Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-08-16 OrdinanceItem Number: 10.a. CITY OE IOWA CITY www.icgov.org August 16, 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). (Second Consideration) ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Report with Preliminary OPD and SADP Revised Preliminary OPD & SADP P&Z 7-6-22 Minutes Ordinance & CZA Welch - Request for expedited action Council correspondence 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 II Sensitive Areas Review is required, which requires review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approval by the City Council as part of the OPD rezoning process. The applicant conducted a Good Neighbor meeting on May 25, 2022. A summary of the meeting is included in Attachment 4. ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: The property is currently zoned Interim Development -Single-Family (ID-RS). The purpose of the ID -zones is to provide for areas of managed growth in which agricultural and other nonurban uses of land may continue until such time as the city is able to provide city services and urban development can occur. The interim development zone is the default zoning district to which all undeveloped areas should be classified until development occurs. Upon provision of city services, the city or the property owner may initiate rezoning to zones consistent with the comprehensive plan. In ID-RS zones, only plant related agricultural is allowed by right. 3 The ID-RS zone allows a limited number of land uses such as detached single-family homes, animal related commercial use, parks and open space, and agricultural uses. Approximately 0.31 acres of the subject property will remain ID-RS to accommodate an existing communications tower that received a special exception in 2009. Communications towers are not an allowed use in the RS-5 zone. Proposed Zoning: The planned development overlay zone (OPD) is intended to permit flexibility in the use and design of structures and land in situations where conventional development may not be appropriate. The Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) zone is intended to provide housing opportunities for individual households. The zone allows larger lot sizes and setbacks creating neighborhoods with a limited density. While the proposed development contains duplexes and a multi -family building, the OPD process allows for a mixture of uses in the RS-5 zone. General Planned Development Approval Criteria: Applications for Planned Development Rezonings are reviewed for compliance with the following standards according to Article 14-3A of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance. 1. The density and design of the Planned Development will be compatible with and/or complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass and scale, relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout. Density — The OPD/RS-5 zone allows for a density of 5 dwelling units per net acre of land area (total land minus public and private streets right-of-way). The proposed development includes 112 dwelling units on 57.65 net acres, including the existing home at 3106 Rochester Ave. The proposed density is 1.94 dwelling units per acre, which complies with the OPD/RS-5 density standard. Land Uses Proposed — The applicant is proposing 64 single-family detached residences and a senior living community consisting of 12 single-family units, 3 duplexes, and 29 senior multi -family units. The addition of the senior housing will increase the diversity of housing types and help to satisfy an ongoing need for senior housing in the city. To the north of the subject property is Harvest Preserve, which is a privately held, membership based open space area. It is staff's understanding that the property owner has no intention of developing this area. To the west is a small community off of Larch Lane that consists of a mix of two-family and three-family homes. Per the Preliminary OPD plans this community will be bordered by Outlot A, which consists of 18 acres of land that will be put into a conservation easement. To the south, across Rochester Avenue, is an existing single-family neighborhood. With the exception of the multi -family building, which is located at the intersection of two arterials and diagonally from the neighborhood's commercial center, the proposed development is an extension of the single-family community. In summary, the proposed plan continues the existing pattern of single-family development and concentrates the more intense land uses near the existing commercial center and major streets. Mass, Scale and General Layout — The development will be predominately house -scale buildings, including both single-family and duplex units. The multi -family building will be larger in scale; however, it will only be 2 stories. Additionally, the multi -family building will be required to comply with the Multi -Family Site Development Standards, which aim to promote attractive, pedestrian friendly neighborhoods by regulating parking, requiring screening of unsightly features and ensuring clearly identified pedestrian connections. Additionally, the applicant has requested two waivers. One waiver from the RS-5 lot width standards, and the other from the duplex corner lot standard. 4 The first waiver is from the RS-5 minimum lot width standard of 60' for the single-family units within the senior community. Instead, the applicant has requested a 56' lot width. The OPD rezoning process allows applicants to request waivers from certain development standards, including lot width. However, the following approval criteria must be met (14-3A-4K-1c): 1. The proposed modifications will not result in increased traffic congestion or a reduction in neighborhood traffic circulation. At the request of Transportation Planning staff, the applicant provided a traffic study. The study shows that the proposed development will not overburden the existing street system. More information on the traffic study is provided below. 2. Garages and off street parking areas must be located so that they do not dominate the streetscape. Alley or private rear lane access will be required, unless garages are recessed behind the front facade of the dwelling in a manner that allows the residential portion of the dwelling to predominate along the street. The applicant has provided staff with renderings and elevations of each of the future housing options that residents will have to choose from (Attachment 3), all of which have garages that are recessed from the front 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 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 a ,' 0.2 Miler. • r . F#CKQRYTRL L/tom 1 Cz 0 0 0 • P 0 ,72 Q , • • ■• • • • • • • • 1.■ • ti ■ • • • Ft CH ESTER Ate. -", 4 r EENMOU Attachment 1 Mounument Hills ushir � a 4 a -�y • • 4. 1.11114L ,. 40 kik 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. ieLvkti ti • • CITY OF IOWA CITY Prepared Byr Emit Brinkman Date Prepared, April 2022 MARVUST113QaSE • .73 r ` ▪ i i - f v`. - = v 4▪ xP Rezoning of approximately 0.3t 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). 74 • a, } �4�OVEFiC�*� -r :' ,. A NCH RD Ee e 2 .F0VELN; REZ22-0008 Attachment Mounument Hills 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 Miles I i I i I 1 1:1411106 11.& CITY OF IOWA CITY Prepared By: Emani Brinkman Date Prepared: April 2022 =n T 0 0 0 I An application submitted by Welch Design and Development, on behalf of Monument Farms LLC. for approval of a rezoning of approximately 65 acres of property located west of N. Scott Boulevard and north of Rochester Avenue from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Overlay Development(OPD/RS-5). c-) 70 FRURY:. 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). "HASTINGS AVE1. P1 e ^HANOVER-CT) RS12 �9NCy FST • . URY,CT �z 0 {z'� VE LNG Attachment 3 '.ff. -.