Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-04-15 OrdinanceItem Number: 9.a. a CITY OF IOWA CITY "QF T-4 COUNCIL ACTION REPORT April 15, 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) (Second Consideration) Attachments: REZ24-0016 PZ Staff Report Final Attachments PZ 2.19.25 final minutes Ordinance & CZA Correspondence from Michael Welch, Shoemaker & Haaland 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 Doc ID: 032464280007 Type: GEN Kind: ORDINANCE Recorded: 04/24/2025 at 11:27:38 AM Fee Amt: $37.00 Paqe i of 7 Johnson County Iowa Kim Painter County Recorder BK6646 PG2 8 STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS JOHNSON COUNTY ) I, Kellie K. Grace, City Clerk of Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby certify that the Ordinance attached hereto is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 25-4951 which was passed by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at a regular meeting held on the 15th day of April 2025 is a true and correct copy, all as the same appears of record in my office. S+- Dated at Iowa City, Iowa, this J-1 day of April 2025. Kellie K. Grace City Clerk \ord 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET 9 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240-1826 • (319) 356-5000 0 YAX (.fly) 3J0-:)uVy Prepared by: Madison Conley, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5230 (REZ24-0016) Ordinance No. 25-4951 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. 25-4951 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 15th day of April , 2025. Mayor Attest: k City Clerk Approved by City Attor y's Office (Liz Craig — 03/27/2025) Ordinance No. 25-4951 Page 3 Alter Moe It was moved by and seconded by 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 April 1, 2025 Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Harmsen, Moe, Salih, Weilein NAYS: None ABSENT: Teague Second Consideration: -------------------"------ that It was moved by MOe , and seconded by Salih , 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, Teague, Weilein NAYS: None ABSENT: Date Published: April 24, 2025 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 Arda. , 2025. l of Iowa City l Teague, Mayor Attest: Kellie Grace, City Clerk St. Andrew Presbyterian Church By: 2 Approve City Attorney's Office City of Iowa City Acknowledgement: State of Iowa ) ss: Johnson County ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on April 15 , 2025 by Bruce Teague and Kellie Grace as Mayor and City Clerk, resp/eively, of the City of Iowa City. ►n/ ^// Notary Public in and for the State of a _ CONNIE MCCURDY (Stamp or Seal) o a` Commission Number 855110 _*�,* My Commission Expires Ipw� 104, 7 My commission St Andrew Presbyterian Church Acknowledgement: State of County of )�hnsoin This record was acknowledged before me on "" � %yv,K , 2025 by (name) as (I" - idy\ (title) of S.ndrew Presbyterian Church i JPublic i .e W"W RETT / ,� Commission Number 799548 My Commission Expires p Or Seal) • ow September 29, 2025 My commission expires: 3 Kellie Grace From: Madison Conley Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2025 4:43 PM To: *City Clerk's Office Cc: Michael Welch Subject: FW: Expedited Action - Rezoning for REZ24-0016 Camp Cardinal Blvd. & Melrose Ave Forwarding. =10WA C1W Madison Conley, CFM A UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE Associate Planner WWW.ICGOV.ORG p: 319-356-5132 0000 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 From: Michael Welch <mwelch@shoemaker-haaland.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2025 4:41 PM To: Madison Conley <MConley@iowa-city.org> Cc: Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.org>; Finance Administrator <finance@saintandrew-ic.org> Subject: RE: Expedited Action - Rezoning for REZ24-0016 Camp Cardinal Blvd. & Melrose Ave A RISK ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Hello Madison Can you help me get the request below to the city clerk? I tried sending it directly to the city clerk but apparently the email I had was incorrect. Thankyou! Michael Welch, PE Private Development Lead Shoemaker & Haaland Engineering 13D Scanning I Land Surveying D: 319.383. 7813 1 0: 319.351.7150 www.shoemaker-haaland.com From: Michael Welch Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2025 4:17 PM To: citvderk@iowa-city.or Cc: mconley@iowa-city.or�; Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.orC>; Finance Administrator <finance@saintandrew- iL. M> Subject: Expedited Action - Rezoning for REZ24-0016 Camp Cardinal Blvd. & Melrose Ave Hello On behalf of St Andrew Presbyterian Church, I would like to request that the council take expedited action on the current rezoning item, REZ24-0016, at the April 15th council meeting. Thankyou! Michael Welch, PE Private Development Lead 1 Shoemaker �7 Haaland Engineering 1 31) Scanning I Land Surveying D:319.383.7813 1 0:319.351.7150 www.shoemaker-haaland.com Item Number: 9.b. I, CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT April 15, 2025 Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 0.06 acres for a portion of the property located at 691 E. Foster Rd. from High Density Single -Family Residential zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12) to Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) zone. (REZ25-0003) Attachments: REZ25-0003 Staff Report Final w Attachments PZ 3.5.25 minutes REZ25-0003 Ordinance REZ25-0003 CZA STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ25-0003 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant/Owner: Contact Person: Prepared by: Madison Conley, Associate Planner Date: March 5, 2025 Foster Road Development, LLC 340 Herky St North Liberty, Iowa 52317 (319) 351-2028 gstiltner(a�stillnerelectric.com Ron Amelon MMS Consultants, Inc 1917 South Gilbert St Iowa City, Iowa, 52240 (319) 631-2703 r.amelon(a)-mmsconsultants.net Requested Action: Rezoning of 0.06 acres from High Density Single - Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12) zone to Low Density Single - Family Residential (RS-5) zone. Purpose: To rezone to a zone that provides consistency with Lot 25 Conway's Subdivision and to make it more appealing to a potential buyer. Location: Location Map: Size: Existing Land Use; Zoning: Surrounding Land Use; Zoning Portion of 691 E Foster Rd 0.06 Acres High Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12) North: Multi -Family Residential, OPD/RS-12 South: Vacant, High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12) K East: Single -Family, Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) West: Vacant and Multi -Family Residential, OPD/RS-12 Comprehensive Plan: Public/Private Open Space Neighborhood Open Space District: Foster Road North District Plan: Single-Family/Duplex Residential Public Meeting Notification: Property owners and occupants within 500' of the property received notification of the Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting. A rezoning sign was posted along St. Anne's Drive in front of the property that is for sale. File Date: January 27, 2025 45 Day Limitation Period: March 13, 2025 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The owner, Foster Road Development, LLC, is requesting approval for the rezoning of approximately 0.06 acres of land from High Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12) zone to Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) zone for a portion of the property located at 691 E Foster Rd. Concurrently with the rezoning, the owner has applied for a boundary line adjustment to increase the size of Lot 25 Conway's Subdivision. The proposed boundary line adjustment and rezoning will have impacts on Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates and Lot 25 Conway's Subdivision. The subject property is a part of Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates Subdivision. The boundary line adjustment request is to take 0.06 acres from Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates and move it to Lot 25 Conway's Subdivision. These two lots have two different zoning designations. To approve the boundary line adjustment, the zoning must be consistent. Hence the request for the rezoning. The map below shows Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates and Lot 25 Conway's Subdivision. Subdivision boundaries are show in purple. The area proposed to be rezoned is generally shown in the red dashed line. This area is also the area proposed to be part of Lot 25 with the boundary line adjustment application. 3 The applicant has indicated that the purpose of the proposed rezoning is to have consistent zoning on Lot 25 and to increase the size of Lot 25 to make it more appealing to potential buyers. That said, the subject property is located within a conservation easement and will not provide any additional development potential to a future buyer. In terms of case history, the subject property was rezoned and subdivided in 2017 and 2018. As of today, some of the land has been developed. Here's a summary: In 2017, a rezoning was approved for land located south of I-80 between Dubuque Street and Prairie Du Chien Road (including the subject property). That rezoning rezoned 50.11 acres to OPD/RS-12 zone and 3.18 acres to Commercial Office (CO-1) zone to allow for multifamily residential and office development (REZ17-00017). In 2018, the City adopted a resolution that approved the preliminary plat of Forest Hill Estates (SUB18- 00004 & Res. No 18-96) and the Final Plat for Forest Hill Estates was adopted in May 2018 (SUB18- 00008). The Final Plat includes a conservation easement that applies to the subject property. See Attachment 2. In 2024, a Major Site Plan for Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates was approved for a total of 5 buildings and 19 dwelling units. These units are currently under construction. Additionally, Lot 25 Conway's Subdivision was created with the final plat, which was recorded in 1953. Since the land was subdivided in 1953, Lot 25 has remained undeveloped and is a total of 8,755 square feet. A good neighbor meeting was not held for this rezoning. Attachment 3 includes the applicant submittal materials such as the Rezoning Exhibit and the Applicant Statement which describes the rationale behind the request. ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: The subject property is currently zoned OPD/RS-12. The purpose of the RS-12 CI zone is to provide for development of single-family dwellings, duplexes and attached housing units at a higher density than in other single- family zones. Properties zoned RS-12 allow townhome style multi -family with up to six units attached. The maximum height in this zone is 35'. An OPD was required due to impacts to sensitive areas and the mix of housing types proposed which includes a large-scale multi -family building that provides housing to seniors, as well as townhome style multi- family residential units. Proposed Zoning: The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property to the RS-5 zone. The intent of the RS-5 zone is to provide housing opportunities for individual households. The regulations allow for some flexibility of dwelling types to provide housing opportunities for a variety of household types. This zone also allows for some nonresidential uses that contribute to the livability of residential neighborhoods, such as parks, schools, religious institutions, and daycare facilities. Table 1 includes the minimum lot size required for detached single-family, duplexes, and attached single-family housing types in the RS-5 zone. Table 1. RS-5 Zoning Summary Minimum Lot Size (Sq. Ft. Detached single- family, including zero lot line 6,000 Duplexes 10,000 Attached single-family 5,000 Regardless of the zoning for the subject property no development will be allowed because it is located within an existing conservation easement. That said, the rezoning combined with the boundary line adjustment do change the land uses that are allowed on Lot 25 Conway's Subdivision. The proposed boundary line adjustment and rezoning of 0.06 acres (2,614 square feet) of the subject property would increase the square footage of Lot 25 to 11,369 square feet. With this increase, a duplex would be allowed. Attached single-family uses would also be possible; however, it would require a subdivision. Lastly, since the proposed zoning does not follow existing parcel boundaries, staff is recommending a condition that no building permit shall be issued for Lot 25 Conway's Subdivision until the City approves a boundary line adjustment that conforms to the proposed zoning boundaries. 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. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is reviewed to the North District Plan and the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Future Land Use Map of the North District Plan identifies the subject property appropriate for Single-Family/Duplex Residential. This land use designation is intended primarily for single family and duplex residential development. The development density in this zone is 2-8 dwelling units/acre. Lower density zoning designations are suitable for areas with sensitive environmental features, topographical constraints, or limited street access. The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map identifies the subject property as appropriate for Public/Private Open Space uses. 9 Additionally, the Housing element of the IC2030 Plan includes a goal aimed towards encouraging a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods. The plan notes that one strategy to achieve this goal is by concentrating new development in areas contiguous to existing neighborhoods where it is most cost effective and to extend infrastructure and services. The Land Use element of the plan also encourages compact, efficient development that is continuous and connected to existing neighborhoods. The proposed rezoning to RS-5 is consistent with the land use policy direction of the City's adopted plans. The plans envisions both open space and housing in this area. The existing conservation easement will ensure the subject property will not be develop while also allowing more housing options on Lot 25 Conway's Subdivision. Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood Character: The subject property is bordered by RS- 12 to the southwest, OPD/RS-12 to the west, OPD/RS-12 to the north and RS-5 to the east. The street to the southeast of the subject property, St. Anne's Drive, is mostly comprised of single- family housing. However, there are duplexes at the corner of St. Anne's and Prairie Du Chien Road. The proposed boundary line adjustment and rezoning would allow for the development of a detached single-family home or duplex, which would be consistent with the development patterns and mix of housing types in the neighborhood. Staff finds the proposed rezoning request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the North District Plan and compatible with the existing neighborhood character. Transportation & Public Infrastructure: Figure 1 is an aerial image that shows Lot 25 Conway's Subdivision outlined in blue. Although St. Anne's Drive is adjacent to this lot it does not provide access to Lot 25. In this location St. Anne's Drive essentially dead ends and connects to Buresh Ave. Therefore, staff is recommending a condition that the Owner shall install additional pavement at the intersection of St. Anne's Drive and Buresh Avenue, similar in design to what exists at the other end of the block adjacent to 840-852 St. Anne's Drive to allow City vehicles to provide services to the lot without having to back up and the Owner shall submit construction drawings for the proposed improvements to be approved by the City Engineer. Figure 1. Aerial of Lot 25 C01 Sensitive Areas: The subject property is in an existing conservation easement that was established as part of the Final Plat and does not allow for development. The Final Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates identifies regulated sensitive features including critical and protected slopes, wetlands, and wooded areas. 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 REZ25-0003, a proposed rezoning to rezone 0.06 acres of the property located at 691 E Foster Rd from OPD/RS-12 zone to RS-5 zone subject to the following conditions: a. In consideration of the City's rezoning of the subject property, Owners agree that no building permit shall be issued for Lot 25 Conway's Subdivision until the City approves a boundary line adjustment for the subject property that conforms to the zoning boundaries established by the rezoning ordinance to which this Agreement is attached. b. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Lot 25 Conway's Subdivision, Owner shall install additional pavement at the intersection of St. Anne's Drive and Buresh Avenue, similar in design to what exists at the other end of the block adjacent to 840-852 St. Anne's Drive, so as to allow City vehicles to provide services to the lot without having to back up. Prior to issuance of a building permit for said lot, Owner shall submit construction drawings for the proposed improvements and obtain approval of said construction drawing by the City Engineer. Any property acquisition needed to make said improvements shall be acquired by the Owner prior to the issuance of a building permit for said lot. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location & Zoning Maps 2. Forest Hill Estates Final Plat 3. Applicant Submittal Materials Approved by. 1 �1'}">k► 0—anielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ATTACHMENT 1 Location & Zoning Maps N W E S 0 0.010.01 0.02 Miles l i l i l m s'. REZ2 5-0003 691 E Foster Road Prepared By: Sanzida Rahman Setu Date Prepared: February 2025 ti� '9a ATTACHMENT 2 Forest Hill Estates Final Plat APPLICATION FOR FINAL PLAT FOREST HILL ESTATES. IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA LEGAL DESCRIPTION A RESUBDIVISION OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL W AS RECORDED IN BOOK 32, PAGE 52, OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA RECORDER'S OFFICE; AUDITOR'S PARCEL'B' AS RECORDED IN BOOK 32, PAGE 53, OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA RECORDER'S OFFICE; A PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, A TRIANGULAR PIECE LAYING IN THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, AND SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 80 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, LYING SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 80, EXCEPT THAT LAND CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF IOWA CITY FOR FOSTER ROAD AS RECORDED IN BOOK 3058 PAGE 10F THE JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA RECORDER'S OFFICE; THE PARCEL DESCRIBED IN TRUSTEE WARRANTY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 5696, PAGE 474 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA RECORDER'S OFFICE; PART OF SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 80 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, LYING SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 80; PART OF -SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 80 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, LYING SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 80; PART OF SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 80 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST LYING SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 80; AND ALL OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED IN WARRANTY DEED 4879-681 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA RECORDER'S OFFICE; ALL LOCATED IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA: SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 50.15 ACRES, AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. PROJECT VICINITY MAP Io1ra River c PROJECT UNDER RID) LOCATION ATKIN§A 7'�'"` 7 P4 (IOWA dTY CORPORATE LIMITS) . # Fl}N19R ROAD OS R a / ON MISRSION PT ARCRRO�C D�j0� 4c�O N! SAMUEL FOSTER UE AR NE4VE AROUKECT i �,,EEpWAY � E � G OaLIHE A fAFT O IHiITING AVE d R VIVID NOT TO SC Iowa River IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA PROPERTY OWNER ATTORNEY: JAMES D. HOUGHTON ANDERSON AND HOUGHTON, LLP_.._._ 568 HIGHWAY 1 WEST IOWA CITY, IA 52246 319-351.-8600 FOUND RAIL all l,11 1,kEf_4111_1'J 1111C) FOUND IRON --- - N L11 L12 L13 L14 7 SCM L18 j.. FOUND RAIL 1s �,'��' FOUND RAIL � 1 r hl FOUND RAIL �_, ZQIB,� I Phi:.E;I� 4� i1V�k%�, FOUND RAIL ENG[NEEElNG ! FOUND POST - s CITY CLERK i FOUND RAIL L. STY f 1 f c' :.a t S I _j o 50 1Do 200 CONSERVATION L I EASEMENT LOT 1 FOUND RAIL } 3.11 AC. -- - _ ► Vr 1 , 4 GRAPHIC SCALE z OUTLOT "A" TO BE RESERVED�11 j _I --.�-- — — --- — ;- L20 FOR CONSERVATION I r/ t�l / FOUND IRON � ��� � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII Illllllllllllllllllllll Iill Ill llllllllilll ROD 1 Doc ID: 027054350001 Type: PLA i c FOUND I Kind: PLAT I o - h I w N `Y / L55 IRON FOUND RAIL Fee Amt: $12.00 Page at I of0I55: 15 AM LU N o Y STORMWATER MGMT ESMT — `,j� z_ Y Cl) `o o o c w o / - - - - - - SET PIN In ROD -'` /�� KimnPainternCountYaRecorder P: C� (7 CV Z w L132 - CBB 0.06 AC.i Gr� X r— z z � z � � [ �`'�r /ice 1 OUTLOT\ C �x V G PG54 o W Y X W w m w C�7 I ,\ G� FOUND PIN �� L40 c FOUND N CORNER SEC 3 cD ch FL co w � a D_ FOUND �, LOT 2 i _ � _j � t ` 0.20 A6. IRON FCM [ — — -- — — --- ---- — — IRON uaa _--0.92 AC.— j� — — --1=0UfVD PEN '►` L45 ROD - - — — — — — FOUND ROD / 25' ELEC. ESMT J OUTLOT B — -- --- — — — — — WHITE— / BK1002-60 J J '. FOND PROJECT NUMBER: L51�--- -SET P4N� — , `— l� IRON — 1 -O �1`t V __, T N -L50 � CAP � � - — �-- - __-_^ � - _ - L48 I -- - �- -- - ROD. 1"/ L42 _ _ --____ 1.5�.ELEC. EWT / // FOUND --� i 0 // - --- - FOUND fRbN BK�' 02-59 \PIPELINE ZSCORNER/SEC 34_— -- _ ----- / Lsa -- --------- _ _ _------ ---I -- IRON------ _/ —SOU DPIN --- ---� ------ROD (BENT) _ _ — BK2256NI I----- � j >� — — J" `� —� 1 I ROD / � FOUND PIN I I _------- —TCM I `,� CONSERVATION � I � 1.,zs y // � — EX SANITATT EASEMENT i Jtsa �T�si //SEWER ES CONSERVATION 1,�l / / BK300 415 \`1 L30 I o w EASEMENT L76 I Cn w I L97 / 11 l 4 m4 M L1� J i o i — ' \ STORM L32 �\ I E f w / LOT 3 t ti G) , / SEWER j I I 1 I— / / I�i� 6,4 / \ ESMT 1 I I Q / 6.00 AC. / L115 i m / v�' I 1 L84 v� c I °1 \ d I I av v�14g CO - 1 I-' I i o' � � � �.11a �R � /G" � �� � / / � � co FOUND iRON I i s I I I L95 I o jTpFWA r / 4).� / CONSERVATION I FOUND IP ROD WPC LOT 4 FOUND PIN EASEMENT ENGINEER: I l I w I L4o3 STORMWATER / / MGM21 / �<�' / I I \� I 9.52 AC. I w I w ItTo F MGMT ESMT �ry�/ / 1 /^� / 4OLAND 70,c�- IRON — L34 i 1 0 1 ¢ 1 W ( j Irn l 1 L101 I / / o / - / / ROD YPC I J w I J I I IU I STORM// SEWER 8/ AFOUND PIN / // I /� ��\ I / ¢ I I I¢ I I SANITARY I / / / / LOT 5 � EX. SANITARY �, _ SEWER ESMT FOU DIP �_ N hbk [ c1 r %< �1o8SEWER ESMTt0 // // 6.53 AC/ ` `' - ENGINEERING / pie'? L BK300-412 \ UIs�� a 1 J~\ j STORMWATER Lno / j i �� % / } Goa G�ti/ / FOUND PIN / MGMTESMT �� �♦ \ HBK ENGINEERING LLC . I ;�-- LT2 'L �1 \ _ v , J 4112 / / , �� ', Y 509 S. GILBERT ST. V68 L71 C [ h i�2j G� 11 —61 G16 C4 CID L126 v / CONSERVATION ' / \� UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND IOWA CITY, fA 52240 ! L23 L110 / HUNDREDTHS SET PIN G'{ i l N 4 EASEMENT PHONE: (319) 338-7557 IA I, FOUND PIN FOUND PIN �; / NOTES: L28 1 l / — — 1. BASIS OF BEARINGS IS GPS MEASUREMENTS IN THE IOWA PLANE STORMWATER plc �` / COORDINATE SYSTEM SOUTH ZONE NAD 83. MGMT ESMT wy/ \ / G6 T r -- - - — -' STORM I I / 'FOUND IOWA DEPARTMENT SEWER I / V IRON �/ 2, OUTLOT C TO BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF IOWA CITY FOR PUBLIC \ / EASEMENT R.O.W. OF LABOR t STORMWAT�R / / �I I — — — —L140 — — — — �{ h/ ' i ti D / ' REGISTRATION y �„ L62 MGMT ESMT/ FOUND P / -` I / . / 3. SEE SHEET 2 FOR CONSERVATION EASEMENTS NO. 00527328 \�s L138 15 ° FOUND IR6N [ / ��/. STORM WATER I r -DEC / /" /� [ \ <so � / �ORM SEWER I I MGMT ESMT;;�4. LOT CORNERS ARE g�" R>;BAR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. / n<7�_ a _ROD YPC WWW.HBKENGINEERING.COM ....... --- L135 i -- L25 �ji L38 5. ERROR OF CLOSURE IS LESS THAN 1:10,000. ' �/ I EX SANITARY SEWER ESMT r ` ~ DEVELOPER: FOSTER ROAD _. DEVELOPERS, LLC 340 HERKY STREET L9 L11 - NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 FOUNDIPOST FOUND RAIL 319-351-6788 FOUND RAIL OWNER: L7 _ -.- - � _ FOSTER ROAD FOUND RAIL FOUND RAIL DEVELOPERS, LLC FOUND RAIL s Lu k - I 340 ERKY STREET H TR T rl A>U- NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 OUTLOT "All FOUND RAILI 23,81 AC. 319-351-6788 r^ FO N PIN , ,S L2 N 1 1 CORNER SEC 3 DATE SUBMITTED: FCM MAY 29, 2018 DRAWING LOG REV ISSUED FOR DATE Ur Z /04/18 �- FOUND PIN 0 w. A FINAL PLAT SUBMITTAL o4 __.._. -. _....— — -..... -- --- _.. Ll64 I— LU w L27 r 1 ! w S a CORNER SEC 34 \ I I SCM -------�-_ =------ - �--------------------------------------_------___ -----� I i , I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS LAND SURVEYING DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED AND THE RELATED SURVEY WORK WAS PERFORMED BY ME �tttt ti L r�1<<�T� OR UNDER MY DIRECT PERSONAL SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY s IO'^144 �fop LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAM OF THE STATE OF IOWA. Q �3w-o x5 - 30 18 y CDTHOMAS E. SIGNATURE DATE LLI • HAGENSEE C - 09889 THOMAS E. HAGENSEE N : LICENSE NUMBER 09889 .�. 17' MY LICENSE RENEWAL DATE IS DECEMBER 31,201 S. PAGES OR SHEETS COVERED BY THIS SEAL: l 11 I II I IVlilt" ilt THIS SHEET ONLY STANDARD LEGEND Boundary or Property Line Existing Lot Line, Internal — — Section Line Right -of -Way Easement (Existing) — Easement (Proposed) — — — — — Property Corner, Found 0 Property Corner, Set O Section Corner - Found Recorded Dimensions (R) Measured Dimensions (M) INDEX LEGEND Location: PART OF SE 1/4 SEC. 34-T80N-R6W PART OF SW 1/4 SEC. 34-T80N-R6W PART OF NE 1/4 SEC. 3-T80N-R6W IOWA CITY, JOHNSON, IOWA Proprietor: FOSTER ROAD DEVELOPERS PO BOX 2208 IOWA CITY, IA 52244-2208 319-351-6788 Developer: FOSTER ROAD DEVELOPERS, LLC 340 HERKSY STREET NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 319-351-6788 Surveyor: Thomas E. Hagensee Company: HBK Engineering, LLC 509 S. Gilbert St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Return To: Thomas Hagensee, PLS 509 S. Gilbert St, Iowa City, Iowa 52240 PLAT/PLAN APPROVED by the City of Iowa City CITY CLERK DATE UTILITY EASEMENTS, AS SHOWN HEREON, MAY OR MATK6T, INCLUDE SANITARY SEWER LINES AND/OR STORM SEWER LINES, AND/OR WATER LINES: SEE CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR DETAILS. UTILITYEASEMENTS, AS SHOWN HEREON, ARE ADEQUATE FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE FACILITIES REQUIRED BY THE FOLLOWING AGENCIES: MiDAMERICAN ENERGY CO: DATE J .s C,, d' CENTURYLINK DA�E MEDIACOM DATE PROJECT MANAGER: N. BETTIS DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: QM AA SHEET TITLE: FINAL PLAT SHEET: PAGE 1 May 30, 2018 - 11:10am i:lProject11705401dwg1CAD1Plat1170540 - FP -Forest Hill Estates UPDATED.dwq ATTACHMENT 3 Applicant Submittal Materials —Rezoning Exhibit & Applicant Statement LOCATION: APPLICANT: A PORTION OF LOT 5 OF "AMENDED" FOREST HILL ESTATES, FOSTER ROAD DEVELOPERS LLC AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE 340 HERKY DRIVE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, NORTH LIBERTY, IOWA 52317 RANGE 6 WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. LAND SURVEYOR: PROPRIETOR OR OWNER: RICHARD R. NOWOTNY P.L.S FOSTER ROAD DEVELOPERS LLC MMS CONSULTANTS INC. 340 HERKY DRIVE 1917 SOUTH GILBERT STREET NORTH LIBERTY, IOWA 52317 IOWA CITY, IOWA, 52240 PHONE: 319-351-8282 DOCUMENT RETURN INFORMATION: DATE OF SURVEY: LAND SURVEYOR 12-30-2024 POINT OF BEGINNING NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 25// / REZONING PARCEL/ 2,807 SF 0.06 AC LOU 5 FOFDIEOU H0LL/'00MS / IN ACCORDANCE WITH 111E PLAT THEREOF RECORD IN PLAT !)OGtC 62 AT PAGES 109-110 OF THE RECORD OF THE ,JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S �OFFICE. 0 00 - 00 00 REZONING EXHIBIT (OPD12 TO RS5) A PORTION OF LOT 5 OF FOREST HILL ESTATES IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA / / 0/ / O / R65.61 / LOU 04 /. 2 1 0 0ci / n rn 11 LOU 25 w m GQDIZ z m mW �.