMBER DELTA RADIUS ARC LENGTH CHORD LENGTH CHORD BEARING C??? 006°27'55" 1120.59' 126.45' 126.38' S76°24'13"W c soar vafl- ZONING INFORMATION CURRENT ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING PROPOSED ZONING - PARCEL "A" - PARCEL "B" ID -RS OPD / RS -5 OPD / ID -RS 0 75 150 225 WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 1" = 150' 300 APPLICANT INFORMATION PROPERTY OWNER MONUMENT FARMS, LLC 3810 PETERSON PL NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 DEVELOPER MONUMENT HILLS, LLC 221 E BURLINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52240 (319) 631-1894 CIVIL ENGINEER WELCH DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT MICHAEL J. WELCH, PE PO BOX 679 NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 (319) 214-7501 ENGINEER: welch designfdevelopment CLIENT: MONUMENT HILLS, LLC PROJECT NAME: MONUMENT HILLS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IOWA CITY REVISION LOG: REV DESCRIPTION DATE CITY SUBMITTAL #1 04-14-22 A CITY SUBMITTAL #2 06-20-22 SHEET NAME: REZONING EXHIBIT PROJECT NO: 1026 REVISION: A PROJECT MANAGER: WELCH • -- 0416.41ft 4 N N I -AL 411pr 11 HARVEST PRESERVE 0 "73 _-• r HARVEST PRESERVE 1 Mr. dal • s • 4 vIL a i r_ 1 1 1-1-1--11± 1 -- LI II HARVEST PRESERVE MONUMENT FARMS, LLC ( 1 • • - - " \\.1 ./\ „ t,. • -• / - ..__\----- ..----' cl.. • y..--- ‘Acc‘ •---C -(1Cof----C \ , G....J.>, -1- ‘ \ '‹. \ ‘ , • )----4----i)-----)-----7-.-.:s,_ ./. / -/ / / • •1 - •. / / / /- / / . , / / . . . / _/ /.- / / rH1j71-A. r-1 11 11 • ...---c-\ \ \ \ • if, ---i----_-1,------17, \ \ \ \ >-- - '-.' \ _-..----- ....... _..c.---- \ , \ \ ,,,,. \ \ - a 46 .--\---. \ \\.• .. ---)---- n 0 - ' • .. \ • \ \ \ .\>. C\‘‘..'.' ---- le)* __.,"--- '-• \ \• .- ,K,.0 ' \ -. NN "'---c. .>.- _,r, ..Z' _ _.k . - - - • - - - -AVY . - . . . \ r\•^k j 1 . - - - ' - - - \--.--• . 1 \ \\ \ 7 —I- \\ \ \ '= ' \ = . 11 !'l p \\ ' \ \ L ILIT--- 1 ----7---- \ \\_16____ I- ---1-----\------4- --'. i ),.. (3 ,7 1 cl f--- 1 # kr-I \ i ...„.., 01 \ ill ', \ \ \ t ' \ \ i- . 1, ____ A \-.------ 01 \ , --- \ \ rt. T 1 r-1 Attachment awft 0 l 75 150 225 300 WHEN PRINTED ON 22x34" SHEET 1" = 150' LEGEND • MONUMENT HILLS BOUNDARY • HARVEST PRESERVE BOUNDARY • ROCHESTER HILLS BOUNDARY PARK BOUNDARY j BLUFFWOOD PLAN LEGEND GSGED®00 COMMERCIAL -OFFICE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SMALL APARTMENT BUILDING TOWN HOUSE SINGLE FAMILY EXISTING RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE ENGINEER: welch design +development CLIENT: MONUMENT HILLS, LLC PROJECT NAME: MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA REVISION LOG: REV B D E DESCRIPTION REZONING - CITY COMMENTS REZONING - WETLANDS UPDATE REMOVE AMHURST ST REZONING - CITY COMMENTS REZONING - CITY COMMENTS DATE 04-27-22 05-10-22 05-20-22 06-16-22 06-30-22 SHEET NAME: CONCEPT PLAN AND BLUFFWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN OVERLAY PRO3E.CT2NO: PROJECT MANAGER: SHEET NUMBER: 10 6 WELCH REVISION: F 7-37)1022 EX A WELCH DESIGN AND N N a t to w N N O •0 Y N ul O N O N • O 2a 0 40 N o& o HARVEST PRESERVE TAMARACK RIDGE HARVEST PRESERVE MONDNT FARMS, LLC RALSTON CREEK ROCHESTER HILLS 0 150 300 450 600 WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 1" = 300' LEGEND ENGINEER: MONUMENT HILLS BOUNDARY HARVEST PRESERVE BOUNDARY ROCHESTER HILLS BOUNDARY TAMARACK RIDGE BOUNDARY PARK BOUNDARY welch CLIENT: design+development MONUMENT HILLS, LLC PROJECT NAME REVISION LOG: REV B C D E F MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA DESCRIPTION REZONING - CITY COMMENTS REZONING - WETLANDS UPDATE REMOVE AMHURST ST REZONING - CITY COMMENTS REZONING - CITY COMMENTS SHEET NAME: DATE 04-27-22 05-10-22 05-20-22 06-16-22 06-30-22 CONCEPT PLAN AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS WITH 2021 AERIAL PHOTO PROJECT NO: 1026 REVISION: F PROJECT MANAGER: WELCH ISSUED DATE: 06-30-2022 SHEET NUMBER: EX B Attachment 9 Dear Parker, I wish to thank you and the city for providing residents with the listening posts. These sessions were invaluable for residents to view the proposed development, get information from the developers and more importantly let their concerns be heard. I am not surprised the area is considered for development. I believe Low -Density Single Family residential (RS -5) designation is keeping with the adjacent neighborhood. Senior housing is badly needed in the city and Vintage Cooperative offers an attractive element to the development. My support is not without concerns. My 3 concerns are: 1. Rochester Avenue is heavily used by residents, delivery trucks and tractor trailers. I am concerned about the increase in the volume of traffic, and the added Regina school traffic which already creates a bottleneck. Excessive speed by motorist is another problem. 2. The 6 proposed homes along Rochester do not fit the size and scope of the development. I would like to see the lot sizes closer in size of the homes in the development. 3. Rochester Hills is a unique setting -- surrounded by woods, fields and prairie — with abundant wildlife. The proposed development will disrupt and change all that is unique to our neighborhood. Much of the proposed development include Bradford Pear trees which are now considered undesirable and an invasive tree. I suggest the developers try to maintain as many of the native Iowa trees and increase the diversity of the native tree population as a buffer between the development and Rochester Hills. I am keenly interested in following the review and approval process for this proposed development. Please provide me with official notification of any meetings -- planning and zoning meetings and Iowa City Council Meetings -- that include this on the agenda. Respectfully yours, Sue Zaleski 631 Larch Ln From: Anne Russett To: "Dylan Salisbury" Cc: Parker Walsh Subject: RE: Proposed development north of Rochester Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 9:36:15 AM Hi, Dylan — Thank you for your email. We will pass this along to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Please note that the Commission will not be considering this application at their meeting tonight. It will be placed on an upcoming agenda. You can check here: https://www. icgov.org/city-government/boards/planning-and- zoning-commission or reach to us if you have any questions. Also, I am not aware of the applicant offering land to the City for a future park as part of this rezoning. City staff requested that the applicant dedicate a portion of land adjacent to Calder Park to the City for additional parkland; however, the applicant did not agree to this. We are currently working with the applicant to figure out a way to get a trail connection from the proposed development to Calder Park. Thanks, Anne From: Dylan Salisbury <salisbury.dylan@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 12:34 AM To: Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Proposed development north of Rochester Hello Ms. Russett, I am writing out of concern for the development planned north of Rochester Ave. between Larch Ln. and n. Scott Blvd. My concern stems from the fact that this development has the potential to take a significant amount of value out of the community without returning value in other ways. Examples of value detraction: Increased traffic and demand on infrastructure: As the father of small children living on Rochester I am already surprised and concerned at the current volume and speed of traffic on this road. It is not uncommon to see cars traveling over 60mph or for long lines of congestion stuck behind slow drivers or machinery. An increase of traffic which will result from this development will increase risk to pedestrians, decrease air quality, and increase noise pollution. The intersection of Rochester and Scott Blvd is already dangerous to pedestrians and untenable for children. Increased traffic and longer wait times at the intersection will make it more dangerous. Increasing burden on schools: With 70 additional single-family homes moving to the area what impact will this have on Lemme Elementary? I'm concerned the resources per child will be diminished and the quality of education overall will suffer. Loss of natural space: I recognize that this area is private land and inaccessible to the public however this development will have a dramatic shift on the character of the neighborhood. It will detract from the tranquility of the area and deprive wildlife of habitat. Increased burden on Ralston Creek We as a community already ask a lot of this tributary to the Iowa River. This loss of natural filtration and introduction of greater volumes of storm runoff and more pollution will only further damage this shared resource. A collection of houses alone does not make for a community. I was surprised to learn that the development will offer nothing in the way of community resource facilities or parks. I was informed that the area in the proposal that was undevelopable due to it being too steep was offered to the city for potential park development which the city turned down due to it being too steep. The city should consider approval of fewer houses with that manageable terrain instead set aside for community resources or a park. The proposal now only allows for traffic to enter and exit the development by the way of Rochester Ave. There needs to be other access to alleviate what would be even greater burden on this road and the resulting congestion at the Rochester Ave. and Scott Blvd. intersection. This intersection needs to be improved to accommodate pedestrian use as well as the increased traffic flow which will result from this development. Given the degree of detraction that this project will have I would like to see the private developers in cooperation with the city more explicitly provide value to existing neighborhoods that this project will disrupt. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Dylan Salisbury 541 Amhurst St. Iowa City, IA 52245 From: To: Subject: Date: JANET WILLIAMS Parker Walsh proposed development Thursday, May 26, 2022 4:17:43 PM Hello Mr. Walsh, I am a resident of the Rochester Hills development, and I live on Larch Lane. I am writing to express my concern regarding one component of the proposed Rochester Ave/Scott Blvd development. My concern is the proposed 6 lots for homes to be located across from Windmill PL and Teton Circle. This strip of land is steeply sloped and currently is the home of large deciduous trees. These trees provide an important barrier to allow privacy for those of us on Larch Lane. I fear that the proposed plan would remove these trees, and the privacy we currently enjoy... replacing the trees with a view of the back side of houses. I urge you to reconsider this component of the plan. Although, at the neighborhood meeting, we were told that these lots were necessary to raise money for the sidewalk installation. I do not find this to be a compelling reason to remove the trees and compromise the privacy that they provide to residents in Rochester Hills. Please reconsider this aspect of the plan and other ways to reach the developer's goals without compromising the Rochester Hills neighborhood. Best regards, Janet Williams, Rochester Hills To: Parker Walsh, City of Iowa City Date: May 26, 2022 Dear Parker, My husband and 1 (Jay Semel and Joan Kjaer Kirkman, residents at 498 Windmill Place) attended the May 25 neighborhood meeting with Welch developers regarding the proposed rezoning of property located along the north side of Rochester Avenue between Larch Lane and North Scott Boulevard. You were in attendance representing the City of Iowa City and we expressed our deep concerns about the six proposed lots positioned directly facing Rochester Avenue between Windmill Place and Teton Circle to the developers and to you. You indicated that we should send a letter expressing our concerns to you and you told us you would be certain to share our letter with the Planning and Zoning Commission. You also invited us to attend the June 15 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, which we plan to do. The lovely, dense, tree -lined section of Rochester Avenue between the home on the corner of Larch Lane and the street entrance to Teton Circle contains many graceful, old-growth trees, in addition to smaller trees and undergrowth, all of which providea restful and green streetscape to those passing along Rochester as well as a healthful, aesthetically enriching landscape to the residents who live in the area of Windmill Heights, the condo development along Larch Lane, and the hundreds of walkers, runners, bikers, and others who enjoy this natural landscape on a daily basis in a city that has already lost a great deal of mature tree cover and natural, undeveloped pockets such as the area where the Welch proposal indicates they plan to put six lots for homes or townhouses. Our home is on the corner of Windmill Place and Rochester Avenue. We look directly onto the section of the proposed development where the six lots are placed. We find it incredible that the developers would even consider building homes on this section of Rochester as there is a sheer drop-off in the height of the land. The developers claim that they will bring in dirt to make that area level with Rochester. They kept referring to the need to build sidewalks there and this, alone, would require them to rip out the trees. We disagree most forcefully. There is enough room to create sidewalks with only minimal removal of trees in this section and we beg the members of this commission to carefully look at the area in person. This is not a desirable building location for any number of reasons. We understand that developers try to squeeze every possible building location out of a plot of land, but this part of the proposal will bring them very little in the way of end profits (because of the immense effort to level that land), will destroy the aesthetics of this section of Rochester Avenue, and will add to the traffic density that will already be greatly increased by the rest of the proposed development. We all recognize the health benefits human beings derive from tree and plant life, both physically and emotionally. We hope this will be an important consideration as you examine the proposed development. But the animal, bird, and insect life that thrives in this small section of the proposed development deserves respect and accommodation, as well, as it enriches the livability of our entire area, not only those who are most directly affected. If we flatten anything that gets in our way in the interest of profit, we lose too much of our lovely city. We don't object to the other elements of the development (except for the fact that increased traffic will no doubt be problematic), but we and many neighbors we spoke with at the May 25 neighborhood meeting are extremely upset at the proposal to build the six Tots between Windmill Place and Teton Circle, destroying the lovely, tree -lined respite that currently exists. We would be happy to talk with anyone on the commission at any time to express our concerns in person and to walk the area of proposed development. We believe that you will find our concerns, and those of our neighbors, are justified when you see this area for yourselves. Many thanks for your consideration. We can be reached at: jay-semel@uiowa.edu or joankjaer@yahoo.com Jay's cell phone: 319-321-2203 Joan's cell phone: 319-430-8954 Jay Semel and Joan Kjaer Kirkman Rex Clemmensen 15 Heron Cir Iowa City, 52245 Dear Mr. Walsh, Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the proposed Monument Hills Development off Rochester. While we understand and support development in our area, we are concerned with the traffic at intersection of Heron Circle and Rochester. We live about 50 yards from that intersection. Rochester is already a fairly busy street. At peak times, it can be difficult to access Rochester from Heron. The proposed development will add a lot of traffic given that over 70 homes plus the Senior Cooperative would add many people in the area. The US Census Bureau says that there are about 1.88 vehicles per single family home in the US. That would mean roughly 130 more vehicles in the area from the houses alone and probably 50 or more from the cooperative. So, about 180 more. All of those vehicles will exit onto Rochester because there are no exits to any other roads in the proposal. If Allison is not built, ALL of the vehicles will enter and exit via the Heron/Rochester intersection 50 yards from our home. I understand that a vehicle count was done and that the conclusion was that Rochester, as an arterial, can handle it. Frankly, I doubt that conclusion. During busy travel times, the Heron intersection will be a mess. Of course, we prefer that there be an exit constructed onto Scott to spread out the traffic. We ask that, at a minimum, the city consider widening Rochester from the Scott intersection to at least Heron to make it three lanes. Part of Rochester is already three lanes near the Scott intersection. A widening may alleviate some of the traffic problems that the proposed development would inevitably create. Again, we understand and appreciate that the city needs to expand in this area. We are hopeful that some new commercial property will also be created as there are already a lot of people living in the area and very little commercial development. And we sincerely hope that some thought will be given to the traffic congestion that seems inevitable on Heron. Heron Circle and Goldfinch have no entrance or outlet other than Rochester. We have no choice but to use the Heron/Rochester intersection. The proposed new development would also have no choice but to enter and exit via Rochester. We want that intersection to be safe and manageable. Thank you for your consideration. Cordially, Rex and Judy Clemmensen SHEET NAME: COVER SHEET - PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY & SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1- z w 0_ 0 J LCH DESIGN AND DE 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 o a - M O N 0 N U O N M d NN 6 w o0 HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC .4• • • 1 0(. G� • �I•0,5 HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC FuL-WL WL HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN MONUMENT HILLS �IL CALDER PARK CITY OF IOWA CITY - • ROCHESTER HILLS CONDOMINIUM f :•41- `-� �_ \ t L +x. L rc` .37 " y :� 4 ftwailk 14. I� UNTAIN DR z GREEN MO 1iir.._--- •,t:. „t • _ru 1 a_ 41( '} �� :\. .�I Iy v v� • v O1IU1 I ;,.._,,,. _ 1 wiiht._, !iiiiiN7,. ,, 1,1 \ \ \•' # \ a \ \: 1 H‘\)4. OV • T L • or a. a peope , • /P • • AI• •.4 / 410. , l - t /'•ti / -&. Agg / ' n I.