-( 4 • r Lai N CALDER PARK CIY OF IOWA CIS' z w J w z w L) a ROCH ESTER HILLS CONDOMINIUM HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC ',v...? 71 • , • • I PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN MONUMENT HILLS d 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 WL BUFFER - 100' 0 75 150 225 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 J. WELCH, PE PO BOX 679 NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 (319) 214-7501 SHEET INDEX SHEET C1,00 C1.10 C1.20 C1.30 C2.00 C2.10 SHEET NAME COVER SHEET REGULATED SLOPES WOODLANDS WETLANDS OVERALL CONCEPT PLAN CO-OPERATIVE SITE PLAN ENGINEER: CLIENT: design +development MONUMENT HILLS, LLC PROJECT NAME: REVISION LOG: MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA DESCRIPTION REZONING - CITY COMMENTS REZONING - WETLANDS UPDATE REZONING - REMOVE AMHURST ST REZONING - CITY COMMENTS REZONING - CITY COMMENTS DATE 04-27-22 05-10-22 05-20-22 06-20-22 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: AND ❑EVELOPMENT 6 r-J 3 n 0 E_ u O N 94- o N .� NN d d N 0 a HARVEST PRESERVE FAOUNDATtpN „JLCu. IT r 1 A • _ 1 1. tfl HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC 1 1' 1 1 O 1 1 a1 1 1 ACT, INC 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% MONUMENT FARMS, LLC IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPES: LOCATION .a B.10 B.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 DESCRIPTION DATE B REZONING - CITY COMMENTS REZONING - WETLANDS UPDATE REZONING - REMOVE AMHURST ST REZONING - CITY COMMENTS REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 04-27-22 05-10-22 05-20-22 06-20-22 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 0 0 a 6 0 r N 0 0 E N 0 U a NN 0 m N 1!. occa 1! ``II I'I N , ,� R CITY OF • IIIOWA CITY.. a HARVEST PRESERVE FOUN`DAT�ON w LELC HARVEST �PiRESEAVE, rF51 1 DA VI O N p--' •_ o i 0 HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC MONUMENT FARMS, LLC \ \ ACT, INC MONUMENT FARMS, LLC 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 ENGINEER: CLIENT: 0 50 100 150 200 WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 1" = 100' design+development MONUMENT HILLS, LLC PROJECT NAME: REVIS REV B C D E F ON LOG: MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA DESCRIPTION REZONING - CITY COMMENTS REZONING - WETLANDS UPDATE REZONING - REMOVE AMHURST ST REZONING - CITY COMMENTS REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 04-27-22 05-10-22 05-20-22 06-20-22 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: AND ❑EVELOPMENT 6 ED w E v1 0 U N r.• 0 1 N o ruu N 0 cn d N 0 0z N 2-4 'CIS OF • I JI IOWA CITY �4L lL ROCHESTER HILLS CONDOMINIUM HARVEST PRESE FO U NDATtD N wL �-f 4. / HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC I 36' f fi er f/ \\ % 100' • 100' 7• BUFFER REDUCED PER SECTION 14-5I-6E-3 A�RV-++ E 1N 1 „ VL 1 L II CONSTRUCTION LIMIT DICTATED BY PUBLIC SIDEWALK ALONG ROCHESTER AVE r L qF • 100' r� 'cn 4L 100' HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC WETLAND FILL REQUIRED FOR ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION WETLAND FILL R QUIRED IOR ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION 1. 1. ‘,0\1\000si 5c0covkiika CONSTRUCTION LIMIT DICTATED y BY PUBLIC SIDEWALK ALONG�__L_ 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. HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC WETLAND AREA 2 TAG AREA (SF) 9,230 8,399 TOTAL BUFFER (100-FOOT) 103,782 BUFFER - REDUCTIONS SUBTOTAL BUFFER - ADDITIONS CD 17,629 3,063 830 3,893 65,300 BUFFER - NET CHANGE + 61,407 MONUMENT FARMS, LLC WETLAND AREA 3 TAG AREA (SF) 6,782 3,314 23,805 TOTAL 33,901 BUFFER (100-FOOT) 236,372 BUFFER - REDUCTIONS SUBTOTAL BUFFER - ADDITIONS 51,549 9,149 1,739 62,437 77,881 BUFFER - NET CHANGE + 15,444 WETLAND AREA 4 TAG ACT, INC AREA (SF) 21,830 BUFFER (100-FOOT) 242,503 BUFFER - REDUCTIONS SUBTOTAL BUFFER - ADDITIONS SUBTOTAL 566 3,776 6,052 10,394 7,120 4,662 21,096 28,799 BUFFER - NET CHANGE + 18,405 MONUMENT FARMS, LLC 1 WETLAND AREA 5 TAG I H 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 ENGINEER: CLIENT: 50 100 150 200 WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34' SHEET 1" = 100' design+development MONUMENT HILLS, LLC PROJECT NAME: REVISION LOG: MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA DESCRIPTION DATE REZONING - CITY COMMENTS REZONING - WETLANDS UPDATE REZONING - REMOVE AMHURST ST REZONING - CITY COMMENTS REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 04-27-22 05-10-22 05-20-22 06-20-22 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: AND ❑EVELOPMENT ,[41 TT I I - 10'-WIDE TRAIL CONNECTION T41 CALDER PARK �y� J — J d17 1 1k\ 1 HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC 20' ACCESS EASEMENT FOR LOT 66 � tfA PROVIDE RAISED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING TO PROVIDE❑ TRAFFIC CALMING ALONG ALLISON DRIVE LOT 9 OUTLOT A LOT 5 LOT 8 RAISED CROSSING - SOUTH OUTLOT A RAISED CROSSING - NORTH ACT, I N C .1 0 50 100 150 WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 1" = 1001 200 MONUMENT FARMS, LLC PARCEL "A" 0.55 Ac 23,820 SF LOT 61 _ R15' HERON DRIVE R50' LOT 23 T TRAFFIC CIRCLE — NOTES & LEGEND: UNIT TYPES: SENIOR TWIN -HOME 45'x55' LOT 21 SENIOR CONDO : RANCH 42502'-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" I5 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 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 REZONING - WETLANDS UPDATE 05-10-22 REZONING - REMOVE AMHURST ST 05-20-22 E REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-20-22 F REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-30-22 SHEET NAME: OVERALL CONCEPT PLAN - PRELIM. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY & SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT NO: 1026 PROJECT MANAGER: WELCH REVISION: F ISSUED DATE: 06-30-2022 SHEET NUMBER: C2.00 AND ❑EVELOPMENT 6 uJ a 3 ED En E d 0 u • N n o N u N O • o • N 0 d o dA_ 13 26,864 _ 4\ 1 11 1 1 PRIVATE OPEN SPACE (TYPICAL) AEI [Cm PRIVATE OPEN SPACE (TYPICAL) xl� SHARED OPEN SPACE 2,200 SF 343,468 EXISTING WETLANDS WILL BE FILLED VIA USACE NATION-WIQ PERMIT #29 - r' 1 ;21 �Ltt• r ray 1, 0 rri 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. 20 40 60 WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 1" = 40' .5., 80 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 OPEN SPACE: OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS MULTI -FAMILY 10 SF / BEDROOM LEGEND: UNIT TYPES: TWIN -HOME BUILDING ENVELOPE 70 STALLS 12 STALLS 4 STALLS 86 STALLS 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) 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 1 L___J elnrrI^IrrInrinrn 15,400 SF ENGINEER: welch design+development CLIENT: MONUMENT HILLS, LLC PROJECT NAME: MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA REVISION LOG: REV DESCRIPTION DATE 8 REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 04-27-22 C REZONING - WETLANDS UPDATE 05-10-22 D REZONING - REMOVE AMHURST ST 05-20-22 REZONING - CITY COMMENTS REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-20-22 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 HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC WL WL - STREET TREES SHALL BE INSTALLED BY LOT OWNER DURING HOME CONSTRUCTION. 