� v Ul tio9 N J o�ti5�"� / /�' RS5 LOU 2 ,1 \ \ O O .s 1' �1\159°02'57"E 3.63' �O \ R5rl -- 0 MD oD 0 0 0 0 \ RESUB MON OF M 30 COMAY'0 SUBUM OH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORD IN PLAT- D00,< 17 AT PAGE 53 OF THE RECORD OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. \ \ \ \ \ iE 0 5 25 50 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 1"=50' LEGEND AND NOTES 0 — CONGRESSIONAL CORNER, FOUND ! — 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 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 REZONING DESCRIPTION - (OPD12 TO RS5) BEGINNING at the Northwest Corner of Lot 25 of Conway's Subdivision, to Iowa City, Iowa, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 4 at Page 253 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S03°34'39"E, along the west Line of said Lot 25, and the Southerly Projection thereof, 112.47 feet, to a Point on the Northerly Right -of -Way of St. Anne's Drive; Thence S59°02'57"E, along the Southwesterly Projection of said St. Anne's Drive, 3.63 feet; Thence N30°57'03"W, 94.87 fee; Thence N53°52'27"E, 55.57 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Auditor's Parcel 2025003 contains 2,807 square feet, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. LOCATION MAP — N.T.S. Interstate 80 In RS12 PI RS12 REZONING PARCEL a ,Cf.. 4 r Boh!. shun _ o I Elemis e 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 REZONING EXHIBIT N IOWA CITY N JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA 0) MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. NJ Date: 01-20-2025 Designed by: Field Book No: ° RLA 1401 M 0 Drawn by: Scale: RLW 1 "=50' ° Checked by: Sheet No: RRN 1 Project No: ° IC 11619-003 of: 1 R IV f C A- A L1' 1917 S. Gilbert Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 MA MMS Consultants Inc. 319.351,8282 rnmsconsultants.net Experts in Planning and Development Since 1975 mms@mmsconsultants.net February 6, 2025 City of Iowa City Neighborhood and Development Services 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Re: Portion of Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates On behalf of the applicant, MMS Consultants requests a rezoning of Auditor's Parcel 2025003. The auditor's parcel is a small portion of Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates, located on E. Foster Road. The request is to change the zoning from OPD12 to RS5. The applicant wishes to add this parcel to Lot 25 of Conways Subdivision to make it more appealing to a potential buyer. The property being added is in a conservation easement and will not be buildable but will be under the control of the purchaser of Lot 25 Conways Subdivision. The purpose of the rezoning is so property will not have two different zonings. The RS5 zoning is consistent with Lot 25 of Conways Subdivision and the other lots along St. Annes Drive. Respectfully submitted, Ronald L. Amelon, PE T.\11619\ 11619-003\11619-003 LOl-Rezone.docx .......................... _ : MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 2025 —6:00 PM —FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Steve Miller, Scott Quellhorst, Billie Townsend, Chad Wade MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Hensch STAFF PRESENT: Madison Conley, Anne Russett, Rachael Schaefer OTHERS PRESENT: Ron Amelon, Gina Landau RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ25-0003, a proposed rezoning to rezone 0.06 acres of the property located at 691 E Foster Rd from OPD/RS-12 zone to RS-5 zone subject to the following conditions: a. In consideration of the City's rezoning of the subject property, Owners agree that no building permit shall be issued for Lot 25 Conway's Subdivision until the City approves a boundary line adjustment for the subject property that conforms to the zoning boundaries established by the rezoning ordinance to which this Agreement is attached. b. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Lot 25 Conway's Subdivision, Owner shall install additional pavement at the intersection of St. Anne's Drive and Buresh Avenue, similar in design to what exists at the other end of the block adjacent to 840-852 St. Anne's Drive, so as to allow City vehicles to provide services to the lot without having to back up. Prior to issuance of a building permit for said lot, Owner shall submit construction drawings for the proposed improvements and obtain approval of said construction drawing by the City Engineer. Any property acquisition needed to make said improvements shall be acquired by the Owner prior to the issuance of a building permit for said lot. By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of a proposal that Title 14 Zoning be amended, as illustrated in Attachment 2, to enhance land use regulations related to the form - cased code and to further implement the City's goals. CALL TO ORDER: Quellhorst called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. REZONING ITEMS CASE NO. REZ25-0003: Location: Portion of 691 E. Foster Rd. An application for a rezoning of approximately 0.06 acres of land from High Density Single Family Residential zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12) to Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) Zone. Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 2025 Page 2 of 17 Conley began the staff report with an aerial image of the subject property noting the subject property is a small triangular piece and it abuts Lot 25 Conway Subdivision, which is directly to the east. To the south and west of the subject property is vacant land. The subject property is currently zoned OPD/RS-12 and it's located in Lot 5, Forest Hill Estate Subdivision. Directly west and northeast of the subject property is OPD/RS-12 as well, and then that abutting lot to the east is zoned RS-5, in addition to the land just south of the subject property. Lastly, the southwest portion of the land is zoned RS-12. Regarding background, Lot 25 Conway Subdivision is undeveloped and in order to make this lot more appealing to buyers a boundary line adjustment is being proposed to increase the size and square up the lot. A boundary line adjustment involves changing the property lines between two or more adjacent parcels of land without creating any new lots or parcels. In this case, 0.06 acres of the subject property would be added to Lot 25 Conway Subdivision. The subject property and Lot 25 Conway Subdivision have two different zoning designations so that is why the rezoning is needed, to create a consistent zoning designation on the parcel. Regarding the case history Conley explained in 2017 there was a rezoning to OPD/RS-12 and CO-1 rezoning (case number REZ17-00017) and included the subject property. Then in 2018 there was a final plat established for Forest Hill Estates Subdivision and then in 2024 Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates had a major site plan that was approved and the site plan includes a decent amount of sensitive areas, as well as designated some conservation easements. Conley reiterated the current zoning of the subject property is OPD/RS-12 and the RS-12 zone allows for a higher density than other single family zones. The OPD was required because of the sensitive areas and the mix of housing types that were proposed with this area. The proposed zone is to RS-5 and the RS-5 allows some flexibility to household types and nonresidential uses, but at a lower density compared to the RS-12 zone. Conley explained the rezoning, combined with the boundary line adjustment, does change the land uses that are allowed on Lot 25 Conway Subdivision as Lot 25 will be increasing in size to 11,369 square feet, therefore now meeting the minimum lot size requirements to allow for a duplex or attached single family. Prior to the boundary line adjustment or this rezoning, Lot 25 would not meet those minimum requirements. Staff is recommending a condition that no building permit be issued for Lot 25 until the City approves a boundary line adjustment that conforms to the proposed zoning boundaries. Conley stated there are two criteria used to review all rezonings. First is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and second, compatibility with existing neighborhood. Regarding consistency with the Comprehensive Plan the IC 2030 identifies this area as appropriate for public and private open space, the North District Plan identifies this subject property appropriate for single family and duplex residential, and the Future Land Use Maps that function as a conceptual future vision for these areas. Both of these plans also envision open space and housing in the subject property area. To continue on with consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, in the IC 2030 Plan there is a land use goal that encourages compact and efficient development that is contiguous and connected to existing neighborhoods to reduce the cost of extending infrastructure and services to preserve farmland and open space at the edge of the City. Additionally, there's a housing goal and strategy that focus on encouraging a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods and also concentrating new development in areas contiguous to existing neighborhoods where it's most cost effective to extend infrastructure and services. Regarding compatibility with neighborhood character, this subject property is in a conservation easement which does not allow any development. Therefore, regardless of the boundary line adjustment and the rezoning of the subject property, there is no development potential on that subject property since it is located in that conservation easement. Additionally, Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 2025 Page 3 of 17 the surrounding properties consist of single family homes located along St. Anne's Drive, the duplexes at the corner of St. Anne's and Prairie Du Chien Road, and multifamily on the other area of Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates. The proposed boundary line adjustment and rezoning would help future development stay consistent with the development patterns seen in and around the neighborhood. In regard to transportation and public infrastructure St. Anne's Drive essentially dead ends and connects to Buresh Avenue to the south, there is no access provided to Lot 25 from St. Anne's Drive. Therefore, staff is recommending a condition that the owner installed pavements in order to allow City vehicles to provide service to Lot 25 without having to back up. Additionally, the owner would need to submit construction drawings of the proposed improvements before a building permit is issued. Regarding sensitive areas, the Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Lot 5 Forest Hill Estates identifies regular sensitive features, including critical and protected slopes, wetlands and wooded areas. Staff recommends approval of REZ25-0003, a proposed rezoning to rezone 0.06 acres of the property located at 691 E Foster Rd from OPD/RS-12 zone to RS-5 zone subject to the following conditions: a. In consideration of the City's rezoning of the subject property, Owners agree that no building permit shall be issued for Lot 25 Conway's Subdivision until the City approves a boundary line adjustment for the subject property that conforms to the zoning boundaries established by the rezoning ordinance to which this Agreement is attached. b. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Lot 25 Conway's Subdivision, Owner shall install additional pavement at the intersection of St. Anne's Drive and Buresh Avenue, similar in design to what exists at the other end of the block adjacent to 840-852 St. Anne's Drive, so as to allow City vehicles to provide services to the lot without having to back up. Prior to issuance of a building permit for said lot, Owner shall submit construction drawings for the proposed improvements and obtain approval of said construction drawing by the City Engineer. Any property acquisition needed to make said improvements shall be acquired by the Owner prior to the issuance of a building permit for said lot. Staff did not receive any written correspondence from the public, and there was no good neighbor meeting held for this rezoning. Next steps, upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be scheduled for consideration by the City Council. Craig is curious why if that lot has always been there didn't the street go through when all those other houses were built. Russett is unsure, it is an older subdivision so that would not be how it would be approached today. Elliott asked why they didn't have a good neighbor meeting. Russett stated good neighbor meetings are optional. Staff will sometimes recommend that the applicant hold a good neighbor meeting for something staff thinks is a substantial change. In this case, it was in staffs opinion, a pretty minor rezoning. Miller noted the portion that's being rezoned, the triangle, is in the conservation easement and Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 2025 Page 4 of 17 can't be built on. Conley confirmed that's correct. A home could be built on Lot 25 but just not on that specific 0.06 acres of that triangular piece. Wade stated since this is such a minor rezoning was there any consideration to just go through staff approval, versus having to always come through the Commission. Russett replied not for a rezoning, no matter how small or how minor it's a legislative action that has to come to the Commission for a recommendation to Council. Quellhorst opened the public hearing. Ron Amelon (MMS Consultants) is present on behalf of the applicant to answer any questions. Having no questions or other speakers, Quellhorst closed the public hearing. Miller recommends approval of REZ25-0003, a proposed rezoning to rezone 0.06 acres of the property located at 691 E Foster Rd from OPD/RS-12 zone to RS-5 zone subject to the following conditions: a. In consideration of the City's rezoning of the subject property, Owners agree that no building permit shall be issued for Lot 25 Conway's Subdivision until the City approves a boundary line adjustment for the subject property that conforms to the zoning boundaries established by the rezoning ordinance to which this Agreement is attached. b. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Lot 25 Conway's Subdivision, Owner shall install additional pavement at the intersection of St. Anne's Drive and Buresh Avenue, similar in design to what exists at the other end of the block adjacent to 840-852 St. Anne's Drive, so as to allow City vehicles to provide services to the lot without having to back up. Prior to issuance of a building permit for said lot, Owner shall submit construction drawings for the proposed improvements and obtain approval of said construction drawing by the City Engineer. Any property acquisition needed to make said improvements shall be acquired by the Owner prior to the issuance of a building permit for said lot. Wade seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS CASE NO. REZ25-0002: Consideration of a Zoning Code Amendment to amend 14-2H Form -Based Zones and Standards to clarify standards and address potential barriers to development. Schaefer began the staff report with background about the form -based code zones. This zone was adopted in 2021 to support high quality, walkable and vibrant neighborhoods and guides physical development, specifically in the South and Southwest Districts of Iowa City. Comparing form -based code zones to conventional zoning code, the form -based code focuses more on design, form and character, rather than land use as the main focus. Unfortunately, since its adoption in 2021 no significant development has occurred within the form -based code district Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 2025 Page 5 of 17 and feedback from recent developers working to rezone and develop in the form -based code district has highlighted areas of the code that could be clearer, more streamlined and better aligned with practical applications. Addressing these aspects will help improve the code's effectiveness and support its intended outcomes, so staff is proposing some updates to the code. Staff is proposing to adjust regulations to improve feasibility, clarify standards and remove unnecessary complexities. They're hoping to improve the codes effectiveness and support its intended outcomes. To implement these updates, staff is proposing to amend Title 14, the Zoning Code and also Title 15, the Land Subdivision Code. P&Z doesn't officially review amendments outside of the zoning code, but staff wanted to also inform them of those Title 15 changes since they do work together with the zoning code. In addition to the code updates, staff also created a user guide to highlight key standards of the form -based code, which was included in the agenda packet, and walks users through the requirements for development in this area in a little more simplified and more graphic way than the code itself. The first section is regarding building placement standards. Schaefer explained these standards regulate setbacks and the orientation of buildings to create a cohesive streetscape, support walkability and protect privacy between neighboring properties. The first change is related to the minimum side yard setbacks for primary buildings. She shared a table noting the existing minimum side yard setback standards for each zone. Staff is proposing for the T3NE and the T3NG to reduce the side yard setback from 10' and 7' to 5' so they're consistent with the other form -based zones and also mimics what is in the traditional zones for residential properties. This makes all side setbacks 5' instead of changing for those zones. The second change is regarding placement of garages associated with the duplex side by side and the townhome building type. Currently, depending on the zone the accessory structures have to be set back between 5' and 10' from the side property lines. Staff is proposing that, when used for parking, accessory structure side setbacks could be reduced to as little as 0 for duplex side by side and attached townhome building types. This change allows for more efficient use of the building area and provides more flexibility for developers. Quellhorst asked if these changes being proposed are from staff of a private applicant. Schaefer stated this is coming from staff. Schaefer moved on to building types. She stated the building type standards set clear rules for each kind of building so that each zone achieves its intended physical character. This also supports a mix of housing options within the form -based code districts and in the form -based zones, each block of a development has to have at least two different building types. She noted it's a little different than a traditional zone. Examples of building types include a house small, a duplex, townhome, things of that nature. The first change is related to the wing dimensions for the house large and the house small building types. A wing is a structure that is physically attached to and is smaller in footprint and in height to the main body of the building, similar to an addition to the main home. For the house large and house small building types currently the maximum dimensions allowed by the code are 20' by 20' and staff is proposing to increase those dimensions to 24' by 24' because they're seeing developers utilizing these wings as attached garages and increasing the size to 24' by 24' allows enough space for two vehicles, stairs if needed to go into the main home and storage for items. Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 2025 Page 6 of 17 The second change is wing offset, currently there is a requirement that wings have to be offset 5' from the main body of the building and staff is proposing to create an exemption for the house large, house small and duplex stacked building types. When wings are adjacent to the corner of a building that connects two building faces that do not front a public right of way, when this placement is met then the minimum wing offset may be reduced to 0. Schaefer showed a graphic of the requirement. Elliott asked if the wing could this be an ADU. Schaefer stated they could fill that in with what would be considered an ADU with a kitchen, a bathroom, etc. Russett added that for the building types Schaefer is discussing, house large, house small, they also have maximum sizes for those building types so the wing does add an additional square footage. Wade asked if there is anything dimensionally that makes the wings separate from the main structure. Schaefer replied nothing significantly different. Quellhorst stated the wing is really just used where they need extra square footage. Schaefer noted unlike in a traditional zoning code which would be restricted by the setbacks alone in the form -based code they are more concerned with the form of the building so there's additional restrictions for what width and depth of building can be. Schaefer stated there must be an offset between wings, they cannot have two wings butted up against each other, there's some separation required. Next, for the duplex side by side building type the maximum width of the main body is 48' and the maximum depth is 40'. Staff is proposing that when units are rear loaded and only one story in height, the maximum width of the body of the building can be increased to 60' and the maximum depth increase to 70'. The larger main body sizes allow for the development of single story duplexes, ranch style duplexes, which would otherwise be infeasible using the current zoning standards and thus providing this building type to individuals such as seniors and those with accessibility needs. Schaefer stated while this would be the widest building allowed in several zones, approximately 10' wider than the biggest currently, it is only one story in height compared to 2.5 stories that typical buildings can have. The next is related to cottage court building type standards. Currently the maximum depth of the main body of the cottage court style building is 24' and staff is proposing to increase the maximum depth to 30' by increasing the maximum main body dimension. Schaefer explained this allows for more flexibility with interior layouts while maintaining the compact nature of this building type. The cottage court building type is unique, it's one of those missing middle housing types that the City is trying to develop to increase housing variation and affordability, and this change would make the building type slightly more attractive and a viable option for developers and residents alike. Staff is also proposing to increase the maximum depth of the lot for cottage court building type from 180' to a maximum depth of 200' and increasing that lot depth is related to having bigger buildings and that increase in depth allows for adequate space for the buildings themselves, the required setbacks, the shared courtyard that's required with these building types, sidewalks, parking spaces, landscaping, and all those things. The next section is architectural element standards. Schaefer explained these establish requirements that supplement the zone standards and further refine the intended building form Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 2025 Page 7 of 17 and physical character of the zoning district. The one staff is proposing to update is related to glazing. Glazing is defined as an opening in a building which glass is installed. Windows are mainly what's utilized as glazing. Staff is proposing to reduce the glazing requirement to 15% of the ground floor with a minimum of one window per building side. They're also proposing to exempt attached garages from this standard. Schaefer stated this change provides a more practical and achievable standard for residential buildings and this new percentage is similar to the glazing standards required by the City funded affordable housing projects. Additionally, this update ensures that homes maintain an active and visually appealing streetscapes while allowing for functional design flexibility. For example, reducing that glazing requirement allows room on walls for upper cabinets in kitchens, spaces for televisions to be mounted and other things instead of having windows there, exempting attached garages also allows for enhanced privacy for items stored inside of a garage. She stated this also aligns with the standards for typical residential construction by not requiring those windows all around a garage. Craig stated with this particular one she was taken aback because she feels that people generally want to have natural light in their homes, but she doesn't have a good sense of what 15% versus 30% means. Schaefer concurred that staff's gut reaction was sort of similar when they were first reviewing decreasing these, but when they saw it in practice, as they were working with developers, 30% was hard to accomplish for a lot of these smaller homes and 15% seemed more reasonable and still met what staff felt was the standard of having ample windows for the homes. Quellhorst asked out of curiosity what is the percentage of a typical single family house. Russett is not sure, it's not a standard that they have now in the code so it's not something that they check for current development. Based on what they saw from a developer they have been working with, the developer submitted plans that range from below 15% up to 20% so staff thought 15% struck a balance with the calculations that they had provided on their proposed elevations. Additionally, staff did add that they needed to have at least one window per side, because they thought that would help ensure that there was glazing on all four sides of the building. Townsend added that these are just minimums, there are no maximums. Craig noted personally if she lived in a house with houses 5' on either side of him he would want all the glazing on the front and the back, not on the sides. She has no problem with the garage, but the jump from 30% to 15% just seems like a big jump down. She asked where did the 30% come from in the first place. Schaefer explained it was recommended by the consultant that drafted the form -based code and staff did reach out to them and they've made similar adjustments in other communities they've worked with where developers and builders and planners are also saying that 30% is hard to accomplish on many of the homes they're developing. Russett added one more point, this is just the first floor glazing requirement so there will be windows on the second stories of these buildings too, just because they're needed for egress so the 15% is only for the first floor and there will be additional windows that are not calculated in that 15% on the second story. Miller noted it would probably help to see what this actually looks like or what examples that they based the decision on because especially the front facing if those are too small it starts to make the neighborhood feel less friendly. Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 2025 Page 8 of 17 Wade thinks that's the most challenging, on the right of way facing, whether it's a corner or such, how do they incentivize on those corners that to get windows on both street facing sides. Schaefer stated the City does have a blanket architectural standard that requires similar feature treatments for corner lots. Townsend asked if there is a standard that every room has to have a window. Schaefer replied yes, it is in the building code for ingress and egress. Quellhorst noted windows are expensive so is this mostly a financial concern. Schaefer acknowledged that from the developer side it is a concern. Quellhorst noted it sounds like staff looked at a few different proposed plans for residential buildings and were happy with the esthetics of 15%. Russett stated there were some that were not happy with it if caused certain sides with no windows and there was a totally blank facade, so that's why they added that additional requirement that there must be at least one window on all four sides. Schaefer stated if the Commission wants they can discuss this later and change the 15% they can if they have a good sense of what they think it should be, but they should table this for now and continue with the staff presentation. Schaefer moved on to frontage types, frontages are the components of the building that provide the transition and interface between the public realm, the street and the sidewalk, and the private realm, the yard and the building itself. Frontage type standards establish the base standards for each of the frontage types that are defined within the form -based code. Frontage type examples include porches, stoops and dooryards, which are like a hedge or a fence around the front yard, and each block, similar to the building types, requires two different frontage types per block, so there has to be some design variation within the block. The first change staff is proposing is related to the depth and width of the porch projected and the porch engaged frontage types. Currently both of those frontage types measure the width and the depth using a "clear" or "overall" measurement which basically means that they're being measured from within the posts of the porch. Then the minimum width clear is 15' and the minimum depth overall is 8' for porches elevated less than 12" and 6' deep for porches elevated 12" or more. Staff is proposing to simplify the measurements by removing the "clear" and "overall" terms and proposing to reduce the width to 12' wide by 6' deep for all porches, regardless of elevation. Eliminating the "clear" and "overall" from the width and depth measurements reduces confusion and ensures consistency. Applying these standards and reviewing them, in addition using a clear dimension, is difficult at plan review since certain details like column width might be unknown, and because of this staff is also proposing to carry over the removal of the "clear" and "overall" measurements to all frontage types to reduce that confusion and ensure consistent application and review of frontage type standards. The second change that's being proposed is related to the Dooryard and Stoop frontage types and their depth of recess entry standards. Currently, for both those frontage types the depth of recess entry maximum is 12" or 1', this is measured from the front of the facade to where the front door is placed. Staff is proposing to increase the depth of recess entry maximum to 3' for both the Dooryard and the Stoop frontage types as this change provides greater flexibility for architectural design while maintaining and inviting a pedestrian friendly streetscape. Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 2025 Page 9 of 17 The third change is related to the Dooryard frontage type and again another standard related to glazing. Currently, there's a standard for the Dooryard frontage type that the distance between glazing or windows can be no more than 4' maximum. Staff is proposing to remove this glazing measurement standard, and by eliminating this requirement it will allow for more adaptable designs while still relying on other frontage standards to ensure a high quality, pedestrian friendly development. Schaefer noted a lot of times they've run into issues because Dooryards allowed for some of the single family homes to have windows on either side of the of a door and it's harder to meet those glazing requirements. Next is related to the Stoop frontage type. For the Stoop frontage type the landing of the stoop is required to be elevated a minimum of 1' above the sidewalk and stairs and ramps can be used to access the elevated landing. Staff is proposing to maintain the same elevation standard but change slightly the way they are describing the measurement to be consistent to how they measure height of a building. Schaefer explained there was confusion about what sidewalk were they talking about, was it the public sidewalk or the sidewalk leading to the door, so they've changed that to above average finished grade along the frontage, which is the same way they measure height. Staff is also proposing to add language to explicitly allow a sloped walkway, which provides a more accessible and flexible entry option for the Stoop frontage type and this change improves accessibility for individuals with mobility challenges and offers an alternative to stairs or a ramp that would have to be parallel to the building. This update enhances usability while maintaining the intended elevated entry design of the Stoop frontage type. Elliott asked for clarification on a sloped walkway. Schaefer explained the sidewalk to the building is elevated slightly and not a flat, zero entry. Elliott asked why not just do a zero entry and Russett clarified there's no elevation change, with zero entry the sidewalk and door are at the same elevation and here they have a home that's slightly elevated from the elevation of the sidewalk, with the Stoop frontage house type there is a sidewalk and the front door is above the sidewalk with stairs that are elevated to provide that privacy between the private living space and the public realm. Typically, it is stairs but providing a more accessible way than building a ramp and keeping it slightly elevated is the sloped walkway. It is just providing another option for builders. Wade noted then with this type of house if there was an attached garage doesn't that become a challenge from the garage to in house, because of those are two different heights. Russett acknowledged it could be and in the building code there is what's called visibility standards which states every house does not necessarily have to be designed to provide zero entry but designed so that it could be altered easily to provide zero entry access. If someone does need zero entry at all access points, then they're going to have to figure out how to design that home accordingly. Wade noted the 12 inch above grade is one of the biggest challenges in building homes, many have zero entry front doors but then have a garage that's usually a foot above the floor grades. Schaefer also wanted to note that this is one option for frontage types, both porch options do allow zero grade with no elevation requirement for those porches so that's also an option for builders to use as well for those Stoop and the Dooryard. Schaefer moved onto parking standards which regulate private parking spaces such as how many are required and where those parking spaces are. It also regulates driveways, where driveways can be located and the allowed sizes for both parking spaces and driveways. The first change staff is proposing is the minimum distance between driveways. Currently the minimum Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 2025 Page 10 of 17 standard is to have a 40' spacing between driveways in the form -based code and they're proposing to decrease the minimum distance between driveways to 20'. Schaefer explained this change allows for flexibility of driveway placement which is needed in instances where the site's topography restricts where the driveway can go for drainage reasons and other things. She also noted one of the main intents of the standard is to mitigate concerns about the visual dominance of curb cuts and prioritize streetscapes that increase walkability and while reduction from 40' to 20' will allow for more driveways per block it is still much less than what is allowed in the City's traditional single family residential zones, which only requires a separation distance of 6'. The next section is related to the flexibility for unique situations and these changes are being proposed to allow adjustments to standard requirements for unique site conditions, while maintaining the intent of the form -based code. The first one is related to maximum lot depth and width adjustments. Schaefer stated each building type has a maximum lot and width dimension that it must meet and this change allows applicants to apply for an administrative adjustment to the maximum design site or the lot depth and width standards if specific approval criteria are met. The applicant must demonstrate that the adjustment to the lot standard is needed to avoid a regulated sensitive area, existing topography constraints, configurations of existing streets, or the block size of an abutting neighborhood. She explained this adjustment recognizes that certain sites may have unique challenges that make meeting lot standards impractical and allowing an option for an administrative adjustment ensures that projects can respond to these challenges without compromising functionality or quality. One example of a unique scenario that might utilize this adjustment is if at the end of a block there's a large hill or a ravine that makes that portion of the property unbuildable, making that topographical problem and an outlot for an HOA to maintain. Having this adjustment would allow the lot dimensions of that adjacent site to absorb that topographical challenge to increase efficiencies and how things are subdivided. The second is related to two way traffic and driveway width adjustments. Currently, the maximum driveway width for all zones in the form -based code area is 12' and parking areas for a lot of these sites must be behind the residential building or set back from the public right of way. If alley access is not feasible a longer drive aisle is then needed to access the parking area and these longer drive aisles will typically be used for two way traffic, as there's multiple residents of these sites, and therefore warrant a larger driveway. This change allows applicants to apply for an administrative adjustment to increase the maximum driveway width to 18' if specific approval criteria are met. The applicant must demonstrate that the adjustment is needed to access a parking area for a building with three or more units, and they must also prove that alley access is not a feasible option for that site. This change ensures that multi -unit building types have adequate access to off street parking while maintaining safe and functional site design with that two way driveway. The next section is language clarification and code cleanup. Schaefer stated these changes are proposed to improve clarity, removing inconsistencies and streamline the code to ensure easier interpretation and application. The first one is related to encroachments into setbacks. Currently, architectural features such as bay windows, light fixtures, canopies, balconies and stairs can encroach into building setbacks a certain amount depending on the zone. Architectural features and stairs can encroach a maximum of 3' to 5' into side setbacks, depending on the zone district. Staff is proposing a change to ensure that the maximum allowable encroachment of architectural features and stairs remains proportional to the reduced side setbacks across all zones. Aligning encroachment limits with the updated setbacks enhances consistency in site planning, simplifies code application, and reduces potential conflicts between neighboring properties. Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 2025 Page 11 of 17 Next is related to driveway curb cut widths. The current code language only refers to curb cut width, which is meant to refer to the width of the driveway, and that is 12' maximum however staff found that most code users define curb cut width as the width of the driveway where it meets the street payment, so the width of the driveway at the curb. Therefore, for clarity they are going to change that from curb cut width to driveway width and for consistency it will be measured at the property line. Schaefer noted this change helps prevent confusion among developers, homeowners and staff by clearly defining what measurement they're talking about. Townsend asked if one can't have a driveway more than 12' how would that affect a larger garage, like a three -car garage. Schaeffer stated the way the code is set up it doesn't lend itself to three car garages because of the wing dimensions mentioned earlier that are a maximum of 24' by 24' but if someone did have a two stall garage it is allowed since it's set back from the property line and they could have a wider driveway at the garage, this measurement would be just at the property line. Schaefer stated the next one is related to the Townhome building type description. Currently the Townhome building type is described as a small to large size, typically attached building with a rear yard that consists of three to eight townhouses placed side by side. Each townhouse consists of one unit, or up to three stacked units as allowed by the zone. As allowed by the zone, this type may also be detached with minimal separations between buildings. Staff is proposing to change it by simplifying the description to small to large size, typically attached building with rear yard that consists of two to eight townhouses placed side by side. Each townhouse consists of one unit or up to three stacked units, as allowed by the zone. As allowed by the zone, the house -scale townhouse type may be detached. She explained this change aligns with the definitions used in other sections of the Townhouse building type that distinguishes house -scale townhomes from block -scale townhome units and this update removes the confusion of what minimally separated means and broadens applicability by clarifying that the house -scale townhome building type may be detached and set back from adjacent properties at the minimum setback distance. Next is related to the Neighborhood Plan and the current code requires an updated Neighborhood Plan to be submitted and approved prior to the site plan or building permit approval when any changes to the Neighborhood Plan are requested. Schaefer stated the proposed change streamlines the process by requiring that all requested changes from the original Neighborhood Plan be clearly identified on site plans and building plans, instead of requiring the applicant to prepare and submit an entirely updated Neighborhood Plan. City staff will internally update and track changes to the overall Neighborhood Plan to maintain consistency and accuracy. She stated the proposed change aims to streamline the development review process while maintaining oversight and ensuring that changes are properly addressed, and this adjustment provides greater flexibility for developers by reducing the need for extensive updates to the entire Neighborhood Plan and instead they can focus on the specific modifications relevant to their project. Schaefer explained in the form -based code developers are required to provide an entire Neighborhood Plan detailing where the lots will be and lot dimensions, similar to a subdivision, but then also stating what building types they're planning to use for each of those lots and which frontage types. Staff is foreseeing issues if a separate developer is developing one portion of a site that was different than the person who originally updated the Neighborhood Plan, so this just streamlines that process by allowing them to update the site plans and building plans they're specifically working on and staff can track those changes Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 2025 Page 12 of 17 internally Next update is related to the architectural feature definition. Currently, the definition for architectural features doesn't