Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2025-04-01 Ordinance
Item Number: 9.a. a CITY OF IOWA CITY "QF T-4 COUNCIL ACTION REPORT April 1, 2025 Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 7.2 acres of property located North of Melrose Ave. and East of Camp Cardinal Blvd. from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Mixed Use (MU) zone. (REZ24-0016) Attachments: REZ24-0016 PZ Staff Report Final Attachments PZ 2.19.25 final minutes Ordinance REZ24-0016 CZA STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ24-0016 Parcel: 1007351003 GENERAL INFORMATION: Owner/Applicant: Contact Person: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Location Map: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Prepared by: Madison Conley Associate Planner Date: February 5, 2025 St Andrew Presbyterian Church 140 Gathering Place Ln Iowa City, Iowa 52246 Michael Welch Shoemaker & Haaland 160 Holiday Rd Coralville, Iowa 52241 920-475-8060 mwelch(a)shoemaker-haaland.com Rezoning of 7.2 acres from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID- RS) zone to Mixed Use (MU) zone. To rezone to a zone that allows development as opposed to the existing interim development zone. East of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and north of Melrose Ave. 7.2 Acres Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID-RS) North: Religious/private group assembly uses, Low Density Single -Family K Comprehensive Plan: Public Meeting Notification: District Plan: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) South: Single -Family, Low Density Single - Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) East: Single -Family, Rural Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OP/RR-1) West: Highway 218, Governmental Purposes, Institutional Public (P2) Office Commercial Property owners and occupants within 500' of the property received notification of the Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting. A rezoning sign was posted onsite at Camp Cardinal Blvd & Melrose Ave (Parcel 1007351003). None December 23, 2024 February 6, 2025 The owner, St Andrew Presbyterian Church, is requesting approval for the rezoning of 7.2 acres from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Mixed Use (MU) zone for land located east of Camp Cardinal Blvd and north of Melrose Ave. Both Camp Cardinal Blvd and Melrose Ave are arterial streets which are in close proximity to Highway 218. Portions of the property's northern edge border sensitive areas such as woodlands, wetlands, and regulated slopes, which are also found on the St Andrew Presbyterian Church property directly to the north. The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan's future land use map originally identified this area appropriate for 2-8 Dwelling Units per Acre. In 2016, St Andrew Presbyterian Church submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that changed the future land use designation from 2-8 Dwelling Units per Acre to Office Commercial (CPA16-00001, Res No. 16-129). The Office Commercial land use designation is assigned to areas intended to provide the opportunity for a large variety of commercial uses that serve a major segment of the community. The subject property is currently for sale. The owners have expressed an interest in rezoning to provide more clarity and certainty to future buyers regarding development potential. Attachment 3 includes the applicant submittal materials such as the Rezoning Exhibit and the Applicant Statement which describes the rationale behind the request. The applicant has used the Good Neighbor Policy and held a Good Neighbor Meeting on January 23, 2025. ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: The property is currently zoned ID-RS. The ID-RS zone provides for areas of 3 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 land uses allowed in the ID-RS zone are limited. The only permitted use in the ID-RS zone is plant related agricultural. Detached single-family dwellings are allowed but require a minimum of 5 acres. Limited commercial uses are allowed and subject to use specific standards. For example, the I D-RS zone allows general and intensive animal related commercial uses; however, any outdoor facilities associated with these uses are required to be setback at least one hundred feet from any lot line. Proposed Zoning: The applicant is requesting that the property to be rezoned to the MU zone. The purpose of the MU zone is to provide a transition from commercial and employment centers to less intensive residential zones. The MU zone allows a mix of uses, including lower scale retail and office uses, and a variety of residential uses. This mix of uses requires special consideration of building and site design. Table 1 outlines the uses that are allowed in the MU zone, i.e. multi -family, office uses, community service, etc. The MU zone does not allow for drinking establishments (e.g. bars), quick vehicle servicing uses (e.g. gas stations and car washes), or any industrial uses. Table 1 — Uses Allowed in MU Zone Use Categories: Assisted group living PR Attached single-family dwellings PR Detached single-family dwellings P Detached zero lot line dwelling PR Duplexes PR Group Households PR Multi -family dwellings P Eating establishments S Office Uses —General & Medical/dental P Redemption center PR Alcohol sales oriented retail PR Hospitality oriented retail PR Personal Service oriented retail PR Sales oriented PR Tobacco sales oriented PR Community service -shelter S General community service S Daycare PR Educational facilities —General & Specialized PR Parks and open sace PR Religious/private group assembly PR Communication transmission facility PR P = Permitted PR = Provisional S = Special exception 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. CI Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Northwest Planning District does not have a district plan, so the proposed rezoning is reviewed using the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan was amended in 2016 changing the subject property's land use designation from 2-8 dwelling units per acre to Office Commercial (CPA16- 0001). The resolution noted that the amendment was warranted due to the subject property's close proximity to Highway 218. It also stated that the general principles of the Comprehensive Plan encourage buffers between residential development and major highways. The resolution also states that the CO-1 zone is an appropriate zone near residential neighborhoods and an appropriate transition to more intense uses. Although the resolution indicates CO-1 as an appropriate zoning designation for the subject property, staff finds that the proposed MU zone aligns with the intent of the comprehensive plan amendment, as well. Both the CO-1 zone and the MU zone allow residential and less intensive commercial uses. Similar to the CO-1 zone, the MU zone does not allow drinking establishments, quick vehicle servicing uses, and outdoor storage and display oriented retail. In addition, the MU zone does not allow drive-throughs. Furthermore, the following Comprehensive Plan goals and strategies are supported by the rezoning request: Encourage compact, efficient development that is contiguous and connected to existing neighborhoods to reduce the cost of extending infrastructure and services and to preserve farmland and open space at the edge of the city. o Ensure that infill development is compatible and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood. Encourage a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods. o Ensure a mix of housing types within each neighborhood, to provide options for households of all types (singles, families, retirees, etc.) and people of all incomes. o Identify and support infill development and redevelopment opportunities in areas where services and infrastructure are already in place. The proposed rezoning aligns with the Comprehensive Plans goals that encourage infill development and a diversity of housing types throughout the community. The subject property is surrounded by developed land and the site is currently served by city services. In terms of housing diversity, the MU zone allows a diversity of housing types, including single-family, duplex, and multi- family residential. Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood Character: The land uses surrounding this property include St Andrews Presbyterian Church to the north, single-family residential to the east, multi- family residential to the northwest, and Highway 218 to the west. Generally speaking, the neighborhood is a mix of both single-family and multi -family residential, as well as institutional uses with the church. The neighborhood also includes a number of regulated sensitive features. The subject property, specifically, includes woodlands along the eastern portion of the property that abut the existing single-family homes in Walnut Ridge. Additionally, there is a 30' pipeline easement that runs north and south along the eastern border of the subject property. No development would be allowed within this easement. Given the regulated sensitive features and the restrictions on development placed by the pipeline easement a natural buffer should remain between any development and the single-family land uses to the east. Furthermore, future development on the subject property must comply with the Mixed Use Site Development Standards that regulate the location of surface parking and require screening 5 between surface parking and neighboring properties. Buildings scale is also regulated, and articulation standards are required to ensure that buildings are broken up in modules. The purpose of these standards is to ensure that building sites are designed to be inviting for pedestrians by orienting buildings toward the street, requiring that buildings be constructed with street level storefront windows and clearly demarcated pedestrian entrances; and by requiring that parking be located away from the street and screened by landscaping. Regarding lighting, the mixed use zone is in the medium illumination district. This district would allow more lighting than a single-family zone; however, the light trespass standards require that lighting fixtures are shielded in such a say that the bulb is not directly visible from any adjacent residential use. Overall, the lighting standards regulate light fixture shielding, directional control, and height of fixtures to prevent light from one property extending beyond the property line onto adjacent properties. Staff finds the proposed rezoning request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the existing neighborhood character. Transportation & Public Infrastructure: The property has access from Camp Cardinal Blvd, which contains a median that limits ingress and egress to the site. Therefore, staff is recommending a condition that the Owner reconstruct the median to allow full access to the site. This will also require the construction of a dedicated left -turn lane on Camp Cardinal Blvd. Sensitive Areas: The subject property contains regulated sensitive features. A sensitive areas development plan is not required at the time of rezoning. A sensitive areas development plan will be required either at subdivision or site plan review. At that time, the applicant will be required to submit a sensitive areas development plan showing regulated sensitive features, proposed impacts, and construction limit lines. NEXT STEPS: Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be scheduled for consideration by the City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ24-0016, a proposed rezoning to rezone 7.2 acres of the property located east of Camp Cardinal Blvd and north of Melrose Ave (Parcel Number 1007351003) from ID-RS zone to MU zone subject to the following condition: • Prior to issuance of a building permit the Owner shall reconstruct the median to allow access and also construct a dedicated left -turn lane on Camp Cardinal Blvd subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Applicant Submittal Materials Approved by Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ATTACHMENT 1 Location Map ATTACHMENT 2 Zoning Map N W E S 0 0.030.05 0.1 Miles I i I i I REZ24-0016 Camp Cardinal Blvd & Melrose Ave \ Melrose , Prepared By: Rachael Schaefer Date Prepared: January 2025 ATTACHMENT 3 Applicant Submittal Materials —Rezoning Exhibit & Applicant Statement W a o5p 0s U o UQ � U wo J Q F N Qy J L w o w w 0 w LL 3 w w 00 Z� Z �- 0._ U° w O 03 a x .Q a� 0� U ° N 0 N N CD CN E_'� CARDINAL HEIGHTS_ OPD / RM-1'2 n" WESTERNo HOME GPD j/ // L :._ \ �.. , \ 30 I IOWA CITY BUTTERNUT CT / \ / 70 I /.Y. BUTTERNUT CT 50 # ``. BUTTERNUT CT M.em- _ -�' I WALNUT RIDGE ZONING OPD / RR ST ANDREW PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH ZONING / \ OPD / RS-5 r,—..—..— —. —. —..— .—.:—..—..— .—..—..—. / / 165 / KENNEDY PKWY / I. CARDINAL VILLAS CONDOMINIUMS I RM-12 - r \ EXISTING SANITARY �. REZONING EXHIBIT AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2012061 IOWA CITY, IA I SEWER EASEMENT 145 j EXISTING SANITARY \ I SEWER EASEMENT \ KENNEDY PKWY / l /\ -- — — —— /� -� --- -� - - - - - - -T_ , \.\ j./ i LEGAL DESCRIPTION NORTHB OVN p ZY 8ONR4 MP i6 CAMP CARDINAL BLVD I 125 \ , I AUDITORS PARCEL 2012061 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 57 KENNEDY PKWY \ / j PAGE 8 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, CITY OF IOWA CITY JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA I 1, SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL CONTAINS 7.20 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. WALNUT RIDGE ZONING \ I oPD / RR-1 \ APPLICANT INFORMATION KENNEDY PKWY I 1 \ \ .. 63 / 1 \ KENNEDY PKWY VAS 1 �- • i A ��..� 53 \\\� KENNEDY PKWY ._, ✓ j43 KENNEDY VKWY / I I I I MELROSE AVENUE I I I i / GALWAY HILLS ZONING / OPD / RS-5 _..T86 ONEGAL'PL / \ 78� GALWAY DR j 779 \ \ GALWAY HILLS ZONING / � GALWAY / \ I \ \. gg \ OPD / RS-5 DR I DONEGAL PL \ 776 \.. / GALWAY DR % \ \ 77 DONEGAL PL \ \ 764 \ GALWAY DR \ \ I \ y \ PROPERTY OWNER ST ANDREW PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 140 GATHERING PLACE LANE IOWA CITY, IA 52246 CIVIL ENGINEER MICHAEL J. WELCH, PE SHOEMAKER AND HAALAND 160 HOLIDAY ROAD CORALVILLE, IA 52241 319-351-7150 ZONING INFORMATION CURRENT ZONING PROPOSED ZONING 1 9 p"zrz7-j 0 50 100 150 200 WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 1" = 100' OWNER PROJECT SHEET TITLE PROJECT NUMBER: SHEET NUMBER Shoemaker ST ANDREW TRIANGLE LAND REZONING EXHIBIT 24380 PRELIMINARY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2012061 1 ISSUED DATE: 12-12-24 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Haaland DRAWN BY: KJB 0 CITY SUBMITTAL #1 12-12-24 CHECK BY: MJW 00 NO. REVISION DATE APPROVED BY: MJW REV a 0 N O N to N 0 0 w r- 1 II I III 1 1 I / ♦ ___- ______ ____ , -' ._ ___ _ __ _ _ ($) � \,,, - - -_ - _ , , _- ---___ - - -------� 4QS �-'-- , \\, -.. ,\., -- '\\, 1`O --- --- _ - S) _ ----- = - -- - - - - __ S>- _ (S) (S) � 1._ _ � -- _ - - - . I I I _ _ _ \ I I' r 1 _____ _ __ „- -�- _ ____--- ,\ � _____" / -� _- _ ,- _ III, _ I I I 1 I I I , , , r - __ - __ - I , , „`\`, I `", \ 1 --------- 11`1 ` - S _ '` I I , I \ ` I 1 I - - _ ` , . , I \ A , r\ _ _ I I I , II I 1 III I 1�1 _ _ _ , , .♦/ ,1I _ _ ' I/ Ir -_ - �- _ ` _ - _ , --1`-- _ � - -fir\ n " S 1 -- - 0' '` - fi I `mot - - - - - - ` -- - -- -- - - _ _ s I -,. _ , . / -- -- -- '- - , . - ____ _--- - - - - - - - -'" say. �� - --- - i �, \ \ �- 1 , / , r _ `\�. - ;�Af�����X''�'vk€cPJ•k-I QL�. 1`8 2 2 2 E - - 11 -- ---- -- --sue=". - _ _ - ` 1 I _ _ 1 II 1 _ __ _ 7-� I - -- _ _ _ _ - \ 1 III' 11 ' 1 \ , - -- . ♦ . , . \ , r _ 1 1 / /u � - _ _ „ ♦III , I-- -- / \ - _ - - --- - - - -- r� 1 , / , - - ' ,-------- ' - - , , _ ,III . _ . .. , , . _ "- ♦ - - - /III //' - _ _ �� ) 1 . . 11 . , , / , / / , , 1 //, I��yl ( I I r . , . 1 `----- -_ - , - �f♦H+t. / -__ '-?- . II , _- ` - - - - - - - - - I-- . _ I _ . \ \ \ I I I I , . , / , I I , / . , , , - , . U 1 • , , ' �,. .♦ � � \T /1Jy / 14�- ti— - ---- )r_'- `-- Y 1 - ,fir � —s - - --- , - — t`+r: — - ----- -- - _ _ - - _ 19 111 'I - - \ / „ ,/ a- / /I I 1,\ __ "" , J/, . __- _ _ __ ` _- ' ----- \,, ,♦ . ,\,`\ ,. /rl, /// unr - 1I'{�,}�I `{J� �-L�{[�'F�� ---- \i 1 �} - " ` ---- �- - - -- - - - -_-- - � 1 ;I1 I, II' �I INV,�I" 2,"' I� %P� � 7�� G'1'-I�t•�J%%-- '%-� --- RI b `- Rt 10 Q� C � � I ''! --- -- , t \---------- - , - ; , 11, /r 1 ,.ti, ._---;---_- ,_ - - - � --- - fZ SErtB�CK � I ! �,� �% �, , 7 �-' . 1 --------- __--------- r,, ,2 0 REAR 11 1 ,r . / 1 I , I , 0 C.6 I I ' 9''�' Td 1 , STORM BOX I NTA E ` , ' �--` -------------- ---- � ` ti' % - - S� r ----- RIM_ 73 C�) '—(c - - __--- - --- ---_ --- - _ -- INV 24' RCS' 71 9.35 S G' -- - _ -- -- _ I, \\ INV 2 4' RCP ; 71 8.87 NE f \ -- - - . _ _ `'�-'-�.--- --- ------ ��` � ` � •�`` ' I� � MIN AMP C G) - �_P,:::,2,'%,- '; I 11 11 _ NA -1 J� - }��(�1/, _ __ �� . I I II , \� `;/T� L:, BLV[� I I "" 1 � � `SET VI ,�GK `� _ __ _ � �, , `., , i I '' \ / � n,)� ---- `-- -- -- - ---- --` " `___ 7.2o`Al- • \ 1 , 1 I I I I 1 I ( ,., / � iir , , 1 I I , ; , �. 1 \ , `_--- --_-- —(STI B)--( _ \+ _- V _-_ '__ __ `•\ \ `` \ ``, ` I 1 I 1 I I I ; ; I I I �, 1 ((( 'f,/ ! / '' f , I 1 / i � I i 1 r ,'� r ' /1�\'1 i ' 1' ' ' I I - STt B) (STI a. (STI B)- c I ,'5�4�` 7 I I I , 8 - II ,I T@ -- `1 - � ' 1 2 `♦� \ \ `1 `i `' I ' i I' I /`\ i'`li il� • I ill i' I I � , I,` - - - ----- _ -__ ` _- -�__`___ -``-`___--____`__ _- ♦__ "�_' `-`�-- __- _-�_„` `_-�'_-`` `.-` - -_`--`__---_ `_- -` _ _I `' �`- _``_`_- --�`- `__-_� - `-`--1 `_`_--_- \`__`;`____-_- _-`_ �'__._`' -- __ -`_`"�_ `. _-__-`_-___` _-_ _ __-I__ ;_----____`` __._`` _-� �___ -_`_ ��,_`` - ,_`-`_--�__ . _ 1`_�-_ �_ '_-__`_,�__ � `_,,_�``` ,1 _--__- -\��-` ` _- ,__``�- . _ ` -_'_-___ _--`. `__--/ '-`, _. `�``'. -- ._` .,-,\._\_`__. __`, --_- �-_-_---``- __--_ _- _ -- _-! `-- _` ` ` `��_- _- _- ____ _`__ �_--- -_\. --- -/ - �."�_--__'_—___ _--___-_- -- _-`,-__'`--�`-�__ I`I��-•�`--_f-(-`_M- (u__ ) n2T4omS ❑-)' -_®- --- -__ -__-_-_ -_ _______-_- __<`_F_-O_-)_-__-_- _(2___I__n__ __)__ +__` _ _----(2(O�1 nH-) )--� --" ' ) ^<2ZO_'H) � -_-'-_S-S2-D'-InH-}--O--��J,~ \ (21,y 3(��p---_�-"(2 (p �_)- -_" _<_p,_- ''\,�\ `\, `, \ ,\ /\ \ 11 I '',II �T� ,�^OL��,--�/♦ILr�`./yrI\�d\`i � \ -{�'\ .\ rr��,`-%'��b'-'��� ��IJ/ gIYIiMI��., �III i `"I1 I ,I'I 1�F`i � i1,I 11 I I ±�I IAi ` 'I -/�III I1Y1 � I'' III/1i 4��I4 �II r'iII'� I, I '"I�1 'IIII i 11�1/��11"' y1111 //1 'f' 'S��''I'' (�,rII ,'I'' �Y;/TiII i I ,, ! ,(l 1II/III '�1' p I"',1 1111' 1/I% I I ' I il ' '''II 'j I 11 11 /, II ,' , , /�1 / 1 1l I 1I1 / 1 I / I 1l I I Ir / I I i i IIIi / / 1Ir" `110 1. � -r ' 'I'.r�';,�i'1I;`/tl':i�L��;�lii,1Ri�.la/il"�''r;�lielIzilAlil/!/'l"liIni,� .�. r ,',�i ll .Il �� ,.� 1(L)(N) ______ --___ `_ _�___-_ _(2 ______ - __ ____________________ ______ Iy ;'IIID ' r� i '' I I I , r; I ' - - --- --�------ ___- --- ST -- - QXTNTAKE---}RM -___ _____________,_TQF�Mr 1N-_ _---- ,-------- `-- '----- ------'-- - p�: % �V—,y- ' _- 74-`------------------ ) RI � 2 INV RCP 72�� '�-�`---'"_---- - -----� _ RCP 23.,6 7 2 !-------- �I' 11I ,l ' 1,-------- _-____ . (p ----- ---- VV'\ �C` P :7 7/N-4 C.3'0 kENNEY1RKUY IIi1 -- /ri,11,'III ,l . 71I I\ � I / W / i -� -_� "-, - —, -`_----------------- _ _ , `I ------ i _ _ _ _ / I - I I \ , r I ' 1- , I r , ',pEVE'''aPIYIET- / '111VAI'�TED T ' I 1 - - - I J - Z. Ire , _ - - - - � _ E ' EXISTING ' , E S ;' ;; _ S'� _ - I _ _ _ _ _ 1 MAX. _ L V I - I _ - _ - 1 I 1 1 1 1 I lyl • __ \ r ` 1 r T •C , IMPACTED WOODLANDS J4i I DEVELOPMENT -RELATED IMPACTS ;Ii AREA (SF)LOCATION \ ; nr' \ '`\ f 1 \ i ; ::'%:/"-: � % �'/' i ' ; , � , . II � `\ \` \. ♦\ % ; III , \\ \ I C.1 529 _I �°�\�, ,as��, _r-"-� A- ^-��=\ / "`gyp�" �;iN�;;i';,11i;4\i1;iv`1`,I�1`;�vv (vv;�`�� \�\ �\' I Qv�';ti�\1p�v�``1,\;`;\\\\`\,�''`�,`,'�,�',�;\;`\;`\';�;�,,`,•�;�`�,'\\,;, �\�,�,�\ ,`;. , ``\ �'•i• \` �`.;' ;;�' �, `;I '' `\i `�-\\I 210 �4'iN C-_'_ ( 1 ' j )6�i I ��ENKN ,Y P;'K 2,831 1,081 hNTAK E IMPACTED AREA 26,006 18.4/ � -- _-__--�1----------BUFFERAREA 50,992 36.1/ I\\W♦\``''`�I,,�'�'y;`,v; ` '`•, � --- `;,4 � ,,, :.:'�• ' TOTAL EXISTING AREA 153,996 - z PERCENT RETAINED 45.4/ - _ �p7\1'`,A1.9,6 , PER IOWA CITY CODE MU ZONE MUST RETAIN AT LEAST "______ � �\'; ``, '1 ,`\`�`, \``' ,%f, __ n__ ,'` _ ```♦` \ J 10/ WOODLANDS. WOODLANDS WITHIN THE BUFFER ---- \ � N 1,`,, \\,`;,, •\ , _-_ `,♦ ___ - _ -__ _ , �j AREAS DO NOT COUNT TOWARDS RETENTION VALUES. '/ �` -- � 5�\ ``, �;'`I\'I ,",`• '�'� �`\`� \ ''�` `"'��`-'= __-_� =-_`__�.,,'/�\,,,.;'.`',�.r__�;%� N ' ; - .•\ .�;.\.` ` � ® is ,q '\ \ ``\ , � ----Y ' ---------------=�``\�\i. 3 SITE INFORMATION:I�.� ,� �-�p�;;� J N 0 9 v Q fU U 0 0 3 a N 0 0 =L SITE DESCRIPTION AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2012061 PLATTED AREA 7.20 ACRES DEVELOPABLE AREA 4.35 ACRES ZONING CURRENT ID-RS PROPOSED MIXED USE - MU SETBACKS FRONT MIN 5 FEET MAX 15 FEET SIDE 5 + 2* FEET REAR ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY 20 FEET MULTI -FAMILY 5 + 2* FEET * ADD 2' FOR EACH STORY ABOVE 2 BUILDING BULK HEIGHT 35 FEET BUILDING COVERAGE 50 % UNIT DENSITY ALLOWED EFFICIENCY & 1-BEDROOM 21725 SF 2-BEDROOM 21275 SF 3-BEDROOM 21275 SF 2 / W, , I 11 � �` 1 ___-___--------------- -----------------------------------� 'i/'ii , 1 I ! ';' /' -; '-'-7-------- -ha - �(F - -- -- - ------ -mac-7a , ----------------------------- ----- - (FO) CFO) (FO) ---- ^ (z [n ) (z [n) ___ rrm'� (z�[n) ^ (z n) (z [n) 'rz-uu_ (z [n) (z [n) (z [n )� o o MELROSE AVENUE 0 30 60 90 120 WHEN PRINTED ON 2211x3411 SHEET 111 = 60' ENGINEER: 'Idesign+development --=-"--- _____- CLIENT: :Fps, �------' �--`--- - _ o>''Fo,-------------= ST ANDREW PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH PROJECT NAME: TRIANGLE LAND AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2012061 REVISION LOG: REV DESCRIPTION I DATE --- CLIENT REVIEW 1 10-23-24 LEGEND: WOODLANDS DEVELOPMENT RELATED: PRESERVED WOODLAND SHEET NAME: BUFFERED WOODLAND SITE AND ZONING ANALYSIS IMPACTED WOODLAND PROJECT NO: 1102 PROJECT MANAGER: WELCH SHEET NUMBER: CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS — — — CI-00 REVISION: --- ISSUED DATE: 10-23-2024 December 13, 2024 APPLICANT'S STATEMENT FOR REZONING St. Andrew Presbyterian Church Parcel Number 1007351003 Please accept the following Applicant Statement submitted on behalf of St Andrew Presbyterian Church. St Andrew Presbyterian Church has owned the property located near the intersection of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and Melrose Avenue since 2009. This property is identified as Parcel Number 1007351003 or as Auditor's Parcel 2012061. This property was acquired along with the property located at 140 Gathering Place Lane where the St Andrew Presbyterian Church is located. The parcel is physically separated from the Gathering Place Lane property by a waterway and a wooded ravine. St Andrew Presbyterian Church is seeking a Mixed Use (MU) zoning designation for the property. The property is currently zoned Interim Development Single -Family (ID-RS). According to the City Code, the ID-RS zone is intended "to provide for areas of managed growth in which agricultural and non -urban uses of land may continue until such time as the city is able to provide city services and urban development can occur." This property is surrounded by developed properties and city services are currently available. St Andrew previously pursued a comprehensive plan amendment to allow for a commercial use on the property. Since making that change to the comprehensive plan, the market for commercial properties has changed and St Andrew has not been able to attract a buyer interested in developing the property for a commercial use. The Mixed Use is a commercial zone that is intended to "provide a transition from commercial and employment centers to less intensive residential zones. The MU zone permits a mix of uses, including lower scale retail and office uses, and a variety of residential uses. This mix of uses requires special consideration of building and site design." The Mixed Use zone is well situated at this location to provide a transition from Highway 218 to the west and the large -lot residential properties within Walnut Ridge to the east. St. Andrew has not determined a final use nor do they plan to be the developer of the property. Their goal in rezoning the property is to remove a barrier for a potential buyer and position the property to the ready for development when a buyer is identified. The site is currently served by city water and sanitary sewer. Any future development will need to comply with applicable city codes, including the sensitive area ordinance and storm water management. Thank you for your consideration of this rezoning application. Sincerely, AllIw Michael J. Welch, PE Shoemaker A," Haaland Project No. 24380 Page 1 MINUTES FINAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2025 —6:00 PM —FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Steve Miller, Scott Quellhorst, Billie Townsend, Chad Wade MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Anne Russett, Liz Craig OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Welch, Jon Marner, Stephen Voyce, Sharon DeGraw, Jennifer Baum, Bethany Berger, Marie Wilkes, Audrey Bahrick, Matthew Solinger, Matthieu Bigger, Orville Townsend, Andrew Evans RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: By a vote of 6-0 (Miller recused) the Commission recommends approval of REZ24-0016, a proposed rezoning to rezone 7.2 acres of the property located east of Camp Cardinal Blvd and north of Melrose Ave (Parcel Number 1007351003) from ID-RS zone to MU zone subject to the following condition: • Prior to issuance of a building permit the Owner shall reconstruct the median to allow access and also construct a dedicated left -turn lane on Camp Cardinal Blvd subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. By a vote of 6-1 (Townsend dissenting) the Commission recommends approval of REZ24-0001, a proposal to rezone approximately 5.49 acres of land between N. Dodge and N. Governor Streets to OPD/RS-12 (approximately 0.17 acres) and OPD/RM-20 (approximately 5.32 acres) subject to the following conditions: 1. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owners agree that no building permit shall be issued for Lot 1 as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan until the City Council approves a final plat resubdividing the subject property to conform to the zoning boundaries established by the rezoning ordinance to which this Agreement is attached. 2. Prior to the approval of the Final Plat, the Owner shall convert the existing duplex as shown on Lot 2 of the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan to one dwelling unit to ensure compliance with the maximum density standards of the zone. 3. As part of Final Plat approval, the Owner shall dedicate public right-of-way and easements along N. Governor Street consistent with what is shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 4. As part of Final Plat approval, the Owner shall grant a temporary construction easement on the western 10' of the subject property abutting N. Dodge Street. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan, the existing water services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge Street that are tapped off of the water main in N. Governor Street shall be abandoned, and new services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge Street shall be installed that are tapped off of the water main in N. Dodge Street subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 6. S3 screening be added to the southern retaining wall. Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 2 of 27 CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CASE NO. REZ24-0016: Location: North of Melrose Ave. and East of Camp Cardinal Blvd. An application for a rezoning of approximately 7.2 acres of land from Interim Development Single - Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Mixed Use (MU) zone. Commissioner Miller recused himself from this item due to conflict of interest. Conley began the staff report showing where the subject property is located, it borders Camp Cardinal Boulevard, which is an arterial road, as well as Melrose Avenue, to the north is St. Andrew Presbyterian Church, to the Northwest is existing multifamily apartment living and then there are single family homes to the east and the south of the subject property. Additionally, Conley stated the subject property is the only undeveloped area east of Highway 218. She next shared the zoning map, the subject property is zoned ID-RS, the properties to the north and the south are both zoned Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) with a Planned Development Overlay zone. The properties to the east are zoned Rural Residential (RR-1) with a Planned Development Overlay and then to the west side of the subject property is primarily Highway 218 with the Institutional Public (P-2) zone to the south. Regarding the background for this application, the subject property is located along two arterial streets and is near Highway 218. The property does contain sensitive areas such as woodlands, wetlands and regulated slopes found along the northern border. The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map originally identified this area appropriate for two to eight dwelling units per acre then in 2016 there was a Comprehensive Plan Amendment submitted by St. Andrew Presbyterian Church that changed the subject property's land use designation to Office Commercial. Conley explained the Office Commercial land use designation is assigned to areas intended to provide the opportunity for a variety of commercial uses. Conley noted the subject property is currently for sale and the owners have expressed an interest in rezoning it to provide more clarity and certainty to future buyers regarding development potential. Conley next reviewed the rezoning exhibit that was provided by the applicant noting an existing 30 foot pipeline easement that runs north/south of this property on the eastern side. She also shared the sensitive areas exhibit that was also provided by the applicant which also indicated that existing pipeline easement on the eastern border, near the sensitive areas, which would be the construction area limit line. Staff's analysis of the subject property's current zone, the ID-RS zone provides for areas of managed growth in which agricultural and other non -urban areas of land may continue until the City can provide services and urban development can occur. The ID-RS zone has a limited selection of land uses allowed, for example detached single family, communication transmission facility uses, parks and open space, religious and private group assembly uses and agricultural Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 3 of 27 uses, specifically plant and animal related are all part of that selection. Plant related agriculture is the only permitted land use allowed and detached single family dwellings would require a minimum of five acres to be allowed in this zone. Commercial uses are allowed subject to specific standards in the ID-RS zone. These include general and intensive animal related commercial uses; however, any outdoor facilities associated with these uses are required to be setback at least one hundred feet from any lot line. Staff next looked at the proposed zone. The applicant is requesting that the property be rezoned to Mixed Use (MU) zone. The purpose of the MU zone is to provide a transition from commercial and employment centers to less intensive residential zones. The mix of residential and commercial uses allowed in this zone include lower scale retail and office uses and a variety of residential uses that require special consideration of building and site design. Some of the allowed commercial uses include office uses, community service, sales oriented and a variety of others. The staff report includes a table that lists all of the allowed uses in this zone. Conley pointed out that the MU zone does not allow for drinking establishments, quick vehicle servicing uses or any industrial uses (such as bars, gas station, car washes, etc.). Conley next reviewed the rezoning review criteria. These are the criteria used to review all rezonings. First, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and second, compatibility with existing neighborhood. For criteria number one, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan staff was only able to utilize the IC 2030 Comprehensive Plan since there's currently no district plan for the Northwest Planning District. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA16-0001, changed the subject property's land use designation from two to eight dwelling units per acre to Office Commercial. Resolution 16-129 noted that the Amendment was warranted due to the subject property's close proximity to Highway 218 and the Comprehensive Plan's general principles that encourage buffers between residential development and major highway uses and that a CO-1 zone is an appropriate zone near residential neighborhoods and an appropriate transition to more intense uses. Due to the similarities between the CO-1 zone and the MU zone staff finds that the proposed MU zone aligns with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment as well. Furthermore, drinking establishments, quick vehicle service uses, outdoor storage and display oriented retail are not allowed in the CO-1 zone are also not allowed in the MU zone. Additionally, drive throughs are not allowed in the MU zone. The Comprehensive Plan also includes the following goals and strategies that are supported by the rezoning request. These goals include to encourage compact, efficient development that is contiguous and connected to existing neighborhoods to reduce the cost of extending infrastructure and services and to preserve farmland and open space at the edge of the City and to encourage a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods. The strategies that the Comprehensive Plan includes are to ensure that infill development is compatible and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood, ensure a mix of housing types within each neighborhood to provide options for households of all types and all incomes, and lastly identify and support infill development and redevelopment opportunities in areas where services and infrastructure is already in place. Conley stated the proposed rezoning aligns with the Comprehensive Plan's goals and strategies listed here because they focus on encouraging infill development and a diversity of housing types. Due to the subject property being surrounded by developed land currently serviced by City services, if rezoned to the MU zone, the diversity of housing types that the MU zone would encourage what is listed. Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 4 of 27 Staff next looked at the compatibility with existing neighborhood and found that the subject property is surrounded by single family, multifamily, and the institutional use to the north (St. Andrew Church). Also, the neighborhood includes regulated sensitive areas, for example the woodlands abut the Walnut Ridge single family homes to the east, and there is that 30 foot pipeline easement along the eastern border of the subject property which does not allow for any development within the easement. Therefore, these features together help create and leave a natural buffer. Additionally, any development would need to comply with all Mixed Use site development standards, which are aimed to ensure building sites are designed to be inviting to pedestrians. These standards regulate service parking, screening, building scale, articulation, orientation and other things. The Mixed Use zone is also in the medium illumination district that allows for more lighting than a single family zone, but still regulates light trespassing standards and shielding in order to prevent light from extending onto adjacent properties. Next Conley reviewed the transportation and public infrastructure. Camp Cardinal Boulevard access contains a median that limits ingress and egress, therefore, as part of this staff is recommending that the owner reconstruct the median to allow access and also construct a dedicated left turn on Camp Cardinal Boulevard. Staff recommends approval of REZ24-0016, a proposed rezoning to rezone 7.2 acres of the property located east of Camp Cardinal Blvd and north of Melrose Ave (Parcel Number 1007351003) from ID-RS zone to MU zone subject to the following condition: • Prior to issuance of a building permit the Owner shall reconstruct the median to allow access and also construct a dedicated left -turn lane on Camp Cardinal Blvd subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Conley noted staff did not receive any written correspondence from the public and a good neighbor meeting was held on January 23, 2025. Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be scheduled for consideration by City Council. Elliott asked about the good neighbor meeting as it was not addressed in the agenda packet. Conley noted staff received the summary at a later date, so it was not included in the time of packet publication. Elliott asked what if any the concerns were. Conley stated at the good neighbor meeting the general concerns were about the lighting of any future development on the subject property and lighting trespassing on to the adjacent properties. Staff was at the good neighbor meeting and did discuss that the City does have specific site development standards that would regulate the lighting on the future development. Russett noted there were probably only three or four people there so they didn't hear a number of concerns, most people just were curious what was being proposed. Wade asked if that left turning lane from Camp Cardinal would go into this development and Conley confirmed it would. Hensch opened the public hearing. Mike Welch (Shoemaker & Haaland Professional Engineers) noted to the east is that 30 foot easement for the pipeline, and then the wooded area which would put them a distance from those properties in Walnut Ridge and the closest house to that pipeline easement is more than Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 5 of 27 300 feet. Hensch closed the public hearing Townsend moved to recommend approval of REZ24-0016, a proposed rezoning to rezone 7.2 acres of the property located east of Camp Cardinal Blvd and north of Melrose Ave (Parcel Number 1007351003) from ID-RS zone to MU zone subject to the following condition: • Prior to issuance of a building permit the Owner shall reconstruct the median to allow access and also construct a dedicated left -turn lane on Camp Cardinal Blvd subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Elliott seconded the motion. Townsend noted concern with the commercial section and not having any idea what kind of businesses would be going there. Elliott states she thinks it's a good use of the land, it's infill property and she likes the diversity of housing options that are available. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Miller recused). Commissioner Miller rejoined the meeting. CASE NO. REZ24-0001: Location: 900, 902, 906, and 908 N. Dodge St. and 905, 909, and 911 N. Governor St. An application for a rezoning of approximately 5.49 acres of land from Medium Density Single - Family Residential (RS-8) zone, High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zone, Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) zone, and Multi -Family Residence (R3B) zone to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) zone and High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD). Russett began the staff report showing an aerial map of the property noting Happy Hollow Park located to the south of the subject property. She next reviewed the zoning map, which shows the current zoning of the subject property and surrounding properties. The subject property currently includes several different zoning designations, it has some Medium Density Single - Family Residential (RS- 8) zone on the southeast corner, High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12), and then there are Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) zone, and Multi - Family Residence (R313) zone. The existing R313 zoning is a zoning designation from the 1970s. To the south is some Public Zoning for the park and most of the rest of the zones around the subject property are zoned single family. In terms of background, Russett noted in 1987 there was an Iowa Supreme Court decision related to this property. At the time there were properties zoned R313 (again a multifamily zone from the 1970s) and a developer obtained building permits to construct an office building and an apartment building. The City revoked the building permit and rezoned some of the parcels to only allow single family and duplex residential so the owner sued the City and the Court determined that the City's actions were unreasonable. As a result of the Iowa Supreme Court Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 6 of 27 decision, several lots remained zoned R3B. Then in 2011 there was a rezoning request to rezone property along North Governor Street to RM-12 Low Density Multi -Family Residential, and that rezoning would have allowed approximately 18 units on the eastern portion of the subject property. The City Council denied the rezoning and directed staff to explore designating the properties to no longer allow multifamily development. In 2012, based on Council direction, the City initiated a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Central District Plan to change the Future Land Use Map from Low Density Multi -Family to Single -Family and Duplex residential on several properties. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment was accompanied by several City initiated down zonings, meaning a rezoning of property from a multifamily zone to a duplex or single family zone, and these actions by the City also resulted in a lawsuit in 2018 (TSB Holdings. LLC v. Board of Adjustment for City of Iowa City) and in that case the Courts determined that the Kempf decision from 1987 prohibited the City from enforcing the new zoning ordinance and the property owner was permitted to move forward with multifamily development consistent with the R313 zoning. Therefore, that is why today the zoning on the subject property is a mix of R313 from the 1970s and some current multifamily RM-20, and some single family. This property has a long and complicated zoning history. Russett also wanted to mention that the City is acting as a co -applicant to this rezoning for several reasons. First, the City would like to see a cohesive development on the subject property, as opposed to that which would be allowed under the current zoning. The City would also like to see compliance with modern zoning regulations, which include the sensitive areas ordinance and the multifamily site development standards which regulate things like screening, parking, design, and building materials. Lastly, the City Council Strategic Plan includes a goal related to establishing partnerships and collaborations, particularly in the interest in advancing the City's housing goals. As staff has discussed many times with the Commission, an important aspect of meeting the housing goals is increasing the overall supply of housing in the community Russett did note the applicant held a good neighbor meeting on August 13, 2024. Russett showed slides of photographs of the subject property. She noted the vacant office building and the existing apartments. The eastern portion of the subject property is mainly surface parking, there are some trees along the southern border of the property and an existing duplex on the subject property. Russett reiterated the current zonings are Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS- 8) zone and High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zones which allow single-family and duplex residential. The RS-12 also allows townhome style multi -family up to six units attached. Properties zoned RM-20 allow multi -family residential and the maximum height in these zones is 35'. The R313 zone also allows multi -family residential at a minimum lot area per unit of 750 square feet which equates to approximately 58 dwelling units per acre. Given the land area zoned R313 the existing zoning would allow a maximum of 84 dwelling units. The maximum height in the R313 zone is 45' and 3 stories. The proposed zoning is for the majority of the property to be Medium Density Multi -Family (RM- 20) zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD). The OPD is required due to impacts to sensitive areas. The northwest piece would be High Density Single -Family (RS-12) zone with a Planned Development Overlay. The maximum density in the OPD/RM-20 zone is 24 dwelling units per acre with the maximum height of 35'. The applicant is not requesting any waivers with this OPD application and if this rezoning is approved any future development and redevelopment of the property must substantially comply with what is shown on the OPD plan. Staff is Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 7 of 27 recommending a condition that as part of this project the final plat of the property must go through a replat so that the lots follow the proposed rezoning boundaries. Russett next shared the preliminary plan and development overlay plan. The project proposes redevelopment of the land along North Governor Street and would include the demolition of the two single family homes that currently exist at the southern portion of the site, as well as the demolition of the vacant office building to the north. There are two multifamily residential buildings being proposed, each contain 42 units for a total of 84 units, and the plans show storm water being located on site. The open space is proposed on the southeast corner and the parking is internal to the buildings, as well as there is some surface parking located behind the buildings. The plans also include a sidewalk along North Governor Street. Russett reviewed the landscaping plan, the applicant is proposing to keep 15 existing mature trees on the southern portion of the boundary and proposing to add several more, around 54, on the remainder of the property. Several will be street trees proposed along North Governor Street. Russett reiterated since the proposed rezoning complies with all development standards, there are no waivers requested, and the OPD is required due to the sensitive areas impact. The criteria to consider with this rezoning are consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with the existing neighborhood character. In terms of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan the IC 2030 Plan as well as the Central District Plan both apply to this land. The Future Land Use Map of the IC 2030 Plan shows the majority of the site, the properties along North Dodge and into the site, are all designated as appropriate for multifamily development up to 24 dwelling units per acre. The Central District Plan also shows that a majority of the site is appropriate for multifamily. However, unlike the IC2030 Plan the Central District Plan does show some single family to the north, as well as open space in the middle of the property. The Future Land Use Map functions as a conceptual future vision and both Plans envision this area as allowing multifamily development, up to 24 dwelling units per acre, which is the maximum density allowed in the proposed OPD/RM-20 zoning district. Russett noted in addition to the Future Land Use Map there are several goals and policies that support the proposed development. In terms of land use goals, there's goals encouraging compact, efficient development that is contiguous and connected with existing neighborhoods, while ensuring that infill development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. There are housing goals that encourage a diversity of housing types that ensure a mix of housing types within each neighborhood to provide options for households of all types, at all incomes, and supporting infill development and redevelopment in areas where there's existing services and infrastructure. In terms of environmental goals, the Plan encourages compact and efficient development that reduces the cost of extending and maintaining infrastructure, discourages sprawl and again promotes infill development. Lastly, in terms of parks and open space goals Russett stated there's a goal to improve overall access to the parks throughout the City. Looking at the Central District Plan the housing and quality of life element includes a goal to promote the Central District as an attractive place to live by encouraging reinvestment in residential properties throughout the District and by supporting new housing opportunities. Russett acknowledged that although this proposal isn't necessarily reinvesting in residential properties, it will result in the removal of the vacant office building and provide much needed housing units. There's also a statement within the Central District Plan specific to the subject property and to the history with the R313 zoning, which notes that this area is zoned R313 and it Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 8 of 27 should be rezoned to a valid designation, such as RM-20 In terms of the compatibility with the neighborhood character Russett first talked about the existing context of what surrounds the subject property. Again, there is Happy Hollow Park to the south, across Governor Street to the east there's single family residential, to the north there's a mix of duplex and single family and to the west, on the subject property is an existing multifamily building as well as two duplex units, and then further south, there's single family. In terms of compatibility Russett reviewed the site design, open space, landscaping, as well as substantial compliance with the OPD, which states no more units than currently exist on the western portion of the property could be built. The OPD would also ensure a transition from the detached single family from the south to the multifamily to the north. One condition that staff is recommending is prior to the final platting of the subject property the duplex building needs to be converted to a single family unit to ensure compliance with the density standards. Russett acknowledged the preliminary plan and the development overlay plan was designed to fit into the neighborhood, which includes a mix of housing types. Again, there's two multifamily buildings being proposed that front North Governor Street, the front of that northern building that fronts North Governor Street is about 70' and it's positioned in a way to lessen the impact of the larger scale building from the Governor Street right of way. Russett stated the same is true for the southern building, which is positioned at an angle which allows the longest side of the building to be positioned further away from North Governor. Again, there's open space provided in the southeast corner and both buildings would be a maximum of 35'. There is landscaping being proposed that maintains some of the mature trees to the south and more landscaping proposed throughout the site. Russett noted also there are no plans at this time for redevelopment along the North Dodge Street side of the property, however any future development that's proposed on lot two will be required to substantially comply with this preliminary OPD plan and that no more dwelling units then currently exist could be developed on the site. This OPD plan also shows a transition from the existing single family south to the multifamily must be maintained in some way if that area is ever to be redeveloped. Russett showed the elevations for the proposed buildings, they have incorporated entrances to individual dwelling units from the exterior to create more of a town home style feel and this also helps to break up the long fagade with the pedestrian walkways that provide connections into individual units. The subject property is bordered on the west by North Dodge Street and on the east by North Governor Street, both of these streets are one way streets and they're both arterials. The existing capacity for both streets is between 15,000 and 18,000 vehicle trips per day and are currently operating well below that between 5,600 and 6,200 average trips per day. The site also has access to Iowa City Transit on both the North Dodge Street and the North Governor Street sides. As mentioned this is an infill project, so there's access to existing sewer lines and existing water lines. Staff is recommending several conditions related to transportation and public utilities. The first is the dedication of public right of way and easements along North Governor Street to increase the right of way and allow for the construction of a sidewalk. The second condition is that a dedication of a temporary construction easement along North Dodge Street which will help with the planned reconstruction of Dodge Street, which is planned for 2027-2028, and lastly, the Water Superintendent recommended the abandonment of existing water lines for the North Dodge Street Apartments. These lines currently come off North Governor and he would like those lines to be abandoned and instead have water lines connect to the North Dodge water Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 9 of 27 main. Russett stated this property does have sensitive areas, in particular critical slopes. Staff can approve up to a 35% impact of critical slopes and the proposal is 86% of the critical slopes to be impacted, and that's why it's coming to the Commission for review. Staff recommends approval of REZ24-0001, a proposal to rezone approximately 5.49 acres of land between N. Dodge and N. Governor Streets to OPD/RS-12 (approximately 0.17 acres) and OPD/RM-20 (approximately 5.32 acres) subject to the following conditions: 1. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owners agree that no building permit shall be issued for Lot 1 as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan until the City Council approves a final plat resubdividing the subject property to conform to the zoning boundaries established by the rezoning ordinance to which this Agreement is attached. 2. Prior to the approval of the Final Plat, the Owner shall convert the existing duplex as shown on Lot 2 of the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan to one dwelling unit to ensure compliance with the maximum density standards of the zone. 3. As part of Final Plat approval, the Owner shall dedicate public right-of-way and easements along N. Governor Street consistent with what is shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 4. As part of Final Plat approval, the Owner shall grant a temporary construction easement on the western 10' of the subject property abutting N. Dodge Street. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan, the existing water services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge Street that are tapped off of the water main in N. Governor Street shall be abandoned, and new services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge Street shall be installed that are tapped off of the water main in N. Dodge Street subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be scheduled for consideration by the City Council. The Owner also has three other pending applications related to this rezoning: 1) A final plat application which will be reviewed by City Council; 2) A site plan application which will be reviewed by City staff, and 3) A design review application which will be reviewed by City staff. Hensch asked if storm water was managed on site or is it just all runoff, there doesn't appear to be any storm water detention and most of the site is paved. Russett replied there is some open space to the south but there isn't any storm water detention. Hensch noted there's currently no sidewalk on the Governor side, is that because the existing commercial facility appears to have not been used for at least 20 years. Russett is unsure. Hensch is unsure exactly how long it's been but the last tenant in that building was Johnson County, it's public health and social services were there and was a pretty intensive use in that facility at that time. Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 10 of 27 Hensch noted there are no waivers requested by the applicant for this rezoning which Russett confirmed was correct. Hensch asked about the maximum height of the current and the proposed multifamily buildings and how many units are in the current building. Russett replied the new building will be 35' which is also the same height of the current multifamily building, and there are currently 29 and 12 units in the existing buildings. Elliott asked about the landscaping proposed and is there any teeth to the landscaping plan. Russett explained similar to approving the OPD plan, the landscaping plan is part of that so they'll need to substantially comply with the landscaping as well. Quellhorst asked if staff feel that the proposed rezoning would offer some environmental protections because the legacy R3B zone wouldn't be subject to things like the sensitive areas ordinance. Russett replied possibly but the main concerns with the existing R3B zoning is the hodgepodge nature of it. Also the three properties that are zoned R3B are not contiguous and don't abut each other so it'd be three separate developments on three separate parcels and not subject to the sensitive areas ordinance and since this site has some sensitive areas, mainly slopes, if they stayed with the R3B zoning the could remove all trees. Quellhorst noted basically today, the way the site is zoned, one could construct relatively high density housing projects that would be interspersed and wouldn't be connected. Russett confirmed that. Quellhorst asked about the fact that 86% of critical slopes would be impacted and how that impact is evaluated and does that happen as part of the application process. Russett explained it happens as part of this rezoning. Staff is allowed to administratively approve up to 35% of impacts but anything beyond that requires an OPD rezoning and has to be reviewed by the Commission, but in terms of specific criteria, there aren't any specific criteria that need to be met to allow them to impact more than 35%. Quellhorst asked if staff has any concerns with the impact to critical slopes. Russett stated a lot of the impacts are due to the accommodation of the stormwater management system on the site and the development in general, but this is an infill site and staff thinks the benefits of more density and more housing offset the impacts to the critical slopes. Craig asked about the retaining wall that is shown on the images at the southwest corner of the slanted building, likely because of the slopes, but how tall is that retaining wall and what does it look like from the park. Russett stated there will be some existing trees along the wall and behind the retaining wall that will be seen when looking to the north from the park. She is not sure of the height of the retaining wall, the applicant can answer that question. Craig noted the significant elevation change down to Happy Hollow Park and just wanted to say for the record that if this project were to move forward, she certainly hopes that the City would take responsibility to add sidewalks to both sides of Happy Hollow Park for people who are trying to traverse that side without crossing Governor to get to downtown or anywhere close to downtown. Miller noted staff mentioned that it needs to be an OPD because of more than 35% of critical slopes are impacted, if that wasn't the case what would happen and if less than 35% of the critical slopes were impacted could City staff just rezone the whole thing to RM-20. Russett explained it wouldn't require the OPD, the overall project would still require a rezoning, but it Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 11 of 27 wouldn't require an OPD, it would still have to go through P&Z and Council. Miller asked about the multifamily development standards because a lot of the correspondence they received from the public was about how many trees they were taking out and his initial challenge with the current design is just the way that building along Governor was diagonal and if it was more parallel to the street they could potentially save a lot of those trees and put the open space behind the buildings like it was identified in the Central District Plan. He appreciates the walk up units, but they don't face the street. Russett acknowledged it could have been realigned so it all fronts North Governor, but it probably would have been a shorter building and with that there's some economies of scale of designing one building and it would get rid of the open space feature. Overall, it probably would have resulted in fewer units and a smaller building. Miller asked about the maximum setback. Russett noted there are easements that run through this property and the building can't be set further towards the street and they will need the applicant to request a minor modification to that, which is an administrative review. Wade asked if there is a significant difference to the City being the co -applicant on this versus just being staff supported. Russett acknowledged it's not something that they've done for map amendment before, they have done it for text amendments where the City has been the applicant, so there are rezoning applications where the City is the applicant. This is different and it's because of the history of the property and the complexity of the property and the lawsuits that exist so looking at it in the context of what can be built now with the current zoning and trying to get to a compromise with the property owner to have a better project than what could currently be built on the existing zoning designations. However, with the City being a co -applicant that changed nothing in the rezoning process or staff review. Townsend noted there are two Habitat homes right there on North Governor and also several rental homes on North Dodge so are any of these new homes going to be affordable. Russett replied no, they're going to be market rate. Townsend stated 84 units going in that area and none of them are affordable. Russett reiterated that one of the City Council's strategic plan goals is collaborating and creating partnerships for ways to reach the City's housing goals, and one of the ways to achieve some of the housing goals is just increasing overall supply, not necessarily having income restricted units, but getting more units online that could be used by someone who needs housing. Townsend acknowledged they need more housing units in the City at all income levels but in that area there are a lot of affordable places and if these units will be at market value that would be way above what would normally would be there. Hensch asked if the only areas that are required to have a 10% affordability requirement is in Riverfront Crossings or annexed land and Russett confirmed that's correct. Hensch asked about the R3B zoning and if that's a legacy zone not used anymore are there any other parts of Iowa City that still have R3B or is it only because of the litigation that it's still affixed to these parcels in this area. Russett confirmed it's only because of the litigation. Quellhorst asked about the tree screening between this development and Happy Hollow Park. Russett explained the existing trees that are along a portion of the proposed lot one would remain and then there's some trees that are being planted on the eastern side. Quellhorst noted it looks like a fair number of trees would be taken out under this proposal. Russett confirmed that but wanted to note even though there are critical slopes, there's no woodlands on the Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 12 of 27 property that are regulated by the sensitive areas ordinance so they're not limited in terms of the number of trees that could be removed. Hensch asked about the trees being removed and if they are oaks, maples or what. Russett stated she was unsure. Elliott noted regarding compatibility with the neighborhood and there's a lot of single family homes, and while she understands the infill and the need for more housing, why so much more housing. Russett explained the current R3B zoning would allow up to 84 dwelling units and the proposal is for 84 dwelling units. She stated these are certainly larger than the single family homes across the street but this property has been envisioned to allow multifamily development and it's currently zoned to allow multifamily development. Russett also stated with the multifamily site development standards there's requirements in terms of articulation and building materials that help minimize the size of the building. Again, they're proposing the exterior entrances which help break up the building and make it into modules and those are the points that were in the staff report that point to compatibility with the neighborhood. Also, when looking at it from the street, at least for the northern building, the shorter frontage fronts the street and it's also pushed back a little further, same with the southern building and the diagonal orientation which helps to minimize the size. Hensch noted the current parcels are zoned RS-8, RS-12, RM-20 and R3B so if there was no rezoning and each parcel was developed at its fullest zoning capacity, would that not be more dwelling units per acre than what this proposed project is. Russett stated the R3B allows more density and is actually more than RM-20 at 58 dwelling units per acre. The OPD RM-20 is 24 dwelling units per acre so combining all properties it may be possible. Townsend asked if there is a possibility to have stop lights installed. Russett replied no, the transportation staff and engineering staff reviewed this and there was no discussion of traffic signals or any off -site improvements. Townsend noted she travels that area during rush periods and it's not easy to get in and out of those areas. Miller noted the other thing that they heard a lot from the public about was the lack of affordable housing and with the OPD rezoning process is that even something that could be suggested. Russett explained the only times they require income restricted units is in Riverfront Crossings and through an annexation. Alternatively, it would have to be through a condition of this rezoning and to apply that condition the Commission would need to demonstrate that this rezoning creates some sort of public need that could justify that condition. Miller asked if it has ever been done outside of Riverfront Crossings or an annexation plan. Russett stated it was done with Forest View because there were existing residents in manufactured housing units that were going to be displaced with the rezoning. Townsend asked with the City being a co -applicant does that affect the units, Russett replied it doesn't. Townsend asked then why is the City is acting as a co -applicant. Russett explained to demonstrate the concern with how the property is currently zoned, so they are joining the applicant to put forth this rezoning due to concerns about what could be developed under the existing zoning and the hodgepodge nature of that. The City is hoping to get a better development project with this rezoning than what would be allowed under current zoning. Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 13 of 27 Townsend asked if as the co -applicant the City could request some of those units be affordable. Russett replied no, again it would have to be a condition of the rezoning and the Commission would need to demonstrate why the rezoning is creating a public need and justify why that would be needed for this rezoning. Hensch opened the public hearing. Jon Marner (MMS Consultants) is representing the developer for this application and will try to address some of the questions that that arose from Commission members. The first one is the orientation the building on the southeast corner. Part of the reason for that orientation is to pull that facade back away from Governor Street and to lessen the impact for the neighborhood from Governor Street. The other benefit to that is the highest point of the site is that southeast corner, so this also addresses some of the questions about the sensitive slopes. Most of the slopes that are being impacted are in that corner, they're actually man-made altered slopes and were put there quite a while back as part of the construction of those homes and when Happy Hollow Park and some of the other history of the site was developed. Those aren't original natural slopes, those are man-made slopes. Back to the orientation the building, by rotating it away it allowed them to sink the building down just a little bit lower from that southeast corner so as someone comes down Governor Street the building is going to appear closer to two stories, as opposed to the full three stories. Marner also addressed the tree preservation. Again, one of the intents to rotate that building was to allow them to preserve as many trees as possible. There are quite a few mature existing trees there on the park property that would not be touched. He acknowledged during the good neighbor meetings there was concern expressed about some of those trees being preserved so the building orientation was to help facilitate preserving as many of those trees as possible. He thinks there's a couple large cottonwoods in that area. Last but not least, some of the other trees that were spoken about in that open space area, as Russett pointed out on the Central District Plan one of the goals was to have a little bit of open space in that area and they also accommodate that. Obviously, they have to provide storm water detention, but that is the area where they were able to preserve some of those larger specimen trees. Regarding inventorying those trees, they went out and did an investigation and they were nicer specimen trees, not scrub trees, the ones that are identified are the better specimen trees in that area. Hensch asked about the easements going from the northeast to the southwest, how many easements are there and what type. Marner stated there's two easements there, one is for an existing public sanitary sewer that runs through the site and it runs straight through the site, as opposed to bending partway through. City staff has investigated that and he knows there's some other concerns about the capacity of that sewer and they've discussed with City staff throughout this process whether that sewer was adequate and the determination was made that it is adequate at this time so the easement is to ensure protection of that and provide access for City officials and for maintenance and repairs. The other easement is for storm sewer and it's actually conveying the storm sewer from the low point in Governor Street that's right on the northeast corner of the site, through the property into the storm sewer that then runs southwest down through Happy Hollow Park. Hensch asked what the widths of those easements are. Marner stated the sanitary sewer easement is 30' wide and the storm sewer is 40' and 30' as it varies in width through the site. Hensch asked about some of the slopes being created by previous grading, where were those Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 14 of 27 slopes created. Marner pointed on the map to those slopes around the backside of the two units that are constructed on that corner. It was pushed out to establish the flat grade for those units and that's where the slopes were created. Lastly, Hensch asked about the angle of that building, was the angle just a mass and scale issue of trying to decrease the appearance of mass and scale as people are going from South Governor to North Governor. Marner acknowledged that was part of it, it served two purposes, rotating that building served to pull it away so as one is approaching the site they're not seeing one continuous block length from Governor Street, it's rotated and provides a little different visual. It allowed the trees to remain which will also help soften that visual. Regarding the question about what it's going to look like from Happy Hollow Park Manner stated those specimen trees on the park property will still be there and will help buffer some of that visibility. Marner also reiterated rotating the building allows them to set it down in the site a little bit so that it's closer to two and a half stories visible. Hensch asked about the retaining wall, what would it look like, what will the height be, and what will it be constructed of. Manner replied it's an engineered wall varying from 5' to 13' in height. Hensch asked if someone is down in the park, say on the ball field, what is the change in elevation up to the base of the retaining wall. Marner is not sure because that's not on part of the rezoning but just by observation his rough estimate is 5' to the property line and then a few feet of rise to the retaining wall. Hensch asked if there is any screening in front of the retaining wall, because that would certainly help. Marner said not currently but certainly that's something that could be discussed. Marner noted one other idea regarding the retaining wall is as it follows along the south edge then bends and goes northwest to follow the building, they could lessen the height of the wall by rotating it back down closer to the property line and that would allow them to slope from the building down and meet closer to the grade in doing so, although that would also remove more trees. Craig thinks it's better to have the retaining wall and keep the trees, it feels like they're protecting the park more as opposed to just blending it all right into the park. Marner noted that's one of the goals expressed during the good neighbor meeting. He also noted there was a second, not a full good neighbor meeting, but they met with some other concerned, interested neighbors at their office with Russett maybe a month and a half after the first neighbor meeting and those were concerns that were consistently expressed. Therefore, they worked with the design and grading to try to save as many trees to accommodate those requests as best as possible. Craig wanted to make a positive comment, while she thinks these are huge buildings the options for bicycle parking are fantastic as this is a prime location for people who want to bike and to have covered bicycle parking. She would just also encourage some E vehicle options in those parking garages. Stephen Voyice (829 N. Dodge Street) lives directly across from 900 and 902 Dodge Street and wanted to speak on behalf of some of his affected neighbors. He read the planned development overlay and the RM-20 elements of the zoning ordinance that the Commission are to consider when reviewing the proposal and the following words stood out. "This zone, RM-20, is particularly well suited to locations adjacent to commercial areas and in areas with good access to all City services and facilities". Voyce fails to see how the proposed rezoning complies with that statement. The property is not adjacent to a commercial area, the lack of a sidewalk on Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 15 of 27 Governor means it does not have good access for pedestrians, and as someone who only rides a bike and does not ride a car those are extremely dangerous streets in that area without sidewalks. Voyce stated this location is not suited for the proposed density shown on this plan based on the words written in the zoning code. Moreover, the RM-20 zone also says "careful attention to site and building design is important to ensure the various housing types in any one location are compatible with one another." Voyce stated the site and building design shows little compatibility with the existing single family duplexes and apartment buildings in the neighborhood, in order to fit in the number of units proposed these buildings will be an astounding 236' long. Compare that to a standard city block of 300' these buildings will be almost an entire block in length, and the image shows it. Although the City must abide by the court ruling that imposed the R3B zoning on parts of this property it should not go beyond that to approve a plan that is incompatible with the single-family duplexes and existing apartment buildings in this neighborhood. Yes, some multifamily buildings are appropriate here, but not these two enormous buildings. The zoning codes also states "the OPD zoning will not be contrary to the intent and purpose of this title, inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended or harmful to the surrounding neighborhoods" more it says it "should encourage the preservation and best use of existing landscape features through development that is sensitive to the natural features of the surrounding area". Voyce questions how does this OPD plan comply with these provisions in the zoning code, it simply does not. The staff report acknowledges that 86% of the critical slopes will be impacted and most of the trees will be removed. That just shows that the proposed very large scale buildings do not take into account these natural features, they are simply too large for the property. Voyce notes these are the standards that the Planning and Zoning Commission is supposed to use to evaluate an OPD zoning. The general standards reads "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". Again, the proposed 236' long buildings are way out of scale, even with the existing apartment buildings, and in no way complement the adjacent development. Number two, "the development will not overburden existing streets and utilities". There are no sidewalks on the west side of Governor Street to provide pedestrian access to this property. Although the developer will put in sidewalks on his property, they will lead essentially to nowhere. The staff report contains very little about the environmentally sensitive areas, other than to say the 86% of critical slopes will be graded away and the grove of trees adjacent to Happy Hollow Park appears to be removed. Voyce reviewed the sensitive areas section of the zoning code and it states the intent is to "preserve the scenic character of hillside areas, particularly the wooded hillsides" and it says "encroachment of construction areas into steep and critical slopes must be minimized. If disturbance of more than 35% of critical slopes is proposed, a level two sensitive area review is required". Voyce stated level two requires Planning and Zoning review and if 86% of critical slopes are to be wiped away and the grove of trees adjacent to Happy Hollow Park is to be removed, how does this comply with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning code to develop the city in a way that respects environmentally sensitive areas. It does not because too much development is being proposed on this property. Sharon DeGraw (Northside) submitted a letter but noticed only a portion of it made it to the Commission in the agenda packet. She is writing as a resident of the Northside neighborhood and the Goosetown apartment development and rezoning petition is a complicated matter with a long history that includes a ruling from the State Supreme Court of Iowa in favor of Mr. Barkalow against the City. As a Commission charged with responsibility to serve the public she would like to point out that they may find themselves in an unusual position reviewing an application which began as a rezoning petition from Mr. Barkalow (TSB Holdings) and is now a joint rezoning Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 16 of 27 petition from TSB and City staff. Iowa City governance has rules in place for non -biased evaluation so how does the Commission escape the weight of the City's thumb on this petition when the City staff is a co -applicant of a controversial rezoning. DeGraw personally has a feeling that if the Commission voted this down City staff will just march it over to City Council anyway. Aside from the procedural concerns DeGraw noted there are problems with the rezoning petition and the development proposal. Page one of the staff report states the proposed development would allow the demolition and replacement of the buildings along North Governor Street, including the existing vacant commercial office building. So why does the plan include the rezoning of properties on Dodge Street, specifically 900and 900'/2 North Dodge Street, where no infill development is proposed. Apparently, density from the Dodge Street properties can be transferred to a Governor Street address to increase the maximum size of the building and the number of dwelling units allowed. The two proposed buildings for the Goosetown apartments have issues too, they are much too large for the neighborhood. These are two three story buildings, dimensions 236' times 70' making each building almost the length of one city block, and there are no other buildings on that scale in the neighborhood. There are 133 parking spaces and other paving's which is equivalent to the footprint of the two dwelling structures. There are only two or three guest parking spaces, that's not enough. Construction of the development, as presented, will remove 86% of the critical slopes contiguous to Happy Hollow Park and DeGraw thinks that if someone is standing at the basketball court they could see 40' of the building that will be 14' from the park edge boundary. A significant retaining wall, as a structural necessity, will be built at the bottom of the hill in a sensitive wooded overlay at the north end of Happy Hollow Park, the retaining wall will be 5' to 14'. Clearly, the development has too many units, the buildings are too large for the sensitive sloped property, and the scale of the development does not fit into the neighborhood. The City will state that rezoning to a higher density is in the best interest of the citizens of Iowa City in order to increase available housing units in the city, DeGraw states that can still be accomplished in a sensible way by amending the proposal to omit the address 900 and 900'/2 North Dodge Street from the rezoning. Page six of the staff report shows figure four, the Central District Neighborhood Plan Future Land Use Map, and it exhibits 900 and 900'/2 North Dodge Street as RS-12 property. It's transitional and appropriate next to single family homes and any pretense to abandon this logic goes against the Central District Plan. DeGraw is supportive of redeveloping the land, having North Governor Street addresses on the R3B zoned lots, and sees no need for the lots having North Dodge Street addresses to be rezoned. That is adding density above what the court decision imposed. She urges the Commission to reject the rezoning application, having a rezoning petition which removes the property 900 and 900'/2 North Dodge Street would likely result in a density more appropriate for the sensitive property. DeGraw shared a handout to show is the lot that has a rectangle and an arrow around as a designated lot that should not become RM-20, it's supposed to be transitional RS-12 and it sits next to 830 North Dodge Street, which is a single family residential home. The other thing in her handout is to show where there is the R3B zoning is they have the choice to leave that as is and to not vote it in favor of this, and just hold on to those R313s, she doesn't believe all of it could be developed as planned. Jennifer Baum (814 Dewey Street) is in agreement with DeGraw that the buildings are just too big for the lot and the parcels that are in the little corner have no business being included in that property. Baum does agree that the area needs to be rezoned but the little properties there are simply giving away for two bigger buildings and if those buildings had a third cut off, it might be able to work. Baum stated having that many people in that space is going to increase the traffic on the northside, even on the streets that are not Governor and North Dodge, because people have to get from one side to the other side as they're both one ways, so to do that one has to cut Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 17 of 27 through extremely residential areas like Deweyville, where she lives as the ad hoc mayor. She noted people going to HyVee from Governor Street assume that it's a shortcut and go through there about 40 miles an hour, they already have trouble with that, they already stand on the street corner and yell at people because they have lots of small children and are hoping to have more and hoping to have a development on North Summit that includes families. So, they're looking to put more families in their neighborhood and when they start increasing the number of humans that only have one recourse in egress and ingress, they have to figure out how to get to that one spot. Baum stated there's been no discussion about putting an alley or a way of getting through from the North Dodge property to the Governor property and that is problematic. If they gave these folks a way to go between those two properties, where there is actually room because they made a smaller number of units, they could have a little more space to put in a way so that people could get across those two lots and from one side of the one way to the other one way. Baum stated that would relieve all that traffic that's trying to make a shortcut somehow really fast through the neighborhood. She stated all they have in their neighborhood is humans that are either alive or dead and the dead folks have visitors. The people that live on her streets go really slowly and don't want people going by that fast. They finally, after 10 years of fighting, got semis off our street and this is just going to set them back. Baum stated there's a way to make it a little bit easier and still have infill, still have apartments, still have housing, even though it's not going to be affordable for a majority of humans that live in the Midwest, and not destroy the neighborliness of the neighborhoods. Bethany Berger (Northside) states she lives probably about an eight minute walk from where the proposal is and wanted to speak in support of the proposal. One thing that hasn't been necessarily mentioned is that this development is also a short walk from the HyVee, it's a short walk from the Ace Hardware, this is an ideal place to put housing where people actually can walk to various services, so they won't need to drive all the time. She noted looking at the site now, it's really an eyesore, it's an abandoned office building and big parking lot, so the new buildings will make the landscaping there will be much more attractive than some of the buildings that are currently there. Berger stated one of the things that she loves about Iowa City is its walkability which is a truly unique thing. She lived in Connecticut for a long time and it's a unique thing that Iowa City has so in order to preserve that walkability they need dense housing where people can walk to services. Berger also really liked reading about the plants that are going to be planted there and really appreciated that. Marie Wilkes (917 N. Governor Street) stated she moved to Iowa City in the early to mid-1980s and bought her home at 917 North Governor in 1987. She is very committed to Iowa City and been a taxpayer of property taxes for almost 40 years. She has raised two children here and loves the northside. She'd love to get rid of that empty lot but she also knows something about how that road is, having had at least three cars in her front yard, her house is just a little bit beyond where it goes straight, then there's a curve and a dip, and when the road is icy people end up in her yard, she is concerned when they have had possibly 100 cars in and out. Over the last 40 years there's been traffic that has increased over time and thank God it was so complicated for everyone to decide to develop First Avenue, but it did lessen the traffic a little bit on Governor, but it's still building. Because they're doing a good job in progressing and trying to make those hard decisions she asks the Commission to make this decision, not for money today, but for the citizens that live and are committed to Iowa City as a unique eco structure. Iowa City is very walkable. She took a class at the University that talked about how unique Iowa City is in that they had an area that busses, people were dropped off, they could walk through downtown, they can walk their children to school. With this development they will have how many extra Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 18 of 27 people coming in, and how close are they to Horace Mann and to Preucil, how will that limit children that have been able to be raised in an area that makes them able to be independent and learn those decisions earlier. Wilkes stated its hard decisions and she appreciates the people that they vote in to municipal offices to conduct the business that most are too busy to do, but the Commission finds the time to do it so she would ask them simply to think logically about why are they considering more density. Nothing has changed from 2011 when it was turned down. If someone can explain the difference to her she'd gladly listen but she doesn't see how they're able to support comfortably and welcome that many people into this neighborhood. Wilkes stated they are good neighbors and like to walk and say hi to each other and walk down to City Park to enjoy the fireworks and back safely on Fourth of July and walk down to Hamburg Inn on a Saturday or Sunday for breakfast, they're the people in this neighborhood, so please think about them. Audrey Bahrick (830 N. Dodge Street) is a 25 year owner and resident of 830 North Dodge Street, her home is visible at the very bottom southwest corner and shares a driveway with the 900 North Dodge Street duplex. She opposes the request for rezoning in its current state and requests removal from the proposal of the duplex at 900 North Dodge Street. She is wholly supportive of a multifamily infill development of an appropriate size that considers the context of the existing neighborhood, the critical steep slopes and the relationship to the public park. Her understanding is that Planning and Zoning reviews the application through a lens of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and with compatibility with the neighborhood. The Barkalow/City rezoning proposal is problematic in regards to both principles. Rezoning the 900 North Dodge Street duplex is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan because historically City Council and Planning and Zoning recognized that the R313 high density multifamily zoning on portions of the proposed rezoning was a spot zone and was considered a mistake. They called it a mistake. They twice tried to bring the zoning in line with the neighborhood and was prevented by the Iowa Supreme Court. Now staff is proposing to grant Mr. Barkalow expanded zoning beyond what the court allowed. Regarding rezoning 900 North Dodge Street, staff offer a rationale of desiring consistency with the RM-20 portions of the property rather than seeking consistency with the nature of the surrounding neighborhood and with the spirit and letter of the Comprehensive Plan. What was once understood as a spot zone has now become the model for density. Second, the staff promotion of a value of consistency of zoning within the required OPD is contradicted by leaving one of the North Dodge Street duplexes as is, the northwest one, but rezoning the other to RM-20. Bahrick stated it's not specified in the staff report that the fact that the OPD allows unused residential density within it to be transferred to the proposed new buildings. So what's occurring is that the 900 North Dodge Street house sits on a lot of 17,400 square feet, but only 5000 square feet are required for a single family home. By rezoning the 900 North Dodge Street duplex from RS-12 to RM-20 and changing it from a duplex to a single unit, Mr. Barkalow was able to transfer unused density, gaining six of his 84 units in the proposed two buildings. This is obliquely acknowledged on page 10 of the staff report where it is stated that the owner shall convert the existing duplex to one dwelling to ensure compliance with the maximum density standards of the zone. It took her a long time to understand why are they including her neighbor there when there's no plan to redevelop it, they're capturing density. The two North Dodge Street properties she has been referring to are clearly shown in the Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan as RS-12 single family/duplex. The Comprehensive Plan stipulates that these properties are to serve as transition zoning. Bahrick stated she has invested a significant portion of her financial resources in her home at 830 North Dodge Street adjacent to the 900 North Dodge Street duplex with the understanding that the Comprehensive Plan is a reliable document. It seems to her now the City is prepared to override the Comprehensive Plan and the Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 19 of 27 Central District Plan in order to facilitate achieving an inappropriate density for the neighborhood. The Supreme Court did not obligate the City to include 900 North Dodge Street in its decision and doing so is in clear violation of the Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan. Achieving maximum density requires inappropriately rezoning designated transitional housing at 900 North Dodge Street, bulldozing 86% of critical steep slopes adjacent to Happy Hollow Park and removing most of the trees on the border development. Bahrick stated it does seem that the City may be concerned if they don't go along with the current proposal that the development could be worse due to what's allowed by the Supreme Court decision however, given the odd shape of the court imposed R313 zonings, the three disparate plots, and the steep slope on lot 51 which may make it difficult even to build on, and the diagonal sewer easement, it is unlikely that Mr. Barkalow could, in practice, achieve the theoretical density permitted by the R 3B zone. Bahrick asks the Commission to send the plans back to the staff and the developer back to the drawing board to devise a plan that works better environmentally and is more environmentally sensitive. Matthew Solinger (1001 N. Summit Street) has lived in the neighborhood for about 10 years and has been working as a delivery driver in it for a little longer than a year. He mostly wants to bring up issues with the design and traffic, because that's a lot of people that are all going to be leading right out into Governor, which they all know is a one way, and that driveway is right at the top of the hill. People like to drive fast, they're going to be coming up it and without some kind of stop light or something, there's going to be problems. While people have mentioned biking and walking, which are great, but if people try to bike out onto Governor, eventually they're going to die. It's bad. It could be fixed again with a light or something, maybe a sidewalk going the other way so one could walk to the Ace Hardware or the HyVee without having to get on the road. Seems like something that could be brought into this plan. Also, Solinger stated when somebody says market range he hears rich jerks. If they said they're going to put people that need a cheap place to live in here, he'd feel better about it personally. Matthieu Bigger (519 N. Johnson Street) noted everybody has made so many great points and he'll try not reiterate too many things but first has to concur on both market prices and the fact that the units would be one and two bedrooms only. Staff, P&Z folks, and planning people need to figure out if that would indeed help with providing options for people, for households of all types and of all incomes, if that would really increase of the stock that is needed in the city. He is hoping that they have access to that information. The City has sometimes fought for three and four bedroom housing because they are trying to limit the density of student housing, but if they want families to move into those units, or into that current empty lot, he imagines they would want more than one and two bedroom housing. Regarding traffic, between the danger of Governor Street, he wishes people would test going up that hill in the winter, the lack of access to busses on Dodge Street and to bike down the city, it just doesn't make any sense. Bigger acknowledged he is not a planner but between that and the great points before about the what seemed to be unnecessary rezoning of some of the RS-12 lots, they could cut off the current RM-20 down the middle and then avoid the houses on the southeast and have two and a half acres ready for an RM-20. They would take over all the R3B, some of the current RM-20 and could still put in maybe 40-50 units. That would alleviate some of the concerns with traffic, which will be extreme. Bigger notes he loves going through Deweyville. He usually walks or bikes through it. He definitely never comes down there from the north in his car, but people do, just like the northside has had concerns with people crossing and taking Ronalds and choosing a cobbled street to go from Dubuque east, he doesn't know why, it seems crazy, but people do it. He loves those streets, but again he does it on his bike because it's fun. Regarding the slopes, Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 20 of 27 even if some of those were man-made per code encroachment must be minimized for critical slopes. That would not be done. Regarding storm water, do they know if there's current issues with stormwater and would doing all this actually make things worse with potential issues with flooding. If this is to proceed they need to think about permeable pavers. Also light pollution was mentioned and this will be more light pollution then with just houses. With big lots there's a lot of lights and LED lights have been proven to be convenient and cheap and not consume much electricity but they're awful for wildlife. Also cutting about an acre of trees won't be good for wildlife, but whatever is left of the wildlife will not be happy with all that artificial light day and night. Bigger would also love staff to check the code for the distance that is needed between a playground and a building, he saw somewhere that one can install a playground only if it's 20 feet from a property line. Working backwards from that there's currently a basketball court that would be too close to what would come. Finally, market price is an ugly and contentious buzzword. Is this really what is needed, maybe it hasn't come yet but there's going to be an enrollment cliff at the universities in the Midwest so if this is targeting students, who knows what is going to happen to those units, sadly demographics in Iowa is not going the right direction. Orville Townsend (713 Whiting Avenue) noted he is a victim of his wife's take your husband to work initiative so as he has been sitting here this evening and observing, it dawned on him that this Commission is not only citizens who have volunteered to give their time to help make the city a better place, but they also have some influence and some impact. The area he'd like to address is affordable housing and affordable housing is just what it says affordable. Townsend stated affordable is the big word, it's no problem when one can afford it, but unfortunately in this community there's so many people who can't afford it. This Commission is in a position to be able to make a difference, they have a lot of cases that come before them and a lot of opportunities to initiate efforts that can help to make the City's affordable housing better. Townsend noted while he has a house and it's very comfortable he remembers a time when he was a student and it was a nightmare. He hadn't gotten a job yet after he graduated from college and was struggling just trying to make it so affordable housing is something that is important, because when someone is struggling, they have a lot of things coming at them that they have no control over. Townsend encourages the Commission to do anything they can to assist the City in improving this affordable housing initiative. Andrew Evans (941 Dewey Street) lives within 500' of the proposed site and works as an architect in Iowa City. He wanted highlight a few points, first is how much is the developer held to the specifics of the plans and elevations that are contained within this proposal, assuming that the zoning change would pass. Any means of holding the developer to the plans would be beneficial, especially items like the unit setbacks are very beneficial in taking this from a 236' long building and segmenting it to match more of the single family scale that folks have been discussing. Evans does have concern that when value engineering comes into play, that instead of having those delineated units it once again starts to appear like a 236' mass that people have expressed concern with. Evans also noted the wall to the south of the site right now doesn't have a material called out and he is concerned that is a large concrete graffiti -ready wall there. He acknowledged the representative for the developer pointed out that the three story building will actually be more like two and a half in many parts of the site, but if the side yard elevation that's attached as part of this evening's document is accurate for that elevation, he is not sure how the walk up units would work for a building that is sunken half a story into the ground. If anything it'd likely rise up from there and having elevated porches. Regarding elevations, looking briefly at topographical maps, it looks like Happy Hallow Park sits somewhere between 710' and 720' of elevation and the building is proposed at 735', the edge of the site is between 735' and Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 21 of 27 745' so that's a massive grade increase. Evans also acknowledged the trees to the south of the site, demoing some of those trees is pulling back the curtain and so this is elevated on a platform and serves as a billboard for all that traffic coming up North Governor. By pulling back that curtain, instead of exposing a 70' facade they're now exposing a 236' facade. The idea of pulling back for more green space and setback works well for sites that are accessed from 360 degrees, but here 98-99% of the eyeballs on this site are coming from the south up that road. So if it was just 70' wide and more parallel with the road, it would appear actually much more in scale with the rest of the houses. Evans noted that on Mormon Trek Road between Benton and Rohret Roads are townhomes very similar to the designs currently proposed here and those run parallel. He uses that comparison because there's sidewalks in front of bunches of town home units and so those are unparallel and he doesn't think anyone is offended by those even though there's not a massive, angled setback. Evans stated another resident of the area, Jennifer Baum, brought up alley connection and access between the two units and he thinks if they're proposed as a package deal, then that should be used as an advantage. When arterial roads, like Dodge and Governor are seen as one ways that's viewed on the whole city scale, it makes a ton of sense, but unfortunately when on one side you can only use what's in front of you and can't use both that are advantageous. Therefore, creating the alley access would be very beneficial. Evans also noted many of the roads people are cutting through, many of the neighborhood roads, don't have sidewalks or are brick and so those are much more popular for bikers and walkers than other neighborhoods. If the City is encouraging bikers, with this new development and someone has to bike downtown, what route are they taking. If the developer is encouraged to connect the two via some sort of path, even if it's not a full connection of the parking lots, that'd be very beneficial to the safety, because no person in the right mind is going to hop on their bike, ride uphill north a quarter mile just to loop back down into town. As a co -applicant he thinks that puts the City in more responsibility to step up and make beneficial moves for the park, the compatibility with the existing neighborhood, as well as connection with the alley. His final point would be with the environmentally sensitive areas, it's just a bit concerning to him that there were only like five lines of text on that about crossing the 35% threshold to 86% and some points were made about artificial slopes, but none of those slopes are near the road, so to him that point is moot and perhaps there are some more creative ways to configure the site to bring that 86% number much lower. He thinks it'd be beneficial and would counter that the 236' of the building would leave most of the slopes and highlight the 70' facade instead to maintain the economy of scale that was referenced earlier. Jennifer Baum wanted to add speaking of wildlife there's a herd of about 40 deer that every night goes from the ravine on the other side of Dodge Street, go through Happy Hallow Park, come up across Governor, go up the hill into Deweyville and then on into the cemetery and Hickory Hill. So, thinking about safety and driving again the more people on that street the more likely deer are going to get hit. Sharon DeGraw noticed in reading the staff report there was a fee in lieu paid and she believes that that means rent, a fee in lieu is the cost of doing business that's going to be passed on to future renters, making the property more expensive to rent. Also, when a small group of neighbors did talk to the MMS engineers and asked for a walkway that would connect the apartment complex buildings to the park as that would be a nice way for people to get to the park safely, that was turned down. She thinks that's an incredibly important thing that should be added as somehow in the course of this discussion it was misinterpreted that they were wanting to keep people away from the park and that's not true at all, they want people to use the park, they're just trying to figure out safe ways they can access the park. Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 22 of 27 Matthieu Bigger wanted to read verbiage from code. In the RM-12, RM-20 and RNS-20 zones, if any portion of a two family use, multifamily use, group living use, or nonresidential use is located within 15'of a property that contains an existing single family use, then the portion of the building located within 15' of said property may not exceed two and a half stories in height. Bigger is pretty sure that in all of this there's something that's 15' away from said property and somebody should check. Also, a point of sustainability, which the City cares about, if 905/909 North Governor ought to be razed, the City as a co -applicant, maybe can exercise some light pressure to please include deconstruction of said houses instead of straight razing and demolition and sending to the landfill. The house may not have immense historical value but it would be nice to see if there's elements that could be salvaged for somebody else to use. Jon Marner (MMS) briefly added a couple of comments based on some of the additional concerns expressed by the community and the neighbors. Regarding the proposed grade and the question raised earlier about elevations, the elevation of park at the southeast corner, directly east from the proposed amenity gathering area, is approximately 745' and the proposed building elevation for the finished first floor is 736' so it sits 9' below that elevation at the retaining wall. That's part of how they would accommodate that gathering seating area amenity is to have a retaining wall out closer to the right of way to allow that seating area and it steps up slowly from the building and allows that town home entrance for that building. The other question raised was the existing elevation just north of the basketball court which is about 718' and it does slope up to the retaining wall and the existing grade at the bottom of the proposed retaining wall is about 722' so about 4' of elevation change just from the property line to the bottom of the retaining wall. Marner noted it was expressed about the desire to have a pedestrian connection to the park and that was discussed with staff whether that was desired by Parks and Rec and the understanding at the time was that the Parks Department did not desire for there to be a pedestrian connection directly from the units down to the park. There may be an opportunity in the future, via sidewalk or any potential capital improvements or City improvements to Governor Street, to utilize that access to come down to the park for this development. Craig asked how about a pedestrian exit over to Dodge Street, a bicycle or pedestrian trail. Marner stated they did look at that and it was another consideration but just along the property line, east of the existing parking lot, there's a dumpster pad with a retaining wall and the grades on the west part of the site are significantly higher than the east part of the site. Also, that's some of the areas they're trying to protect and it would be challenging at best to get a an accessible path from east to west through the site because of the elevation change. Audrey Bahrick stated regarding having a trail from the development to the park, to read from page 50 of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan it states there is a requirement to "identify and plan for the development of trail connections as part of all new developments." Bahrick stated the proposed development turns its back on the park offering no designated pedestrian access for residents of these buildings and that is in clear violation of the Comprehensive Plan. To assume that residents would simply walk through the formerly wooded threshold to the park is not possible because of a retaining wall from 4' to 13' high is planned that will separate the development from the park. She'd like everyone to imagine a parent with a child going to the park, or a parent with a stroller, or someone with mobility limits, trying to get to that park from this development, that's just not happening. They need to go out the exit onto Governor Street, and then there's a sidewalk to nowhere, cross mid -block on a state highway, walk down to Brown Street, walk across Brown Street a whole city block to get to the entrance of the park, because Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 23 of 27 it's just not accessible from the site. Developments should relate to the amenities, that's also part of the Comprehensive Plan, that there should be a relationship there, and this development literally is turning its back on the park. Hensch closed the public hearing. Quellhorst recommends approval of REZ24-0001, a proposal to rezone approximately 5.49 acres of land between N. Dodge and N. Governor Streets to OPD/RS-12 (approximately 0.17 acres) and OPD/RM-20 (approximately 5.32 acres) subject to the following conditions: 1. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owners agree that no building permit shall be issued for Lot 1 as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan until the City Council approves a final plat resubdividing the subject property to conform to the zoning boundaries established by the rezoning ordinance to which this Agreement is attached. 2. Prior to the approval of the Final Plat, the Owner shall convert the existing duplex as shown on Lot 2 of the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan to one dwelling unit to ensure compliance with the maximum density standards of the zone. 3. As part of Final Plat approval, the Owner shall dedicate public right-of-way and easements along N. Governor Street consistent with what is shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 4. As part of Final Plat approval, the Owner shall grant a temporary construction easement on the western 10' of the subject property abutting N. Dodge Street. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan, the existing water services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge Street that are tapped off of the water main in N. Governor Street shall be abandoned, and new services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge Street shall be installed that are tapped off of the water main in N. Dodge Street subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Craig seconded the motion. Quellhorst began Commission discussion wanting to thank everybody for a great discussion tonight, he made the motion he made because he thinks they need more housing. People pay too much for housing and a lot of people can't afford to live here so if they want to change that they need to build more housing units. This is an opportunity to do that, which would bring housing prices down for all. The land seems very well situated to multifamily development, it's largely unused, close to two arterial streets, public transportation and a grocery store. Additionally, if they don't do this it seems likely to that there would be a similar development, but it would be worse because it would be less well organized and not subject to modern zoning standards. So for those reasons he supports the motion. Craig echoed what Quellhorst said would just add that one of the points people made tonight Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 24 of 27 was families, and that maybe they wouldn't be feel comfortable in a one or two bedroom apartment. She can't remember what the national statistics are, but in Iowa City 40% of the housing units are for one person so they have to build housing for everybody. She acknowledged if she had her druthers it'd be a little bit smaller, but it's bringing housing that is desperately needed. She doesn't believe it is incompatible with the neighborhood, it's going to fit in and the people are going to be able to bike, walk and the livability of the neighborhood is increased. When more people are added more activities happen and she will support the project. Hensch first wanted to commend everybody and thank them for showing up tonight noting it's hard to show up in public and speak but he listened carefully to every word said and read every word submitted in writing. He personally will support this application, and his reasons are affordable housing. They have to do something and the only way to do that is either lower the price or increase the supply and this is definitely going to increase the supply. Unfortunately, since no one is displaced they can't add a condition that there be affordable housing but so everybody knows, right now there is a steering committee meeting to update the current Comprehensive Plan, because every 10 years they're required by law to update that, and he's a member of that steering committee and will advocate strongly that affordability be included in all zoning areas, not just Riverfront Crossings and annexations. Just to address a couple issues people had about traffic concerns, Hensch completely understands that. He's been in Iowa City since 1985 and that was an intensive commercial use there, where that office building is, with probably hundreds of people coming going every day with DHS there, so the traffic flow has already been seen. Also the idea of an alley access, he respects that being brought up but doesn't think that's a good idea because all alley accesses turn into cut-throughs and it leads to increased speeds, and any residents around there will rue the day that an alley or a cut -through was put through that property, because people want to go the shortest way they can when they're getting somewhere, or at least what they think it's the shortest way, and then the people that live there pay for that. Lastly, because he is the chair, he can't make a motion or second it, but would ask that they add another condition if the motion maker and seconder would approve, to add S3 screening (the highest level of screening) at the base of that retaining wall for the purpose of making it look green and when people are in the park and look up they just don't see a bare wall, they'll see foliage, they'll see plants, they'll see vines and beautification. Also, Iowa City has a horrible problem with graffiti and if they can do anything to keep people from spray painting that wall, they need to do that. Hensch stated he will be voting yes and hopes that they can make a consideration for adding another condition to the five that currently exist. Elliott likes the idea of a consideration for S3 screening and would vote yes with that and if they could add a consideration for some kind of walkway path to the park. Hensch noted the Recreation Commission may not have agreed to that nor was it in the Comprehensive Plan but since the City is a co -applicant it seems they can put as a consideration that idea because it is very odd there is no sidewalk to get to the park on Governor Street, they could at least ask that it gets pushed forward to the Recreation Commission to try to get in a capital plan. Quellhorst stated there would be a sidewalk to the park, because there's going to be a sidewalk that runs down Governor as part of the property development. Hensch replied that only goes to the property line. Craig stated the City has to take responsibility for bringing that sidewalk down to Brown Street. Quellhorst stated that is outside the scope of this particular proposal and they cannot saddle the cost to the developer, because it is not their project. Hensch agreed but Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 25 of 27 stated they could at least advocate or communicate to recreation department to consider putting it in their capital plan at some point, to extend that sidewalk so people can safely get down to the park. The City is a co -applicant so they can suggest it be presented to the Recreation Committee, even just by a memo to consider on their capital plan. Russett stated they can certainly pass along the interest of the Commission to have a sidewalk, that's probably something the public works department would look at since it's in the public right of way, but she is uncertain now how they would add it as a condition and not have it be placed on the owner. Hensch asked if they can get staff assurance that they will forward that to public works and Russett confirmed absolutely staff will pass that along. Regarding adding a condition of S3 screening at the retaining wall Quellhorst thinks screening is generally a good idea but is not familiar with the cost or logistics associated with that and would staff any have any position on that. Hensch noted the applicant actually agreed to it already, they said they wouldn't have no objection to that. Russett confirmed staff thinks it's a reasonable request as well. Quellhorst moved to amend the motion to add a sixth condition that S3 screening be added to the retaining wall. Craig seconded the amendment. Townsend noted she probably be the only no vote on this one because as she is looking at these units and the neighborhood, the buildings are huge and, in her opinion, it needs to be reconfigured as it just doesn't fit in with the look of the neighborhood. Miller agrees and is all for density and infill, but the scale of the buildings and how they relate to the street don't feel appropriate, and he doesn't think it's because of the density they could fit that many units on this site in a more appropriate way with stepping a little bit more. The explanation about making the buildings identical is economical but it doesn't feel like the right long term solution. But he agrees overall and may have designed qualms with it but they're in an affordable housing crisis and getting the units is the most important thing at this point. A vote was taken and the motion with the added conditions passed 6-1 (Townsend dissenting). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: DECEMBER 4. 2024: Elliott moved to approve the meeting minutes from December 4, 2024. Townsend seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Townsend nominated Quellhorst for chair, Miller seconded, a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. Craig nominated Elliott for vice -chair, Miller seconded, a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 26 of 27 Townsend nominated Wade for secretary, Elliott seconded, a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett noted the two rezonings at Western Homes and Cardinal Heights that the Commission saw a while ago with changes to the OPD were both approved at Council. Russett stated the next meeting will be on March 5 with no meeting on March 19 due to spring break. ADJOURNMENT: Townsend moved to adjourn, Quellhorst seconded and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2023-2025 1014 10118 11115 1216 12120 1117 217 2121 413 511 6126 914 9118 11120 1214 2119 CRAIG, SUSAN X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X ELLIOTT, MAGGIE X X X X X X O/E X X X O/E X X O/E X X HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X MILLER, STEVE -- -- I -- -- -- -- I -- -- -- -- -- -- I -- -- -- -- -- -- I -- -- -- -- X X X X X PADRON, MARIA X X X O/E X X X X O/E O/E -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- QUELLHORST, SCOTT X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X WADE, CHAD X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member Prepared by: Madison Conley, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5230 (REZ24-0016) Ordinance No. Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 7.2 acres of property located North of Melrose Ave. and East of Camp Cardinal Blvd. from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Mixed Use (MU) zone (REZ24-0016). Whereas, St. Andrew Presbyterian Church, has requested the rezoning of property located North of Melrose Ave. and East of Camp Cardinal Blvd. from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Mixed Use (MU) zone; and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the subject area is appropriate for Office Commercial following the approval of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA 16-00001) and includes a resolution identifying Commercial Office (CO-1) zone as an appropriate zone to transition to more intense uses (Res. No. 16-129); and Whereas, the MU zone is comparable to the CO-1 zone because both zones allow residential uses, less intensive commercial uses, and do not allow drinking establishments, quick vehicle servicing uses or outdoor storage and display oriented retail; and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan encourages compact, efficient development that is contiguous and connected to existing neighborhoods to reduce the cost of extending infrastructure and services, ensures infill development is compatible and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood, encourages a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods, ensures a mix of housing types within each neighborhood, and identifies and supports infill development and redevelopment opportunities in areas where services are already in place; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need for transportation access improvements which includes reconstruction of the median and construction of a dedicated left -turn lane on Camp Cardinal Blvd. to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions including reconstruction of the median to allow access and construction of a dedicated left -turn lane on Camp Cardinal Blvd. prior to issuance of a building permit and City Engineer approval, the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2025) 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, St. Andrew Presbyterian Church, has 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. 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 reclassified Mixed Use (MU) zone, as indicated: Ordinance No. Page 2 AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2012061 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 57 PAGE 8 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL CONTAINS 7.20 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 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 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, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of 12025. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Approved by City Attorney's Office (Liz Craig — 03/27/2025) Ordinance No. Page 3 It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Alter Bergus Harmsen Moe Salih Teague Weilein First Consideration Avril 1. 2025 Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Harmsen, Moe, Salih, Weilein NAYS: None ABSENT: Teague Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Date published Prepared by: Madison Conley, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (REZ24-0016) Conditional Zoning Agreement This agreement is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"), and St. Andrew Presbyterian Church (hereinafter referred to as "Owner"). Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 7.2 acres of property located North of Melrose Ave. and East of Camp Cardinal Blvd., legally described below; and Whereas, the Owner has requested the rezoning of said property legally described below from the Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Mixed Use (MU) zone; and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the subject area is appropriate for Office Commercial following the approval of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA 16-00001) and includes a resolution identifying Commercial Office (CO-1) zone as an appropriate zone to transition to more intense uses (Res. No. 16-129); and Whereas, the MU zone is comparable to the CO-1 zone because both zones allow residential uses, less intensive commercial uses, and do not allow drinking establishments, quick vehicle servicing uses or outdoor storage and display oriented retail; and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan encourages compact, efficient development that is contiguous and connected to existing neighborhoods to reduce the cost of extending infrastructure and services, ensures infill development is compatible and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood, encourages a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods, ensures a mix of housing types within each neighborhood, and identifies and supports infill development and redevelopment opportunities in areas where services are already in place; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need for transportation access improvements which includes reconstruction of the median and construction of a dedicated left -turn lane on Camp Cardinal Blvd. to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions including reconstruction of the median to allow access and construction of a dedicated left -turn lane on Camp Cardinal Blvd. prior to issuance of a building permit and City Engineer approval, the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2025) 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 agrees 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. Owner is the legal title holders of the property legally described as: AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2012061 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 57 PAGE 8 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL CONTAINS 7.20 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 2. Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the Comprehensive Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2025) 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 agrees 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 the Owner shall reconstruct the median to allow access and also construct a dedicated left -turn lane on Camp Cardinal Blvd. subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 4. The conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2025), 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, shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties, and shall remain in full force and effect until a building permit is issued for the above -described property, upon which occurrence these conditions shall be deemed satisfied and this agreement of no further force and effect. Nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 6. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the 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 Owner's expense. Dated this — day of hf(,Inl , 2025. City of Iowa City Bruce Teague, Mayor Attest: Kellie Grace, City Clerk St. Andrew Presbyterian Church By: 2 Approvek, >- City Attorney's Office City of Iowa City Acknowledgement: State of Iowa ) ss: Johnson County ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2025 by Bruce Teague and Kellie Grace as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) My commission expires: St Andrew Presbyterian Church Acknowledgement: State of .SA County of i,.hnser\ This record was acknowledged before me on +� %, 2025 by %I beyyioy\ (name) as C I .rk A (title) of S�ndrew Presbyterian Church f Commission Number 799548 or Seal) My Commission Expires • ow September 29, 2025 My commission expires: 3 Item Number: 9.b. I, CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT April 1, 2025 Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 5.49 acres of property located between N. Dodge and N. Governor Streets from Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS-8) zone, High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zone, Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) zone, and Multi -Family Residence (R3B) zone to High Density Single - Family Residential Zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12) for approximately 0.17 acres and to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential Zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-20) for approximately 5.32 acres. (REZ24-0001) Attachments: 3.27.25 Memo from City Attorney REZ24-0001 Staff Report -Final -UPDATED 03.03.2025-Late Correspondence PZ 2.19.25 final minutes Ordinance REZ24-0001 CZA r CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: March 27, 2025 To: City Council _ From: Eric R. Goers, City Attorne Re: Rezoning along N. Governor On your April 1st Council agenda you will find a rezoning application for property located at 900 N. Dodge Street, 902 N. Dodge Street, 905 N. Governor Street, 906 N. Dodge Street, 908 N. Dodge Street, 909 N. Governor Street, and 911 N. Governor Street. TSB Holdings, LLC is the owner of this property and is the rezoning applicant. The City of Iowa City is a co -applicant. This property has a long and complicated history filled with litigation. An understanding of that litigation history is important in providing context for City staff's decision to be a co -applicant and recommendation that the rezoning be approved. In summary, the current rezoning proposal, joined by the City, is intended to simultaneously comply with legal requirements governing this property necessitating that the City permit multi -family development in this location, and also obtain the benefit of the City's current zoning ordinances, with modern requirements and standards, which will improve the quality of the development for residents and neighbors. Previously, the City has opposed dense multi -family development at this location and has been in extensive litigation with TSB Holdings over what development is legally permissible. This litigation ended in 2018 when the Iowa Supreme Court issued an opinion stating that TSB Holdings has the right to develop three vacant lots —lots 10, 49 and 51—between Governor and Dodge Streets with apartment buildings as allowed by the 1978 R313 zone. This zoning determination for Lots 10, 49, and 51 was the result of prior litigation between the City and the prior property owner, Wayne Kempf. In 1987, following years of litigation between the City and Kempf, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in Kempf v. Iowa City that on lots 10, 49, and part of lots 50 and 51 the "owner or owners of said properties, and their successors and assigns, shall be permitted to develop those properties with multiple dwellings (apartments) in accordance with the provisions applicable to the R313 zone in effect on May 30, 1978.... The City is and shall be enjoined from interfering with development of those properties as herein provided." In essence, these properties were placed in zoning stasis. While other lots became subject to the City's modern zoning regime, these lots remained R313, a zoning designation that is inconsistent with the City's modern zoning standards. In 2018, after five more years of litigation, the Iowa Supreme Court issued its opinion in TSB Holdings. LLC v. Iowa City Board of Adiustment.' This opinion was issued after a dispute between the City and TSB Holdings regarding what rights TSB Holdings retained to develop the property after the passage of thirty years. In resolving this litigation, the Iowa Supreme Court held that TSB continued to have the right to develop Lots 10, 49, and 51 with apartment buildings as allowed by the 1978 zoning designation "R313". The resulting zoning scheme for this tract of land is now a combination of four zoning designations: RS12, RM20, RS8, and the outdated R313. R31B's standards differ from current multi -family zones in important ways. The R313 zone requires more parking and larger parking spaces than modern zoning demands, but the standards regarding location and screening of The Iowa Supreme Court consolidated two lawsuits into this appeal: TSB Holdings v. City of Iowa City and TSB Holdings v. Board of Adjustment for City of Iowa City. March 27, 2025 Page 2 surface parking are not as robust. For example, under R36 zoning, surface parking areas do not need to be screened from adjacent properties or located behind buildings. Regarding height, the R36 zone has a maximum of 3 stories, but allows buildings up to 45' in height compared to 35' in the modern multi -family zones. Lastly, the 1978 code does not have regulations comparable to the City's current multi -family site development standards, which aim to reduce the amount of concrete, control building bulk through articulation standards, and ensure buildings front the street with clearly visible pedestrian entrances. Although the R36 zone is outdated, and the City has adopted zoning standards that it determined better serve the public, the R36 zone continues to apply to Lots 10, 49, and 51 pursuant to the 2018 court decision. Although legally Lots 10, 49, and 51 are permitted to be developed pursuant to R36, the practicality of developing this tract with the combined zoning would be impractical, due to the requirement of compliance with the modern zoning for those portions of the development located on parcels not zoned R36. Staff has attempted to synthesize these zones, but elements such as access to R36 lots and off -site parking requirements were difficult to reconcile. Nonetheless, the Iowa Supreme Court has stated that development is permitted pursuant to R36 on Lots 10, 49, and 51, and the City is required to comply with that ruling. While it remains unknown exactly what type of development a court would permit on these discrete lots given these practical difficulties, the Iowa Supreme Court recognized that "[d]eveloping apartments on lots 10, 49, and 51 necessarily entails concomitant burdens .... It is concerning to the City that these pockets of dense development could legally be built pursuant to the outdated R36 zoning standards. By joining the current zoning application, the City will benefit from both the modern standards of the RM-20 zone, which include design review and compliance with the City's multi -family site development standards which ensure parking does not dominate the streetscape, screening of surface parking lots from adjacent properties, the demarcation of building entrances, and building articulation to avoid monotonous facades. The OPD will ensure that the portions of the property outside of the construction limit line (i.e. the southern portion of the property that abuts Happy Hollow Park) will not be developed. The OPD also ensures that the western portion of the subject property along N. Dodge Street retains the transition from existing single-family homes to the south to the existing apartment buildings. The conditional zoning agreement allows the City to account for the public needs that are created by the rezoning. The staff report also notes that the City's housing goals are advanced by this multi -family development. Finally, this rezoning would serve to finally put to rest the obsolete R36 zoning, avoiding additional litigation so costly to both parties. As always, should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. CC: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Chris O'Brien, Deputy City Manager Kirk Lehman, Asst. City Manager Kellie Grace, City Clerk Tracy Hightshoe, NDS Director Danielle Sitzman, Development Services Coordinator Anne Russett, Senior Planner STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner Item: REZ24-0001 911 N Governor St & Date: February 5, 2025 Surrounding Properties Updated February 14, 2025 for February 19, 2025 Meeting GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant/Owner: TSB Holdings, LLC tracy(o-)barkalowhomes.com Co -Applicant: The City of Iowa City Neighborhood & Development Services Department 319-356-5230 Contact Person: Jon Marner MMS Consultants i.marner(a)mmsconsultants. net Requested Action: Rezoning to High Density Single - Family Zone and Medium Density Multi -Family Zone with a Planned Development Overlay Purpose: Location: Location Map: Size: Existing Land Use; Zoning: Redevelopment of vacant and underutilized properties along N. Governor St. 900 N. Dodge St, 902 N. Dodge St., 905 N. Governor St, 906 N. Dodge St., 908 N. Dodge St., 909 N. Governor St., and 911 N. Governor St. 5.49 acres Single-family, two-family, and multi -family residential and vacant office building; Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS-8), High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12), K Surrounding Land Use; Zoning Comprehensive Plan: District Plan: Neighborhood Open Space District: Public Meeting Notification: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20), and Multi -Family Residence (R3B) North: Single-family and two-family; RS-12 and RS-8 South: Happy Hallow Park and single-family, Neighborhood Public (P1) and RS-8 East: Single-family, RS-8 West: Single-family, RS-8 2-8 DU/Acre and 16-24 DU/Acre Central District Plan C1 Property owners and occupants within 500' of the property received notification of the Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting. Two rezoning signs were posted along N. Governor St. and two were posted along N. Dodge St. January 3, 2025 February 17, 2025 The applicant, TSB Holdings, LLC, is requesting approval for the rezoning of approximately 5.49 acres of land from Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS-8) zone, High Density Single - Family Residential (RS-12) zone, Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) zone, and Multi -Family Residence (R3B) zone to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) zone and High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD). The City is joining the property owner as a co -applicant on this rezoning. The proposed development would allow for the demolition and replacement of buildings along N. Governor St, including the existing, vacant commercial office building. The Preliminary Planned Development Overlay and Sensitive Areas Development Plan, Building Elevations, Rezoning Exhibit, and Applicant's Statement are attached. [Attachments 2, 3, 4, and 5] The western portion of the subject property is part of the Subdivision of the SE 114 Section 3 Township 79 Range 6 Final Plat approved in 1873. The eastern portion of the property is part of the Bacon's Subdivision of Blk 1 Dewey's Addition also approved in 1873. The zoning of the property in question has been the subject of significant past litigation. A portion of the subject property was at issue in a 1987 decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, Kempf v. City of Iowa City, 402 N.W.2d 393 (Iowa 1987). In that case, a developer had purchased a four -acre tract comprised of six lots --Lots 8-10 along Governor Street and Lots 49-51 along Dodge Street. At the time, all of these lots were zoned R3B, a classification permitting office buildings and high - density multi -family residential units. The developer had completed construction of an office building and had begun construction of an apartment building when the City revoked the building permit for the apartment building. The City subsequently rezoned the property to permit commercial office and multi -family residential uses on portions of the tract, while limiting the remainder to single-family and duplex development. The court concluded that the decision to rezone the undeveloped portions of the property to permit only single-family and duplex units was unreasonable due to the economic 3 unfeasibility of such limited development. As a result of this litigation, Lots 10, 49, 51, and part of Lot 50 reverted to the R313 zoning classification in effect in 1978. This classification was to remain in effect until a use had been established on any of the lots, after which time further development or redevelopment of that lot would be subject to current zoning regulations. Since the court ruling no uses have been established on the lots in question. In 2011, the City received a rezoning application (REZ11-00016) for a portion of the subject property along N. Governor Street to rezone the property from CO-1 (Commercial Office) zone to RM-12 (Low Density Multi -Family Residential) zone. At the time rezoning would have allowed approximately 18 multi -family residential units. This rezoning received a significant amount of opposition from neighborhood residents and failed at Council by a vote of 0-6. After the failed rezoning attempt the City Council directed staff to examine the comprehensive plan's land use policy vision for the property and explore designating the property to no longer allow multi- family residential uses. The City initiated a comprehensive plan amendment (CPA12-00004) which proposed an amendment to the Central District Plan to change the future land use designation from Low to Medium Density Multi -Family to Single -Family and Duplex residential for properties located at 905, 909, and 911 N. Governor Street and property between 906 N. Dodge and 910 N. Dodge Street. This comprehensive plan amendment was accompanied by three City initiated rezonings (REZ12-00016, REZ12-00018, and REZ12-00019). Ordinance 13-4518 rezoned land from R313 and CO-1 to RS-12 (High Density Single -Family Residential) zone. After the rezoning the property owner submitted a site plan proposing a multi- family residential building. At the time, Lots 10, 49, and 51 remained undeveloped. The City denied this site plan because multi -family uses are not allowed in the RS-12 zone. The owner appealed the decision to the Board of Adjustment. The Board upheld staff's decision, and the owner appealed this decision to district court seeking to invalidate the rezoning. The case eventually made its way to the Iowa Supreme Court as TSB Holdings. LLC v. Board of Adjustment for City of Iowa City, 913 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2018). The court found that the rezoning ordinance was a lawful exercise of the City's zoning authority. However, the court held that the Kempf decision prohibited the City from enforcing the new zoning ordinance as to Lots 10, 49, and 51. As a result, the property owner was permitted to move forward with construction of multi -family housing on these lots consistent with the former R313 zoning classification. To date, this development has not occurred. In short, these properties have a long and complicated zoning history. At present the properties remain a mix of both single-family and multi -family zoning. Some of the multi -family zoning that applies to the property is the zoning designation from the 1970s (R3B) determined by the courts. The City is acting as a co -applicant for this rezoning for several reasons. First, due to the hodge podge of zoning designations this rezoning helps to ensure a cohesive development pattern as opposed to that which would be allowed under current zoning. Second, the proposed rezoning would require compliance with the City's modern zoning regulations as opposed to zoning regulations adopted in the 1970s. Third, the City Council's Strategic Plan speaks to working on establishing partnerships and collaborations within the community, particularly in the interest of advancing housing goals. Good Neighbor Policy: The applicant held a good neighbor meeting on August 13, 2024. Approximately 20 individuals attended the meeting. A summary of the meeting is attached. [Attachment 6] In addition to the good neighbor meeting, City staff, representatives of MMS Consultants, and three neighbors met to discuss additional concerns on September 25, 2024. ANALYSIS CI Current Zoning: The subject property is zoned Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS- 8) zone, High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zone, Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) zone, and Multi -Family Residence (R3B) zone. The existing R313 zoning is a zoning designation from the 1970s. See Figure 1. Properties zoned RM-20 allow multi -family residential. Properties zoned RS-12 and RS-8 allow single-family and duplex residential. RS-12 also allows townhome style multi -family up to six units attached. The maximum height in these zones is 35'. The R313 zone also allows multi -family residential at a minimum lot area per unit of 750 square feet. This equates to approximately 58 dwelling units per acre. Given the land area zoned R313 the existing zoning would allow a maximum of 84 dwelling units. The maximum height in the R313 zone is 45' and 3 stories. See Table 1. Table 1. R31B Zoning Summa Minimum Lot Area Per Unit Approximate Maximum Density Maximum Height 750 square feet 58 du/ac 45' and 3 stories RS12 —I — Figure 1. Current Zoning Z G� R3B a RS12 a ;■■■■■■■■■ R3B RS8 Proposed Zoning: The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property to High Density Single -Family (RS-12) zone and Medium Density Multi -Family (RM-20) Zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD). The OPD is required due to impacts to sensitive areas. No waivers from development standards are being requested. 