� IOWA CITY, IOWA APPLICATION NOTES THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND ASSOCIATED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WILL IMPACT MORE THAN 35% OF THE CRITICAL SLOPES AND WILL IMPACT WETLANDS AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERS. THEREFORE, A LEVEL II SENSITIVE AREA REVIEW WILL BE REQUIRED. NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS WILL BE MET VIA "FEE IN LIEU" PAYMENT AT TIME OF FINAL PLATTING. IN ADDITION, THE DEVELOPER WILL SECURE AN EASEMENT FROM HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PUBLIC TRAIL BETWEEN THIS DEVELOPMENT AND CALDER PARK. SHEET INDEX SHEET 01.00 C1.10 C1.20 C1.30 02.00 C2.10 L1.00 L1.10 L2.00 SHEET NAME COVER SHEET REGULATED SLOPES WOODLANDS WETLANDS OVERALL CONCEPT PLAN CO-OPERATIVE SITE PLAN LANDSCAPE PLAN - OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN - LOT 65 LANDSCAPE NOTES & DETAILS LEGEND REGULATED SLOPES: STEEP SLOPE (18%-25%) CRITICAL SLOPE (25%-40%) PROTECTED SLOPE (>40%) PROTECTED SLOPE - BUFFER WOODLANDS: TREELINE CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS WETLANDS: WETLANDS BUFFER - 100' • �Y1 WL APPLICANT INFORMATION PROPERTY OWNER MONUMENT FARMS, LLC 3810 PERTERSON PL NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 DEVELOPER MONUMENT HILLS, LLC 221 E BURLINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52240 (319) 631-1894 CIVIL ENGINEER WELCH DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT MICHAEL J. WELCH, PE PO BOX 679 NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 (319) 214-7501 0 75 150 225 WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 1" = 150' 300 ENGINEER: welch design +development CLIENT: MONUMENT HILLS, LLC PROJECT NAME: MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA REVISION LOG: REV C D E F G DESCRIPTION DATE REZONING - WETLANDS UPDATE 05-10-22 REZONING - REMOVE AMHURST ST 05-20-22 REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-20-22 REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-30-22 REZONING - ADDITIONAL ROW 07-18-22 PROJECT NO: 1026 REVISION: G PROJECT MANAGER: WELCH ISSUED DATE: 07-18-2022 SHEET NUMBER: C1.00 SHEET NAME: REGULATED SLOPES - PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY & SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN HARVEST PESEVE FOUNDATION, INC 0\ 0\ CITY OF ,lI IOWA CITY II ACT, I N C MONUMENT FARMS, LLC 1 z 0_ 0 w 0 0 z z 0) 0 x 0 N O N 0 0 0 0) 0_ CD N 0 0 0 M CD0 N N N O N N.. N O 0 N IN O cod r N 00 as < \ < \ \ \1\1 \,0\1\0‘ IMPACTED STEEP SLOPES: LOCATION CXXXXXXXXD AREA (SF) 1,069 7,018 4,274 3,275 13,122 2,538 24,467 5,536 9,428 5,291 12,468 6,937 9,549 TOTAL IMPACTED TOTAL STEEP SLOPE PERCENT IMPACTED 105,026 215,827 49% IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPES: LOCATION ®®®®®®®@@ AREA (SF) 10,349 7,791 23,809 15,342 9,769 21,592 46,010 8,001 19,596 11,465 13,193 2,846 7,743 4,132 3,624 TOTAL IMPACTED TOTAL CRITICAL SLOPE PERCENT IMPACTED 205,262 403,791 51% LEVEL II REVIEW REQUIRED AS MORE THAN 35% OF THE CRITICAL SLOPES ARE IMPACTED. LEGEND: REGULATED SLOPES STEEP SLOPE (18%-25%) STEEP SLOPE - IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPE (25%-40%) CRITICAL SLOPE - IMPACTED PROTECTED SLOPE (>40%) PROTECTED SLOPE - BUFFER CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY N/A N/A NOTE: THERE ARE NO PROTECTED SLOPES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY REFER TO SHEET C2.00 FOR GRADING PLAN 0 50 100 150 200 WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 1" = 100' ENGINEER: welch design +development CLIENT: MONUMENT HILLS, LLC PROJECT NAME: MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA REVISION LOG: REV C D E F G DESCRIPTION DATE REZONING - WETLANDS UPDATE 05-10-22 REZONING - REMOVE AMHURST ST 05-20-22 REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-20-22 REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-30-22 REZONING - ADDITIONAL ROW 07-18-22 PROJECT NO: 1026 REVISION: G PROJECT MANAGER: WELCH ISSUED DATE: 07-18-2022 SHEET NUMBER: C1.10 HARVEST PRESERVE F,OUN,LDATIOA WAIN WL u HARVEST PESEVE FOUNDATION, INC ------------------------------------ --------------------------------- -------------------------------- A DEVELOPMENT RELATED: PRESERVED WOODLAND ---------------- DEVELOPMENT -RELATED IMPACTS LOCATION AREA (SF) WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 1" = 100' CAD\1026 Prelim SADP.dwg, © 2022 — WELCH DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT, LLC PER IOWA CITY CODE, RS -5 ZONE MUST RETAIN AT LEAST 50% WOODLANDS. WOODLANDS WITHIN THE BUFFER AREAS DO NOT COUNT TOWARDS RETENTION VALUES. SHEET NAME: WOODLANDS - PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY & SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHEET NAME: WETLANDS - PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY & SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN w a_ d O w W 0 Q 0 x U w N O N o, CD0) E N 0 0 0 U O a_ - co N 0 N N.. N O 0 N co 0- 0 o0 - w o 0- S�- L IWL I /f HARVEST PRESERVE FNDION WLINLCWL WLOUATAWL / _ 1" = / CITY OF I OWA CITY �_^^�� ��G -�4.. L� �V �P Ru� �uL uL u WL jz4' ROCHESTER HILLS CONDOMINIUM / HARVEST PRESS VR E 14 FOUNDATION, INC • / / / / \A- 36' / x ,ro WL WL WL / u�v WL - WL -7 n , WL / HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC ETLAND FILL REQUIR ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION x -- X- X - HARVEST PESEVE FOUNDATION, INC :::::::::::::::::. MONUMENT FARMS, LLC 0\ 0\ ACT, I N C / MONUMENT FARMS, LLC 50' WETLAND FILL R:QUIRED ROADWY CONS RUCTIO 100' 00' 111111 111111 y 75' - ` NS 62'; 100' 100' i% 100' BUFFER REDUCED PER SECTION 14 -5I -6E-3 T - T CONSTRUCTION LIMIT DICTATED BY PUBLIC SIDEWALKALQNG ROCHESTER AVE CONSTRUCTION LIMIT DICTATED BYPUBLIC SIDEWALK ALONG ROCHESTER AVE WETLAND AREA 1 TAG AREA (SF) 27,717 THE BUFFER ASSOCIATED WITH WETLAND 1 WILL BE REDUCED BY 75' TO MAINTAIN NO LESS THAN 25' OF BUFFER AROUND WETLAND 1 PER SECTION 14 -5I -6E-3. WETLAND AREA 2 TAG AREA (SF) 9,230 8,399 TOTAL 17,629 BUFFER (100 -FOOT) 103,782 BUFFER - REDUCTIONS 3,063 830 SUBTOTAL BUFFER - ADDITIONS 3,893 65,300 BUFFER - NET CHANGE + 61,407 WETLAND AREA 3 TAG AREA (SF) 6,782 3,314 23,805 TOTAL 33,901 BUFFER (100 -FOOT) 236,372 BUFFER - REDUCTIONS 51,549 9,149 1,739 SUBTOTAL BUFFER - ADDITIONS 62,437 77,881 BUFFER - NET CHANGE + 15,444 WETLAND AREA 4 TAG N AREA (SF) 21,830 BUFFER (100 -FOOT) 242,503 BUFFER - REDUCTIONS 566 3,776 6,052 SUBTOTAL BUFFER - ADDITIONS 10,394 7,120 4,662 21,096 SUBTOTAL 28,799 BUFFER - NET CHANGE + 18,405 Std WETLAND AREA 5 TAG AREA (SF) 11,956 WETLAND IMPACTS LOCATION AREA (SF) 3,314 4.337 2,513 7,839 501 363 TOTAL IMPACTS (SF) 18,867 NOTES: 1. ALL WETLANDS FILLED WILL BE COMPENSATED THROUGH THE PURCHASE OF WETLAND BANK CREDITS AS REQUIRED BY UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (USACE) NATIONWIDE PERMIT #29. THE RATIO OF CREDITS PURCHASED TO WETLANDS FILLED WILL BE 1:1. 2. BUFFER AVERAGING IS BEING UTILIZED TO INCREASE THE BUFFER AREAS PRIMARILY UPSLOPE OF THE WETLANDS TO OFFSET FOR IMPACTS TO BUFFER RESULTING FROM GRADING NECESSARY FOR ROADWAY AND/OR PUBLIC SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS. 3. REFER TO WETLAND REPORT AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING NEED FOR WETLAND FILL, OFFSITE MITIGATION, AND BUFFER AVERAGING. LEGEND: WETLANDS WELTLAND BOUNDARY WETLAND BUFFER (100') WETLAND BUFFER REDUCTION WETLAND BUFFER ADDITION WETLAND WITHIN AVERAGED BUFFER AREA WETLAND FILL CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURE* EXISTING CONSERVATION EASEMENT -WL- -. -. - * PROVIDE SILT FENCE ALONG CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS WHERE RUNOFF WILL FLOW TOWARD WETLAND AND WETLAND BUFFER AREAS. DETAILED DESIGN OF THESE MEASURES TO ACCOMPANY CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AND FINAL SADP 0 50 100 150 200 WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 1" = 100' ENGINEER: welch design +development CLIENT: MONUMENT HILLS, LLC PROJECT NAME: MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA REVISION LOG: REV C D E F G DESCRIPTION DATE REZONING - WETLANDS UPDATE 05-10-22 REZONING - REMOVE AMHURST ST 05-20-22 REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-20-22 REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-30-22 REZONING - ADDITIONAL ROW 07-18-22 PROJECT NO: 1026 REVISION: G PROJECT MANAGER: WELCH ISSUED DATE: 07-18-2022 SHEET NUMBER: C130 HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC IWL 4L -WL HARVEST PRE�ERVE ,---FOUNDATION„ IN -C- / 55 55 5 710 i WL -WL 55 ML 10' -WIDE TRAIL CONNECTION TO CALDER PARK. INCLUDES 20' EASEMENT" �t X y `_-_______— 1/ ! Ill 2,:--V:-_-----:---:::::::::::-:::-- 1 Oma- HAVEST PESEVE FOUNDATION, INC MONUMENT FARMS, LLC ACT, INC S�- L - --CITY-_= _ -40WA air - . WL -�i \ 0 50 100 150 WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 1" = 100' 200 MONUMENT FARMS, LLC --- --I'L-ALS L_+.i l ---_- ------------- ----------------------------- --------------------------------------- -------------------------------- --------------------------------- ---------------------- ------------- 1 ------------------------------------------- ---------------- - ( ( µy2) (co - W,2' (cow 2/00/ 2, / C,0/ `°PARCEL "A!I \.\\ 0.67 Ac \rt 29,265 SF \,0 1 z 0 0 w 0 z z 0 x U w N O N 0 d 0) CDE 0 N 0 0 U O ai CD 0) N 7 0 N N.. N O 0 N r 0o0 as LOT 10 v 2) 2� \ -p u;\°\\ A sr `sr `sr PROVIDE RAISED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING TO PROVIDED TRAFFIC CALMING ALONG ALLISON DRIVE LOT 9 2' (0 (2 (20' /i' 2 ^ccQw 2) %/ /'"/ /2' %12 / 2? ((o (( ((0) J 01-§1 , z \V ((0) 03' O /` _O ------(` 0)— (001, ,/(°01^ ^A`GH ..---,00, \ /j co�� Q� 1'�`v/ (�0) /(oo' ��S �J/` �('Zo' / j (oo' `.,'°,),010` % ' / (oo' /- / CO'' VO / (L°' y (CO) C°'' (90 ((o' ((o' OUTLOT A LOT 8 LOT 5 4-18� WISED CROSSING - SOUTH OUTLOT A Si J sl r 1 OUTLOT B `S•T 1B� RAISED CROSSING - NORTH LOT 61 HERON DRIVE NOTES & LEGEND: UNIT TYPES: SENIOR TWIN -HOME 45'x55' SENIOR CONDO : RANCH 42'x72'-8" (UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE SENIOR LIVING CO-OP: 2 -STORY CLUB HOUSE WOODLAND REMOVAL LIMIT CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS EXISTING CONSERVATION EASEMENT RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION ALONG ROCHESTER SIDEWALK / TRAIL - BY DEVELOPER SIDEWALK / TRAIL - BY LOT OWNER SITE DATA: DEVELOPMENT AREA PARCEL "A" - ROCHESTER AVE ROW PARCEL "B" - PUBLIC STREET ROW PRIVATE DRIVE ROW (WITHIN LOT 65) NET DEVELOPMENT AREA L.11 M^ V Y Y, 64.68 AC 0.67 AC 5.48 AC 0.98 AC 57.55 AC SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS 65 DU CO-OP SINGLE-FAMILY 12 DU CO-OP TWIN -HOMES 6 DU CO-OP CONDO 29 DU TOTAL 112 DU DENSITY = 112 DU / 57.55 ACRES = 1.95 DU/AC OPD / RS -5 MAX DENSITY 5 DU / ACRE OF NET LAND AREA OUTLOT A, B, & C RESERVED FOR CONSERVATION OF SENSITIVE AREAS PARCEL "A" IS FOR THE DEDICATION OF ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG ROCHESTER AVENUE TO ACCOMMODATE THE ADDITION OF A PUBLIC SIDEWALK. IT ALSO PROVIDES RIGHT-OF-WAY AT THE INTERSECTION OF ROCHESTER AVENUE & NORTH SCOTT BOULEVARD FOR FUTURE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS. AT LEAST 18.5 FEET IS PROVIDED FROM THE EXISTING BACK OF CURB TO THE PROPOSED ROW LINE. REFER TO C2.10 FOR REQUEST TO MODIFICATIONS TO THE ZONING STANDARDS RELATED TO BUILDING SETBACKS. PARCEL "B" IS FOR THE DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT. LOT 65 IS TO BE DEVELOPED AS AN ALTERNATIVE OWNERSHIP (COOPERATIVE) DEVELOPMENT. REFER TO SHEET C2.10. LOT 66 CREATES A PARCEL FOR THE EXISTING TELECOM TOWER. THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF THIS PARCEL WILL BE OPD/ID-RS TO AVOID CREATING A NON -CONFORMING USE. LOT 67 IS FOR THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AT 3106 ROCHESTER AVENUE. LOT WILL NEED TO MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS OF RS -5 ZONING. THE DEVELOPER WILL PROVIDE A PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION TO CALDER PARK AND SECURE THE NECESSARY EASEMENT FROM HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC. THE FINAL ALIGNMENT AND GRADES WILL BE ESTABLISHED DURING PLATTING. LOT 23 T LOT 22 LOT 21 TRAFFIC CIRCLE l L/ ENGINEER: welch design +development CLIENT: MONUMENT HILLS, LLC PROJECT NAME: MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA REVISION LOG: REV C DESCRIPTION REZONING - WETLANDS UPDATE DATE 05-10-22 REZONING - REMOVE AMHURST ST 05-20-22 E REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-20-22 F REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-30-22 G REZONING - ADDITIONAL ROW 07-18-22 SHEET NAME: OVERALL CONCEPT PLAN — PRELIM. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY & SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT NO: 1026 PROJECT MANAGER: WELCH REVISION: ISSUED DATE: 07-18-2022 SHEET NUMBER: C2 . 00 z a_ 0 J GN AND DE 0 J µ3' 0 N O. O_ 0 0) E 0 0_ CD 0N 0 0 0 ai CD CON 7 0 0 N O 0 N o r j 6 W o 0 O_ • \1 PRIVATE OPEN SPACE (TYPICAL) 0 \ EXISTING WETLANDS ' \ WILL BE FILLED VIA / \ USACE NATION-WID \ PERMIT #29 20 40 60 WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 1" = 40' 51 / ),481 / \ / // / / 52 10,070 6(9, • \ \ • • • • / 72.67' 3 \ 8,905 • CLUBHOUSE AIITY \ \ \ CITY REQUESTED, RIGHT-OF-WAY, '`\ \J 16 10,050 \ \ \ N-0°' `'A 300' 14 15,274 15 10,095 \ \ ) \ 5 \ 13 X64' / / \ / cam\ `O cc PRIVATE OPEN SPACE (TYPICAL) (c°) /(Wie /(u�z /(Wie c°' `U12) / _______,o2) l (c°) / c°) c°) (c°) o (co (co, --- v / w (s (c°) (c°' LEGEND: UNIT TYPES: TWIN -HOME BUILDING ENVELOPE SINGLE FAMILY HOME BUILDING ENVELOPE SENIOR LIVING CO-OP: 2 -STORY CLUB HOUSE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE SHARED OPEN SPACE WOODLAND LIMIT CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS SIDEWALK / TRAIL - BY DEVELOPER SIDEWALK / TRAIL - BY LOT OWNER (,) ■ (co 54.24' SITE DATA - LOT 65 TOTAL LOT AREA DEVELOPMENT DATA SINGLE-FAMILY PATIO HOMES SINGLE-FAMILY TWIN HOMES TOTAL MULTI -FAMILY BUILDING 1 -BEDROOM 2 -BEDROOM TOTAL TRASH COLLECTION MULTI -FAMILY SINGLE-FAMILY 7.60 AC INTERNAL EXTERNAL SETBACKS AND PARKING: SETBACKS AND YARDS (MULTI -FAMILY) FRONT YARD FRONT YARD (ARTERIAL) SIDE YARD REAR YARD HEIGHT 12 UNITS 6 UNITS 18 UNITS 4 UNITS 25 UNITS 29 UNITS 4 BEDS 50 BEDS 54 BEDS PRIVATE HAULER PRIVATE HAULER 20 FEET 40 FEET 10 FEET 20 FEET 35 FEET SETBACKS AND YARDS (SINGLE-FAMILY) FRONT YARD* 15 FEET * GARAGE MUST BE SETBACK 25 FEET FRONT YARD (ARTERIAL) 40 FEET SIDE YARD 5 FEET REAR YARD 20 FEET HEIGHT 35 FEET MULTI -FAMILY PARKING REQUIREMENTS: UNIT TYPE 1 BEDROOM 2 -BEDROOM TOTAL NUMBER 4 25 VEHICLES 1 / UNIT 2 / UNIT REQUIRED SPACES BICYCLES VEHICLES BICYCLES 0.5 / UNIT 4 2 1.0 / UNIT 50 25 54 27 BICYCLE PARKING WILL BE PROVIDED WITHIN THE TWO-STORY MULTI -FAMILY BUILDING MULTI -FAMILY PARKING PROVIDED INTERIOR EXTERIOR - STANDARD EXTERIOR - ACCESSIBLE TOTAL 70 STALLS 12 STALLS 4 STALLS 86 STALLS OPEN SPACE: OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS MULTI -FAMILY 10 SF / BEDROOM 54 BEDROOMS 540 SF SINGLE FAMILY 500 SF / UNIT LOCATED ADJACENT TO EACH UNIT TWO-FAMILY 300 SF / UNIT LOCATED ADJACENT TO EACH UNIT OPEN SPACE PROVIDED COMMON AREAS (SEE PLAN) SINGLE-FAMILY (SEE PLAN) GENERAL NOTES: CODE MODIFICATIONS APPLICANT REQUESTS A MODIFICATION TO THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FOR SINGLE-FAMILY, DETACHED UNITS FROM THE CODE -REQUIRED 60 FEET TO 56 FEET AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN. AREA SHOWN WITH EACH UNIT NUMBER CORRESPONDS TO THE IMAGINARY LOT LINES REQUIRED TO BE SHOWN BY CITY CODE. BUILDING SETBACK REDUCTION: APPLICANT REQUESTS A REDUCTION OF THE FRONT SETBACK ALONG ARTERIAL ROADWAY FROM 40' TO 30' NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF N. SCOTT BLVD AND ROCHESTER AVENUE. BUILDING FOOTPRINTS: SINGLE-FAMILY PATIO HOMES CO-OPERATIVE MEMBERS WILL BE ABLE TO CHOOSE A SPECIFIC FLOOR PLAN FROM A GROUP OF PRE -DESIGNED MODELS. EACH MODEL WILL FIT WITHIN THE BUILDING ENVELOPE SHOWN. BUILDING FOOTPRINTS: TWIN -HOMES, MULTI -FAMILY BUILDING, AND CLUBHOUSE THE BUILDING FOOTPRINTS SHOWN REPRESENT THE OVERALL BUILDING ENVELOPE. FINAL SADP AND SITE PLANS WILL INCORPORATE THE FINAL BUILDING PLANS, INCLUDING REQUIRED STEP BACKS AND OTHER DETAILS. TWIN -HOME DESIGN STANDARDS PER 14-3A-4C-1a(2)(C) THE SENIOR TWIN -HOMES MUST BE DESIGNED AND LOCATED IN A MANNER THAT PREVENTS MONOTONY BY VARYING ASPECTS SUCH AS FACADE DETAILING, WINDOW PATTERN, BUILDING MATERIALS, AND COLOR. 15,400 SF ENGINEER: welch design +development CLIENT: MONUMENT HILLS, LLC PROJECT NAME: MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA REVISION LOG: REV DESCRIPTION REZONING - WETLANDS UPDATE DATE 05-10-22 REZONING - REMOVE AMHURST ST 05-20-22 REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-20-22 REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-30-22 REZONING - ADDITIONAL ROW 07-18-22 SHEET NAME: COOPERATIVE SITE PLAN - PRELIM. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY & SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT NO: 1026 PROJECT MANAGER: WELCH REVISION: ISSUED DATE: 07-18-2022 SHEET NUMBER: C2 . 10 Site 1 64.68 Ac 2,817,318 SF WL WL HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC WL WL HARVEST PESEVE FOUNDATION, INC W /WL 1� - X - / 3 SS / ss r HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC MONUMENT FARMS, LLC WL \S \,\\ -1M A WL _J IS ULVAN, ELAI-ETH L. 01 -TTP 01-OVE 01 -TMH 01-COH 01 -TTP 01-GDE 2 01-LTT 03 -TTP 55 01-GDE 8,700 0 01 CCT1-GDE 01-GDE• / 01-PXA 01 -NSB 01-QXW 64 01 -TMH 15,110 01-QXW 01-GDE 01-QXW 01 -BPF 01 -AAS 0 46 12,923 01-LTT 01-QBS 01-OVE 01-QXW ] 01-QMC 01-QBS 01-OVE 02 -CCT 9,750 01 -BPF 33 11,907 02 -AAS 01 -CBF 01-COH 01-COH 01-PXA 01 -NSB 01 -TMH 01-QMC 9,498 6.55 Ac 285,496 SF \ ACT, I N C MONUMENT FARMS, LLC 32 12,598 f 29 1 01-QRC 01 -CBF 28 01-COH 9,450 STREET TREES SHALL BE INSTALLED BY LOT OWNER DURING HOME CONSTRUCTION. \ \ \ -J 3 r \ 01-QRC 01 -NSB 01-QBS 01 -CCT 01-QRL 01-PTN 01 -COS r WL r WL 01-LTT 01-QRC 01-GDE 01 -COS X 01-PXA 01-QRC 01-QRL 01 -NSB 25,.7y4 X I I X OUTLOT A 18.14 Ac 790,185 SF 02 -AAS 01-QBS 01 -NSB 01-PTN 01 -AAS I I I I I I ®\PARCEL "A" \ / 1 0.67 Ac 29,265 SF 4' ^� z 01-OVE 01-QRC \01-PTN 01-LTT 01-QMC 01-QRL 01-OVE 01-QMC 01-QXW 01-COH 9,592 01-LTT 02 -CCT 01 -COS 01 -cos 02-LTT 7 13,735 01-QRC 01-LSR 01 -CCT 01-QMC 01 -TMH 01 -TTP 02-LTT 01 -CCT 01-PTN 01-LSR 01 -COS 01 -COS LANDSCAPE LEGEND PLANTS: PROPOSED LARGE DECIDUOUS TREE* PROPOSED SMALL DECIDUOUS TREE" PROPOSED EVERGREEN TREE* PROPOSED SHRUB **SPECIES AS LABELED; PLANTING LOCATION TO BE VERIFIED BY DRIVES, SIGHT TRIANGLES, AND UTILITIES. STREET TREES SHALL BE INSTALLED BY LOT OWNER DURING HOME CONSTRUCTION** PLANT LIST LOCATED SHEET L-03 LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS 14-5E-7: STREET TREE REQUIREMENTS: A. STREET TREES ADJACENT TO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY: 1. ON SINGLE FRONTAGE LOTS, ONE LARGE TREE IS REQUIRED FOR EVERY FORTY (40) LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE OR ONE SMALL TREE FOR EVERY THIRTY (30) LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE, BUT NOT LESS THAN ONE TREE PER LOT. (73 LOTS TOTAL) 4,181 LF FRONTAGE / 40 = 104.53 REQUIRED 105 PROVIDED 2. ON LOTS WITH MORE THAN ONE FRONTAGE, ONE TREE IS REQUIRED FOR EVERY SIXTY (60) LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE. (LOTS 12,18, 21-22, 25-26,37-38, 45, 57, 61, 64, 67, 69, 74) 3,335 LF FRONTAGE / 60 = 55.58 REQUIRED 56 PROVIDED 14-5E-8: TREE REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES: A. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS: 1. FOR LOTS CONTAINING TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS, MULTI -FAMILY DWELLINGS, OR GROUP LIVING USES, TREES MUST BE PLANTED ON SITE AT A MINIMUM RATIO OF AT LEAST ONE TREE FOR EVERY FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY (550) SQUARE FEET OF TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE OF THE LOT. ANY COMBINATION OF SMALL AND LARGE TREES IS ALLOWED, PROVIDED THIS COVERAGE RATIO IS MET. (LOT 73) = 77,943 SF / 550 SF = 141.71 REQUIRED 143 PROVIDED RS -5 ZONE MUST RETAIN AT LEAST 50% EXISTING WOODLANDS EXCLUDING BUFFER AREAS. IMPACTED AREA = 608,471 BUFFER AREA = 266,365 TOTAL EXISTING AREA = 1,754,016 PERCENT RETAINED = 50.1% 0 50 100 150 200 WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 1" = 100' ENGINEER: welch design +development CLIENT: MONUMENT HILLS, LLC PROJECT NAME: MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA REVISION LOG: REV A B C DESCRIPTION REZONING APPLICATION REZONING - CITY COMMENTS REZONING - CITY COMMENTS REZONING - CITY COMMENTS DATE 04-28-22 06-16-22 06-30-22 07-18-22 SHEET NAME: LANDSCAPE 1 OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO: 1026 REVISION: C PROJECT MANAGER: WELCH ISSUED DATE: 07-18-2022 SHEET NUMBER: L1.00 // // 821 /,523 01 -PAN 02-LTT 03-PXA -1M 19 8,706 13 26,864 15,2474 18 9,880 17 10,042 16 10,050 15 10,095 MONUMENT FARMS, LLC J W 03-LSR 03 -NSB H W 01-QRL 01-GDE1-1 02 -BPF m 71- 15' 15-JXP 15 -CAS 07 -CCH 01 -BPF 01-GDE 02-PXA 01 -BPF 01 -SPD 101 -BPF 101 -NSB 1 01 -TMH 05 -CAP 1111410 ■ war ;or kid 4411). ij OC es 9 n 02 -PSE 03-PTN 03-AXG HERON CIRCL 01-GDE 01-AXG 02 -CCH 01-QRL 03 -PSE 02 -NSB 01 -SPD 01 -PAN 02-QRL 03-PTN 02 -TM H 07-CVW pgRc 292 4q Ssz �, 0 oC J 0 CO 0 U z 02 -PGD 01-LSR 02 -TMH 01-QRL 04-PTN 0 LANDSCAPE LEGEND PLANTS: 20 40 60 WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 1" = 40' PROPOSED LARGE DECIDUOUS TREE* PROPOSED SMALL DECIDUOUS TREE" PROPOSED EVERGREEN TREE* PROPOSED SHRUB 80 **SPECIES AS LABELED; PLANTING LOCATION TO BE VERIFIED BY DRIVES, SIGHT TRIANGLES, AND UTILITIES. STREET TREES SHALL BE INSTALLED BY LOT OWNER LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS 14-5E-7: STREET TREE REQUIREMENTS: A. STREET TREES ADJACENT TO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY: 1. ON SINGLE FRONTAGE LOTS, ONE LARGE TREE IS REQUIRED FOR EVERY FORTY (40) LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE OR ONE SMALL TREE FOR EVERY THIRTY (30) LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE, BUT NOT LESS THAN ONE TREE PER LOT. (73 LOTS TOTAL) 4,181 LF FRONTAGE / 40 = 104.53 REQUIRED 105 PROVIDED 2. ON LOTS WITH MORE THAN ONE FRONTAGE, ONE TREE IS REQUIRED FOR EVERY SIXTY (60) LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE. (LOTS 12,18, 21-22, 25-26,37-38, 45, 57, 61, 64, 67, 69, 74) 3,335 LF FRONTAGE / 60 = 55.58 REQUIRED 56 PROVIDED 14-5E-8: TREE REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES: A. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS: 1. FOR LOTS CONTAINING TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS, MULTI -FAMILY DWELLINGS, OR GROUP LIVING USES, TREES MUST BE PLANTED ON SITE AT A MINIMUM RATIO OF AT LEAST ONE TREE FOR EVERY FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY (550) SQUARE FEET OF TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE OF THE LOT. ANY COMBINATION OF SMALL AND LARGE TREES IS ALLOWED, PROVIDED THIS COVERAGE RATIO IS MET. (LOT 73) = 77,943 SF / 550 SF = 141.71 REQUIRED 143 PROVIDED RS -5 ZONE MUST RETAIN AT LEAST 50% EXISTING WOODLANDS EXCLUDING BUFFER AREAS. IMPACTED AREA = 608,471 BUFFER AREA = 266,365 TOTAL EXISTING AREA = 1,754,016 PERCENT RETAINED = 50.1% ENGINEER: welch design +development CLIENT: MONUMENT HILLS, LLC PROJECT NAME: MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA REVISION LOG: REV DESCRIPTION REZONING APPLICATION REZONING - CITY COMMENTS DATE 04-28-22 06-16-22 B REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-30-22 REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 07-18-22 SHEET NAME: LANDSCAPE PLAN LOT 65 DETAIL PROJECT NO: 1026 REVISION: C PROJECT MANAGER: WELCH ISSUED DATE: 07-18-2022 SHEET NUMBER: L1.10 GENERAL LANDSCAPE PLANTING NOTES: 01 CONTRACTOR TO LOCATE ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK, CONTACT IOWA ONE CALL (1-800-292-8989) AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO DIGGING. REPAIR DAMAGE TO UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES IMMEDIATELY. 