list several features that staff often receives questions about. Staff proposes to add awnings, belt courses and chimneys to the definition to provide more examples within that definition. Staff hopes by explicitly listing some of those common design elements the update helps ensure predictable application of the encroachment standards, while reducing ambiguity for what's allowed to encroach. Townsend asked what a belt course is. Russett explained a belt course as like a horizontal band across a building and can function as a separation between the first story and the second story. Schaefer stated the last change within the zoning code is just code cleanup, again staff is going through this more in depth noting as other people are utilizing the code, they are noticing small mistakes like missing super scripts and some of the table's items mislabeled, or slight spelling errors, things like that. The last section is related to Title 15, the Subdivision Code, which P&Z won't make a recommendation on but staff wanted to inform the Commission on the proposed update. The only update staff is proposing for the subdivision code is related to the block sizes. Currently, the form -based code has a maximum block length range from 360' to 500', depending on the zone. There is also a maximum block perimeter length and there's an allotment for both the block length and the perimeter lengths to be increased if a pedestrian passage is added mid -block to connect streets on either side of the block. Staff is proposing an adjustment that allows applicants to apply for an administrative adjustment to the block size standards if specific approval criteria are met. The applicant must demonstrate that the adjustment to the block standard is due to at least one of the following special circumstances. The first three criteria are related to the need to slightly increase the block lengths to incorporate sensitive area, topographical features, or to extend existing streets. For example, a block layout may be limited due to an existing street grid and to lay out the streets efficiently will require curves and can make for some funky block configurations so this adjustment would allow for some flexibility with those perimeters and block lengths for situations where there's existing topography or an existing intersection, or right of way. Criteria four through six are related to when adding a pedestrian passage isn't feasible, which again is the only way right now to increase block size using the current code standards. An example of where adjustment might be necessary is related to the block lengths of abutting neighborhoods. If there is a form -based code area that is developed abutting an existing conventionally zoned district that has a 1300' long block it doesn't make sense to have a single loaded street on the on the rear of those lots because it would make a stub street that goes through the middle of one block to split it up. It also doesn't make sense to have pedestrian passageways going to people's backyards. Criteria five is related to a single loaded street or pedestrian passageways not being desirable because of a highly sensitive nature of a public park land. Schaefer noted this one is fairly specific for Sand Prairie Park, which is one of the most sensitive areas in Iowa City in the South District. The highly sensitive nature of the park and the efforts to revive the prairie mean that this area functions more as a preserve, instead of an active park with sidewalks and pedestrian paths. This adjustment would allow homes to be built along the prairie instead of a street and would allow the block to extend the full length of the prairie without those pedestrian pathways breaking it up. An example of criteria six regarding visibility and access to public parks, civic uses and natural open spaces is the land to the east of Sycamore Greenway is proposed to be developed in the form -based code, if it were Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 2025 Page 13 of 17 in the current code it would require a single loaded street to be developed along the western portion in order to break up the blocks. However staff thinks there might be some more unique ways to utilize and enjoy the Sycamore Greenway, which is really just used as a bike path and this would allow an adjustment to have homes in this area but then have pedestrian pathways that don't lead to a parallel street, but lead directly to the bike way itself. This still allows for that public access and enjoyment of the Greenway but wouldn't necessarily require the developer to build a single loaded street. Schaefer stated there's places like Weatherby Park where public access and visibility is something they want so they would prefer not to have a single loaded street along the park land. She acknowledged those are some very unique scenarios, but ones they foresee happening. Finally, regarding consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Schaeffer stated the proposed amendments support several goals for the IC 2030 Comprehensive Plan such as helping to ensure a mix of housing types, encouraging pedestrian oriented development, encouraging small scale neighborhood commercial centers, the form -based code in general, preserving open space and sensitive areas, ensuring parks have visibility and access from the street, and encouraging developments of parks with single loaded street access where appropriate. In addition, the proposed amendments also help to further the form -based land use policies incorporated into the South and Southwest District Plans. Staff recommends that Title 14 Zoning be amended, as illustrated in Attachment 2, to enhance land use regulations related to the form -cased code and to further implement the City's goals. Schaefer noted that in the staff memo it says attachment one, but an additional attachment was added and the recommendation is attachment two. Pending a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council must hold a public hearing to consider the proposed text amendments. Townsend wanted to mention that even though they have these codes contractors are still going to ask for exceptions correct. Russett stated there are some cases where a minimum has to be met, like the glazing and there's no exception but there are some code amendments where staff thought more flexibility is needed and where it made sense to have the ability to adjust the standards, but that doesn't apply to every standard in the code. Quellhorst opened the public hearing. Gina Landau (Navigate Homes) noted there was reference to working with a developer with some of these changes and that's her, she's been working closely with the City for well over a year on some of these changes. Navigate did a concept solely on the form -based code, following everything to a T as well as they understood it to be and then they did a concept that would work financially, and the two were so far apart that it was decided at that time that either form -based code wasn't ever going to come to fruition and all that land was just going to sit there, or possibly they could work with the City to make a few changes that would update it and clarify things. Landau stated that's the path they've been on over the last year and City staff have been fabulous to work with. Schaefer has become the expert on the form -based code and she developed a great user guide for any developer coming and wanting to develop the land. To address a couple things mentioned, the glazing with the windows, Landau noted they worked with an architect that designs homes all across the nation and have probably seven or eight Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 2025 Page 14 of 17 different locations, Dallas, Des Moines, everywhere and they came up with the initial plans but had issues with the glazing percentages. The just basically did windows how they normally do but when they added in the garages and everything the percentages were 10% and that was shocking because 30% doesn't seem like that much. Once they talked with the City and could exclude the garages that made it better and then were at the 11 % to 15% range on almost everything. Landau noted currently Navigate is building in quite a few different areas and have $600,000 to $800,000 homes that are currently being built at Eagle Bend in Coralville, and the windows are very comparable to exactly what is being proposed here so they're not cutting back on windows. She stated they want to make nice architecturally, desirable homes for everyone. She noted she just had a meeting with the architects and looking at the proposed 15% they did have to add some windows in a few places, and had to strategically do it because they need to make sure there's room for big TVs on walls, kitchen cupboards, showers, things like that. One may think a window would look great there but then when they look at the room and realize where they are going to put their bed. Landau stated she is pleased with the 15% and knows others will be too as the plans look really good and also a lot of them have gone up above 15% and there's only a few that were really at the minimum. The second thing she wanted to address was the stoops and the discussion about the zero entry. Landau stated that was very important for them, they know that they're able to do porches as zero entry, but they really wanted an option of the stoops to be zero entry as well. Again, the City worked with them and there will be the 12" but they can slope it down and do a zero entry. She noted that is what all of their customers want, they would love zero entry at the front door and the garage, that doesn't always work out, but that would be ideal. Landau stated while she was closely involved with a lot of these amendments, there were quite a few that the City determined themselves that needed clarification which were also very good. Wade noted it's not uncommon now to see a bathroom window, which is a high window in the wall that's a 1' high and 4' wide or so that comes in the percentage but as the builder if that's the single window on a wall it becomes a pretty blank wall except for that one so is there any concern about over a wall length having a certain requirement or what challenges have they run into. Landau stated they have worked really closely with these plans and they agree they don't want to just stick one little sized window just to placate everyone and so have started going towards three 18"x18" being shown on some of their plans. The majority of the windows are on the front and the back, because houses are so close on the sides, but there are still very few sides that will just have one little window. Quellhorst closed the public hearing. Elliott recommends approval of REZ25-0002, a proposal that Title 14 Zoning be amended, as illustrated in Attachment 2, to enhance land use regulations related to the form -cased code and to further implement the City's goals. Townsend seconded the motion. Townsend asked regarding the American Disabilities Act has all the curb cuts for the sidewalks and the door openers been taken all that in consideration with this new plan. Russett confirmed yes, however that more comes into play with the building code, because there are accessibility requirements for certain building types, but not for probably some of the building types they're talking about like a single family home, for example not all single family homes have to be ADA compliant but they are following all federal regulations in terms of new buildings and ADA Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 2025 Page 15 of 17 compliance Quellhorst thought all the changes made a lot of sense, if there's anything that gave him a little bit of pause it was the window requirement but thinks it makes sense given that it's a minimum and they can always install more. He understands that windows are extremely expensive and when the consultant that recommended 30% is coming back and saying that 15% is more typical of what they're seeing in the market, he is inclined to follow that recommendation. Miller thanked staff and the City for engaging in the dialog and being responsive to what they're hearing, it speaks highly of the City to be able to make it more clear and but still maintaining the integrity of the intent. Wade noted the glazing was a little bit of harboring on 15% especially on the street facing right of way, that feels like it could become an opportunity for a long wall, especially with a wing with one window requirement. On the other two items he is a little bit more relaxed, he knows the challenges that people run into from an accessibility standpoint, from the garage into the house, which is honestly most commonly used, especially from an attached garage, but it has to be made up somewhere, and it's either in the garage or a ramp, and it becomes pretty awkward. Maybe in the future there will be an opportunity to visit the 12" requirement and maybe that doesn't really need to be a requirement. Regarding the 12' driveway, it just seems a little narrow, if there is an 18' garage door this seems like a little bit narrow on the opening, but not a reason to stop it from proceeding, again maybe an opportunity to expand later on or upon further review. Quellhorst stated to elaborate on that a little bit, just for future, thinks one tiny improvement, like with the window change, would be to see an example of what 15% looks like versus 30%. He stated because it's not just one elevation and there's so many different varieties that might be difficult to show. Russett stated part of the reason that they added the standard of one window per side is because they didn't want the 15% to be just on the front and back, but they also know they can't code their way out of these worst case scenarios that they may be envisioning in their head. Craig stated she is still a little concerned about the windows, it just seems like such a big decrease but if that's the industry standard these days so be it. She also is concerned about the driveway and if they have an 18' garage door, which is standard for a two car garage, why only have a 12' driveway. Schaefer clarified that 12' is the standard for front -loaded, if it is an alley - loaded garage they can be as wide as they want to be. Part of the form -based code is they're trying to promote the use of alleyways and rear loaded garages to make the walkability and in front of homes look a little better and not be so dominated by garages. A vote was taken and the motion with the added conditions passed 6-0. DISCUSSION ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE AND STEERING COMMITTEE: Russett shared the list of steering committee members and a summary of what has been done so far. Staff is going to be meeting again with the steering committee on Monday, but if the Commission has any questions, staff can take those. Craig asked how the consultants were picked. Russett explained the City issued a request for proposals, reviewed the proposals, did interviews, and then selected Confluence. Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 2025 Page 16 of 17 Townsend asked what's happening over in Forest View, she noticed that there are things happening over in there, they were clearing it out the other day and will it still be affordable housing. Russett can't speak to that as they haven't received any applications for development in that area. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: FEBRUARY 19, 2025: Craig moved to approve the meeting minutes from February 19, 2025. Elliott seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett reminded the Commission that there's no March 19 meeting due to spring break. Craig asked what's going on across from the old Mercy Hospital on Market. Russett is unsure as it is likely University property now but believes it will be more parking. ADJOURNMENT: Townsend moved to adjourn, Miller seconded and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2023-2025 10118 11115 1216 12120 1117 217 2121 413 511 6126 914 9118 11120 1214 2119 315 CRAIG, SUSAN X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X ELLIOTT, MAGGIE X X X X X O/E X X X O/E X X O/E X X X HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E MILLER, STEVE -- -- I -- -- -- -- I -- -- -- -- -- -- I -- -- -- -- -- -- I -- -- X X X X X X PADRON, MARIA X X O/E X X X X O/E O/E -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- QUELLHORST, SCOTT X X X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X X TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X WADE, CHAD X X X X X X X X O/E X 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 (REZ25-0003) Ordinance No. An ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 0.06 acres for a portion of the property located at 691 E. Foster Rd. from High Density Single -Family Residential zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12) to Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) zone. (REZ25-0003). Whereas, Foster Road Development, LLC, has requested the rezoning for a portion of the property located at 691 E. Foster Rd. from High Density Single -Family Residential zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12) to Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) zone; and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the subject area is appropriate for Public/Private Open Space uses and the North District Plan indicates that the subject area is appropriate for Single -Family and Duplex Residential; and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan encourages a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods, concentrates new development in areas contiguous to existing neighborhoods where it is most cost effective and to extend infrastructure and services, and encourages compact, efficient development that is contiguous and connected to existing neighborhoods; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need for improved site access for city vehicles which includes the installation of additional pavement at the intersection of St. Anne's Drive and Buresh Avenue; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that the proposed boundary line adjustment for Lot 25 in conjunction with the request for City Engineer approved construction drawings prior to issuance of a building permit and the installation of additional pavement to improve city vehicle access to be completed prior to certificate of occupancy that 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, Foster Road Development, 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 reclassified Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) zone, as indicated: BEGINNING at the Northwest Corner of Lot 25 of Conway's Subdivision, to Iowa City, Iowa, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 4 at Page 253 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S03°34'39"E, along the west Line of said Lot 25, and the Southerly Projection thereof, 112.47 feet, to a Point on the Northerly Right -of -Way of St. Anne's Drive; Thence S59°02'57"E, along the Southwesterly Projection of said St. Anne's Drive, 3.63 feet; Thence N30057'03"W, 94.87 fee; Thence N53°52'27"E, 55.57 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Auditor's Ordinance No. Page 2 Parcel 2025003 contains 2,807 square feet, 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 2025. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Approved by / G City Attorneys Office — 04/09/2025 Ordinance No. _ Page No. 3 It was moved by , and seconded by _ ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Alter Bergus Harmsen Moe Salih Teague Weilein First Consideration: April 15, 2025 Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Harmsen, Moe, Salih, Teague, Weilein NAYS: None ABSENT: None Second Consideration: Vote for passage: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Date published: that the Prepared by: Madison Conley, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (REZ25-0003) Conditional Zoning Agreement This agreement is made among the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"), Foster Road Development, LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Owner"). Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 0.06 acres for a portion of the property located at 691 E. Foster Rd., legally described below; and Whereas, the Owner has requested the rezoning of said property legally described below from High Density Single -Family Residential zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12) to Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) zone; and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the subject area is appropriate for Public/Private Open Space uses and the North District Plan indicates that the subject area is appropriate for Single -Family and Duplex Residential; and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan encourages a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods, concentrates new development in areas contiguous to existing neighborhoods where it is most cost effective and to extend infrastructure and services, and encourages compact, efficient development that is contiguous and connected to existing neighborhoods; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need for improved site access for city vehicles which includes the installation of additional pavement at the intersection of St. Anne's Drive and Buresh Avenue; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that the proposed boundary line adjustment for Lot 25 in conjunction with the request for City Engineer approved construction drawings prior to issuance of a building permit and the installation of additional pavement to improve city vehicle access to be completed prior to certificate of occupancy that 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: BEGINNING at the Northwest Corner of Lot 25 of Conway's Subdivision, to Iowa City, Iowa, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 4 at Page 253 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S03°34'39"E, along the west Line of said Lot 25, and the Southerly Projection thereof, 112.47 feet, to a Point on the Northerly Right -of -Way of St. Anne's Drive; Thence S59°02'57"E, along the Southwesterly Projection of said St. Anne's Drive, 3.63 feet; Thence N30°57'03"W, 94.87 fee; Thence N53052'27"E, 55.57 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Auditor's Parcel 2025003 contains 2,807 square feet, 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 of the subject property, Owners agree that no building permit shall be issued for Lot 25 Conway's Subdivision until the City approves a boundary line adjustment for the subject property that conforms to the zoning boundaries established by the rezoning ordinance to which this Agreement is attached. b. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Lot 25 Conway's Subdivision, Owner shall install additional pavement at the intersection of St. Anne's Drive and Buresh Avenue, similar in design to what exists at the other end of the block adjacent to 840-852 St. Anne's Drive, so as to allow City vehicles to provide services to the lot without having to back up. Prior to issuance of a building permit for said lot, Owner shall submit construction drawings for the proposed improvements and obtain approval of said construction drawing by the City Engineer. Any property acquisition needed to make said improvements shall be acquired by the Owner prior to the issuance of a building permit for said lot. 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 certificate of occupancy 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 , 2025. 2 City of Iowa City Bruce Teague, Mayor Attest: Kellie Grace, City Clerk Approved by: r ity Attorney's Office City of Iowa City Acknowledgement: State of Iowa ) ss: Johnson County ) Foster Road Development, LLC y: 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: Foster Road Development, LLC Acknowledgement: State of— County This record was acknowledged be ore me on 2025 by (name) as (title) of Foster Road Development, LLC \ ILA Notary Public in and the State of Iowa LORI K. YODER (Stamp or Seal) ,4� 4LConxnission Number 759128 �P • July im . 13, My commission expires: 3 Item Number: 9.c. a CITY OF IOWA CITY "QF T-4 COUNCIL ACTION REPORT April 15, 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 (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) 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 Protest of Rezoning - Chad Cermak (included in 4/1/25 Supplement 1 Late Handouts) Corresponcence from Audrey Bahrick and neighbors plus Protest of Rezoning petitions (included in 4/1/25 Supplement 1 Late Handouts) Council Correspondence from Audrey Bahrick (included in 4/1/25 Supplement 2 Late Handouts) 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 May 6, 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 (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) 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 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"; 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 N89037'57"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 N25°57'16"E, along said Easterly Right -of -Way Line, 273.89 feet; Thence N89023'45"E, 130.27 feet; Thence N00036'51 "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 N89018'10"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 2025. Mayor Attest:_ City Clerk Approved by City Attorne ' 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 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. _Me 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 N25°57'16"E, along said Easterly Right -of -Way Line, 273.89 feet; Thence N89023'45"E, 130.27 feet; Thence N00036'51 "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 S28036'44"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. 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 E 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. 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 I 1 day of IV W If , 2025. City of Iowa City Bruce Teague, Mayor 3 TSB Holds —ACC Ab Attest: Kellie Grace, City Clerk Approved by: City A rney's Office City of Iowa City Acknowledgement: State of I owa ) 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 County of This record was acknowledged before me o (name) as Nk6nq4 hs ERIKA ANDERSON _ Commission Number 792095 My Commission Expires iow►� .. �j -tea') My commission expires: I V-1 , 2025 by (title) of TSB Holdings, LLC. Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) My commission expires: C4 JGJ C� rd PROTEST OF REZONINff Handouts Distributed TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 1 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: D q /, A/ 60w 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 �✓� D-e li� .��. Property Owne ): %L C p_�QC CL°�clC r By: w By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): 7 _= STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before ine on T CKa'd- J�7�, } O V-L �f►y'- au-- and individual property ovnier(s)). '3l '� k o-rc.k. 2t�.45 MCOmmission Com MY 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 (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 Late Handouts Distributed � Kellie Grace From: Bahrick, Audrey S <abahrick@uiowa.ecl3- I, 2-5 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 0 Iv 412 ;NNr 4066 402 1 032 -- 10 w-11 `1028 ir '1009919 1022 1007 Y92112 FOO r 1�, 924 1018 9 941 945 1 % ,918 916 �A 912� 907 �910 905 903 S go €i31 /'� p- T 815 112 � 632 802 1 r— 914 112 9251 � r-- 939 931 1�924 935 915 927 91L 3 fi2 W r 931 92; 920 o 91$�`927 r 921 915 911 � �� 916 � � 914 13 837 *11; 9 ro 7 �� 814 1: 84 - 812 810 Happy L 4 808 40110 r 805 Ozark Brown Street 1t 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: qao , 9 02- qo b <70 9 ti , oog/ e 4-� q'v q1, 911 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: °2S JV , Da(.�oe cr�', ld uja 61 N, 1* s Z 7- Property Owner(s): /1l /z/ A Gi w4�5 L-e- C_ By: �- By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on and individual property owner(s)). (Date) by (name(s) of -a Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IE f k\YW P_Z— J TY) "i" ry This instrument was acknowledged before me on MA✓A t 1 ZS (Date) by ��� l SV (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of LS LL C. (name of property owner) . KATE A. GOLDEN Not" Public-Mlnnes}e W CMon E JW 3+. zoz7 ��- J�� Notary Public in and for the State of low& M440GOr,�1- Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING ro TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 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. Prope Owner(s): IV4 INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) ry JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by ear �ns l e and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). MOLLY M. 0«7Z-A PY, I Commkzion Numbee ; %?y5 my j "Mdd"" Notary Pu in and for the to o 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: Coumcil packet 05/2022 Cc: CA—NDS PROTEST OF REZONING r 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: 1-- Property O INDIV1DW PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: el � " CD This instrument was acknowledged before me on +ADD �� ,o a (Date) by 5'C pG, CAjr-r u- (name(s) of indi dual property owner(s)). r .