01-LTT 01-QMC O1-QRL 01-OVE 01-QMC 01-QXW 01-COH 9,592 01-QRC 01-NSB Oi-QBS 01-CCT 01-QRL • 01-PTN O1-GDE 8,700 01-GDE 01-CCT • 01-GDE 01-PXA O1-NSB O1-Qxw C4 01-TMH 15,110 01-QMC 01-QRC 01-COH .,„ 01-AAS \C\ 'OACV\ 9,0 01-COH 01-PXA 01-NSB 01-TMH 01-QMC 9,498 Q1-PXA 01-ORC 01-CBF 01-TMH 01-GIRL 01-LSR 01-CCT 01-QMC 01-TMH 0i-TTP HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC 1fo1-TTP 9,8 O1-QRL 01-CBF 17 10,042 6.55 Ac 285,496 SF LANDSCAPE LEGEND 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 o ACT, I N C MONUMENT FARMS, LLC PARCEL "A" 0.55 Ac 23,820 SF 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 5F 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 A B DESCRIPTION REZONING APPLICATION REZONING - CITY COMMENTS REZONING - CITY COMMENTS DATE 04-28-22 06-16-22 06-30-22 SHEET NAME: LANDSCAPE PLAN OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PROTECT NO: 1026 REVISION: B PROJECT MANAGER: WELCH ISSUED DATE: 06-30-2022 SHEET NUMBER: L-01 // // mil, / 14 15,274 13 26,864 Oc 1 LA 19 8,706 17 10,042 16 10,050 15 10,095 U es[9n 02-PFV t 01-PAN 02-LT1- I 01-LTT I I'- 1 01-TMH 1 02-AXG 01-BPF HERON CIRCL 02-PSE 03-PTN 03-AXG 01-QRL 02-PFV 201-LSR 01-AXG 01-SPD 02-GDE 07-CCN 01-GDE 01-LSR 01-SPD 01-PAN - 02-LTT 03-PXA 02-AXG 01-LSR 01-CVW 40' BUILDING SETBACK (ARTERIAL) 01-GDE 02-CCH 01-PAN 02-NSB 01-QRL 01-SPD 03-PTN 02-CAP 02-PFV 02-SPD 02-SPD 03-BPF 01-PAN 01-AXG 03-PSE 02-QRL 04-CAS 04-JXP 02-SPD 2-STORY BUILDING 29 UNITS 1 02-TMH 07-CVW q"► 65 343,468 MONUMENT FARMS, LLC rn J m O 02-PGD 01-LSR 02-TMH 01-QRL 04-PTN 0 20 40 60 80 WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x3.4" 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 = 1,764,016 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 LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCHEDULE: SHEET L-01 GENERAL LANDSCAPE PLANTING NOTES: 01 CONTRACTOR TO LOCATE ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK, CONTACT IOWA ONE CALL I1-800.292-8989j 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" IANSI Z601-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.S. 08 PLANTING 501L: 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 A5 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 CLJT 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. 1E1 AS NEEDED, STAKE ALL NEWLY PLANTED TREES RELATIVE TO WIND EXPOSURE- ALL PLANTS SHALL BE SET PLUMS 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 & S0D 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: ID QTY. I BOTANICALICOMMON 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' 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 fER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE CCT 7 Corylus caluma TURKISH FILBERT BB 40-60' H X 25-35' W; PLANT SEE: 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 60-60' 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 BB70-130' 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; PLANTSIZE_ 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 DLAME I ER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE QBS 7 Quercus bicolor SWAMP WHITE OAK BB 50-75' H X 40-70' W; PLANT SQE: 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 SEE: MIN- OF 1 5" TRUNK DIAMEI ER 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 St E' MIN, OF 1.5" TRUNK DAMME 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 mom olica'Harvest Gold' MONGOLIAN LINDEN BB 25-45' H X 20-30' W; PLANT SEE: MIN- OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE TIP 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 & SHRUI3 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 TRUNKTAPER 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. t ••• es totes tir• •• fr: • x tiro • r JIJ 4r� • -I I • 1. •• 6611.1 • ■ • h !••▪ :• sr- P• .r ▪ ■L ■e • Ibler"?itr- "8-4,1:71?..•;;;qa ::•• tit• *�• 1•' ��r ••,_ .' • • •:'� • .:.Fs'•_•'■••ti••' : •• • • U i• • • ■ 1 :■:. : t. ..•• • rs, • ..:*`• • r • ••.fi • • • e VARIES • 1. =1IIAIHIHIH1I-1 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. 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 UNDISTURBED SOIL. 11 ONLY LIGHTLY PRUNE AND REMOVE DAMAGED OR DEAD BRANCHES. 12 SPADE EDGING, TYP. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON PLAN. 13 REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR PLANT SPACING, LOCATIONS. 14 6" MINIMUM WIDER HOLE THAN CONTAINER ON ALL SIDES. =1 I HI I I=I-I I II I=1 11=1 11= VARIES I I-1 I -III 11-111 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 sylvatica 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 QRL 6 Quercus rubra 'Long' RED OAK BB 60-75' HX 45-50' W: PLANT SIZE: MIN. 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 $IB: 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 SI7P 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 BB25-35' 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 BB15-25' 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 abi es 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 Juniperus 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) 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. S'-0" O.C. 03 INSTALL FENCING 5' BEYOND DRIP LINE OF PROTECTED TREE. -44 ELEVATION stC.:% S• e • ms " • • .. P• ti ti• • i1 • •• : •. r II=1 I III -III -III -I ���1L1TI I I 5 • •.• PLAN 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 A REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-16-22 REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-30-22 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 BI TI LI I \ EWE EIS 9. _ Y • 0, I OFRONT SCALE: 16. 0 LEFT HOLD ALL SIDING AND TRIM MIN. 6. ABOVE GRADE CONCRETE SLOPE TO GRADE MAIN PLT. HT. _ _ MAIN FLOOR 0" Keynote Legend Key Value I MonateTat On BRACKET eNTRIXINOwB COLUMN WRAP • OR• TRIM OUT COLUMN L 6 6" ALUMINUM FASCIA OR SI ALUMINUM RAKE EXTERIOR WALL LIGHT 1.1 MASONRY- CULTURED STONE MASONRY- STONE CAP RI Si c� 99NC) HARIASPHAE-PPLANK SHINGLES MAX EXPOSURE 88 33 (succu PANEL) RAMIE PANEL (BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING), YB BATTENS ON SMOOTH PANEL MOING ) )SHAME SIDING) [...ER TRIM a a. ORM �RANTEDTRIM n a. TRIM Anne -MOWS CR FRONT ELEVATOR OH, I T1 I SI T1 I ()BACK O. RI HOLD ALL SIDING AND ERN IAN. 6. ABOVE GRADE O RIGHT u4 06090 D IM aSOVS GRAOE� FIREPLACE OPTION TRANSOM WINDOWS MAIN PLT. HT. 1/8" SI. H.H, Y MAIN WINN6' . H.H.0" -1 MAIN FLOOR" T.O.F. 19-137.2 VINTAGE ESTATES - A200 LI NOTE ADD B.CK FE, BEHIND ALL DORMER WINDOWS MAIN 9' PLT. HT. -1 118" /b J OFRONT SCALE: I/ O LEFT I N `HOLD ABOVEGRADEIP' MAIN_WIN. H.H. MAIN FLOOF $ O BACK I-0 O RIGHT NW Wire I Ng,. INN BRACKET WKP36K12%161E COLUMN WRAP • OR • TRIM OUT COLUMN 6" ALLNANUM FASCIA OR S" ALUMINUM RARE EXTERIOR WALL USW' MI MASONRY- CULTURED STONE MASONRY- STONE CAP LAMINATED ASPHALT ROOF SHINGLES SI (LAP WING) HANME-PLANK WMNo-r MAX EXPOSURE (STOOLS PANW/ HARDIE PANEL (BOARD AND BATTEN WINO) VERTICAL WINO AND MARNE TRW (SMOKE WING) PAINTED wool E CONNER TRIM 4" PAINTED TRIM S. OVER S. PANTED TRIM 7'. OVER IR" PAINTED TRIM 4.1111M AT VINMOWS ON FRONT ELEVATION ONLY I 7 7 1 HOLD ALL SIONG AND TRIM MIN. 6' ABOVE GRADE MAINN PLT. HT. $ 9' -. MAIN WIN. H.H..yr 6' - 10' _ MAIN FLOOR J� M=ovEcrfg T.O.F. TRANSOM FIREPLACE OPTION 19-137.2 Z J d w H H H CI)< w J w Uw w 0 cc a z aU> A200 OFRONT ADD BLACK FEIT BEHIND ALL DORMER WINDOWS LI= G CRETE SLOPE TO GRADE r ABOVE GRADE L I I n uJ PLT. RT. MAIN WIIv.ri,ry. h 8-10 q _ _ MAIN OR FLO 0" MAIN FLOOR J1 0"l� I Pt O BACK 0LEFT A ®RIGHT 19-137.4 w Q H w 0D w Q d J VINTAGE ESTATES A200 Key Value I A yn:4 ,.n BB DECO:WIVE BRACKET CI flS. COLUMN WRAP • mmN OUT COLUMN OR ALIAMNUM FASCIA OM S"ALUMINUM RAKE L MI EXTERIOR WALL LIGHT MASONRY. CULTURED STONE MB RI MASONRY. STOM CAP LAMINATED ASPHALT ROOF SHINGLES SY R RAP SUNG) BARO pLna SWINGY' MAXEXPOSURE (BOARD AND BATTEN MDING1143 BATTENS ON SMOOTH PANEL SEWS ( (SHAKE SIDING) PAINTED HARDIE CORNER TRW P 4" TRIM AT WINDOWS ON FRONT ELEVATION ONLY HOLD TRIM MIN. 6- ABOVE GRADE MAIN PLI.14T. 9'-11/8" MAIN WINH'-10• . S _MAIN FLOOb•R CI MI COLUMN WRAP - OR - TRIM OUT COLUMN 6" ALIANIUM FASCIA OR 6" ALUMINUM RAKE EXTERIOR WALL LIGHT MASONRY. CULTURED STONE MASONRY. STONE C. LAMINATED ASPHALT ROOF SHINOLES CLAP MONO) RARMEPLNM SIOINE, FLAX E%RUSURE ,BOARD AND BATTEN SIRING,,., BATTERS ON SMOOTH PANEL SIDING PADDED HARDIE CORNER TRIM 4" PAINTED TRIM 6" OVER 6,IMANTEO TRIM r TRIM AT MOMS ON PROM ELEVATION ONLY II UI II 11111111 MN. 6" ABOVE GRADE @LEFT O BACK -• Sammie Legend Keynote UM M OUT COLUMN b" ALUMNUS FASCIA ORE' ALUMINUM RAKE IXTERIOR WALL LIGHT MI MASONRY. CULTURED STONE ata MASONRY. STONE CAB LAMINATED ASPHALT ROOF SHINGLES ,LAP SLANG) HARMER LANK MING, MAX EXPOSURE sa ,BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING) MIS BATTENS ON SMOOTH PANEL SIDING PANTED HARDIE CORNER ISSN PAINTED TRIM 6" OVER PANTED ISBN TS V TRIM AT RANSOMS ON MONT ELEVATION ONLY O RIGHT - HOLD IM MIN, ABOVE GRADE S, 1 19-137.4 ELEVATIONS VINTAGE ESTATES CTS NOTE: ADD BLACN FELT BEHIND ALL DORMER WINDOWS CONCRETE SLOPE TO GRADE OLEFTSCALE -, N 81 Ts I MAIN 9'PLT -1 1/8. HT " I CI MAIN WIN. H.H. 6'-10" I� b I M I MAIN FLOOF h o^ IMMM. L•E•Dd Wry Wiwi I ON. TNT NIACKETSKTAXINIME COLUMN WRAP • OR • TRIM OUT COLUMN 6" ALUMINUM FASCIA OR S" ALUMINUM RARE EXTERIOR WALL LIGHT MI MASONRY- CULTURED STONE MASONRY- STONE CAP LAMINATED ASPHALT ROOF SHINGLES SI NAP MMMG) MARINE -PLANK MO No-r MAX EXPOSUME (STUCCO PANEL) HARDIE PANEL (SMA RGONO) PAINTED MA W IE COINER ITEM TS A"PAINTED TRIM Ta IR OYER M. PAINTED TRIM TR E. M AT NINON. ON FRONT ELEVATION ONLY OBACK-0 O RIGHT Mx I HOLD ALL SDP. AND TRIM MIN. 6' ABOVE GRADE J?!4W°1 NPLT.HT.