02 PRIOR TO PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION, THE LANDSCAPE OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE SHALL APPROVE PLANT LOCATIONS. FIELD ADJUSTMENTS OF PROPOSED PLANT LOCATIONS LISTED ON PLAN MAY BE REQUIRED TO MINIMIZE POTENTIAL INTERFERENCE WITH EXISTING OR RELOCATED UTILITIES OR IMPROVE MAINTENANCE CONDITIONS. 03 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 FINAL LAYOUT APPROVAL. 04 ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL AT LEAST MEET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS SHOWN IN THE "AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK" (ANSI Z60.1 -LATEST EDITION). 05 PLANT QUANTITIES ARE FOR CONTRACTOR'S CONVENIENCE. DRAWINGS SHALL PREVAIL WHERE DISCREPANCIES OCCUR. 06 NO PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE SUBSTITUTED WITHOUT THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 07 BED PREPARATION AND MULCHING NOTES: 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. 08 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. 09 UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED, ALL GRASS/PERENNIAL MASSINGS ARE TO BE EVENLY SPACED IN TRIANGULAR PATTERN ARRANGEMENT. 10 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. 11 PROVIDE A MINIMUM 3" DEPTH OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD AND/OR RIVER ROCK MULCH IN ALL TREE PLANTING BEDS. ALL RIVER ROCK MULCH BEDS TO BE 3"-4" IN DEPTH, WITH FILTER FABRIC SEPARATING SOIL FROM ROCK MULCH. 12 PROVIDE 2" DEPTH MIN. OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD AND/OR RIVER ROCK MULCH IN ALL SHRUB/ORNAMENTAL GRASS/PERENNIAL BEDS. 13 PROVIDE ALL TREES WITH A MINIMUM 3" DEPTH OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. MULCH RINGS FOR TREES SHALL BE A MINIMUM SIX FOOT (6') DIAMETER AND CONTAIN SPADE EDGING AT MULCH RING EDGE 14 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. 15 NURSERY TAGS SHALL BE LEFT ON PLANT MATERIAL UNTIL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS COMPLETED THE INITIAL ACCEPTANCE. 16 CONTAINER GROWN STOCK SHALL HAVE THE CONTAINER REMOVED AND THE ROOT BALL CUT THROUGH THE SURFACE IN TWO VERTICAL LOCATIONS. 17 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 OR PLASTICS SHALL BE REMOVED AT TIME OF PLANTING. 18 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 1/3 THE PLANT. 19 CONTRACTOR SHALL WATER AND MAINTAIN ALL SODDED AREAS AS WELL AS ALL PLANTS UNTIL GROUND FREEZES. MAINTENANCE INCLUDES 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. 20 ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE GUARANTEED TO BE IN VIGOROUS GROWING CONDITIONS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR FROM DATE OF INITIAL ACCEPTANCE. 21 ALL PLANT MATERIALS THAT ARE DEAD OR IN AN UNHEALTHY OR UNSIGHTLY STATE ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPLACED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER FOR UP TO ONE YEAR OF INITIAL ACCEPTANCE. 22 SURFACE RESTORATION FOR ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE TURF GRASS LAWN SOD, WITH AN ALTERNATE OPTION TO BE TURF GRASS LAWN SEED. ALL SEED & SOD APPLICATION NOTES ARE LISTED SEPARATELY. CONTRACTOR SHALL FOLLOW MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATIONS FOR PRODUCT INFORMATION & INSTALLATION. FOR ALL SURFACE RESTORATION, PLANTING PRACTICES, AND ANY OTHER LANDSCAPING WORK NOT ADDRESSED VIA MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS, CONTRACTOR SHALL FOLLOW IOWA SUDAS SPECIFICATIONS DIVISION 09: SITE WORK AND LANDSCAPING OF IOWA. 23 ALL TREES TO BE PLACED WITHIN PARKING LOT ISLANDS ARE TO STRICTLY FOLLOW THE CEDAR RAPIDS METROPOLITAN AREA STANDARD DETAIL '2910-010 STANDARD PLANTING PIT'. FOR SPECIAL USE SITUATIONS WHEN PLACING TREES WITHIN A PARKING LOT WITHOUT A PROTECTIVE ISLAND, THE DETAIL '2910-015 SPECIAL USE PLANTING PIT' SHALL BE USED. ILA Design STAKING NOTES: LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCHEDULE: SHEET L-01 ID QTY. BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME ROOT NOTES STREET TREES AAS 6 Aesculus 'Autumn Splendor' AUTUMN SPLENDER BUCKEYE BB 30-45' H X 30-35' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE GDE 10 Gymnocladus dioicus 'Espresso' KENTUCKYCOFFEETREE BB 40-50' H X 25-35' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE BPF 6 Betula platyphylla 'Fargo' DAKOTA PINNACLE DAKOTA PINNACLE BIRCH BB 30-40' H X 10-15' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE CBF 7 Carpinus betulus 'Fastigiata' COMMON HORNBEAM BB 30-40' H X 20-30' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE CCT 7 Corylus colurna TURKISH FILBERT BB 40-60' H X 25-35' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE COH 9 Celtis occidentalis 'Prairie Pride' HACKBERRY BB 40-50' H X 40-60' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE COS 7 Carya ovata SHAGBARK HICKORY BB 60-80' H X 30-50' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE LSR 7 Liquidambar syraciflua'Rotundiloba' FRUITLESS SWEETGUM BB 60-75' H X 20-40' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE LTT 7 Liriodendron tulipifera TULIP TREE BB 70-130' H X 30-60' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE NSB 8 Nyssa sylvatica BLACK GUM BB 30-50' H X 20-30' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE OVE 7 Ostrya virginiana EASTERN HOP HORNBEAM BB 35-45' H X 15-20' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE PXA 7 Platanus x acerifolia 'Liberty' LONDON PLANE TREE BB 40-50' H X 50-60' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE QBS 7 Quercus bicolor SWAMP WHITE OAK BB 50-75' H X 40-70' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE QMC 8 Quercus muehlenbergii CHINKAPIN OAK BB 40-60' H X 50-70' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE QRC 9 Quercus rubra 'Clemons' RED OAK BB 60-80' H X 60-80' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE QRL 7 Quercus rubra 'Long' RED OAK BB 60-75' H X 45-50' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE QXW 8 Quercus xwarei 'Long' REGAL PRINCE REGAL PRINCE OAK BB 40-60' H X 20-25' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE TMH 6 Tilia mongolica 'Harvest Gold' MONGOLIAN LINDEN BB 25-45' H X 20-30' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE TTP 5 Tilia tomentosa'PNI6051' SILVER LINDEN BB 50-70' H X 30-40' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE 138 TOTAL TREES PROVIDED ALL PLANTS SHALL BE NURSERY MATCHED, QUALITY SPECIMEN: American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z60.1 TREE & SHRUB PLANTING NOTES: 00 TREE STAKING SHALL ONLY BE USED IF NOTED, IN HIGH WIND AREAS, OR AREAS OF HEAVY ADJACENT PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC. 01 STAKING WIRE THROUGH RUBBER HOSE SET LOOSE TO ALLOW FOR TRUNK TAPER AND DETRIMENTAL GROWTH. TREE SHOULD ALLOW LIMITED MOVEMENT. 02 STEEL FENCE POST STAKE DRIVEN INSIDE MULCH RING DIAMETER. DRIVE STAKES 1'-0" INTO UNDISTURBED SOIL BELOW ROOTBALL. •••••;•••fir': • •• r •i.•• : d • •• '.t/•i�•t•.•• •• •: • •• es i 1* • . •• • •� • • • •• • • II • • •r• •t • • • • •• • •• • •. • • .; • 03 REMOVE WIRE BASKET AND BURLAP ONCE PLACED INTO PLANTING HOLE. REMOVE ALL SISAL AND SYNTHETIC TWINE. 04 TRUNK FLARE SHOULD BE EXPOSED BEFORE DETERMINING PLANTING HOLE DEPTH. PLANT TREE WITH TRUNK FLARE 1-2" MAXIMUM ABOVE ORIGINAL GRADE, AVOID PLANTING TREE TOO DEEPLY. 05 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. 06 SCARIFY PLANTING HOLE TO HELP ELIMINATE THE CREATION OF A SOIL INTERFACE. 07 PLACE ROOTBALL ON COMPACTED & LEVELED SUBGRADE. 08 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. 09 AVOID MOUNDING MULCH & MAKING CONTACT WITH TRUNK. FORM 2-3" SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH RING SAUCER TO HELP HOLD WATER DURING ESTABLISHMENT. DIAMETER OF MULCH AREA SHOULD BE KEPT CLEAR OF GRASS, WEEDS, ETC. TO REDUCE COMPETITION WITH TREE ROOTS. 10 11 12 13 14 UNDISTURBED SOIL. ONLY LIGHTLY PRUNE AND REMOVE DAMAGED OR DEAD BRANCHES. SPADE EDGING, TYP. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON PLAN. REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR PLANT SPACING, LOCATIONS. 6" MINIMUM WIDER HOLE THAN CONTAINER ON ALL SIDES. VARIES -- VARIES TREE PROTECTION FENCING NOTES: LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCHEDULE ID QTY. BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME ROOT NOTES COOPERATIVE LARGE DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTINGS GDE 6 Gymnocladus dioicus 'Espresso' KENTUCKY COFFEETREE BB 40-50' H X 25-35' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE BPF 12 Betula platyphylla'Fargo' DAKOTA PINNACLE DAKOTA PINNACLE BIRCH BB 30-40' H X 10-15' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE GBT 7 Ginkgo biloba 'The President' GINKGO BB 45-50' H X 30-40' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE LSR 8 Liquidambar syraciflua 'Rotundiloba' FRUITLESS SWEETGUM BB 60-75' H X 20-40' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE LTT 4 Liriodendrontulipifera TULIP TREE BB 70-130' HX 30-60' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE NSB 8 Nyssa sylvatica BLACK GUM BB 30-50' H X 20-30' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE PTN 10 Populus tremuloides 'NE -ARB' PRAIRIE GOLD ASPEN BB 35-40' H X 10-20' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE PXA 6 Platanus x acerifolia 'Liberty' LONDON PLANE TREE BB 40-50' H X 50-60' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE QRL 6 Quercus rubra 'Long' RED OAK BB 60-75' H X 45-50' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE TMH 6 Tilia mongolica'Harvest Gold' MONGOLIAN LINDEN BB 25-45' H X 20-30' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE COOPERATIVE SMALL DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTINGS CCN 10 Cercis canadensis 'Northern Strain' EASTERN REDBUD BB 20-30' H X 25-35' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE CCH 9 Cercis canadensis 'Hearts of Gold' PP #17,740 HEARTS OF GOLD RED -BUD BB 25-35' H X 20-25' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE CAP 7 Cornus alternifolia PAGODA DOGWOOD BB 15-25' H X 20-35' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE AXG 9 AmelanchierX grandiflora 'Autumn Brilliance' AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY BB 15-25' HX 20-25' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE SPD 10 Syringa pekinensis'DTR' 124 SUMMER CHARM TREE LILAC BB 15-20' H X 10-15' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE CVW 9 Crataegus viridis'Winter King' GREEN HAWTHORN BB 15-20' H X 10-15' W; PLANT SIZE: MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE COOPERATIVE EVERGREEN TREE PLANTINGS PAN 4 Picea abies NORWAY SPRUCE BB 40-60' H X 25-30' W; MIN. OF 3' HEIGHT TO TOP OF TREE PFV 4 Pinus flexilis'Vanderwolfs Pyramid' LIMBER PINE BB 20-30' H X 10-15' W; MIN. OF 3' HEIGHT TO TOP OF TREE PSE 5 Pinus strobus EASTERN WHITE PINE BB 50-80' H X 20-40' W; MIN. OF 3' HEIGHT TO TOP OF TREE PGD 3 Picea glauca 'Densata' BLACK HILLS SPRUCE BB 30-40' H X 20-25' W; MIN. OF 3' HEIGHT TO TOP OF TREE 143 TOTAL TREES PROVIDED COOPERATIVE SHRUB PLANTINGS JXP 19 Juniperus x pfitzeriana 'Gold Coast' GOLD COAST JUNIPER CONT. 2-3' H X 3-4' W; 2 GAL @ 18" MIN. HEIGHT CAS 19 Clethra alnifolia 'Sixteen Candles' SIXTEEN CANDLES SWEET PEPPERBUSH CONT. 3-4' H X 3-4' W; 2 GAL @ 18" MIN. HEIGHT ALL PLANTS SHALL BE NURSERY MATCHED, QUALITY SPECIMEN: American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z60.1 00 TYPICAL ALL TREES NOTED FOR PROTECTION ON SITE PLANS. 01 04'-0" HIGH VISIBILITY ORANGE CONSTRUCTION FENCE. 02 STEEL FENCE POSTS AT MIN. 8'-0" O.C. 03 INSTALL FENCING 5' BEYOND DRIP LINE OF PROTECTED TREE. i•• l WO ELEVATION %If* .'•r•.•••=+'•••1:••• •• •• • r=; Y •• Ih, • ••i+i•��N • 1 1 ••• .8.1• • • •• • • •;XN 1,.11:1: •• ;t '1.••: i• 8";.`:::71.41:. • it A •�•0,ti: g. �••fbi•• ;••'� • • • ••••• • •± • •• • • •r.r *Ye ,.I •i • • ‘ Jay J�: y • w�vr •. a ••1 �� •;; r• • • .e•_ Yom._•_ _t2�_!• • •• • • •• •••• • i • r. .1":1 :•‘• • ••••: td.. M •• • /� • •: • ..5'-0"- 1•. • -• •• : • • • PLAN 0 ENGINEER: welch design +development CLIENT: MONUMENT HILLS, LLC PROJECT NAME: MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA REVISION LOG: REV DESCRIPTION REZONING APPLICATION DATE 04-28-22 REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-16-22 B REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-30-22 REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 07-18-22 SHEET NAME: LANDSCAPE NOTES, DETAILS, AND PLANT SCHEDULE PROJECT NO: 1026 PROJECT MANAGER: SHEET NUMBER: WELCH REVISION: C ISSUED DATE: L2.00 07-18-2022 MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION J U LY 6, 2022 — 6:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL PRELIMINARY 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 ELLIOTT, MAGGIE HENSCH, MIKE NOLTE, MARK PADRON, MARIA SIGNS, MARK TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X 0 X X X KEY: X = Present 0 = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Nota Member welch design +development July 25, 2022 Dear Mayor and Council Members, I am working with Joe Clark on his Monument Hills Estates development. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the August 2"d Council Meeting in person as I will be out of town. I plan on call into the Zoom meeting; however, I wanted to provide this document ahead of the meeting in the event there are problems with the Zoom call. The plan you are now seeing reflects many months of interaction with city staff, the development team, and the neighbors. As was noted by members of the Planning Commission, this plan matches very closely with the city's Comprehensive and Northeast District plan and received support from neighbors during the Public Hearing at the July 6th Planning and Zoning Meeting. I think this is evidence of how dedicated all parties on this project have been at developing this plan. I want to point out some aspects of this plan that I think make this an outstanding example of the type and quality development we want to see more of in Iowa City. During our site investigations we identified that there is an area of mature trees within this development. This area of mature trees is visible in the aerial photos from 1937 and was documented during the threatened and endangered species survey that was completed. The plan preserves much of this area by placing it within Outlot B which will be platted as a conservation area precluding any development now or in the future in this area (refer to image at right). This plan sets aside 32.8 acres for conservation. This is 50% of the development area! The establishment of a connection from N. Scott and Rochester Avenue to Calder Park and the neighborhood to the northwest is another important aspect of this plan. The creation of Harvest Preserve to the north of this project means that the Tamarack Trail Figure E-1: Historical Aerial Imagery (1937) A 250 500 750 1.000 Feet O Investigation Area O Mature Woodland roadway will not be able to be extended southeast to connect to Rochester Avenue or N. Scott Boulevard. Welch Design and Development, LLC welchdesigndevelopment.com Page 1 welch We were able to work with Harvest Preserve to secure an easement for a trail connection from this development to Calder Park. This connection provides access to a neighborhood park for the future residents of this development. More importantly, this connection provides a missing link for the broader neighborhood. Students of Lemme Elementary School who live north of Ralston Creek will now be able to use this trail connection to walk and bike to school without having to go all the way west to 15t Avenue and then come back on Rochester Avenue. This connection cuts a mile out of that trip! This connection provides a link from the Olde Town Village commercial development (Blackstone, Shorts East, Dairy Queen, etc.) to the neighborhoods north of Ralston Creek. This makes walking and biking to these neighborhood destinations possible. This plan furthers the city's goal of promoting walkable neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration of this project. Sincerely, Michael J. Welch, PE Welch Design and Development, LLC Page 2 welchdesigndevelopment.com From: To: Subject: Date: Kelly Gallagher Terrill *City Council Support for Monument Hills Sunday, July 24, 2022 10:55:42 AM Dear Members of the Iowa City Council, I am writing to express my support for the proposed Monument Hills neighborhood. As an east -side resident of an adjacent neighborhood (Bluffwood), as a parent of two public school children, and as a member of Harvest Preserve, I believe this development will be beneficial for Iowa City for the following reasons: • Monument Hills was carefully designed to preserve the trees and sensitive areas within the proposed development. • The proposed sidewalk from Calder Park to Monument Hills will provide a shorter and safer route for children from the Bluffwood neighborhood to walk or bike to Lemme Elementary. • The east side of Iowa City currently lacks adequate lots for new housing. • The City's tax base will increase due to the new development. • East side schools will benefit from new housing in their attendance zones. • East side businesses will benefit from additional new development. • Monument Hills incorporates needed senior housing. If Iowa City were to reject this carefully planned and appropriate development, it would push new housing to Coralville and North Liberty, harming our city's tax base and east -side schools. It would also require children, such as mine, who bike from the Bluffwood neighborhood to Lemme to continue biking alongside First Avenue, a busy and dangerous road. Thank you for your consideration. With best regards, Kelly Terrill f,'.4, 14 odiagigir CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org City Council Agenda — August 2, 2022 — Formal Meeting Information submitted between distribution of packet on Thursday and 4:OOpm on Monday. Late Handout(s): Consent Calendar 6.i North Gilbert Street Reconstruction — Strant Associates, Inc. — Billing Rate List Planning &Zoning Matters 10.a Rezoning — Monument Hills — See correspondence from Mike Gatens and Mike Ciiek Kellie Fruehling From: Anne Russett Late Handouts Distributed Sent: Friday, July 29, 2022 8:46 AM To: Kellie Fruehling; Parker Walsh Cc: Danielle Sitzman e - / 22-- Subject: FW: Monument Hills development (Date) Kellie—Can you add this to the Council packet or late correspondence? It's for the public hearing scheduled for next Tuesday for the Monument Hills rezoning. Parker—Please add this to the case file. Thanks, Anne From: miketgatens@aol.com<miketgatens@aol.com> Sent:Thursday,July 28, 2022 6:43 PM To:Anne Russett<ARussett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Monument Hills development RISK Anne, Please get my note to whom it may concern. I am a resident of Rochester Hills, west of the proposed Monument Hills development. I would like to give this development my100% backing. This will be an incredible development, which is much needed on the east side of Iowa City. Joe Clark and Doug Paul have done and will continue to do wonderful things for Iowa City. Always my best, Mike Gatens i Kellie Fruehling From: Anne Russett Sent: Friday,July 29, 2022 2:48 PM To: Kellie Fruehling; Parker Walsh Late Handouts Distributeu Cc: Danielle Sitzman Subject: FW: Monument Hills Development Kellie & Parker— Here is some more correspondence. (Date) Thanks, Anne From: Michael Cilek<mcilek@aol.com> Sent: Friday,July 29, 2022 2:21 PM To:Anne Russett<ARussett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Monument Hills Development RISK Hello Anne, I want to touch base with you about this development since I can't attend the meeting on Tuesday. I live in Rochester Hills Condo Association and as president I have been interacting with Joe Clark to work together to discuss what works best for both of us and he has been nothing but excellent to work with. He listened to our concerns and eliminated the six lots on Rochester which would have been a very negative impact on our residents directly west of those six lots. These comments are spoken on my behalf only and not the association but I know that many of our members have these same feelings. One thing that did come up in my discussion with some of our members was the speed limit along Rochester which with the increase of traffic from the development maybe should be reduced. I personally would be in favor of seeing this project proceed and thank you for considering this email. Sincerely, Mike Cilek 1 Prepared by: Parker Walsh,Associate Planner,410 E.Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240;(REZ22-0008) Ordinance No. An ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 64.37 acres of property located north of Rochester Avenue and west of N. Scott Blvd. from Interim Development — Single Family Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and 0.31 acres to Interim Development — Single Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/ID-RS) (REZ22-0008). Whereas, Monument Hills, LLC, and Harvest Investments, LLC, have requested a rezoning of property located north of Rochester Avenue and west of N. Scott Blvd., from Interim Development — Single Family Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Interim Development — Single Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/ID-RS); and Whereas, the rezoning creates a need for an access easement to maintain access to a preexisting communications tower; and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan encourages the provision of trail connections so that all neighborhood residents are within walking distance of parks and open space, locating trails along waterways, around ponds, and through parks; and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of wide, accessible sidewalks that connect with neighborhood parks; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need for a public access easement to construct, maintain and use a 10' wide sidewalk to connect the subject property and residents with adjacent parkland; and Whereas, there is a public need for additional right-of-way at the intersection of Rochester Avenue and North Scott Boulevard for potential future improvements to provide the maximum safety and efficacy of street networks envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, there is a public need for additional traffic calming devices within the neighborhood to provide the safe street network envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions regarding the need for the provision of an access easement to allow access to the existing communications tower, provision of a public access easement to construct a 10' wide public trail connection to Calder Park, provision of additional right of way along Rochester Avenue, and the provision of traffic calming devices in locations approved and designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2021) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and Whereas, the owner, Monument Farms LLC, and the applicants have agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate development in this area of the city. Ordinance No. _ Page 2 Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I Approval. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein, property described below is hereby classified Low Density Single-Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) or Interim Development — Single Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/ID-RS), as indicated: OPD/RS-5: BEING PART OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 200033 IN BOOK 41 PAGE 192 AND PART OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 200034 IN BOOK 41 PAGE 191 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., IN IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 200034 AND THE NORTH LINE OF ROCHESTER AVE AS RECORDED IN BOOK 41 PAGE 191 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, THENCE N01°10;21"W, 1,365.66 FEET; THENCE N88°49'39"E, 421.58 FEET; THENCE N04°16'56"E, 140.65 FEET; THENCE N59°32'43"E, 568.88 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M.; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE N87°42'14"E, 617.81 FEET, THENCE S56°13'44"E, 807.74 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF N. SCOTT BOULEVARD; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE S19°29'26"E, 549.93 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ROCHESTER AVENUE; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE S69°00'08"W, 1,148.85 FEET, THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY S69°04'09"W, 129.67 FEET; THENCE N20°55'S1"W, 145.05 FEET; THENCE N84°57'19"W, 107.05 FEET; THENCE S38°38'53"E, 54.95 FEET; THENCE S20°55'S1"E, 139.59 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ROCHESTER AVENUE; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE S69°04'09"W, 157.11 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY S69°04'11"W, 493.99 FEET, THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY S73°10'16"W, 384.23 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY ON A 1,120.59 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY (CHORD BEARING S76°24'13"W, 126.38 FEET) TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 64.37 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. OPD/ID-R5: BEING PART OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 200033 IN BOOK 41 PAGE 192 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., IN IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 200033 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 41 PAGE 192 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, THENCE S69°04'09"W, 129.67 FEET ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ROCHESTER AVENUE TO THE POINT OF BEGINING; THENCE N20°55'S1"W, 145.05 FEET; THENCE N84°57'19"W, 107.05 FEET; THENCE S38°38'53"E, 54.95 FEET; THENCE S20°55'S1"E, 139.59 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ROCHESTER AVENUE; THENCE N69°04'09"E, 79.51 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 0.31 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. Ordinance No. _ Page 3 Section II. Zoning Map. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of the ordinance as approved by law. Section III. Conditional Zoning Agreement. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s) and the City, following passage and approval of this Ordinance. Section IV. Certification and Recording. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and any agreements or other documentation authorized and required by the Conditional Zoning Agreement, and record the same in the Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law. Section V. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section VI. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section VII. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication in accordance with Iowa Code Chapter 380. Passed and approved this day of , 2022. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Approved by/ G ^� City Attorne s Office (Sara Greenwood Hektoen — 07/28/2022) Ordinance No. Page 4 It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Alter Bergus Harmsen Taylor Teague Thomas Weiner First Consideration 8/2/2022 Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner NAYS: None ABSENT: None Second Consideration Vote for passage: Date published Prepared by:Parker Walsh,Associate Planner,410 E.Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240(REZ22-0008) Conditional Zoning Agreement This agreement is made among the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"), Monument Farms, LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Owner"), and Monument Hills, LLC, and Harvest Investments, LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant"). Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 64.68 acres of property located north of Rochester Avenue and west N. Scott Blvd., legally described below; and Whereas, the Applicant has requested the rezoning of said property legally described below from Interim Development Single-Family (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) zone and Interim Development— Single Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/ID-RS)zone; and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the subject area is appropriate for conservation design and residential development, such as single-family, townhome, and small apartment; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a need for an access easement to maintain access to the property hereby rezoned OPD/ID-RS, currently used for a communications tower; and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan encourages the provision of trail connections so that all neighborhood residents are within walking distance of parks and open space, locating trails along waterways, around ponds, and through parks; and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of wide, accessible sidewalks that connect with neighborhood parks; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need for a public access easement to construct, maintain and use a 10' wide sidewalk to connect the subject property and residents with adjacent parkland; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need for additional right-of-way at the intersection of Rochester Avenue and North Scott Boulevard for potential future improvements to provide the maximum safety and efficacy of street networks envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need for additional traffic calming devices within the neighborhood to provide the safe street network envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions regarding the dedication of an access easement to allow access to the existing communications tower, the dedication of a public access easement and construction of a 10' wide trail connection to Calder Park, the dedication of additional right-of-way along Rochester Avenue, and the construction of traffic calming devices in locations approved and designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2021) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose 1 reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over anddd above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested Whereas, the Owner and Applicant agree to develop this property in accordance with the g reement. terms and conditions of this Conditional Zoning Ag parties agree as Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the p follows: 1. Monument Farms LLC is the legal title holder of the property legally described as: S PART OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 200033 IN BOOK 41 A E 192 ANDN PART COUNTY RECORDER AUDIT ER'S PARCEL 200034 IN BOOK 41 PAGE 191 OF THE OFFICE, IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION N 12, T TOWNSHIPIOWA DESCRIBED79OTH RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., IN IOWA CITY, JOHNSON BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AUDIT NO BOOK 41EPAGE 191L 200034 AOF THE ND THE NORTH LINE OF ROCHESTER AVE AS RECORDED JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, HENCE6'560E 10;21 140.65W FEET;1,365.66 THENCEFEET; THENCE N88°49'39"E, 421.58 FEET; THENCEN N59°32'43"E, 568.88 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE SE DTIOIN 12,N TO42'NSH,IP17981OF TH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M.; THENCE ALONG THENCE S56°13'44"E, 807.74 FEET TO THE WEST 26I EH 549 93 FEETNO THE NORTH OF N. SCOTT BOULEVARD; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE S RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ROCHESTER° , CONTINUINGAVENUE; THENCE ALONGSAID RIGSAID LINE E S69 00 08 W, 1,148.85 FEET, THENCE S69°04'09"W, 129.67 FEET; THENCE N20° THENCE S20 55 5 E THENCE 139 59 FEET TO 107.05 FEET; THENCE S38°38 53 E, 54.95 FEET; THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ROCHESTER AVENUE; THENCE SAID ALONG R RIGHT-OF-WAY S69°04'09"W, 157.11 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING S69°04'11"W, 493.99 FEET, THENCE CONTINUING ALONG LNGO SAID RAID RIGHT-OF-WAY AA S73°10'16"W, 384.23 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING 1,120.59 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY (CHORD BEARING S76 2413 W, 126.38 FEET)TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 64.37 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. AND PART OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 200033 IN BOOK 41 PAGE 192 OF SECTION THE JOHTOWNSHIP COUNTYON 79 RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., IN IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OFON UDITOUN T SREARCEL 200033 033 IC AS RECORDED IN BOOK 41 PAGE 192 OF THE J IY THENCE S69°04'09"W, 129.67 FEET ALONG HE THENCE NORTH N20 T O1FW A45 I EEEOF ROCHESTER AVENUE TO THE POINT OF BEGIN , THENCE N84°57'19"W, 107.05 FEET; THENCE S38°38'53"E, 54.95 FEET; THENCE 2 AY LINE ° 139.59 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT--O OF BEG N OF ROCHESTER AV 5551E, POINT AVENUE; THENCE N69°04'09"E, 79.51 FEET TO THE DESCRIBED AREA NCONTAINS OF RECORD. ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS Applicant acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the 2. Owner and Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code principles of the Comprehensiveimpose reasonable conditions on §414.5 (2021) provides that the City of Iowa City may p a rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy publicgranting needs caused by agree 3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner and Applicant t development of the subject property will conform to all requirements of the Zoning that Code, as well as the following conditions: a. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall: i. Dedicate a private access easement to the property hereby zoned OPD-ID/RS; public access easement to allow a public trail from the proposed ii. Dedicate a approved by the City development to Calder Park in a form of agreement Attorney and install a 10' wide trail therein; iii. Dedicate to the City, without compensation, right-of-way along Rochester Ave and N. Scott Blvd. easements and right-of-way shall be generally located approvedas shod shown on he Donethe atta ched"Overall Concept Plan," Plathed Said as part of the Preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan, incorporated herein by this reference of the above-described land shall . b. The final plat for any shown on the attached Overall Concept Planerate traffic calming generally in location 4. The conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under 1 and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused Iowa Code §414.5 ( ) by the requested zoning change. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be ein fuldito beand effect covenant runnings with with 5. permit land and with title to the land, and shall remainhe City of Iowa City. Once a building isle to the land, unless or until shall releasede by real e of shallis issued, the conditions be deemed atacfknowledge that this agreement this provided. The parties further agreement will be ors, representatives, and assigns of the inure to the benefit of and bind alucS transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, parties. In the event the subject property Agreement. all development will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning e the Owner 6. Nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed trelieve from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 7. Thi s Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the 3 ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the or dinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense. 2022. Dated this day of Monument Farms, LLC City of Iowa City By: Bruce Teague, Mayor Attest: Monument Hills, LLC Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk Approved by: By: City Attorney's Office Harvest Investments, LLC By: City of Iowa City Acknowledgement: State of Iowa ) ) ss: Johnson County ) 2022 by Bruce Teague T on and instrumentllieueh ng as Mayor and City ed fClerk ore eespectively, of the City of Iowa City. and Kellie Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) Monument Farms, LLC Acknowledgement: State of County of 2022 by This record was acknowledged as (title)me on (title) Monument Farms, LLC. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) 4 My commission expires: Monument Hills, LLC Acknowledgment: State of County of 2022 by This record was acknowledged as (title)me on (title) of Monument Hills, LLC Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) My commission expires: Harvest Investments, LLC Acknowledgment: State of rcwo. County of ��+hri - nR- O\ , 2022 by This record was acknowledged before me on (title) of Harvest Investments, LLC �eT�..�..,,�n�_ (name) as Notary blic in for the State of Iowa AU. (Stamp or Seal) t N Number ICHOLAS CR MID • MyConwnwbrtires My commission expires: August 27, 5 ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publicationRecordes Office of the or at dinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County the Applicant's expense. 2022. Dated this ._�____ day of Monument Farms, LLC City of Iowa City ; her Bruce Teague, Mayor Attest: Monument Hills, LLC Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk Approved by: City Attorney's Office Harvest investments, LLC By City of Iowa City Acknowledgement: State of Iowa j ss: Johnson County 2022 by Bruce Teague This instrument was acknowledged before me on and Kellie Fruehling as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) Monument Farms, LLC Acknowledgement: State of 1 AhS8 ' County of. I 2022 by U i7 is record as acknowledged before (title) Monu -nt Farms, LLC. z.. av (name) as Notary • blic i _n+ or the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) kr. ,IYfSIEY R poRSAM � Commission Number 7969S6 . Expires 4 My commission expires: z �" Monument Hills, LLC Acknowledgment: State of Z.6 d��s�;� County of U U i , 2022 by This record was ac nowledged before me,on (title) of onument Hills, LLC h a( (name) as j'Y}; �'!-- WESLEY R DORM Notary • bli n and for the State of Iowa Commessaro Number 796958 t; MY •02Eir (Stamp or Seal) My commission expires: Harvest Investments, LLC Acknowledgment: State of County of 2022 by This record was acknowledged before me on (title) of Harvest Investments, LLC (name) as Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) My commission expires; 5 1D'-WADE TRAIL CONNECTION TO HARVEST PRESERVE '''',;• `' _ 1 HARVEST PRESERVE CAD PARK IN[LIAES za EASE•1ENT FOUNDATION.INCt ----------- -NOTES&LEGEND: FOUNDATION.INC �� ) I / 4' - - ,T ACT. INC wntrr�: jl (-' /• f :F _- \A- 61RIN1 As1sr 11.11 -_�— t� r— ao-�.—. — _ -I-f MONUMENT \ �. SENIOR o.MgO:RN.R'.�li J 1 , ANARVEST €SERVE , 4r RA FARMS, LLC \� L IIWLESS NOTED OTHERWISE _ S 1' NARVEST PR<�•EINE - F N iIONE°WC- ` � I -q2 \ \) --- I �, � i FOUNDATIOf j INC \ 1 _ \ _•f.,k .1Pv'. -_ 1 I 43 I �1` `A\ 1-"- SENIOR LW.Lon.::-OP MI çr _ i r� �,\�;' ) s�T' 45 \ \\ \\�fr.-- i 2"J' 01 �- • ._.-, ? \ CONSTRUCTION AIWA LIMIT: „ i''s % 75At' 4 \ OUTLOT C\�.�:•� wbw"w ",m'•A f. '/ 5« \I 1 ! d.IMG DNxERN.TewEASEMENT IrAlti i�, I.`w -3 / •�sL \\•\ swiss . 1 T NrnrafwAr uEarwTTON N.Nc aaoESTER �.•i.44 Y s +iA T 1 ';36 �2 5 5 r �' \\• s\s arlop SV fin+ 32 rrr/ i r6NTl I.. 4 2 ! \ ; .\\ `\` wEwAe/TRAIL•R..LWEa.. [__.� IOWA..ciy �' \ �� ue.,y,' • NT _ �' � \\. • uEwAMITu..rOroxEe 1. '. .13 1 �Y'.�. !a �..---11'. . I. .I I 1'. / $ ,\ ?\al FMMSMELLC SRE aAIA; .eARCEC �. / 53 to t r \ \ • ``` 64.611 AC 5 ��x p 7• I [ 1 I -.b/ir r) \\ ' •• 1 0\i\ PAiAaae aoex[sSER AVE UN 0.67 AC SRI As 'stE�� �r � I ruwc STREET RUN $t/LLNAN, 3�W C � I ul El+ SI t I 8 I _� '. \ 1 ei �i\ nNOEVEATE L.Now MOON LmsslNET .NT AM OSOAR AC -EI+MeEfN L. s +• r SWOLF-FAIIILT LOTS .,W ____.--._ fd/ , / T NHS-• /.� t. Y\L ma mNDo nw \\ • \ 1I P E\ TOTAL III \ j I' . -26 T . ��� ''\\'\\ \ C uexsm.N:ON/SOS ACRES ,•s oWAC '•D 1 i •' II s I [ 29 , „�'� �•; ! ...alas-s IOW oaam s DU/KU or NET wu AUA �! I ._.• 7 ouTE.T A.•.C RESERVED FOR CONSERVATION Of WWI IRE AREAS r� : � sT 20 � , PARCEL'A.6 FOR T.DMICATION OF ADDITIONAL E MODICA IN• .I 8I L AVErNWXR NORTHN TT ROLA.. /- \\ I L_. _ - I, \� O. i Ww[of uo nxW�RAce of DETS RAro TxE A.OwKEo / ;_. t ;,� ,\ •\I -._7, .. _._ E.. , ` y N—Ta CE W rM RONEST TO xoDWG,T1oE TO TIE""" -- \ \ , '�,, ,� --- , .� ♦ , �! 1 IMGSTANDARDS REIATfa T.WILDING SETRACRS. / -v s =A'> 1,�--•Th = ` d,L1 !\ ! THE MEC I.OF RIGHT NAY WITH.TIN 9V 6 i J .. (' \ - I T•T '� ! \ DEVEwwENI PARCEL Tr 1 WTx,xTa.EaLEED�D�A ALTERNATIVE �x ( '` \�•\ �'�:�.QI OT 61 4... `�•!!! ,1! • (COOPERATIVE, EiuwEN.REFER T.DEFT o.I• 1 \�\\ � \. f l 'r ARCELrrAIIT LOT senATess...NreLwerE BUSTING reLEmxTowER.TE �) ( iII \ \ ,a �� ;�\ �\ \ 4 j/ �% Vo xs: :N`N DES IN :�" '�E�wNL.Eowowo- TaAw• • \ \. • \•�4,.�' • \_) 4 \.'.1.. � /�'� ��� ` LOT WILL NEED,u nTLI ALLREQUIREMENTS of vsrox ZONING. ' / % I / J ` -.IM l= m'Arrscc 87 '/ �s ORC:::)x...... <AL.E,IEASEHEN `/ � ��\ y`Rr -'/�• _ h LA<�EENTANDGRA SSwIll I \ 7 ��: FOR IpT R6 ,> %- =1 \ �� \\ � e \� '`,� \ / `\;o TL S-1 ` eE ESIwL srlro uuLwu.ul Nc. l ° ?.