9 Figure 2. Proposed Zoning HE SOUTHEAST•xwaax iwa u�141 , • � y N8T3T5TE N89"377 246.1T M8"IS'IO'E ((��� 172A8' ` BLOCK 3 ®[�4 ET& AC®[ _ % ' • N89'23'45"E 136.27 �R •� �• 589^2345^W •` IA' mnv nm g f i J PROPOSED ZO NING PARCEL #1 +e to VI W �ssa1' sae•33^oE^w � �'""•, ,,. 09Td07 b a DEWHAL TOM OF MA WN POINTOFBEGINNING The owner is proposing to demolish and replace the buildings along N. Governor St., which will include the demolition of two single-family homes and the vacant office building to accommodate the development of two multi -family residential buildings each containing 42 units. A total of 84 units are proposed, which is the maximum allowable number of units under the current R313 zoning. The maximum density in the OPD/RM-20 zone is 24 dwelling units per net acre. See Table 2. There is no redevelopment planned along N. Dodge St. at this time; however, redevelopment is possible. Any future redevelopment must demonstrate substantial compliance with the Preliminary OPD Plan as is defined by the zoning ordinance. The maximum allowable height in the proposed zoning designations in 35'. Additionally, development of multi -family residential in the RM-20 zone will require compliance with the City's modern multi -family site development standards (which would not be required of development under the 1970 R313 zoning). The multi -family site development standards address the location of parking, landscaping between surface parking and neighboring properties, the demarcation of building entrances, and building articulation to avoid monotonous facades. Since the property is located within the Central Planning District, the proposed development is also subject to additional standards that regulate architectural design and building materials. Table 2. OPD/RM-20 Zonina Summary Minimum Lot Area Per Unit Maximum Density Maximum Height n/a 1 24 du/net acre 35' Since the proposed zoning does not follow existing parcel boundaries, staff is recommending a condition that no building permit shall be issued for the proposed Lot 1 until the City Council approves a final plat resubdividing the subject property to conform to the proposed zoning boundaries. General Planned Development Approval Criteria: Applications for Planned Development rezonings are reviewed for compliance with the standards according to Article 14-3A of the Iowa City Zoning Code, except for sensitive areas developments that comply with all underlying zoning and subdivision regulations. Since the proposed planned development is required due to sensitive C01 areas and no modifications are being requested, the proposed rezoning is subject to the standard rezoning review criteria: 1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan; 2. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: The proposed rezoning is reviewed using the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan. The Future Land Use Map of the IC2030 plan identifies much of the subject property as appropriate for multi -family residential development at 16-24 dwelling units per acre. The area along N. Governor St is identified as appropriate for residential development of 2-8 dwelling units per acre. The Central District Plan identifies the area as appropriate for Single -Family and Duplex Residential, Open Space, and Low to Medium Density Multi -Family with a development density of 8-24 dwelling units per acre. The Future Land Use Map functions as a conceptual future vision. Both plans envision this area as allowing multi -family development. See Figures 3 and 4. Furthermore, the rezoning is supported by plan goals and strategies that are outlined below. Z: Figure 3. IC2030 Future Land Use Map 3 � s t E Figure 4. Central District Plan Future Land Use Map The IC2030 Plan also include a number of goals and strategies that support the proposed rezoning: Land Use Goals and Strategies: Encourage compact, efficient development that is contiguous and connection to existing neighborhoods to reduce the cost of extending infrastructure and services and to preserve farmland and open space at the edge of the city. o Ensure that infill development is compatible and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood. Housing Goals and Strategies: • Encourage a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods. o Ensure a mix of housing types within each neighborhood, to provide options for households of all types (singles, families, retirees, etc.) and people of all incomes. o Identify and support infill development and redevelopment opportunities in areas where services and infrastructure are already in place. III Environmental Goals and Strategies: • Recognize the essential role our land use policies play in preserving natural resources and reducing energy consumption. o Encourage compact, efficient development that reduces the cost of extending and maintaining infrastructure and services. o Discourage sprawl by promoting small -lot and infill development. Parks and Open Space Goals and Strategies: • Improve overall access to and awareness of parks. Goal 1 of the Central District Plan's Housing and Quality of Life element states "Promote the Central District as an attractive place to live by encouraging reinvestment in residential properties throughout the district and by supporting new housing opportunities" Although the proposed redevelopment is not a reinvestment in existing residential property it is an investment in the neighborhood and will allow the for the removal of the blighted, vacant office building and allow for the development of much needed housing units. The Central District Plan also includes a component related to open space. It envisions the possible expansion of Happy Hollow Park to the west and a bit to the north, including one parcel on the subject property. The area of the subject property identified in the plan as appropriate for open space is zoned R313. Given the court rulings protecting development rights and the current zoning designation, expanding the public park in this manner is unrealistic. The topography also makes expanding the park to the north challenging as any northern expansion would likely be inaccessible to members of the public. Finally, the Central District Plan also states the following: "Another pocket of multi -family development in the northern part of the district along Dodge Street is zoned R313, which is an obsolete zoning designation no longer used in the City Code. This area should be rezoned to a valid designation such as RM-20, which acknowledges the density of the existing multi -family development on the property". In summary, the proposed rezoning to OPD/RM-20 with a small portion rezoned to OPD/RS-12 is consistent with the land use policy direction of the City's adopted plans. The plans envision the development of multi -family residential in this area, make note of the importance of accommodating a diversity of housing types to meet a variety of needs, and highlight the benefits of infill development for environmental and infrastructure reasons. Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood Character: In terms of the surrounding neighborhood, Happy Hollow Park is directly south of the proposed development. Single-family homes are located across the N. Governor Street right-of-way to the east. To the north is a mix of duplex and other residential uses. To the west of the proposed development on the subject property are two existing multi -family residential buildings containing 12 and 29 units respectively. To the south of the existing multi -family buildings is a duplex (to be converted to a single-family home) with single-family homes further to the south. The neighborhood is a mixture of housing types ranging from detached single-family homes to larger scale apartment buildings. The major amenity for residents is Happy Hollow Park. The Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Play was developed to fit into the existing mixture of residential buildings that the neighborhood contains. It proposes two multi -family buildings along N. Governor Street. Each building contains 42 dwelling units for a total of 84 dwelling units. The two block -scale buildings front N. Governor St. in a manner that aims to reduce their visual impact from the public right-of-way. The northern building is positioned in such a way that the shortest end of the building fronts N. Governor St. The width of this end of the building is 70 feet wide compared EV with the length of the building, which is —236 feet. Additionally, the southern building is positioned at an angle, which allows the longest side of the building to be positioned further away from N. Governor St. This site layout also provides for a large open space area south of the building (north of Happy Hollow Park) for the residents of the building. The proposed development must comply with the private open space standards outlined in section 14-2A-4E of the Zoning Code. The proposed multi- family buildings with 84 units containing 132 bedrooms requires 1,320 square feet of private usable open space (10 square feet per bedroom). The proposed development shows adequate private open space featuring an outdoor seating area. Excluding the designated private open space area, much of the remaining area on the proposed Lot 1 will be used to retain stormwater and protect sensitive features. Both buildings are proposed to meet the 35' maximum height limit in the zone. No waivers from the height standard have been requested. Parking is accommodated on surface lots that are located behind the building, as well as internal structured parking. In terms of landscaping, the proposed development would maintain 15 existing mature trees along the southern property line abutting Happy Hollow Park. Additionally, 54 new trees will be planted on the site, including 9 street trees along N. Governor St. The landscaping plan also shows that the surface parking will be screened to neighboring property owners to the south and west. Along N. Dodge St. there are two existing duplexes and two existing multi -family residential buildings. The plans show that the Owner plans to convert the southern duplex at 900 N. Dodge St. on the proposed Lot 2 to a single-family home. This is needed in order to meet the density requirements of the zone. Staff is recommending a condition that prior to Final Plat approval that the duplex is converted. Although there are no plans for redevelopment along N. Dodge St. (with the exception of the duplex conversion at 900 N. Dodge St.), the rezoning would allow redevelopment in the future. Any future redevelopment of the proposed Lot 2 will be required to substantially comply with the Preliminary OPD Plan. The rezoning would not allow any more dwelling units than currently exist. Additionally, the existing development pattern provides a transition from the detached single-family homes to the south to the existing apartment buildings to the north. Future redevelopment would need to ensure that this transition is maintained similar to the existing context. Transportation and Public Utilities: The proposed rezoning is bordered on the west by N. Dodge St. and on the east by N. Governor St. Both are one-way streets with N. Dodge St. running south and N. Governor St. running north. Both streets are also considered arterial streets per the City's streets plan and are highways under the authority of the Iowa Department of Transportation. Regarding capacity, 2023 data from the Iowa DOT shows an ADT (average daily traffic) of 5,600 for N. Governor St. The theoretical capacity is approximately 15,000 to 18,000 per day. Transportation planning staff have reviewed the plans and have found that there is sufficient capacity on N. Governor St. to accommodate the new development. The current public right-of- way varies in width and is less than a typical arterial right-of-way width. As for N. Dodge St. the existing conditions will not be changing with the proposed rezoning. That said, 2023 data from the Iowa DOT shows an ADT of 6,200 along N. Dodge St. Like N. Governor St., N. Dodge St. can accommodate between 15,000 to 18,000 per day. The site is also served by Iowa City Transit's North Dodge Route. Transit stops are located adjacent to the subject property along N. Dodge St. heading south and along N. Governor St. heading north. �0] Staff is recommending two conditions related to the transportation system. First, that public right- of-way along N. Governor St. and easements be dedicated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to allow the installation of a 5' sidewalk. Second, that a temporary construction easement be granted on the western 10' of the subject property abutting N. Dodge St. This temporary construction easement is needed to for the Dodge Street reconstruction project that is planned between Governor and Burlington Streets. The project will be done in partnership with the Iowa DOT and includes new street pavement, sidewalk, utility improvements and other associated work. Both conditions will be addressed at final platting. The site also has access is the City's existing sewer and water system. An 18" sanitary sewer trunk line runs through the property. Public Works staff has reviewed the plans and have no concerns regarding sanitary sewer capacity for this area as it would relate to this project. Staff is recommending a condition that the existing water services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge St. that are tapped off of the water main in N. Governor Street shall be abandoned, and new services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge Street shall be installed that are tapped off of the water main in N. Dodge Street subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The subject property contains regulated slopes and groves of trees. The applicant submitted a Preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan that shows critical slopes being impacted beyond the 35% which can be approved administratively and triggering the OPD rezoning. Specifically, the proposed development would impact 86% of the critical slopes on the property. Although groves of trees are present on the subject property no woodlands exist; and therefore, the proposed development is not subject to the woodland retention requirement. Neighborhood Open Space: According to section 14-5K of the City code, the 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 proposed rezoning, the Owner will be required to dedicate approximately 0.067 acres to the City or pay a fee in -lieu of land dedication. The Owner has requested to pay a fee in -lieu of a public open space dedication. Staff has accepted their request for a payment in -lieu of land dedication. Storm Water Management: The Preliminary OPD Plan includes an area to accommodate storm water. Public Works staff will review all stormwater management plans as part of the site plan review process. Correspondence: As of the morning of February 14, 2025, staff had received three emails from residents expressing concerns regarding the rezoning. Staff received one email in support of the rezonina. See Attachment 7. NEXT STEPS Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be scheduled for consideration by the City Council. The Owner also has three other pending applications related to this rezoning: 1) A final plat application which will be reviewed by City Council; 2) A site plan application which will be reviewed by City staff, and 3) A design review application which will be reviewed by City staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ24-0001, a proposal to rezone approximately 5.49 acres of land between N. Dodge and N. Governor Streets to OPD/RS-12 (approximately 0.17 acres) and OPD/RM-20 (approximately 5.32 acres) subject to the following conditions: i[o] 1. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owners agree that no building permit shall be issued for Lot 1 as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan until the City Council approves a final plat resubdividing the subject property to conform to the zoning boundaries established by the rezoning ordinance to which this Agreement is attached. 2. Prior to the approval of the Final Plat, the Owner shall convert the existing duplex as shown on Lot 2 of the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan to one dwelling unit to ensure compliance with the maximum density standards of the zone. 3. As part of Final Plat approval, the Owner shall dedicate public right-of-way and easements along N. Governor Street consistent with what is shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 4. As part of Final Plat approval, the Owner shall grant a temporary construction easement on the western 10' of the subject property abutting N. Dodge Street. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan, the existing water services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge Street that are tapped off of the water main in N. Governor Street shall be abandoned, and new services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge Street shall be installed that are tapped off of the water main in N. Dodge Street subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location & Zoning Maps 2. Preliminary Planned Development Overlay and Sensitive Areas Development Plan 3. Building Elevations 4. Rezoning Exhibit 5. Applicant's Statement 6. Summary Report for Good Neighbor Meeting 7. Correspondence Approved by: I) . Sl'-v Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ATTACHMENT 1 Location & Zoning Maps N 1 MIN W E REZ24-0001 ~..: S 911 N Governor Street CITY OF IOWA 0 0.01 0.02 0.04 MII@S Prepared By: Rachael Schaefer I I I I I Date Prepared: January 2025 RS12 F�I R3B N ■■■■M PQ ATTACHMENT 2 Preliminary Planned Development Overlay and Sensitive Areas Development Plan LOT 1, SCARLETT POINT, IOWA CITY IOWA, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF IN THE PLAT OF RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OPD LOT 2, SCARLETT POINT, IOWA CITY IOWA, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF IN THE PLAT OF RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS APPLICANT PLANS TO CONSTRUCT 2 BUILDINGS FOR PROPOSED ZONING IS OPD/RM-20 MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE ON 3.5 ACRES. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE BUILDING SETBACKS: REQUIRED PROVIDED FRONT YARD 40 FEET 20.80 FEET APPLICANT PLANS TO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION IN SPRING 2025, SIDE YARD 10 FEET 10 FEET LASTING THRU SPRING 2026. REAR YARD 20 FEET 20 FEET DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM LOT SIZE 5,000 SF 76,231 SF PROPOSED ZONING IS OPD/RM-20 LOT FRONTAGE 40 FEET 319 FEET LOT WIDTH 60 FEET 290 FEET SETBACK REQUIREMENTS MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 35 FEET 35 FEET BUILDING SETBACKS: REQUIRED PROVIDED FRONT YARD' 10.55 FEET (MAX) 21 FEET LOT CHARACTERISTICS SIDE YARD 10 FEET 14 FEET LOT AREA 76,231 SF (100%)(1.75 AC) REAR YARD 20 FEET 20 FEET IMPERVIOUS AREA 40,339 SF (52.9%) BUILDING AREA 12,330 SF (16.2%) MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS GREEN SPACE AREA 35,892 SF (47.1%) MINIMUM LOT SIZE 5,000 SF 152,461 SF LOT FRONTAGE 40 FEET 40 FEET PARKING REQUIREMENTS LOT WIDTH 60 FEET MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 35 FEET 353 FEET 35 FEET 42 TWO BEDROOM UNITS 84 SPACES TOTAL REQUIRED SPACES 84 SPACES LOT CHARACTERISTICS LOT AREA 152,461 SF (100%)(3.50 AC) PROVIDED GARAGE PARKING 2 SPACES BUILDING AREA - PROPOSED 32,684 SF (21.6%) PROVIDED OUTDOOR PARKING 56 SPACES PAVING AREA - PROPOSED 35,430 SF (23.4%) TOTAL PROVIDED PARKING 58 SPACES GREEN SPACE AREA 84,347 SF (55.3%) TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE LOT AREA 76,231 SF PARKING REQUIREMENTS BUILDING FOOTPRINT 12,330 SF 36 ONE BEDROOM UNITS 36 SPACES BUILDING COVERAGE PERCENTAGE(MAX 50%) 16.2% 48 TWO BEDROOM UNITS 96 SPACES TOTAL REQUIRED SPACES OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED: 84 BEDROOMS X 10SF/BEDROOM = 840 SF OPEN SPACE PROVIDED GARAGE PARKING 82 SPACES PROVIDED: 900 SF OPEN SPACE PROVIDED OUTDOOR PARKING 50 SPACES TOTAL PROVIDED PARKING 132 SPACES 5 ADA REQUIRED BIKE PARKING - (1.5 X 84) + (76 X .75) = 107 SPACES PROVIDED BIKE PARKING = 107 SPACES (98 GARAGE, 9 OUTDOOR) UNIT DENSITY REQUIREMENTS MAXIMUM DENSITY (OPD/RM-20) 24 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE 3.50ACX24=84 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS 84 UNITS DWELLING UNITS PROVIDED 84 UNITS TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE LOT AREA 152,461 SF BUILDING FOOTPRINT 33,225 SF BUILDING COVERAGE PERCENTAGE(MAX 50%) 21.8% OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED: 132 BEDROOMS X 10SF/BEDROOM = 1,320 SF OPEN SPACE PROVIDED: 1,350 SF OPEN SPACE LOT 3, SCARLETT POINT, IOWA CITY IOWA, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF IN THE PLAT OF RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS PROPOSED ZONING IS OPD/RS-12 SETBACK REQUIREMENTS BUILDING SETBACKS: REQUIRED PROVIDED FRONT YARD 15 FEET 22.92 FEET SIDE YARD 5 FEET 17.86 FEET REAR YARD 20 FEET 20.50 FEET MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM LOT SIZE 6,000 SF 7,597 SF LOT FRONTAGE 40 FEET 75.03 FEET LOT WIDTH 55 FEET 67 FEET MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 35 FEET 35 FEET LOT CHARACTERISTICS LOT AREA 7,597 SF (100%)(0.17 AC) IMPERVIOUS AREA 2,466 SF (32.5%) BUILDING AREA 1,808 SF (23.8%) GREEN SPACE AREA 5,131 SF (67.5%) PARKING REQUIREMENTS 2 TWO BEDROOM UNITS 4 SPACES TOTAL REQUIRED SPACES T-sp= PROVIDED GARAGE PARKING 2 SPACES PROVIDED OUTDOOR PARKING 2 SPACES TOTAL PROVIDED PARKING T-sp= TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE LOT AREA 7,597 SF BUILDING FOOTPRINT 1,808 SF BUILDING COVERAGE PERCENTAGE(MAX 50%) 23.8% OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED: 4 BEDROOMS X 10SF/BEDROOM = 400 SF OPEN SPACE PROVIDED: 400 SF OPEN SPACE NOTES: 1 FRONT SETBACK OF 10.55' WAS CALCULATED BY SETBACK AVERAGING OF ABUTTING LOTS. A MINOR MOD WILL BE REQUESTED TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM FRONT SETBACK ON LOT 1. 2 ON LOTS THAT CONTAIN MULTI -FAMILY USES OR GROUP LIVING USES DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE MUST BE NO LESS THAN 400 SF. 3 THE HOUSE AT 900 N DODGE ST WILL BE CONVERTED FROM A DUPLEX INTO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ALONG WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT 4 THE ROOF LINE OF THE FLAT ROOF FOR THE NORTH BUILDING IS 770.33. THE AVERAGE GRADE (ADJACENT GROUND ELEVATION) IS 735.4. THIS RESULTS IN A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 35'. 4 THE ROOF LINE OF THE FLAT ROOF FOR THE SOUTH BUILDING IS 770.33. THE AVERAGE GRADE (ADJACENT GROUND ELEVATION) IS 735.4. THIS RESULTS IN A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 35'. / 0 ❑ V / EXISTING O BUILDING 96.71' .9LO 0 a 60.20 20.50' ° ............ EXISTING N �/ BUILDING 00 S �M POH OF // �� /o� // 2 UNITS OPEN SPACE LOT 3 20'X20' Q / :7- 20' REAR 55.62' rzn O N89'23'45"E 185.89' u� j 12 I N O/ 3 68 'J I rn — — — — — — — — — — — — — JA ) H-Ino(or-:�m�r7g �( / / ANGE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN / , / 20.00 FOOT SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT PAGE I OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNOON / , - - - 60JNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. RETAINING • EXISTING V BUILDING � ry 12 UNITS � o W W — — - — — 44.29' / �N, / --- 0) / ° "?° W - W -� /�4. / 00 / LOT 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I � o ' 62 177.98' o � / o / G / W EXISTING ao BUILDING / 5 29 UNITS _O NORTH 53 FEET OF THE WEST 160 FEET OF OUTLOr 14 OF THE ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA CITY 18 IN C wn'�W (010)• L L IN ACCORDANCE TH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN 600K 60 AT PAGE 223 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHN60N COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. i SCARLETT POINT IOWA CITY PREPARED BY: MMS CONSULTANTS INC. 1917 S. GILBERT STREET IOWA CITY, IA 52240 11 IOWA APPLICANT: TSB HOLDINGS LLC PO BOX 1490 IOWA CITY, IA 52244 u T H E � 67 QUARTER 0 F THE SOUTHE,kov au,%invmin OF I SECTNO'N I I I I I I J I \ \ \ \ i �O \ WV �7 0 3 15 30 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 1"=30' \ U L Ue� J \ EYE J 0 1010 e \ IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF / ° \ RECORDED IN BOOK 16 AT PAGE 166 OF THE \ RECORDS OF THE JOHN60N COUNTY / \ RECORDER'S OFFICE. �g \ 8 1 \ V \ \ \C %% 4.5' PEDESTRIAN PUBLIC ACCESS AND PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT \,` I?\ �So \ ., 8 w 1 S _ 1 0 s HORTHIMIDGE, ° �;ffiDff 0H s IN AGGORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN �s f5OOK 15 AT PAGE 37 OF THE REG OF THE ING WALL JOHN60N COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. o 0 sa I . I Ln I O I p Z O_ d° = cn o :Cn I 00 ° I � I LO UJ LO / PATIO AREA ITH SEATING I a o AMENITY I 'o I II s 1 oo, I co 1 0 1350 SF I ,•; OPEN SPACE I AND PUBLIC PUBLIC SS UTILITYEASE ENT . 10' UTILITY EASEMENT E . RETAINING WALL .............. ° s SIDE SETBKX 428.79' 1 L 11.00' 1 o 0 In (a O7 a BLOCK 12 OUTLOT 13 ^ o OF Da�NA crry MONEY'S IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN 1 1�00(C I AT PAGE 116 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON 1� GGUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE.HUM I � I I IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN P)OOK IG AT PAGE 166 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHN60N COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. I I I I � I SCARLETT POINT IOWA CITY, IOWA LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE STANDARD LEGEND AND NOTES - PROPERTY &/or BOUNDARY LINES - CONGRESSIONAL SECTION LINES ------------- - RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES - EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES - CENTER LINES - EXISTING CENTER LINES - LOT LINES, INTERNAL - LOT LINES, PLATTED OR BY DEED — — — — — — — — - PROPOSED EASEMENT LINES - EXISTING EASEMENT LINES $r - BENCHMARK (R) - RECORDED DIMENSIONS 22-1 - CURVE SEGMENT NUMBER -EXIST- -PROP- - POWER POLE $ - POWER POLE W/DROP - POWER POLE W/TRANS O zE - POWER POLE W/LIGHT - GUY POLE �x # - LIGHT POLE s0 - SANITARY MANHOLE - FIRE HYDRANT O° - WATER VALVE OO ® - DRAINAGE MANHOLE Wi ❑ - CURB INLET X X - FENCE LINE ( - EXISTING SANITARY SEWER (( - PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER - EXISTING STORM SEWER << - PROPOSED STORM SEWER W - WATER LINES - - - - E - - - - E - - ELECTRICAL LINES T - TELEPHONE LINES G - GAS LINES FO - FIBER OPTIC 1 - - -OHE - OVERHEAD ELECTRIC - - - - - - - - - - CONTOUR LINES ( INTERVAL) - PROPOSED GROUND - EXISTING TREE LINE 0 �i - EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE & SHRUB - EXISTING EVERGREEN TREES & SHRUBS THE ACTUAL SIZE AND LOCATION OF ALL PROPOSED FACILITIES SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, WHICH ARE TO BE PREPARED AND SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS DOCUMENT. BUILDING NOTE: THREE -SEASONS PORCHES ARE TO BE UTILIZED IN PLACE OF BALCONIES WHERE BUILDINGS ARE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES M M S CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS 1917 S. GILBERT ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319) 351-8282 www. mmsconsultants. net Date I Revision 12-18-2024 PER CITY COMMENTS 01-28-2025 PER CITY COMMENTS SITE LAYOUT AND DIMENSION PLAN SCARLETT POINT IOWA CITY JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. Date: 12-11-2024 Designed by. Field Book No: CAT Drawn by. Scale: ADP 1 "=30' Checked by ISheet No: Project No: 9200-006 1 of: 4 PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OPD SCARLETT POINT IOWA CITY, IOWA PREPARED BY: MMS CONSULTANTS INC. 1917 S. GILBERT STREET IOWA CITY, IA 52240 �a SAP 1 in1 LA _ / / I I I I I'► I I I Ni / �O p N 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 N 0 0 0 N APPLICANT: TSB HOLDINGS LLC PO BOX 1490 IOWA CITY, IA 52244 )IF OKA IN AGGORPANGE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECOPPEP IN BOOK I AT PAGE 116 Off THE RECORPS Off THE JOHNSON COUNTY REGORPER'6 OFFICE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TRAFFIC CONTROL PER IDOT STANDARD ROAD PLAN TC-202 OR SUDAS 8030-104 AND CITY OF IOWA CITY REQUIREMENTS AT ALL TIMES DURING WORK WITHIN PUBLIC R.O.W. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH UTILITY PROVIDERS FOR ANY REQUIRED RELOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES. I \ L I \ I \ J \ y0 \ \ o \ \ WV I ` ° O / MED L U T� \ r y \ IO \ ` \ \ \AID) 10ON p sa a so \ IN ACCORPANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF O ` \ RECOPPEP IN >'�OOK I/ AT PAGE 1// OF THE \ ° ` REGORPS OF THE JOHN60N COUNTY � 7 a \ \ PECOPPEP' 5 Of=f ClE. 8 sa ° _ \ a ° a° \ V \ 739.32WT < S \ \ 36 \ % 1 \ � a \ a i \ 41 1 \ A '. \ Za / a 1° \ y> Sao ° \ 8 a� 1 ° O ' n1 / 1 1a° inn I I I I I I I IN AC, �c I I I I I I IN & ITT tp 0 2 5 10 15 20 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 1 "=20' UTILITIES (9) IOWA THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY IOWA 0 C Ir k SM ONE CALL AT 811 OR 800 292-8989 NO LESS THAN 48 HRS. IN ADVANCE OF ANY DIGGING OR EXCAVATION. WHERE PUBLIC UTILITY FIXTURES ARE SHOWN AS EXISTING ON THE PLANS OR ENCOUNTERED WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION AREA, IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY THE OWNERS OF THOSE UTILITIES PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF ANY CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL AFFORD ACCESS TO THESE FACILITIES FOR NECESSARY MODIFICATION OF SERVICES. UNDERGROUND FACILITIES, STRUCTURES AND UTILITIES HAVE BEEN PLOTTED FROM AVAILABLE SURVEYS AND RECORDS, AND THEREFORE THEIR LOCATIONS MUST BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE ONLY. IT IS POSSIBLE THERE MAY BE OTHERS, THE EXISTENCE OF WHICH IS PRESENTLY NOT KNOWN OR SHOWN. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THEIR EXISTENCE AND EXACT LOCATION AND TO AVOID DAMAGE THERETO. NO CLAIMS FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION WILL BE ALLOWED TO THE CONTRACTOR FOR ANY INTERFERENCE OR DELAY CAUSED BY SUCH WORK. STANDARD LEGEND AND NOTES — PROPERTY &/or BOUNDARY LINES — CONGRESSIONAL SECTION LINES ------------- — RIGHT—OF—WAY LINES — EXISTING RIGHT—OF—WAY LINES — CENTER LINES — EXISTING CENTER LINES — LOT LINES, INTERNAL — LOT LINES, PLATTED OR BY DEED — — — — — — — — _ PROPOSED EASEMENT LINES ------------- EXISTING EASEMENT LINES 14 ,- — BENCHMARK (R) — RECORDED DIMENSIONS 22-1 — CURVE SEGMENT NUMBER —EXIST— —PROP— — POWER POLE — POWER POLE W/DROP — POWER POLE W/TRANS E — POWER POLE W/LIGHT — GUY POLE �x — LIGHT POLE O ® — SANITARY MANHOLE l — FIRE HYDRANT 461 — WATER VALVE OO ® — DRAINAGE MANHOLE Wi ❑ — CURB INLET X X — FENCE LINE ( — EXISTING SANITARY SEWER (( — PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER — EXISTING STORM SEWER << — PROPOSED STORM SEWER W — WATER LINES — — — — E — — — — E — — ELECTRICAL LINES T — TELEPHONE LINES G — GAS LINES FO — FIBER OPTIC — — —OHE — OVERHEAD ELECTRIC - — — — — — — — — - — CONTOUR LINES ( INTERVAL) — PROPOSED GROUND — EXISTING TREE LINE EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE & SHRUB — EXISTING EVERGREEN TREES & SHRUBS THE ACTUAL SIZE AND LOCATION OF ALL PROPOSED FACILITIES SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, WHICH ARE TO BE PREPARED AND SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS DOCUMENT. II EROSION CONTROL LEGEND 11 ■EENEENEEN FINAL FILTER SOCK PERIMETER SILT FENCE SILT FENCE SA TEMPORARY SOIL STOCKPILE AREA TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXIT DIRECTION OF OVERLAND FLOW TEMPORARY PARKING AND STORAGE DUMPSTER FOR CONSTRUCTION WASTE CW CONCRETE TRUCK/EQUIPMENT WASHOUT PR PORTABLE RESTROOM RIP RAP OUTLET PROTECTION DL DOCUMENT LOCATION (PERMITS, SWPPP, INSPECTION FORMS, ETC.) ® FILTER SOCK INLET PROTECTION FILTER SOCK BEHIND CURB AT CURB RAMP THE ABOVE LISTED ITEMS ARE SHOWN IN THEIR RECOMMENDED LOCATIONS. IF A CONTROL MEASURE IS ADDED OR MOVED TO A MORE SUITABLE LOCATION, INDICATE THE REVISION ON THIS SHEET. THE BLANKS LEFT FOR OTHER MEASURES SHOULD BE USED IF AN ITEM NOT SHOWN ABOVE IS IMPLEMENTED ON SITE, ADDITIONAL PRACTICES FOR EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL CAN BE FOUND IN APPENDIX D OF THE SWPPP. M M S CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS 1917 S. GILBERT ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319) 351-8282 www. mmsconsultants. net Date I Revision 12-18-2024 PER CITY COMMENTS 01-28-2025 PER CITY COMMENTS SITE GRADING EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND SWPPP SCARLETT POINT IOWA CITY JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. Date: 12-11-2024 Designed by. Field Book No: CAT Drawn by. Scale: ADP 1 "=20' Checked by ISheet No: Project No: 9200-006 2 of: 4 PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OPD SCARLETT POINT IOWA CITY, IOWA PREPARED BY: MMS CONSULTANTS INC. 1917 S. GILBERT STREET IOWA CITY, IA 52240 —>c—x—x x x x x x x x x /x x x x x x Ix x x �C x x x/ x x l x xi x xl x z x 7"�"xx x! x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x� x x x/ x x x� x xI x x xI �z x�x x x Ix x x� x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x �x x x x xI I x x x x x x� x 11 xI/II r�x x x x x x x x x x /x x x x x x x/ x x x x x x x Ix xl x x x x I x � x Ix I xx xl i x x x x x x x x— x-- x x x x x x x /x x x x x x x x Ix x x Ix xI x x x) x I x fa x x x x x x_ x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xxx x x x Ix x x x xl xIx Ix x x Ix xIx xI :—x—x x x x x x x x x x x x x x/x x x x>1 x x x x Ix x x k xl xl x x x Ix x x Ix / Ix I I x x x x x x x x x x x x x x- x x x x x x x x x x I x x x is xI x x x x x x x Ix x I x l I x x x x x x x x x x x x x -x �x x x x x-x-x x xxx-xx x -k x x xI x Ix X xl x Ix IIx xI x % x Ix — — / x x x x x x x x_x-x x x x,x—x—x x x-x-x�x_x-x x x-x-x -x x x xJ xjx x,x x x x- -x— x x-5 x -x x—x—fix x— x —x—x—K x x —x—x—x x x_x 5<- x x xix ,x x x W 0 N — 0 0 o o o o o o I o N oo 0 N APPLICANT: TSB HOLDINGS LLC PO BOX 1490 IOWA CITY, IA 52244 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TRAFFIC CONTROL PER IDOT STANDARD ROAD PLAN TC-202 OR SUDAS 8030-104 AND CITY OF IOWA CITY REQUIREMENTS AT ALL TIMES DURING WORK WITHIN PUBLIC R.O.W. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH UTILITY PROVIDERS FOR ANY REQUIRED RELOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES. I \ I \ I \ J \ y0 \ \ o \ \ WV I ` \ 1 \ v> ` d y d d \ \ O \ 1 \ u u u�' u LJ V L U L�= u 11�1 V V LJ V DD 0 WA C =ry IN AGGORPANGE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECOPPEP IN BOOK I AT PAGE 116 Off THE RECORPS Off THE JOHNSON COUNTY REGORPER'6 Of=FICE. MED L U T� \ r y \ IO \ ` \ \ d a \ \A 10)D0 p s aso \ IN ACCORPANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF O ` \ RECOPPEP IN BOOK I/ AT PAGE 1// OF THE \ d ` REGORPS OF THE JOHN60N COUNTY \ PECOPPEP' 5 Of=f ClE. O a s \ \ d \ \ / a \V/ °d \ v \ \ ° d ° d \ J ° C d ° d \ \ d d \ \ ° d a d _ \ s d° \ d ° d \ � d ° d d \ d d ° sd \ g ° w 1 s = od d II II I I I I I I IN & ITT tp 0 2 5 10 15 20 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 1 "=20' UTILITIES (9) IOWA M7 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY IOWA O p C Ir ' ONE CALL AT 811 OR 800/292-8989 SM NO LESS THAN 48 HRS. IN ADVANCE OF ANY DIGGING OR EXCAVATION. WHERE PUBLIC UTILITY FIXTURES ARE SHOWN AS EXISTING ON THE PLANS OR ENCOUNTERED WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION AREA, IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY THE OWNERS OF THOSE UTILITIES PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF ANY CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL AFFORD ACCESS TO THESE FACILITIES FOR NECESSARY MODIFICATION OF SERVICES. UNDERGROUND FACILITIES, STRUCTURES AND UTILITIES HAVE BEEN PLOTTED FROM AVAILABLE SURVEYS AND RECORDS, AND THEREFORE THEIR LOCATIONS MUST BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE ONLY. IT IS POSSIBLE THERE MAY BE OTHERS, THE EXISTENCE OF WHICH IS PRESENTLY NOT KNOWN OR SHOWN. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THEIR EXISTENCE AND EXACT LOCATION AND TO AVOID DAMAGE THERETO. NO CLAIMS FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION WILL BE ALLOWED TO THE CONTRACTOR FOR ANY INTERFERENCE OR DELAY CAUSED BY SUCH WORK. STANDARD LEGEND AND NOTES - PROPERTY &/or BOUNDARY LINES - CONGRESSIONAL SECTION LINES ------------- - RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES - EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES - CENTER LINES - EXISTING CENTER LINES - LOT LINES, INTERNAL - LOT LINES, PLATTED OR BY DEED — — — — — — — — _ PROPOSED EASEMENT LINES --------R - - - - EXISTING EASEMENT LINES 14 ,- - BENCHMARK ( ) - RECORDED DIMENSIONS 22-1 - CURVE SEGMENT NUMBER -EXIST- -PROP- - POWER POLE - POWER POLE W/DROP - POWER POLE W/TRANS E - POWER POLE W/LIGHT - GUY POLE �x - LIGHT POLE O ® - SANITARY MANHOLE l - FIRE HYDRANT 46° - WATER VALVE OO ® - DRAINAGE MANHOLE Wi ❑ - CURB INLET —x—x— - FENCE LINE ( - EXISTING SANITARY SEWER (( - PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER - EXISTING STORM SEWER << - PROPOSED STORM SEWER W - WATER LINES - - - - E - - - - E - - ELECTRICAL LINES T - TELEPHONE LINES G - GAS LINES FO - FIBER OPTIC - - -OHE - OVERHEAD ELECTRIC - - - - - - - CONTOUR LINES ( INTERVAL) - PROPOSED GROUND - EXISTING TREE LINE EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE & SHRUB - EXISTING EVERGREEN TREES & SHRUBS THE ACTUAL SIZE AND LOCATION OF ALL PROPOSED FACILITIES SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, WHICH ARE TO BE PREPARED AND SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS DOCUMENT. SENSITIVE AREAS HATCHING: IMPACTED AREAS HATCH CRITICAL SLOPES (25%-40%) - 4,151 SF 3,145 SF IMPACTED (87.6%) STEEP SLOPES (18%-25%) - 6,235 SF ELI 3,836 SF IMPACTED (61.5%) GROVE OF TREES - 48,001 SF 32,240 SF IMPACTED (67.2%) TREE PROTECTION DETAIL N.T.S. D(FEET) = 1.5 X TRUNK 0 (FEET) X 12 TRUNK 0 MEASURED AT 24" ABOVE GROUND 0 0 4' HT. CONSTRUCTION FENCE POST EXISTING 0 GROUND Rpm — INSTALL TO MEET CITY OF IOWA CITY REQUIREMENTS. DETAILS TO BE PROVIDED WITH CONSTRUCTION PLANS M M S CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS 1917 S. GILBERT ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319) 351-8282 www. mmsconsultants. net Date I Revision 12-18-2024 PER CITY COMMENTS 01-28-2025 PER CITY COMMENTS SITE SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN SCARLETT POINT IOWA CITY JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. Date: 12-11-2024 Designed by. Field Book No: CAT Drawn by. Scale: ADP 1 "=20' Checked by ISheet No: Project No: 9200-006 3 of: 4 STANDARD LEGEND AND NOTES I 0 I I I I I I I I _ Cherry I I LocUst I o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OPD SCARLETT POINT IOWA CITY, IOWA PREPARED BY: MMS CONSULTANTS INC. 1917 S. GILBERT STREET IOWA CITY, IA 52240 I I I I APPLICANT: TSB HOLDINGS LLC PO BOX 1490 IOWA CITY, IA 52244 I\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ U IS U\&1 U U V L U LL= U � U U U V DD[F OKA IN AOOORPANOE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF REOORPEP IN f5OOK I AT PAGE II( OF THE REGORPS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY REOORPER'6 OFFICE. \ \ \ �c y0 \ I \ \ 1 \ o \ I ` \ O � \ I °4 us TE 11 0111, MR PEI 0 2 5 10 15 20 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 1 "=20' NOTE: METERS SHALL NOT BE LOCATED ALONG STREET SIDE OF A BUILDING. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE LOCATED ON ROOFTOP LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS, ✓I I\3G9.8G / 40 = V �9 REQUIRED � /\ 9 PROVIDED Y 0 1 TREE FOR EVERY 550 SF OF TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE OF THE LOT. 33,225.34 / 550 = GO REQUIRED (� 45 PROPOSED (1 5 EXISTING) \ 0 PLANT SCHEDULE 4 \\ D D 0 \ SYMBOL CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME > s 4 \ IN AOOORPANOE WITH THE PLAT THE O \\ \ REOORPEP IN %OOK 16 AT PAGE Iww 6 TREES 4 ` REOORPS OF THE JOHNSON OOUN - PROPERTY &/or BOUNDARY LINES — — - CONGRESSIONAL SECTION LINES ------------- - RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES - EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES — - CENTER LINES - EXISTING CENTER LINES - LOT LINES, INTERNAL - LOT LINES, PLATTED OR BY DEED — — — — — — — — - PROPOSED EASEMENT LINES - EXISTING EASEMENT LINES $r - BENCHMARK (R) - RECORDED DIMENSIONS 22-1 - CURVE SEGMENT NUMBER -EXIST- -PROP- - POWER POLE $ - POWER POLE W/DROP - POWER POLE W/TRANS - POWER POLE W/LIGHT c $ - GUY POLE > - LIGHT POLE s0 �` - SANITARY MANHOLE - FIRE HYDRANT g - WATER VALVE OO ® - DRAINAGE MANHOLE Wi ❑ - CURB INLET —x—x— - FENCE LINE ( - EXISTING SANITARY SEWER (( - PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER ' - EXISTING STORM SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER W - WATER LINES - - - - E - - - - E - - ELECTRICAL LINES T - TELEPHONE LINES G - GAS LINES FO - FIBER OPTIC - - -OHE - OVERHEAD ELECTRIC - - - - - - - - - - - - - CONTOUR LINES ( 1' INTERVAL) - PROPOSED GROUND - EXISTING TREE LINE 0 - EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE & SHRUB - EXISTING Wr EVERGREEN TREES & SHRUBS THE ACTUAL SIZE AND LOCATION OF ALL PROPOSED FACILITIES SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, WHICH ARE TO BE PREPARED AND SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS DOCUMENT. LANDSCAPE LEGEND TURF GRASS PLANTING BED COMMON NAME INSTALL SIZE COMMENT MATURE H. X W. 2� \ REGORPERS OFFIOEku.•. GT G Gledit5ia triacantho5 inermi5 'Skycole' TM Skyline Thornless Honey Locust 2" Cal O4 8 1 d \ D GD 7 Gymnocladu5 dioica 'Espresso' Espresso Kentucky Coffeetree 2" Cal 4.� 4 \ 1 ` \ / • LT 5 Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Tree 2" Cal 4 \ V 4 ° 4 \ • PO G Platanu5 occidentali5 ••yWy \ \ American Sycamore 2" Cal W W d \ \ W A, S \ \ • Q13 G Quercu5 bicolor Swamp White Oak 2" Cal. BVB GO' x GO' 4 4 \ \ • y �a y • QK 7 Quercu5 rubra Red Oak 2" Cal. BVB 70' x 70' \ �` y \ a \ \ �ym 4C 4 a ° ;. ` 1 ° \ • UM 8 Ulmu5 x 'Morton Glossy' TM Triumph Elm 2" Cal. BVB GO' x 40' d ° 4 y \ SHRUBS, ORNAMENTAL GRASSES & PERENNIALS dO J d \ - • % ° �° � \ •' CS 14 Cornus sericea 'Farrow' TM Arctic Fire Red Twig Dogwood 24" Ht. Container 4' x 4' y y r 4 4 4 \ _ HQ 9 Hydrangea quercifolia 'Sike'5 Dwarf' Sike'5 Dwarf Oakleaf Hydrangea 24" Ht. Container 4' x 4' %41iv G Juniperu5 virginiana Grey Owl' Grey Owl Juniper 18" Ht. Container 3' x G' !y W W \ ° / PV 27 Panicum virgatum Prairie Fire' Prairie Fire Switch Grass 24" Ht. Container 4' x 3' 4 J ° p \ W 1 14 y�S/o ° \\ 513 10 Spiraea x bumalda 'Goldflame' Goldflame Spirea 18" Ht. Container 3' x 4' /W 4 µ % A \ y 1 w ® SM G Syringa meyeri 'Palibin' Dwarf Korean Lilac 24" Ht. Container 4' x 5' p 4 1 TM 13 Taxu5 x media 'Tauntonii' Taunton'5 Yew 181, Ht. Container 3' x 5' 4 1 (D TC 10 Tsuga canadensis Moon Frost Moon Frost Hemlock 181, Ht. Container 3 x 3 / I CQl � VT 15 Viburnum trilobum Bailey Compact Baileys Compact Viburnum 30" Ht. Container G' x 5' BBB 45' x 35' BBB 70' x 45' DC3 80' x 50' BBB 90' x 70' LANDSCAPE NOTES: I - THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR aVLL VERrY Al WCATIONS OF UVERCRgfiD UTILITIES ON SITE PRIOR TO LANDSCAPE INSTA .ATION. 2 -RANT 6iW071155 ARE FOR INFORMATION ONLY: DRAWING 0111AII PREVAL r OGTFLIer OOmLs. 3 -KIND. SIZE MD gYUTY OF RANT MATERIA_ SHALL CONFORM TO AIVERI6MN STANDARD FAR NURSERY STOQC, ANSI LW - 19�0, OR MOST REC.ENf ADDITION. 4 - LAYOUT OF RANT MATERIAL AT SITE SHALL M APPRAED 6Y THE LANDSCAPE ARCHRECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 5 - ALL R.ANTN6 99 AREAS 5N1AlL HAVE QUALITY TAI ADDED (r N®ED) 6Y LMDSCAPE CONTRACTOR TO DRING DED GRAPES 3" - 4" in ow Emnw CONCRETE AREAS, AND TOP or DEGCRATIVE WA15. (FRIAR TO DDPING, CONTRACTOR IS, RECC.6 mvw TO VISIT SITE) 6 - FINISH GRADING OF RANT RP ANP 60 AREAS SHALL PE PERFORM CY LMD6GGPPE CONTRACTOR 7 - A.L St" AND �P�ER�EN�/NIAL RANTING AREAS ARHPL.L HAVE EAS SA MINIh1AI 3 NCH DEEP OW OF ISFrEDDED HARDWOM PARK MULH API AN APOF A PRE-ACRGBrr CPRWI OR APPROVI EQU4L) FAR WE® C04TPZL S - LANOSCN'E MOM CEnM" PART( MI AND LAWN AREAS SHALL bE A SPADE CUT I EDGE SHALL PE NSTA IED V15RTM AND AO-COMMTO PETALS 9 - STAKING SHA..L w- REQIRED ON ALL TREES mEPT MILTI 5Tem VARII STAKE USING (2) OR (3) 6' STEM -r POST RAG® 6UTWE OF RA7fDA.L MID AW11I TO TRINC OF TREE WITH 16 1 CAME AND WOVEN NYLON TREE STRAPS. 10 - ALL TREES FREE-STMDING IN LAWN AREAS MD N PLAI MPS 61 M WRAPPED WRAP A STANDARD MI nF.I TREE WRAP MD FASTEN® WITH TWINE OR APPROVEP METHCA. 11 - Al TREES FREE-6 ANPING WITHIN LAWN AREAS S11A1 HAVE A MINII 4 FT. PIA RING OF PaMLE SNIREDD® MARDWGY.D 6ARK I AT A 3 INCIt DEPTH. 12 - Al LANDSCAPE PLANTNGS MD SOD AREAS 91 6E THOROII WATERED UPON NSTALLATION AM A TOTAL OF (7) WATERN65 DEFORE NITIAL AGGEPfAINM AFTER ACCEPTANCE, SOD SHALL VE MAINTAINED FAR (M DAYS OR INfL RAOfED N. 13 - LADxAPE CONTRACTOR MUST FAJIJN ALL PETALS PRomw ON SFEETS PE5ADII LMDSGME CAgSTRUGTION T12"I. 14 - Al LANDSCAPE P ANTNI SHALL M GUARANNTEEP FAR A PERIAP OF ONE YEAR FROM DATE OF NII ACCEPTANCE 15 - SI ALL REMAINING AREAS WITH III UR6MN MIX. TYPICAL TREE PLANING DETAIL II N.T.S. PRUNE BROKEN BRANCHES AS NECESSARY, MAX. 1/3 NARROW BRANCH UNION ANGLE WITH EVIDENCE OF INCLUDED BARK AND/OR BRANCH/TRUNK DIAMETER RATIO GREATER THAN SHALL BE REJECTED.�� WOVEN NYLON TREE STRAPS, SIZE TO ALLOW 1.5"0 OF TRUNK GROWTH, PLACE AT % HEIGHT OF FIRST BRANCHING NORTH TREE POST 90' 180" CABLE STRAP STAKING ORIENTATION PLAN GALVANIZED AIRCRAFT -GRADE 16 GAUGE CABLES, ONLY TIGHT PLANT WITH BASE OF TREE A ENOUGH TO PREVENT SUPPING; MIN. 1" ABOVE ADJACENT GRADE ALLOW SOME TREE MOVEMENT ENSURE ROOT FLARE IS VIABLE 2' - 6" STEEL "T" POST, REMOVE ALL TWINE AND STRAPS STAKE PER STAKING OR CUT AND FOLD WIRE BASKET ORIENTATION PLAN, REMOVE AND CUT BURLAP FROM TOP 1/2 AFTER TWO GROWING SEASONS OF ROOTBALL EDGE OF MULCH AREA 3" MINIMUM DEPTH SHREDDED MIN. 3' RADIUS I HARDWOOD BARK MULCH, ENSURE 5" DEEP � VERTICAL — SPADE CUT EDGE STRIP SOD FROM UNDE MULCHED AREA FERTILIZER TABLETS (3) PER TREE SPACED EVENLY AROUND ROOTBALL I - 611 ROOT FLARE IS VIABLE SIDEWALK/PAVING = _ — 3" WATER RETENTION SOIL RING —= = EXISTING UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE II PLANTING MIX/NATIVE SOIL BACKFILL II =I II TREE PIT TO BE MINIMUM OF 2.5 X ROOT BALL DIAMETER SLANT AND ROUGHEN SIDES: INCREASE PIT DIAMETER IN HEAVY CLAY SOILS CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS 1917 S. GILBERT ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319) 351-8282 www. mmsconsultants. net Date Revision 12-18-2024 PER CITY COMMENTS 01-28-2025 PER CITY COMMENTS LANDSCAPE AND FINAL STABILIZATION PLAN SCARLETT POINT IOWA CITY JOHNSON COUNTY WA SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL (DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN) N.T.S. MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. ROOTBALL (CONTAINER IY2 X MATURE ON -CENTER SPACING -ON -CENTER SPACING ROOT BALL (BALL AND GROWN) REMOVE ENTIRE DIAMETER OF SHRUB (SEE PLAN OR PLANT BURLAPED). CUT TWINE AND Date: CONTAINER BEFORE UST FOR SPACING) BURLAP FROM TOP 1/2 OF 12-11-2024 INSTALLATION ROOTBALL AND REMOVE EDGE OF SIDEWALK BEFORE INSTALLATION Designed by. Field Book No: OR CURB PLANTING TOPSOIL FOR BACKFILUNG CAT Drawn by. Scale: TURF ADP 1 "=20' III —I —III -III III=1 III 5" DEEP VERTICAL —III— Checked by. Sheet No: .III . _ _ _— = SPADE CUT EDGE 4" MINIMUM DEPTH —III —I III I II III I SHREDDED HARDWOOD III III —I —II III III —III —III III=I III — — FERTILIZER TABLETS CAT BARK MULCH BED III-1 —_— III —III —_ —III III —III (3) PER SHRUB SPACED Project No: III, -III _——III—� III, III III III III=III III III, III— -III EVENLY AROUND ROOTBALL ,III PLANTING HOLE SHALL BE ,III ,III ,III= `t 2X DIAMETER OF ROOTBALL EXISTING UNDISTURBED AND 6" MINIMUM DEEPER SUBGRADE 9200-006 of: 4 ATTACHMENT 3 Building Elevations ITALIANATE STYLE A POPULAR AMERICAN ARCHITECTURAL STYLE IN THE LATE 19TH CENTURY BORROWED FROM CLASSICAL ENGLISH DESIGNERS INSPIRED BY VILLAS AND PALACES OF ITALY. CHARACTERIZED OFTEN AS A ROMANTICIZED INTERPRETATION OF ITALIAN RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE. TYPICAL FEATURES INCLUDE FLAT OR LOW PROFILE ROOFS, LARGE OVERHANGING EAVES, DECORATIVE BRACKETS, CORNICE BOARD WITH LARGE FREEZE BAND, TOWERS, TALL NARROW WINDOWS AND DOORS WITH TRIM ALONG WITH BALUSTRADED BALCONIES AND PORCHES WITH SLENDER COLUMNS AND BRICK & CLAPBOARD SIDING. THIS BUILDING STYLE BECAME HIGHLY ADAPTIVE TO INCLUDE HOUSES AND ESTATES, HOTELS, APARTMENT BUILDINGS, BANKS, RETAIL AND OFFICE BUILDINGS TYPICALLY TWO STORIES ON UP TO FIVE BY THE END OF THE 18001S. IN LINE WITH THE TRADITION OF ITALIANATE ARCHITECTURE, OUR PROPOSED DESIGN SEEKS TO HONOR THE ESTHETIC PRINCIPALS OF THE STYLE AND PROVIDE A FUNCTIONAL MULTI -FAMILY HOUSING COMPLEX. BY INCORPORATING ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS, ORNAMENTATION, SPECIAL DETAILING, AND APPROPRIATE PROPORTIONS, WE AIM TO HARMONIZE WITH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND PAY TRIBUTE TO BEAUTY OF THE ITALIAN DESIGN. SPECIAL ATTENTION HAS BEEN MADE TO MAKE THE BUILDING ENTRIES APPROACHABLE AND THE SCALE OF THE BUILDING BROKEN DOWN INTO ROWHOUSE LIKE MODULES. THE OPEN SPACE, SCREENED PARKING, WALK WAYS, SITTING AREA, AND LANDSCAPING WILL MAKE A GOOD NEIGHBOR TO THE COMMUNITY. oil NOTE: SEE CIVIL SITE PLAN FOR AVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT TOWER ELEMENT 12' 3" h TOP OF PARAPET ' 37 -0-0 <3> < > TOP OF TRUSS 34 -0 5> TRUSS BEARING 3�RD FLOOR 21 -6 3/4" 2�ND FLOOR 10-91/2" <8> APARTMENT ENTRY ELEVATION <9> <8> SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 6- i dw P MODULEMODULE"B" 34' -66" <29> 24' 4" MECHANICAL SCREENING - BEYOND (NOT VISIBLE FROM STREET LEV L) <5> <6> <6> <9> TOP OFPARA i TOP OF TRUSS 34 -0 TRUSS BEARIN 30 -8 " 3RD FLOOR mil'-� .d" 44. 0' (2) WINDOWS 0 ENTRANCE DOORS IVIVVVLL nn IVIVVVLL UU IVIVVVLL nn 22'-8" 24' 8' 22'-8° 'ET <1> <30> <16> <1> <2 < < > 1 1 < > 1 1 1<3> <5> --- -- --- — ---- ------ ---- --- ---- --- ------ ------ ---- ---- --- --- ------ ------ ---- --- ---- --- ------ ------ ---- ---- --- ------ --- --- ------ ---- IE --- ------ --- --- ------ ---- --- ------ --- --- ------ ---- --- ------ --- --- ------ ---- ■I■I■I■ MINIM ■I■I■I■ ■ I � I F7 s IT i T► 21 >I 1 <6> • i <8> 7 <7> " klow `_ rrrr � ram.. ���� I i���✓� v- . _ � Q1>IrE—I ITALINATE FEATURES <1>TOWERS <14> BALCONIES <2> PROJECTING EAVES <15> PROJECTING PORCH <3> BRACKETS/CORBELS <16> FLAT ROOF <4> ELEBORATE CORNICE <17> LOW SLOPE HIP ROOF <5> FRIEZE BOARD <18> BRICK <6> PANEL MOLDING <19> CLAPBOARD SIDING <7> LARGE TRIM <20> CORNER BOARDS ` <8> TALL NARROW WINDOWS <21> INSET PANELS <9> DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS <22> PORCH COLUMNS <10> SEGMENTED WINDOW <23> RECESSED ENTRY a <11> WINDOW PEDIMENT/HOOD <24> RECTANGULAR BAYS <12> WINDOW TRIM <25> PAIRED DOORS (ARCH GLASS) COTE: SEE CIVIL SITE 'LAN FOR AVERAGE 3UILDING HEIGHT <5> <8> <9> <6> <26> WATER TABLE / MASONRY FOUNDATION <27> BALUSTRADED BALCONIES & PORCHES <28> STONE STEPS <29> ASYMMETRICAL FACADES <30> BALANCED FACADES <31> RICH TEXTURED FACADE <32> SCENIC GROUNDS (LANDSCAPING) FRONT PORTCH ELEVATION w N � fV 00 LJ � 0 <m L LW Lo LU w L co W a Lo QLIIIh H � 2 ".O � Q M 440 � M %0 0 W V SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" z O H a U 0 co W 0 Z 0 uj TOWER ELEMENT r <2 > <16> <2> <16>M 1 < > 1 1<3> ■�■ ■�■ i■■i i■■i � � y f I I I 1� 1111 I I <9> <8> W Q M Z Z w cn w w Z C� O <17> V — > < > <2> Q Q� ~ Q � O Q Q Z W Lu < o oo� w C� U Q w — o Z Q >_ � w Q, 0 � w w U) a� 0 0 }m }mo moww Q z Y 0 Q 0 b oz d m m Lz 0 U Q Q d 7n' nil A 0 r C R r R R r Z L z R r L .. 22'-8" 24'-8" 22'-8" �. CIO D o0 0o D CIO 0 C 0 m ^ C o F- O ti ti o z o W W I a I II II W 61 O I a a I Il�l� W \o ^ o •' Ifi� III III III III � � z � III III III III -L -L - cQ W W o � W W I M 0 0 II 00 00 � TTT I I I I LLLL 1 00 zi 00 CO � O n _ 00 . � W W L A., 00 00 I FTT TT I II II II W II II II L L L n o cc)n �9PII, qd L L J 1 r M z z r _ _ 1 _ W 22'-8" 24'-8" 22'-8" W Jl O_ n M o o nqdO 1 I W 22'-2" 24'-8" " W .fL , _ M �_ J TT� 7L =IL -LL _ n -4:? -4:? � N n qd M Cq Cq fL qd n 7L CV . 2 L IF W 1 OO W no r CV G Sl nqd c co c 09 W W J Ir J� CV O7 =�dL 0 0 W W J. JI Ir N FT T II � II Imo. Ali W W � n �1 - - 0 n r CV cq W W CV cc) .. n M CV n i = _ ti _ L ti _ �P n N Ir IIL : I � JI � W W � m cn it it it it rv_ �1 i� pr= — c;a -�,di =�d( =I' -id i =�dL -d c co ocli- 22'-8" 22'-8" 24'-8" 70'-0" L� 22'-8" 00 F7 F7 F7 n F-1 F-1 F-1 T E;m 70'-0" 24'-8" i 22'-8" --------- ❑J m 00 J O L-j L� �� O 8'-0" 1 0 6" 0 ❑❑ rn F--1 F-1 77 Erl 1 In L-� L-j L--j O ti o � w 0 ❑❑ Lj � 0 ❑ O N ❑� m 0 O Ca ❑°J ° --o ❑J Q m O IT reaa K D/T ❑ 0 ❑ fi EM >- C) 0 c� cli- 70 Erl O o 0 o IV 05 L---j -j L--j 0 0 F-1 F--1 F--1 1 0 L7� ;;o 6-6 ❑❑ ❑❑�❑ DRAWN BY: KRS CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: JOB DATE: 1-30-2025 JOB NO: 23-524 PAGE NO. A-100 GOOSETOWN APARTMENTS (42 UNIT) 911 N. GOVERNOR STREET IOWA CITY IOWA TRACY BARKALOW SHEET TITLE LOWER LEVEL & 1 ST FLOOR PLAN # I DATE I BY REVISIONS DESCRIPTION THESE PLANS ARE PROPERTY OF SELECT STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, LLC THESE PLANS PERTAIN TO THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT AND LOCATION. DO NOT MODIFY, ALTER OR DUPLICATE/COPY WITHOUT PRIOR AUTHORIZATION. -AN S-1L 'CT STRUCTURAL. 606 14TH AVE SW 2435 E KIMBERLY RD. SUITE 240S CEDAR RAPIDS, IA 52404 BETfENDORF, IA 52722 319-365-1150 563-359-3117 70'-0" 24'-8" 22'-8" Lw �_0" L-L O � rJ JJ rn RM o 70 101 �-.J 6--,J 6--.J O � 8'_0" o � I IL C� 6-6" ODO rn �O D o o � O 6--j 6--j 6--j IO � O 0o z r p 0 C) � 2 0o z r p 0 � C) N = 00 DRAWN BY: KRS GOOSETOWN APARTMENTS (42 UNIT) CHECKED BY: 911 N. GOVERNOR STREET APPROVED BY: IOWA CITY IOWA JOB DATE: 1-30-2025 JOB NO: 23-524 TRACY BARKALOW PAGE NO. SHEET TITLE A-102 2ND & 3RD FLOOR PLAN O O O I T- �Il �nll�lll 000 1 F-1 F-1 F-1 1 F-1 F-1 F-1 22'-8" MODULE 'AK iO O # I DATE I BY O O 70 0 O 70 o0 rn r 24'-8° MODULETY 70'-0" REVISIONS DESCRIPTION F F IOT FI O ° F-1 F-1 F-1 L° 00 61 22'-8" MODULE 'AK m / m Ca 5 O ry O m r7l w � O D m W m Z -AN S-IL=CT STRUCTURAL. THESE PLANS ARE PROPERTY OF SELECT STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, LLC THESE PLANS PERTAIN TO THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT AND LOCATION. DO NOT MODIFY, ALTER OR DUPLICATE/COPY WITHOUT PRIOR AUTHORIZATION. 606 14TH AVE SW 2435 E KIMBERLY RD. SUITE 240S CEDAR RAPIDS, IA 52404 BETfENDORF, IA 52722 319-365-1150 563-359-3117 ATTACHMENT 4 Rezoning Exhibit LEGEND AND NOTES 0 — CONGRESSIONAL CORNER, FOUND ® — CONGRESSIONAL CORNER, REESTABLISHED 0 — CONGRESSIONAL CORNER, RECORDED LOCATION • — PROPERTY CORNER(S), FOUND (as noted) O — PROPERTY CORNERS SET (5/8" Iron Pin w/ yellow, plastic LS Cap embossed with "MMS" ) ® — CUT "X" — PROPERTY &/or BOUNDARY LINES — CONGRESSIONAL SECTION LINES — RIGHT—OF—WAY LINES — — CENTER LINES — LOT LINES, INTERNAL — LOT LINES, PLATTED OR BY DEED — — — — — — — — — — — EASEMENT LINES, WIDTH & PURPOSE NOTED — EXISTING EASEMENT LINES, PURPOSE NOTED (R) — RECORDED DIMENSIONS (M) — MEASURED DIMENSIONS C22-1 — CURVE SEGMENT NUMBER UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND HUNDREDTHS ;E PROPOSED OPD/RS12 ZONING i0w— PROPOSED OPD/RM20 ZONING W POLECAT JOHNSON & MRTO FAMILY REV06A15LE TRUST / 0 5 25 50 / GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET MNNETT J BROWN 1 "=50' S RUM&OH OoFUHE SOUMEASU QUAIDIUEIDI S ECV�OLJ U V_U LJ 0H_FD1V LJ V _IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED / IN GOOK I AT PAGE I OF THE RECORDS OF THE / REZONING EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION - REZONING PARCEL #1 (OPD/RM20) IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA BEGINNING at the Southeast Corner of Lot 12 of Bacon's Subdivision, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Book 1 at Page 5 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S89°33'04"W, along the South Line of said Bacon's Subdivision, and the South Line of Lots 51, and 50 of the Subdivision of the Southeast Quarter Section 3-T79N-R6W, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Book 1 at Page 1 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office, 758.91 feet, to its intersection with the Easterly Right -of -Way Line of North Dodge Street; Thence N00°55'46"W, along said Easterly Right -of -Way Line, 46.06 feet; Thence N25°57'16"E, along said Easterly Right -of -Way Line, 273.89 feet; Thence N89°23'45"E, 130.27 feet; Thence N00°36'51 "W, 66.71 feet, to a Point on the North Line of Lot 49 of said Subdivision of the Southeast Quarter Section 3-T79N-R6W; Thence N89°37'57"E, along said North Line, 246.17 feet, to the Northeast Corner thereof, and a Point on the West Line of Lot 7 of said Bacon's Subdivision; Thence S00°13'35"E, along said West Line, 4.49 feet, to the Southwest Corner thereof, and the Northwest Corner of Lot 8 of said Subdivision of the Southeast Quarter Section 3-T79N-R6W; Thence N89°18'10"E, along the North Line of Said Lot 8, a distance of 172.08 feet, to the Northeast Corner thereof, and a Point on the Westerly Right -of -Way Line of North Governor Street; Thence S28°36'44"E, along said Westerly Right -of -Way Line, 186.77 feet; Thence S00°45'45"E, along said Westerly Right -of -Way Line, 189.70 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Rezoning Parcel #1 contains 5.32 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. DESCRIPTION - REZONING PARCEL #2 (OPD/RS12) BEGINNING at the Northwest Corner of Lot 49 of the Subdivision of the Southeast Quarter Section 3-T79N-R6W, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Book 1 at Page 1 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence N89°37'57"E, along the North Line of said Lot 49, a distance of 96.71 feet; Thence S00°36'51 "E, 66.71 feet; Thence S89°23'45"W, 130.27 feet, to a Point on the Easterly Right -of -Way Line of North Dodge Street; Thence N25°57'16"E, along said Easterly Right -of -Way Line, 75.03 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Rezoning Parcel #2 contains 0.17 Acre, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. POINT OF BEGINNING REZONING PARCEL #2 / � �Q 0� A� JOHN60N COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. l / / / / / (�OGSETOWN RENTALS, LLG N89037'57"E 96.71' �h �h PROPOSED ZONING PARCEL #2 JERRY P VANA _ (OPD/RS12) / �^ 9 CtiADRIGK ALLEN OVERHOLSER 1-1-6� �J � O� VICTORIA OILPIN / O� / PATTI 15REWER FINN ' 7,597 SF 0.17 AC N89023'45"E 130.27' 389023'45"W (VOOSETOWN RENTALS, LLC N89037'57"E 246.17' Z O N d1 0 0 d� W o U F JC�Q) Ft Lri PROPOSED ZONING PARCEL #1 50 (OPD/RM20) 251,23ACSF 0 SODfflSS OH OoFV[HE 8OU7[HEa87 ARAM G KRUE6ER QUAIDIr E� S E C V� OO H S_ V LI 9 iJ U o 1261T IN ACCORPANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN 600K I AT PAGE I OF THE RECORP5 OF THE JOHN50N COUNTY RECORPER'S OFFICE. I STEPHEN VOYCE I N00055'46"W 46.06' -M STACEY N015LE 7A ALPREY S bAHRIGK 758.91' I I NORTH 53 FEET OF THE WEST 160 FEET SA6,At5A LLC OF OUTLOr 14 OF THE ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA CITY FDI I I I I I I II lu � OC�KV�Oo Oo D10LL0��� ---------- ----------------- J IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN p,00K 67 AT PAGE 223 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHN50N COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. 51 I I I MRRY COURT LTD PARTNERSHIP \ S00°13'35"E \ 4.49' \ N89018' 10" E 172.08' 8 0 J E PIEUDONNE MUANZA MUANZA \ O\ \ MACK $UILDERS GROUP LLC RO69K 3 DEMEVIS AMMON \ KALLIN N CARO-US KHAN s� kP cAo \ PONALP PRITS CP61 \ \ ` EPWARP J LEAHY C REVOGAI5LE TRUST 1 JOAN K LEAHY REVOOA�LE TRUST I I I V n�InOD� HOo[� Ln MD o� 0 �jn�\`Ijj� ,�(,��1 o D ��/7 ,(,��1 0 L, o D 0� 0� D O �l � � v 0 " " � ` � � 1W " � v � o � m JOAN K LEAHY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED REVOCABLE IN p500K I AT PAGE 5 OF THE RECORDS OF THE TRUST JOHN50N COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. � I 12 S89033'04"W CITY OF IOWA CITY 9 OUMOU IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN p,00K I AT PAGE 116 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHN50N COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. 00 ELIZAMTH ANN FISHER V I 0 I POINT OF BEGINNING REZONING PARCEL #1 I I METH ELSA ERICKSON oLOC K 12 Dnwrs I aDD0�00� I I I%A M CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS 1917 S. GILBERT ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319) 351-8282 www.mmsconsultants.net Date I Revision 12-2-2024 PER RRN REVIEW - RLW 01-28-2025 per city comments -jdm ZONING EXHIBIT IOWA CITY JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. Date: 11-30-2024 Designed by: Field Book No: JDM 1380 Drawn by: Scale: RLW 1 "=50' N Checked by: Sheet No: o RRN o Project No: IOWA CITY o 9200-006 of: 1 0 0 N ATTACHMENT 5 Applicant's Statement M V pJ Q C a, E C 2 w 9 r v c a c M U a Ln C J a 3 U M M MMS consultants, Inc. Experts in Planning and Development Since 1975 December 31, 2024 City of Iowa City Neighborhood and Development Services 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Re: Scarlett Point Subdivision 1917 5. Gilbert Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 319.351.8282 Mmsconsultants.net Mms@mmsconsultants.net On behalf of the applicant, MMS Consultants requests a rezoning of the properties located at 905, 905 1/2, 909, 911 N. Governor Street, 900, 900 1/2, 902, 906, 908 and 910 N Dodge Street, from the current mixed zoning of RS12, RM20, RS8, and R313, to RM20 and RS12. Respectfully submitted, Jon D. Marner MMS Consultants, Inc. 9200-006Ll.docx ATTACHMENT 6 Summary Report for Good Neighbor Meeting Summary Report for Good Neighbor Meeting � r CITY ❑F IOV A CITY Project Name: Scarlett Point Project Location: 905-911 N Governer & 900-910 N. Dodge Meeting Date and Time: August 13, 2024 7:00-8:00 P.M. Meeting Location: Robert A. Lee Community Recreation Center Social Room Names of Applicant Representatives attending: Jon Marner & Scott Pottorff(MMS Consultants) Kim Sleeae(Select Structural) Names of City Staff Representatives attending: Anne RUSsett Number of Neighbors Attending: 20 Sign -In Attached? Yes X No General Comments received regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary) - See attached summary. Concerns expressed regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary) - See attached summary. Will there be any changes made to the proposal based on this input? If so, describe: Efforts to minimize impacts to existing trees to the extent possible while still meeting city requirements for stormwater detention. Consideration of type and appearance of landscaping adjacent to the park. Staff Representative Comments Concerns related to access location and sanitary sewer capacity have been reviewed on a preliminary level by staff and a detailed review will take place as part of a formal Site plan submittal. Mention of legal rulings that apply to the site with regard to standards to be met and units. W. W. W. M 1917 S. G i I bert .Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 M MMS consultants Inc. 319.351.8282 ! mmsconsultants.net Experts in Planning and Development Since 1975 mms@mmsconsultants.net Good Neighbor Meeting summary notes: Rezoning Amendment and Preliminary Plat for property located at 905, 905 %, 909 and 911 N. Governor Street, and 900, 900 %, 902, 906, 908 and 910 N. Dodge Street (Scarlett Point) 1. Concern regarding impacts to trees and construction work near Happy Hollow park. 2. Traffic concerns along Governor and Dodge, specifically as follows: a. Location of entrance. b. Number of additional cars. c. Current issues with speeding that is not enforced consistently. 3. General concern and dissatisfaction with the total number of new units and buildings. 4. Questions regarding the choice of architectural design elements selected for the buildings. 5. Questions why nothing is being done with the vacant building. 6. Impact to Horace Mann Elementary School. 7. Questions regarding the total number of new residents and the parking required. 8. Questions regarding sanitary sewer capacity. A follow up meeting with three representatives of the neighborhood was held at MMS at their request with the same MMS and City staff present as the Good Neighbor Meeting held at the Robert A. Lee Recreation Center. The neighborhood representatives are included with the accompanying sign -in sheets. 1. Requested to zone to RM-12 or approximately 54 units. 2. Additional mention of sanitary sewer capacity. 3. Pedestrian safety concerns specifically related to no sidewalk along the west side of N. Governor, and people cutting through properties. 