$lr IINDOWS T.O.F. 6" q IN �A= Ga pETMM 19-137.2 • far VINTAGE ESTATES /07/2022 A200 I SI I OLEFTSCALE 1/0' 111111IIIM 111111111111 __ MAIN PLT. FR. MAIN WIN6'-10"-10 S CONCRETE SLOPE TO GRADE iY 1. O.F.$ RaE T. iu 2 1/4 q'-0" Y O RIGHT 111111 as uw •■ 1�iii 1I EH 111111 HOLD MIN. fir IM MAIN 9'PLi. KI. $ -11/6" q i MAIN WIN 6'-10" MAIN FLOOR $ 0" 22% 19' - 4 1/2" 56% 51'-2" 22% 19' - 4" �IFRONT ` 1 / SCALE: 1/4" = OBACK SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" • IOWA CITY TWIN HOME 1,756 S.F. EACH UNIT IMPRINT ARCHITECTS VINTAGE COOPERATIVE OF IOWA CITY 2022.06. 1 3 WILKUS ,RCHITECTS SD FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL ❑NE 29 UNITS 40-45 GARAGE STALLS 30-34 STORAGE UNITS VINTAGE COOPERAI/VE VINTAGE COOPERATIVE OF IOWA CITY 2022.06. 1 3 W I LKUS ,RCH ITECTS 133' - 10 1 /8" PINE MAGNOLIA LOCUST GUESTS S D FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL TWO VINTAGE COOPERATIVE OF IOWA CITY SD - V2 2022.06. 1 3 1 FRONT - MAIN ENTRY - NORTHWEST ELEVATION 4 5 KEY PLAN 8 W I LKUS RCHITECTS 2" STONE VENEER - PRIMARY - GRAY LEDGESTONE BY CENTURION 2" STONE VENEER - SECONDARY - TULSA RUBBLE BY CENTURION EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS VINYL SHAKES 7" EXPOSURE - RED CEDAR OR SIM FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING W/ 5" EXPOSURE - SW 7066 'GRAY MATTERS' OR SIM L3 - Roor Bearing 50 L2 - 2nd Floor L1 - 1st Floor LO - Gara e BUILDING TRIM, COLUMN WRAPS & EAVES - SW 6252 'ICE CUBE' OR SIM VINTAGE COOPERATIVE OF IOWA CITY 2022.06.1 3 2 FRONT - WEST ELEVATION 3 FRONT - N RTH ELEVATI ON WILKUS ,RCHITECTS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS VINTAGE COOPERATIVE OF IOWA CITY SD - V2 2022.06.1 3 UNIT HVAC LOUVER TYP GARAGE HVAC LOUVER 4 WI • • N • " " " " 2.= 20' - 0" END - NORTH ELEVATION mromMlaworn:MIlla 5 END - WEST ELEVATION 6 REAR - SOUTHEAST ELEVATION WILKUS ,RCHITECTS 91 - GATE TO PUBLIC WAY EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS VINTAGE COOPERATIVE OF IOWA CITY 2022.06.1 3 7 REAR - S 0 UTH ELEVATION 8 REAR - EAST ELEVATI 0 N WILKUS ,RCHITECTS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ELEVATION GENERAL NOTES 19-137 U cD 0 ti (72 0 CD L U al 2 m co. 8) a) 0_ rn o � N• l a ' 0 _c 0_U co -0 .> a) m a co a) Q Q E O U OFRONT 1/8" = 1'-0" OLEFT 1/8" = 1'-0" ®RIGHT 1/8" = 1-0" o II_i J II_l MAIN PLT. HT. 110'-1 1/8" OBACK 1/8" = 1'-0" PICKLEBALL PLT. HEIGHT 113'-0 /4" MAIN PLT. HT. AL 110'-1 1/8" PICKLEBALL PLT. HEIGHT f 11 3'-0 3/4" 11, MAIN PLT. HT. 110'-1 1/8" 1. ARCHITECTURAL 100' - 0" = SURVEY XXXX.XX 2. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. DRAWN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE. NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES IMMEDIATELY. 3. REFER TO DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULES FOR MORE INFORMATION. 4. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS. 5. GRADE SOIL AWAY FROM BUILDING TO DRAIN. SEE CIVIL AND LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR MORE INFORMATION. 6. ALL SIDING BY "LP SMARTSIDE EXPERT FINISH SIDING" PICKLEBALL PLT. HEIGHT 113'-04 N PLT. HT. MAI 110'-1 1/8" V DATE: DRAWN BY: CHK'D BY: 06/13/2022 MT KC REVISED: A200 I PANT ARCHITECMVO 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 aide 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 Attachment 5 Lvelch design # development 1 June 30„ 2022 On behalf of Monument Hill, 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, Arnhurst 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 1s attachecd. Sincerely, Michael J. Welch, PE yy5yy;i,1�►++U��++lJ1 ,,,00:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS. ENGINEERING DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY €q �.IREGT 5{J{'ERV15101V AND THAT I AM AIY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE '. G LAWS OF THE STATE OFIOWA. WELCH 'fj' C4. JUNE 30, 20,2 19636 Pr? MICHAEL1. WELCH, PE DATE j '-. { $.'` LICENSE NUMBER 19635 *'I» / Oif4I P. iti* �% MY LICENSE RENEWAL DATE IS DEfiFMBER 31, 2022 111111I14H110-I Welch Resign and Development, LLC Page 1 we Ic h d esignd evelop me nt, lam Kimley I--lrr introduction The Monument Hills development will consi5it of 69 single-family detached residences. 18 senior single-family units and 29 seniorrnulti-family units_ The development is located on the north side 01- Rochester Avenue. west of N Scott Boulevard, The development is anticipated to be constructed and fully occupied by 2026, Methodology The trip generation Ibr the Monument Hills development is calculated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (1TE) Trip Generation, 1 fth Edition 00 1). 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 following intersections are being analyzed as part aims report: I N Scott Blvd at Rochester Ave - All -way top -Controlled ?, Heron Cir at Rochester Ave - Two-way Stop Controlled 3, Arnhurst 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-way 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, Mareli 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. I41i WWwr1Ti i i.tiW1i •-'_' �4'" 1:. SL. 100, Bettieli, 'IA A !J 1J2L 1425 i 334 ' ' • Kimley »> Horn The peak -hour level of service (LOS) analysis calculations were completed using the S'vnchr•o I software, This software applies the operational analysis methodology of the current ifrghikui, Capon'/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 and LOS F, with LOS A being free flow and LOS F tieing !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, G€o-metric characteristics and conflicting traffic movements are taken into consideration when determining level of service values. Table I: Level of Service Criteria for Intersections Level of I Service Expected Delay lntm-section Control Delay {Seconds pair Vrlifele} t]nsignnlized Intersections Sigunli ed Intersections. A LitileiNo Delay _ ...11.) <1 U B ShortLelays =.t0and -15 >1.0and 5'.10 C Average Delays > 15 and s >20 and.<33 D Long Doltiyk > 5 and <35 >3N and <55 E Very Lang Detayi >35 and ti5o >5 sand <80 F Extrerno Delays: ›so >RII 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 Cupacirj- Manua'. Err, LOS A: Free -flaw traffic conditions_ with mtu.unal delay to snapped vehicles lot} vehicle is delayed longer than one cycle at signalized intersection}. LOSE: Generally stable traffic flow conditions_ LOS C- Occasional back-ups may develop, but delay to vehicles 6 shoo term and still Tolerable_ LOS ID: During short periods of the peak hour, delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial but are tolerable during times of less demaiid {i.e. vehicles delayed one cycle or less at signall_ LOS E: Intersections 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 be encountered with queuing which may Tau severe cnrig ition at tang other traffic mow sic is in the intersect inn, Monument Hills Traffic Impact Analysis 1 May 2022 Kt #090222040 Kimley Harry TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION Trip generation calculations for the Monuinent [-tills development are based on national statistics contained in the institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generalion4 I Pr Edition (2021). The average trip generation rates for the ITE Land Use Code (LUC) 210, Single -Family Detached, .LUC 251, Senior Single -Family. and LUC 252, Senior iuIti-Family, have been used. There are total of 69 single-family detached residences, 18 senior single-family and 29 senior mufti -family units. The Monument Hills development is anticipate to generate 823 new daily trips. 