� AII \\�� ` � s � ELSE - \p TL� • rN \ �`\ / °4\ \\� ,ni-� t \sMO\� i E EaPJ r%`-' l -k �`\`gym / we_ tch a S , . , I r'...../ // \ \ f \. t / eo ,.in '-`% -' --'--J t-\`a IDraL DT« horn tlesl9n.tleveloPrnent i/ / / / ,\J \'/ '� ..... MONUMENT HILLS,uc r _ Rsz ``,�' -_-% f .\ / �/'� _-(��� \ ` PROVIDE RAISE y �..Rom. ..o,A<.NNN MONUMENT HILLS \ 1 \--J y /..• 1 L �T� CROSSING TO PROVIDED TRAFFIC` F . K.. T y .T, aD,WT• INSCRIPTION _ DATE HERON y. a v ,.,LIME . '' _v T y; .W�TA • f NT1.0111� CO 1 '� .1. - `_.' -�y (� ` O`\ ,y;_-, tcLD /.....' LOT II � I141n N.NII¢aNDN:ADDmowLT.TS 4Tr.i: 1 i '� "` '�;_-r,- Ix. 1 T` �/\Y/i'"gt 0w"-/'/ LOT s d LOT n OVERALL CONCEPT PLAN-PRELIM. '¢`- '•jam'` II ��I T1 ` e Y��OAP.-/ q \ € I r Lars PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY E. iif ��I SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN i - - - I -y/ R S Lora 7 T r— r — 1 IA RAISED CROSSING-SOUTH\ 1B RAISED CROSSING-NORTH O TRAFFIC CIRCLE 1026 � 1 rnw C2100 IN,xar e I I 11 ri I A-- I�r 1,`•'T—r G D7a&m22 Item Number: 10.b. I ` Ea CITY OE IOWA CITY www.icgov.org August 2, 2022 Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code to clarify code language related to historic preservation. (REZ22-0009) (Second Consideration) ATTACHMENTS: Description staff memo P&Z Minutes 6-15-2022 HPC Minutes 4-14-2022 Ordinance CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: June 15, 2022 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner Re: Zoning Code Amendment (REZ22-0009) related to historic preservation Introduction The Iowa City Zoning Code (Title 14) is subject to alteration and clarification as situations and circumstances change throughout the City. The proposed ordinance addresses a few issues that have come to light with various aspects of code language and how the code is applied. Specifically, this code clean-up amendment serves to clarify language and expectations throughout the code relating to historic preservation. A summary of the proposed changes is provided in the attached memo to the Historic Preservation Commission [Attachment 1]. Background Since the proposed changes are related to historic preservation regulations, staff provided the proposed amendments to the State Historic Preservation Office's (SHPO) Certified Local Government (CLG) Coordinator for review and comment. SHPO's CLG coordinator noted no concerns with the proposed changes [see correspondence included in Attachment 1]. Staff also presented the proposed amendments to the Historic Preservation Commission. At their meeting on June 9, the Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments and requested that an up-to-date list of historic landmarks be added to the website. Staff will ensure a listing is updated annually during the historic preservation mailings to property owners. Next Steps Pending recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council must hold a public hearing to consider the proposed text amendments. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Zoning Code be amended as illustrated in Attachment 1 to address code clean-up items relating to historic preservation. Attachments 1. Memo to the Historic Preservation Commission, dated June 9, 2022 Approved by: Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: June 9, 2022 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner & Emani Brinkman, Planning Intern Re: Zoning Code Amendment (REZ22-0009) related to historic preservation Introduction The Iowa City Zoning Code (Title 14) is subject to alteration and clarification as situations and circumstances change throughout the City. The proposed ordinance (Attachment 1) addresses a few issues that have come to light with various aspects of code language and how the code is applied. This code clean-up amendment serves to clarify language and expectations throughout the code relating to historic preservation. Background Staff maintains a list of amendments that need to be made to the Zoning Code based on discussions between City staff. The amendments proposed in this memo are minor in nature and provide clarification to those who depend on this document to make and understand important City-wide decisions. While the changes are minor, the Historic Preservation Commission is reviewing them to make recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council on preservation issues per their mission codified in Section 14-7A-3 of the City Code. The State Historic Preservation Office's Certified Local Government Coordinator, Allison Archambo, has reviewed the proposed amendments and noted no concerns with the changes. Her correspondence is included as Attachment 2. Proposed Amendments The proposed code amendments and reasoning for each is detailed below. 1) Clarify Historic Preservation Exception Applicability (14 -2A -7B, 14 -2B -8A, and 14- 2C -11A) Summary of Change: The code allows the Board of Adjustment to grant a special exception to waive or modify dimensional or site development standards or approval criteria in residential and commercial zones that would the prevent use or occupancy of a property designated as an Iowa City landmark or registered in the National Register of Historic Places. This provides substantial flexibility for historic properties, including flexibility from standards relating to setbacks, height, parking areas, screening, landscaping, and use -specific approval criteria, among other requirements. The code also allows such properties to be adaptively reused in such a way not typically allowed in these zones, including as community service, specialized education facility, or hospitality - oriented retail uses. In both cases, the Board must find that the modification helps preserve the historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property, and a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission is required, in addition to April 20, 2022 Page 2 requiring that several other general approval criteria are met. The proposed amendment would clarify that this includes properties located in a Local Historic District. Justification: Staff recommends the proposed amendment to clarify that properties in a Historic District Overlay (OHD) zone will be regulated consistently with properties individually zoned as Historic Landmarks for the purposes of qualifying for the flexibility offered by this special exception. This is consistent with staff's current interpretation of this provision but provides more straight -forward language. 2) Remove List of Local Landmarks, Historic Districts, and Conservation Districts (14- 3B -1D and 14 -3B -2D) Summary of Change: The code currently lists properties that are designated as Local Historic Districts, Local Historic Landmarks, and Conservation Districts. The proposed amendment would remove the sections listing these districts and properties. Justification: City Council currently designates Local Historic Districts and Landmarks by rezoning them Historic District Overlay (OHD). Similarly, Local Conservation Districts are rezoned Conservation District Overlay (OCD). Staff also maintains a list of Local Historic Districts and Landmarks, and Local Conservation Districts, which is kept up-to-date and is available to the public. The Zoning Code lists districts and landmarks as well, but these codified lists are irregularly updated and are redundant with the rezoning ordinances passed by Council when a property is designated. As such, staff recommends removing the codified lists from the zoning code and relying instead on the ordinances passed by Council and staff's lists which are regularly maintained. 3) Add Abbreviation to Conservation Overlay Zones (14-3B-2) Summary of Change: The code establishes the Conservation District Overlay (OCD) zone to designate Local Conservation Districts within the City but does not list the abbreviation used on the zoning map. The proposed amendment adds the abbreviation for Conservation District Overlays (OCD) into the code. Justification: Specifying that the OCD abbreviation is used for Conservation District Overlay zones connects the designation on the zoning map with the zone it represents. 4) Clarify Historic Preservation Commission Procedures (14-8E-1) Summary of Change: After receipt of an application for Historic Landmark designation or following initiation of a proposal to designate a Local Historic or Conservation district, the Historic Preservation Commission holds a public hearing on the proposal. The Zoning Code requires that public notice be mailed, though the current requirements have been a source of confusion and complaint. The code also requires that the designation of all Local Historic Districts, Local Conservation Districts, and Local Historic Landmarks be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), even when the SHPO will not review it. The proposed amendment makes two changes. First, it clarifies the public notice mailing procedures by delineating exactly how the list of property owners will be generated and mailed. This revision will mean notices are mailed to the owner and any contract purchaser of record using their last known address listed in the records of the County Auditor not more than 14 days before the mailing. Second, it revises the submittal requirements such that proposals shall only be sent to the SHPO for projects on which SHPO will provide comment. These include proposals regarding Local Historic Districts but exclude proposals regarding Local Conservation Districts and/or Local Historic Landmarks. April 20, 2022 Page 3 Justification: Revising public notice mailing procedures will more clearly codify the process staff will follow. Revising the SHPO submittal requirements will help align City policy with SHPO policy, which will streamline submittals and prevent unnecessary work. Next Steps Pending recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council must hold a public hearing to consider the proposed text amendments. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Zoning Code be amended as illustrated in Attachment 1 to address code clean-up items relating to historic preservation. Attachments 1. Proposed Zoning Code Text Amendments 2. Correspondence with Allison Archambo (Certified Local Government Coordinator, State Historic Preservation Office) Approved by: .=J ' SA Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services Attachment 1 Page 1 Draft Zoning Code Text Underlined text is suggested new language. Strike -through notation indicates language to be deleted. Amend 14 -2A -7B as follows: 1. The Bboard of Aadjustment may grant a special exception to waive or modify any dimensional or site development standards listed in this article or in chapter 5 of this title or any approval criteria listed in chapter 4, article B of this title that would prevent use or occupancy of a property located in a Historic District Overlay (OHD) designated -as -an or registered on the national register of historic places. In addition to the general special exception approval criteria set forth in chapter 4, article B of this title, the following approval criteria must be met: a. The modification or waiver will help preserve the historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property; b. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Hhistoric Ppreservation CGommission. 2. The Bboard of Aadjustment may grant a special exception to allow a property located in a Historic District Overlay (OHD) : - ' = - or registered on the national register of historic places to be adapted and reused as a community service use, specialized educational facility, or hospitality oriented retail use. In addition to the general special exception approval criteria listed in chapter 4, article B of this title, the applicant must also meet the following criteria in order for the Bboard to grant this exception: a. The exception is necessary to preserve the historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property. b. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Hhistoric Ppreservation CGommission. Amend 14 -2B -8A as follows: 1. The Bboard of Aadjustment may grant a special exception to waive or modify any dimensional or site development standards listed in this article or in chapter 5 of this title or any approval criteria listed in chapter 4, article B of this title that would prevent use or occupancy of a property located in a Historic District Overlay (OHD) designated -as -all or registered on the national register of historic places. In addition to the general special exception approval criteria set forth in chapter 4, article B of this title, the following approval criteria must be met: a. The modification or waiver will help preserve the historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property; b. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Hhistoric Ppreservation CGommission. 2. The Bboard of Aadjustment may grant a special exception to allow a property located in a Historic District Overlay (OHD) = - ' = . - . - . or registered on the national register of historic places to be adapted and reused as a community service use, specialized educational facility, or hospitality oriented retail use. In addition to the general special exception approval criteria listed in chapter 4, article B of this title, the applicant must also meet the following criteria in order for the Bboard to grant this exception: a. The exception will help preserve the historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property; b. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Hhistoric Ppreservation CGommission. Attachment 1 Page 2 Amend 14-2C-11 as follows: A. Historic Preservation Exception: The Bboard of Aadjustment may grant a special exception to waive or modify any dimensional or site development standards listed in this article or in chapter 5 of this title or any approval criteria listed in chapter 4, article B of this title that would prevent use or occupancy of a property located in a Historic District Overlay (OH D) = - or registered on the National Register of Historic Places. In addition to the general special exception approval criteria set forth in chapter 4, article B of this title, the following approval criteria must be met: 1. The modification or waiver will help preserve the historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property. 2. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Hhistoric Ppreservation CGommission. Strike 14 -3B -1D "Designated Resources" within a Historic District Overlay Zone Amend 14-3B-2 as follows: A. Purpose: The conservation district overlay (OCD) zone is used to designate conservation districts. The purpose of this overlay zone is to: 1. Conserve the unique characteristics of older neighborhoods and resources, including their architectural, historical and aesthetic qualities; 2. Provide for design review of new construction or alteration of existing resources to assure compatibility with the existing character of older neighborhoods and preserve the historic integrity of the resource; 3. Encourage the retention, rehabilitation and appropriate maintenance of existing buildings, structures and sites in older neighborhoods; 4. Stabilize property values and encourage reinvestment in older neighborhoods; and 5. Protect the environmental setting of historic landmarks and historic districts through the designation of conservation districts adjacent to historic landmarks and historic districts. Strike 14 -3B -2D "Designated Resources" within a Conservation District Overlay Zone Amend 14 -8E -1C as follows: 1. Upon receipt of an application for historic landmark designation or following initiation of a proposal to designate a historic or conservation district, the historic preservation commission will hold a public hearing on the proposal. 2. The historic preservation commission will give notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of such public hearing ordinary mail addressed to "owner" at the street address of the property in question, Such notice shall be sent by ordinary mail, not less than seven (7) days before the date the hearing is held, to the owner and any contract purchaser of record of each property or property interest at the owner's and contract purchaser's last known address as shown in the records of the County Auditor not more than fourteen (14) days prior to the date of mailing. A change in ownership of any such property which is not reflected in the records of the County Auditor during the period those records are searched as above provided shall not affect the validity of the notice or any condemnation proceeding commenced on the basis of such Attachment 1 Page 3 notice. An affidavit of mailing will be filed with the city clerk setting forth the date that notice was mailed and the names and addresses of all property owners notified pursuant to this subsection. 3. Following the public hearing, the historic preservation commission will consider a motion recommending approval of the proposed district or historic landmark. 4. Upon approval of the motion, the historic preservation commission will submit an application to rezone the proposed area to historic district overlay or conservation district overlay, whichever is applicable. For properties proposed as local historic landmarks, an application for a historic district overlay rezoning must be submitted. Amend 14 -8E -1D as follows: D. State Historic Preservation Office Review: Following the public hearing before the historic preservation commission, any the proposal regarding a local historic district will be submitted to the state historic preservation office (SHPO) for review and recommendations. The city will make any recommendations made by SHPO the state historic -preservation -office available to the public for viewing during normal business hours at a city government place of public access. Any proposals regarding conservation districts and/or local historic landmarks need not be submitted to SHPO. Amend 14 -8E -1E as follows: 5. If the planning and zoning commission alters the area of the proposed district as approved by the historic preservation commission, the planning and zoning commission must submit a description of the altered proposed area or the petition describing the area to the state historic preservation office where required and the historic preservation commission for review and recommendations concerning the altered proposed district. Kirk Lehmann From: Anne Russett Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 9:22 AM To: Kirk Lehmann; Jessica Bristow Subject: FW: Draft Ordinance for SHPO Review FYI. See below from CLG coordinator. From: Archambo, Allison <allison.archambo@iowa.gov> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 2:22 PM To: Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Re: Draft Ordinance for SHPO Review Hi Anne, Thank you for submitting the ordinance changes to our office for review. I see no concern with making these changes to the ordinance. Please proceed. Thank you, Allison On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 8:45 AM Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-citv.org> wrote: Hi, Allison — Thanks for speaking with me last Friday about some code amendments City staff is considering. I have attached a draft for your review and comment. You can access Title 14 Zoning here, if needed: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/iowacityia/latest/iowacity ia/0-0-0-19281. I also wanted to summarize our changes and justification for the changes: Amend 14 -2A -7B, 14 -2B -8A, and 14 -2C -11A related to Historic Preservation Exceptions Justification: The code allows the Board of Adjustment to grant a special exception to waive or modify dimensional or site developments in residential and commercial zones that would prevent the use or occupancy of a property designated as an Iowa City Landmark or listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The proposed amendment would clarify that this includes properties located in a Local Historic District. For the change we are recommending changing "designated as an Iowa City Landmark" to "located in a Historic District Overlay (OHD)". This amendment is for clarification purposes and will ensure that the code aligns with how this section has been implemented over the years. Furthermore, the provision already applies to properties listed in the NRHP. This amendment results in no change in terms of code implementation and interpretation. Strike 14 -3B -1D "Designated Resources" and 14 -3B -2D "Designated Resources" Justification: City Council designates Local Historic Districts and Landmarks by listing them in 14 -3B -1D and rezoning them Historic District Overlay (OHD). Local Conservation Districts are listed in 14 -3B -2D and rezoned Conservation District Overlay (OCD). However, the codified lists are irregularly updated and are redundant with the rezoning ordinances passed by Council when a property is designated. City staff keeps a list of local districts and landmarks that we would like to be able to update administratively (as opposed to processing a text amendment). Lastly, based on conversations with the City Attorney's Office they are concerned that if the codified list is not properly maintained it could result in challenges. Amend 14-3B-2 as follows: A. Purpose: The conservation district overlay (OCD) zone is used to designate conservation districts. The purpose of this overlay zone is to: 1. Conserve the unique characteristics of older neighborhoods and resources, including their architectural, historical and aesthetic qualities; 2. Provide for design review of new construction or alteration of existing resources to assure compatibility with the existing character of older neighborhoods and preserve the historic integrity of the resource; 3. Encourage the retention, rehabilitation and appropriate maintenance of existing buildings, structures and sites in older neighborhoods; 4. Stabilize property values and encourage reinvestment in older neighborhoods; and 5. Protect the environmental setting of historic landmarks and historic districts through the designation of conservation districts adjacent to historic landmarks and historic districts. Justification: Specifying that the OCD abbreviation is used for Conservation District Overlay zones connects the designation on the zoning map with the zone it represents. Amend 14 -8E -1C as follows: 1. Upon receipt of an application for historic landmark designation or following initiation of a proposal to designate a historic or conservation district, the historic preservation commission will hold a public hearing on the proposal. 