4. Question regarding use of park by the new tenants, and whether there could be a sidewalk directly to the park for the proposed site. 5. Mention of a dedication of additional ground to the City for Happy Hollow Park. SIGN IN SHEET Name � er�� Address Phone �� U�� c� Email �� t��� � � 9�7��� WIN P 1 7 I U• Drd- i r �W6�tCOUV�J�q e "A-ei rt.A K-\ I bl S Got (A a-k wn- 1 60 ,e Opp, SIGN 1N SHEET Name Address Phone d e\zy1 g a - ?x2s . C�°h r ►5 ��L S �) °r o�,n 3 l� 3 3� rcom q2-,s Email "i T—o r. SIGN IN SHEET Name r I` Address lLip 7 ZS i�l ! � 1 Phone -sing Email UI�VjU !, j rcrhK e C� ./ SIGN IN SHEET Name Address Phone Email "ICM CA n 6A VW/� 2_ NPIIA-,r-e c311::1d4v Sd hr-(��-- (�:-3 �J, \ 0 vdvey -6li h 0 Xv �a � Jon Marner From: Kim Sleege <ksleege@select-structural.com> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2024 10:42 AM To: Jon Marner; Charles Meardon; Tracy Barkalow Cc: Scott Pottorff Subject: RE: Goosetown Apartments (9/25/2024 Sign -In Sheet) Categories: Save Kim Sleege, Select Structural 606 14th Ave SW, Cedar Rapids, IA 52404 Ph. 319.365.1150 Cell319.560.2113 i ATTACHMENT 7 Correspondence Anne Russett From: Schwalm, Leslie A <leslie-schwalm@uiowa.edu> Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 3.36 PM To: Anne Russett Subject: northside apt. proposal ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Dear commission members, am a longtime northside resident, writing to ask you to deny the current proposal for the lot north if Happy Hollow park. My concerns are two -fold. Most importantly, this proposal does not include affordable housing, which should be a top priority for any proposal. Secondly, it is just too big. The proposal crams too much into the space, threatening the peace and quiet we all deserve. Please reject this proposal. I know all too well what happens when the city carelessly infills with concentrated apartment buildings --the buildings erect on and adjacent to the 800 block of Jefferson has greatly increased noise from people and traffic in our neighborhood. Leslie A. Schwalm 819 Fast Market St. Anne RUSSett From: Troy Shehan <troyshehan@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 4:08 PM To: Anne Russett Subject: About the The Barkalow N. Dodge - N. Governor rezoning proposal "This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. " Hello, In case I'm not able to make the meeting tomorrow 1 wanted to let you know I am NOT in favor of the new buildings. 1. The change to Happy Hollow park would basically make it a playground, and not a park. 2. The housing density would create a huge problem with traffic on Governor (where I live). From Brown Street and Governor, it is basically a blind, quickly sloping curve. Traffic would have NO TIME to prepare for cars exiting/enterirg the parking area for the new buildings. This is the biggest problem with safety I see. It is a very busy street and traffic is constant. Any stoppage of cars would risk collisions from behind. A stoplight would have no real use in this situation, and would only backup cars or Governor (especially during work commute time) And, there are children who walk by and cross the street to go to school each day. I'm told that the current apartment building just north of the proposed area was actually a compromise made for these very reasons, And there are more cars in town than there were 20 years ago. So I have to beiieve that consideration is even more important now, Even if only 1 building went in, that would be 40+ peopie there, Many of which will have a car, So I am against the proposai. Thank you for reading this and giving it consideration. —Troy Anne Ruissett From: Tim Fleagle <tfleagle@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 9:51 PM To: Anne Russett Subject: N. Governor rezoning ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Hi Anne, hope you are doing well. I wanted to reach out as 1 won't be able to attend the planning and zoning meeting tomorrow night. I am in support of the proposed zoning changes to allow high density housing on the N. Governor lot. The N. Governor site is an excellent location for infill devolopment especially duo to its proximity to transit, and other amenities including parks, groceries and downtown. Thankyou, Tim Anne Russett From: Beth Erickson <bethpro15@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 8, 2025 9:09 AM To: Anne Russett Subject: Rezoning 900 N Dodge etc. ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Hello Anne, live at 813 Dewey Street and am directly impacted by this development. I am strongly opposed to the rezoning and change to the neighborhood. The proposed development is obscenely large and in complete contrast to the surrounding neighborhood. Why does it have to be so large? It's obvious to me that the developer/owner is trying to make the maximum profit for himself. Please consider that Iowa City has a lot of this type of housing already and this particular build is not necessary or welcome. I ask that you please consider all of the tax paying residents up and down these neighborhood streets who send their kids to Horace Mann School and who play in the local parks. The City has grown quickly in the last 10 years and I propose that a sensible slow down and appropriately sized plan for the property be considered. I also oppose the demolition of the existing homes, and the trees near the North end of Happy Hollow Park. I think that green space is necessary as a transition to the property. Thank you very much, Beth Erickson 319-743-5877 Anne Russett L,A-`fiC (WRESN006�kF From: Voyce, Stephen C <stephen-voyce@uiowa.edu> Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2025 3:21 PM To: Anne Russett Subject: Objection to Planned Development Overlay (OPD) and RM-20 RISC ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Members of the Planning and Zoning Corrnnission, I write to express my objection to the Planned Development Overlay (OPD) and RM-20 for the Eollowing reasons. With regard to the Planning and Zoning Commission proposal: This zone (RM-20) is particularly well suited to locations adjacent to commercial areas and in areas with good access to all city services and facilities. How does this proposed rezoning comply with this statement? The property is not adjacent to a commercial area. The lack of a sidewalk on Governor means it does not have good access for pedestrians (lacks access to city services and facilities). This location is not suited for the proposed density shown on this plan based on the words written in the Zoning Code. The RM-20 zone also says: Careful attention to site and building design is important to ensure that the various housing types in any one location are compatible with one another. The site and building design shows little compatibility with the existing single- family, duplexes, and apartment buildings in the neighborhood. In order to fit in the number of units proposed these buildings will be 236 feet long - compare that to a standard city block of 300 feet. These buildings will be almost a block long. Although the City must abide by the court ruling that imposed R3B zoning on parts of this property, it should not go beyond that to approve a plan that is incompatible with the single-family, duplexes, and apartment bmildings in this neighborhood. Yes, some multi family buildings may be appropriate here, but not these two huge buildings. The zoning code states: OPD Zoning will not be contrary to the intent and purpose of this title, inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, as amended, or harmful to the surrounding neighborhood The OPD section also says: Encourage the preservation and best use of existing landscape features through development that is sensitive to the natural features of the surrounding area. And: Promote an attractive and safe living environment compatible with surrounding residential developments. How does this OPD plan comply with these provision of the zoning code? In short it does not. The staff report acknowledges that 86% of the critical slopes will be impacted and most of the trees will be removed — that just shows that the proposed huge buildings do not take into account the natural features. They are too big for the property they are trying to fit on. These are the standards that the Planning and Zoning Commission is supposed to use to evaluate an OPD zoning: .A, General Standards• 1. The density and design of the planned development will be compatible with and/or complementary to adjacent development in terms ofland use, building mass and scale, Again, the proposed 236-foot-long buildings are out of scale even with the existing apartment buildings and in no way complement the adjacent development. 2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities There are no sidewalks on the west side of Governor Street to provide pedestrian access to this property. Although Barkalow will put in sidewalks on his property they will lead nowhere. That is against the Comprehensive Plan policy of putting density where there is pedestrian access. The staff report contains very little about the environmentally sensitive areas other than to say the 86% of the Critical slopes will be graded away and the grove of trees adjacent to Happy Hollow park appears to be removed. I reviewed with Sensitive Areas section of the zoning code. It states the intent is to: Preserve the scenic character of -hillside areas, particularly wooded hillsides. And: Encroachment of construction areas into steep and critical slopes must be xninimizcd. If disturbance ofmom than tbirtyrive percent (35%) of critical slopes is proposed a level II sensitive areas xeviewis required. Level 11 requires Planning and Zoning review. If 86% of the critical slopes are to be wiped away (well above the 35% that requires Planning and Zoning approval), and the grove of trees adjacent to Happy Hollow Park is to be removed, how does this comply with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code to develop our city in a way that respects environmentally sensitive areas? It does not, because too much development is being proposed on this property. Again, apartment buildings may be appropriate on part of this land and the court decision does allow development, but not to the extent proposed here. You are also asked to determine if the proposed rezoning complies with the Comprehensive Plan. The staff report says it does. But the Central District plan clearly shows 900 and 910 N. Dodge Street as single --family and duplex. There is no reason to include them in this rezoning other than to double -dip and give more density to Barkalow — even more density that he could achieve under the court -imposed R313 zone. The Comprehensive Plan does show Low- to Medium -Density Multifamily on Governor Street, but that should not lead to the highest density allowed by the IW-20 zone. In addition to density, you must consider the other policies of the Comprehensive Plan, including neighborhood compatibility and preservation of environmental sensitive areas like the critical slopes on this property. So, yes, multi -family zoning may be appropriate on Governor Street, but in weighing all of the Comprehensive Plan policies it should not be the plan before you. Regards, Stephen Voyce Associate Professor Engksh Department I Digital Studio University of Iowa Www.stl-phpilL ce.or_g Anne Russett From: Susan Shuilaw <smshullaw@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2025 10:32 AM To: Anne Russett Subject: RE: Feb. 19 P&Z N, Dodge-N. Governor rezoning request ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** To the Planning & Zoning Commission: I am writing in regard to the rezoning request for multiple parcels in the 900 blocks of N. Dodge and N. Governor Streets. I live about two blocks southeast of this property. While I am strongly in favor of adding more housing to the Northside, and welcome the redevelopment of these under-utilized parcels, I have two major objections to the developer's current proposal: As I understand it, this two -building, 84-unit apartment complex will include no affordable housing. I find this particularly perplexing in that the City has joined with the developer as a co - applicant for the zoning change. How does a complex of this size align with our Strategic Plan goals when no affordable units are included? This property's location is ideal foryoung families, situated on a bus line, and close to Horace Mann Elementary, Hy-Vee, and other amenities. For these same reasons, the complex will be attractive to college students, senior citizens, and other groups with significant percentages of low- to moderate income individuals. These populations will likely be locked out of these apartments if the units are market -rate rentals only. The damage done to the northern boundary of Happy Hollow Park as part of this development would, as another neighbor so aptly described it, change this verdant, tree -lined green space "from a park to a playground." I appreciate the developer's pledge to retain 15 mature trees and plant 50+ others, but based on the site plans, the tree -lined barrier between this property and the park would be largely destroyed ---and with it, the woodsy, secluded feeling of the park itself. This would be a tremendous loss to the Northside and would negatively impact the quality of life of nearby neighbors, existing and new. I urge the Commission to require that the developer work with the City to amend the plans for this project so that some portion of affordable housing is included, and that the entire tree lime along the northern and northeast borders of Happy Hollow Park be retained. Thankyou. Susan Shuilaw 718 N. Johnson Anne Russett From: Jackie B. <jackiehockett@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2025 3:01 PM To: Anne Russett Subject: N. Dodge-N. Governor rezoning ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Dear P&Z: Hello! While I LOVE that something will be built on this land- that old low building has been a sad empty site for as long as I can recall- I am really concerned about rezoning the two properties with houses that border the park. I think it is really important to keep a buffer between the park and the development. The tree line is an important physical boundary but also creates a park feeling that is safe and embraces the nature and longevity of this park. This park is one of the only city ones left where you can stargaze at night- and I worry about the light pollution from this massive build and no trees to block the light. (Have you ever been sledding down the hill, collapse in laughter, and then lay in the snow and marvel at the stars? have with my kids many times here. it makes me love Iowa City every time.) am trying to understand the plans from the packet, and I am not good at reading elevation and imaging what it would feel like from the park POV. I wonder if you could request this? As a parent, I don't love the idea of a building creeping above children -that barrier must stay. This park is now a multi -use park by everyone in the community, I see loads of college kids, families, kids, play groups here- and this design will turn it into the park of this apartment building. Please keep the separation of the properties and the wood line, it is a proposal to be built among houses and it should therefore work as a building nestled among the houses and the park. I know the city has shown a commitment to low income housing, and this addition to the neighborhood should support that vision as well. 3 bedroom apartments for families are really needed, and this would be a great location for family apartments! As 1 understand it, the majority of this lot is zoned for townhouses- maybe it should stay that way. We really don't need more student apartments- but we do need more homes. I think a better plan can be shown using the land and within the zoning requirements. Please do NOT rezone the RS8 and RS12 Thank you for your time, Jackie Biger 519 N. Johnson St. Anne Russett From: Gina Hausknecht <ginahausknecht@gmall.com> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2025 4:42 PM To: Anne Russett Subject: Proposed N, Dodge / N. Governor apartment development ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments, ** Dear Planning & Zoning Commission, write as a Northside resident to express my concerns about the proposed rezoning for apartment buildings between N. Dodge and N. Governor Streets just north of Happy Hollow Park. The positive aspects of this project include the removal of the old Social Services building currently on the site and the addition of more housing on the Northside, which is much needed. It is very important, however, that new development include affordable housing options and doesn't diminish shared neighborhood social space. My specific concerns with the proposed development are: • The lack of designated affordable housing. No developer should be given the go-ahead to create new housing without a commitment to affordability. I urge the commission to make such a commitment a precondition of any new housing project approval. • The removal of trees along the northern edge of Happy Hollow Park. Trees contribute to the environment's health and sustainability in numerous ways. Every development project should take pains not to remove existing trees and, where possible, to plant additional ones. • The buildings will be too close to Happy Hollow Park, abutting the basketball court. • The scale of the proposed buildings is out of proportion with anything else in the neighborhood. I am in favor of repurposing or replacing vacant buildings to create new housing options that will enhance the Northside with affordable units appropriate to the neighborhood's scale that either augment or at least do not erode the existing social infrastructure. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Gina Hausknecht 420 Fairchild St. 319-389-4287 February ig, 2025 Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am writing as an owner and zg year resident of 83o N Dodge Street, a single family home. My home is the southern neighbor of goo N Dodge Street and I share a driveway with that duplex, I oppose the request for rezoning in its current state and request removal from the proposal of the duplex at goo N Dodge Street. I am wholly supportive of multi -family infill development of an appropriate size that considers the context of the existing neighborhood, critical steep slopes, and the relationship to the public park.. My understanding is that the Planning & Zoning Commission reviews the rezoning application through a lens of I) Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan z) Compatibility with the neighborhood The Barkalow/City rezoning proposal is problematic in regard to both principles. REZONING 900 N DODGE STREET IS INCONSISTENT WITH THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS; i) Historically, City Council and Planning and Zoning recognized that the current (RP) high density multi -family zoning on portions of the proposed rezoning was a"spot zone" and called that a mistake, They twice tried to bring the zoning in line with the neighborhood. This was prevented by a conservative Iowa .Supreme Court. Now, staff is proposing to grant Mr Barkalow expanded zoning beyond what the court allowed. Re: rezoning the goo N Dodge Street duplex, staff' offer a rationale of desiring consistency" with RM-zo portions of the property rather than seeking consistency with the nature of the surrounding neighborhood and with the spirit and letter of the comprehensive plan, What was once understood as spot zoning has now become the model for density. z) The staff promotion of a value of consistency" of zoning within the required Planned Development Overlay (OPD) is contradicted by leaving one of the N Dodge Street Rs-Iz duplexes as is, but rezoning the other to RIVItzo. Not specified in the Staff Report is the fact that the OPD allows unused residential density within it to be transferred to the proposed new buildings, The goo N Dodge Street house sits on a lot of 17,400 sq ft but only 5000 sq ft arc required for a single family house. By rezoning goo N Dodge Street from Its-Iz to RM-zo and changing it from a duplex to a single unit, Mr Barkalow is able to transfer unused density, gaining six (of 84) units in his proposed two buildings. This is obliquely acknowledged on page Io of the Staff Report, where it is stated that the owner "shall convert the existing duplex to one dwelling... to ensure compliance with the maximum density standards of the zone:' I Of 2 3) The two N Dodge Street properties I have been referring to are clearly shown in the Comprehensive Plan -Central District Plan as Rs-Iz single family/duplex. The Comprehensive Plan stipulates that these properties are to serve as transition zoning. This southern transition zone is removed by up -zoning goo N Dodge Street, I invested a significant portion of my financial resources in my home at 83o N Dodge, adjacent to goo N Dodge Street, with the understanding that the comprehensive plan is a reliable document. It seems the City is prepared to override the stated intention of the Comprehensive Plan and Central District Plan in order to facilitate achieving an inappropriate density for the neighborhood, The Supreme Court did not obligate the City to include goo N Dodge Street in its decision, and doing so is in clear violation of the Comprehensive Plan and Central District Plan. q) The Comprehensive Plan spells out that developments should `support the enhancement of adjacent areas that. can .serve as assets or offer amenities;' The Zoning Code intent section re: the Rm-2o zone specifies: "Careful attention to the site and building design is important to ensure the various housing types in any one location are compatible with one another.' Achieving maximum density requires inappropriately rezoning designated transitional housing at goo N Dodge Street, bulldozing 86% of the critical steep slopes adjacent to Happy Hollow Park, and removing most of the trees on the border. These plans underscore that this developments footprint is far too big for the neighborhood and for the space available. The planned development degrades rather than enhances the Park, overwhelms the neighborhood with its out -of -proportion size, rezones what is specifically reserved as transitional zoning on N Dodge Street, and thus is not consistent with the stated letter and intent of the Comprehensive Plan, It seems the City may be concerned that if they dorit go along with the current proposal, that the development could be worse due to what is allowed by the Supreme Court decision. However, given the odd shape of the court -imposed R313zoning, steep slopes on Lot 51, and the diagonal sewer easement, it is unlikely Mr Barkalow could in practice achieve the theoretical density permitted by the 11313zone. Everyone wants gii N Governor Street to be redeveloped. Doing so in a way that complements the neighborhood and the Park, and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code would be an asset to the community. But the plan before you is inconsistent with the principles of our guiding documents. I hope you send staff and the developer back to the drawing board to devise a plan that works better for the environmentally sensitive critical slopes and for the neighborhood, Thank you for considering my feedback. Sincerely, ga wi P(-- 4 � Audrey Bahrick z of z Anne Russett From: Gidal, Eric <eric-gidal@uiowa.edu> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 7:44 AM To: Anne Russett Cc: Jackie Briggs Subject: Comments on Proposed Development A�o, ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Dear Planning and Zoning Board, We are residents of the Northside Neighborhood and we write with concerns about proposed development north of Happy Hollow Park. We are in support of this area's development for apartment houses, but wish to raise concerns about its impact on the park. Currently, a rich grove of trees separates the park from the property under consideration. We ask that those trees be retained as part of any development to provide adequate division between the park and the proposed construction. We also ask that adequate plans for water run-off be requested. If the entire property becomes paved or built, we are concerned about detrimental effects on the park. Happy Hollow Park is a gem of the northside and is used by many different individuals and groups, both from the neighborhood and from around the city. Its benefits and appearance should be retained. Any reasonable developerwould find a wayto do so. Yours sincerely, Jacqueline Briggs Eric Gidal 328 Brown Street Anne Russett From: Krueger, Adam C < kruegr@uiowa.edu > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 8:24 AM To: Anne Russett Subject: Barkalow rezoning project ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** For consideration by the Iowa City Planning Committee, am writing to express my concern and disapproval of the rezoning and development project for the Barkalow apartments on North Dodge and North Governor Streets. I am a homeowner in this neighborhood and my property at 831 N Dodge St is adjacent to the proposed rezoning areas. There are several reasons why I oppose the proposed project and several concerns that I have if they are approved as proposed. What will the impact of the proposed buildings be on local utilities and infrastructure? Will the burden for alterations or repairs fall to taxpayers or to the new development? What studies have been done to determine the effect of the proposed development on existing infrastructure (e.g., impact on sewers)? Have these studies been made public and why if not? The physical size of proposed buildings supposes an unacceptable alteration of the neighborhood as is. These new buildings would be significantly larger than the larger apartment complex building at 902 North Dodge street: Note the proposed 3-story buildings have a footprint of 16,520 sq ft compared to the existing adjacent 2-story rental building at 902 North Dodge with a footprint of 7,832 sq ft. One building alone is 110 percent larger than the biggest building on adjacent property. This large upsize in the building upends the land use goals and strategies as outlined by the Comprehensive Plan to "encourage compact, efficient development" or "ensure that infill development is compatible and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood." A smaller -scale building could better fit our area without the need to rezone all adjacent properties to accommodate the largest building that will sit in the Northside Neighborhood. A building of the proposed size might fit better near a commercial center. Loss of tree line separating the park from the housing complex. This would be a major loss to the community as it would forever alter the aesthetics of this small community park. This tree line is perhaps just as important to the park as the softball field, playground and other amenities. The tree line defines this park and protects the users from surrounding noise and visual pollution allowing them to fully immerse themselves in simple leisure activities. Having a protected place in our community to do this is so important in today's fast -paced environment. These trees aren't surrounding the park by accident; they area defining feature of this park and removing them would bean irreversible mistake. Traffic issues already exist on Governor and Dodge streets. How much more parking is planned for the new proposal? And what measures will be taken to ensure traffic safety with such a major addition to traffic flow? The entrance/exit to the current development creates safety issues because the visibility for vehicles at that location is limited by the curve and dip in the road. The area is also unsafe for pedestrians given the absence of (a) a crosswalk on either road and (b) sidewalk on the Governor side. Winter proposes additional hazards to this area. Have any studies to traffic flow and traffic habits been undertaken? Have they been made public? If not, why not? impact on pro party values. The new development will have a negative impact on property values in the area. What does the City Planning Committee plan to do to address this issue? Poor upkeep of adjacent property. The property at 902 North Dodge, which Is also owned by Mr. Barkalow, is in terrible condition. Little to no money, time, or effort are spent to maintain the aesthetics of this property. This has a negative impact on the surrounding home values. This also reflects on how this current proposal will be maintained after it will be built. The Northside Community members know that despite the talk of making this proposed project "architecturally" compatible with the neighborhood, in a few years it will look just as rundown and poorly maintained as the 902 North Dodge rentals, but on a far larger scale. Again, this reflects poorly on our neighborhood and impacts our property values. • Height of the proposed buildings reaches above the maximum height outlined in the building stipulations. The Plans indicate a maximum height of 37'. The maximum allowable height in the proposed zoning designations for RM-20 indicates 35'. To summarize, this is not the right proposal for this neighborhood. A smaller complex could more easily integrate into the community without causing such a burden on utilities, streets, and affecting tree lines and in Happy Hollow park. The negative impact of this complex on our propertyvalues could be minimized. I would ask the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission to take into consideration how these changes would permanently affect our Northside Community when considering the size and scale of Mr. Barkalow's proposal and his track record with the adjacent properties. Excluding the rezoning of properties at 900, 9001/2, 910 North Dodge, 909, 905 North Governor street would help limit the size and scale of this project, aswould protectingthe tree line that surrounds Happy Hollow Park. A designated turning lane that helps alleviate traffic flow issues could also help reduce impact on the neighborhood and limit scale of these buildings. The neighborhood wants this area to be developed, but the scope of the proposed project is an exaggeration that opposes the directions laid out in the city's Comprehensive Plan and will not be a net benefit to the Northside Community. Thank you foryour earnest consideration, Adam Krueger Anne Russett From: Hamilton, David s <david-hamilton@uiowa.edu> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 8:31 AM To: Anne Russett Subject: Letter to Zoning Commission ARISK ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Dear Commission Members It is my understanding that the development being considered for Just north of Happy Hollow Parkwill be a massive imposition on our neighborhood. It has much to recommend it. The land is underused, and good housing ever needed, apparently, in our community. Stilt, it is a massive project that will have an enormous impact on Goosetown and the North Side. If undertaken, it will be like dragging that great spaceship, Hancher Auditorium, across the river, uphill and docking it just north of the park. Maybe two Hancher Auditoriums, for all I know. An Imposition of such magnitude must take care not to intrude rudely on its neighbors. Private homes in the immediate area will be hugely affected. And if it is so that more than half the timber on the north edge of the park will be cut down, that is a lamentable change. Within the last fewyears we have worried about preserving, not destroying, our urban forest canopy and have taken steps to increase it throughout the North Side. There are fine old trees in that border, trees with their own history and grandeur. The hackberry by the shelter house and playground is a specimen of its kind. Every once In a while, when walking through the park, I find bluebirds at home in those trees. These are assets to be protected, even highlighted in forward thinking, urban design, They must not be squandered for the sake of the last dollar to be squeezed out of the site. Presumably the park itself will bean attraction for residents in these apartments. But nowhere in the plans does there seem to be any concern shown for integrating the two and making it an easy and pleasant walk for, let us imagine, new parents to stroll with their children down into the park. It seems to me that for the sake of the park and for that, too, of its immediate neighbors, everything should be set back some and steps taken for a more graduated transition from one to the other. We are accustomed to speaking of our footprint in such matters and of making an effort to keep it modest. As this plan stands, that print will be huge, careless, and all but indifferent to what it brushes up against and even tromps upon. But you can correct that, and I trust you will. David Hamilton 814 N. Linn St. Iowa City Dear Planning & Zoning Commissioners, February 16, 2025 As a former resident and business owner (Brown Street Inn) of the Northside Neighborhood I am writing to express some concerns 1 have about the impacts proposed rezoning and development north of Happy Hollow Park: 900, 900 112 and 908, 910 North Dodge Street has on the neighborhood. Although we no longer live in the neighborhood, I have strong feelings for how developments of this magnitude will impact the neighborhood and its amenities such as Happy Hallow Park. 1. I am a former member of the Planning & Zoning Commission and do not recall the city ever being a co -applicant on a rezoning/development request. I find this very problematic. Iowa City governance has rules in place for non -biased evaluation. How can the City prove it administered an unbiased evaluation in presenting P&Z Commissioners this rezoning petition when the city is a co - applicant? 2. Since this is private property, it seems more appropriate that City staff would present their non -biased evaluation of a request in their Staff Report. As a co - applicant the impression is given that the city fully supports the entirety of this request & project, 3. As shown on the proposed site development plans, the placement of buildings destroys the current wooded barrier north of Happy Hollow Park. Where two differing zones interface, there should be a meaningful buffer greater than the 14 feet shown. 4. This buffer should be of sufficient size to provide a effective visual barrier between the park and this development. The quality of some trees shown to be saved on the south side of the property (elm, cherry and hackberry) is marginal at best. A new planting buffer should be required that includes both evergreen and deciduous trees of higher quality than what currently exists. 5. 1 do not see how this proposed development can be construed as being compatible with the existing neighborhood character as required by the standard rezoning review criteria. The shear number of proposed units seems to exceed what would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 6. There does not appear to be any pedestrian connection between this development and Dodge Street. This should be required so building occupants would have adequate access to sidewalks and the inbound bus stop on Dodge Street, 7. The traffic generated by 84 residential units on the site seems problematic since the only access is located on a northbound one-way street. Traffic coming from the north, wishing to access this development, would have to use Brown Street between Dodge and Governor. This 2 block section of Brown Street is brick pavement and in fairly rough condition. For these reasons I feel a zoning that allows this level of high -density development is inappropriate for this site. I urge you to reconsider this request and the planned overlay development. Sincerely Robert Brooks 920 Foster Road, formerly 430 Brown Street February 19, 2025 Dear Commissioners of the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission, I am writing as a resident of the Northside Neighborhood.The Goosetown Apartments development and rezoning petition is a complicated matter with a long history that includes a ruling from the State Supreme Court of Iowa in favor of Mr. Barkalow against the City. As a Commission charged with the responsibility to serve the public, I would like to point out that you may find yourself in an unusual position reviewing an application which began as a rezoning petition from Mr. Barkalow (TSB) and is now a joint rezoning petition from TSB and the City Staff. Iowa City governance has rules in place for non -biased evaluation. How does the Commission escape the weight of the City's thumb on this petition when the City Staff is a co -applicant of a controversial rezoning? Aside from the procedural concerns, there are problems with the rezoning petition and development proposal: Page I of the Staff Report states:"The proposed development would allow for the demolition and replacement of buildings along N. Governor St., including the existing, vacant commercial office building." So, why does this plan include the rezoning of property on Dodge St. (specifically 900,900 1 /2 N. Dodge St.) where no infill development is proposed? Apparently density from the Dodge St. properties can be transferred to a Governor St. address to increase the maximum size of the building and the number of dwelling units allowed. The two proposed buildings for the Goosetown Apartments have issues too. They are much too large for the neighborhood. — Two three-story buildings — Dimensions 236 X 70 feet (each building is almost the length of one city block in the Northside — no other buildings exist on this scale in the neighborhood) — 133 parking spaces with parking and other paving equivalent to the footprint of the two dwelling structures; only 2-3 parking places for visitors — Construction of the development as presented will remove 86% of critical slopes contiguous to Happy Hollow Park. — Lack of sidewalks along N. Governor St. A significant retaining wall as a structural necessity will be built at the bottom of the hill at the property line of Happy Hollw Park.The area is a sensitive wooded overlay.The retaining wall will be 5 to 14 feet in height.The buildings are too large for the sensitive sloped property, there are too many dwelling units, and the scale of development does not fit into the neighborhood. The City will state that rezoning to a higher density is in the best interest of the citizens of Iowa City in order to increase available housing units in the city.That can still be accomplished in a sensible way by amending the proposal to omit 900,900 1 /2 N Dodge St. from the rezoning. Page 6 of the Staff Report shows Figure 4: Central District Neighborhood Plan for Future Land Use Map exhibits 900, 900 1 /2 N Dodge St. as a RS-12 property. It's transitional and appropriate next to a single-family home. Any pretense to abandon this logic goes against the Central District Plan. I am supportive of redeveloping the land having N Governor St. addresses and the R313 zoned lots, and see no need for the lots having N Dodge St. addresses to be rezoned.That is adding density above what the court decision imposed. I urge you to reject the rezoning application presented. A rezoning petition which removes the properties 900,900 1 /2 N. Dodge St. could likely result in a density more appropriate for the sensitive property. Sincerely, Sharon DeGraw Northside Neighborhood, Iowa City Two maps are included on the third page of this document. Figure 4 (below) is on page 6 of the Staff Report in the February 19th P&Z Commission Packet Figure 4. Central District Plan Future Land Use Map 900,900 1 /2 North Dodge Street is outlined in black.The pale yellow color is for "Single-Family/Duplex Residential" \ y ■ 1111111111111111a PROPOSED AREA TO BE REZONED RM-20 outlined in blue F"Parcel Nw1003482( (Lot 49) Z, RM-20 (already) Zoned RS-12 830 L- 828 814 JIJ 9131!2 911 Zone RS-12 Zone !S8 Zone RS-8 Happy Hollow Park L r 726 730 802 Brown Street 920 f931 918� 927 921 916 1913 Z i 90o 819 C 'M 817 813 4 110 7 18 805 I. 8 t12 The Iowa Supreme Court order in 2018 gives Mr. Barkalow the right to develop the areas in the 3RB zone (shown in pink). The City does not owe Mr Barkalow the right to over develop land shown within the blue outline. Anne Russett From: Michael Neustrom <michael.neustrom@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2025 12:42 PM To: Anne Russett Subject: Goosetown apartments AA RI1 K ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Hello Anne - My name is Michael Neustrom and I am a lifelong resident of Iowa City. I grew up dreaming of living in Goosetown one day and that dream came true when I bought my first home on North Dodge Street in 2019! 1 always loved the culture and the peacefulness of the North side of Iowa City. Unfortunately, the past few years have gotten worse and worse with crime and violence on the North side. Newer residents are up all night drinking and smoking weed outside, while their young children run through the streets and their teenage children walk around the neighborhood harassing people out for a walk or walking their dog... not to mention several break ins at a more increasing rate (mainly in people's garages). I know this because just this past summer my dog and I were on a walk and three teenagers followed us and threatened to "kick my ass and kill my dog." This was all unprovoked; I guess this is what teens do now on boring summer days. I picked up my dog and walked back toward my house while the teens chased us down the street and up my driveway. I chose not to report this because of my own peaceful nature (and distrust for police de-escalation strategies). All this being said, I am incredibly disappointed that the city once again, is proposing to build more apartments in a beloved part of town that once was bright with culture. The city has succeeded in the past few years of completely destroying the parts of Iowa City that I and many others once loved. If you and your commission have any respect left for this city, I would encourage you all to take into consideration the people who actually live in the Goosetown area, where most of, if not all of whom are passionately opposed to the Goosetown apartment proposed construction. These apartments would not only destroy the essence of the North side, but also are very likely to increase crime in the area. I appreciate you reading my thoughts and I hope they are taken seriously. Thanks! -Michael Neustrom Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 5 of 27 300 feet. Hensch closed the public hearing Townsend moved to recommend approval of REZ24-0016, a proposed rezoning to rezone 7.2 acres of the property located east of Camp Cardinal Blvd and north of Melrose Ave (Parcel Number 1007351003) from ID-RS zone to MU zone subject to the following condition: • Prior to issuance of a building permit the Owner shall reconstruct the median to allow access and also construct a dedicated left -turn lane on Camp Cardinal Blvd subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Elliott seconded the motion. Townsend noted concern with the commercial section and not having any idea what kind of businesses would be going there. Elliott states she thinks it's a good use of the land, it's infill property and she likes the diversity of housing options that are available. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Miller recused). Commissioner Miller rejoined the meeting. CASE NO. REZ24-0001: Location: 900, 902, 906, and 908 N. Dodge St. and 905, 909, and 911 N. Governor St. An application for a rezoning of approximately 5.49 acres of land from Medium Density Single - Family Residential (RS-8) zone, High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zone, Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) zone, and Multi -Family Residence (R3B) zone to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) zone and High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD). Russett began the staff report showing an aerial map of the property noting Happy Hollow Park located to the south of the subject property. She next reviewed the zoning map, which shows the current zoning of the subject property and surrounding properties. The subject property currently includes several different zoning designations, it has some Medium Density Single - Family Residential (RS- 8) zone on the southeast corner, High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12), and then there are Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) zone, and Multi - Family Residence (R313) zone. The existing R313 zoning is a zoning designation from the 1970s. To the south is some Public Zoning for the park and most of the rest of the zones around the subject property are zoned single family. In terms of background, Russett noted in 1987 there was an Iowa Supreme Court decision related to this property. At the time there were properties zoned R313 (again a multifamily zone from the 1970s) and a developer obtained building permits to construct an office building and an apartment building. The City revoked the building permit and rezoned some of the parcels to only allow single family and duplex residential so the owner sued the City and the Court determined that the City's actions were unreasonable. As a result of the Iowa Supreme Court Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 6 of 27 decision, several lots remained zoned R3B. Then in 2011 there was a rezoning request to rezone property along North Governor Street to RM-12 Low Density Multi -Family Residential, and that rezoning would have allowed approximately 18 units on the eastern portion of the subject property. The City Council denied the rezoning and directed staff to explore designating the properties to no longer allow multifamily development. In 2012, based on Council direction, the City initiated a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Central District Plan to change the Future Land Use Map from Low Density Multi -Family to Single -Family and Duplex residential on several properties. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment was accompanied by several City initiated down zonings, meaning a rezoning of property from a multifamily zone to a duplex or single family zone, and these actions by the City also resulted in a lawsuit in 2018 (TSB Holdings. LLC v. Board of Adjustment for City of Iowa City) and in that case the Courts determined that the Kempf decision from 1987 prohibited the City from enforcing the new zoning ordinance and the property owner was permitted to move forward with multifamily development consistent with the R313 zoning. Therefore, that is why today the zoning on the subject property is a mix of R313 from the 1970s and some current multifamily RM-20, and some single family. This property has a long and complicated zoning history. Russett also wanted to mention that the City is acting as a co -applicant to this rezoning for several reasons. First, the City would like to see a cohesive development on the subject property, as opposed to that which would be allowed under the current zoning. The City would also like to see compliance with modern zoning regulations, which include the sensitive areas ordinance and the multifamily site development standards which regulate things like screening, parking, design, and building materials. Lastly, the City Council Strategic Plan includes a goal related to establishing partnerships and collaborations, particularly in the interest in advancing the City's housing goals. As staff has discussed many times with the Commission, an important aspect of meeting the housing goals is increasing the overall supply of housing in the community Russett did note the applicant held a good neighbor meeting on August 13, 2024. Russett showed slides of photographs of the subject property. She noted the vacant office building and the existing apartments. The eastern portion of the subject property is mainly surface parking, there are some trees along the southern border of the property and an existing duplex on the subject property. Russett reiterated the current zonings are Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS- 8) zone and High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zones which allow single-family and duplex residential. The RS-12 also allows townhome style multi -family up to six units attached. Properties zoned RM-20 allow multi -family residential and the maximum height in these zones is 35'. The R313 zone also allows multi -family residential at a minimum lot area per unit of 750 square feet which equates to approximately 58 dwelling units per acre. Given the land area zoned R313 the existing zoning would allow a maximum of 84 dwelling units. The maximum height in the R313 zone is 45' and 3 stories. The proposed zoning is for the majority of the property to be Medium Density Multi -Family (RM- 20) zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD). The OPD is required due to impacts to sensitive areas. The northwest piece would be High Density Single -Family (RS-12) zone with a Planned Development Overlay. The maximum density in the OPD/RM-20 zone is 24 dwelling units per acre with the maximum height of 35'. The applicant is not requesting any waivers with this OPD application and if this rezoning is approved any future development and redevelopment of the property must substantially comply with what is shown on the OPD plan. Staff is Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 7 of 27 recommending a condition that as part of this project the final plat of the property must go through a replat so that the lots follow the proposed rezoning boundaries. Russett next shared the preliminary plan and development overlay plan. The project proposes redevelopment of the land along North Governor Street and would include the demolition of the two single family homes that currently exist at the southern portion of the site, as well as the demolition of the vacant office building to the north. There are two multifamily residential buildings being proposed, each contain 42 units for a total of 84 units, and the plans show storm water being located on site. The open space is proposed on the southeast corner and the parking is internal to the buildings, as well as there is some surface parking located behind the buildings. The plans also include a sidewalk along North Governor Street. Russett reviewed the landscaping plan, the applicant is proposing to keep 15 existing mature trees on the southern portion of the boundary and proposing to add several more, around 54, on the remainder of the property. Several will be street trees proposed along North Governor Street. Russett reiterated since the proposed rezoning complies with all development standards, there are no waivers requested, and the OPD is required due to the sensitive areas impact. The criteria to consider with this rezoning are consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with the existing neighborhood character. In terms of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan the IC 2030 Plan as well as the Central District Plan both apply to this land. The Future Land Use Map of the IC 2030 Plan shows the majority of the site, the properties along North Dodge and into the site, are all designated as appropriate for multifamily development up to 24 dwelling units per acre. The Central District Plan also shows that a majority of the site is appropriate for multifamily. However, unlike the IC2030 Plan the Central District Plan does show some single family to the north, as well as open space in the middle of the property. The Future Land Use Map functions as a conceptual future vision and both Plans envision this area as allowing multifamily development, up to 24 dwelling units per acre, which is the maximum density allowed in the proposed OPD/RM-20 zoning district. Russett noted in addition to the Future Land Use Map there are several goals and policies that support the proposed development. In terms of land use goals, there's goals encouraging compact, efficient development that is contiguous and connected with existing neighborhoods, while ensuring that infill development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. There are housing goals that encourage a diversity of housing types that ensure a mix of housing types within each neighborhood to provide options for households of all types, at all incomes, and supporting infill development and redevelopment in areas where there's existing services and infrastructure. In terms of environmental goals, the Plan encourages compact and efficient development that reduces the cost of extending and maintaining infrastructure, discourages sprawl and again promotes infill development. Lastly, in terms of parks and open space goals Russett stated there's a goal to improve overall access to the parks throughout the City. Looking at the Central District Plan the housing and quality of life element includes a goal to promote the Central District as an attractive place to live by encouraging reinvestment in residential properties throughout the District and by supporting new housing opportunities. Russett acknowledged that although this proposal isn't necessarily reinvesting in residential properties, it will result in the removal of the vacant office building and provide much needed housing units. There's also a statement within the Central District Plan specific to the subject property and to the history with the R313 zoning, which notes that this area is zoned R313 and it Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 8 of 27 should be rezoned to a valid designation, such as RM-20 In terms of the compatibility with the neighborhood character Russett first talked about the existing context of what surrounds the subject property. Again, there is Happy Hollow Park to the south, across Governor Street to the east there's single family residential, to the north there's a mix of duplex and single family and to the west, on the subject property is an existing multifamily building as well as two duplex units, and then further south, there's single family. In terms of compatibility Russett reviewed the site design, open space, landscaping, as well as substantial compliance with the OPD, which states no more units than currently exist on the western portion of the property could be built. The OPD would also ensure a transition from the detached single family from the south to the multifamily to the north. One condition that staff is recommending is prior to the final platting of the subject property the duplex building needs to be converted to a single family unit to ensure compliance with the density standards. Russett acknowledged the preliminary plan and the development overlay plan was designed to fit into the neighborhood, which includes a mix of housing types. Again, there's two multifamily buildings being proposed that front North Governor Street, the front of that northern building that fronts North Governor Street is about 70' and it's positioned in a way to lessen the impact of the larger scale building from the Governor Street right of way. Russett stated the same is true for the southern building, which is positioned at an angle which allows the longest side of the building to be positioned further away from North Governor. Again, there's open space provided in the southeast corner and both buildings would be a maximum of 35'. There is landscaping being proposed that maintains some of the mature trees to the south and more landscaping proposed throughout the site. Russett noted also there are no plans at this time for redevelopment along the North Dodge Street side of the property, however any future development that's proposed on lot two will be required to substantially comply with this preliminary OPD plan and that no more dwelling units then currently exist could be developed on the site. This OPD plan also shows a transition from the existing single family south to the multifamily must be maintained in some way if that area is ever to be redeveloped. Russett showed the elevations for the proposed buildings, they have incorporated entrances to individual dwelling units from the exterior to create more of a town home style feel and this also helps to break up the long fagade with the pedestrian walkways that provide connections into individual units. The subject property is bordered on the west by North Dodge Street and on the east by North Governor Street, both of these streets are one way streets and they're both arterials. The existing capacity for both streets is between 15,000 and 18,000 vehicle trips per day and are currently operating well below that between 5,600 and 6,200 average trips per day. The site also has access to Iowa City Transit on both the North Dodge Street and the North Governor Street sides. As mentioned this is an infill project, so there's access to existing sewer lines and existing water lines. Staff is recommending several conditions related to transportation and public utilities. The first is the dedication of public right of way and easements along North Governor Street to increase the right of way and allow for the construction of a sidewalk. The second condition is that a dedication of a temporary construction easement along North Dodge Street which will help with the planned reconstruction of Dodge Street, which is planned for 2027-2028, and lastly, the Water Superintendent recommended the abandonment of existing water lines for the North Dodge Street Apartments. These lines currently come off North Governor and he would like those lines to be abandoned and instead have water lines connect to the North Dodge water Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 9 of 27 main. Russett stated this property does have sensitive areas, in particular critical slopes. Staff can approve up to a 35% impact of critical slopes and the proposal is 86% of the critical slopes to be impacted, and that's why it's coming to the Commission for review. Staff recommends approval of REZ24-0001, a proposal to rezone approximately 5.49 acres of land between N. Dodge and N. Governor Streets to OPD/RS-12 (approximately 0.17 acres) and OPD/RM-20 (approximately 5.32 acres) subject to the following conditions: 1. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owners agree that no building permit shall be issued for Lot 1 as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan until the City Council approves a final plat resubdividing the subject property to conform to the zoning boundaries established by the rezoning ordinance to which this Agreement is attached. 2. Prior to the approval of the Final Plat, the Owner shall convert the existing duplex as shown on Lot 2 of the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan to one dwelling unit to ensure compliance with the maximum density standards of the zone. 3. As part of Final Plat approval, the Owner shall dedicate public right-of-way and easements along N. Governor Street consistent with what is shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 4. As part of Final Plat approval, the Owner shall grant a temporary construction easement on the western 10' of the subject property abutting N. Dodge Street. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan, the existing water services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge Street that are tapped off of the water main in N. Governor Street shall be abandoned, and new services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge Street shall be installed that are tapped off of the water main in N. Dodge Street subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be scheduled for consideration by the City Council. The Owner also has three other pending applications related to this rezoning: 1) A final plat application which will be reviewed by City Council; 2) A site plan application which will be reviewed by City staff, and 3) A design review application which will be reviewed by City staff. Hensch asked if storm water was managed on site or is it just all runoff, there doesn't appear to be any storm water detention and most of the site is paved. Russett replied there is some open space to the south but there isn't any storm water detention. Hensch noted there's currently no sidewalk on the Governor side, is that because the existing commercial facility appears to have not been used for at least 20 years. Russett is unsure. Hensch is unsure exactly how long it's been but the last tenant in that building was Johnson County, it's public health and social services were there and was a pretty intensive use in that facility at that time. Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 10 of 27 Hensch noted there are no waivers requested by the applicant for this rezoning which Russett confirmed was correct. Hensch asked about the maximum height of the current and the proposed multifamily buildings and how many units are in the current building. Russett replied the new building will be 35' which is also the same height of the current multifamily building, and there are currently 29 and 12 units in the existing buildings. Elliott asked about the landscaping proposed and is there any teeth to the landscaping plan. Russett explained similar to approving the OPD plan, the landscaping plan is part of that so they'll need to substantially comply with the landscaping as well. Quellhorst asked if staff feel that the proposed rezoning would offer some environmental protections because the legacy R3B zone wouldn't be subject to things like the sensitive areas ordinance. Russett replied possibly but the main concerns with the existing R3B zoning is the hodgepodge nature of it. Also the three properties that are zoned R3B are not contiguous and don't abut each other so it'd be three separate developments on three separate parcels and not subject to the sensitive areas ordinance and since this site has some sensitive areas, mainly slopes, if they stayed with the R3B zoning the could remove all trees. Quellhorst noted basically today, the way the site is zoned, one could construct relatively high density housing projects that would be interspersed and wouldn't be connected. Russett confirmed that. Quellhorst asked about the fact that 86% of critical slopes would be impacted and how that impact is evaluated and does that happen as part of the application process. Russett explained it happens as part of this rezoning. Staff is allowed to administratively approve up to 35% of impacts but anything beyond that requires an OPD rezoning and has to be reviewed by the Commission, but in terms of specific criteria, there aren't any specific criteria that need to be met to allow them to impact more than 35%. Quellhorst asked if staff has any concerns with the impact to critical slopes. Russett stated a lot of the impacts are due to the accommodation of the stormwater management system on the site and the development in general, but this is an infill site and staff thinks the benefits of more density and more housing offset the impacts to the critical slopes. Craig asked about the retaining wall that is shown on the images at the southwest corner of the slanted building, likely because of the slopes, but how tall is that retaining wall and what does it look like from the park. Russett stated there will be some existing trees along the wall and behind the retaining wall that will be seen when looking to the north from the park. She is not sure of the height of the retaining wall, the applicant can answer that question. Craig noted the significant elevation change down to Happy Hollow Park and just wanted to say for the record that if this project were to move forward, she certainly hopes that the City would take responsibility to add sidewalks to both sides of Happy Hollow Park for people who are trying to traverse that side without crossing Governor to get to downtown or anywhere close to downtown. Miller noted staff mentioned that it needs to be an OPD because of more than 35% of critical slopes are impacted, if that wasn't the case what would happen and if less than 35% of the critical slopes were impacted could City staff just rezone the whole thing to RM-20. Russett explained it wouldn't require the OPD, the overall project would still require a rezoning, but it Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 11 of 27 wouldn't require an OPD, it would still have to go through P&Z and Council. Miller asked about the multifamily development standards because a lot of the correspondence they received from the public was about how many trees they were taking out and his initial challenge with the current design is just the way that building along Governor was diagonal and if it was more parallel to the street they could potentially save a lot of those trees and put the open space behind the buildings like it was identified in the Central District Plan. He appreciates the walk up units, but they don't face the street. Russett acknowledged it could have been realigned so it all fronts North Governor, but it probably would have been a shorter building and with that there's some economies of scale of designing one building and it would get rid of the open space feature. Overall, it probably would have resulted in fewer units and a smaller building. Miller asked about the maximum setback. Russett noted there are easements that run through this property and the building can't be set further towards the street and they will need the applicant to request a minor modification to that, which is an administrative review. Wade asked if there is a significant difference to the City being the co -applicant on this versus just being staff supported. Russett acknowledged it's not something that they've done for map amendment before, they have done it for text amendments where the City has been the applicant, so there are rezoning applications where the City is the applicant. This is different and it's because of the history of the property and the complexity of the property and the lawsuits that exist so looking at it in the context of what can be built now with the current zoning and trying to get to a compromise with the property owner to have a better project than what could currently be built on the existing zoning designations. However, with the City being a co -applicant that changed nothing in the rezoning process or staff review. Townsend noted there are two Habitat homes right there on North Governor and also several rental homes on North Dodge so are any of these new homes going to be affordable. Russett replied no, they're going to be market rate. Townsend stated 84 units going in that area and none of them are affordable. Russett reiterated that one of the City Council's strategic plan goals is collaborating and creating partnerships for ways to reach the City's housing goals, and one of the ways to achieve some of the housing goals is just increasing overall supply, not necessarily having income restricted units, but getting more units online that could be used by someone who needs housing. Townsend acknowledged they need more housing units in the City at all income levels but in that area there are a lot of affordable places and if these units will be at market value that would be way above what would normally would be there. Hensch asked if the only areas that are required to have a 10% affordability requirement is in Riverfront Crossings or annexed land and Russett confirmed that's correct. Hensch asked about the R3B zoning and if that's a legacy zone not used anymore are there any other parts of Iowa City that still have R3B or is it only because of the litigation that it's still affixed to these parcels in this area. Russett confirmed it's only because of the litigation. Quellhorst asked about the tree screening between this development and Happy Hollow Park. Russett explained the existing trees that are along a portion of the proposed lot one would remain and then there's some trees that are being planted on the eastern side. Quellhorst noted it looks like a fair number of trees would be taken out under this proposal. Russett confirmed that but wanted to note even though there are critical slopes, there's no woodlands on the Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 12 of 27 property that are regulated by the sensitive areas ordinance so they're not limited in terms of the number of trees that could be removed. Hensch asked about the trees being removed and if they are oaks, maples or what. Russett stated she was unsure. Elliott noted regarding compatibility with the neighborhood and there's a lot of single family homes, and while she understands the infill and the need for more housing, why so much more housing. Russett explained the current R3B zoning would allow up to 84 dwelling units and the proposal is for 84 dwelling units. She stated these are certainly larger than the single family homes across the street but this property has been envisioned to allow multifamily development and it's currently zoned to allow multifamily development. Russett also stated with the multifamily site development standards there's requirements in terms of articulation and building materials that help minimize the size of the building. Again, they're proposing the exterior entrances which help break up the building and make it into modules and those are the points that were in the staff report that point to compatibility with the neighborhood. Also, when looking at it from the street, at least for the northern building, the shorter frontage fronts the street and it's also pushed back a little further, same with the southern building and the diagonal orientation which helps to minimize the size. Hensch noted the current parcels are zoned RS-8, RS-12, RM-20 and R3B so if there was no rezoning and each parcel was developed at its fullest zoning capacity, would that not be more dwelling units per acre than what this proposed project is. Russett stated the R3B allows more density and is actually more than RM-20 at 58 dwelling units per acre. The OPD RM-20 is 24 dwelling units per acre so combining all properties it may be possible. Townsend asked if there is a possibility to have stop lights installed. Russett replied no, the transportation staff and engineering staff reviewed this and there was no discussion of traffic signals or any off -site improvements. Townsend noted she travels that area during rush periods and it's not easy to get in and out of those areas. Miller noted the other thing that they heard a lot from the public about was the lack of affordable housing and with the OPD rezoning process is that even something that could be suggested. Russett explained the only times they require income restricted units is in Riverfront Crossings and through an annexation. Alternatively, it would have to be through a condition of this rezoning and to apply that condition the Commission would need to demonstrate that this rezoning creates some sort of public need that could justify that condition. Miller asked if it has ever been done outside of Riverfront Crossings or an annexation plan. Russett stated it was done with Forest View because there were existing residents in manufactured housing units that were going to be displaced with the rezoning. Townsend asked with the City being a co -applicant does that affect the units, Russett replied it doesn't. Townsend asked then why is the City is acting as a co -applicant. Russett explained to demonstrate the concern with how the property is currently zoned, so they are joining the applicant to put forth this rezoning due to concerns about what could be developed under the existing zoning and the hodgepodge nature of that. The City is hoping to get a better development project with this rezoning than what would be allowed under current zoning. Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 13 of 27 Townsend asked if as the co -applicant the City could request some of those units be affordable. Russett replied no, again it would have to be a condition of the rezoning and the Commission would need to demonstrate why the rezoning is creating a public need and justify why that would be needed for this rezoning. Hensch opened the public hearing. Jon Marner (MMS Consultants) is representing the developer for this application and will try to address some of the questions that that arose from Commission members. The first one is the orientation the building on the southeast corner. Part of the reason for that orientation is to pull that facade back away from Governor Street and to lessen the impact for the neighborhood from Governor Street. The other benefit to that is the highest point of the site is that southeast corner, so this also addresses some of the questions about the sensitive slopes. Most of the slopes that are being impacted are in that corner, they're actually man-made altered slopes and were put there quite a while back as part of the construction of those homes and when Happy Hollow Park and some of the other history of the site was developed. Those aren't original natural slopes, those are man-made slopes. Back to the orientation the building, by rotating it away it allowed them to sink the building down just a little bit lower from that southeast corner so as someone comes down Governor Street the building is going to appear closer to two stories, as opposed to the full three stories. Marner also addressed the tree preservation. Again, one of the intents to rotate that building was to allow them to preserve as many trees as possible. There are quite a few mature existing trees there on the park property that would not be touched. He acknowledged during the good neighbor meetings there was concern expressed about some of those trees being preserved so the building orientation was to help facilitate preserving as many of those trees as possible. He thinks there's a couple large cottonwoods in that area. Last but not least, some of the other trees that were spoken about in that open space area, as Russett pointed out on the Central District Plan one of the goals was to have a little bit of open space in that area and they also accommodate that. Obviously, they have to provide storm water detention, but that is the area where they were able to preserve some of those larger specimen trees. Regarding inventorying those trees, they went out and did an investigation and they were nicer specimen trees, not scrub trees, the ones that are identified are the better specimen trees in that area. Hensch asked about the easements going from the northeast to the southwest, how many easements are there and what type. Marner stated there's two easements there, one is for an existing public sanitary sewer that runs through the site and it runs straight through the site, as opposed to bending partway through. City staff has investigated that and he knows there's some other concerns about the capacity of that sewer and they've discussed with City staff throughout this process whether that sewer was adequate and the determination was made that it is adequate at this time so the easement is to ensure protection of that and provide access for City officials and for maintenance and repairs. The other easement is for storm sewer and it's actually conveying the storm sewer from the low point in Governor Street that's right on the northeast corner of the site, through the property into the storm sewer that then runs southwest down through Happy Hollow Park. Hensch asked what the widths of those easements are. Marner stated the sanitary sewer easement is 30' wide and the storm sewer is 40' and 30' as it varies in width through the site. Hensch asked about some of the slopes being created by previous grading, where were those Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 14 of 27 slopes created. Marner pointed on the map to those slopes around the backside of the two units that are constructed on that corner. It was pushed out to establish the flat grade for those units and that's where the slopes were created. Lastly, Hensch asked about the angle of that building, was the angle just a mass and scale issue of trying to decrease the appearance of mass and scale as people are going from South Governor to North Governor. Marner acknowledged that was part of it, it served two purposes, rotating that building served to pull it away so as one is approaching the site they're not seeing one continuous block length from Governor Street, it's rotated and provides a little different visual. It allowed the trees to remain which will also help soften that visual. Regarding the question about what it's going to look like from Happy Hollow Park Manner stated those specimen trees on the park property will still be there and will help buffer some of that visibility. Marner also reiterated rotating the building allows them to set it down in the site a little bit so that it's closer to two and a half stories visible. Hensch asked about the retaining wall, what would it look like, what will the height be, and what will it be constructed of. Manner replied it's an engineered wall varying from 5' to 13' in height. Hensch asked if someone is down in the park, say on the ball field, what is the change in elevation up to the base of the retaining wall. Marner is not sure because that's not on part of the rezoning but just by observation his rough estimate is 5' to the property line and then a few feet of rise to the retaining wall. Hensch asked if there is any screening in front of the retaining wall, because that would certainly help. Marner said not currently but certainly that's something that could be discussed. Marner noted one other idea regarding the retaining wall is as it follows along the south edge then bends and goes northwest to follow the building, they could lessen the height of the wall by rotating it back down closer to the property line and that would allow them to slope from the building down and meet closer to the grade in doing so, although that would also remove more trees. Craig thinks it's better to have the retaining wall and keep the trees, it feels like they're protecting the park more as opposed to just blending it all right into the park. Marner noted that's one of the goals expressed during the good neighbor meeting. He also noted there was a second, not a full good neighbor meeting, but they met with some other concerned, interested neighbors at their office with Russett maybe a month and a half after the first neighbor meeting and those were concerns that were consistently expressed. Therefore, they worked with the design and grading to try to save as many trees to accommodate those requests as best as possible. Craig wanted to make a positive comment, while she thinks these are huge buildings the options for bicycle parking are fantastic as this is a prime location for people who want to bike and to have covered bicycle parking. She would just also encourage some E vehicle options in those parking garages. Stephen Voyice (829 N. Dodge Street) lives directly across from 900 and 902 Dodge Street and wanted to speak on behalf of some of his affected neighbors. He read the planned development overlay and the RM-20 elements of the zoning ordinance that the Commission are to consider when reviewing the proposal and the following words stood out. "This zone, RM-20, is particularly well suited to locations adjacent to commercial areas and in areas with good access to all City services and facilities". Voyce fails to see how the proposed rezoning complies with that statement. The property is not adjacent to a commercial area, the lack of a sidewalk on Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 15 of 27 Governor means it does not have good access for pedestrians, and as someone who only rides a bike and does not ride a car those are extremely dangerous streets in that area without sidewalks. Voyce stated this location is not suited for the proposed density shown on this plan based on the words written in the zoning code. Moreover, the RM-20 zone also says "careful attention to site and building design is important to ensure the various housing types in any one location are compatible with one another." Voyce stated the site and building design shows little compatibility with the existing single family duplexes and apartment buildings in the neighborhood, in order to fit in the number of units proposed these buildings will be an astounding 236' long. Compare that to a standard city block of 300' these buildings will be almost an entire block in length, and the image shows it. Although the City must abide by the court ruling that imposed the R3B zoning on parts of this property it should not go beyond that to approve a plan that is incompatible with the single-family duplexes and existing apartment buildings in this neighborhood. Yes, some multifamily buildings are appropriate here, but not these two enormous buildings. The zoning codes also states "the OPD zoning will not be contrary to the intent and purpose of this title, inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended or harmful to the surrounding neighborhoods" more it says it "should encourage the preservation and best use of existing landscape features through development that is sensitive to the natural features of the surrounding area". Voyce questions how does this OPD plan comply with these provisions in the zoning code, it simply does not. The staff report acknowledges that 86% of the critical slopes will be impacted and most of the trees will be removed. That just shows that the proposed very large scale buildings do not take into account these natural features, they are simply too large for the property. Voyce notes these are the standards that the Planning and Zoning Commission is supposed to use to evaluate an OPD zoning. The general standards reads "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". Again, the proposed 236' long buildings are way out of scale, even with the existing apartment buildings, and in no way complement the adjacent development. Number two, "the development will not overburden existing streets and utilities". There are no sidewalks on the west side of Governor Street to provide pedestrian access to this property. Although the developer will put in sidewalks on his property, they will lead essentially to nowhere. The staff report contains very little about the environmentally sensitive areas, other than to say the 86% of critical slopes will be graded away and the grove of trees adjacent to Happy Hollow Park appears to be removed. Voyce reviewed the sensitive areas section of the zoning code and it states the intent is to "preserve the scenic character of hillside areas, particularly the wooded hillsides" and it says "encroachment of construction areas into steep and critical slopes must be minimized. If disturbance of more than 35% of critical slopes is proposed, a level two sensitive area review is required". Voyce stated level two requires Planning and Zoning review and if 86% of critical slopes are to be wiped away and the grove of trees adjacent to Happy Hollow Park is to be removed, how does this comply with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning code to develop the city in a way that respects environmentally sensitive areas. It does not because too much development is being proposed on this property. Sharon DeGraw (Northside) submitted a letter but noticed only a portion of it made it to the Commission in the agenda packet. She is writing as a resident of the Northside neighborhood and the Goosetown apartment development and rezoning petition is a complicated matter with a long history that includes a ruling from the State Supreme Court of Iowa in favor of Mr. Barkalow against the City. As a Commission charged with responsibility to serve the public she would like to point out that they may find themselves in an unusual position reviewing an application which began as a rezoning petition from Mr. Barkalow (TSB Holdings) and is now a joint rezoning Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 16 of 27 petition from TSB and City staff. Iowa City governance has rules in place for non -biased evaluation so how does the Commission escape the weight of the City's thumb on this petition when the City staff is a co -applicant of a controversial rezoning. DeGraw personally has a feeling that if the Commission voted this down City staff will just march it over to City Council anyway. Aside from the procedural concerns DeGraw noted there are problems with the rezoning petition and the development proposal. Page one of the staff report states the proposed development would allow the demolition and replacement of the buildings along North Governor Street, including the existing vacant commercial office building. So why does the plan include the rezoning of properties on Dodge Street, specifically 900and 900'/2 North Dodge Street, where no infill development is proposed. Apparently, density from the Dodge Street properties can be transferred to a Governor Street address to increase the maximum size of the building and the number of dwelling units allowed. The two proposed buildings for the Goosetown apartments have issues too, they are much too large for the neighborhood. These are two three story buildings, dimensions 236' times 70' making each building almost the length of one city block, and there are no other buildings on that scale in the neighborhood. There are 133 parking spaces and other paving's which is equivalent to the footprint of the two dwelling structures. There are only two or three guest parking spaces, that's not enough. Construction of the development, as presented, will remove 86% of the critical slopes contiguous to Happy Hollow Park and DeGraw thinks that if someone is standing at the basketball court they could see 40' of the building that will be 14' from the park edge boundary. A significant retaining wall, as a structural necessity, will be built at the bottom of the hill in a sensitive wooded overlay at the north end of Happy Hollow Park, the retaining wall will be 5' to 14'. Clearly, the development has too many units, the buildings are too large for the sensitive sloped property, and the scale of the development does not fit into the neighborhood. The City will state that rezoning to a higher density is in the best interest of the citizens of Iowa City in order to increase available housing units in the city, DeGraw states that can still be accomplished in a sensible way by amending the proposal to omit the address 900 and 900'/2 North Dodge Street from the rezoning. Page six of the staff report shows figure four, the Central District Neighborhood Plan Future Land Use Map, and it exhibits 900 and 900'/2 North Dodge Street as RS-12 property. It's transitional and appropriate next to single family homes and any pretense to abandon this logic goes against the Central District Plan. DeGraw is supportive of redeveloping the land, having North Governor Street addresses on the R3B zoned lots, and sees no need for the lots having North Dodge Street addresses to be rezoned. That is adding density above what the court decision imposed. She urges the Commission to reject the rezoning application, having a rezoning petition which removes the property 900 and 900'/2 North Dodge Street would likely result in a density more appropriate for the sensitive property. DeGraw shared a handout to show is the lot that has a rectangle and an arrow around as a designated lot that should not become RM-20, it's supposed to be transitional RS-12 and it sits next to 830 North Dodge Street, which is a single family residential home. The other thing in her handout is to show where there is the R3B zoning is they have the choice to leave that as is and to not vote it in favor of this, and just hold on to those R313s, she doesn't believe all of it could be developed as planned. Jennifer Baum (814 Dewey Street) is in agreement with DeGraw that the buildings are just too big for the lot and the parcels that are in the little corner have no business being included in that property. Baum does agree that the area needs to be rezoned but the little properties there are simply giving away for two bigger buildings and if those buildings had a third cut off, it might be able to work. Baum stated having that many people in that space is going to increase the traffic on the northside, even on the streets that are not Governor and North Dodge, because people have to get from one side to the other side as they're both one ways, so to do that one has to cut Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 17 of 27 through extremely residential areas like Deweyville, where she lives as the ad hoc mayor. She noted people going to HyVee from Governor Street assume that it's a shortcut and go through there about 40 miles an hour, they already have trouble with that, they already stand on the street corner and yell at people because they have lots of small children and are hoping to have more and hoping to have a development on North Summit that includes families. So, they're looking to put more families in their neighborhood and when they start increasing the number of humans that only have one recourse in egress and ingress, they have to figure out how to get to that one spot. Baum stated there's been no discussion about putting an alley or a way of getting through from the North Dodge property to the Governor property and that is problematic. If they gave these folks a way to go between those two properties, where there is actually room because they made a smaller number of units, they could have a little more space to put in a way so that people could get across those two lots and from one side of the one way to the other one way. Baum stated that would relieve all that traffic that's trying to make a shortcut somehow really fast through the neighborhood. She stated all they have in their neighborhood is humans that are either alive or dead and the dead folks have visitors. The people that live on her streets go really slowly and don't want people going by that fast. They finally, after 10 years of fighting, got semis off our street and this is just going to set them back. Baum stated there's a way to make it a little bit easier and still have infill, still have apartments, still have housing, even though it's not going to be affordable for a majority of humans that live in the Midwest, and not destroy the neighborliness of the neighborhoods. Bethany Berger (Northside) states she lives probably about an eight minute walk from where the proposal is and wanted to speak in support of the proposal. One thing that hasn't been necessarily mentioned is that this development is also a short walk from the HyVee, it's a short walk from the Ace Hardware, this is an ideal place to put housing where people actually can walk to various services, so they won't need to drive all the time. She noted looking at the site now, it's really an eyesore, it's an abandoned office building and big parking lot, so the new buildings will make the landscaping there will be much more attractive than some of the buildings that are currently there. Berger stated one of the things that she loves about Iowa City is its walkability which is a truly unique thing. She lived in Connecticut for a long time and it's a unique thing that Iowa City has so in order to preserve that walkability they need dense housing where people can walk to services. Berger also really liked reading about the plants that are going to be planted there and really appreciated that. Marie Wilkes (917 N. Governor Street) stated she moved to Iowa City in the early to mid-1980s and bought her home at 917 North Governor in 1987. She is very committed to Iowa City and been a taxpayer of property taxes for almost 40 years. She has raised two children here and loves the northside. She'd love to get rid of that empty lot but she also knows something about how that road is, having had at least three cars in her front yard, her house is just a little bit beyond where it goes straight, then there's a curve and a dip, and when the road is icy people end up in her yard, she is concerned when they have had possibly 100 cars in and out. Over the last 40 years there's been traffic that has increased over time and thank God it was so complicated for everyone to decide to develop First Avenue, but it did lessen the traffic a little bit on Governor, but it's still building. Because they're doing a good job in progressing and trying to make those hard decisions she asks the Commission to make this decision, not for money today, but for the citizens that live and are committed to Iowa City as a unique eco structure. Iowa City is very walkable. She took a class at the University that talked about how unique Iowa City is in that they had an area that busses, people were dropped off, they could walk through downtown, they can walk their children to school. With this development they will have how many extra Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 18 of 27 people coming in, and how close are they to Horace Mann and to Preucil, how will that limit children that have been able to be raised in an area that makes them able to be independent and learn those decisions earlier. Wilkes stated its hard decisions and she appreciates the people that they vote in to municipal offices to conduct the business that most are too busy to do, but the Commission finds the time to do it so she would ask them simply to think logically about why are they considering more density. Nothing has changed from 2011 when it was turned down. If someone can explain the difference to her she'd gladly listen but she doesn't see how they're able to support comfortably and welcome that many people into this neighborhood. Wilkes stated they are good neighbors and like to walk and say hi to each other and walk down to City Park to enjoy the fireworks and back safely on Fourth of July and walk down to Hamburg Inn on a Saturday or Sunday for breakfast, they're the people in this neighborhood, so please think about them. Audrey Bahrick (830 N. Dodge Street) is a 25 year owner and resident of 830 North Dodge Street, her home is visible at the very bottom southwest corner and shares a driveway with the 900 North Dodge Street duplex. She opposes the request for rezoning in its current state and requests removal from the proposal of the duplex at 900 North Dodge Street. She is wholly supportive of a multifamily infill development of an appropriate size that considers the context of the existing neighborhood, the critical steep slopes and the relationship to the public park. Her understanding is that Planning and Zoning reviews the application through a lens of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and with compatibility with the neighborhood. The Barkalow/City rezoning proposal is problematic in regards to both principles. Rezoning the 900 North Dodge Street duplex is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan because historically City Council and Planning and Zoning recognized that the R313 high density multifamily zoning on portions of the proposed rezoning was a spot zone and was considered a mistake. They called it a mistake. They twice tried to bring the zoning in line with the neighborhood and was prevented by the Iowa Supreme Court. Now staff is proposing to grant Mr. Barkalow expanded zoning beyond what the court allowed. Regarding rezoning 900 North Dodge Street, staff offer a rationale of desiring consistency with the RM-20 portions of the property rather than seeking consistency with the nature of the surrounding neighborhood and with the spirit and letter of the Comprehensive Plan. What was once understood as a spot zone has now become the model for density. Second, the staff promotion of a value of consistency of zoning within the required OPD is contradicted by leaving one of the North Dodge Street duplexes as is, the northwest one, but rezoning the other to RM-20. Bahrick stated it's not specified in the staff report that the fact that the OPD allows unused residential density within it to be transferred to the proposed new buildings. So what's occurring is that the 900 North Dodge Street house sits on a lot of 17,400 square feet, but only 5000 square feet are required for a single family home. By rezoning the 900 North Dodge Street duplex from RS-12 to RM-20 and changing it from a duplex to a single unit, Mr. Barkalow was able to transfer unused density, gaining six of his 84 units in the proposed two buildings. This is obliquely acknowledged on page 10 of the staff report where it is stated that the owner shall convert the existing duplex to one dwelling to ensure compliance with the maximum density standards of the zone. It took her a long time to understand why are they including her neighbor there when there's no plan to redevelop it, they're capturing density. The two North Dodge Street properties she has been referring to are clearly shown in the Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan as RS-12 single family/duplex. The Comprehensive Plan stipulates that these properties are to serve as transition zoning. Bahrick stated she has invested a significant portion of her financial resources in her home at 830 North Dodge Street adjacent to the 900 North Dodge Street duplex with the understanding that the Comprehensive Plan is a reliable document. It seems to her now the City is prepared to override the Comprehensive Plan and the Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 19 of 27 Central District Plan in order to facilitate achieving an inappropriate density for the neighborhood. The Supreme Court did not obligate the City to include 900 North Dodge Street in its decision and doing so is in clear violation of the Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan. Achieving maximum density requires inappropriately rezoning designated transitional housing at 900 North Dodge Street, bulldozing 86% of critical steep slopes adjacent to Happy Hollow Park and removing most of the trees on the border development. Bahrick stated it does seem that the City may be concerned if they don't go along with the current proposal that the development could be worse due to what's allowed by the Supreme Court decision however, given the odd shape of the court imposed R313 zonings, the three disparate plots, and the steep slope on lot 51 which may make it difficult even to build on, and the diagonal sewer easement, it is unlikely that Mr. Barkalow could, in practice, achieve the theoretical density permitted by the R 3B zone. Bahrick asks the Commission to send the plans back to the staff and the developer back to the drawing board to devise a plan that works better environmentally and is more environmentally sensitive. Matthew Solinger (1001 N. Summit Street) has lived in the neighborhood for about 10 years and has been working as a delivery driver in it for a little longer than a year. He mostly wants to bring up issues with the design and traffic, because that's a lot of people that are all going to be leading right out into Governor, which they all know is a one way, and that driveway is right at the top of the hill. People like to drive fast, they're going to be coming up it and without some kind of stop light or something, there's going to be problems. While people have mentioned biking and walking, which are great, but if people try to bike out onto Governor, eventually they're going to die. It's bad. It could be fixed again with a light or something, maybe a sidewalk going the other way so one could walk to the Ace Hardware or the HyVee without having to get on the road. Seems like something that could be brought into this plan. Also, Solinger stated when somebody says market range he hears rich jerks. If they said they're going to put people that need a cheap place to live in here, he'd feel better about it personally. Matthieu Bigger (519 N. Johnson Street) noted everybody has made so many great points and he'll try not reiterate too many things but first has to concur on both market prices and the fact that the units would be one and two bedrooms only. Staff, P&Z folks, and planning people need to figure out if that would indeed help with providing options for people, for households of all types and of all incomes, if that would really increase of the stock that is needed in the city. He is hoping that they have access to that information. The City has sometimes fought for three and four bedroom housing because they are trying to limit the density of student housing, but if they want families to move into those units, or into that current empty lot, he imagines they would want more than one and two bedroom housing. Regarding traffic, between the danger of Governor Street, he wishes people would test going up that hill in the winter, the lack of access to busses on Dodge Street and to bike down the city, it just doesn't make any sense. Bigger acknowledged he is not a planner but between that and the great points before about the what seemed to be unnecessary rezoning of some of the RS-12 lots, they could cut off the current RM-20 down the middle and then avoid the houses on the southeast and have two and a half acres ready for an RM-20. They would take over all the R3B, some of the current RM-20 and could still put in maybe 40-50 units. That would alleviate some of the concerns with traffic, which will be extreme. Bigger notes he loves going through Deweyville. He usually walks or bikes through it. He definitely never comes down there from the north in his car, but people do, just like the northside has had concerns with people crossing and taking Ronalds and choosing a cobbled street to go from Dubuque east, he doesn't know why, it seems crazy, but people do it. He loves those streets, but again he does it on his bike because it's fun. Regarding the slopes, Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 20 of 27 even if some of those were man-made per code encroachment must be minimized for critical slopes. That would not be done. Regarding storm water, do they know if there's current issues with stormwater and would doing all this actually make things worse with potential issues with flooding. If this is to proceed they need to think about permeable pavers. Also light pollution was mentioned and this will be more light pollution then with just houses. With big lots there's a lot of lights and LED lights have been proven to be convenient and cheap and not consume much electricity but they're awful for wildlife. Also cutting about an acre of trees won't be good for wildlife, but whatever is left of the wildlife will not be happy with all that artificial light day and night. Bigger would also love staff to check the code for the distance that is needed between a playground and a building, he saw somewhere that one can install a playground only if it's 20 feet from a property line. Working backwards from that there's currently a basketball court that would be too close to what would come. Finally, market price is an ugly and contentious buzzword. Is this really what is needed, maybe it hasn't come yet but there's going to be an enrollment cliff at the universities in the Midwest so if this is targeting students, who knows what is going to happen to those units, sadly demographics in Iowa is not going the right direction. Orville Townsend (713 Whiting Avenue) noted he is a victim of his wife's take your husband to work initiative so as he has been sitting here this evening and observing, it dawned on him that this Commission is not only citizens who have volunteered to give their time to help make the city a better place, but they also have some influence and some impact. The area he'd like to address is affordable housing and affordable housing is just what it says affordable. Townsend stated affordable is the big word, it's no problem when one can afford it, but unfortunately in this community there's so many people who can't afford it. This Commission is in a position to be able to make a difference, they have a lot of cases that come before them and a lot of opportunities to initiate efforts that can help to make the City's affordable housing better. Townsend noted while he has a house and it's very comfortable he remembers a time when he was a student and it was a nightmare. He hadn't gotten a job yet after he graduated from college and was struggling just trying to make it so affordable housing is something that is important, because when someone is struggling, they have a lot of things coming at them that they have no control over. Townsend encourages the Commission to do anything they can to assist the City in improving this affordable housing initiative. Andrew Evans (941 Dewey Street) lives within 500' of the proposed site and works as an architect in Iowa City. He wanted highlight a few points, first is how much is the developer held to the specifics of the plans and elevations that are contained within this proposal, assuming that the zoning change would pass. Any means of holding the developer to the plans would be beneficial, especially items like the unit setbacks are very beneficial in taking this from a 236' long building and segmenting it to match more of the single family scale that folks have been discussing. Evans does have concern that when value engineering comes into play, that instead of having those delineated units it once again starts to appear like a 236' mass that people have expressed concern with. Evans also noted the wall to the south of the site right now doesn't have a material called out and he is concerned that is a large concrete graffiti -ready wall there. He acknowledged the representative for the developer pointed out that the three story building will actually be more like two and a half in many parts of the site, but if the side yard elevation that's attached as part of this evening's document is accurate for that elevation, he is not sure how the walk up units would work for a building that is sunken half a story into the ground. If anything it'd likely rise up from there and having elevated porches. Regarding elevations, looking briefly at topographical maps, it looks like Happy Hallow Park sits somewhere between 710' and 720' of elevation and the building is proposed at 735', the edge of the site is between 735' and Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 21 of 27 745' so that's a massive grade increase. Evans also acknowledged the trees to the south of the site, demoing some of those trees is pulling back the curtain and so this is elevated on a platform and serves as a billboard for all that traffic coming up North Governor. By pulling back that curtain, instead of exposing a 70' facade they're now exposing a 236' facade. The idea of pulling back for more green space and setback works well for sites that are accessed from 360 degrees, but here 98-99% of the eyeballs on this site are coming from the south up that road. So if it was just 70' wide and more parallel with the road, it would appear actually much more in scale with the rest of the houses. Evans noted that on Mormon Trek Road between Benton and Rohret Roads are townhomes very similar to the designs currently proposed here and those run parallel. He uses that comparison because there's sidewalks in front of bunches of town home units and so those are unparallel and he doesn't think anyone is offended by those even though there's not a massive, angled setback. Evans stated another resident of the area, Jennifer Baum, brought up alley connection and access between the two units and he thinks if they're proposed as a package deal, then that should be used as an advantage. When arterial roads, like Dodge and Governor are seen as one ways that's viewed on the whole city scale, it makes a ton of sense, but unfortunately when on one side you can only use what's in front of you and can't use both that are advantageous. Therefore, creating the alley access would be very beneficial. Evans also noted many of the roads people are cutting through, many of the neighborhood roads, don't have sidewalks or are brick and so those are much more popular for bikers and walkers than other neighborhoods. If the City is encouraging bikers, with this new development and someone has to bike downtown, what route are they taking. If the developer is encouraged to connect the two via some sort of path, even if it's not a full connection of the parking lots, that'd be very beneficial to the safety, because no person in the right mind is going to hop on their bike, ride uphill north a quarter mile just to loop back down into town. As a co -applicant he thinks that puts the City in more responsibility to step up and make beneficial moves for the park, the compatibility with the existing neighborhood, as well as connection with the alley. His final point would be with the environmentally sensitive areas, it's just a bit concerning to him that there were only like five lines of text on that about crossing the 35% threshold to 86% and some points were made about artificial slopes, but none of those slopes are near the road, so to him that point is moot and perhaps there are some more creative ways to configure the site to bring that 86% number much lower. He thinks it'd be beneficial and would counter that the 236' of the building would leave most of the slopes and highlight the 70' facade instead to maintain the economy of scale that was referenced earlier. Jennifer Baum wanted to add speaking of wildlife there's a herd of about 40 deer that every night goes from the ravine on the other side of Dodge Street, go through Happy Hallow Park, come up across Governor, go up the hill into Deweyville and then on into the cemetery and Hickory Hill. So, thinking about safety and driving again the more people on that street the more likely deer are going to get hit. Sharon DeGraw noticed in reading the staff report there was a fee in lieu paid and she believes that that means rent, a fee in lieu is the cost of doing business that's going to be passed on to future renters, making the property more expensive to rent. Also, when a small group of neighbors did talk to the MMS engineers and asked for a walkway that would connect the apartment complex buildings to the park as that would be a nice way for people to get to the park safely, that was turned down. She thinks that's an incredibly important thing that should be added as somehow in the course of this discussion it was misinterpreted that they were wanting to keep people away from the park and that's not true at all, they want people to use the park, they're just trying to figure out safe ways they can access the park. Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 22 of 27 Matthieu Bigger wanted to read verbiage from code. In the RM-12, RM-20 and RNS-20 zones, if any portion of a two family use, multifamily use, group living use, or nonresidential use is located within 15'of a property that contains an existing single family use, then the portion of the building located within 15' of said property may not exceed two and a half stories in height. Bigger is pretty sure that in all of this there's something that's 15' away from said property and somebody should check. Also, a point of sustainability, which the City cares about, if 905/909 North Governor ought to be razed, the City as a co -applicant, maybe can exercise some light pressure to please include deconstruction of said houses instead of straight razing and demolition and sending to the landfill. The house may not have immense historical value but it would be nice to see if there's elements that could be salvaged for somebody else to use. Jon Marner (MMS) briefly added a couple of comments based on some of the additional concerns expressed by the community and the neighbors. Regarding the proposed grade and the question raised earlier about elevations, the elevation of park at the southeast corner, directly east from the proposed amenity gathering area, is approximately 745' and the proposed building elevation for the finished first floor is 736' so it sits 9' below that elevation at the retaining wall. That's part of how they would accommodate that gathering seating area amenity is to have a retaining wall out closer to the right of way to allow that seating area and it steps up slowly from the building and allows that town home entrance for that building. The other question raised was the existing elevation just north of the basketball court which is about 718' and it does slope up to the retaining wall and the existing grade at the bottom of the proposed retaining wall is about 722' so about 4' of elevation change just from the property line to the bottom of the retaining wall. Marner noted it was expressed about the desire to have a pedestrian connection to the park and that was discussed with staff whether that was desired by Parks and Rec and the understanding at the time was that the Parks Department did not desire for there to be a pedestrian connection directly from the units down to the park. There may be an opportunity in the future, via sidewalk or any potential capital improvements or City improvements to Governor Street, to utilize that access to come down to the park for this development. Craig asked how about a pedestrian exit over to Dodge Street, a bicycle or pedestrian trail. Marner stated they did look at that and it was another consideration but just along the property line, east of the existing parking lot, there's a dumpster pad with a retaining wall and the grades on the west part of the site are significantly higher than the east part of the site. Also, that's some of the areas they're trying to protect and it would be challenging at best to get a an accessible path from east to west through the site because of the elevation change. Audrey Bahrick stated regarding having a trail from the development to the park, to read from page 50 of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan it states there is a requirement to "identify and plan for the development of trail connections as part of all new developments." Bahrick stated the proposed development turns its back on the park offering no designated pedestrian access for residents of these buildings and that is in clear violation of the Comprehensive Plan. To assume that residents would simply walk through the formerly wooded threshold to the park is not possible because of a retaining wall from 4' to 13' high is planned that will separate the development from the park. She'd like everyone to imagine a parent with a child going to the park, or a parent with a stroller, or someone with mobility limits, trying to get to that park from this development, that's just not happening. They need to go out the exit onto Governor Street, and then there's a sidewalk to nowhere, cross mid -block on a state highway, walk down to Brown Street, walk across Brown Street a whole city block to get to the entrance of the park, because Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 23 of 27 it's just not accessible from the site. Developments should relate to the amenities, that's also part of the Comprehensive Plan, that there should be a relationship there, and this development literally is turning its back on the park. Hensch closed the public hearing. Quellhorst recommends approval of REZ24-0001, a proposal to rezone approximately 5.49 acres of land between N. Dodge and N. Governor Streets to OPD/RS-12 (approximately 0.17 acres) and OPD/RM-20 (approximately 5.32 acres) subject to the following conditions: 1. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owners agree that no building permit shall be issued for Lot 1 as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan until the City Council approves a final plat resubdividing the subject property to conform to the zoning boundaries established by the rezoning ordinance to which this Agreement is attached. 2. Prior to the approval of the Final Plat, the Owner shall convert the existing duplex as shown on Lot 2 of the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan to one dwelling unit to ensure compliance with the maximum density standards of the zone. 3. As part of Final Plat approval, the Owner shall dedicate public right-of-way and easements along N. Governor Street consistent with what is shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 4. As part of Final Plat approval, the Owner shall grant a temporary construction easement on the western 10' of the subject property abutting N. Dodge Street. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan, the existing water services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge Street that are tapped off of the water main in N. Governor Street shall be abandoned, and new services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge Street shall be installed that are tapped off of the water main in N. Dodge Street subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Craig seconded the motion. Quellhorst began Commission discussion wanting to thank everybody for a great discussion tonight, he made the motion he made because he thinks they need more housing. People pay too much for housing and a lot of people can't afford to live here so if they want to change that they need to build more housing units. This is an opportunity to do that, which would bring housing prices down for all. The land seems very well situated to multifamily development, it's largely unused, close to two arterial streets, public transportation and a grocery store. Additionally, if they don't do this it seems likely to that there would be a similar development, but it would be worse because it would be less well organized and not subject to modern zoning standards. So for those reasons he supports the motion. Craig echoed what Quellhorst said would just add that one of the points people made tonight Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 24 of 27 was families, and that maybe they wouldn't be feel comfortable in a one or two bedroom apartment. She can't remember what the national statistics are, but in Iowa City 40% of the housing units are for one person so they have to build housing for everybody. She acknowledged if she had her druthers it'd be a little bit smaller, but it's bringing housing that is desperately needed. She doesn't believe it is incompatible with the neighborhood, it's going to fit in and the people are going to be able to bike, walk and the livability of the neighborhood is increased. When more people are added more activities happen and she will support the project. Hensch first wanted to commend everybody and thank them for showing up tonight noting it's hard to show up in public and speak but he listened carefully to every word said and read every word submitted in writing. He personally will support this application, and his reasons are affordable housing. They have to do something and the only way to do that is either lower the price or increase the supply and this is definitely going to increase the supply. Unfortunately, since no one is displaced they can't add a condition that there be affordable housing but so everybody knows, right now there is a steering committee meeting to update the current Comprehensive Plan, because every 10 years they're required by law to update that, and he's a member of that steering committee and will advocate strongly that affordability be included in all zoning areas, not just Riverfront Crossings and annexations. Just to address a couple issues people had about traffic concerns, Hensch completely understands that. He's been in Iowa City since 1985 and that was an intensive commercial use there, where that office building is, with probably hundreds of people coming going every day with DHS there, so the traffic flow has already been seen. Also the idea of an alley access, he respects that being brought up but doesn't think that's a good idea because all alley accesses turn into cut-throughs and it leads to increased speeds, and any residents around there will rue the day that an alley or a cut -through was put through that property, because people want to go the shortest way they can when they're getting somewhere, or at least what they think it's the shortest way, and then the people that live there pay for that. Lastly, because he is the chair, he can't make a motion or second it, but would ask that they add another condition if the motion maker and seconder would approve, to add S3 screening (the highest level of screening) at the base of that retaining wall for the purpose of making it look green and when people are in the park and look up they just don't see a bare wall, they'll see foliage, they'll see plants, they'll see vines and beautification. Also, Iowa City has a horrible problem with graffiti and if they can do anything to keep people from spray painting that wall, they need to do that. Hensch stated he will be voting yes and hopes that they can make a consideration for adding another condition to the five that currently exist. Elliott likes the idea of a consideration for S3 screening and would vote yes with that and if they could add a consideration for some kind of walkway path to the park. Hensch noted the Recreation Commission may not have agreed to that nor was it in the Comprehensive Plan but since the City is a co -applicant it seems they can put as a consideration that idea because it is very odd there is no sidewalk to get to the park on Governor Street, they could at least ask that it gets pushed forward to the Recreation Commission to try to get in a capital plan. Quellhorst stated there would be a sidewalk to the park, because there's going to be a sidewalk that runs down Governor as part of the property development. Hensch replied that only goes to the property line. Craig stated the City has to take responsibility for bringing that sidewalk down to Brown Street. Quellhorst stated that is outside the scope of this particular proposal and they cannot saddle the cost to the developer, because it is not their project. Hensch agreed but Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 25 of 27 stated they could at least advocate or communicate to recreation department to consider putting it in their capital plan at some point, to extend that sidewalk so people can safely get down to the park. The City is a co -applicant so they can suggest it be presented to the Recreation Committee, even just by a memo to consider on their capital plan. Russett stated they can certainly pass along the interest of the Commission to have a sidewalk, that's probably something the public works department would look at since it's in the public right of way, but she is uncertain now how they would add it as a condition and not have it be placed on the owner. Hensch asked if they can get staff assurance that they will forward that to public works and Russett confirmed absolutely staff will pass that along. Regarding adding a condition of S3 screening at the retaining wall Quellhorst thinks screening is generally a good idea but is not familiar with the cost or logistics associated with that and would staff any have any position on that. Hensch noted the applicant actually agreed to it already, they said they wouldn't have no objection to that. Russett confirmed staff thinks it's a reasonable request as well. Quellhorst moved to amend the motion to add a sixth condition that S3 screening be added to the retaining wall. Craig seconded the amendment. Townsend noted she probably be the only no vote on this one because as she is looking at these units and the neighborhood, the buildings are huge and, in her opinion, it needs to be reconfigured as it just doesn't fit in with the look of the neighborhood. Miller agrees and is all for density and infill, but the scale of the buildings and how they relate to the street don't feel appropriate, and he doesn't think it's because of the density they could fit that many units on this site in a more appropriate way with stepping a little bit more. The explanation about making the buildings identical is economical but it doesn't feel like the right long term solution. But he agrees overall and may have designed qualms with it but they're in an affordable housing crisis and getting the units is the most important thing at this point. A vote was taken and the motion with the added conditions passed 6-1 (Townsend dissenting). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: DECEMBER 4. 2024: Elliott moved to approve the meeting minutes from December 4, 2024. Townsend seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Townsend nominated Quellhorst for chair, Miller seconded, a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. Craig nominated Elliott for vice -chair, Miller seconded, a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. Deferred to April 15, 2025 Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; (REZ24-0001) Ordinance No. Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 5.49 acres of property located between N. Dodge and N. Governor Streets from Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS-8) zone, High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zone, Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) zone, and Multi -Family Residence (R313) zone to High Density Single -Family Residential Zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12) for approximately 0.17 acres and to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential Zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-20) for approximately 5.32 acres. (REZ24-0001) Whereas, TSB Holdings, LLC has requested the rezoning of property located at 900 N. Dodge St, 902 N. Dodge St., 905 N. Governor St, 906 N. Dodge St., 908 N. Dodge St., 909 N. Governor St., and 911 N. Governor St. from Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS-8) zone, High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zone, Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM- 20) zone, and Multi -Family Residence (R313) zone to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) zone and High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD); and Whereas, due to prior court rulings, portions of the subject property remain zoned an obsolete multi -family zoning designation from the 1970s (R3B), while other portions of the subject property are zoned with various modern zoning designations; and Whereas, the City is acting as a co -applicant on this rezoning due to 1) concerns regarding the existing 1970s zoning and the haphazard development that the current zoning configuration would allow, 2) interest in applying a modern zoning designation to any redevelopment, and 3) City Council Strategic Plan goals related to establishing partnerships and collaborations within the community, particularly in the interest of advancing housing goals, which would include increasing the housing supply; and Whereas, the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies that the subject property is appropriate for multi -family development at a density of 16-24 dwelling units per acre along N. Dodge Street and residential development at a density of 2-8 dwelling units per acre along N. Governor Street; and Whereas, the Central District Plan identifies the area as appropriate for a mix of Single -Family and Duplex Residential, Open Space, and Low to Medium Density Multi -Family with a development density of 8-24 dwelling units per acre; and Whereas, there are a number of goals and strategies that align with the proposed rezoning including encouraging compact, efficient development; ensuring a mix of housing types; supporting infill development, and improving access to parks; and Whereas, the Central District Plan specifically references the subject property and states that "Another pocket of multi -family development in the northern part of the district along Dodge Street is zoned R315, which is an obsolete zoning designation no longer used in the City Code. This area should be rezoned to a valid designation such as RM-20, which acknowledges the density of the existing multi -family development on the property"; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a need to resubdivide the property prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure the subject property conforms to the zoning boundaries and a need to convert an Ordinance No. Page 2 existing duplex to one dwelling unit prior to the approval of the final plat to ensure conformance with density requirements; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need for additional right-of-way and easements along N. Governor Street to accommodate a sidewalk; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need for a temporary construction easement along N. Dodge Street to facilitate the planned reconstruction of the street that the City is pursuing in partnership with the Iowa Department of Transportation; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need to address the existing water service lines for the apartment buildings along N. Dodge Street, which are currently tapped off of the water main in N. Governor Street, which must be abandoned and new service lines established that are tapped off of the water main in N. Dodge Street; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need to enhance the southern view of the subject property, due to its proximity to Happy Hollow Park, by screening the proposed retaining wall to the S3 standard; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions regarding a re -final plat, the conversion of the duplex, dedication of right-of-way and easements, the establishment of water services lines that are tapped off of the water main in N. Dodge Street, and screening of the southern retaining wall the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2025) 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, TSB Holdings, LLC has 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. 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 High Density Single -Family Zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12): BEGINNING at the Northwest Corner of Lot 49 of the Subdivision of the Southeast Quarter Section 3-T79N-R6W, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Book 1 at Page 1 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence N89°37'57"E, along the North Line of said Lot 49, a distance of 96.71 feet; Thence S00°36'51 "E, 66.71 feet; Thence S89°23'45"W, 130.27 feet, to a Point on the Easterly Right -of -Way Line of North Dodge Street; Thence N25°57'16"E, along said Easterly Right -of -Way Line, 75.03 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Rezoning Parcel #2 contains 0.17 Acre, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. And, subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein, the property described below is hereby classified Medium Density Multi -Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-20): BEGINNING at the Southeast Corner of Lot 12 of Bacon's Subdivision, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Book 1 at Page 5 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S89033'04"W, along the South Line of said Bacon's Subdivision, and the South Ordinance No. Page 3 Line of Lots 51, and 50 of the Subdivision of the Southeast Quarter Section 3-T79N-R6W, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Book 1 at Page 1 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office, 758.91 feet, to its intersection with the Easterly Right -of -Way Line of North Dodge Street; Thence N00°55'46"W, along said Easterly Right -of -Way Line, 46.06 feet; Thence N25057'16"E, along said Easterly Right -of -Way Line, 273.89 feet; Thence N89°23'45"E, 130.27 feet; Thence N00°36'51 "W, 66.71 feet, to a Point on the North Line of Lot 49 of said Subdivision of the Southeast Quarter Section 3-T79N-R6W; Thence N89°37'57"E, along said North Line, 246.17 feet, to the Northeast Corner thereof, and a Point on the West Line of Lot 7 of said Bacon's Subdivision; Thence S00013'35"E, along said West Line, 4.49 feet, to the Southwest Corner thereof, and the Northwest Corner of Lot 8 of said Subdivision of the Southeast Quarter Section 3-T79N-R6W; Thence N89°18'10"E, along the North Line of Said Lot 8, a distance of 172.08 feet, to the Northeast Corner thereof, and a Point on the Westerly Right -of -Way Line of North Governor Street; Thence S28036'44"E, along said Westerly Right -of -Way Line, 186.77 feet; Thence S00045'45"E, along said Westerly Right -of -Way Line, 189.70 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Rezoning Parcel #1 contains 5.32 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. Section II. Zoning Map. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of the ordinance as approved by law. Section III. Conditional Zoning Agreement. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s) and the City, following passage and approval of this Ordinance. Section IV. Certification and Recording. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and any agreements or other documentation authorized and required by the Conditional Zoning Agreement, and record the same in the Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law. Section V. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section VI. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section VII. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication in accordance with Iowa Code Chapter 380. Passed and approved this day of 12025. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Approved by City Attorney's Office (Liz Craig — 03/27/2025) Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (REZ24-0001) Conditional Zoning Agreement This agreement is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"), and TSB Holdings, LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Owner"). Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 5.49 acres of property located between N. Dodge Street and N. Governor Street, legally described below; and Whereas, the Owner has requested the rezoning of said property legally described below from Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS-8) zone, High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zone, Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) zone, and Multi - Family Residence (R36) zone to High Density Single -Family Residential Zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12) for approximately 0.17 acres and to Medium Density Multi - Family Residential Zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-20) for approximately 5.32 acres; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a need to resubdivide the property prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure the subject property conforms to the zoning boundaries and a need to convert an existing duplex to one dwelling unit prior to the approval of the final plat to ensure conformance with density requirements; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need for additional right-of-way and easements along N. Governor Street to accommodate a sidewalk; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need for a temporary construction easement along N. Dodge Street to facilitate the planned reconstruction of the street that the City is pursuing in partnership with the Iowa Department of Transportation; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need to address the existing water service lines for the apartment buildings along N. Dodge Street, which are currently tapped off of the water main in N. Governor Street, which must be abandoned and new service lines established that are tapped off of the water main in N. Dodge Street; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need to enhance the southern view of the subject property, due to its proximity to Happy Hollow Park, by screening the proposed retaining wall to the S3 standard; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions regarding a re -final plat, the conversion of the duplex, dedication of right-of-way and easements, the establishment of water services lines that are tapped off of the water main in N. Dodge Street, and screening of the southern retaining wall the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2025) 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 agrees 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. Owner is the legal title holder of the property legally described as: BEGINNING at the Northwest Corner of Lot 49 of the Subdivision of the Southeast Quarter Section 3-T79N-R6W, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Book 1 at Page 1 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence N89°37'57"E, along the North Line of said Lot 49, a distance of 96.71 feet; Thence S00°36'51 "E, 66.71 feet; Thence S89°23'45"W, 130.27 feet, to a Point on the Easterly Right -of -Way Line of North Dodge Street; Thence N25057'16"E, along said Easterly Right -of -Way Line, 75.03 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Rezoning Parcel #2 contains 0.17 Acre, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. And BEGINNING at the Southeast Corner of Lot 12 of Bacon's Subdivision, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Book 1 at Page 5 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S89033'04"W, along the South Line of said Bacon's Subdivision, and the South Line of Lots 51, and 50 of the Subdivision of the Southeast Quarter Section 3-T79N-R6W, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Book 1 at Page 1 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office, 758.91 feet, to its intersection with the Easterly Right -of -Way Line of North Dodge Street; Thence N00°55'46"W, along said Easterly Right -of -Way Line, 46.06 feet; Thence N25057'16"E, along said Easterly Right -of -Way Line, 273.89 feet; Thence N89°23'45"E, 130.27 feet; Thence N00°36'51 "W, 66.71 feet, to a Point on the North Line of Lot 49 of said Subdivision of the Southeast Quarter Section 3-T79N-R6W; Thence N89037'57"E, along said North Line, 246.17 feet, to the Northeast Corner thereof, and a Point on the West Line of Lot 7 of said Bacon's Subdivision; Thence S00°13'35"E, along said West Line, 4.49 feet, to the Southwest Corner thereof, and the Northwest Corner of Lot 8 of said Subdivision of the Southeast Quarter Section 3-T79N-R6W; Thence N89°18'10"E, along the North Line of Said Lot 8, a distance of 172.08 feet, to the Northeast Corner thereof, and a Point on the Westerly Right -of -Way Line of North Governor Street; Thence S28°36'44"E, along said Westerly Right -of -Way Line, 186.77 feet; Thence S00045'45"E, along said Westerly Right -of -Way Line, 189.70 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Rezoning Parcel #1 contains 5.32 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. 2. Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the Comprehensive Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2025) 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 agrees that development of the subject property will conform to all requirements of the Zoning Code, as well as the following conditions: a. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owners agree that no building permit shall be issued for Lot 1 as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan until the City Council approves a final plat resubdividing the subject property to conform to the zoning boundaries established by the rezoning ordinance to which this Agreement is attached. b. Prior to the approval of the Final Plat, the Owner shall convert the existing duplex as shown on Lot 2 of the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan to one dwelling unit to ensure compliance with the maximum density standards of the zone. c. As part of Final Plat approval, the Owner shall dedicate public right-of-way and easements along N. Governor Street consistent with what is shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. d. As part of Final Plat approval, the Owner shall grant a temporary construction easement on the western 10' of the subject property abutting N. Dodge Street. e. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan, the existing water services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge Street that are tapped off of the water main in N. Governor Street shall be abandoned, and new services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge Street shall be installed that are tapped off of the water main in N. Dodge Street subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. f. As part of site plan approval, the length of the retaining wall proposed at the south end of the subject property shall be screened to the S3 standard. 4. The conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2025), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties, and shall remain in full force and effect until a building permit is issued for the above -described property, upon which occurrence these conditions shall be deemed satisfied and this agreement of no further force and effect. Nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 6. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the 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 Owner's expense. Dated this f I day of City of Iowa City Bruce Teague, Mayor Mw If , 2025. TSB Holdi Attest: Kellie Grace, City Clerk Approved by: City At rney's Office City of Iowa City Acknowledgement: State of Iowa ) ss: Johnson County ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2025 by Bruce Teague and Kellie Grace as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) TSB Holdings, LLC Acknowledgement: State of't County Of This record was acknowledged before me (name) as �'glAts ERIKA ANDERSON _ Commission Number 792095 My Commission Expires My commission expires: 4v1 , 2025 by itle) of TSB Holdings, LLC. otary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) My commission expires: Q Il r I 7�►Tiwr®���, City Council Supplemental Meeting Packet CITY OF IOWA CITY April 1, 2025 Information submitted between distribution of late handouts on Friday and 3:00 pm on Tuesday. Late Handout(s) 9.b. Rezoning - N. Governor St.: See Correspondence April 1, 2025 City of Iowa City Item Number: 9.b. 'r 1 CITY OF IOWA CITY �:.:. -dry COUNCIL ACTION REPORT April 1, 2025 Rezoning - N. Governor St.: See Correspondence Attachments: Council Correspondence from Audrey Bahrick Kellie Grace From: Bahrick, Audrey S <abahrick@uiowa.edu> Late Handouts Distributed Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 11:03 PM To: *City Council L4 Subject: Letter re: Rezoning of 911 Governor St Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; City Council R (Date) ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. 