58 IICW 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 -dour Trips 'nbrlund Outbound I To'al inbound Outbound Total lohoirni1 1Jira - nd 1 Total LUC 210,{irn Single-Farlrtily [)eraclied fig Unit: ration Rule 9,43 Trips e t_Inii P Fw 0,70 Trips per Unit p (1- 4 Trips of Unii fa P _ 1a1.5 50% 50% I00% 267,0 74% 100% 63% 37 n I00%. trips 326 325 651 12 36 4K 41 14 65 LUC 251. Senior Single -Family.. 18 Units 'ieneraUotl Rat'4,31 Trips per Unit 0.24 Trips per Unit 0,30 Trips per Unit SPlitR . — 0 - -- 50% I00% R.3°'r, 67E!,* Ifl(l°r l i% - — 39"b -- I0O'i Trip;3g 39 71 I 3 4 3 3 5 LUC - -- Senior Multi -Family,. 29 Uoii. Generation Rae 3,24 Trips per Unit 0.20 Trip% per Unit 0.25 Trip per [knit Split 50%.' ifl(I. I 5Er!..i 34II.; 66°-ir 100% sb°fu 44% I00°ire, Trips 47 47 j44 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 turnirng 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° 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 will continue to travel to and from the east along. Rochester Avenue. The development trips are included hi the turning inavement sheets for the AM and PM peak-htaLrs. rvioiiument Hills May 2022 Traffic Impact Analysis 3 l H #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 lit the attachments. The 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 Summary Intersection Time Period 2022 Existing Conditions 2026 Baseline C'oaditions 2026 with Development Conditions LO Future I Delay — .- LOS i Delay LOS 1 eeiav I. Scott Boulevard .in Rochter Avenue All B i 311 gerz 13 13.+sco 13 13.4sec PM C 15.6 set C 1 [).7 see C 17.2 sou *, Heron Circle a1 Rochester Avenue AM B I0,7 sec B 10.8 sec 13 11.6 sec PM B ] 1.1 sec 1-5 11-2 wee a 1 _'_0 sec 3, Amhurst Street at Rochester Avenue AM B 1 1-0 sec B 1 1.2 sec B 11-4 sec PM B 1 1.5 set: B - 1 t -7 sec - B .— 11.9 sec 4- Teton Citt ie al Roeihmter Avenue A 1' NI R R 13.' wee 1: 3 w c 13 13 12.4 sec — 12.6 sec 13 I4.11 sec B 143 See 5, A11ison Way INeve Acccsal a1 Rgchster Avenue AM --- --• --- --- 13 11.1.5 sec PM -- — -- -- 13 10.1 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 collisions resulted in property damage only and no injuries. There were no other cu.Mllisions at the study intersections 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. viol -Fun -lent Hills May 2022 Traffic impact Analysis l H #090222040 KimleyAlorn Access Analysis The Monuni nt Hill development is proposing three accesses to Rochoter 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 Arnhurst Sweet and Heron Circle which is approximately 30S 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 AASHTO guidelines, this requires 25n 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. Channe izat.ion analysis was performed during the PN1 peak -hour to d, tenii L1t if leJl~-turn than m]iiatiun is warranted on Rochester Boulevard at Allison Way (Main Access nut opposite mother public intersection). The left -turn ch€lnnelintion requirements at the intersecti€m have been evaluated using the WSDOT Design Manual. The ]eft -lure channelization has been evaluated using Exhibit 1310-7a Leff - Tin StorageGuidelines.' 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 street 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 I to D-26 Collision, Data F-I to E-5 Channelization Warrant F- I Moiiumerit Hills May 2022 Traffic Impact Analysis 5 KH #090222040 Attachment 6 June 20, 2022 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 • 1 • ter. 33 Nki y h"' 15113f . PARCEL "B"--. & P .i N �i EsrcR rare F • INHlldti cm-rcrs • ,. 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-R5 district by special exception in 2009. Communications towers are not permitted in a RS-5 zone. As part of the request for OPD / ID-RS, 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 (RS-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 #1O26 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 focat 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 J. welch, PE Welch Design & Development Welch Design and Development, LLC welchdes igndevelo pment.com Page 3 Project #1026 Attachment 7 FIRST & ROCHESTER PART 4 • ZONING: OPD RS-5 CITY OF IOWA CITY ZONING: OPD RS-5 ROCHESTER HILLS ZONING: OPD RS-5 Oii l O EGtI�IVfTQt" PARCEL4."A" ' HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC ZONING = ID-RS AUDITO'S PACEL 200034 3K41 PG191 N88°49'39"E 421.58 � W�DMILL -Ell I }.U-NTAIPt. HI IGHT$.-+_ MEADOW 'ZONING: ZON NG: OPD RS-5 RS-5 -I - GREEN MOUNTAIIN DR HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC ZONING = ID-RS N04°16'56"E 140.65 AUDITO'S PACEL 200034 3K41 PG191 . ROCHESTEF RIDGE PART ONE ZONING: OPD RS-5 CHESTER RID.GI j = PART ONE w. ZONING: OPD RS-9*111, HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC ZONING = ID-RS N87°42'14"E 617.81 PARCEL "A" 64.37 Ac 2,803,876 SF _ AUDITO'S PARCEL 200033 3'<41 PG192 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 ROCHESTER RIDGE PART TWO ZONING: OPD RS- DEAN - C OAKES WOODS ADDN (11 ZONING: RS-5 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 MONUMENT FARMS, LLC Qy semr ACT, I N C ZONING: ID-RS ACT, I N C ZONING: ID-RS MONUMENT FARMS, LLC ZONING = ID-RS W (1) 0 0 F- (i) w DC 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 S38°38'53"E, 54.95 FEET; THENCE S20°55'51"E, 139.59 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ROCHESTER AVENUE; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE S69°04'09"W, 157.11 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY S69°04'11"W, 493.99 FEET, THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY S73°10'16"W, 384.23 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY ON A 1,120.59 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY (CHORD BEARING S76°24'13"W, 126.38 FEET) TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 64.37 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. PARCEL "B": PARCEL "A" BEING PART OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 200033 IN BOOK 41 PAGE 192 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., IN IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 200033 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 41 PAGE 192 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, THENCE S69°04'09"W, 129.67 FEET ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ROCHESTER AVENUE TO THE POINT OF BEGINING; THENCE N20°55'S1"W, 145.05 FEET; THENCE N84°57'19"W, 107.05 FEET; THENCE S38°38'53"E, 54.95 FEET; THENCE S20°55'51"E, 139.59 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ROCHESTER AVENUE; THENCE N69°04'09"E, 79.51 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 0.31 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. MONUMENT FARMS, LLC • TOWNE VILLAGE LOT 1 CONDOMINIUM ZONING: OPD RS-8 ZONING INFORMATION sr 37 CP crk i • LD TbWNE VILL AGE E LOT 2 CONDOMINIUM ZONING: OPD RS-8 } : \-jv \ \ `, i* CURRENT ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING - PROPOSED ZONING - PARCEL "A" PARCEL "B" ID-RS OPD / RS-5 OPD / ID-RS J 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 design + development 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 ISSUED DATE: 06/20/2022 SHEET NUMBER: PAGE 1 CALDER PARK ROCHESTER HILLS HARVEST PRESERVE OUTLOT A HARVEST PRESERVE OUTLOT B HARVEST PRESERVE OUTLOT C Attachment awft 75 150 225 WHEN PRINTED ON 22x34" SHEET 1" = 150' LEGEND • MONUMENT HILLS BOUNDARY • HARVEST PRESERVE BOUNDARY • ROCHESTER HILLS BOUNDARY PARK BOUNDARY BLUFFWOOD PLAN LEGEND ENGINEER: CLIENT: COMMERCIAL -OFFICE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SMALL APARTMENT BUILDING TOWN HOUSE SINGLE FAMILY EXISTING RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE design +development MONUMENT HILLS, LLC PROJECT NAME: REVISION LOG: MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA DESCRIPTION REZONING - CITY COMMENTS REZONING - WETLANDS UPDATE REMOVE AMHURST ST REZONING - CITY COMMENTS REZONING - CITY COMMENTS SHEET NAME: 04-27-22 05-10-22 05-20-22 06-16-22 06-30-22 CONCEPT PLAN AND BLUFFWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN OVERLAY REVISION: WELCH DESIGN AND N N a tO w N O •0 to Y N ul N .Z. O et • 2a 0 CO N oo Ki a TAMARACK RIDGE CALDER PARK RALSTON CREEK ROCHESTER HILLS N.SCOTT BOULEVARD HARVEST PRESERVE OUTLOT A HARVEST PRESERVE HARVEST PRESERVE OUTLOT C MONU NT FARMS, LLC 150 300 450 600 WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 1" = 300' LEGEND ENGINEER: CLIENT: MONUMENT HILLS BOUNDARY HARVEST PRESERVE BOUNDARY ROCHESTER HILLS BOUNDARY TAMARACK RIDGE BOUNDARY PARK BOUNDARY design+development MONUMENT HILLS, LLC PROJECT NAME REVISION LOG: 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: 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 I (Jay Semel and Joan Kjaer Kirkman, residents at 498 Windmill Place) attended the May 25 neighborhood meeting with Welch developers regarding the proposed rezoning of property located along the north side of Rochester Avenue between Larch Lane and North Scott Boulevard. You were in attendance representing the City of Iowa City and we expressed our deep concerns about the six proposed lots positioned directly facing Rochester Avenue between Windmill Place and Teton Circle to the developers and to you. You indicated that we should send a letter expressing our concerns to you and you told us you would be certain to share our letter with the Planning and Zoning Commission. You also invited us to attend the June 15 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, which we plan to do. The lovely, dense, tree -lined section of Rochester Avenue between the home on the corner of Larch Lane and the street entrance to Teton Circle contains many graceful, old -growth trees, in addition to smaller trees and undergrowth, all of which 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 �r a /HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC w 0 J LCH DESIGN AND DE O 0 0 E 0 CD 0 0 Q U a CD in O N N. N 0 O N 6 w o0- a - X— X .._.. X —1 — • PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN MONUMENT HILLS L- `/` \ : `- �_ \ IL t Aki / lei* 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 C1.00 C1.10 C1.20 C1.30 C2.00 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' Yl 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 DESCRIPTION C REZONING - WETLANDS UPDATE D REZONING - REMOVE AMHURST ST E REZONING - CITY COMMENTS F REZONING - CITY COMMENTS G REZONING - ADDITIONAL ROW DATE 05-10-22 05-20-22 06-20-22 06-30-22 07-18-22 SHEET NAME: COVER SHEET - PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY & SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT NO: 1026 REVISION: G PROJECT MANAGER: WELCH ISSUED DATE: 07-18-2022 SHEET NUMBER: c1.00 1 z 0_ 0 w 0 0 z z 0 x 0 N O N 0 0 0) a_ CD O 0 0 NO) a� CD DI N 0 N N.. N 00 O CV O co a_ 0 00 o as HARVEST PRESERVE -------------- ------------- \ \ *"(1\-\ ,.0\1\10" A 'en HARVEST PESEVE FOUNDATION, INC ACT, I N C IMPACTED STEEP SLOPES: LOCATION CD® 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% MONUMENT FARMS, LLC 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 WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 1" = 100' 200 ENGINEER: welch design +development CLIENT: MONUMENT HILLS, LLC PROJECT NAME: MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA REVISION LOG: REV DESCRIPTION DATE 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 G REZONING - ADDITIONAL ROW 06-30-22 07-18-22 SHEET NAME: REGULATED SLOPES - PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY & SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT NO: 1026 REVISION: G PROJECT MANAGER: WELCH ISSUED DATE: 07-18-2022 SHEET NUMBER: C1.10 HARVEST PRESERVE F,uOUNLDATION WJNCWL -------------------- - z w a_ a 0 J CD N 0 0 0 U O ai _m N O j N N.. N 0 O N co0_ .O r N Wa K= as ---------------- - r ----------- HARVEST PESEVE FOUNDATION, INC DEVELOPMENT -RELATED IMPACTS LOCATION AREA (SF) PER IOWA CITY CODE, RS-5 ZONE MUST RETAIN AT LEAST 50% WOODLANDS. WOODLANDS WITHIN THE BUFFER AREAS DO NOT COUNT TOWARDS RETENTION VALUES. I, DEVELOPMENT RELATED: PRESERVED WOODLAND Irrirrirrirrirrirrirrr WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 1" = 100' C REZONING - WETLANDS UPDATE D REZONING - REMOVE AMHURST ST E REZONING - CITY COMMENTS F REZONING - CITY COMMENTS G REZONING - ADDITIONAL ROW 05-10-22 05-20-22 06-20-22 06-30-22 07-18-22 SHEET NAME: WOODLANDS - PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY & SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN LCH DESIGN AND DE N O N 0) CD N 0 0 0 U ,9) co N NO N N. N U O N N o_ o• 6 W o as J HARVEST PRESERVE FNDION WJNCWL u�OUATu i% 100' BUFFER REDUCED PER �� • SECTION 14-5I-6E-3 "� ✓ CONSTRUCTION LIMIT DICTATED BY PUBLIC _ SIDEWALK ALONG Ir ROCHESTER AVE I nq HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC •-\0000- - - y \o0 HARVEST PESEVE FOUNDATION, INC 1111111■III l!mnnli-inn !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!III::::; 1111■11111111111111101111111111111111111111111.. �1A; ■ ■ m ■ noon ■r nnnnnm d ■ m '■ 'noon n ■■. ;JIIIIIIIIII P 'IHH_'iiiii i1111111Y 1111111111_ ETLAND FILL REQUIR ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION WETLAND FILL R:QUIRED ROADWY CONS RUCTIO 11111111111111111111111:::.■■■■■■■■■■■■■111111IIuuuIIIIIIIIIIIII1� 111111111111111111111 ■ Illllllllllllllllllllllllllliiiihl CONSTRUCTION LIMIT DICTATED BYPUBLIC SIDEWALK ALONG ROCH ESTERAVE WETLAND AREA 1 TAG I" 11111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�ilk ■S:�!■ nnnnnnnnnnn.l. IIIIII iPIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIh,,. IIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIu�1.. I1H11111111111111111:1111111111111111111111111111:L. 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. 111111111111:11111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111:: 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 0 `. 0\ WETLAND AREA 4 TAG ACT, I N C 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 MONUMENT FARMS, LLC Sty 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 WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 1" = 100' 200 ENGINEER: welch design +development CLIENT: MONUMENT HILLS, LLC PROJECT NAME: MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA REVISION LOG: REV DESCRIPTION DATE 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 G REZONING - ADDITIONAL ROW 07-18-22 SHEET NAME: WETLANDS - PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY & SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT NO: 1026 REVISION: G PROJECT MANAGER: WELCH ISSUED DATE: 07-18-2022 SHEET NUMBER: C1.30 F W 0_ 0 w 0 0 z z 0 x 0 w N O N 0 0 0) E a_ O 0 O 0 0 0 0. CD 0) DI 7 0 N N.. N 00 O co a_ 0 00 o o 0- ---------------------------------------- 10'-WIDE TRAIL CONNECTION TO CALDER PARK. INCLUDES 20' EASEMENT/ ----------------- \V (CO) <cm 03) � cOp'AA ` _O / `pp, ^/1\0 / c �COp, 00 VO /` cpp, C cpl OUTLOT A LOT 5 LOT 10 HARVEST PESEVE FOUNDATION, INC ------- ------ -13- /26,864 bsr Si PROVIDE RAISED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING TO PROVIDED TRAFFIC CALMING ALONG ALLISON DRIVE LOT 9 LOT 8 4-18� WISED CROSSING - SOUTH OUTLOT A J sl r 1 OUTLOT B 1B� RAISED CROSSING - NORTH \ ACT, INC 0 LOT 61 R62' HERON DRIVE LOT 23 T 50 100 150 WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 1" = 100' 200 MONUMENT FARMS, LLC 'PARCEL "A \\ 0.67Ac 29,265 SF Fp, \\ TRAFFIC CIRCLE l L/ 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^ WWY, 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 21 LOT 49 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 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: G ISSUED DATE: 07-18-2022 SHEET NUMBER: C2.00 a_ 0 J GN AND DE 0 J N 0 N O. o_ 0 0) E d N 0 0 0 1.9) CON N W N 0 0 4) no 00 o 1- O- O_ 16 10,050 15 10,095 14 15,274 13 26 64' 10,070 / \ \ / 72.67'3 \ 8,905 \ 20' \\O42'� 20'\ \\ 2 \ \ 9,:18 \\ \ \ \72.67' \ N A.1.62' / PRIVATE OPEN SPACE (TYPICAL) PRIVATE OPEN SPACEccO (TYPICAL) cc°' c°o \ 20' 25' cc°' \ EXISTING WETLANDS ' \ WILL BE FILLED VIA / \ USACE NATION—WID PERMIT #29 o c° - /.. c°' e 300' v / w (st cc°) NI 0 20 40 60 WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 1" = 40' `\ CITY REQUESTED, RIGHT—OF—WAY, '`\ 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 ,m) ■ (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 C DESCRIPTION REZONING - WETLANDS UPDATE DATE 05-10-22 REZONING - REMOVE AMHURST ST 05-20-22 REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-20-22 F REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 06-30-22 G 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: G ISSUED DATE: 07-18-2022 SHEET NUMBER: C2.10 HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC WL WL STREET TREES SHALL BE INSTALLED BY LOT OWNER DURING HOME CONSTRUCTION. 