2. The historic preservation commission will give notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of such public hearing - - 2 Such notice shall be sent by ordinary mail, not less than seven (7) days before the date the hearing is held, to the owner and any contract purchaser of record of each property or property interest at the owner's and contract purchaser's last known address as shown in the records of the County Auditor not more than fourteen (14) days prior to the date of mailing. A change in ownership of any such property which is not reflected in the records of the County Auditor during the period those records are searched as above provided shall not affect the validity of the notice or any condemnation proceeding commenced on the basis of such notice. An affidavit of mailing will be filed with the city clerk setting forth the date that notice was mailed and the names and addresses of all property owners notified pursuant to this subsection. 3. Following the public hearing, the historic preservation commission will consider a motion recommending approval of the proposed district or historic landmark. 4. Upon approval of the motion, the historic preservation commission will submit an application to rezone the proposed area to historic district overlay or conservation district overlay, whichever is applicable. For properties proposed as local historic landmarks, an application for a historic district overlay rezoning must be submitted. Justification: The Zoning Code requires that public notice be mailed, though the current requirements have been a source of confusion and complaint. Revising public notice mailing procedures will more clearly codify the process staff will follow. Amend 14 -8E -1D as follows: D. State Historic Preservation Office Review: Following the public hearing before the historic preservation commission, the proposal regarding a local historic district will be submitted to the state historic preservation office (SHPO) for review and recommendations. The city will make any recommendations made by SHPO - . ' - available to the public for viewing during normal business hours at a city government place of public access. Any proposals regarding conservation districts and/or local historic landmarks need not be submitted to SHPO. Justification: The code also requires that the designation of all Local Historic Districts, Local Conservation Districts, and Local Historic Landmarks be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), even when the SHPO will not review it. Revising the SHPO submittal requirements will help align City policy with SHPO policy, which will streamline submittals and prevent unnecessary work. Amend 14 -8E -1E as follows: 5. If the planning and zoning commission alters the area of the proposed district as approved by the historic preservation commission, the planning and zoning commission must submit a description of the altered proposed area or the petition describing the area to the state historic preservation office where required and the historic preservation commission for review and recommendations concerning the altered proposed district. 3 Justification: Continuation of the item immediately above. Please let me know if you have any questions. We will await your comments before moving this forward to the Historic Preservation Commission and then Planning & Zoning and City Council. Thanks, Anne CITY OF IOWA CITY Anne Russett, AICD UNESCO CITY O! LITERATURE WWW.ICGOV.ORG Disclaimer Senior Planner She/Her/Hers p: 319-356-5251 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Allison Archambo CLG Coordinator Allison.Archambo@iowa.ciov 1 515.281.6826 1 iowaculture.gov Pronouns: She/Her/Hers Iowa Arts Council 'Produce Iowa 1 State Historical Society of Iowa Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs 4 MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 1 5, 2022 — 6:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING EM MA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Maria Padron, Billie Townsend MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Nolte, Mark Signs STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: By a vote of CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CASE NO. REZ22-0009: Consideration of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning to clarify historic preservation related regulations. Russett began the staff report noting that the proposed amendment is considered by staff to be code cleanup. There are four minor amendments that they're proposing tonight. The first is to clarify Historic Preservation exception applicability. The second is to remove the list of local landmarks, historic districts and conservation districts from being codified within the text of the code. The third item is to add an abbreviation for conservation overlay zones or OCD and the fourth is related to Public Hearing Notification procedures. All of these amendments have been reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office's CLG coordinator (certified local government coordinator), which is the State employee who works with historic preservation programs across the state and she had no concerns with the proposed amendment. The Historic Preservation Commission also recommended approval of these amendments at their meeting last week Russett stated the first proposed amendment is related to clarifying historic preservation, exception applicability and the Iowa City zoning code includes exceptions for historic preservation purposes. The code allows the Board of Adjustment to grant a special exception to waive or modify dimensional or site development standards in residential and commercial zones that would prevent use or occupancy of a property that's designated as a local historic landmark or registered in the National Register. It also allows the Board to grant a special exception to Planning and Zoning Commission June 15, 2022 Page 2 of 5 adaptively reuse a building that's designated as an Iowa City landmark or listed in the National Register to certain other uses that are typically not allowed in the zone. The proposed amendment would clarify that the exceptions apply to properties located in a historic district overlay zone (or zoned OHD), which includes both local historic districts and local historic landmarks. This does not change how staff has interpreted this section over the years historically, staff has applied this code section to both local landmarks and local districts, so this is for clarification purposes. The next amendment is to remove the list that's currently in the code of local historic landmarks, local historic districts and local conservation districts. These districts and landmarks will still exist, it will just take the list of all the districts and all the landmarks out of the code. Staff uses several methods to track historic properties, the main one is through the rezoning process when City Council adopts a rezoning and zones land OHD, or a historic district overlay. Staff also administratively keeps a list of all landmarks in all districts within the City and that's available on the City website. This separate list that's codified of all the districts and landmarks in the zoning code is not regularly updated and is redundant from the rezoning ordinance that are adopted by Council, so staff is recommending that they be removed from the code and instead rely on the ordinances that are adopted by Council and the staff administrative lists. The third is to add an abbreviation for conservation overlay zone or OCD. This abbreviation is on the zoning map, but it's not within the zoning code. This will allow the zoning text to be consistent with the zoning map. The last proposed amendment is related to the public notification procedures for public hearings at the Historic Preservation Commission. Russett explained after receipt of an application for a historic landmark, or a local historic district or local conservation district, the zoning code requires that a public notice be mailed. However, the current requirements have been a source of confusion and complaints from property owners, so the proposed amendment would clarify the staff's mailing procedures and who gets notified of the proposed rezoning. The code also requires that proposed local historic districts, local historic landmarks and local conservation districts be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office for review, however, the State will not review local historic landmarks or local conservation districts so the code is going to be updated to clarify that the State will only review local historic districts and that will help align City policy with State policy related to those reviews. Russett did note planning staff is also working with the City Attorney's Office on some minor text changes to the mailing procedures. Staff is recommending that the zoning code be amended as illustrated in the memo to address numerous code cleanup items related to historic preservation. Padron asked regarding the OCD when reading the entire wording, why doesn't it match. Russett doesn't know why it was set up that way but it's the same for historic district overlays, which are OHD, so for some reason, the abbreviation has the 0 come first and this is just staying consistent with how it's done. Planning and Zoning Commission June 15, 2022 Page 3 of 5 Craig asked for some background on the State Historical Preservation Office, she looked at their website briefly but couldn't really see where their charter came from or what they have the authority to do. Russett explained they give some discretion to the historic preservation commissions, but they operate the certified local government program and there are certain benefits and incentives that come along with being a certified local government such as access to grants and technical assistance. Craig asked if there are some state tax benefits of being in a historical district, or just local. Russett confirmed that SHPO also deal with the state historic preservation tax credits. She added they also would review any national register nomination that the City would propose and review a proposal for a local historic district. Hensch noted he is surprised that the was put in the code since it could be constantly changing, therefore this amendment makes perfect sense. He also was surprised to learn that State Historic Preservation Office isn't interested or won't review the local historic landmark designations, he just assumed that's what they did. Hensch opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Hensch closed the public hearing. Padron moved to recommend that the Zoning Code be amended as illustrated in Attachment 1 to address code clean-up items relating to historic preservation. Seconded by Craig. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: MAY 18, 2022: Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of May 18, 2022. Martin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett gave some Council related updates, first, Council recommended denial of the proposed MidAmerican substation in the County. Council did recommended approval of the accessory dwelling unit on American Legion Road in the County. They adopted the drinking establishment text amendment related to the door between the drinking establishment and the retail use and they adopted the text amendment related to private basic utilities in P zones. Council also approved the final plat for Hickory Trail. Russett also announced today is Commissioner Martin's last meeting and presented her with a Planning and Zoning Commission June 15, 2022 Page 4 of 5 certificate of appreciation for more than 10 years of service to the community as a member of the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission. Craig wondered if staff could talk a little bit about the conversation about the North Side becoming a SSMID. Russett noted the City hasn't received an application or anything. Craig noted it might just be somebody floating an idea, there was an article in the Press Citizen. ADJOURNMENT: Townsend moved to adjourn. Craig seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-1 (Martin in the negative as it was her last meeting). PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2021-2022 KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member 7/1 7/15 8/5 8/19 9/2 9/16 10/7 10/21 11/4 1/5 2/2 2/16 3/2 4/20 5/4 5/18 6/15 CRAIG, SUSAN X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X HENSCH, MIKE X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X O/E O/E O/E X O/E X O/E X X O/E X X X X X X NOLTE, MARK X X X O/E X O/E O/E X X 0 0 X O/E X O/E X 0 PADRON, MARIA X X X X X X X O/E X O/E X X X X X O/E X SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X O/E TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 9, 2022 EMMA HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Carl Brown, Kevin Boyd, Sharon DeGraw, Cecile Kuenzli, Kevin Larson, Jordan Sellergren, Noah Stork, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Margaret Beck, Deanna Thomann STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow, Kirk Lehmann OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Nolan RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Boyd called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none CONSENT AGENDA: CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 502 Clark Street in Clark Street Conservation District Bristow said that the original house was relocated to the back of the lot and the new house was built around 1948. Additions were made before there was a Conservation District and are grandfathered in. These included a garage and breezeway. This project includes removing interior walls and a deck. This area will be filled in and a deck will be added in a different location. Some of the old roof will be removed to allow for the addition and replaced with a gabled roof. Bristow presented slides of the new project and described the addition. There will be a single full -light door and pairs of windows. The original window pattern was single windows, but the back contains pairs that would be matched. The deck will match the trim and shingled siding. Guidelines call for the deck to be set in 8 inches from the side walls. This won't make it invisible, but it would make it less so. Nolan, from Horizon Architecture, stated they have no issues with the staff recommendations. MOTION: Sellergren moved to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 502 Clark Street as presented in the application, with the following conditions: The full light door is wood or fiberglass, the new windows are wood or metal clad wood matching the window configuration on the house, the windows in the addition are either single or separated with wood trim if paired, and the deck is revised to be set in 8 inches from the north wall of the original house. DeGraw seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Beck and Thomann absent). CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 14, ZONING The purpose of this amendment is to clarify historic preservation related regulations. Lehmann stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission was reviewing code and the chair of that HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 14, 2022 Page 2 of 4 commission asked for recommendations on four preservation related items. 1) Historic Preservation exceptions that are allowed within zoning code. This change would clarify that the use is for both the Historic District Overlay zone and historic landmarks. This is consistent with the way it is being interpreted now. 2) Remove the list of local landmarks, historic districts, and conservation districts from the zoning code. This information is defined and tracked elsewhere. 3) Add OCD abbreviation for conservation districts into the zoning code language to align with other documentation. 4) Clarify historic preservation commission procedures: define the process for mailing public notices, and only send items to the State Historic Preservation Office that they need to review. Commissioners had numerous questions and concerns about these changes and Lehmann responded with clarifications and answers. Kuenzli stated that she thought Item 2, removal of the list of properties, would be confusing for the public and Stork agreed. Kuenzli added that the text does not accurately represent who approves exemptions related to historic preservation. Boyd was concerned that the changes weren't originally going to be sent to HPC for feedback. He stated that he sent an email to city staff requesting that HPC be involved in the review process, but his request was denied. He then sent a letter to the Planning and Zoning Chair and Commission. They responded that they would pass it on. He wanted to know what happened between the time he initially emailed and approval for HCP to review. Boyd also requested adding the landmark list and map to the city website. All agreed and the motion was amended. MOTION: Brown moved to approve the zoning code to be amended as illustrated in attachment 1 to address numerous code cleanup items related to historic preservation. Amended to include that the city makes all landmarks available to the public on the website. Wagner seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Beck and Thomann absent). REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF. Certificate of No Material Effect - Chair and Staff Review. 630 Ronalds Street Bristow noted this is for a new foundation and is in the Brown Street Historic District Minor Review - Staff Review. 228 South Summit Street This project replaces the railing on all of the balconies on this landmark property 737 Grant Street The rear stoop will be replaced and extended slightly to create an easy transition to the driveway. 914 Dearborn Street The front balustrade will be replaced with a similar attachment. A full replacement of the front stoop would change the attachment 918 Iowa Avenue A rear step and stoop are being replaced. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 14, 2022 Page 3 of 4 625 South Governor Street This project is a new garage off the alley. Since the garage follows the guidelines, will match the house and will be located where there is no garage currently, it could be staff reviewed. 727 Rundell Street This owner has been completing several projects including this solar installation which will be located on the south -facing slope of this front -gabled bungalow. 431 North Van Buren Street Along with repair of all of the other windows, one window in this house will have new sashes since the original configuration has been altered. Intermediate Review - Chair and Staff Review 2525 Highlander Place The Commission previously approved extensive rehabilitation of the property including the return of south and west entrance canopies to their historic configuration. This minor change was to also replace all of the guest room windows with new windows more closely matching the original configuration. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR MAY 12, 2022: MOTION: DeGraw moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's May 12, 2022, meeting, as written. Sellergren seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Beck and Thomann absent). COMMISSION DISCUSSION: 1) Historic Preservation Awards. Beck, Boyd, DeGraw, Kuenzli, and Wagner will be on the awards committee. They will find a date to meet. 2) Commissioner goodbyes: Boyd and others thanked retiring commission members DeGraw and Kuenzli for their service and shared stories. 