31 March 2025 Dear City Councilors, I am writing as an owner and 25 year resident of 830 N Dodge Street, a single family home. I share a driveway with my neighbor to the north, the 900 N Dodge St duplex which is included in the area to be rezoned. I oppose the request for rezoning in its current state and request removal from the proposal of the duplex at 900 N Dodge Street. I am wholly supportive of multi -family infill development of an appropriate size that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and that considers the context of the neighborhood, existing infrastructure, critical steep slopes, and the relationship to the public park. The current proposal is problematic on all fronts. 1) The area to be rezoned is in excess of what is required by the Supreme Court decision. Historically, City Council and P & Z recognized that the current (11313) high density multi -family zoning on portions of the proposed rezoning was a "spot zone" and called that a mistake. They twice tried to bring the zoning in line with the neighborhood. This was prevented by the Iowa Supreme Court. Now, staff is proposing to grant Mr. Barkalow expanded zoning well beyond what the court decision stipulates. The court decision permitted up to 84 units to be built on three non -adjacent 11313 plats. Yet what is permitted is not the same as what is feasible. Regardless of the court order, development potential of the R3B area is physically limited due to: • The odd shape: the three disparate lots are non-contiguous. • Slopes on lot 51 (a large portion of the R313 area). Grading this area would be expensive and likely make it challenging to build on. There is no building in the current Barkalow rezoning plan on lot 51. • Lot 10 (the piece of R313 zoning that fronts onto N Governor St) is only 60 feet wide. It provides street access to the remainder of the R313 land. A driveway to access it and the other R313 land would leave approximately 40 feet developable. Subtract the required R313 zoning setbacks and Mr Barkalow has hardly any development potential on Lot 10 even under R3B. • A sewer line crosses this property, further restricting the area that can be developed. Now, Mr Barkalow is seeking to build 84 units across 5.49 acres of contiguous lots. It seems the City is concerned that if they don't go along with the current proposal, the development could be worse due to what is allowed by the old R313 zoning and the Supreme Court decision. However, given the odd shape of the court -imposed R313 zoning, steep slopes on lot 51, and the diagonal sewer easement, it is unlikely Mr Barkalow could in practice achieve the theoretical density permitted by the R313 zone. 2) Rezoning 900 N Dodge St is in violation of the Comprehensive Plan. In seeking to upzone the 900 N Dodge Street duplex, staff have offered a rationale of desiring "consistency" with the RM-20 portions of the development (rather than seeking consistency with the nature of the surrounding neighborhood and with the spirit and letter of the comprehensive plan). What was once understood as spot zoning has now become the model for density. The value of "consistency" of zoning within the required Planned Development Overlay (OPD) is contradicted by leaving the 908-910 N Dodge RS-12 duplex at the NW corner of the OPD as is, but seeking to rezone the one on the SW corner to RM-20. Rezoning 900 N Dodge is in violation of the Comprehensive Plan which designates it as single family and not multi -family, with intention for it to serve as transitional zoning between the RS-8 and RM-20 properties on either side. The transition is removed by upzoning it*. This property has nothing to do with the Supreme Court case and upzoning it is for the sole purpose of capturing and transferring unused density to apply to the 84 units. I invested a significant portion of my financial resources in my home at 830 N Dodge, with the understanding that the comprehensive plan is a reliable document. Including it in the rezoning is an overreach which sets a precedent for future inappropriate rezonings and undermines principles of fair and transparent urban planning. * Eric Goer's letter contained in today's agenda packet states: "The OPD also ensures that the western portion of the subject property along N. Dodge Street retains the transition from existing single-family homes to the south to the existing apartment buildings. " Unless I am misreading, this statement appears to be in error as the southern transition, clearly considered desirable, is removed by upzoning 900 N Dodge St. 3) The size of the buildings are excessive in relation to the neighborhood and to the land available. The buildings are each nearly a city block long. There is nothing else approaching this size in the neighborhood. To fit these giant buildings into the space allowed, 86% of the critical slopes will be bulldozed and most of the trees on the border with the Park will be removed. A more modest size development with some setback and also with a clear relationship to the Park would be desirable. 4) The development bears no relationship to Happy Hollow Park. The development has an overall destructive impact the Park. Rather than capitalizing on the amenities of the Park as the Comprehensive Plan recommends for new developments, it turns its back on the Park, positioning a retaining wall ranging from 4 to 15 feet high between the Park and the Development. There is no designated pedestrian access. A path or walkway between the development and the Park was requested at a follow up to the good neighbor meeting but this was declined as being too expensive due to the need for ADA compliance. 5) There is a lack of infrastructure to support the development. The Comprehensive Plan stipulates attention to pedestrian access and safety for any new development. This is a pedestrian unfriendly area. Other than directly in front of 911 N Governor, there is no sidewalk on the west side of N Governor. Pedestrians seeking to walk to nearby HyVee for example, will be forced to jaywalk across two lanes of a busy state highway at a point of poor visibility of fast approaching traffic. No crosswalk or traffic calming measures are planned. The Staff Report indicates traffic density was considered and that N Governor can handle about double the current number of vehicles. Yet there is no mention given to new safety issues presented for drivers entering and exiting onto N Governor St. at the bottom of a nearly blind curve and dip in the road. Additional safety issues arise, for example, with potentially problematic access to the entrance/exit of the development for emergency vehicles, say on a football Saturday when N Governor is typically, for a time, nearly at a standstill with two lanes of one way bumper to bumper traffic. Everyone wants 911 N Governor Street to be redeveloped. Doing so in a way that complements the neighborhood and the Park and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code would be an asset to the community. But the plan before you is inconsistent with the principles of our guiding documents. I hope you send staff and the developer back to the drawing board to devise a plan that works better for the neighborhood. Thank you for considering my feedback. Sincerely, Audrey Bahrick � r City Council Supplemental Meeting Packet CITY OF IOWA CITY April 1, 2025 Infromation submitted between distribution of the meeting packet on Thursday and 4:00 pm on Monday. Late Addition(s): IP. Pending Work Session Topics Late Handout(s): 9.b . Rezoning - N. Governor St.: See Council Correspondence and Protest Petitions April 1, 2025 City of Iowa City Late Handouts Distributed r Kellie Grace 2 From: Bahrick, Audrey S <abahrick@uiowa.ed JI — ZS Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 3:54 PM (Date) To: *City Council Subject: Letter and graphic to accompany protest of resigning petitions for 911 N Governor St area Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; letter to accompany petitions.docx; image.png ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. March 31, 2025 Dear City Councilors, Enclosed are (52 total) protest petitions from property owners residing within 200 ft of the N Governor St area designated for rezoning. Also enclosed is a graphic illustrating the area (in yellow) where property owners signed petitions. Most eligible homeowners signed petitions. The neighborhood is in favor of development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Central District Plan. We protest: 1) The size of the development is inconsistent with and disproportionate to the existing neighborhood. 2) The lack of relationship with Happy Hollow Park and its amenities, including: the leveling of 86% of slopes and removal of most trees on the border of the Park; the Lack of pedestrian access to the Park such as a designated trail or sidewalk; the high retaining wall that creates a visual and physical obstacle to walking into the Park from the development (imagine a parent with a stroller seeking to access the Park). 3) The lack of infrastructure to support such a large development and resultant safety issues. The area is hostile to pedestrians. There is sidewalk on only a small portion of the west side of Governor St in front of 911. Pedestrians walking to Hy Vee, for example, will be forced to jaywalk (no crosswalk is planned) across two lanes of fast traffic on a state highway at a point of low visibility of oncoming traffic. 4) The vehicle entrance/exit to the development is at an area of poor visibility on N Governor St, at the bottom of a nearly blind curve and dip. While the area can apparently handle the increased traffic density, newly posed risks to driver and pedestrian safety do not seem to have been considered. No traffic calming measures are planned. Imagine an emergency vehicle needing to get into or out of the development on a football Saturday. We have separately endorsed protest petitions against the rezoning of the 900 N Dodge St duplex from its current RS-12 designation to RM-20. The basis for this is: 1) Rezoning it is in violation of the Comprehensive Plan which designates 900 N Dodge St as single-family, not multi -family with intention that it serve as transitional zoning between the RS-8 and RM-20 on each side. 2) The reason for including and upzoning 900 N Dodge in the proposed rezoning is to transfer density to reach the total 84 units. 3) This 900 N Dodge St duplex has nothing to do with what was granted to Mr Barkalow in the Supreme Court case. Including it is an overreach which sets a precedent for future inappropriate rezonings and undermines principles of fair and transparent urban planning. Sincerely, Audrey Bahrick and Neighbors Yellow highlight shows properties of signed protest petitions Rezoning outlined in blue 12 �% : 40s 402 907 y,' 905* 4 9Q0,1/2 134 ' 815 1/2 i618 6�32 Brown Street loll Iwy Im- 1007 100! 931 927 92: 915 914 837 *11; 84 '+ 812 810 4 808 805 r804 912 r-a v7 Pw-(eU�- �'(7 am (Z�J) f.Q , ,fw e v-P�cC/ A-L v-eCv? ruenl PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 2§k__ IOWA CITY, IOWA MQ-- CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: g0_01 902- YO b q09 Al, ooc/ e s7 Qof' gorf ,U, veerty-v This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: o?S' 1V , �Oc��� s� , ld cvu Cc 52 zc-�s_ Property Owner(s): /*"74,1 tJawlcs �-C By: '�%L �' —d✓ By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). CM. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa '> _! AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): r r° STATE OF IW* AY-i'k �`' J Y) Eve CG na This instrument was acknowledged before me on Mrz- l 1 2h (Date) by �kiak� l S (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of N« W BLS LL L (name of property owner) . -hMnrwv�nnn� KATE A. GOLDEN NOhry Public -Minnesota Mr CMMb*n ExPWO Jan si, 2027 Orig: Council packet Cc: CA - NDS Notary Public in and for the State off bu 14"-;LV- 05/2022 PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL r� IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY 0F16WA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred. feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1 /2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: 7 4/ Propertv Owner(s): c h, u AQG k B �T By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S); STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before the on _ S� "�G rjol k and individual property owner(s)). 3/,/Z s -,It 46MVY.i M. DIET?_ Awz' com "*Ww Mrnbet 7"Iff MYCo .Assi n Expi° Notary Pu in and for the too Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`'VNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as ,. (Date) by (name(s) of (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA ....^_.._......... CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1 /2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: 'VL P� _ Property Ow (s + v / �� Z c,_ By: m By: r.._ . INDIVID PRO RTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA )' JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on iv\G a- S` (Date) by and (name(s) of indiv dual property owner(s)). uleWENDYS.MAYERmb� 428 D , Commission Number 729o f, w\ M mmi on Notary Pu is in and for th tate of Iowa il �Te73 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY ONVNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA ".—.......... CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1/2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: 0 30 U . 0p,,:1qe a Property wner(s): zAvJyevu hrc GEC -"" s.r+ By: By. INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) w JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on J'NA (Date) by JN \_ c& f- Q_�-1 S u S CA .� c►1n i c. —and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). 1NENDY S. MAYER S Commission Number 728428 My J7Commissl n �res Notary Pubac in and for the ate of Iowa _ AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Orig: Council packet Cc: CA — NDS (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 05/2022 3f-71-az�_ PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL j IOWA CITY, IOWA;.—._...........__ CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included. in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1/2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all. in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: M INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on _ Avon Kr_,!-nX and individual property ownerW). ICPSIALJASON PAULIOS Commission Number 841476 My Commission Expires ow August 8, 2025 c c,a Notal Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as _ (Date) by (name(s) of (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING =3; TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL (I�- IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OFIOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1 /2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: / V 6/a6 Property Owner(s): 1W By: > By:-- -, W INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): c u STATE OF IOWA ), JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: is instrument was acknowledged before me on %N A u , , ,Q.t "j (Date) by cooi_� -_i3 re c_,O 'e-6' )�; ,n V� and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). 1 4 , " ate A-<,- Notary Publ in and for the Ale of Iowa WENDY S. MAYER Commission Number 728428 Commission Expires AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): _ 7 STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Orig: Council packet Cc: CA — ND S (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 05/i022 PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF16wA caY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1/2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: / %L 2,?if Property er(s): I D I U I [. [ By: By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on 3/ (Date) by V l c-�'_( .— , ,,, and (name(s) of individual propertyowner(s)). (i%A4 KYLE WINTER -- k S o v Commission Number 836731 ` ? � My o iss on Expires io } Notary blic in and for the State of Iowa ra . AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): w STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Orig: Council packet Cc: CA — NDS (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 05/2022 PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL A -A- t": IOWA CITY, IOWA-- CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1/2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: ✓ , ►� JJ0 cj.Q Property Owner(s): c.✓9 By: => By: w INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S):r STATE OF IOWA )� JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: c..� This instrument was acknowledged before me on M u t c ti a a, a �5 (Date) by g t-rn n t f t gro iy4 and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . tiVVA41P KIRAN MARIE PATEL o Commission Number 845731 My Com i sion Efpr s Orig: Council packet Cc: CA — NDS Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 05/2022 PROTEST OF REZONING ` � TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1 /2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all. in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: D O Property Owner(s): C �► �'��-�:���' By: c w INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on 1-koj h J � (Date) by PA U [ . Berti--) and _ (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). e��wt ESTEFANIA AGUILAR-ROSALESCC"°� Commission Number 820442 * * My Commission Expires Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa October 1, 2025 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Orig: Council packet Cc: CA — NDS (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 05/2022 PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1/2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: �'4) �� C(� CD Pro pe5ky Owner(s): 4 i71 -4C BY: r r,;.;, N - r-; � INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): ( " STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on C- c rCh 2 (Date) by LK -e_ a (�C'I" �U and _ C' � (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). w- ESTEFANIA AGUILAR-ROSALES �ew�t Commission Number 820442 My Commission Expires Notary Pu lic in and for the State of Iowa October 1, 2025 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`'VNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA�>—_...._.. CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included. in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1/2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all. in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: qeg Property Owner(s): Af/X "-X L..Dg /M By: 1/ --i -- .. 7 INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: f This instrument was acknowledged before me on ' `� g� �y'ZS (Date) by A►Kt,' Zfen ,Iabd,,4 �crel4cLi-7 and 1nSa-� NcAam J Abw4 lbrotArtit (name(s)of individual property owner(s)). kO"41P KIRAN MARIE PATEL a Commission Number 845731 My om fission Ex Tres Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa ,�,,P �,�Z-�+-ao2_ AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`'VNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Orig: Council packet Cc: CA — NDS (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 05/2022 PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL o� IOWA CITY, IOWA� CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1 /2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: p boy"A 0 r S�' 1 O Wz4, (,. jtif �✓'a oZ4S _ Prol Lo LE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: 5. This instrument was acknowledged before me on I `0 fLA 021% , aG as (Date) by P annah marie- Carolu5 I _h 4q and kall-%t A1Awgz:. Ca/eia5 ktia4 (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). ktSOACS' KIRAN MARIE PATEL 0 Commission Number 845731 My om fission Ex 'r s T' " otary P is in and for t5e State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF OFIOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the.owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1 /2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: qc2<7) �J , L4-o 1%ta-y7p ✓ Prol : Lo INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This rtrument was acknowledged before me on _ ov" M a L. k and individual property owner(s)). ►1'la✓,k d-1, �526 ,p-',A4 KIRAN MARIE PATEL o .. Commission Number 845731 My Comm' s i o nj yire of ublic ' 'and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`VNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as C0 _ (Date) by (name(s) of (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA;,.,—_.._.... -; CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1/2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: -f 1-7 �j � GO'je_(-r1n Property Owner(s): (Y_1 f- i e 5 , vJ i 44 By:,j �a s- g INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): .. ,> x-� STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on 3 �7 / a� t7 �-�j (Date) by fnc.x N 'e- S W i t k_e % and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). *�Nunes CODY T. NEDDERMMR4�u Con rj8WW 847131 my co Ems+ olic in and or the Stat of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA - NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1 /2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: q/ to Al Goie—c no r St Tc)u--o, C4 u Property Owner(s):"Dbf\Gk_�C1 IEE(AUJCIXc� r IL By: ✓ . / B INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: T lis instrument was cknowle ged before me on G 5� a��o� (Date) by D011 Qj CQ Y,diJG�rCX F'1'i IrS and e (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). rr ►5 CONNIE MCCURDY C o Commission Number 855110AAL�' M * My Commission Expires lOWA Notary Public in and for the State Iowa April 04, 2027 µy CZ AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): - -- -< STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: .. r-. This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Orig: Council packet Cc: CA — NDS (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 05/2022 PROTEST OF REZONING x �\ TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA ` CITYY OF IOWA WA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1 /2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: E LA F 7 qw C -- Property Owner(s): ►J-r OvaY ��TO L J 5 K 1 �f.... By. By: r �w INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): > .. r- STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This trutnent was acknowledged before me on c,4 sF' �UaS (Date) by ts} 6/y7q �;uf oAf 4% _ and (name(s) of individual profierty owner(s)). Notary Public in and for the State of AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY ONVNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as �P(i1AL S� TREVOR POLLOCK o y Commission Number 833465 s My Commission Expires ,OWP 67/..3Z/P�L (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS �_.._........ PROTEST OF REZONING 1. TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA �.,.................. CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1/2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: 13 on Ci TA- S zZq 5 Property Owner(s): cEr' L -son - By:�162 INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): ° J STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: Thi ' s rui ent as acknowledged before me on 4 --L (Date) by m� and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). 6 "" vt'lW\ >g`��, a' Commission E ENu( A 82720 Notary Public in and for the State of Ioway Commission Expires 5 w AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Orig: Council packet Cc: CA — NDS (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 05/2022 PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA h•:�..._............. - CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1/2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: )oocx C JI } Property Owner(s): z e n VI\ yam' w i By: :..r -0 By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on _ E I i mkB'i Ay�,^ F i Sh e-4,- and individual property owner(s)). AlAnk 7, a 0A5 � f o ANGELA PILKINGTON o Commission No. 743670 My Commission Expires by N 10/26/2027 otary P lic in and for the ate of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`'VNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as _ (Date) by (name(s) of (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA -��:�_............ CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1 /2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: Proper Own s): By: W, By: --� rl INDIVIDUAL PROPER Y OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on cpw �;"5 (Date) by 044 y l6,6 and (name(s) of individual properfy owner(s)). SHEILA WOOTONN Commission Number 79 MSm Gt I My c mini n E,xpires Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Orig: Council packet Cc: CA — NDS (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 05/2022 PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA -�.:'`�°.— .......... .. _ CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1/2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: Property Owner(s): By' > By +< INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): m~- STATE OF IOWA ) -- JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was ac wledged before me on '� C C LQ , Q7� oZ._!�- (Date) by j c- v1�1► ��� ct�;�c�, ��.1 and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). I WEN) S. Mp,YER o y Commission Number 729428 77) my comm soon P� Notary PuiQlic in and for the tate of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1/2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Prol Prol By: By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on _ and individual property owner(s)). 3/Lt / 2G Notary Public in and for the Stat of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as f`V __ T. °" r� r 7 _ (Date) by (name(s) of SZOZ ,a 47ew .Mo, sendx3 u01ss1ww03'" LbZS6L jegwnN u0issiww03 o N30WOH HVHVS �s (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL jI _ IOWA CITY, IOWA -- CITY OFIOWA C17T We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included. in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred. feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1/2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: c� S W� Sft-e-t t LM INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before ire on ZL Q� t 1 . a o 6L5 (Date) by 'Qm"_ VA N l cfi XC 'r and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). jlw'�01`1 WENDY S. MAYERCommission Number 729428My Commission �res -7 Y Notary Publo, in and for the Stige of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`'VNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) ofperson(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL - IOWA CITY, IOWA 'o CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1 /2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address �l3 -qi5- Property Owner(s): 4 ✓a�/ L INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on e and individual property owner(s)). r f f � Notary Public� and foe State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR STATE OF IOWA ) ,l JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me,dn (name(s) of person(s)) as e (name of property OWNER(S): `w t i �.y i i (Date) by (name(s) of 0- _ (Date) by of authority, such as officer, trustee) of Notary Public in and for the State o Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 lam.. � ♦ i.ir�n A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) On 03/28/2025 before me, YANCE LACSINA, a Notary Public, personally appeared EDWARD JOSEPH LEAHY, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. i YANCE LACSINA Oy Notary Public - California Riverside CountyCommission ;3 2465A09 Comm, Expires Nov 3, 2027 Notary Public Seal C,l'1 PROTEST OF REZONING I'O: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property xhich is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is ?roposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1/2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: Property Owner(s):�w- By: �a••-Gees-- - „ c� _, ... A, By: mow, _E1,o INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWN R(S): w" 4 cxt STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me individual property owner(s)). Z(Date) by �d / (name(s) of Ix I Notary AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as f in and for the (name of property r of Iowa OWNER(S): _ (Date) by of authority, such as officer, trustee) of Notary Public in and for the S4k of Iowa 05/2022 Orig: Council packet r1_. fl A AT7lCI _'%.L A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) On 03/28/2025 before me, YANCE LACSINA, a Notary Public, personally appeared EDWARD JOSEPH LEAHY, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. lJ" No Public nature • r YANCE LACSINA Notary Public - California s - Riverside County >_ Cor—ission rX 2465809 •� "', My Comm. Expires Nov 3, 2027 Notary Public Seal PROTEST OF REZONING bw f0: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF in tvA CITY Ne, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is Proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1/2, 902,'9 b, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) Phis protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the avorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414-5 of the ode of Iowa. 'roperty Address: y U g ._ �/ Q�Al 1 © IV �� � 7-, 'roperty Owner(s):�/� A/ r /_ C A H v Rev, c .a 1 /A %, 3y: 3y: NDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): ;TATE OF IOWA ) OHNSON COUNTY) ss: 'his instrument was acknowledged before me on and ndividual property owner(s)). r �:- r c,x _ (Date) by (name(s) of Notary Public h.i and foy e State of Iowa kUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR ;TATE OF IOWA ) UHNSON COUNTY) ss: 'his instrument was acknowledged before me /Qd name(s) of person(s)) as (name of property RTY OWNER(S): _ (Date) by of authority, such as officer, trustee) of Notary Public in and for the State f Inwa hig: Council packet � 0,/�0� to . A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )SS. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) On 03/28/2025 before me, YANCE LACSINA, a Notary Public, personally appeared JOAN KATHRYN LEAHY, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. ry� YANCE LACSINA Notary Public . California - - Riverside County > \ Commission # 246580j027 My Comm. Expires Nov 3. Notary Public Seal w t �4k � rym+mww-p'. "� PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF 10 WA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1/2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: � Q U q 0 a & �O V -e. A,� 0 I_ S 't`". Prol IN M. INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNE STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on "� and individual property owner(s)). USi— % Notary Public ) i vdd for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FQA PRO RTY OWNER(S): R, STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged bee on (natne(s) of person(s)) as (name of property owner) (Date) by _ (name(s) of �X (Date) by 1. authority, such as officer, trustee) of Notary Public in and for the State Orig: Council packet 0512022 /l_. _ A 1.1-1 i. A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )SS. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) On 03/28/2025 before me, YANCE LACSINA, a Notary Public, personally appeared JOAN KATHRYN LEAHY, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. jNot�ublic Signature YANCE LACSINA `�. Notary Public - California Riverside County Commission # 2465809 • .•�•`'` My Comm. Expires Nov 3, 2027 Notary Public Seal f � ^"fP^ a.�t PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA " CITY OF Y - lOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: qoo lV Dodg-e 6L This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: Property Owner(s) Lo 9?_S /v.. D�Q INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: L_L G This instrument was acknowledged before me on _ and individual property owner(s)). Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF fA)VUnIA-A_, COUNTY) ss: WA'Kkry This instrument was acknowled ed (name(s) of person(s)), as K& (Date) by (name(s) of before me on (Date) by g,04,— (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of U- (name of property owner) . KATE A. GOLDEN !I Notary Public -Minnesota My Commission Expiros Jan 31, 2027 "��wv�n'wv�nnnrvV Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 0 IOWA CITY, IOWA -- CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change .is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: s PropertyAwner(s);, Lo INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: 'S�Jvs— 'e F This instrument was acknowledged before me on 5�*/ 5 (Date) by 6A z-•4 Lb f -C and (name(s) of individual prop ty owner(s)). MOLLY a mm `1 CaI I1MI&W 720M Notary is in and for tate of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`VNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) ofperson(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLEMAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA..�_. _...._ CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: Property O r(s By: By: IND STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY ) ss: OWNER(S): m This instrument was acknowledged before me on ff\ a CcA"— Lo . rya S (Date) by S e ' \)C and (name(s) of indivi ual property owner(s)). WENDY S. MAYER o~ s Commission Number 729428 My Commission Ex Notary PuAt in and for the S te of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`'VNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Ong: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL jam— IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: q 3 0 ►V , Dodge PropertyOwner(s): 49�.d✓es� r2ahrcGt INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on {Y� c� d-r' T � (Date) by )ck\ cj r- t u e I S cr n c-k<_ and (name(s) of individual prop rty owner(s)). ", �' \ WENDY S. MAYER �" � � Notary Publi and for the Sta Commission Number 72W28 of Iowa My Commi n Expires _7 _ Z AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL (� IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF 10 WA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: V ' I A, Pro pe ne : P )r.�-1L. kv LLe4 210 By: By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on _ JAM V_,roenef and individual property owner(s)). 3111z°z� M Notary Public in and for the State «a (Date) by (name(s) of JASON PAULIOS _ Commission Number 841476 My Commission Expires /Ow" - August 8, 2025 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`'VNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS ..._ \. PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA ' CITY 0 ITY OFlOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change Is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: / 0/ /ki CJ c..Yr Property Owner -� :yy�� By: C:iGGl� t -" w m M: By: c .� INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): cri STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on )A- u) 7.0,-7- (Date) by 2xjj_ _� rU �k-) ej- LA and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). Im Notary Publi in and for the S to of Iowa p AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`3'NER(9): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) ofperson(s)) as Orig: Council packet Cc: CA — NDS (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) _ Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 05/2022 PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA � IOWA CITY OF OF IOtiYA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: 0.3 N O 'l� �� 64, Property wner(s) �/TTO R 121 V_� By: By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): V l GA-D ria &1 � 1 �q STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on _ U i cAof � C—i 6, N and individual property owner(s)).. a`/iaVa�_ AY'1AC s, KYLE WINTER o v Commission Number 836731 * My Commis ion Expires ,oWP N? is Notary Pub 'c in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: rn _ (Date) by (name(s) of This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) ofperson(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Ong: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING i TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWAA CITY, IOWA �'"'---- CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change .is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1/2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: 0 ) v Cal t, Property Owners) h <_'} -V �� `` ,� ✓� _ By: By. INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): -- STATE OF IOWA ) �' JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on M �� a z 0 (Date) by 61-nA c4ot- S roWh and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) ofperson(s)) as �Pa+Acs KIRAN MARIE PA TEL o Commission Number 945731 z ° °' MX Commission Expires /OW P (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING 12 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ` IOWA CITY, IOWA i CITY OF IOWA CIry We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change .is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: Q t 3 V Y_]� o t4'� `Q- A INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: 6f!✓Mrnry! M+ry iWsn��, This instr unent was ackno ledged before me on ti-VI.f CX� _3 2Z2Sj (Date) by - \'� e 0 and 2 (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). ESTEFAN A A(3U LAR-R05ALES •`� Commission Number 820442 _ * My Commission Expires Notary Pu lic. in and for the State of Iowa nw► October 1, 2025 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) ofperson(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA—NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA -AU CITY OFIOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change .is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1/2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: (q 1 L � o�(ve �* Propenowner(s- By: I-r 11 A 1 CD 7'r By INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY) ss:rn > This instrument was acknowledged before me on �AQ,�h _3 2C) 2- 5 (Date) by CL Selftc) and C,6,n64 SOA0 (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). Q ow ESTEFANIA AGUILAR-ROSALES 820442 Commission Num ber My Commission Expires Notary Putlic in and for the State of Iowa October 1, 2025 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of pergon(s)) as Orig: Council packet Cc: CA — NDS (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner). Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 05/2022 PROTEST OF REZONING � TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWAA CITY, IOWA CITY 0 IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: 2Q 8 n/ , 67_0 0etl� Property Owners) AMeR -- By �1« �- r i INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): -- STATE OF IOWA )"' -- v JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: 2 ThXinstrument was acknowledged before me on hard oZ $ b P, 6 I (Date) by M.'r 7 e/tela bj,'A orel �g irY1 and ins ,.jP 1 dhtn,11 Il/4te_J Zbrah,* (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). 'Oi is KIRAN M IE PATEL _ o Commission Number 845731 My om i sion Expires 1.W Notary Public 'n and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`VNER(S) STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) ofperson(s)) as Orig: Council packet Cc: CA — NDS (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 05/2022 PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLEMAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1/2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with. Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: (,i nt/ cz rwr- St • (ova �' 1 224-1- By: By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S):° M b STATE OF IOWA )= JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: __j This instnuent was acknowledged before me on Match a `d' � ;2 a 2 5 (Date) by �Ah0 q CoroluS y o,4 and L_gjL4 AdA�;Az Cafoius Kk_q _(name(s)of individual property owner(s)). KIRAN MARIE PATEL Commission Number 545731 My Commission Expires ®w� - Notary rublic in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`VNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Orig: Council packet Cc: CA — NDS (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 05/2022 PROTEST OF REZONING r TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWAA CITY, IOWA ` ---- i CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included. in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change .is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: qa b P• C'-o UevY1y a-1� Prol LIN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: 0 This instrument was acknowledged before me on M afGti T 0.4 /H. aLk and individual property owner(s)). PVAt sKIRAN MARIE PATEL IT 'Cor7mission Number 845731 My C mmission ExpI a —�- oW, 4- ;& Notary Public. in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`VNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) ofperson(s)) as c ::� w =2. _ (Date) by (name(s) of (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA ��_•.. ^ _ _.__ CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1/2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: 9 1 I GQ.opmRor S-t Property Owner(s): MQp1�1le By: r,-� W.. INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): a.. STATE OF IOWA >_. JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on % %v;`5 (Date) by and ame(s) of individual property owner(s)). CODY T. NEDDERYEYER L Commission Number 847131 My COrr' o Notary is in and for the State o owa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY ONVNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Orig: Council packet Cc: CA — NDS (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 05/2022 PROTEST OF REZONING AN TO: HONORABLE' MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL j _! IOWA CITY, IOWA '"�........ .... CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: LM f\(Cover tsar INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument as acknftwle ged before me on C�Yt� 5 D oZ (Date) by �F�yO( - I 6 and rte - (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). rr1+5 CONNIE MCCURDY Commission Number 855110 My Commission Expires *100 April 04, 2027 (�,,MA -AA'-LP— �m G Notary Public in and for the StLV_a AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as a (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA -��.•.�_.._.__ CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: Prol By: By: W E '/ Sf .. 16 tia- INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: n: C r )- Mf PrY t.a This instrument was acknowledged before me on(Date) by A� vn 4" and (name(s) of individual roperty owner(s)). - PEtjA4 y, TREVOR POLLOCK o y Commission Number 833465 * My Commission Expires Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA - NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLEMAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL (` IOWA CITY, IOWA -. .............. __._ - CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1/2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: I _ o_.k%V S-} :T7oiy�a Property Owner(s): C r' i G s 0 n By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): "'i C-) Y STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This in tnunent w s acknowledged before me on �' (Date) by 646 and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). kn ��� L,� ELLEN MAYS Commission Number 827205 Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa = My Commissi n Expires '�W' v AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY ONVNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Orig: Council packet Cc: CA - NDS (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 05/2022 PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLEMAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL (� IOWA CITY, IOWA -ri:.+ ........ ___ CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1/2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: S —% bcso6.1 S v oo, t (A 5 a at{ 5 Property Owner(s): cF/1 Fobeth Aovi By. C% By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledrd before me on M&lck 0 -7, (� � ► � Ak\A Itf and individual property owner(s)). �e�s ANGELA PILKINGTON z Commission No. 743670 My Commission Expires to Pu is in nd for the S t of Iowa OWN 10/26/2027 rY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as f-y o� ••. � Wy .mi�.miaxax. c� - w <r` -0 ' M � d� (Date) by (name(s) of (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL j IOWA CITY, IOWA --.::, ........ ..... CITY OFIOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: $ ��Weu — �GeAS� (�, o—f:-) a Qs Property Owner(s): Tc�L Q , t5t-tom By: By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: Thi instrument was acknowledged before me on M G�� IV a �a (Date) by ?j and E/'5 0.;�! (name(s) of individu l property owner(s)). s. SHEILA WOOTONN a �0� '�-L ',7,AE Commission Number 796078 My gWmis" iExpiret Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`'VNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING aj TO: HONORABLEMAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: Property Owner(s):` ( By — -=s -' y.'' INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): >' STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on CZ 6 f o ao (Date) by )A and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). WENDY S. MAYER Commission Number 729428 "i?'-cj° � 10Z?1eSNotary Public(# and for the State o owa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) ofperson(s)) as Orig: Council packet Cc: CA—NDS (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 05/2022 PROTEST OF REZONING TO. HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWACITY, IOWA '`� --- CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change.is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: Property, Owner(s) � K16 — I� I• INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on _ I ki t'a L h) t' and individual property owner(s)). 3 �J_t /25 hr.f W _ (Date) by (name(s) of S SARAH HORGEN Z Commission Number 795247 �D My Commission Expires Notary Public in and for the St to of Iowa March 23, 2025 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA j CITY aFIOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change .is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Address: �3� Y�V�►� ST�C�C 01. INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: ) r` r J This instrument was acknowledged before the on 61 lc; IV S- (Date) by `� tx 1 _> V\ L\ ,__ and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). f5igR294 ►es Notary I�ublW, in and for the Sbke of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`'VNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA - NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF OFIOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 112 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: % U a. /(� G�c7 �/ rNU IC .ST. Prol • • INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged individual property owner(s)). ER(S): me on k a AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (name of PRO ✓V W OWNER(S): per (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of vner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Ong: Councqypacket 05/2022 w A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA )SS. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) On 03/28/2025 before me, YANCE LACSINA, a Notary Public, personally appeared JOAN KATHRYN LEAHY, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. N Public ignature YANCE LACSINA Notary Public . California Riverside County Z -r _Commission q 2465809 My Comm. Expires Nov 3, 2027 Notary Public Seal < 6 c� PROTEST OF REZONING F' TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF OFIOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is ?roposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1/2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: qy �% ./V_ ;OV e- r A/v_ /^ Si Property Owner(s): c N /�, ��%�,t! 1' lE'VO c.* �� /%� s INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY O ER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before Ake on individual property owner(s)). and Notary tic in an04br the State of Iowa Cr AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING 7F0,'kOPERTY OWNER(S): �Y R STATE OF IOWA ) � JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: r This instrument was acknowledged befog,me on _ (Date) by (nanie(s) of person(s)) as j (t e of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner . _ (Date) by (name(s) of Notary Public in and for the State of wa Ong: Council picket 05/2022 *i A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )SS. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) On 03/28/2025 before me, YANCE LACSINA, a Notary Public, personally appeared JOAN KA.THRYN LEAHY, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public Seal YANCE LACSINA Notary Public - California My CcrT. Expires Nov 3, 2027 E y8u r.... PROTEST OF REZONING CO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA - CITY OF IOWA CITY Me, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is >roposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street Chis protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the avorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the :ode of Iowa. 'rol 'rol 1.12 3y: NDIVIDUAL PROPE 7ss: NER(S): iTATE OF IOWA ) [OHNSON COUNTY) rhisinstrument was acknowledged lore me on ndividual property owner(s)). 01 kUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE and STATE OF IOWA ) fOHNSON COUNTY) ss: Phis instrument was acknowled �dbefore me on ;name(s) of person(s)) as >��2�Stfi c? - c.a C^ Publi in and for the State of Iowa FOR ROPERTY OWNER(S): (t*1 (name of property owner (Date) by _ (name(s) of _ (Date) by of authority, such as officer, trustee) of Notary Public in and for the State of Xig: Council packet 05/2022 .._ n A TT7l C' A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )SS. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) On 03/28/2025 before me, YANCE LACSINA, a Notary Public, personally appeared EDWARD JOSEPH LEAHY, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. PZ1014 YANCE LACSINA Notary Pubiic - Califurnia Riverside County > Y, F My Commission X 2465809 Comm. Expires Nov 3, 2027 Notary Public Seal r�..= i.» C .. It> cx;s PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property. 900, 900 1/2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: V2 — Z/ 2 r�/ � / ��'��"� Property Owner(s): ��X Tn�,¢/L� J • L ��Ly Qy�4��J��4,� By: � By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTYZOWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledg\be me on and individual property owner(s)). \ N AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIG STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged b ore me on (name(s) of person(s)) as and for the State of Iowa PROPERTY OWNER(S): (name of property �r `7' (Date) by (name(s) of _ (Date) by of authority, such as officer, trustee) of Notary Public in and for the State Orig: Council packet 05/202? ,'_. /` A 1TTN[, i A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) On 03/28/2025 before me, YANCE LACSINA, a Notary Public, personally appeared EDWARD JOSEPH LEAHY, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. N ary ublic S' a e YANCE LACSINA <- Notary Public . California Riverside County > Commission A7 2465809 My Comm. Expires Nov 3, 2027 r Notary Public Seal co PROTEST OF REZONINGe Handouts Distributed TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL — ?� (- 2S IOWA CITY, IOWA (Date) CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: qo� q0 2 106 dq "� D� �o D �C 1 A/ 60�� This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: o �✓� ��� Property Owne ): %CL C ` Q t O-w G� By: -=a INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): i .. STATE OF IOWA ) �'pt"�� ca cn JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on , } r" LLB Z 2S (Date) by CKa4c (,. +�. } p o Lp riv` Q "— and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). IVAL It HURIE BAM Commission Number 837509 pow► My Commission Expires Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Orig: Council packet Cc: CA — NDS (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 05/2022 WON Kellie Grace From: Krueger, Adam C <kruegr@uiowa.edu> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 1:00 PM To: *City Council Subject: Barkalow rezoning project Ar RISK ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. attachments. ** For consideration by the Iowa City Councel, Late Handouts Distributed 3-31 (Date) Please take extra care opening any links or I am writing to express my concern and disapproval of the rezoning and development project for the Barkalow apartments on North Dodge and North Governor Streets. I am a homeowner in this neighborhood and my property at 831 N Dodge St is adjacent to the proposed rezoning areas. There are several reasons why I oppose the proposed project and several concerns that I have if they are approved as proposed. What will the impact of the proposed buildings be on local utilities and infrastructure? Will the burden for alterations or repairs fall to taxpayers or to the new development? What studies have been done to determine the effect of the proposed development on existing infrastructure (e.g., impact on sewers)? Have these studies been made public and why if not? • The physical size of proposed buildings supposes an unacceptable alteration of the neighborhood as is. These new buildings would be significantly larger than the larger apartment complex building at 902 North Dodge street: Note the proposed 3-story buildings have a footprint of 16,520 sq ft compared to the existing adjacent rental building at 902 North Dodge with a footprint of 7,832 sq ft. One building alone is 110 percent larger than the biggest building on adjacent property. This large upsize in the building upends the land use goals and strategies as outlined by the Comprehensive Plan to "encourage compact, efficient development" or "ensure that infill development is compatible and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood." A smaller -scale building could better fit our area without the need to rezone all adjacent properties to accommodate the largest building that will sit in the Northside Neighborhood. A building of the proposed size might fit better near a commercial center. Loss of tree line separating the park from the housing complex. This would be a major loss to the community as it would forever alter the aesthetics of this small community park. This tree line is perhaps just as important to the park as the softball field, playground and other amenities. The tree line defines this park and protects the users from surrounding noise and visual pollution allowing them to fully immerse themselves in simple leisure activities. Having a protected place in our community to do this is so important in today's fast -paced environment. These trees aren't surrounding the park by accident; they are a defining feature of this park and removing them would be an irreversible mistake. • Traffic issues already exist on Governor and Dodge streets. How much more parking is planned for the new proposal? And what measures will be taken to ensure traffic safety with such a major addition to traffic flow? The entrance/exit to the current development creates safety issues because the visibility for vehicles at that location is limited by the curve and dip in the road. The area is also unsafe for pedestrians given the absence of (a) a crosswalk on either road and (b) sidewalk on the Governor side. Winter proposes additional hazards to this area. Have any studies to traffic flow and traffic habits been undertaken? Have they been made public? If not, why not? • Impact on property values. The new development will have a negative impact on property values in the area. What does the City Planning Committee plan to do to address this issue? Poor upkeep of adjacent property. The property at 902 North Dodge, which is also owned by Mr. Barkalow, is in terrible condition. Little to no money, time, or effort are spent to maintain the aesthetics of this property. This has a negative impact on the surrounding home values. This also reflects on how this current proposal will be maintained after it will be built. The Northside Community members know that despite the talk of making this proposed project "architecturally" compatible with the neighborhood, in a few years it will look just as rundown and poorly maintained as the 902 North Dodge rentals, but on a far larger scale. Again, this reflects poorly on our neighborhood and impacts our property values. To summarize, this is not the right proposal for this neighborhood. A smaller complex could more easily integrate into the community without causing such a burden on utilities, streets, and affecting tree lines and in Happy Hollow park. The negative impact of this complex on our property values could be minimized. I would ask the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission to take into consideration how these changes would permanently affect our Northside Community when considering the size and scale of Mr. Barkalow's proposal and his track record with the adjacent properties. Excluding the rezoning of properties at 900, 9001/2, 910 North Dodge would help limit the size and scale of this project, as would protecting the tree line that surrounds Happy Hollow Park. A designated turning lane that helps alleviate traffic flow issues could also help reduce impact on the neighborhood and limit the scale of these buildings. The neighborhood wants this area to be developed, but the scope of the proposed project is an exaggeration that opposes the directions laid out in the city's Comprehensive Plan and will not be a net benefit to the Northside Community. Thank you for your earnest consideration, Adam Krueger 44 q, Lj Kellie Grace From: Hamilton, David B <david-hamilton@uiowa.edu> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2025 10:43 PM Late Handouts Distributed To: *City Council Subject: Development Plan A (Date) ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Dear City Council Members: It is my understanding that the development being considered for just north of Happy Hollow Park will be a massive imposition on our neighborhood. It has much to recommend it. The land is underused, and good housing ever needed, apparently, in our community. Still, it is a massive project that will have an enormous impact on Goosetown and the North Side. If undertaken, it will be like dragging that great spaceship, Hancher Auditorium, across the river, uphill and docking it just north of the park. An imposition of such magnitude must take care not to intrude rudely on its neighbors. Private homes in the immediate area will be hugely affected. And if it is so that more than half the timber on the north edge of the park will be cut down, that is a lamentable change. Within the last few years we have worried about preserving, not destroying, our urban forest canopy and have taken steps to increase it throughout the North Side. There are fine old trees in that border, trees with their own history and grandeur. The hackberry by the shelter house and playground is a specimen of its kind. Every once in a while, when walking through the park, I find bluebirds at home in those trees. These are assets to be protected, even highlighted in forward thinking, urban design. They must not be squandered for the sake of the last dollar to be squeezed out of the site. Presumably the park itself will bean attraction for residents in these apartments. But nowhere in the plans does there seem to be any concern shown for integrating the two and making it an easy and pleasant walk for, let us imagine, new parents to stroll with their children down into the park. It seems to me that for the sake of the park and for that, too, of its immediate neighbors, everything should be set back some and steps taken for a more graduated transition from one to the other. We are accustomed to speaking of our footprint in such matters and of making an effort to keep it modest. As this plan stands, that print will be huge, careless, and all but indifferent to what it brushes up against and even tromps upon. But you can correct that, and I hope you will. David Hamilton 814 N. Linn St. Iowa City Item Number: 10.a. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT April 1, 2025 Ordinance amending Title 17, Chapter 1, Building Code, by adopting the International Building Code, 2024 edition, including Appendix K, and the International Residential Code, 2024 edition, including Appendix BE and Appendix BO, and providing for certain amendments thereof and adopting section 103.6(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa (the State Electrical Code) and section 105.4(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa (the State Plumbing and Mechanical Codes) to provide for the protection of the health, welfare and safety of the residents of Iowa City, Iowa. (Second Consideration) Prepared By: Susan Dulek, First Ass't. City Attorney Reviewed By: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Tim Hennes, Sr. Building Inspector Danielle Sitzman, Development Services Coordinator Fiscal Impact: none Staff Recommendation: Approval Commission Recommendations: Board of Appeals recommended approval at its Feb. 7, 2025 meeting Attachments: Memo to Board of Appeals 2/7/25 Board of Appeals draft minutes Ordinance Executive Summary: State law requires a public hearing for the adoption of a model code. Staff is recommending adoption of the 2024 edition of the International Building Code (IBC) and the International Residential Code (IRC) along with local amendments. A description of the notable changes are included in a memorandum from Tim Hennes, Sr. Building Inspector, to the Board of Appeals dated January 27, 2025. A copy of the ordinance, the IBC, and the IRC are on file in the City Clerk's office. CITY OFIOWA CITY Date: January 27, 2025 To: Iowa City Board of Appeals MEMORANDUM From: Tim Hennes, Senior Building Inspector Re: Notable Changes Contained in the 2024 Edition of Building Codes. Following are significant changes made by local amendments and notable changes between the 2021 codes and the 2024 codes. Building Codes The majority of amendments to the building codes are for clarification of a code requirement, to reflect local practices that have evolved from previous building codes and their amendments and to remain consistent with the Fire Code as amended. Following are notable changes or proposed new amendments: Section R302.5.1: Delete the requirement that requires house to garage doors to have self -closing devices. Comment: The amendment to delete the requirement maintains current requirements. The amendment does not prohibit someone from installing such device. Section R302.13: Delete the requirement to protect the underside of floor/ceiling assemblies in unfinished basements. Comment: This amendment eliminates the requirement to drywall the ceiling or sprinkle an unfinished basement ceiling. The amendment to delete the requirement maintains current requirements. The amendment does not prohibit someone from installing such protection. Section R321.2 (IRC) & 1015.8 (IBC): Maintains the requirement to install guards on operable windows that are located less than 24" above the floor and more than 72" above the finish surface on the exterior of the building. Comment: The code requirement is to install guards on all operable windows that meet specified location criteria. The window manufacturing industry has adapted to this code requirement and offer windows with opening limit devices meeting the code standard. This requirement is consistent with surrounding jurisdictions. This requirement was previously deleted from the code. Section R309: Delete the requirement to install a fire sprinkling system in one- and two-family dwelling and townhouses. Comment: This amendment eliminates the requirement for structures regulated by the IRC have an automatic fire suppression system installed. The amendment to delete the requirement maintains current requirements. The amendment does not prohibit the installation of a automatic fire suppression system. Section R310.4: Maintain the requirement to interconnect smoke alarms when a home is being altered, repaired or an addition is added. Comment: This amendment maintains the requirement for smoke alarms to be interconnected when a home is being altered, repaired or an addition is added. The smoke detector industry has adapted to this code provision by manufacturing smoke detectors that interconnect wirelessly. This requirement was previously deleted from the code. Section R320.3: Add section to include seven provisions to implement universal design features that provide accessibility, usability and visit -ability for all. Comment: The amendment applies only to new dwelling units and is not required for existing structures for repairs, alterations, change of occupancy or additions unless the square footage of the addition is more than 25% of the existing structure, then, the addition must comply. The amendment maintains current requirements. The minimum usability requirements are as follows: 1. Step -less Entrance: At least one entrance must be designed to provide a step -less entry. 2. Interior doors: At least one bedroom and one bathroom, if either are provided, and all other passage doorway header widths, on the level served by the designed step -less entrance, must be framed to accommodate a minimum 38" clear rough opening. The framing for the doorway width opening may be reduced to accommodate any door size. 3. Sanitation facilities: There must be at least one bathroom containing a water closet (toilet) and lavatory (sink) on the level of the dwelling to be accessed by the designed step -less entrance. The room shall have a minimum thirty inches (30") by forty-eight inches (48") clear floor space at the water closet and lavatory. 4. Wall Reinforcement: A bathroom must be provided with wood blocking installed within wall framing to support grab bars as needed. 5. Decks: All exterior decks surfaces adjacent to the level served by the designed step -less entrance must be built within four inches (4") of the dwelling units finish floor level. 6. Switch and outlet requirements- All wall switches, controlling light fixtures, _Ta_ns`,_a1l temperature control devices and all receptacles shall be located in an area between fifteen (15) and forty-eight (48) inches above finished floor. 7. Electrical panel requirements- : Electrical panels on the level of the dwelling to --F-accessed by the designed step -less entrance shall be located so that the individual circuit breakers are located between 15" and 54 " above the floor 2 Section R328: Delete Section R328 Swimming Pools, Spas and Hot Tubs. Comment: This section was moved to the body of the code from the appendix in the previous code cycle. Deleting it results in no change of enforcement for pools, spas and hot tubs. They are still regulated by the electrical and zoning code. Section 903.3.5: To be consistent with the Fire Code add a requirement for backflow preventors on fire suppression systems to have a detector (water meter) installed unless the fire code official approves an exception in consultation with the water supply utility. Comment: The public drinking water system is regulated by Federal, State, and Local rules. The Federal and State requirements are the purview of the Iowa DNR who inspects drinking water systems at least every three years. These inspections include review of backflow prevention. The Iowa City system has known older "grandfathered" systems not in compliance with existing code. These systems present a risk to the public's drinking water system due to their potential to backflow harmful contaminates. (See Waterville, ME AFFF injection into the drinking water system May 23,2023 and IDNR Sanitary Surveys) Additionally, these systems are unmetered. Inspection of facilities has found unauthorized connection points for garden hoses and other devices. Detector backflow preventors will allow for annual recording of water use on the fire lines to prevent unauthorized use with a relatively low unit cost increase (-r$200) versus requiring a large diameter fire -rated water meter. This section will ensure new installations have a detector backflow preventor and to work with "grandfathered" systems on a case -by -case basis to bring their system into compliance. Section 913.6: To be consistent with the Fire Code add a requirement that new and existing fire pumps be installed or retrofitted with devices that will prevent contamination of the City's water system when the pump is activated in an emergency event. Comment: Like the 903.3.5 discussion, this section is the result of Iowa DNR inspection requirements and noted deficiencies, as well as real -world situations that cause public drinking water system to sustain less than 20 psi system -wide due to private fire main break supplied by large fire pumps. The result if left uncorrected, will be a significant deficiency, public notice, and a legal requirement to make a change. This section will ensure new installations have suction pressure sustaining devices and to work with "grandfathered" systems on a case -by -case basis to bring their system into compliance. Adoption of Appendices (IRC and IBC) Appendix BE (IRC) — Radon Control Methods: Amend the code provision to remove the requirement for testing for radon prior to moving into a house. The amendment does not prohibit testing prior to occupancy. Comment: We are in a region known to have high levels of radon gas and this code provision requires a passive radon system in new homes and additions to existing homes. A pipe installed from below the basement floor up through the roof will serve as a passive radon system and has the capability of becoming an active system with the addition of a fan. Appendix BO (IRC): Existing Buildings and Structures: 3 Adopt Appendix BO Comment: The purpose of these provisions is to encourage the continued use or reuse of legally existing buildings and structures. These provisions are intended to permit work in existing buildings that is consistent with the purpose of this code. Appendix K (IBC) — Administrative Provisions: Adopt Appendix K Comment: These provisions are intended to be a tool for jurisdictions to implement and enforce the National Electrical Code while using administrative provisions that are consistent with the International Code Council family of codes. This will allow us to reference the State Electrical Code without needing a separate ordinance to lay out our administrative provisions. Existing Building Code (multifamily and commercial) Adopted by reference: Section 102.6 in the International Building Code directs us to the International Existing Building Code (IEBC) for existing structures. Comment: The IEBC allows and encourages the use and reuse of existing buildings while requiring reasonable upgrades and improvements for alterations, repairs, additions, occupancy change, historic and relocated buildings. Energy Code Adopt by reference the State Energy Code: Comment: The State of Iowa adopted the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). Referencing the state energy code provides consistency for designers and builders. Accessibility Code Adopted by reference the State Accessibility Code: Comment: The State of Iowa Accessibility Code is based on the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design and requirements of the federal Fair Housing Act. Adopting the state accessibility codes by reference provides consistency for designers and builders. Plumbing and Mechanical Codes Adopt by reference the State Plumbing and Mechanical Codes: Comment: Iowa Code Section 105.4 requires local jurisdictions to adopt the State Plumbing and Mechanical Code. Adopting the state plumbing and mechanical codes by reference provides consistency for designers and builders. Electrical Code Adopt by reference the State Electrical Code: Comment: Iowa Electrical Code applies to all electrical installations across the state and cities cannot adopt or enforce an electrical code less restrictive than the State Electric Code. Adopting the State Electrical Code by reference provides consistency for designers and builders. cc: Tracy Hightshoe, Director, Neighborhood and Development Services 4 Danielle Sitzman, Coordinator, Development Services DRAFT MINUTES IOWA CITYBOARD OFAPPEALS FEBRUARY 7, 2025 — 8:OOAM EMMA J HARVAT HALL, CITYHALL 410 E. WASHINGTON STREET IOWA CITY, IA 52240 MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Martin, Thomas McInerney, GT Karr MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrea French STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Stan Laverman (Sr. Housing Inspector), Tim Hennes (Sr. Building Inspector), Troy Roth (Fire Marshal) OTHERS PRESENT: Eric Schmitt RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: By a vote of 3-0 the Board recommends to Council the adoption of the 2024 Building Codes as amended. By a vote of 3-0 the Board recommends to Council the adoption of the 2024 Fire Codes as amended. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 8:OOAM. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: January 15, 2025 Board of Appeals minutes MOTION: McInerney moved to approve the minutes from the January 15, 2025 Board of Appeals meeting. Seconded by Karr. VOTE: Motion passed 3-0 HEAR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A HOUSING CODE PROVISION: (3042 Muscatine Ave. and 913 Willow St.) Eric Schmitt (Midstates Development) doing business as Autumn Park has these two properties and are requesting variance requests from 17-5-1 BP regarding a deadbolt. Schmitt stated Midstate recently, within the last three years, did install new doors which are currently within HUD regulations and they did attach a copy of those regulations and the INSPIRE (National Standards for Physical Inspection of Real Estate). He stated adding deadbolts would damage the doors under the HUD standards, which would potentially require replacement of all 64 doors and be a significant expense. The property is already secured as there are locks to get into the main property and of course the regular lock to get into each dwelling unit. To add deadbolts, if they could even do that and stay within HUD standards, the cheapest quote they were able to get stated the cost would be $16,000 to update all 64 units. Schmitt stated they are requesting a variance due to the difficulty and expensive hardship and that the units are already secured from the outside. They feel it's within the spirit of the code for variance to be granted. Martin noted they had just replaced the doors recently, within three years. Schmitt confirmed that yes within the last three years all 64 doors were put in and they're all fire rated per the HUD standards. Board of Appeals January 15, 2025 Page 2 of 6 Martin asked if this is a new item in the code for 2024, that each door has to have a deadbolt. Hennes replied it is a housing code violation. Karr asked about damaging the door by adding a hole to the door. Schmitt explained that because these are all rent controlled units, it's not feasible to raise rent to recover this significant expense of replacing all these doors and to install a deadbolt to the existing doors would void the warranty for the fire code doors that are HUD approved. Hennes noted they have seen situations like this before and if it's a rated door the company that's rating it will allow alterations with approval from them. Hennes asked if the $16,000 just for adding locks or replacement of all the doors. Schmitt stated that was the contractor quote for adding locks and didn't include certifying the doors remain fire rated. The quote for $64,000 was for replacing all the doors. Laverman stated the housing code was changed in 2018 and this was part of a broader look at some code issues. In Iowa City they get a lot of requests to make secured buildings, and that's one of the things that they have resisted because they've seen issues with secured buildings and the main door being locked, it's a pain for delivery drivers and such. So the City's response was to put that level of security at the unit door and they've found that it's been pretty successful. With those doors being replaced in the last three years, Laverman appreciated Midstate looking up the HUD regulations to know what they needed, however this should have also had a building permit, and at that time City staff would have been happy to share what the requirement was. He noted they are also getting complaints from residents of the property who feel that they're getting broken into. Laverman acknowledged the intent of the code change was to provide security at that unit level but over the last few years this building has changed, as well as the clientele who are living there, previously this was a 55 and older building and it's no longer 55 and older, so there is an ask by residents of the building to have greater security. Karr asked if there is a record of the number of tenants that have asked for that or have there been police reports documented. Laverman stated police calls are all over the place, they can be medical calls and all other things. He showed a picture of the front door with the trespass notices noting that's also them trying to be accountable and to keep only registered tenants in there, but that's also a sign that maybe they need to move to that level of security to the doors. Laverman explained the city of Iowa City rental inspections issues the rental permit and is the governing body but they also have HUD Department officials that are going to do inspections on this and that is a separate inspector from HUD. Karr asked who has the ultimate jurisdiction if there is a conflict as far as inspections. Laverman stated they to be in compliance with the Iowa City housing code. Hennes noted HUD standards do not prohibit deadbolts, they do not require them, but they do not prohibit. Laverman stated the Inspire standard is new and certain states have modified codes to require deadbolts but at a federal level it is not required. Martin asked about the four criteria that have to be met for variances and if they have to meet all four or just any one of the four. Dulek replied all four. McInerney stated the four criteria are (1) that there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in carrying out a strict letter of any notice or order, (2) due to the arbitrary particular circumstances presented, the effect of the application of the provisions would be arbitrary in the specific case, (3) an extension would not constitute an appropriate remedy for the practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in its arbitrary effect and, (4) such variances in harmony with the general purpose intent of this chapter in securing the public's health, safety and general welfare. Board of Appeals January 15, 2025 Page 3 of 6 McInerney noted criteria one stated it might be a practical difficulty but not unnecessary, he also highlighted arbitrary and stated number four talks about safety and there's a factor that a deadbolt is safety and synonymous with a with a secure door. Martin understands there's a practical difficulty and it's not an insignificant amount of money to meet this but are there particular circumstances here where this would be arbitrary, it seems like it's kind of an across the board thing in general. McInerney stated it's been presented as a claim that there's been issues in that location and neighborhood. Martin agreed it understandable having 64 or 32 people in a building that is not a totally secure. McInerney is struggling to see how this variance is arbitrary to safety, and it's an enhancement to the code that is a local jurisdiction. He also noted it's been in the code for six years. Karr doesn't think they can meet all four of criteria, number one as a landlord he would want the deadbolt there and wouldn't want a variance to have the liability issue if something bad happens, he would want to know that they at least tried everything. He noted it's also a reality of this is why codes are complicated and why building permits are needed, to find out what is needed before the work is done. From a practical manner he has a hard time justifying that all four of these are met. Karr stated regarding voiding the fire rating they could contact the door manufacturer and might get a pass on that and not have to go the $64,000 door replacement route. Bottom line is all four of these criteria are not met, safety trumps all of this and that's why there is a code. MOTION: McInerney moved to deny a variance for this specific case. Seconded by Karr. VOTE: 3-0 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL REGARDING THE ADOPTION OF THE 2024 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING AND FIRE CODES: Hennes presented that every three years the code goes through a new cycle and they are to that point where they're looking at the 2024 Edition of the Building Code. Hennes prepared a memo in the agenda packet identifying some of the main points which he will review. The first one is R302.5.1 which is a requirement for the house to garage door be self -closing, the change is that they have eliminated that requirement as it has led to a lot of callbacks, and this change doesn't require them to not do it, they can still do it. R302.13 is a requirement that the under -floors of unfinished basements must be drywalled and this takes that out with the exception of square footage for the mechanical room, but now someone can have an unfinished basement without a drywalled ceiling. R321.2 maintains a requirement to install guards on windows. This was put in the code several cycles ago the requirement is if a window distance is less than 24 inches to the floor that there is limiting opening, limiting devices on it or a guard in front of it. This requirement is being reestablished as the window manufacturers have now had time to adjust to that requirement and are now manufacturing windows with opening limited devices on them. R309 is the requirement to delete fire sprinkling systems in the International Residential Code. Hennes explained that some jurisdictions do require that over a certain number of townhouses fire sprinkling systems are necessary, but this will kept it out of the IRC completely because the IRC regulates single family, two-family dwellings and townhouse construction. Board of Appeals January 15, 2025 Page 4 of 6 R310.4 is the requirement to not need to interconnect smoke detectors, unless someone was removing the ceilings and had access to that. But now with technology and wireless connections in the smoke and fire alarm industry the City felt it important to put the requirement of interconnected smoke detectors back in the code. R320.3 is the requirement for universal design standards that was put in back in the early 2000s and there were eight items. Item number eight, which required an outlet for garage door openers was removed as they haven't seen a house built yet that does not have an outlet for a garage door opener, but the other seven standards remain. R328 is regarding swimming pool and spas. The City regulates swimming pool and spas through the National Electrical Code and the zoning code, which requires fences, so it's not needed to be enforced in this section. Hennes moved onto Chapter Nine and noted that chapter is where the building code and the fire code sync up. These next two items are new and are regarding the public drinking water systems to help regulate and make sure that the system stays safe with back flow prevention. This consists of having a device put on the meter to get an annual recording of water use on the fire lines. The other item is fire pumps, currently when they run these fire pumps they're draining back into the line and not siphoning the system into a potable water system so 913.6 will require existing fire pumps be retrofitted with devices to prevent this water contamination. Hennes next moved on to the adoption of the appendices, the first is to adopt a radon control method, currently many homebuilders are already using the passive system for radon, this appendix is just to mandate it as it isn't enforceable unless adopted. Hennes checked with central Iowa jurisdictions, and most of eastern Iowa does the passive system for radon. He noted Iowa is a heavy radon state. McInerney noted when he had his house built it was under this code and then he found out that he had 16 times the radon levels that was permitted still in his house and had to add the fan to get it gone. Hennes confirmed that's exactly why they wanted it adopted, it's less expensive to do it at the time of the build. Karr had two quick questions regarding the window requirement, one is how is that going to be enforced when it's a window retrofit and it's not necessarily being inspected. Hennes said that would be address in the next item, appendix BO, which is existing buildings and structures and that does talk about egress windows and things like that. Karr noted it also pertains to the fire and smoke and they don't always require building permits so there's nothing that would trigger that interaction. How do they get everybody to actually meet the code if they're not inspecting it. Hennes acknowledged that's a good point and that they don't have a mechanism. He did note however that contractors are good about calling and asking about requirements on egress and stuff. By adopting appendix BO, the existing building does allow leniency in some of the retro fits with existing windows and again this only applies for windows that are below 24 inches. Karr's other question was on the R310.4 and when will they be pulling the building permit. Hennes stated again they would only be able to enforce that when a building permit is required so if someone is putting a new deck on the outside, they don't go into the existing house, and the only time the building code or the residential code, goes into an existing structure and requires something outside the footprint of the work being done is smoke detectors. Hennes moved on to the adoption of Appendix K of the International Building Code to allow jurisdictions to implement and enforce the National Electrical Code while using administrative Board of Appeals January 15, 2025 Page 5 of 6 provisions that are consistent with the International Code Council family of codes. This will allow them to reference the State Electrical Code without needing a separate ordinance to lay out administrative provisions. He explained the existing building code was adopted by reference and specifically says if they're doing an existing building they shall review and enforce to the existing building code. The energy code is a State mandate, and they are limited to the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code. The Accessibility Code is based on the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design and requirements of the federal Fair Housing Act. Since Hennes has been with the City they have been allowing designers to just worry about the federal and the state, which they are obligated to enforce to anyway and don't complicate it with anything local. The plumbing and mechanical codes are also regulated by the State but the City does have an administrative provision which allows the Board of Appeals the issuance of permits and things like that, which is the same with the electrical code they aren't together because it's two different divisions in the State code. Hennes stated that is all on the building side, if the Board would like to make a motion to adopt the changes. MOTION: Karr moved to recommend to Council the adoption of the 2024 Building Codes as amended. Seconded by McInerney. VOTE: 3-0 Roth stated that the fire code is updated every three years and its Iowa City's desire to keep the fire code and the building code on the same version. Chapter nine of the building code is almost identical to chapter 10 of the fire code so if they don't keep them on the same version, it could cause differing rules. Roth noted this addition to the 2024 the changes are minimal, and he would just highlight some of the things that stood out to him. First, the scooters and micro mobility devices are prolific in town and obviously, Iowa City supports those less engines running more electrical but to date it was never addressed in the fire code so this new section regulates the use and re -charging of micromobility devices in apartment complexes and businesses. 903,3.1.2 is a modification to the NFPA 13R in that apartment complexes that are four stories tall or less are allowed to have the residential version of the sprinkler system which is much less cost than the full version of the sprinkler system. This modification also deletes the height requirement for sprinklers and just go with the new stories' requirement. Roth stated long ago schools weren't sprinklered and they required a standpipe on stages with a hose because of the extreme flammability of the large curtain. 905.3.4 deletes that because schools now have to be sprinklered. 903.3.5 is one of items Hennes discussed, it is a local amendment that all sprinkler systems have back flow prevention. Roth explained when the fire truck comes up and hooks to the building, the pressure that they put into the building will overpower the municipal system so to prevent PFAS and bad particles from the fire truck from going backwards into the potable system, they all have backflow prevention. Additionally, the Water Department is concerned that there could be hidden leaks in the sprinkler system and sprinkled water is not metered. This then puts a back flow preventer that allows a meter to be put in and doesn't restrict the flow of the fire water. The City has no intention of charging for fire water, this is just to help detect systems that have a chronic leak that's hidden. Roth reviewed 913.6 noting it was another item Hennes already discussed, Roth explained they have some large manufacturing plants that have their underground loop after the fire pump, so they have the ability of 3500 plus gallons per minute, and if that that fire line breaks underground there's no back pressure. If one sprinkler head went off, it would be minimal, but if the fire line underground Board of Appeals January 15, 2025 Page 6 of 6 breaks there is the possibility of 3700 gallon a minute which instantly takes the City's system down and then they'd be under a boil order. The NFPA does allow certain devices that will make certain that these large facilities can't pull the municipal system too low and cause harm to the municipal system. This is a community risk reduction effort and the City is getting pressure from the DNR to take steps to better protect the potable system. Roth explained Appendix O is a new appendix and interesting, it's catching up to what's happening all over the US already. With valet trash service they have to have an approved container so this addition allows renters to place a small trash can in the hallway for up to six hours. The cans are emptied and then the empty cans can only remain in the hallways for 12 hours. The fire department, in discussions with the building department and housing department, decided that they're going to try it and allow appendix O into the fire code. McInerney had a question, Section 307.1.2 states hours of operation for outdoor burning allowed by this code is permitted between the hours of 7am and 11 pm, is that just fire pits. Roth confirmed it is just the fire pits, burning of leaves, burning of grass, burning of wood, or waste of any kind is prohibited. The City does support prairie grass burning but they need to come to him and get a permit for that. Hennes noted Roth brings up two good examples of why he thinks it's important that they update the code every three years. He remembers going to code update classes or seminars on the power micro mobility devices and in bigger cities where people are relying on the E bikes and everything they're putting up racks now for all their batteries in mechanical rooms and this is gives the City the opportunity to think about how they should deal with that. The other one is the valet trash, that is an example of society moving forward and the code being three years behind. Both are examples of how the code adapts to society. Martin does question if the micro mobility devices is for commercial buildings or residential as well. Roth explained the fire code is only for commercial buildings, and everything else residential the fire code only applies to the exterior wall and can dictate the water supply. MOTION: McInerney moved to recommend to Council the adoption of the 2024 Fire Codes as amended. Seconded by Karr. VOTE: 3-0 ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Karr moved to adjourn meeting. Seconded by McInerney. VOTE: Motion passed 3-0. Meeting adjourned at 8:45am. Chairperson, Board of Appeals Date Prepared by: Danielle Sitzman, Building Official, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 Ordinance No. 25-4948 Ordinance amending Title 17, Chapter 1, Building Code, by adopting the International Building Code, 2024 edition, including Appendix K, and the International Residential Code, 2024 edition, including Appendix BE and Appendix BO, and providing for certain amendments thereof and adopting section 103.6(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa (the State Electrical Code) and section 105.4(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa (the State Plumbing and Mechanical Codes) to provide for the protection of the health, welfare and safety of the residents of Iowa City, Iowa. Whereas, the current building code is the 2021 edition of the International Building Code (IBC) and the International Residential Code (IRC), and the City should adopt the 2024 editions of those codes; and Whereas, for purposes of uniformity throughout the State, the State Code requires all local jurisdictions to adopt the State Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; and Whereas, the Fuel Gas Code is contained in the State Plumbing Code; and Whereas, for uniformity in greater Johnson County area, the City should adopt the State Electrical Code; and Whereas, the purpose of this ordinance is to provide for the protection of the health, welfare and safety of the residents of Iowa City, Iowa. Now, therefore be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. 1. Sections 17-1, 17-2, 17-3 and 17-4 of the Iowa City Code are hereby repealed and the following new Sections 17-1, 17-2, 17-3 and 17-4 are enacted in lieu thereof. 17-1-1: Codes adopted: Subject to the following amendments, the 2024 edition of the International Building Code (IBC) including Appendix K, electrical administrative process, and 2024 edition of the International Residential Code (IRC) including Appendix BE, radon control methods, and Appendix BO, Existing Buildings and Structures, are adopted. Additionally, the City further adopts, Section 103.6(1)(a) of the Iowa Code (the Iowa State Electrical Code), Section 105.4(1)(a) of the Iowa Code (the Iowa State Mechanical Code and the Iowa State Plumbing Code). Collectively, they shall be known as the Iowa City Building Code or the Building Code. Interpretations of the Building Official may be guided by publications of the International Code Council, Inc., or the International Existing Building Code. 17-1-2: Interpretation of Building Code provisions: The provisions of this Code shall be held to be the minimum requirements adopted for the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Iowa City. 17-1-3: Amendments to code: The following sections of the 2024edition of the International Building Code and 2024 edition of the International Residential Code are amended as follows: Ordinance No. 25-4948 Page 2 Section R101.1 of the IRC and 101.1 IBC. Delete Section R101.1 of the IRC and 101.1 of the I BC and insert in lieu thereof the following: R101.1/101.1 Title. These regulations shall be known as the Building Code of Iowa City, hereinafter referred to as "this code." Section R105.2 of the IRC and 105.2 of the IBC. Amend Section R105.2 of the IRC and 105.2 of the IBC by adding the following exemptions to Building: R105.2/105.2 Work Exempt from Permit. A permit shall not be required for the following: Building 14. For structures regulated by the IRC the reapplication of shingles provided The structure is not in a Historic Preservation Overlay Zone or is not an Iowa City Historic Landmark. Note: Applying solid sheathing over space sheathing is exempt from a permit.. 15. For structures regulated by the IRC reapplication of siding provided: The structure is not in a Historic Preservation Overlay Zone, or a Conservation District Overlay Zone, or is not an Iowa City Historic Landmark. 16. For structures regulated by the IRC replacing windows provided: a. Replacement window(s) is in compliance with Appendix BO. b. The structure is not in a Historic Preservation Overlay Zone, or a Conservation District Overlay Zone, or is not an Iowa City Historic Landmark. 17. For structures regulated by the IRC replacing exterior doors, including garage doors, provided: a. Replacement door(s) is in compliance with Appendix BO. b. Doors are not street facing doors i n a structure located in a Historic Preservation Overlay Zone or are not an Iowa City Historic Landmark. Note: screen and storm doors do not require a permit regardless of the location. 18. The removal of any portion of a building (i.e. porch, porch railing, decorative brackets and trim, dormers, chimneys, etc.) provided the structure is not located within a Historic Preservation Overlay Zone or a Conservation District Overlay Zone, or is an Iowa City Historic Landmark. Section 105.8 of the IBC and R105.10 of the IRC. Add two new Sections 105.8 and 105.8.1 to the IBC and R105.10 and R105.10.1 to the IRC as follows: 105.8(IBC) R105.10(IRC) Demolition permits required. A demolition permit shall be required as follows: 1. For the removal of any building or structure. 2. For the removal of any portion of a building (i.e. porch, porch railing, decorative brackets and trim, dormers, chimneys, etc.) that is located within a Historic Preservation Overlay Zone or a Conservation District Overlay Zone, or is an Iowa City Historic Landmark. 105.8.1(IBC) and R105.10.1 Requirements. 1 . The applicant for any demolition permit shall state on the application the proposed disposal plans for all demolition materials. 2. No demolition permit shall be issued until seven (7) working days after the date an application has been properly filed and said demolition permit shall not be effective until applicant has posted the premises to be demolished with a notice to be provided by the City and as directed by the City. Exceptions: 1. Accessory buildings as defined in the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance provided they are not located within a Historic Preservation Overlay Zone or a Conservation District Overlay Zone or is an Iowa City Historic Landmark. 2. Dangerous buildings. Section 105.9 of the IBC and R105.11 of the IRC. Add two new Sections 105.9 to the IBC and R105.11 to the IRC as follows: 105.9 (IBC) and R105.11 (IRC) Permittee: Ordinance No Page 3 25-4948 1. An electrical, plumbing or mechanical permit may be issued to any person holding a valid master license for the respective trade as described in Section 17-11-1 of the Iowa City Code, or to any company who employs a duly licensed master in the respective trade on a full-time basis who supervises the work of the apprentice and orjourneymen during the company's normal business hours. 2. Homeowners of owner occupied, detached single family dwellings qualifying for the homestead tax exemption may acquire an electrical, plumbing and/or mechanical permits for their residence and accessory structures (not an apartment or rental unit or apartment building), not to include electrical dwelling service upgrade or replacement. Owner occupied means the dwelling is the owner's principal residence. Section R108.3 of the IRC and Section 109.3 of the IBC. Delete Section R108.3 of the IRC and Section 109.3 of the IBC and insert in lieu thereof the following: R108.3 (IRC) 109.3 (IBC) Plan Review Fees. When a plan or other data are required to be submitted by Section 106 and the value of the proposed building or work exceeds fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000), a plan review fee shall be paid before the permit may be issued. Should the project be abandoned and the permit not issued after the plan review has been started, the plan review fee shall still be due and payable. The plan review fee shall be as set forth by resolution of City Council. Section R108. 5 of the IRC and Section 109.6 of the IBC: Delete Section R108.5 in the IRC and Section 109.6 of the IBC and insert in lieu thereof the following: R108.5 (IRC) 109.6 IBC Refunds: The Building Official may authorize the refunding of any fee paid hereunder which was erroneously paid or collected. The Building Official shall not authorize the refunding of any fee paid except upon written application filed by the original permittee within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of fee payment. Section R108.6 of the IRC and Section 109.4 of the IBC. Delete Section 108.6 of the IRC and Section 109.4 of the IBC and insert in lieu thereof the following: R108.6 (IRC) 109.4 (IBC) Work commencing before permit issuance: Any person who commences work on a building, structure, electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system before obtaining the necessary permits shall be subject to a fee equal to the amount of the permit fee if a permit were issued. This fee shall be collected whether or not a permit is issued. This fee is in addition to the required permit fee. The payment of such fee shall not exempt any person from compliance with all other provisions of this Code or from any penalty prescribed by law. Only the Building Official may reduce this fee when it is demonstrated that an emergency existed that required the work to be done without a permit. Section R108.7 of the IRC and Section 109.7 of the IBC. Add two new Sections R108.7 to the IRC and 109.7 to the IBC as follows: R108.7 (IRC) and 109.7 (IBC) Reinspection Fees: A re -inspection fee may be accessed for each inspection or reinspection when such work or portion of such work for which the inspection was scheduled is not complete or when corrections cited are not made. Reinspection fees may be assessed when plans necessary to complete the inspection are not readily available to the inspector, access is not provided on the date for which the inspection was scheduled, or when there are deviations from plans requiring additional plan review. This section is not to be interpreted as requiring reinspection fees the first time a project is rejected for failure to comply with requirements of this code, but as a method to control the practice of scheduling inspections before the project is ready for scheduled inspections. Section R112 of the IRC and Section 113 of the IBC. Delete Section R112 of the IRC and Section 113 of the IBC and insert in lieu thereof the following: R112 (IRC) and 113 (IBC) Appeals: See Title 17 Chapter 12 Appeals in the City Code. Section 202 of both the IBC and IRC. Add new definition as follows: Authority Having Jurisdiction. The organization, office, or individual responsible for approving 3 Ordinance No. 25-4948 Page 4 equipment, materials, an installation, or a procedure. Section 202 of both the IBC and IRC. Add new definition as follows: Chief Electrical Inspector. A building inspector who either is the authority having jurisdiction or is designated by the authority having jurisdiction and is responsible for administering the requirements of this code. Section 202 of both the IBC and IRC. Add new definition as follows: Electrical Inspector. A building inspector authorized to perform electrical inspections. Section 202 of both the IBC and IRC. Add new definition as follows: Emergency Communications Center. Shall mean the Johnson County Joint Emergency Communications Center. Section 202 of the IBC and IRC. Modify definition as follows: Habitable space: Add a sentence to the end of the definition of habitable space or room to read as follows: Basement areas finished to a degree to encourage their use as anything other than storage or mechanical rooms shall be considered habitable space. Section R202 of the IRC. Delete definition of Accessory Structure and insert in lieu thereof the following: Accessory Structure. See Title 14 Chapter 9 Article A Zoning Definitions in the City Code. 4 Ordinance No Page 5 25-4948 Table R301.2 (1) of the IRC Modify by inserting data in the table as follows: TABLE R301.2 - CLIMATIC AND GEOGRAPHIC DESIGN CRITERIA Ground Snow Wind Design Seismic Design Subject to Damage From Ice -Barrier Underlayment Flood Hazards Air Freezing Mean Annual Topographic Load Effects, Category Frost Required Index Temp Speed Special Wind Weathering Line Termite (mph) Region, or Depth Windborne Debris Zone NFIP 34 109 No A Severe 42" MHdaerate Yes 5F22RM 2000 50°F 2/16/07 MANUAL J DESIGN CRITERIA Indoor Altitude Coincident Winter Indoor Winter Design Outdoor Winter Heating Temperature Elevation Correction Wet Bulb Design Dry -Bulb Temperature Design Dry -Bulb Difference Factor Relative Temperature Humidity 661' N/A 76' 39% 70' -6° 76' Indoor Daly Summer Summer Indoor Summer Design Outdoor Summer Cooling Temperature Latitude Range Design Design Dry -Bulb Temperature Design Dry -Bulb Difference Gains Relative Temperature Humidity 41' M 53' 50% 75' 89, 14' Section R302.5.1 of the IRC. Modify Section R302.5.1 of the IRC by deleting the last sentence. Section R302.13 of the IRC. Delete Section R302.13 of the IRC entirely. Section 305.2.3 of the IBC. Delete Section 305.2.3 of the IBC and insert in lieu thereof the following: 305.2.3 Eight or Fewer Children in a Dwelling Unit. A facility such as the above within a dwelling unit and having eight or fewer children receiving such day care shall be classified as a Group R-3 occupancy or shall comply with the International Residential Code. Exception: Day care facilities that provide custodial care for 16 or fewer persons for less than 24-hours per day in a single-family dwelling, and where registered with the State of Iowa Department of Human Services as child development homes on or before January 1, 2017, are permitted to comply with the International Residential Code. Section R306 of the IRC. Delete section R306 of the IRC and insert in lieu thereof the following: R306. See Title 14 Chapter 5J Flood Plain Management Standards in the City Code. Ordinance No. 25-4948 Page 6 R306.1 Flood Resistive Materials. Building materials and installation methods used for flooring and interior and exterior walls and wall coverings below the elevation required in Title 14 Chapter 5J Flood Plain Management Standards in the City Code shall be flood damage -resistant materials that conform to the provisions of FEMA TB-2. Section R309 of the IRC: Delete Section R309 of the IRC entirely. Section 310.4.1 of the IBC. Delete Section 310.4.1 of the IBC and insert in lieu thereof the following: 310.4.1 Care Facilities Within A Dwelling Unit. Care facilities within a dwelling unit shall be in accordance with section 305.2.3. Section R316 of the IRC. Delete Section R316 of the IRC entirely Section R319.6 Exception 3 of the IRC. Delete Section 319.6 Exception 3 of the IRC entirely. Section R319.7 of the IRC. Delete Section R310.7 in the IRC and insert in lieu thereof the following: R319.7 Alterations or repairs of basements in structures built after May 10, 1989. An emergency escape and rescue opening is not required where existing basements undergo alterations or repairs. Alterations or repairs in structures built prior to May 10, 1989 shall conform R319.5 and Appendix BO Section BO102.6 Replacement windows. Exception: New sleeping rooms created in an existing basement shall be provided with emergency escape and rescue openings in accordance with Section R310.1 though R310.6 Section R322.4of the IRC. Add Section R322.4 in the IRC as follows: R322.4 Accessibility for projects other than those mentioned in Section R322.1 through R322.3. R 322.4.1 Scope. The provisions of this section are enacted to implement universal design features that provide accessibility, usability and visit -ability for all. R322.4.2 Definition. Public funds shall mean funding or assistance from the City of Iowa City or any agent thereof through any of the following means: 1. a building contract or similar contractual agreement involving a City -funded program or fund; 2. any real estate received by the owner through a subsidy, lease, or donation by the City or its agents; 3. preferential tax treatment, bond assistance, mortgage assistance, or similar financial advantages from the City or its agents; 4. disbursement of federal or state construction funds including a Community Development Block Grant; or 5. a City contract to provide funding or a financial benefit for housing. R322.4.3 Applicability. The amendment applies to new one- and two-family dwellings and is not required for new townhouses, accessory dwelling units or existing structures for repairs, alterations, change of occupancy or additions unless the square footage of the addition is more than 25% of the existing structure, then, the addition must comply. Exception: Applies to new townhouses constructed using public funds. The minimum usability requirements are as follows: 1. Step -less entrance: At least one building entrance must be designed, without encroaching into any required parking space, that complies with the Iowa City Building Code standard for an accessible entrance on an accessible route served by a ramp in accordance with section R318.8 or a no -step entrance. The accessible route must extend from a vehicular drop- off, or parking to a building entrance. The entry door must have a minimum net clear opening of thirty-two inches (32"). If public funds are used the step -less entrance must be provided. Exception: The building official may waive this requirement based upon the determination that strict compliance is financially or environmentally impractical. 2. Interior doors: At least one bedroom and one bathroom (if either are provided) and all other passage doorway header widths, on the level served by the designed step -less entrance, must be 0 Ordinance No. 25-4948 Page 7 framed to accommodate a minimum 38" clear rough opening. The framing for the doorway width opening may be reduced to accommodate any door size Exception: 1.If public funds are used the minimum door clear opening shall be thirty-two inches (32") when the door is open ninety degrees (90), measured between the face of the door and the opposite stop. 2.Doors serving closets twenty-four inches (24") or less in depth need not be framed to 38" clear opening width. Note: A 34" door hung in the standard manner provides an -acceptable 32" opening. 3. Sanitation facilities: There must be at least one bathroom containing a water closet (toilet) and lavatory (sink) on the level of the dwelling to be accessed by the designed step -less entrance. The room shall have a minimum thirty inches (30") by forty-eight inches (48") clear floor space at the water closet and lavatory. The clear floor space can be shared by both fixtures. The plans must show a shower, bathtub or combination tub/shower can be provided within the room or an adjoining room without removing part of the concrete floor to provide necessary plumbing to the future plumbing fixture(s). If public funds are used a shower, bathtub or combination tub/shower shall be provided within the room. Exceptions: The building official may waive this requirement based on the determination that strict compliance is financially impractical. 4. Wall reinforcement: A bathroom must be provided with wood blocking installed within wall framing to support grab bars as needed. The wood blocking, when measured to the center, will be located between thirty-three inches (33") and thirty-six inches (36") above the finished floor. The wood blocking must be in all walls adjacent to and behind a toilet. Exception: Backing is not required behind pre -manufactured showers and bathtubs. 5. Decks: All exterior decks surfaces adjacent to the level served by the designed step -less entrance must be built within four inches (4") of the dwellings finish floor level. Note: At grade patios are exempt from this requirement. 6. Switch and outlet requirements: All wall switches, controlling light fixtures, fans, all temperature control devices and all receptacles shall be located in an area between fifteen (15) and forty-eight (48) inches above finished floor. The height will be determined by measuring from the finished floor to the center of the device. When the control or receptacle placement is prohibited by the height of the window or design feature, alternative locations may be approved by the building official. 7. Electrical panel requirements: Electrical panels on the level of the dwelling to be accessed by the designed step -less entrance shall be located so that the individual circuit breakers are located between 15" and 54 " above the floor. Section R328 of the IRC. Delete Section R328 of the IRC entirely. Section R403.1.4.1 of the IRC. Modify by deleting all exceptions and inserting in lieu thereof the following: Exceptions: 1. One story detached accessory buildings of wood or steel frame construction not used for human occupancy and not exceeding one thousand (1,000) square feet in floor area may be constructed using slab on grade construction as follows. The slab shall be three and one-half inches thick, poured monolithically with thickened perimeter footings extending twelve inches (12") below finish grade and be twelve inches (12") wide at the base. The top of the foundation shall not be less than six inches (6") above finish grade. Reinforcement of the slab, including the thickened portion, shall be minimum 6x6-10/10 welded wire mesh, #4 deformed reinforcing bars at twenty-four inches (24") on center each way or fiber mesh reinforced concrete. 2. Freestanding accessory structures not used for human occupancy and not exceeding six hundred (600) square feet in floor area or less and an eave height of ten (10) feet or less above grade may Ordinance No. 25-4948 Page 8 be constructed on wood plate or skids. Section 403.5.6 of the IBC: Add a new Section 403.5.6 as follows: 403.5.6 Emergency escape and rescue. Emergency escape and rescue openings specified in Section 1031 are not required. Section R404.1.1 of the IRC: Amend Section R404.1.1 of the IRC by adding an Exception after number 2 as follows: Exception: Foundation walls with unbalanced lateral forces created by finish grade, i.e. walkout basements which are exempt from the Iowa Architectural Act shall be designed by a licensed structural engineer or constructed in accordance with the Table R404.1.1(5) and diagram as follows: Table R401.1.115) Ca = Comer Bars 5 = Span of Wall T = Thickness D = 4'Offset D S / CB I r & 12' Foundation Walls JI— Provide corner bars to match horizontal foundation wall reinforcing into wall 2' Span S) Wall Thickness (T) Horizontal Reinforcin Comer Bar (CB) k 10' or less 8" e4 @ 12" 2' . 0" 10'to 12' 8" e5 @ 12- 2'-6" 12'to 14' 8" e6 @ 12" 3' - D" 14' to 16' 12" k5 @ 12" 2'-6- 16, to 18' 12" e6 @ 14" 3' . 0" 18' to 20' 12" 1 46 @ 12" 3' - 0" Frost Wall & Footing (Walkout) Notes: 1. Corner Bars are required in addition to horizontal reinforcing. 2. All Corner Bar reinforcing splices shall be lapped a minimum of 24'. 3. If span (S) is greater than 16', the minimum dimension of (D) shall be 6'. T r t ' r I, t. 2" Minimum Inside Face of Wall to edge of reinforcing See Schedule for Horizontal Reinforcing 44 Reinforcing Vertical 30' O.C. Typical #4 Reinforcing Dow Section 502.1 of the IBC (F). Delete Section 502.1 in its entirety and insert in lieu thereof the following: 502.1 New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. Address identification characters shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall not be spelled out. Numbers shall be sized as specified in Table 502.1. Measurements to determine the minimum number size shall be measured from the approved address location to the center line of the street for which the premises is addressed. Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address identification shall be maintained. Table 502.1 0 Ordinance No. 25-4948 Page 9 Minimum Address Size 1,b,c,d Distance from the centerline of the Public Way (ft) Minimum Height (in) Minimum Stroke Width (in) Less than 100 4 1 /2 100 199 6 3/4 200 299 8 1 For each additional 100 Increase 2 Increase 1/2 a) Exterior suite identification, minimum height shall be 4 inches and stroke width shall be inch. b) Interior suite identification, minimum height shall be 3 inches and stroke width shall be inch. c) Measurements to determine the minimum number or letter size shall be measured from the approved address location to the center line of the street for which the premise is addressed. d) Minimum height and minimum stroke may be increased by the Code Official. Section R507.10.2 of the IRC. Delete Section 507.10.2 entirely. Section R807.1 of the IRC. Modify by adding a sentence at the end of the second paragraph as follows: The opening shall not be located in a closet, bathroom, mechanical room, laundry room, or similar room or location. Section 902.1.3 of the IBC. Add a sentence to the end of the section to read as follows: The fire pump room or automatic sprinkler riser room shall have a supervised room temperature sensor. Section 902.1.4 of the IBC. Add a sentence to the end of the section to read as follows: Emergency lighting shall be provided in the fire pump room or automatic sprinkler riser room. Section 903.3.5 of the IBC (F). Delete Section 903.5 of the IBC and insert in lieu thereof the following: 903.3.5 Water Supplies. Water supplies for automatic sprinkler systems shall comply with this section and the standards referenced in Section 903.3.1. The potable water supply shall be protected against backflow in accordance with the requirements of this section and the International Plumbing Code. The backflow preventor shall include a detector (water meter) unless the fire code official approves an exception in consultation with the water supply utility. For connections to public waterworks systems, the water supply test used for design of fire protection systems shall be adjusted to account for seasonal and daily pressure fluctuation based on information from the water supply authority and as approved by the fire code official. Section 903.3.5.1 of the IBC (F).Delete Section 903.5.1 of the IBC and insert in lieu thereof the following: 903.3.5.1 A single domestic and automatic fire sprinkler system water supply. If the city water provider requires a single domestic and automatic fire sprinkler system supply, then the water supply shall be split outside of the building and shall have a shutoff provided for the domestic service after the split outside of the building. The total domestic demand is required to be added to the fire 0 Ordinance No. 25-4948 Page 10 sprinkler demand. Section 903.3.5.2 of the IBC (F). Delete section 903.3.5.2 of the IBC and insert in lieu thereof the following: 903.3.5.2 Water supply safety margin. The fire sprinkler system hydraulically calculated demand per NFPA 13 or NFPA 13R including required hose stream allowances, and domestic water demand if required by section 903.3.5.1, must be a minimum 10%, but not less than 5 psi below the water supply flow test curve, the flow test must have been conducted within 90 days of fire sprinkler plan submittal to the city and third party reviewer (if applicable) or as deemed current and approved by the local water jurisdiction. The base of riser psi at the time of acceptance test shall also be 10% but not less than 5 psi above the most demanding hydraulically calculated pressure. Section 903.4.1 of the IBC (F). Delete exception number 5 without substitution. Section 903.4.3 of the IBC(F). Delete the section 903.4.3 and insert in lieu thereof the following: 903.4.3 Alarms. An approved weatherproof horn/strobe device shall be mounted directly above the fire department connection between seven (7) and ten (10) feet in height above grade. The water -flow alarm device shall be activated by water flow equivalent to the flow of a single sprinkler of the smallest orifice size installed in the system. Approved and supervised audible visual notification appliances shall be installed on each level of the interior of the building as required by the fire code official and NFPA 72. Where a fire alarm system is installed, actuation of the automatic sprinkler system shall actuate the building fire alarm system. Exception: Automatic sprinkler systems protecting one -and two-family dwellings. Section 903.5.1 of the IBC (F). Add a new section 905.1 to read as follows: Section 903.5.1 Inspector's test valve. An inspector's test valve is required at the most remote location in each fire sprinkler system or tenant/floor control valve space, for use at the acceptance test and to remove air from the system after maintenance work is done on the system. Section 903.5.2 of the IBC (F). Add a new section 903.5.2 to read as follows: Section 903.5.2 Forward Flow Testing. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be provided with an external outlet to perform forward flow testing as required by NFPA 25. Control valve shall be supervised. The outlet shall be signed as testing and have male threads. Section 903.6 of the IBC (F). Add a new Section 903.6 to the IBC to read as follows: 903.6 Zones. Automatic sprinkler system zones shall not exceed the area permitted by NFPA 13 or NFPA 13R and shall provide a sprinkler control valve and waterflow device for each normally occupied floor. Except by approval of the Fire Code Official, all control and drain valves shall be located in the sprinkler riser room or in the stairwell of a multi -story building provided with standpipes, mounted no higher than 6 feet from floor. Section 903.7 of the IBC (F). Add a new Section 903.7 to the IBC to read as follows: Section 903.7 Drains. As required by the Fire Code Official, all drains and testing piping serving automatic sprinkler systems and standpipes shall be piped to the exterior of the building. Exception: Automatic sprinkler systems protecting one -and two-family dwellings. Section 904.14.5 of the IBC (F). Add a new Section 904.14.5 to the IBC to read as follows: Section 904.14.5 System Annunciation. Automatic fire extinguishing systems installed with 10 Ordinance No. 25-4948 Page 11 commercial cooking systems installed in buildings that do not have a fire alarm system shall be connected to an approved audible and visible emergency notifications device to warn of system discharge. The horn/strobe and signage shall be installed in a location approved by the Fire Code Official, which will be typically in the kitchen. Section 904.16 of the IBC (F). Add a new Section 904.16 to the IBC to read as follows: 904.16 Ventilation Operations. The ventilation system shall shut down the make-up air to the hood and continue to exhaust upon activation of the hood fire extinguishing system. Section 905.1.1 of the IBC (F). Add a new Section 905.1.1 to the IBC to read as follows: 905.1.1 Delete all references to Class II standpipe systems and replace with Class III standpipe systems. Section 905.3.8 of the IBC (F). Add a new section 905.3.8 to read as follows: 905.3.8 Additional Standpipe Systems: Additional standpipe systems may be added to new buildings or structures as deemed necessary by the fire code official. Section 905.4 of the IBC (F). Amend section 905.4 by deleting #1 and insert in lieu thereof the following: 1. In every required interior exit stairway, a hose connection shall be provided for each story above and below grade plane. Hose connections shall be located at intermediate landings between stories, unless otherwise approved by the fire code official. Section 906.1 of the IBC (F). Delete the exception without substitution. Section 906.1 Item 1 of the IBC (F). Delete the exceptions without substitution. Section 906.3 of the IBC (F). Add a sentence to the end of the section to read as follows: The minimum rating of any required portable fire extinguisher for Class A, Class B, or Class C hazard shall be 2A-10 B C Section 907.1.4 of the IBC (F). Add a new section 907.1.4 to read as follows: 907.1.4 Fire alarm control panels and Fire alarm annunciator panels. Installation of fire alarm control panels and fire alarm annunciator panels shall be installed in accordance with section 907.1.4.1 through 907.1.4.5. Section 907.1.4.1 of the IBC (F). Add a new section 907.1.4.1 to read as follows: 907.1.4.1 Fire Alarm Panel Height: Installation of fire alarm panels shall not exceed 6 feet in height measured from the floor to the top of the panel. Exception: Panel height may be altered by the Fire Code Official. Section 907.1.4.2 of the IBC (F). Add a new section 901.1.4.2 to read as follows: 901.1.4.2 Number of Fire Alarm Control Panels in Buildings: Only one listed fire alarm control panel shall be allowed per building and shall lock in the alarm until the system is reset and shall not be canceled by the operation of an audible - alarm silencing switch. This control panel shall only receive alarm signals from fire protection equipment. Section 907.1.4.3 of the IBC (F). Add a new section 907.1.4.3 to read as follows: 907.1.4.3 Combination Fire/Security Alarm System Panels. A listed combination fire/security alarm system panel that meets all the requirements of this code and amendments may be permitted by 11 Ordinance No. 25-4948 Page 12 approval of the fire code official. The fire/security panel shall be capable of providing a signal that can differentiate between the fire and security alarm. Section 907.1.4.4 of the IBC (F). Add a new section 907.1.4.4 to read as follows: 907.1.4.4 Password/PIN Protection Prohibited: Fire alarm control panels and/or fire alarm annunciator panels that require a password/PIN to silence an alarm/supervisory/trouble signal and/or to reset an alarm/supervisory/trouble signal shall be prohibited. Section 907.1.4.5 of the IBC (F). Add a new section 907.1.4.5 to read as follows: 907.1.4.5 Fire Alarm Annunciator Panels: The fire code official can require the addition of fire alarm annunciator panels based on the size of building and access to the building. These panels shall meet the requirements of Sections 907.1.4 and 907.2. Section 907.2 of the IBC (F). Delete section 907.2 and insert in lieu thereof the following: 907.2 Where required - new buildings and structures. An approved and addressable manual, automatic, or manual and automatic fire alarm system installed in accordance with the provisions of this code and NFPA 72 shall be provided in new buildings and structures in accordance with Sections 907.2.1 through 907.2.23 and provide occupant notification in accordance with 907.5 unless other requirements are provided by another section of this code. Not fewer than one manual fire alarm box shall be provided in an approved location to initiate a fire alarm signal for fire alarm system employing automatic fire detectors or water -flow devices. Where other sections of this code allow elimination of fire alarm boxes due to sprinklers, a single fire alarm box shall be installed. Exceptions: 1) The manual fire alarm box is not required for fire alarm systems dedicated to elevator recall control and supervisory service. 2) The manual fire alarm box is required for Group R-2 occupancies to provide a means for fire watch personnel to initiate an alarm during a sprinkler system impairment event. The manual fire alarm box shall not be located in an area that is accessible to the public. 3) Multi -tenant buildings required to have a manual/automatic fire alarms system shall install one manual pull station per tenant space. 4) Visual notification appliances are not required within self -storage units. Section 907.2.1.3 of the IBC [F]. Add a new section 907.2.1.3 to read as follows: Group A Occupancies. In Group A occupancies, the activation of the fire alarm or fire sprinkler system, shall automatically shut down or stop music, sound systems, conflicting or confusing sounds and visual distractions and initiate illumination of all the means of exit egress components. Section 907.2.9.1 [F] Delete exception 2 without substitution. Section 907 2.11.2 of the IBC (F). Modify 907.2.11.2 by adding a fourth location requirement as follows: 4. Supervised smoke alarms shall be installed in all common corridors and at the top and bottom of all stairway enclosures in Groups R-2, R - 3 , R-4 and 1-1 occupancies. In corridors, detectors shall be located within fifteen (15) feet of the end of the corridor and in such a way that one detector is located for each thirty (30) feet of corridor length or spaced as allowed by the code. 12 Ordinance No. 25-4948 Page 13 Section 907.2.13.2 of the IBC (F). Delete 907.2.13.2 without substitution. Section 907.4.2 of the IBC (F). Modify 907.4.2 by adding a sentence to the end of the section to read as follows: Where, in the opinion of the f i r e code official, manual fire alarm boxes may be used to cause false fire alarms, the fire code official is authorized to modify the requirements for manual fire alarm boxes. Section 907.6.3 of the IBC (F). Delete 907.6.3 and insert in lieu thereof the following: 907.6.3 Initiating device identification. The fire alarm system shall identify the specific initiating device with an alphanumeric address description showing location, type of device, and status including indication of normal, alarm, trouble, and supervisory, as appropriate. Alphanumeric descriptions and locations shall be reported to the emergency communications center upon activation of an alarm condition as specified by the fire code official. Exception: 1. Special initiation devices that do not support individual device identification. Section 907.6.4 of the IBC (F). Modify 907.6.4 by deleting the exception and inserting in lieu thereof the following exception: Exception: Automatic sprinkler system zones shall not exceed the area permitted by NFPA 13 and shall provide a sprinkler control valve and waterflow device for each normally occupied floor. Section 907.6.4.3 of the IBC (F). Add a new section 907.6.4.3 to read as follows: Section 907.6.4.3 Zone and address location labeling. Fire alarm and/or annunciator panels shall have all zones and address points plainly and permanently labeled as to their location on the outside of the panel or on an easily readable map of the building if no display is present. Section 907.6.6 of the IBC (F). Delete 907.6.6 and insert in lieu thereof the following: 907.6.6 Monitoring. Fire alarms required by this chapter, the International Building Code, or the Fire Code Official, an approved UL listed Central Station service in accordance with NFPA 72 shall monitor fire alarm systems to provide for the immediate and automatic notification to the emergency communications center. Each initiating device shall report an address point and an alpha/numeric descriptor showing location, type of device and status including indication of normal, alarm, trouble and supervisory status, as appropriate. Alpha/numeric descriptor shall be required to be reported to the emergency communications center upon activation of alarm conditions as specified by the fire code official. Exception: Monitoring by a supervising station is not required for: 1. Single- and multiple -station smoke alarms required by Section 907.2.11. 2. Smoke detectors in Group 1-3 occupancies. 3. Automatic sprinkler systems in one- and two-family dwellings 4. Fire alarm systems in one- and two-family dwellings Section 907.7.4 of the IBC (F). Add a new section 907.7.4 to read as follows: 13 Ordinance No. 25-4948 Page 14 907.7.4 Device/Zone Map. An easily readable fire alarm device and/ or zone map of the building shall be permanently mounted in or near the fire alarm control panel and documentation cabinet showing the location of all initiating devices when required by the fire code official. Section 907.9 of the IBC (F). Add a new Section 907.9 as follows: 907.9 Approved hold open devices. When installed in buildings that have a fire alarm system and /or sprinkler system, all approved hold open devices shall release upon activation of the fire alarm and/or sprinkler water -flow activation. Section 912.4.1 of the IBC (F). Delete the section 912.4.1 and insert in lieu thereof the following: Section 912.4.1 Locking fire department connection caps. Locking fire department connection caps approved by the fire department are required for all new construction that have a water -based fire protection system and existing structures that have a water -based fire protection system shall be required immediately after conducting the five-year obstruction and maintenance testing, or if one or more of the fire department caps are missing. Section 912.7 of the IBC (F). Add a new section 912.7 to read as follows: 907.7 Fire Department Connection Height. The fire department connection shall be located not less than 18 inches from the bottom of the cap(s) and not more than 3 feet from the top of the cap(s) above the level of the adjacent grade or access level. Deviation from this height may be granted by the Code Official for just cause. Section 912.8 of the IBC (F). Add a new section 912.8 to read as follows: 912.8 Size. Minimum fire department connection size shall be 2'/2" inch National Standard Thread siamese connection. Section 913.6 of the IBC (F). Add a new section 913.6 to read as follows. 913.6 Control device. All fire pumps shall be provided with a control device to maintain supply suction pressure greater than 20 psi. Suction pressure sustaining devices may include a discharge side suction pressure sustaining valve, a pump drive control system responsive to suction pressure (i.e. a VFD with pressure transducer), or a tank with associated fill circuit. Devices must be fire rated and installed per NFPA and utility standards. This section is retroactive and applicable to existing fire pumps. Plans to update existing systems or exceptions to the requirement will be at the discretion of the fire code official in consultation with the water supply utility. Section 1011.3 of the IBC. Modify 101 1.3 by adding a third exception as follows: Exception: 3. Stairs within individual dwelling units of residential Group R occupancies that existed prior to 8/28/02 (adoption of the 2000 IRC) are permitted a 78-inch (6'-6") headroom clearance. Section 1023.4 of the IBC. Modify 1023.4 by adding a fourth unnumbered paragraph as follows: Fire door assemblies that provide access to a non -pressurized interior exit of R-2 occupancies shall also be automatic closing by actuation of a smoke detector. Section 1030.2 of the IBC (F). Modify 1030.2 by adding a new exception as follows: EXCEPTION: 1)The main entrance/exit of A-2 occupancies shall be of a width that accommodates not less than two-thirds of the total occupant load Section 1031.2 of the IBC. Modify 1031.2 by deleting the exceptions and inserting in lieu thereof the 14 Ordinance No. 25-4948 Page 15 following: EXCEPTIONS: 1. The emergency escape and rescue opening is permitted to open onto a balcony within an atrium in accordance with the requirements of Section 404 provided the balcony provides access to an exit and the dwelling unit or sleeping room has a means of egress that is not open to the atrium. 2. All group R-2 occupancies other than hotels and motels and buildings regulated by Section 403 must be provided with emergency escape & rescue openings, regardless of what Tables 1006.3.4(1) and 1006.3.4(2) allow 3. Emergency escape and rescue openings are not required from basements or sleeping rooms that have an exit door or exit access door that opens directly into a public way or to a yard, court or exterior exit balcony that opens to a public way. 4. Sleeping rooms in fire stations where the building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with 903.3.1.1. Section 1031.7 of the IBC. Add a new Section 1031.7 to read as follows: 1030.7. Emergency escape windows under decks, porches and cantilevers shall be fully openable and provide a path not less than 36 inches in height and 36 inches in width to a yard or court. Chapter 11 of the IRC. Delete Chapter 11 in its entirety and insert in lieu thereof the following: Chapter 11 Energy Efficiency, Section N1101. Energy efficiency for the design and construction of building regulated by this code shall be as required by 661-303 of the Iowa State Administrative Code. Chapter 11 of the IBC. Delete Chapter 11 in its entirety and insert in lieu thereof the following: Chapter 11 Accessibility, Section 1101. Buildings or portions of buildings shall be accessible to persons with disabilities as required by 661-302 of the Iowa State Administrative Code. Section 1209.2 of the IBC. Modify 1209.2 by adding a second unnumbered paragraph as follows: The opening shall be located in a corridor, hallway, or other readily accessible location. The opening shall not be located in a closet, bathroom, mechanical room, laundry room, or similar room or location. Attics with a maximum vertical height of less than thirty inches need not be provided with access openings. Chapter 13 of the IBC. Delete Chapter 13 in its entirety and insert in lieu thereof the following: Chapter 13 Energy Efficiency, Section 1301. Energy efficiency for the design and construction of building regulated by this code shall be as required by 661-303 of the Iowa State Administrative Code. Section 1612.2 of the IBC. Delete 1612.2 of the IBC and insert in lieu thereof the following: 1612.2 Design and Construction. The design and construction of buildings and structures located in flood hazard areas, shall be in accordance with Chapter 5 of ASCE 7, ASCE 24 and Title 14, Chapter 5 Article J Flood Plain Management Standards in the City Code. Section 1612.3 of the IBC. Amend 1612.3 by inserting: Jurisdiction: City of Iowa City, Iowa Date: February 16, 2007 Section 1705.18 of the IBC. Delete 1705.18 and insert in lieu thereof the following: 1705.18 Fire-resistant penetrations and joints. In high-rise buildings, in buildings assigned a Risk Category III or IV, or Group R occupancies over 3 stories in height, special inspections for through penetrations, membrane penetration firestops, fire-resistant joint systems and perimeter fire containment systems that are tested and listed in accordance with Sections 714.4.1.2, 714.5.1.2, 715.3.1 and 715.4 shall be in accordance with Section 1705.18.1 or 1705.18.2. 15 Ordinance No. 25-4948 Page 16 Part V Mechanical Chapters 12 through 23 inclusive of the IRC. Delete Part V Mechanical Chapters 12 through 23 inclusive and insert in lieu thereof the following: Part V Mechanical, Chapter 12 Section M1201 GENERAL M1201.1 Mechanical systems shall comply with the Iowa State Mechanical Code. Administrative Provisions. The Mechanical Code shall be administered in accordance with administrative provisions in chapter 1 of this code as amended. Part VI Fuel Gas Chapter 24 of the IRC. Delete Part VI Fuel Gas Chapter 24 and insert in lieu thereof the following: Part VI Fuel Gas, Chapter 24 G2401 GENERAL G2401.1 Fuel Gas systems shall comply with the Iowa State Plumbing Code. Administrative Provisions. The Plumbing Code shall be administered in accordance with administrative provisions in chapter 1 of this code as amended. Part VII Plumbing Chapters 25 through 33 inclusive of the IRC. Delete Part VII Plumbing Chapters 25 through 33 inclusive and insert in lieu thereof the following: Part VII Plumbing, Chapter 25 P2501 GENERAL P2501.1 Plumbing systems shall comply with the Iowa State Plumbing Code. Administrative Provisions. The Plumbing Code shall be administered in accordance with administrative provisions in chapter 1 of this code as amended. Chapter 27 of the IBC. Amend Section 2701 by deleting and insert in lieu thereof the following: 2701 GENERAL 2701.1 Electrical systems shall comply with the Iowa State Electrical Code. Administrative Provisions. The Electrical Code shall be administered in accordance with administrative provisions in chapter 1 of this code as amended and Appendix K as amended. Chapter 28 of the IBC. Delete chapter 28 and insert in lieu thereof the following: Chapter 28 Mechanical Systems 2801.1 Mechanical systems shall comply the Iowa State Mechanical Code with the following amendments: Administrative Provisions. The Mechanical Code shall be administered in accordance with administrative provisions in chapter 1 of this code as amended. 