01-QRC 01-NSB 01-QBS 01-CCT 01-QRL 01-PTN 29 1 01-QRC 01-CBF 28 01-COH 9,450 01-LTT 01-QRC 01-GDE 01-COS 01-LTT 01-QMC 01-QRL 01-OVE 01-QMC 01-QXW 01-COH 9,592 01-TTP 01-OVE 01-TMH 01-COH 01-TTP . 01-GDE 2 01-LTT 03-TTP 55 01-GDE 8,700 01-GDE 01 CCT 01-GDE• / 01-PXA 01-NSB 01-QXW 64 01-TMH 15,110 01-QMC 01-QRC 01-COH 01-AAS \ 67 25,754 01-NSB 01-COS 02-LTT 01-COH 01-PXA 01-NSB 01-TMH 01-QMC 9,498 01-QXW 01-GDE 01-QXW 01-BPF 01-AAS 46 12,923 01-LTT 01-QBS 01-OVE 01-QXW ] 01-QMC 01-QBS 01-OVE 02-CCT 9,750 01-PXA 01-QRC 01-QRL 01-NSB 25,.7y4 01-LSR 01-CCT 01-QMC 01-TMH 01-TTP 02-LTT 01-CCT 01-PTN 01-LSR 01-COS HARVEST PESEVE FOUNDATION, INC 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 ACT, I N C MONUMENT FARMS, LLC ® PARCEL "A" 0.67Ac 29,265 SF 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 DESCRIPTION DATE A REZONING APPLICATION REZONING - CITY COMMENTS REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 04-28-22 06-16-22 06-30-22 REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 07-18-22 PROJECT NO: 1026 REVISION: C PROJECT MANAGER: WELCH ISSUED DATE: 07-18-2022 SHEET NUMBER: L1.00 OC es 9 n F. 01-LTT u 01-TMH 02-AXG 02-PSE 03-PTN 03-AXG 01-GDE 01-AXG 02-CCH 01-QRL 03-PSE 02-NSB 01-SPD 01-PAN 02-QRL 03-PTN 15-JXP 15-CAS 07-CCH 01-BPF 01-GDE 02-PXA 0 w J 0 CO 0 U cn z 02-PGD 01-LSR 02-TMH 01-QRL 04-PTN 02-TM H 07-CVW 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 CLIENT: design +development MONUMENT HILLS, LLC PROJECT NAME: REVISION LOG: REV MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA DESCRIPTION REZONING APPLICATION REZONING - CITY COMMENTS REZONING - CITY COMMENTS REZONING - CITY COMMENTS SHEET NAME: LANDSCAPE PLAN LOT 65 DETAIL SHEET NUMBER: DATE 04-28-22 06-16-22 06-30-22 07-18-22 L1.10 LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCHEDULE: SHEET L-01 LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCHEDULE 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. STAKING NOTES: 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. • • •. •• ••:• NM %•••• -4• • • %��•,its • • •_I•. I.•. • •• • •. • ..p L:tle�!.!Iw.�N.�!.� t �i•-leE ILA Design 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. VARI ES-- 0 TREE PROTECTION FENCING NOTES: 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. -5'-0" ELEVATION • •••••:.%•=+'y.••.%•�•• • V.V. ♦4'.b it ie I�IhI„�LIuII��'ll�lhhhIIe%:i*/1-•,_O_I-•,-"A._..-,AI.e*Nf :AtxiratIVI �il;l�'���Ililli ,l ' :._._. I. (11i •• rf. L.*+: • •• .12..;*1•...:. ,si !;�•.:: ice• • • ::i - r�r . •• • a . • .s q .: •' •t •.. ..••• ••es • rr • • .,•; es:**. .•• •• N •.• • •••!• • .0 _5'-0"- .•.: •• • • • -LLJE7 PLAN 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 REZONING - CITY COMMENTS 07-18-22 SHEET NAME: LANDSCAPE NOTES, DETAILS, AND PLANT SCHEDULE PROJECT NO: 1026 PROJECT MANAGER: WELCH REVISION: C ISSUED DATE: 07-18-2022 SHEET NUMBER: L2.00 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 --- = Not a Member t-tc IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ; 0.c-k-- Doc ID: 031942980013 Type: GEN Kind: ORDINANCE Recorded: 08/22/2022 at 02:58:51 PM Fee Amt: $67.00 Pape 1 of 13 Johnson County Iowa Kim Painter County Recorder BK6418 PG687-699 _: Cfty of STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS JOHNSON COUNTY ) I, Kellie K. Fruehling, City Clerk of Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby certify that the Ordinance attached hereto is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 22-4885 which was passed by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at a regular meeting held on the 16th day of August 2022 is a true and correct copy, all as the same appears of record in my office. Dated at Iowa City, Iowa, this 19th day of August, 2022. Kellie K. Fruehling City Clerk \ord 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET•IOWA CITY,IOWA 52240-1826•(319)356-5000•FAX(319)356-5009 Prepared by: Parker Walsh,Associate Planner,410 E.Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; (REZ22-0008) Ordinance No. 22-4885 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. 22-4885 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°55'51"W, 145.05 FEET; THENCE N84°57'19"W, 107.05 FEET; THENCE S38°38'53"E, 54.95 FEET; THENCE S20°55'51"E, 139.59 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ROCHESTER AVENUE; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE S69°04'09"W, 157.11 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY S69°04'11"W, 493.99 FEET, THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY S73°10'16"W, 384.23 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY ON A 1,120.59 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY (CHORD BEARING S76°24'13"W, 126.38 FEET) TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 64.37 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 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°55'51"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. 22-4885 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 16th day of August , 2022. 'am--- l yor j Attest: [/� L�:-C 1> t- ^,,l,4, Ci City Clerk • j Approved by City Attorne s Office (Sara Greenwood Hektoen - 07/28/2022) Ordinance No. 22-4885 Page 4 It was moved by Thomas and seconded by Al ter that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x Alter x Bergus g Harmsen x Taylor x Teague x Thomas x Weiner First Consideration 8/2/2022 Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner NAYS: None ABSENT: None Second Consideration 8/16/2022 Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner NAYS: None ABSENT: None Date published 8/25/2022 Moved by Weiner, seconded by Thomas, 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 be suspended, the second consideration and vote 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 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 sngle-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 and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and Whereas, the Owner and Applicant agree to develop this property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Monument Farms LLC is the legal title holder of the property legally described as: 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°55'51"W, 145.05 FEET; THENCE N84°57'19"W, 107.05 FEET; THENCE S38°38'53"E, 54.95 FEET; THENCE S20°55'51"E, 139.59 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ROCHESTER AVENUE; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE S69°04'09"W, 157.11 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY S69°04'11"W, 493.99 FEET, THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY S73°10'16"W, 384.23 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY ON A 1,120.59 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY (CHORD BEARING S76°24'13"W, 126.38 FEET) TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 64.37 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. AND PART OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 200033 IN BOOK 41 PAGE 192 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., IN IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 200033 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 41 PAGE 192 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, THENCE S69°04'09"W, 129.67 FEET ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ROCHESTER AVENUE TO THE POINT OF BEGINING; THENCE N20°55'51"W, 145.05 FEET; THENCE N84°57'19"W, 107.05 FEET; THENCE S38°38'53"E, 54.95 FEET; THENCE 2 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. 