3) Boyd shared his thoughts on Pride Week in Iowa City, along with some history of local oppression and comments of hope for continuing progress. ADJOURNMENT: Kuenzli moved to adjourn the meeting. DeGraw seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 6:29 pm. Minutes submitted by Kathy Fitzpatrick HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION April 14, 2022 Page 4 of 4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2021-2022 NAME TERM EXP. 7/08 7/21 8/12 9/09 10/14 11/18 12/9 01/13 2/15 3/10 4/14 5/12 6/9 BECK, MARGARET 6/30/24 X X X X X X X X X X -- X O/E BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/23 x X X X X X X X O/E X X X X BROWN, CARL 6/30/23 X O/E X X O/E O/E X O/E O/E X X O/E X DEGRAW, SHARON 6/30/22 O/E O/E X X X X O/E X X X X X X KUENZLI, CECILE 6/30/22 X X O/E X X X X X O/E X X X X KIPLE, LYNDI 6/30/22 X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- LARSON, KEVIN 6/30/24 x X O/E X O/E X X 0 X 0 -- X X SELLERGREN, JORDAN 6/30/22 X X X X X 0/EX X X X X X X STORK, NOAH 6/30/24 X X X O/E X X X X X O/E X O/E X THOMANN, DEANNA 6/30/23 O/E X X O/E X O/E O/E X X O/E X X O/E WAGNER, FRANK -- -- X X X X X X X X --X X KEY: X = Present 0 = Absent O/E= Absent/Excused --- = Nota Member Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann,Associate Planner,410 E.Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240;319-356-5247 ORDINANCE NO. 22-4884 Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code to clarify code language related to historic preservation. (REZ22-0009) Whereas, the City of Iowa City aims to make its Zoning Code as clear as possible; and Whereas, clarification is required that special exceptions for historic properties in residential and commercial zones applies to properties zoned with a historic overlay designation, including those zoned in a historic district and local historically zoned landmarks; and Whereas, Local Historic Landmarks, Local Historic Districts, and Local Conservation Districts are designated as such through rezoning ordinances and therefore need not be codified in the Zoning Code; and Whereas, it is in the public interest to clarify the public notice mailing procedures for Historic Preservation Commission; and Whereas, it is in the public interest to only require submittal of historic review applications to the State Historic Preservation Office that the State Historic Preservation Office will actually review; and Whereas, the State Historic Preservation Office completed a review of these changes on April 22, 2022 and noted no concerns with the changes; and Whereas, the Historic Preservation Commission recommended approval of these changes at their meeting on June 9, 2022; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of these changes at their meeting on June 15, 2022; and Whereas, it is in the City's best interest to adopt this ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: Section 1. Title 14 of the Iowa City Code is hereby amended by deleting the strikethrough text, adding the underlined text, and renumbering the subsequent paragraphs accordingly: Amend 14-2A-7B, Historic Preservation Exceptions, as follows B. Historic Preservation Exceptions: 1. The Bboard of Aadjustment may grant a special exception to waive or modify any dimensional or site development standards listed in this article or in chapter 5 of this title or any approval criteria listed in chapter 4, article E of this title that would prevent use or occupancy of a property located in a Historic District Overlay (OHD) low or registered on the national register of historic places. In addition to Ordinance No. 22-4884 Page 2 the general special exception approval criteria set forth in chapter 4, article B of this title, the following approval criteria must be met: a. The modification or waiver will help preserve the historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property; b. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Hhistoric Ppreservation Ccommission. 2. The Bboard of Aadjustment may grant a special exception to allow a property located in a Historic District Overlay (OHD) designated as or registered on the national register of historic places to be adapted and reused as a community service use, specialized educational facility, or hospitality oriented retail use. In addition to the general special exception approval criteria listed in chapter 4. article B of this title, the applicant must also meet the following criteria in order for the Bboard to grant this exception: a. The exception is necessary to preserve the historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property. b. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Hhistoric Ppreservation Ccommission. Amend 14-2B-8A, Historic Preservation Exceptions, as follows A. Historic Preservation Exceptions: 1. The Bboard of Aadjustment may grant a special exception to waive or modify any dimensional or site development standards listed in this article or in chapter 5 of this title or any approval criteria listed in : Y: r4 = of this title that would prevent use or occupancy of a property located in a Historic District Overlay (OHM or registered on the national register of historic places. In addition to the general special exception approval criteria set forth in chapter 4. article B of this title, the following approval criteria must be met: a. The modification or waiver will help preserve the historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property; b. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Hhistoric Ppreservation Ceommission. 2. The Bboard of Aadjustment may grant a special exception to allow a property located in a Historic District Overlay (OHD) designated an-owa or registered on the national register of historic places to be adapted and reused as a community service use, specialized educational facility, or hospitality oriented retail use. In addition to the general special exception approval criteria listed in chapter 4. article B of this title, the applicant must also meet the following criteria in order for the Bboard to grant this exception: a. The exception will help preserve the historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property; b. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Hhistoric Ppreservation Ceommission. Amend 14-2C-11A, Historic Preservation Exception, as follows A. Historic Preservation Exception: The Bboard of Aadjustment may grant a special exception to waive or modify any dimensional or site development standards listed in this article or in chapter 5 of this title or any approval criteria listed in chapter 4, article B of this title that would prevent use or occupancy of a property located in a Historic District Ordinance No. 22=4864 Page 3 Overlay (OHD) designated- 'ty-lan-draark or registered on the National Register of Historic Places. In addition to the general special exception approval criteria set forth in chapter 4, article B of this title, the following approval criteria must be met: 1. The modification or waiver will help preserve the historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes of the property. 2. The applicant must obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Ccommission. Delete 14-3B-1 D, Historic District Overlay Zone, Designated Resources, in its entirety. Amend 14-3B-2A, Purpose, as follows A. Purpose: The conservation district overlay (OCD) zone is used to designate conservation districts. The purpose of this overlay zone is to: 1. Conserve the unique characteristics of older neighborhoods and resources, including their architectural, historical and aesthetic qualities; 2. Provide for design review of new construction or alteration of existing resources to assure compatibility with the existing character of older neighborhoods and preserve the historic integrity of the resource; 3. Encourage the retention, rehabilitation and appropriate maintenance of existing buildings, structures and sites in older neighborhoods; 4. Stabilize property values and encourage reinvestment in older neighborhoods; and 5. Protect the environmental setting of historic landmarks and historic districts through the designation of conservation districts adjacent to historic landmarks and historic districts. Delete 14-3B-2D, Conservation District Overlay Zone, Designated Resources, in its entirety. Amend 14-8E-1C, Historic Preservation Commission Public Hearing, as follows C. Historic Preservation Commission Public Hearing: 1. Upon receipt of an application for historic landmark designation or following initiation of a proposal to designate a historic or conservation district, the historic preservation commission will hold a public hearing on the proposal. 2. The historic preservation commission will give notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of such public hearing • • • . Such notice slhallhe_sent bv_ordinarv_maiL ot_less than seven (7) days before the date the hearing is held, to the owner of record of each property or property interest at the owner's last known address as shown in the records of the Iowa City Assessor not more than fourteen (14) days prior to the date of mailing. A change in ownership of any such property which is not reflected in the records of the Iowa City Assessor during the period those records are searched as above provided shall not affect the validity of the notice. An affidavit of mailing will be filed with the city clerk setting forth the date that notice was mailed and the names and addresses of all property owners notified pursuant to this subsection. 3. Following the public hearing, the historic preservation commission will consider a motion recommending approval of the proposed district or historic landmark. Ordinance No. 22-4884 Page 4 4. Upon approval of the motion, the historic preservation commission will submit an application to rezone the proposed area to historic district overlay or conservation district overlay, whichever is applicable. For properties proposed as local historic landmarks, an application for a historic district overlay rezoning must be submitted. Amend 14-8E-1 D, State Historic Preservation Office Review, as follows D. State Historic Preservation Office Review: Following the public hearing before the historic preservation commission, any the proposal regarding a local historic district will be submitted to the state historic preservation office (SHPO)for review and recommendations. The city will make any recommendations made by the state historic preservation office available to the public for viewing during normal business hours at a city government place of public access. Any proposals regarding conservation districts and/or local historic landmarks need not be submitted to SHPO. Amend 14-8E-1 E, Planning and Zoning Commission Review, as follows 5. If the planning and zoning commission alters the area of the proposed district as approved by the historic preservation commission, the planning and zoning commission must submit a description of the altered proposed area or the petition describing the area to the state historic preservation office where required and the historic preservation commission for review and recommendations concerning the altered proposed district. Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof no adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval, and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this end day of August , 2022. i( ' r Approved Attest: (. ) City Clerk City Attorney's ice (Sara Greenwood Hektoen — 07/05/2022) Ordinance No. 22-4884 Page 5 It was moved by Bergus and seconded by Tayl or that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x Alter x Bergus x Harmsen x Taylor X Teague X Thomas x Weiner First Consideration 7/12/2022 Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner Second Consideration Vote for passage: Date published 8/11/2022 Moved by Weiner, seconded by Taylor, that the rule requiring ordinances to be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it is to be finally passed to be suspended, the second consideration and vote to be waived and the ordinance be voted upon for final passage at this time. AYES: Alter, Bergus, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner NAYS: None ABSENT: None �'��� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT Item Number: 15. CITY OF IOWA CITY August 2, 2022 Ordinance amending Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 8, entitled "Community Police Review Board," to clarify certain procedural provisions and to codify certain existing procedural practices. (First Consideration) Prepared By: Reviewed By: Fiscal Impact: Recommendations: Attachments: Susan Dulek, FirstAss't. City Attorney Geoff Fruin, City Manager none Staff: Approval Commission: CPRB recommended approval 6-0 at the 5/10/22 meeting CPRB recommended approval 6-0 at the 7/12/22 meeting Memorandum from CPRB 6/2/22 Memorandum from CPRB 7/13/22 Minutes of 5/10/22 CPRB meeting Minutes of 7/12/22 CPRB meeting (draft) Ordinance Executive Summary: In two Memorandums to the City Council, the Community Police Review Board (CPRB) proposed amendments to the CPRB ordinance. The proposed amendments would clarify certain existing procedural provisions and codify certain procedural practices of the CPRB. The ordinance adopts all recommendations contained in the memos. Background /Analysis: ATTACHMENTS: Description Minutes CPRB 5-10-22 Memorandum from CPRB 6/2/22 Minutes CPRB 7/12/22 (draft) Memorandum from CPRB 7/13/22 ordinance FINAL/APPROVED COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD MINUTES — MAY10, 2022 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Amanda Nichols called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ricky Downing, Melissa Jensen, Jerri MacConnell, Saul Mekies, Orville Townsend MEMBERS ABSENT: Stuart Vander Vegte STAFF PRESENT: Staff Kellie Fruehling, Tammy Neumann, Legal Counsel Patrick Ford OTHERS PRESENT: Iowa City Police Captain Scott Gaarde, CPRB Liaison — Councilor Laura Bergus RECOMMENATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept CPRB #22-01 Report (2) Accept CPRB #22-02 Report (3) Accept CPRB #22-03 Report (4) Accept CPRB #22-05 Report CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Townsend, seconded by Jensen, to adopt the consent calendar as presented. • Minutes of the meeting on 04/12/2022 • Minutes of the Community Forum on 04/20/2022 • ICPD General Order 00-01 (Search and Seizure) • ICPD Policy Manual — (306 Firearms) • ICPD Quarterly Summary Report IAIR/CPRB, 1st Quarter 2022 Motion carried 6/0, Vander Vegte absent. NEW BUSINESS Discussion of Draft Ordinance 8-8 Amendment Legal Counsel for the CPRB, Pat Ford, presented his proposed amendments to the Community Police Review Board ordinance. These amendments are to sections 8-8-5(6)(6), 8-8-7(B)(1), 8-8-7(6)(2), 8-8-7(B)(3), and 8-8-7(B)(4). The board discussed the proposed changes which are included in a memo from Pat Ford to the Board dated April 6, 2022 and is included in the CPRB meeting packet of May 10, 2022. Motion by Mekies, seconded by Nichols, to accept the proposed amendments to the Community Police Review Board ordinance as presented. Motion carried 6/0, Vander Vegte absent. CPRB May 10, 2022 OLD BUSINESS Community Forum: Nichols asked for a volunteer from the Board to write a summary of the Community Forum held on April 20, 2022. Mekies volunteered to write the meeting summary. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None BOARD INFORMATION MacConnell shared that there was recently a negative article written about police review boards and asked if the board would like to respond. Board members agreed that no response will be written. MacConnell asked for clarification regarding the Boards title, stating that while it is referred to as the Community Police Review Board, it is also referred to as the "Advisory Board. Nichols responded that the Board's title is the Community Police Review Board, and it reviews complaints and advises council on their recommendation, therefore, it is both. STAFF INFORMATION Townsend noted that there are times when a report is handwritten, and it is illegible. He asked what the Board's options are in these cases. Nichols suggested that the board would set the level of review at 8- 8-7(B)(1)(b), Interview/meet with the Complainant. Legal Counsel Pat Ford will draft this in a memo and send to the Board. Townsend suggested that there be a rotation schedule set for board members to write complaint reports. After some discussion, the board decided to table this suggestion. MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS • June 14, 2022, 5:30 p.m., Emma J. Harvat Hall • July 12, 2022, 5:30 p.m., Dale Helling Conference Room • August 9, 2022, 5:30 p.m., Emma J. Harvat Hall EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Jensen, seconded by MacConnell, to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried 6/0, Vander Vegte absent. Open session adjourned at 5:53 p.m. CPRB May 10, 2022 REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 7:03 p.m. Motion by Townsend, seconded by Jensen to accept the Public Report as amended for CPRB Complaint #22-01 and forward to City Council. Motion Carried 5/0, Nichols abstained, Vander Vegte absent. Motion by Townsend, seconded by Downing, to accept the Public Report as amended for CPRB Complaint #22-02 and forward to City Council. Motion Carried 5/0, Nichols abstained, Vander Vegte absent. Motion by MacConnell, seconded by Jensen, to accept the Public Report as amended for CPRB Complaint #22-03 and forward to City Council. Motion Carried 5/0, Nichols abstained, Vander Vegte absent. Motion by Townsend, seconded by Jensen, to accept the Public Report as amended for CPRB Complaint #22-05 and forward to City Council. Motion Carried 5/0, Nichols abstained, Vander Vegte absent. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Townsend, seconded by Jensen, to adjourn the meeting at 7:05. Motion carried 6/0, Vander Vegte absent. MEMORANDUM DATE: June 2, 2022 TO: City of Iowa City Council FROM: Community Police Review Board Members Re: proposed amendments to Ordinance 8-8 requested by the Community Police Review Board *************************************************************************************** ** The members of the CPRB request that the City Council consider adopting the following proposed revisions to the CPRB ordinance. (Suggested additions are shown with underlined text, and suggested deletions are shown with strikcthrough tcxt.) 1. Subsection 8-8-5(B)(6) shall be amended to read as follows: In the event the board's decision differs from that of the Police Chief, the Chief shall meet with the board in closed session to discuss the discrepancy of opinion. If the board requests the City Manager's presence at said meeting the City Manager will also attend. Such meeting shall take place prior to the issuance of the board's public report to the City Council. Within seven days after such meeting, the Police Chief and/or City Manager may, in the Police Chief's or City Manager's discretion, issue an amended investigative report for the board's consideration. 2. Subsection 8-8-7(B)(1) shall be amended to read as follows: The board shall review all Police Chief's reports and City Manager's reports concerning complaints. The board shall decide, on a simple majority vote, the level of review to give each Police Chief's or City Manager's report, and the board may select any or all of the following levels of review: a. On the record with no additional investigation. b. Interview/meet with complainant. c. Interview/meet with named officer(s) and other officers. d. Request additional investigation by the Police Chief or City Manager, or request police assistance in the board's own investigation. e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses. f. Hire independent investigators. 1 Any time after the board selects a level of review, the board may, on a simple majority vote, select any other or additional level of review. 3. Subsection 8-8-7(B)(2) shall be amended to read as follows: The board shall apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review when reviewing the Police Chief's or City Manager's report. This requires the board to give deference to the Police Chief's or City Manager's report because of the Police Chief's and City Manager's respective professional expertise. The board may recommend that the Police Chief or City Manager reverse or modify their findings issue a report that disagrees with the decision set forth in the Police Chief's and/or City Manager's report only if: a. The Police Chief's or City Manager's findings and/or conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence; b. The Police Chief's or City Manager's findings and/or conclusions are unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious; or c. The Police Chief's or City Manager's findings and/or conclusions are contrary to a Police Department policy or practice, or any Federal, State, or local law. 4. Subsection 8-8-7(B)(3) shall be amended to read as follows: If, in accordance with said standard, the board affirms the decision of the Police Chief or City Manager with respect to the allegations of misconduct but nonetheless has concern about the officer's conduct or police practices, policies, or procedures, it may so comment in its report to the City Council. If such comments are critical of the officer's conduct the board shall provide the officer a name clearing hearing pursuant to subsection B6 B7 of this section. When collecting and reviewing additional evidence, the board shall rely on evidence which reasonably prudent persons are accustomed to rely upon in the conduct of their serious affairs. 