2801.2 Commercial Kitchen Hood Exhaust Termination: In addition to the code requirements for commercial kitchen hood exhaust termination locations, the following shall apply: 1. For new construction, change in occupancy or change in use, that requires a new commercial kitchen hood or revisions to an existing commercial kitchen hood, the new or existing commercial kitchen hood exhaust duct shall terminate as follows: Above the roof level without passing through an exterior wall; or 2. Through an alley facing exterior wall provided the termination is above the roof level; or 3. To an alley right of way per 3202.3.2 of the International Building Code. Chapter 29 of the IBC. Delete Chapter 29 and insert in lieu thereof the following: 16 Ordinance No. 25-4948 Page 17 Chapter 29 Plumbing Systems 2901.1 Plumbing systems shall comply with the Iowa State Plumbing Code. Administrative Provisions. The Plumbing Code shall be administered in accordance with administrative provisions in chapter 1 of this code as amended. Section 3002.4 of the IBC. Delete 3002.4 and insert in lieu thereof the following: 3002.4 Elevator car to accommodate ambulance stretcher. In buildings four or more stories above, or four or more stories below, grade plane, at least one elevator shall be provided for fire department emergency access to all floors. The elevator car shall be of such a size and arrangement to accommodate an ambulance stretcher 24 inches by 84 inches (610 mm by 2134 mm) with not less than 5-inch (127 mm) radius corners, in the horizontal, open position and shall be identified by the international symbol for emergency medical services (star of life). The symbol shall not be less than 3 inches (76 mm) high and shall be placed inside on both sides of the hoistway door frame. Part VIII Electrical Chapters 34 through 43 inclusive of the IRC. Delete Part VIII Electrical Chapters 34 through 43 inclusive of the IRC and insert in lieu thereof the following: Part VIII Electrical, Chapter 34 E3401 GENERAL E3401.1 Electrical systems shall comply with the Iowa State Electrical Code. Administrative Provisions. The Electrical Code shall be administered in accordance with administrative provisions in chapter 1 of this code as amended and Appendix K of the IBC as amended. Appendix K of the IBC. Section K103.2 of the IBC. Work exempt from permit. Delete K103.2 and insert in lieu thereof the following: K103.2 Work exempt from permit. See section 105.2 in both the IRC and IBC. Section K106.5 of the IBC. Add a new Section K106. 5 as follows: K106. 5 Energy Connections; An electrical system or equipment regulated by this code for which a permit is required shall not be connected to a source of energy or power until approved by the building official. Section K106.6 of the IBC. Add a new Section K106. 6 as follows: K106. 6 Temporary Energy Connections. The building official may authorize the temporary connection of the electrical system or equipment to the source of energy or power for the purpose of testing the equipment, or for use under a temporary certificate of occupancy. Appendix BE of the IRC. Delete BE104 of the IRC entirely. Appendix BO of the IRC. Section B0102.6 of the IRC. Delete B0102.6 and insert in lieu thereof the following: B0102.6 Replacement windows and doors. Regardless of the category of work, where an existing window or door, including the sash and glazed portion, or safety glazing is replaced, the replacement window, door or safety glazing shall comply with the requirements of Sections B0102.6.1 through B0102.6.3, as applicable. Section B0102.6.1 of the IRC. Delete B0102.6.1 and insert in lieu thereof the following: B0102.6.1 Energy efficiency. Replacement windows or doors shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 11. Section B0105.8.1 of the IRC. Delete B0105.8.1 and insert in lieu thereof the following: 17 Ordinance No. 25-4948 Page 18 B0105.8.1 Stair width. Existing basement and attic stairs and handrails not otherwise being altered or modified shall be permitted to maintain their current clear width at, above and below existing handrails. Section B0105.8.2 of the IRC. Delete B0105.8.2 and insert in lieu thereof the following: B0105.8.2 Stair headroom. Headroom height on existing basement or attic stairs being altered or modified shall not be reduced below the existing stairway or attic finished headroom. Existing basement or attic stairs not otherwise being altered shall be permitted to maintain the current finished headroom. Section B0105.8.3 of the IRC. Delete B0105.8.3 and insert in lieu thereof the following: B0105.8.3 Stair landing. Landings serving existing basement or attic stairs being altered or modified shall not be reduced below the existing stairway landing depth and width. Existing basement or attic stairs not otherwise being altered shall be permitted to maintain the current landing depth and width. 17-1-4: Penalties for violations: Violation of this chapter shall be a municipal infraction punishable by a penalty as provided for in subsection 1-4-2D of the City Code. 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 final passage, approval and publication as provided by law. Passed and pproved this 1st day of April , 2025. Mayor Pro Tem Approved by City Attorney's 712C s �' (Sue Dulek - 0/2025) Attest: J 1lr � ivyClerk 18 Ordinance No. 25-4948 Page 1q It was moved by Moe and seconded by Bergus the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Alter x Bergus x x Harmsen x Moe x Salih x Teague x Weilein that First Consideration Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Moe, Harmsen, Salih, Teague NAYS: None ABSENT: None Second Consideration ------------- ------ Vote for passage: Moved by Weilein seconded by Bergus that the rule requiring ordinances Co 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, Moe, Salih, Weilein NAYS: None ABSENT: Teague Date published April Item Number: 10.b. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT April 1, 2025 Ordinance amending Title 7, Chapter 1, Fire Prevention and Protection, by adopting the 2024 edition of the International Fire Code to regulate and govern the safeguarding of life and property from fire, explosion, life safety risks, or health hazards. (Second Consideration) Prepared By: Susan Dulek, First Ass't. City Attorney Reviewed By: Troy Roth, Fire Marshal Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: none Staff Recommendation: Approval Commission Recommendations: Board of Appeals recommended approval at its 2/2/25 meeting Attachments: Memo to Board of Appeals 2/7/25 Board of Appeals draft minutes Ordinance Executive Summary: State law requires a public hearing on the adoption of a model code. Staff is recommending adoption of the 2024 edition of the International Fire Code (IFC) along with local amendments. A description of the notable changes are included in a memorandum from Troy Roth, Fire Marshal, to the Board of Appeals dated January 28, 2025. A copy of the ordinance and the IFC are on file in the City Clerk's office. Iowa City Fire Department 410 E. Washington Street — Iowa City, IA 52240-1821 Phone:319.356.5260 www.icgov.org Memorandum Date: January 28, 2025 To: Board of Appeals From: Troy Roth, Fire Marshal Re: Notable changes to the 2024 International Fire Code local amendments The fire department presents for your review, notable changes to the 2024 International Fire Code. 322 NEW SECTION. Powered Micromobility Devices. — Devices such as a battery powered scooter had not previously been addressed. This new section regulates the use and re -charging of micromobility devices. 903.3.1.2 MODIFICATION. NFPA 13R Sprinkler Installations. The 2021 code allowed four story R-2's to be 13R. However, the height requirement of Item 2 of this section often limited the qualification to three stories. This modification changes R-2 qualification for 13R to the roof eave no more than 45' above lowest level of fire department access. This is meant to allow more four-story R-2's to qualify for NFPA 13R installations. 905.3.4 DELETION. Standpipes on Stages — Stages over 1,000 sq ft or ceiling height of 50' are sprinklered. This change deletes the requirement for standpipes on stages. 903.3.5 LOCAL AMMENDMENT. Adds a requirement for backflow preventors on fire suppression systems to have a detector (water meter) installed unless the fire code official approves an exception in consultation with the water supply utility. Comment: The public drinking water system is regulated by Federal, State, and Local rules. The Federal and State requirements are the purview of the Iowa DNR who inspects drinking water systems at least every three years. These inspections include review of backflow prevention. The Iowa City system has known older "grandfathered" systems not in compliance with existing code. These systems present a risk to the public's drinking water system due to their potential to backflow harmful contaminates. (See Waterville, ME AFFF injection into the drinking water system May 23,2023 and IDNR Sanitary Surveys) Additionally, these systems are unmetered. Inspection of facilities has found unauthorized connection points for garden hoses and other devices. Detector backflow preventors will allow for annual recording of water use on the fire lines to prevent unauthorized use with a relatively low unit cost increase (—$200) versus requiring a large diameter fire -rated water meter. This section will ensure new installations have a detector backflow preventor and to work with "grandfathered" systems on a case -by -case basis to bring their system into compliance. 913.6 LOCAL AMMENDMENT. Adds a requirement that new and existing fire pumps be installed or retrofitted with devices that will prevent contamination of the City's water system when the pump is activated in an emergency event. Comment: Like the 903.3.5 discussion, this section is the result of Iowa DNR inspection requirements and noted deficiencies, as well as real -world situations that cause public drinking water system to sustain less than 20 psi system -wide due to private fire main break supplied by large fire pumps. The result if left uncorrected, will be a significant deficiency, public notice, and a legal requirement to make a change. This section will ensure new installations have suction pressure sustaining devices and to work with "grandfathered" systems on a case -by -case basis to bring their system into compliance. Appendix O ADDITION — Vallet Trash and Recycling Collection in Group R-2 Occupancies. Appendix O now allows valet trash service in apartment buildings. This addition allows renters to place a small trash can in the hallway for up to six hours. The cans are emptied. The empty can only remain for 12 hours. DRAFT MINUTES IOWA CITYBOARD OFAPPEALS FEBRUARY 7, 2025 — 8:OOAM EMMA J HARVAT HALL, CITYHALL 410 E. WASHINGTON STREET IOWA CITY, IA 52240 MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Martin, Thomas McInerney, GT Karr MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrea French STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Stan Laverman (Sr. Housing Inspector), Tim Hennes (Sr. Building Inspector), Troy Roth (Fire Marshal) OTHERS PRESENT: Eric Schmitt RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: By a vote of 3-0 the Board recommends to Council the adoption of the 2024 Building Codes as amended. By a vote of 3-0 the Board recommends to Council the adoption of the 2024 Fire Codes as amended. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 8:OOAM. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: January 15, 2025 Board of Appeals minutes MOTION: McInerney moved to approve the minutes from the January 15, 2025 Board of Appeals meeting. Seconded by Karr. VOTE: Motion passed 3-0 HEAR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A HOUSING CODE PROVISION: (3042 Muscatine Ave. and 913 Willow St.) Eric Schmitt (Midstates Development) doing business as Autumn Park has these two properties and are requesting variance requests from 17-5-1 BP regarding a deadbolt. Schmitt stated Midstate recently, within the last three years, did install new doors which are currently within HUD regulations and they did attach a copy of those regulations and the INSPIRE (National Standards for Physical Inspection of Real Estate). He stated adding deadbolts would damage the doors under the HUD standards, which would potentially require replacement of all 64 doors and be a significant expense. The property is already secured as there are locks to get into the main property and of course the regular lock to get into each dwelling unit. To add deadbolts, if they could even do that and stay within HUD standards, the cheapest quote they were able to get stated the cost would be $16,000 to update all 64 units. Schmitt stated they are requesting a variance due to the difficulty and expensive hardship and that the units are already secured from the outside. They feel it's within the spirit of the code for variance to be granted. Martin noted they had just replaced the doors recently, within three years. Schmitt confirmed that yes within the last three years all 64 doors were put in and they're all fire rated per the HUD standards. Board of Appeals January 15, 2025 Page 2 of 6 Martin asked if this is a new item in the code for 2024, that each door has to have a deadbolt. Hennes replied it is a housing code violation. Karr asked about damaging the door by adding a hole to the door. Schmitt explained that because these are all rent controlled units, it's not feasible to raise rent to recover this significant expense of replacing all these doors and to install a deadbolt to the existing doors would void the warranty for the fire code doors that are HUD approved. Hennes noted they have seen situations like this before and if it's a rated door the company that's rating it will allow alterations with approval from them. Hennes asked if the $16,000 just for adding locks or replacement of all the doors. Schmitt stated that was the contractor quote for adding locks and didn't include certifying the doors remain fire rated. The quote for $64,000 was for replacing all the doors. Laverman stated the housing code was changed in 2018 and this was part of a broader look at some code issues. In Iowa City they get a lot of requests to make secured buildings, and that's one of the things that they have resisted because they've seen issues with secured buildings and the main door being locked, it's a pain for delivery drivers and such. So the City's response was to put that level of security at the unit door and they've found that it's been pretty successful. With those doors being replaced in the last three years, Laverman appreciated Midstate looking up the HUD regulations to know what they needed, however this should have also had a building permit, and at that time City staff would have been happy to share what the requirement was. He noted they are also getting complaints from residents of the property who feel that they're getting broken into. Laverman acknowledged the intent of the code change was to provide security at that unit level but over the last few years this building has changed, as well as the clientele who are living there, previously this was a 55 and older building and it's no longer 55 and older, so there is an ask by residents of the building to have greater security. Karr asked if there is a record of the number of tenants that have asked for that or have there been police reports documented. Laverman stated police calls are all over the place, they can be medical calls and all other things. He showed a picture of the front door with the trespass notices noting that's also them trying to be accountable and to keep only registered tenants in there, but that's also a sign that maybe they need to move to that level of security to the doors. Laverman explained the city of Iowa City rental inspections issues the rental permit and is the governing body but they also have HUD Department officials that are going to do inspections on this and that is a separate inspector from HUD. Karr asked who has the ultimate jurisdiction if there is a conflict as far as inspections. Laverman stated they to be in compliance with the Iowa City housing code. Hennes noted HUD standards do not prohibit deadbolts, they do not require them, but they do not prohibit. Laverman stated the Inspire standard is new and certain states have modified codes to require deadbolts but at a federal level it is not required. Martin asked about the four criteria that have to be met for variances and if they have to meet all four or just any one of the four. Dulek replied all four. McInerney stated the four criteria are (1) that there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in carrying out a strict letter of any notice or order, (2) due to the arbitrary particular circumstances presented, the effect of the application of the provisions would be arbitrary in the specific case, (3) an extension would not constitute an appropriate remedy for the practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in its arbitrary effect and, (4) such variances in harmony with the general purpose intent of this chapter in securing the public's health, safety and general welfare. Board of Appeals January 15, 2025 Page 3 of 6 McInerney noted criteria one stated it might be a practical difficulty but not unnecessary, he also highlighted arbitrary and stated number four talks about safety and there's a factor that a deadbolt is safety and synonymous with a with a secure door. Martin understands there's a practical difficulty and it's not an insignificant amount of money to meet this but are there particular circumstances here where this would be arbitrary, it seems like it's kind of an across the board thing in general. McInerney stated it's been presented as a claim that there's been issues in that location and neighborhood. Martin agreed it understandable having 64 or 32 people in a building that is not a totally secure. McInerney is struggling to see how this variance is arbitrary to safety, and it's an enhancement to the code that is a local jurisdiction. He also noted it's been in the code for six years. Karr doesn't think they can meet all four of criteria, number one as a landlord he would want the deadbolt there and wouldn't want a variance to have the liability issue if something bad happens, he would want to know that they at least tried everything. He noted it's also a reality of this is why codes are complicated and why building permits are needed, to find out what is needed before the work is done. From a practical manner he has a hard time justifying that all four of these are met. Karr stated regarding voiding the fire rating they could contact the door manufacturer and might get a pass on that and not have to go the $64,000 door replacement route. Bottom line is all four of these criteria are not met, safety trumps all of this and that's why there is a code. MOTION: McInerney moved to deny a variance for this specific case. Seconded by Karr. VOTE: 3-0 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL REGARDING THE ADOPTION OF THE 2024 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING AND FIRE CODES: Hennes presented that every three years the code goes through a new cycle and they are to that point where they're looking at the 2024 Edition of the Building Code. Hennes prepared a memo in the agenda packet identifying some of the main points which he will review. The first one is R302.5.1 which is a requirement for the house to garage door be self -closing, the change is that they have eliminated that requirement as it has led to a lot of callbacks, and this change doesn't require them to not do it, they can still do it. R302.13 is a requirement that the under -floors of unfinished basements must be drywalled and this takes that out with the exception of square footage for the mechanical room, but now someone can have an unfinished basement without a drywalled ceiling. R321.2 maintains a requirement to install guards on windows. This was put in the code several cycles ago the requirement is if a window distance is less than 24 inches to the floor that there is limiting opening, limiting devices on it or a guard in front of it. This requirement is being reestablished as the window manufacturers have now had time to adjust to that requirement and are now manufacturing windows with opening limited devices on them. R309 is the requirement to delete fire sprinkling systems in the International Residential Code. Hennes explained that some jurisdictions do require that over a certain number of townhouses fire sprinkling systems are necessary, but this will kept it out of the IRC completely because the IRC regulates single family, two-family dwellings and townhouse construction. Board of Appeals January 15, 2025 Page 4 of 6 R310.4 is the requirement to not need to interconnect smoke detectors, unless someone was removing the ceilings and had access to that. But now with technology and wireless connections in the smoke and fire alarm industry the City felt it important to put the requirement of interconnected smoke detectors back in the code. R320.3 is the requirement for universal design standards that was put in back in the early 2000s and there were eight items. Item number eight, which required an outlet for garage door openers was removed as they haven't seen a house built yet that does not have an outlet for a garage door opener, but the other seven standards remain. R328 is regarding swimming pool and spas. The City regulates swimming pool and spas through the National Electrical Code and the zoning code, which requires fences, so it's not needed to be enforced in this section. Hennes moved onto Chapter Nine and noted that chapter is where the building code and the fire code sync up. These next two items are new and are regarding the public drinking water systems to help regulate and make sure that the system stays safe with back flow prevention. This consists of having a device put on the meter to get an annual recording of water use on the fire lines. The other item is fire pumps, currently when they run these fire pumps they're draining back into the line and not siphoning the system into a potable water system so 913.6 will require existing fire pumps be retrofitted with devices to prevent this water contamination. Hennes next moved on to the adoption of the appendices, the first is to adopt a radon control method, currently many homebuilders are already using the passive system for radon, this appendix is just to mandate it as it isn't enforceable unless adopted. Hennes checked with central Iowa jurisdictions, and most of eastern Iowa does the passive system for radon. He noted Iowa is a heavy radon state. McInerney noted when he had his house built it was under this code and then he found out that he had 16 times the radon levels that was permitted still in his house and had to add the fan to get it gone. Hennes confirmed that's exactly why they wanted it adopted, it's less expensive to do it at the time of the build. Karr had two quick questions regarding the window requirement, one is how is that going to be enforced when it's a window retrofit and it's not necessarily being inspected. Hennes said that would be address in the next item, appendix BO, which is existing buildings and structures and that does talk about egress windows and things like that. Karr noted it also pertains to the fire and smoke and they don't always require building permits so there's nothing that would trigger that interaction. How do they get everybody to actually meet the code if they're not inspecting it. Hennes acknowledged that's a good point and that they don't have a mechanism. He did note however that contractors are good about calling and asking about requirements on egress and stuff. By adopting appendix BO, the existing building does allow leniency in some of the retro fits with existing windows and again this only applies for windows that are below 24 inches. Karr's other question was on the R310.4 and when will they be pulling the building permit. Hennes stated again they would only be able to enforce that when a building permit is required so if someone is putting a new deck on the outside, they don't go into the existing house, and the only time the building code or the residential code, goes into an existing structure and requires something outside the footprint of the work being done is smoke detectors. Hennes moved on to the adoption of Appendix K of the International Building Code to allow jurisdictions to implement and enforce the National Electrical Code while using administrative Board of Appeals January 15, 2025 Page 5 of 6 provisions that are consistent with the International Code Council family of codes. This will allow them to reference the State Electrical Code without needing a separate ordinance to lay out administrative provisions. He explained the existing building code was adopted by reference and specifically says if they're doing an existing building they shall review and enforce to the existing building code. The energy code is a State mandate, and they are limited to the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code. The Accessibility Code is based on the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design and requirements of the federal Fair Housing Act. Since Hennes has been with the City they have been allowing designers to just worry about the federal and the state, which they are obligated to enforce to anyway and don't complicate it with anything local. The plumbing and mechanical codes are also regulated by the State but the City does have an administrative provision which allows the Board of Appeals the issuance of permits and things like that, which is the same with the electrical code they aren't together because it's two different divisions in the State code. Hennes stated that is all on the building side, if the Board would like to make a motion to adopt the changes. MOTION: Karr moved to recommend to Council the adoption of the 2024 Building Codes as amended. Seconded by McInerney. VOTE: 3-0 Roth stated that the fire code is updated every three years and its Iowa City's desire to keep the fire code and the building code on the same version. Chapter nine of the building code is almost identical to chapter 10 of the fire code so if they don't keep them on the same version, it could cause differing rules. Roth noted this addition to the 2024 the changes are minimal, and he would just highlight some of the things that stood out to him. First, the scooters and micro mobility devices are prolific in town and obviously, Iowa City supports those less engines running more electrical but to date it was never addressed in the fire code so this new section regulates the use and re -charging of micromobility devices in apartment complexes and businesses. 903,3.1.2 is a modification to the NFPA 13R in that apartment complexes that are four stories tall or less are allowed to have the residential version of the sprinkler system which is much less cost than the full version of the sprinkler system. This modification also deletes the height requirement for sprinklers and just go with the new stories' requirement. Roth stated long ago schools weren't sprinklered and they required a standpipe on stages with a hose because of the extreme flammability of the large curtain. 905.3.4 deletes that because schools now have to be sprinklered. 903.3.5 is one of items Hennes discussed, it is a local amendment that all sprinkler systems have back flow prevention. Roth explained when the fire truck comes up and hooks to the building, the pressure that they put into the building will overpower the municipal system so to prevent PFAS and bad particles from the fire truck from going backwards into the potable system, they all have backflow prevention. Additionally, the Water Department is concerned that there could be hidden leaks in the sprinkler system and sprinkled water is not metered. This then puts a back flow preventer that allows a meter to be put in and doesn't restrict the flow of the fire water. The City has no intention of charging for fire water, this is just to help detect systems that have a chronic leak that's hidden. Roth reviewed 913.6 noting it was another item Hennes already discussed, Roth explained they have some large manufacturing plants that have their underground loop after the fire pump, so they have the ability of 3500 plus gallons per minute, and if that that fire line breaks underground there's no back pressure. If one sprinkler head went off, it would be minimal, but if the fire line underground Board of Appeals January 15, 2025 Page 6 of 6 breaks there is the possibility of 3700 gallon a minute which instantly takes the City's system down and then they'd be under a boil order. The NFPA does allow certain devices that will make certain that these large facilities can't pull the municipal system too low and cause harm to the municipal system. This is a community risk reduction effort and the City is getting pressure from the DNR to take steps to better protect the potable system. Roth explained Appendix O is a new appendix and interesting, it's catching up to what's happening all over the US already. With valet trash service they have to have an approved container so this addition allows renters to place a small trash can in the hallway for up to six hours. The cans are emptied and then the empty cans can only remain in the hallways for 12 hours. The fire department, in discussions with the building department and housing department, decided that they're going to try it and allow appendix O into the fire code. McInerney had a question, Section 307.1.2 states hours of operation for outdoor burning allowed by this code is permitted between the hours of 7am and 11 pm, is that just fire pits. Roth confirmed it is just the fire pits, burning of leaves, burning of grass, burning of wood, or waste of any kind is prohibited. The City does support prairie grass burning but they need to come to him and get a permit for that. Hennes noted Roth brings up two good examples of why he thinks it's important that they update the code every three years. He remembers going to code update classes or seminars on the power micro mobility devices and in bigger cities where people are relying on the E bikes and everything they're putting up racks now for all their batteries in mechanical rooms and this is gives the City the opportunity to think about how they should deal with that. The other one is the valet trash, that is an example of society moving forward and the code being three years behind. Both are examples of how the code adapts to society. Martin does question if the micro mobility devices is for commercial buildings or residential as well. Roth explained the fire code is only for commercial buildings, and everything else residential the fire code only applies to the exterior wall and can dictate the water supply. MOTION: McInerney moved to recommend to Council the adoption of the 2024 Fire Codes as amended. Seconded by Karr. VOTE: 3-0 ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Karr moved to adjourn meeting. Seconded by McInerney. VOTE: Motion passed 3-0. Meeting adjourned at 8:45am. Chairperson, Board of Appeals Date Prepared by: Troy Roth, Fire Marshal, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 Ordinance No. 25- 4949 Ordinance amending Title 7, Chapter 1, Fire Prevention and Protection, by adopting the 2024 edition of the International Fire Code to regulate and govern the safeguarding of life and property from fire, explosion, life safety risks, or health hazards. Wherefore, the Iowa City Fire Code codified in Title 7, Chapter 1 of the Iowa City Code consists of the 2021 edition of the International Fire Code along with local amendments; and Whereas, the International Code Council publishes updated codes every three years, and it is in the best interest of the City to adopt the 2024 edition of the International Fire Code along with local amendments. Now, therefore be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. Amendments. 1. Title 7, Section 1, entitled, "Fire Code Adopted," is hereby deleted and the following new Section 1 is inserted in lieu thereof: That a certain document, one (1) copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Iowa City, being marked and designated as the International Fire Code, 2024 edition, including errata and Appendix Chapters B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, N and O as published by the International Code Council, be and is hereby adopted as the Fire Code of the City of Iowa City, in the State of Iowa regulating and governing the safeguarding of life and property from fire and explosion hazards arising from the storage, handling and use of hazardous substances, materials and devices, and from conditions hazardous to life or property in the occupancy of buildings and premises as herein provided, providing for the issuance of permits and each, and all of the regulations, provisions, penalties, conditions and terms of said Fire Code on file in the office of the City Clerk are hereby referred to, adopted and made a part hereof, as if fully set out in this ordinance, with the additions, insertions, deletions and changes, prescribed in the following sections of this ordinance. 2. Title 7, Section 2, entitled "Amendments to Fire Code," is deleted in its entirety and the following new Section 2 is inserted in lieu thereof: That the following sections are hereby revised: Section 101.1 Insert: Iowa City, Iowa Section 103.1 Insert: Iowa City Fire Department Section 104.1.1 Add a new section to read as follows: The Fire Code Official and members of the fire prevention bureau shall have the powers of a peace officer in performing their duties under this Code. Section 104.1.2 Add a new section to read as follows: The Fire Chief may appoint and designate such members of the Fire Department as fire/police investigators upon being certified Ordinance No. 25-4949 Page 2 by the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy. Fire/police investigators shall have the powers of a peace officer in performing their duties under this Code, including full powers of arrest to effectuate their duties of enforcing city ordinances and state statutes. Notwithstanding his/her status as a peace officer, a fire/police investigator shall be subject to the rules and regulations of the Iowa City Fire Department for all purposes and shall perform such functions as the Fire Chief shall assign. Section 104.12 Add a new section to read as follows: The Fire Code Official is authorized to order an operation or use stopped, or the evacuation of any premises, building, or vehicle or portion thereof which has or is a fire, life safety or health hazard. Section 105.2 Add a sentence to the end of the section to read as follows: Application for an operational permit shall be submitted with all required information not less than 14 days prior to the event requiring a permit. Section 105.5 Add a sentence to the end of the section to read as follows: The Fire Code Official at their discretion shall send plans for operational permits requests to an outside agency for review. The Fire Code Official shall choose the plans review agency. The applicant shall pay all fees associated with the plan review directly to the outside agency. The permit shall not be issued until the review fees have been paid. Section 105.6 Add a sentence to the end of the section to read as follows: The Fire Code Official at their discretion may send plans for operational permits requests to an outside agency for review. The Fire Code Official shall designate the plans review agency. The applicant shall pay all fees associated with the plan review directly to the outside agency. The permit shall not be issued until all fees have been paid. Section 112. Delete in its entirety and insert in lieu thereof: See Title 17, Chapter 12 of this Code. Section 113.4 Delete the section and replace with: Persons who shall violate a provision of this code or shall fail to comply with any of the requirements thereof or who shall erect, install, alter, repair or do work in violation of the approved construction documents or directive of the fire code official, or of a permit or certificate used under provisions of this code, shall be guilty of a simple misdemeanor or municipal infraction, as prescribed in Title 1, Chapter 4 of this Code. Each day that a violation continues after due notice has been served shall be deemed a separate offense. Section 114.4. Delete the section and replace with: Any person who shall continue any work after having been served with a stop work order, except such work as that person is directed to perform to remove a violation or unsafe condition and shall be guilty of a simple misdemeanor or municipal infraction, as prescribed in Title 1, Chapter 4 of this Code. Section 202 Add a new definition to read as follows: Crowd Manager. Crowd Manager is responsible for safe crowd movement during daily activities and special events, means of egress, assisting venue occupants, and overseeing emergency response and evacuation plans. Section 202 Add a new definition to read as follows: Emergency Communications Center. The Johnson County Joint Emergency Communications Center. (JCJECC) Ordinance No. 25-4949 Page 3 Section 202 Add a sentence to the end of Fire Lane definition to read as follows: See City Code 9-1-1 for additional rules and regulations. Section 307 See also 6-6 of this Code. Section 307.1.2 Add a new section to read as follows: Hours of operation. Outdoor burning allowed by code is permitted between the hours of 7:00 AM and 11:00 PM or as permitted and approved by the fire code official. Section 308.3 Add number 4: Outdoor assembly spaces are allowed to be provided with natural gas fueled fire pit appliances complying with the applicable adopted codes and manufacturer's listing. Section 401.9 Add a new section to read as follows: Building evacuation. Upon activation of the building fire alarm system or upon notification by other means of detecting and reporting unwanted fire, all building occupants shall promptly evacuate the building. Building employees and tenants shall implement the appropriate emergency plan and procedures. Exception: When the emergency evacuation plan, as approved by the fire code official, does not require the immediate total evacuation of the building. Table 405.3 Fire and Evacuation Drill Frequency and Participation. Amend Table 405.3 by adding a footnote d to Group E Occupancy as follows: d. Group E occupancies shall conduct fire and evacuation drills in accordance with State of Iowa requirements. Section 505.1. Delete Section 505.1 in its entirety and insert in lieu thereof the following: 505.1 New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. Address identification characters shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall not spelled out. Numbers shall be sized as specified in Table 505.1. Measurements to determine the minimum number size shall be measured from the approved address location to the center line of the street for which the premises is addressed. Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address identification shall be maintained. Table 505.1 RA;.,;At4r4rocc Ci-7o a,b,c,d IVIIIIIIIIVIII /-IV VII,JJ VILV Distance from the centerline of the Public Way (ft) Minimum Height (in) Minimum Stroke Width (in) Less than 100 4 1/2 100 199 6 3/4 200 299 8 1 For each additional 100 Increase 2 Increase 112 a) Exterior suite identification, minimum height shah oe 4 inches ana strOKe wiain snap Uu '/2 inch. b) Interior suite identification, minimum height shall be 3 inches and stroke width shall be inch. c) Measurements to determine the minimum number or letter size shall be measured from the approved Ordinance No. 25-4949 Page 4 address location to the center line of the street for which the premise is addressed. d) Minimum height and minimum stroke may be increased by the Fire Code Official. Section 505.3 Add a new section to read as follows: Addresses for Buildings under Construction. Upon permit issuance, all new commercial and residential buildings under construction shall have plainly visible addresses from the street. Additional address signage may be required at the discretion of the code official. Section 506.1 Add a sentence to the end of the section to read as follows: An approved key box shall be installed in an approved location on all new construction. Section 507.3 Delete the section and replace with: Fire flow. Fire flow requirements for buildings or portions of buildings shall be determined by "Appendix B" of this code. Section 507.5.1 Delete exceptions 1 & 2. Section 507.5.1.1 Delete the section and replace with: Fire Sprinkler System & Standpipe System Support. A fire hydrant shall be located no more than 100 feet from a fire sprinkler or standpipe system connection on hard surface, located on the same side of the fire department access road, easily accessible by fire apparatus, and meeting the approval of the Fire Code Official. Exception: The location of the fire hydrant may be modified by approval of the Fire Code Official. Section 507.5.7 Add a new section to read as follows: Fire Hydrant Installation Section 507.5.7.1 Add a new section to read as follows: Fire hydrant outlet direction: All fire hydrants shall be positioned so that the four and one-half (4 1/2) inch connection is facing the street or driveway accessible to fire department apparatus or as specified and required by the local water jurisdiction. Section 507.5.7.2 Fire hydrants threads: All new fire hydrants within the limits of the city of Iowa City shall have National Standard Threads (NST) on the two and one-half (2 1/2) inch connections and the four and one-half (4 1/2) inch connection will have a Storz connection as specified and required by the local water jurisdiction. Section 507.5.7.3 Flow: The minimum flow requirements for a water main serving a fire hydrant is the rate of water flow, at a residual pressure of twenty pounds per square inch (20psi) and for a specified duration, as specified in appendix B of this code or as specified and required by the local water jurisdiction. Section 507.5.7.4 Add a new section to read as follows: Fire hydrant height: Fire hydrants shall be installed a minimum of sixteen (16) inches from the nominal ground level to the center of the lowest water outlet or as specified and required by the local water jurisdiction. Section 510.1 Delete exception 1 & 4. Section 604.8. Add a new section to read as follows: Elevator equipment signage. New and existing buildings with an elevator shall have an approved, visible sign located next to the elevator key box stating the location of the elevator equipment room and elevator power shut- off. Ordinance No. 25-4949 Page 5 Section 604.6.1 Delete section and replace with: Elevator key location. Keys for the elevator car doors and fire-fighter service keys shall be kept in an approved elevator key box in an approved location by the Fire Code Official for immediate use by the fire department. Section 606.4 Delete the last sentence and replace with: Movement of new and existing cooking appliances with caster(s) under a Type 1 hood shall be limited by an approved floor mounted restraining device and flexible gas connector installed in accordance with the connector and appliance manufacturer's instructions. Section 606.5 Add a new section to read as follows: Required separation. All deep -fat fryers shall be installed with at least 16- inch space between the fryer and surface flames from adjacent cooking equipment. Where a steel or tempered glass baffle plate is installed at a minimum 8-inch height between the fryer and surface flames to the adjacent appliance, the requirement for a 16-inch space shall not apply. Section 606.6 Add a new section to read as follows: Kitchen Hood Exhaust Fan Requirement. New and existing Type I hood kitchen hood exhaust/up blast fans shall be installed with listed hinges, weatherproof electrical cable, a hold open retainer for servicing and cleaning and grease containment. Section 803.16 Add a new section to read as follows: Maintenance. The interior finish of buildings shall be maintained in accordance with the conditions of original approval. Any change to the interior finish that is regulated by the provisions of this code or the building code shall be made in accordance with all applicable requirements. Section 807.5.2.1 Delete exception 2. Section 807.5.5.1 Delete exception 2 Section 901.2 (a) Add a new section to read as follows: Water based fire protection systems. Working plans submitted to the fire department for water -based fire protection systems shall be stamped and approved by a qualified person to be in compliance with applicable NFPA standards and the Iowa City Fire Code. Any changes to the working plans shall be approved by a qualified person. A qualified person shall have a minimum National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies [NICET] Level III certification for Automatic Sprinkler System Layout OR be a licensed engineer with experience in life safety system design. Other qualifications may be approved by the Fire Code Official. Section 901.2 (b) Add a new section to read as follows: Fire alarm systems. Working plans submitted to the fire department by a qualified person for fire alarm systems shall be stamped and approved by a qualified person to be in compliance with applicable NFPA standards and the Iowa City Fire Code. Any changes to the working plans shall be approved by a qualified person. A qualified person shall have a minimum National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies [NICET] Level III certification for Fire Alarm Systems OR be a licensed engineer with experience in life safety system design. Other qualifications may be approved by the Fire Code official. Section 901.4.7.3. Add a sentence to the end of the section to read as follows: The fire pump room or automatic sprinkler riser room shall have a supervised room temperature sensor. Ordinance No. 25-4949 Page 6 Section 901.4.7.4. Add a sentence to the end of the section to read as follows: Emergency lighting shall be provided in the fire pump room or automatic sprinkler riser room. Section 901.6.3.2 Add a new section to read as follows: Inspection record submission. Contractors who perform installation, inspection, testing, and/or maintenance services on fire and life safety systems are required to electronically submit all installation and compliant & non- compliant inspection reports to the Fire Department via a method approved by the Fire Code Official within 30 calendar days of the installation/inspection date. Reports submitted after 30 calendar days may incur late fees. Section 901.7 Add a section to the end of the section to read as follows: A person assigned to fire watch must walk through the building at least once every 30 minutes checking for fire or smoke. A fire watch must be continued until the fire alarm system and/ or fire protection system has been restored to normal operating condition or by approval of the Fire Code Official, the building has been evacuated and secured. A competent adult familiar with the building must conduct the fire watch. If a fire is discovered, 911 shall be called immediately and the building evacuated. Section 903.3.5 Delete the section and replace with: Water supplies for automatic sprinkler systems shall comply with this section and the standards referenced in Section 903.3.1. The potable water supply shall be protected against backflow in accordance with the requirements of this section and the International Plumbing Code. The backflow preventor shall include a detector (water meter) unless the Fire Code Official approves an exception in consultation with the water supply utility. For connections to public waterworks systems, the water supply test used for design of fire protection systems shall be adjusted to account for seasonal and daily pressure fluctuation based on information from the water supply authority and as approved by the Fire Code Official. Section 903.3.5.1 Delete this section and replace with: A single domestic and automatic fire sprinkler system water supply. If the city water provider requires a single domestic and automatic fire sprinkler system supply, then the water supply shall be split outside of the building and shall have a shutoff provided for the domestic service after the split outside of the building. The total domestic demand is required to be added to the fire sprinkler demand. Section 903.3.5.2 Delete this section and replace with: Water supply safety margin. The fire sprinkler system hydraulically calculated demand per NFPA 13 or NFPA 13R including required hose stream allowances, and domestic water demand if required by section 903.3.5.1, must be a minimum 10%, but not less than 5 psi below the water supply flow test curve, the flow test must have been conducted within 90 days of fire sprinkler plan submittal to the city and third party reviewer (if applicable) or as deemed current and approved by the local water jurisdiction. The base of riser psi at the time of acceptance test shall also be 10% but not less than 5 psi above the most demanding hydraulically calculated pressure. Section 903.4.1 Delete exception number 5 without substitution. Section 903.4.3 Delete the section and replace with: Alarms. An approved weatherproof horn/strobe device shall be mounted directly above the fire department connection between seven (7) and ten (10) feet in height above grade. The water -flow alarm device shall be activated by water flow equivalent to the flow of a single sprinkler of the smallest orifice size installed in the system. Approved and supervised audible visual notification appliances shall be installed on each level of the interior of the building as required by the Fire Code Official and Ordinance No. 25-4949 Page 7 NFPA 72. Where a fire alarm system is installed, actuation of the automatic sprinkler system shall actuate the building fire alarm system. Exception: Automatic sprinkler systems protecting one- and two-family dwellings. Section 903.5.1 Add a new section to read as follows: Inspector's test valve. An inspector's test valve is required at the most remote location in each fire sprinkler system or tenant/floor control valve space, for use at the acceptance test and to remove air from the system after maintenance work is done on the system. Section 903.5.2 Add a new section to read as follows: Forward Flow Testing. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be provided with an external outlet to perform forward flow testing as required by NFPA 25. Control valve shall be supervised. The outlet shall be signed as testing and have male threads. Section 903.6 Add a new section to read as follows: Zones. Automatic sprinkler system zones shall not exceed the area permitted by NFPA 13 or NFPA 13R and shall provide a sprinkler control valve and waterflow device for each normally occupied floor. Except by approval of the Fire Code Official, all control and drain valves shall be located in the sprinkler riser room or in the stairwell of a multi -story building provided with standpipes, mounted no higher than 6 feet from floor. Section 903.7 Add a new section to read as follows: Drains. As required by the Fire Code Official, all drains and test piping serving automatic sprinkler systems and standpipes shall be pipped to the exterior of the building. Exception: Automatic sprinkler systems protecting one- and two-family dwellings. Section 904.14.6 Add a new section to read as follows: System Annunciation. Commercial cooking automatic fire extinguishing systems installed in buildings that do not have a fire alarm system, shall be connected to an approved audible and visible emergency notification device to warn of system discharge. The horn/strobe and signage shall be installed in a location approved by the Fire Code Official, typically in the kitchen. Section 904.16 Add a new section to read as follows: Ventilation Operation. The ventilation system shall shut down the make-up air to the hood and continue to exhaust upon activation of the hood fire extinguishing system. Section 905.1.1 Add a new section to read as follows: Delete all references to Class II standpipe systems and replace with Class III standpipe systems. Section 905.3.8 Add a new section to read as follows: Additional Standpipe Systems: Additional standpipe systems may be added to new buildings or structures as deemed necessary by the Fire Code Official. Section 905.4 Requirement #1 Delete the section and replace with: In every required interior exit stairway, a hose connection shall be provided for each story above and below grade plane. Hose connections shall be located at intermediate landing between stories, unless otherwise approved by the Fire Code Official. Section 906.1 Item 1. Delete exceptions 1, 2 & 3. Section 906.1 Delete exception. Ordinance No. 25-4949 Page 8 Section 906.3 Add a sentence to the end of the section to read as follows: The minimum rating of any required portable fire extinguisher for Class A, Class B, or Class C hazard shall be 2-A, 10-B C. Section 907.1.4 Add a new section to read as follows: Fire alarm control panels and Fire alarm annunciator panels. Installation of fire alarm control panels and fire alarm annunciator panels shall be installed in accordance with section 907.1.4.1 through 907.1.4.5. Section 907.1.4.1 Add a new section to read as follows: Fire Alarm Panel Height: Installation of fire alarm panels shall not exceed 6 feet in height measured from the floor to the top of the panel. Exception: Panel height may be altered by the Fire Code Official. Section 907.1.4.2 Add a new section to read as follows: Number of Fire Alarm Control Panels in Buildings: Only one listed fire alarm control panel shall be allowed per building and shall lock in the alarm until the system is reset and shall not be canceled by the operation of an audible - alarm silencing switch. This control panel shall only receive alarm signals from fire protection equipment. Section 907.1.4.3 Add a new section to read as follows: Combination Fire/Security Alarm System Panels. A listed combination fire/security alarm system panel that meets all the requirements of this code and amendments may be permitted by approval of the fire code official. The fire/security panel shall be capable of providing a signal that can differentiate between the fire and security alarm. Section 907.1.4.4 Add a new section to read as follows: Password/PIN Protection Prohibited: Fire alarm control panels and/or fire alarm annunciator panels that require a password/PIN to silence an alarm/supervisory/trouble signal and/or to reset an alarm/supervisory/trouble signal shall be prohibited. Section 907.1.4.5 Add a new section to read as follows: Fire Alarm Annunciator Panels: The Fire Code Official can require the addition of fire alarm annunciator panels based on the size of building and access to the building. These panels shall meet the requirements of Sections 907.1.4 and 907.2. Section 907.2 Delete the section and replace with: Where required - new buildings and structures. An approved and addressable manual, automatic, or manual and automatic fire alarm system installed in accordance with the provisions of this code and NFPA 72 shall be provided in new buildings and structures in accordance with Sections 907.2.1 through 907.2.23 and provide occupant notification in accordance with 907.5 unless other requirements are provided by another section of this code. Not fewer than one manual fire alarm box shall be provided in an approved location to initiate a fire alarm signal for fire alarm system employing automatic fire detectors or water -flow devices. Where other sections of this code allow elimination of fire alarm boxes due to sprinklers, a single fire alarm box shall be installed. Exceptions: 1) The manual fire alarm box is not required for fire alarm systems dedicated to elevator recall control and supervisory service. 2) The manual fire alarm box is required for Group R-2 occupancies to provide a means for fire watch personnel to initiate an alarm during a sprinkler system impairment event. The manual fire alarm box shall not be located in an area that is accessible to the public. Ordinance No. 25-4949 Page 9 3) Multi -tenant buildings required to have a manual/automatic fire alarms system shall install one manual pull station per tenant space. 4) Visual notification appliances are not required within self -storage units. Section 907.2.1.3 Add a new section to read as follows: Group A Occupancies. In Group A occupancies, the activation of the fire alarm or fire sprinkler system, shall automatically shut down or stop music, sound systems, conflicting or confusing sounds and visual distractions and initiate illumination of all the means of exit egress components. Section 907.2.9.1 Delete exception 2 without substitution. Section 907.2.11.2 Modify by adding a fourth location requirement as follows: 4. Supervised smoke detectors shall be installed in all common corridors and at the top and bottom of all stairway enclosures in Groups R-2, R-3, R-4, and 1-1 occupancies. In corridors, detectors shall be located within fifteen (15) feet of the end of the corridor and in such a way that one detector is located for each thirty (30) feet of corridor length or spaced as allowed by the code. Section 907.2.13.2 Delete the section without substitution. Section 907.4.2 Add a sentence to the end of the section to read as follows: Where in the opinion of the Fire Code Official manual fire alarm boxes may be used to cause false fire alarms, the Fire Code Official is authorized to modify the requirements for manual fire alarm boxes. Section 907.6.3 Delete this section and replace with: Initiating device identification. The fire alarm system shall identify the specific initiating device with an alphanumeric address description showing location, type of device, and status including indication of normal, alarm, trouble, and supervisory, as appropriate. Alphanumeric descriptions and locations shall be reported to the emergency communications center upon activation of an alarm condition as specified by the fire code official. Exception: 1. Special initiation devices that do not support individual device identification. Section 907.6.4 Modify by deleting the exception and inserting in lieu thereof: Exception: Automatic sprinkler system zones shall not exceed the area permitted by NFPA 13 and shall provide a sprinkler control valve and waterflow device for each normally occupied floor. Section 907.6.4.3 Add a section to read as follows: Zone and address location labeling. Fire alarm and/or annunciator panels shall have all zones and address points plainly and permanently labeled as to their location on the outside of the panel or on an easily readable map of the building, if no display is present. Section 907.6.6 Delete the section and replace with: Monitoring. Fire alarms required by this chapter, the International Building Code, or the Fire Code Official, an approved UL listed Central Station service in accordance with NFPA 72 shall monitor fire alarm systems to provide for the immediate and automatic notification to the emergency communications center. Each initiating device shall report an address point and an alpha/numeric descriptor showing location, type of device and status including indication of normal, alarm, trouble and supervisory status, as appropriate. Alpha/numeric descriptor shall be required to be reported to the emergency communications center upon activation of alarm conditions as specified by the fire code official. Ordinance No. 25-4949 Page 10 Exception: Monitoring by a supervising station is not required for: 1. Single- and multiple -station smoke alarms required by Section 907.2.11. 2. Smoke detectors in Group 1-3 occupancies. 3. Automatic sprinkler systems in one- and two-family dwellings 4. Fire alarm systems in one- and two-family dwellings Section 907.7.4 Add a new section to read as follows: Device/Zone Map. An easily readable fire alarm device and/ or zone map of the building shall be permanently mounted in or near the fire alarm control panel and documentation cabinet showing the location of all initiating devices when required by the fire code official. Section 907.11 Add a new section to read as follows: Approved hold open devices. When installed in buildings that have a fire alarm system and/or sprinkler system, all approved hold open devices shall release upon activation of a fire alarm and/or sprinkler water -flow activation. Section 912.4.1 Delete the section and replace with: Locking fire department connection caps. Locking fire department connection caps approved by the Fire Department are required for all new construction that have a water -based fire protection system and existing structures that have a water -based fire protection system shall be required immediately after conducting the five-year obstruction and maintenance testing, or if one or more of the fire department caps are missing. Section 912.8 Add a section to read as follows: Fire Department Connection Height. The fire department connection shall be located not less than 18 inches from the bottom of the cap(s) and not more than 3 feet from the top of the cap(s) above the level of the adjacent grade or access level. Deviation from this height may be granted by the Fire Code Official for just cause. Section 912.9 Add a section to read as follows: Size. Minimum fire department connection (FDC) size shall be 2'/2" National Standard Thread Siamese connection. Section 913.6 Add a section to read as follows: All fire pumps shall be provided with a control device to maintain supply suction pressure greater than 20 psi. Suction pressure sustaining devices may include a discharge side suction pressure sustaining valve, a pump drive control system responsive to suction pressure (i.e. a VFD with pressure transducer), or a tank with associated fill circuit. Devices must be fire rated and installed per NFPA and utility standards. This section is retroactive and applicable to existing fire pumps. Plans to update existing systems or exceptions to the requirement will be at the discretion of the Fire Code Official in consultation with the water supply utility. Section 1023.4 Modify 1023.4 by adding a fourth unnumbered paragraph as follows: Fire door assemblies that provide access to a non -pressurized interior exit of R-2 occupancies shall also be automatic closing by actuation of a smoke detector. Section 1030.2 Add a second exception as follows: Exception: The main entrance/exit of A-2 occupancies shall be of a width that accommodates not less than two-thirds of the total occupant load. Section 1031.2 Modify 1031.2 by deleting the exceptions and inserting in lieu thereof the following: EXCEPTIONS: Ordinance No. 25-4949 Page 11 1. The emergency escape and rescue opening is permitted to open onto a balcony within an atrium in accordance with the requirements of Section 404 provided the balcony provides access to an exit and the dwelling unit or sleeping room has a means of egress that is not open to the atrium. 2. All group R-2 occupancies other than hotels, motels and buildings regulated by Section 403 must be provided with emergency escape & rescue openings, regardless of what Tables 1006.3.4(1) and 1006.3.4(2) allow 3. Emergency escape and rescue openings are not required from basements or sleeping rooms that have an exit door or exit access door that opens directly into a public way or to a yard, court or exterior exit balcony that opens to a public way. 4. Sleeping rooms in fire stations where the building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with 903.3.1.1. Section 1103.11 Add a new section to read as follows: Existing fire alarm systems monitoring requirements. Existing fire alarms systems that are currently not monitored by an approved UL listed Central Station shall become monitored within 1 year from receiving notice in accordance with section 907.6.6. Section 1103.12 Add a new section to read as follows: Existing sprinkler systems monitoring requirements. Existing sprinkler systems shall have all valves controlling the sprinkler system and water flow electrically supervised and monitored by an approved UL listed Central Station in accordance with sections 903.4 and 903.4.1 within 1 year from receiving notice. Section 5003.5 Add a sentence to the end of the section to read as follows: Signs shall also comply with the requirements of the Iowa Right to Know law. Section 5704.2.9 Add a sentence to the end of the section to read as follows: For aboveground storage tanks of 276 gallons capacity or more, the minimum distance between such aboveground tanks and any Residential Zone boundary must be at least 100 feet. If the aboveground tank is located in an approved vault, the minimum separation distance from a Residential Zone boundary may be reduced to no less than 50 feet. Section 5704.2.11.1 Add a #4 to the end of the section to read as follows: 4. A minimum distance of ten (10) feet shall be maintained between underground tanks and any Residential Zone boundary. Section 5704.2.13.2.4 Add a section to read as follows: Existing above -ground tank hazards. Existing above -ground tank installations, even if previously approved, that are determined to constitute a hazard by the fire code official, shall not be continued in service. Unsafe tanks shall be removed as required by the fire code official and in accordance with this code. That the geographic limits referred to in certain sections of the 2024 International Fire Code are hereby established as follows: Section 5704.2.9.6.1. The storage of Class I and Class II liquids in above -ground tanks outside of buildings is prohibited in the entire City of Iowa City, Iowa. Exception: Zones CI-1, 1-1, 1-2, RDP, ORP, P and/or as approved by the Fire Code Official. Ordinance No. 25-4949 Page 12 Section 5706.2.4.4. The storage of Class I and Class II liquids in above -ground tanks is prohibited in the entire City of Iowa City, Iowa. Exception: Zones CI-1, 1-1, 1-2, RDP, ORP, P and/or as approved by the Fire Chief. Section 6104.2. The storage of liquefied petroleum gas is prohibited in the entire City of Iowa City, Iowa. Exception: Zones CI-1, 1-1, 1-2, RDP, ORP, P and/or as approved by the Fire Chief. Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions 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 full force and effect after final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed an approved this 1st day of April Mayor Pro Tem Attest: City Clerk Approved by: City Attorney' ice (Sue Dulek — 02/26/2025) 2025. Ordinance No. 25-4949 Page i_ It was moved by Moe and seconded by Bergus that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x Alter x Bergus x Harmsen x Moe x Salih x Teague x Weilein First Consideration March 11, 2025 Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Moe, Harmsen, Salih, Teague NAYS: None ABSENT: None Second Consideration ----------------------- Vote for passage: Moved by Weilein , seconded by Moe , 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, Moe, Salih, Weilein NAYS: None ABSENT: Teague Date published April 10, 2025 Item Number: 10.c. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT April 1, 2025 Ordinance amending Title 9, entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapter 4, entitled "Parking Regulations," Section 11, entitled "Parking for People with Physical Disabilities," to define the required access aisle as a part of the parking space. (Second Consideration) Prepared By: Sarah Walz, Associate Transportation Planner Reviewed By: Kent Ralston, Transportation Planner Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood and Development Services Director Geoff Fruin, City Manager Susan Dulek, First Ass't. City Attorney Fiscal Impact: N/A Staff Recommendation: Approval Commission Recommendations: N/A Attachments: Ordinance Executive Summary: ADA-accessible parking spaces include specific features, such as access aisles leading to curb ramps, that make it easier for people with disabilities to travel between their parking space and adjacent buildings and sidewalks. The proposed change in the code is to clarify that the access aisle is an essential part of the accessible parking space. This will allow parking enforcement to ticket vehicles that park in or otherwise block the marked accessible aisle associated with a space designated for people with physical disabilities and those penalties would apply. Background / Analysis: This ordinance makes clear that the access aisle for an ADA-accessible parking space is considered part of the parking space so that vehicles parked in the access aisle may be ticketed and subject to fines associated with accessible spaces. Prepared by: Sarah Walz, Assoc. Transp. Planner, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240;319/356-5239 Ordinance No. 25-4950 Ordinance amending Title 9, entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapter 4, entitled "Parking Regulations," Section 11, entitled "Parking for People with Physical Disabilities," to define the required access aisle as a part of the parking space. Whereas, The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal law, enacted in 1990, that guarantees individuals with disabilities the same rights, access, and opportunities as those without disabilities; and Whereas, ADA-accessible parking spaces are designated within the public right-of-way and in parking areas to allow access for persons with disabilities to both public and private facilities; and Whereas, ADA-accessible parking spaces include specific features such as access aisles and curb ramps, which make it easier for people with disabilities to maneuver between the street or parking lot and adjacent uses; and Whereas, Section 321 L.1(7) of the Iowa Code, as amended, defines persons with disabilities parking space as "a parking space, including the access aisle, designated for use by only motor vehicles displaying a persons with disabilities parking permit...."; and Whereas, it is in the public interest to enforce the parking regulations in a manner that ensures these spaces remain clear and accessible to people with disabilities; and Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. Amendment 1. Title 9, entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapter 4, entitled "Parking Regulations," Section 11, entitled "Parking for People with Physical Disabilities," Subsection 6, is hereby amended by adding the underscore text as follows: No person shall stop, stand, or park a vehicle in any parking space designated and signed as reserved for the use of persons with physical disabilities, unless the vehicle displays an identification device issued pursuant to the code of Iowa, as amended. A marked access aisle leading to any parking space designated and reserved for the use of persons with physical disabilities shall be considered part of the parking space. 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. ordinance No. 25-4950 Page 2 Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon publication. Passed a approved this 1st day of April , 2025. Mayor Pro Tem Attest: � A�GiC:� City berk Approved by Z7 G City Attorney's Off e (Sue Dulek — 03/05/2025) Ordinance No. 25-4950 Page I — It was moved by Moe and seconded by Bergus that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x Alter x Bergus x Harmsen x Moe x Salih x Teague x Weilein First Consideration March 11, 2025 Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Moe, Harmsen, Salih, NAYS: None ABSENT: None Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Teague y Alter Moved b Weilein ,seconded by ,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, Moe, Salih, Weilein NAYS: None ABSENT: Teague Date published April 10 2025