2. Owner and Applicant acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the Comprehensive Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2021) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change. 3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner and Applicant agree that development of the subject property will conform to all requirements of the Zoning 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; ii. Dedicate a public access easement to allow a public trail from the proposed development to Calder Park in a form of agreement approved by the City 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. Said easements and right-of-way shall be generally located as shown on the attached "Overall Concept Plan," approved as part of the Preliminary Planned Development and Sensitive Areas Development Plan, incorporated herein by this reference. b. The final plat for any of the above-described land shall incorporate traffic calming generally in locations shown on the attached Overall Concept Plan. 4. The conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2021), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change. 5. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released by the City of Iowa City. Once a building permit is issued, the conditions shall be deemed satisfied and no further release of this agreement will be provided. The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties. In the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all development will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. 6. Nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 7. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the 3 ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense. Dated this i day of �uc 5,21-- , 2022. () Cit of Iowa City Monument Farms, LLC ce Teague, May y: �� tt st: Monument Hills, LLC elli Frueh ing, it Clerk Approved b : bir/‘*° pP Y City Attorney's ffice Harvest Investments, LLC By: City of Iowa • cknowledgement: State of Iowa Johnson County This in • ment was acknowledged before me on , 2022 by Bruce Teague an. ellie Fruehling as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the Cit owa City. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) Monument Farms, LLC Acknowledgement: State of 1,4 County of Jon'L C �l j\his record y,cas.acknowledged before me on 4L/ l/-1 )Si , 2022 by U+, x)25 y✓/ (name) as �')')z.s? ie,r� U(title) Monu nt Farms, LLC. U Notary P blic i an or the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) aPWAt,, WESLEY R DORSAM o F Commission Number 796956 My C��is7�Expire 4 My commission expires: 7/s/Z 3— Monument Hills, LLC Acknowledgment: State of County of 36b✓ISOrI This record was,ac nowledged before me on lzj-} , 2022 by ds41I1 C/a(4' (name) as 1)10 bey- rl (title) of onument Hills, LLC /&*,re tir�1AC s� WESLEY R DORSAM Notary 'ubli n and for the State of Iowa Commission Number 796956 z » MY Co ' !slumber Expires (Stamp or Seal) •owl- My commission expires: 71,r est Investments, LLC Acknowledgment: State of County of This record was acknowledg-: •efore me on , 2022 by (name) as e) of Harvest Investments, LLC Notary '•: ' in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) My commission expires: 5 ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense. Dated this a of , 2022. City of Iowa City Monument Farms Bruce Teague, Mayor Attest: Monument Hills, LLC Kellie Fruehling, Cit erk Approved By: C Attorney's Office Harvest Investments, LLC By: City of Iowa City Acknowledgement: St- - of Iowa ) ss: Johnson aunty This instrument wa cknowledged before me on by Bruce Teague and Kellie Fruehling as ' ayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City owa City. Notary Pu• in and for the State of Iowa -.alp or Seal) Monument Farms, LLC Acknowle. State of County of This record was .• nowledged before me on 022 by (name) as (title) Monumen -rms, LLC. Notary Public in and for the State of to is ---77777 (Stamp or Seal) 4 My commission expires: Monum ills, LLC Acknowledgment: State of County of This record was acknowledged •- ore .n , 2022 by (nar. - as (title) of Monument Hills, LLC Notary Public in and e State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) My commission expires: Harvest Investments, LLC Acknowledgment: State of rcwo. County of YVKo,- -r1 This record was acknowledged before me on O$- 0\ , 2022 by guJin (name) as ;Atmib,_N (title) of Harvest Investments, LLC Notary blic in d for the State of Iowa j NICHOLAS CRALL (Stamp or Seal) F Commison Number 0/07i3 My Commission Expires August 27,2022 My commission expires: OS-cQ 7— 5 • TE u • •x f 2 Kellie Fruehling From: Danielle Sitzman Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 8:49 AM To: Kellie Fruehling Subject: FW: Accelerated action for rezoning - Monument Hills - 1026 Kellie, Request to collapse readings from the applicant. Staff supports this. Danielle L. Sitzman, AICP Development Services Coordinator City of Iowa City (319) 356-5252 From: Michael Welch <Michael@welchdesigndevelopment.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 7:32 PM To: Danielle Sitzman <dsitzman@iowa-city.org> Cc: Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.org>; Parker Walsh <PWalsh@iowa-city.org>; Joe Clark (gjc1974@outlook.com) <gjc1974@outlook.com> Subject: Accelerated action for rezoning - Monument Hills - 1026 Hello Danielle I'd like to request that council takes accelerated action on the rezoning consideration for Monument Hills and collapse the 2nd & 3rd readings during their August 16th meeting. Thank you. Michael J. Welch, PE Welch Design and Development (319) 214-7501 (o) (920) 475-8060 (m) 1 Kellie Fruehling From: Carol deProsse <lonetreefox@mac.com> Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2022 9:48 AM To: *City Council Subject: Not very encouraging Council, I find the name of a housing development which will include senior housing a bit depressing being called Monument Hills. Carol This email is from an external source. i Item Number: 13. 1 , CITY OF IOWA CITY !kr4gi,'�� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT August 16, 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. (Second Consideration) Prepared By: Susan Dulek, FirstAss't. City Attorney Reviewed By: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: none Recommendations: 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 Attachments: 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 B 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(B)(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). Prepared by: Susan Dulek, First Asst. City Attorney,410 E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240(319)356-5030 Ordinance No. 22-4886 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 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. 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; ComplaintReview 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 Chief's or City Manager's report. This requires the board to give deference to the Police Chiefs 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 Ordinance No. 22-4886 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 "Be" " 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 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 16th day of August , 2022. e_TA—Q— t1 1 or Ordinance No. Page 3 r r � Attest: I �X,L.{� LU,1 Cit Clerk Approved by r,, City Attor ey's Office (Sue Dulek—07/28/2022) Ordinance No. 22-4886 Page 4 It was moved by Alter and seconded by Thomas 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 8/2/2022 Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner NAYS: None ABSENT: None Second Consideration 8/16/2022 Vote for passage: Date published 8/25/0022 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 be suspended, the second consideration and vote 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