5. Subsection 8-8-7(B)(4) shall be amended to read as follows: If the board disagrees with the decision of the Police Chief or City Manager with respect to the allegations of misconduct, the board and the Police Chief and/or City Manager shall meet in closed session to discuss their disagreement about the complaint. If the board requests the City Manager's presence at its meeting with the Police Chief, the City Manager will also attend. Such meeting shall take place prior to the issuance of the board's public report to the City Council. Within seven days after such meeting, the Police Chief and/or City Manager may, in the Police Chief's or City Manager's discretion, issue an amended investigative report for the board's consideration. 6. The following shall be inserted as new subsection 8-8-7(B)(5), and the subsequent subsections shall be re -numbered accordingly: 2 Any time prior to the issuance of the board's public report to the City Council, any member of the board may make a motion to vote again on whether to sustain or not sustain the complaint. 7. Subparagraph 8-8-7(B)(5) of shall be re -numbered as subparagraph (B)(6). 8. Subparagraph 8-8-7(B)(6) of shall be re -numbered as subparagraph (B)(7). 9. Subparagraph 8-8-7(B)(7) of shall be re -numbered as subparagraph (B)(8). 10. Subparagraph 8-8-7(B)(8) of shall be re -numbered as subparagraph (B)(9). 11. Subparagraph 8-8-7(B)(9) of shall be re -numbered as subparagraph (B)(10). 12. Subparagraph 8-8-7(B)(10) of shall be re -numbered as subparagraph (B)(11). 3 DRAFT COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - JULY 12, 2022 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Amanda Nichols called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ricky Downing (5:50 p.m.), Melissa Jensen, Jerri MacConnell, Saul Mekies, Amanda Nichols, Orville Townsend, Stuart Vander Vegte MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Staff Tammy Neumann, Legal Counsel Patrick Ford OTHERS PRESENT: Iowa City Police Chief Dustin Liston RECOMMENATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept the proposed amendments to the CPRB Bylaws and Ordinance — See memos from CPRB Legal Counsel Ford included in the 6/2/22 and 7/28/22 information packet. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Townsend, seconded by Jensen to adopt the consent calendar as presented. • Minutes of the meeting on 06/14/2022 • ICPD General Order 99-03 (Prisoner Transport) • ICPD Use of Force Review/Report March • ICPD Memorandum — Quarterly Summary Report IAIR/CPRB, 2nd Qtr. 2022 Motion carried 6-0, Downing absent. NEW BUSINESS Proposed Revisions to the CPRB Bylaws: Memos re: Proposed Revisions to CPRB Bylaws — Patrick Ford Legal Counsel Ford reviewed his proposed revisions to the CPRB Bylaws. Amendments include updating Section 1 of Article III to seven members (previously five); an addition to Section 12, Article V that states that a "majority vote is required for adoption of any motion"...by every member of the board" to "who is present at a meeting where a motion is put to vote"; Section 13, Article V adding that the newly revised Roberts Rules of Order "shall govern the Board in all cases to which they are applicable in which they are not inconsistent with the Chapter 8, Title 8 of the Iowa City Code of Ordinances"; and Article X revised to state that an affirmative vote of "no less than three" to "a majority of the members of the Board..." MacConnell noted that the bylaws do not mention that there is a requirement that one of the seven board members be a peace officer who has been retired for five years and that as far as she knew there wasn't a vote to remove that requirement. Ford explained what MacConnell was referring to is CPRB July 12, 2022 included in the ordinance and not the bylaws. Ford then asked if the amendment to the ordinance had been voted on by City Council. Chief Liston said his recollection was that the Council discussed the request and voted to reimplement the requirement that an officer that was employed by the City of Iowa City not be appointed to the board until they had been absent from that position for at least two years (previously five years). Townsend expressed he thinks the ordinance should state "whenever possible" the board will include one peace officer. Jensen pointed out that she can serve the role of peace officer on the board. Proposed Revisions to the CPRB Ordinance: Legal Counsel Ford recommended a revision to Ordinance 8-8-8(B)(2) which currently states, "The Board shall decide the level of review to give the Police Chief's or City Manager's report by a simple majority vote of all members of the board" to "...approved "by a simple majority vote. Ford noted that there is a conflict, as it reads now, between sections 8-8-8(B)(2) and section 8-8-7(B)(1). Ford stated 8- 8-7(6)(1) provides a vote to set the level of review is made on a simple majority vote which means the vote is approved by a majority of the members in attendance and 8-8-8(B)(2) is written as it would require a vote be approved by a simple majority of all members of the board. Townsend expressed his concern when voting on a critical matter that perhaps it should be by a vote of the entire board explaining that if only four members were present and three of them are considered a majority, it may not be a good representation of the entire boards' preference. Ford noted that it is something to consider and that it would be up to the Board. Mekies noted that requiring a majority of the entire board could complicate the process. Ford explained to those present that the ordinance addresses the guts of what the board does while the bylaws state, in general, how a meeting is run and how the items are voted on. After some discussion, the board agreed with the changes presented by Ford. Motion by Mekies, seconded by Vander Vegte to accept the proposed amendments to the CPRB Bylaws and Ordinance. Motion carried 6-0, Downing absent. Language Interpretation Options: During the June 14, 2022 meeting, board members asked what options were available to the Board if interpretation services are necessary. Neumann distributed the "City of Iowa City Translation & Interpretation Guidelines" provided by the City Manager's Office. Neumann shared that the City does not provide interpretation services for public meetings and that most individuals will provide their own interpreter at their own expense. Nichols asked if the complaint forms are available in other languages. Neumann stated that forms are not available in other languages, however, the online information regarding the complaint process includes a language selection option through Google. The City has access to interpretation services such as Language Line at a cost of this service is $1.95 per hour. Staff has the ability to use an iPad for Google Translate. Townsend asked if someone needed translation services and could not provide their own, would the City deny their request. Neumann said that the City would investigate all available alternatives. (Downing arrived at 5:50 p.m.) CPRB July 12, 2022 CPRB Board Powers 8-8-8(B)(1): At a previous meeting, Nichols asked if the Board had the power to initiate a complaint if they had concerns regarding a situation that was made public through videos posted on social media, television, etc., and where no complaint had been filed. Ford shared that the ordinance states in section 8-8- 8(B)(1), "On its own motion, by a simple majority vote of all members of the board, the board may file a complaint." MacConnell, Mekies, and Downing all asked what kind of a situation would be cause for the board to file a complaint. Nichols noted that there was a recent incident where videos were released on social media and that because she had some concerns, of which she will elaborate on during executive session, she wanted to know if the board had the power to file a complaint. Jensen asked if this item came up from a previous discussion or if this was a proposed change to the ordinance. Nichols explained that at the June 14, 2022 meeting she had asked to add this item to the July agenda as she wanted clarification of this rule. Ford explained that what is being discussed is in a situation where no one on the board had personal knowledge of an incident but had seen a video that was broadcasted on television or shared on social media and had concerns, a board member could propose that the board file their own complaint. OLD BUSINESS Proposed revisions to Ordinance 8-8: The board continued discussion from the June 2022 meeting regarding a proposed revision to the ordinance. This revision would allow the Police Chief and/or the Board to request that the City Clerk contact a complainant for the purpose of clarifying any illegible words within the handwritten complaint. Neumann shared concerns from the City Clerk, Kellie Fruehling. Fruehling is not comfortable with staff gathering information solely over the phone without a signature from the complainant. She also noted that if staff asked for clarification and then sent the changes to the complainant, it is not likely they will return the item. At the June meeting, Townsend suggested that once the Clerk receives a complaint, that staff read through it and if they see anything of question that they then contact the complainant for clarification prior to routing. Fruehling explained that staff's role includes receiving the complaint and then routing through the necessary channels, and to support the board. It is not to determine if something is illegible or incomprehensible within the complaint. That is for the Board to determine. Chief Liston added that Fruehling does not want staff to get in the middle of the process. He added that the Police Department contacts a complainant when they find something of question, however, they often do not receive a return call/email from the complainant. Nichols noted that she thought this was covered within the Level of Review option 8-8-7(B)(1)(b), "Interview/meet with complainant." Townsend said that he has difficulty reading reports due to the light print. Neumann noted that these complaints are color, and the print does appear light, however, when changing the option to black and white, the type in the complaints have better clarity. She also noted that staff is still working with the I.T. Department to increase the size of the type within the reports. The board unanimously agreed to refer to the Level of Review Process 8-8-7(B)(1)(b) in cases where there is a question regarding legibility or the meaning of a complaint. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None BOARD INFORMATION CPRB July 12, 2022 None STAFF INFORMATION Neumann discussed the current process of sending complaints out to the Board. At this time, complaints are sent to the Board members upon receipt by the Clerk's Office. She reminded Board members that there is no video available and that the Board cannot discuss a complaint until after the Chief's Report is submitted to staff. She asked if Board members would agree to staff sending out the complaints with the Chief's Report as it seems to be causing some confusion when she is sending them prior to these items being available. Nichols agreed that this would help to lessen the confusion. Townsend expressed concern that if the complaints are received at the same time as the Chief's Report that the report could influence the board members view of the complaint. Ford asked Chief Liston how long it takes to process a video before it is ready for board members to view. Liston said that the videos are not available until after release of the Chief's Report. Motion by MacConnell, seconded by Jensen for staff to send out the CPRB complaints with the Chief's Report. Motion carried, 4/3, Downing, Mekies, Townsend voting no. MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS • August 16, 2022, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Room • September 13, 2022, 5:30 PM, Emma J. Harvat Hall • October 11, 2022, 5:30 PM, Emma J. Harvat Hall EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Nichols, seconded by MacConnell, to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion Carried 7/0. Open session adjourned at 6:34 p.m. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 7:06 p.m. Motion by Nichols, seconded by Mekies, to set the level of review for CPRB Complaint #22-06 at 8-8- 7(B)(1)(a) on the record with no additional investigation. Motion Carried 7/0. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Nichols, seconded by Townsend to adjourn the meeting at 7:07 p.m. CPRB July 12, 2022 Motion carried 7/0. MEMORANDUM DATE: July 13, 2022 TO: City of Iowa City Council FROM: Community Police Review Board Members Re: proposed amendments to Ordinance 8-8 requested by the Community Police Review Board ***************************************************************************************** The members of the Community Police Review Board request that the City Council consider adopting the following proposed revision to section 8-8-8(B)(2) of the CPRB ordinance (with suggested deletions are shown with Gtrikcthrough tcxt): The board shall decide the level of review to give the Police Chief's or City Manager's report by a simple majority vote of all members of the board. As is reads now, section 8-8-8(B)(2) conflicts with section 8-8-7(B)(1), which provides that a vote to set the level of review is made merely "on a simple majority vote", which means that the vote is approved by a majority of the members in attendance at the meeting. The phrase "by simple majority vote of all members of the board" in current Section 8-8- 8(B)(2) means that the vote must be approved by a majority of the full board (regardless of how many members attend the meeting at which the vote is made). �.r Prepared by: Susan Dulek, First Asst. City Attorney, 410 E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240(319)356-5030 Ordinance No. Ordinance amending Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 8, entitled "Community Police Review Board," to clarify certain procedural provisions and to codify certain existing procedural practices. Whereas, in Memorandums to the City Council dated June 2, 2022 and July 13, 2022, the Community Police Review Board (CPRB) proposed amendments to the CPRB ordinance; and Whereas, said amendments would clarify certain existing procedural provisions and codify certain procedural practices of the CPRB; and Whereas, it is in the City's interest to adopt these amendments. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. Amendments. 1. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 8, entitled "Community Police Review Board," Section 5, entitled "Police Department and Police Investigatory Duties; City Manager Investigative Duties," Subsection B6 is amended by adding the underscore text as follows: B6. In the event the board's decision differs from that of the Police Chief, the Chief shall meet with the board in closed session to discuss the discrepancy of opinion. If the board requests the City Manager's presence at said meeting the City Manager will also attend. Such meeting shall take place prior to the issuance of the board's public report to the City Council. Within seven (7) days after such meeting, the Police Chief or the City Manager may, in the Police Chief's or City Manager's discretion, issue an amended investigative report for the board's consideration. 2. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 8, entitled "Community Police Review Board," Section 7 entitled "Duties of Board; Complaint Review and General Duties," Subsection B1 is amended by adding the underscore text as follows: B1 . The board shall review all Police Chiefs reports and City Manager's reports concerning complaints. The board shall decide, on a simple majority vote, the level of review to give each Police Chiefs or City Manager's report, and the board may select any or all of the following levels of review: a. On the record with no additional investigation. b. Interview/meet with complainant. c. Interview/meet with named officer(s) and other officers. d. Request additional investigation by the Police Chief or City Manager, or request police assistance in the board's own investigation. e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses. f. Hire independent investigators. Any time after the board selects a level of review, the board may, on a simple majority vote, select any other or additional level of review. 3. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 8, entitled "Community Police Review Board," Section 7, entitled "Duties of Board; Complaint Review and General Duties," Subsection B2 is amended by adding the underscore text and deleting the strike-through text as follows: B2. The board shall apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review when reviewing the Police Chiefs or City Manager's report. This requires the board to give deference to the Police Chief's or City Manager's report because of the Police Chief's and City Manager's respective professional expertise. The board may Ordinance No. Page 2 issue a report that disagrees with the decision set forth in the Police Chief's or City Manager's report only if: a. The Police Chief's or City Manager's findings and/or conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence; b. The Police Chief's or City Manager's findings and/or conclusions are unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious; or c. The Police Chief's or City Manager's findings and/or conclusions are contrary to a Police Department policy or practice, or any Federal, State, or local law. 4. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 8, entitled "Community Police Review Board," Section 7, entitled "Duty of Board; Complaint Review and General Duties," Subsection B3 is amended by deleting "136" " and substituting in lieu thereof "B7." 5. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 8, entitled "Community Police Review Board," Section 7, entitled "Duty of Board; Complaint Review and General Duties," Subsection B4 is amended by adding the underscore text as follows: If the board disagrees with the decision of the Police Chief or City Manager with respect to the allegations of misconduct, the board and the Police Chief and/or City Manager shall meet in closed session to discuss their disagreement about the complaint. If the board requests the City Manager's presence at its meeting with the Police Chief, the City Manager will also attend. Such meeting shall take place prior to the issuance of the board's public report to the City Council. Within seven (7) days after such meeting, the Police Chief or City Manager may, in the Police Chief's or City Manager's discretion, issue an amended investigative report for the board's consideration. 6. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 8, entitled "Community Police Review Board," Section 7, entitled "Duty of Board; Complaint Review and General Duties," Subsection B is amended by adding the following underscore text, numbering it Paragraph 5, and renumbering existing Paragraphs 5 to 10 as Paragraphs 6 to 11 respectively: B5. Any time prior to the issuance of the board's public report to the City Council, any member of the board may make a motion to vote again on whether to sustain or not sustain the complaint. 7. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 8, entitled "Community Police Review Board," Section 8, entitled "Board Composition; Limited Powers of Board," Subsection B2 is amended by deleting the strike-through text as follows: B2. The board shall decide the level of review to give the Police Chiefs or City Manager's report by a simple majority vote of all members of the board. Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of , 2022. Mayor Ordinance No. Page 3 Attest: City Clerk Approved by •� City Attor ey's Office (Sue Dulek—07/28/2022) Ordinance No. Page 4 It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Alter Bergus Harmsen Taylor Teague Thomas Weiner First Consideration 8/2/2022 Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner NAYS: None ABSENT: None Second Consideration Vote for passage: Date published