*fir r WENDY::7 } Commission M ommNotary Pu��in and for th 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) 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 05/1022 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: _ 930 IV. 0CdQe a By: INDIVIDUAL. PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: w This instnuent was acknowledged before me on — cat o a 57 (Date) by and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). WENDY S. MAYER ° = Commission Number 729428 My commission Expires Notary Pub c in and for the Rate of Iowa o 1 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 r TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA � CITY OF IOWA C17 Y 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: By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): W STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before nne on _ Ao-aA^ Kr'., ftn4 and individual property owner(s)). z �JASON PAULIOS � Commission Number 841476 My Commission Expires ow* August 8, 2025 Nota Public in and for the State of Iowa 31-71�z, 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 05/1022 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: / el / V IIal Property Owner(s): I A INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: T 's instrument was acknowledged before me on i"v) (Date) by cs�L� -�3 re C-0 P 6 r=" V, rn and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). Notary Pub1Q in and for the StOte of Iowa. W 'u WENDY S. M:729N42]8 commission Numbission AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`VNER(S): i 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 OM022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING u 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: Property er(s): V I 1 D KA (7 L[ By: By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): �� j G "� 1 N C-Z j (p {0 STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on d a (Date) by V l c�c(� ��„„ _ and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). �-7 R%A& KYLE WINTER oP Commission Number 836731 Notaryblic in and for the State of Iowa 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 (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 05/1022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING t 11 , TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL _ IO.WA 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: qo� IQ )0 Qt a�9 S Property Owner(s):_ b_yj y\e rt\ b Y o By. By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on 6 e-A n e tt gy-oW� and individual property owner(s)). 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 s,Py';A[ KIRAN MARIE PATEL o Commission Number 845731 .6 MyCom i sionEx it s (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 A: 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 ZL c—r - c,a INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: TM is instrument was acknowledged before me on �_W-Ch _ (Date) by h . B If • and _ (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). e�R c Commission n Number 82ALES 442 Commission Number 820442 •. My Commission Expires Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Octobers, 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 �F 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: �' C)� Proper ly, Owner(s): By:c,3 y:CD . �.w INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): .. STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on C�1 2�; (Date) by and _ C (name(s) of individual property owlier(s)). 91�arar ESTEFANIAAGUILAR-ROSALES ' Commission Number 820442 �' z� My Commission Expires Notary Pu ] is in and for the State of Iowa 'vv�n October 1, 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 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 i TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA-- CITY OF I o 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: (P2g IJ , (o vs-eyno'' dui— Property Owner(s): DR I /61�94_19 I E By: 11. INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) �„ JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on MAO awl '202-S (Date) by Am►'F Zien .I��d,it lli���+�Rrisi and 7nsR7( NoAam J Abwd TbrAA,ii (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). KIRAN MARIE PATEL x s Commission Number 845731 `` My �omx Ires Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa . ■o�tia d 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 z _ 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: loyu _1w St l4 we, [� 5� R.+s - Property Owner(s): A►� r --- By: CA By. ; INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): s STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: �{ This instrument was acknowledged before ine on 1 `�`Y��j o�$ a2 as (Date) by apnu� Marie, Carol u5 U aq and l(all,% Ajhlwez C-1-0h,5 KLIA (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). e� KIRAN MARIE PATEL i Commission Number 845731 my om +ssion Exp r s otary Pd6ic in and fort e 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 properly 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: qc2t:� _ �J , Prol C INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This r trument was acknowledged before me on _ aLw fA a e- k- and individual property owner(s)), (qav' 11, 2,o�6 ',A KIRAN MARIE PATES o A t" Commission Number 945731 My `m ssion xpire '- - n &f ublic 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 G �^3 — W -; (7) _ J (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 05/1022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING N , 3 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA �L — 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: J 0_ Property Onwn�er(s): (Y�Q t'i 2 � , l \ 1' _ By: 'Ili LUjJL�. w By: :SR INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): ' "" :: STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instnunent was acknowledged before ine on 317 /,2-V)-15 (Date) by f'nc.r S Lj ; l IC_e S and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). COpY T. NEDDERMEYER T won Numbw847131 my Go E*kw of u lic in and or the Stat of Iowa 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 (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/ �o N tt C me c no r St Tn,�_�` Q. ►- Property Owner(s): ]-�aCY"��C�_lC�- �'[` l S By:r�.C; I. " �r► EI _ i INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: T its instnunent was cknowle ged before ine on Y'C .5 (Date) by t'Yt S and (name(s) of individual property ovvtler(s)). ' CONNIE MCCURDY Commission Number 855110 *, * My Commission Expires Notary Public in and for the State Iowa = ►OWh April 04, 2027 c.a . . 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 IOWWA CITY, IOWA F 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: L 7 igw& C t . Property Owner(s): LAT LA)5 K i s By: By: �; a INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This t truIment was acknowledged before me on C4 ��' �U aS (Date) by Fir + -k and (name(s) of individual proerty owner(s)). Notary Public in and for the State of 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 �P�.tiAt Sfi TREVOR POLLOCK oy Commission Number 833466 My commission rNpires fow� L/.1f aG,2 (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 05/1022 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: �'j ��tnJ�y �� Tpt�m 0,1 Property Owner(s):_ h� l Er 1''(Isp BY By: r-D w INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): C=--.� STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: Z_ Thi 'ns t ent as acknowledged before me on j-- 1" 1 � (Date) by ,a grid (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). ELLEN MAYS Notary Public in and for the State of Iowan Commission Number 827205 ow. y Commission Expires 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 r x TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL �- IOWA CITY, IOWA ` - f CITY OOFF 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: g l l� > S% f Q i�1G� Property Owner(s): iqj>trl By: �;- By:w- INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This iinstrument was acknowledged before me on _ —CF h'LAk0i �A F She. and individual property owner(s)). A)�J� 7/ a vas �� s ANGELA PILKINGTON A p Commission No. 743670 My Commission Expires A 10/26/2027(ijotary P lic in and for th ate of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: _ (Date) by (name(s) of 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: b1c. 11— k IS PropertA Own): - _ INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: r- This instrument was acknowledged before ine on / f� uAz--A / D " o2D �"'S (Date) by C1�c�P�/ �►.� jy and -Toe/ ,,(name(s) of individual prope y owner(s)). q.A za, SHOLA WOOTONN : : CommftW Number 796078 Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 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 10WA 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: r; w INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) �-- JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was ackr wledged before me on `� G C.� Ida �� (Date) by j�� �l [x\� R=and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). WENDY S. MAYER o s commission Number 729428 MY Comm i°" g`res Notary Pub) is in acid for the itate 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 .i. 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�1I (/ Property Owner(s): By: By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): X- STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on _ �<0,4imA' Wl1 V5 and individual property owlier(s)). 3/4/ 2G _ (Date) by (name(s) of — 5x42 ' IS WWOt4wv� Mo sejidx3 uaissiwwoO AnL¢ZS6L iaqumN uvissiuiu103 o Notary Public in and for the Stat(Pof Iowa N30NON HVHVS 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 16WA 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: l 3 S t?eyt i, Prope Owner(s): ifV A ji-di By. By: ~v INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S):, STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowled ed before me on 7 1 6L5 (Date) by and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). J" WENDY S. MAYfR o Commission NumberlY3i26 MY Commission res u --I- - 7 Notary Publ# in and for the Stge 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: G l3 �'��5 _ G zlla_q � Property Owner(s): � /, INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S)? STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on and individual property owner(s)). Notary Publi AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR P STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: f' This instrument was acknowledged before me do (name(s) of person(s)) as (name of property own f r f Notary Public in and for the State o Iowa State of Iowa 'ERTY OWNER(S): cj L_, C - w Lo i . (Date) by (name(s) of CT' (Date) by e of authority, such as officer, trustee) of Orig: Council packet 05/2022 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. LIP Sil JIM ll*- ,.�� YANCE LACSINA Notary Public - California a ``' Riverside County > =� Commission �` 246589��7 �o �y Comm. Expires Nov 3, Notary Public Seal PROTEST OF REZONING �. FO: 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 )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):��� By: zz't'� L—Zg=2&� r)A-Zc—� _. INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY O R(S): .. STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me individual property owner(s)). Notary AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Z(Date) by �d (name(s) of X c in and for the S�afc of Iowa r TY OWNER(S): C� _ (Date) by of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owker) . Notary Public in and for the Sta'N of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 n_. n e i.mo 'R-A 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 names) 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. r No Public Mature 0M, YANCE LAC518A Notary Public - CaliforniaRiverside CounryCor^ d%jon t 2465809 Comm. Expires Nov 3, FL27 Notary Public Seal r�s c.n PROTEST OF REZOO T f0: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL - IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF Init;a CITY N e, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property 01-ch is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is x'oposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1 /2, 902, SM, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) 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. 'roperty Address: 610 S - 1f d ��'o v e&'O"e 5,- , 'roperty Owner(s):' A A/ � � ReV nc LC s T .•.., 3y: f NDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): ;TATE OF IOWA ) :. OHNSON COUNTY) ss: r 'his instrument was acknowledged before me on _ and ndividual property owner(s)). Notary Public FP and fo State of Iowa kUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR "ERTY OWNER(S): ;TATE OF IOWA ) r OHNSON COUNTY) ss: f 'his instrument was acknowledged before me Q _ name(s) of person(s)) as (name of property own i (Date) by (name(s) of (Date) by _ e of authority, such as officer, trustee) of Notary Public in and for the StateXpf Iowa )rig: Council packet 05!2022 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 aixd 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 Simla Notary Public Seal YANCE LACSINA = Notary Public - California Riverside County > Commission 9 2465U9 My Comm, Expires Nov 3, 2027 w Cn 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 U %AL Property Owners c, r By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER( - STATE OF IOWA ), JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by and / (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). f J F T Notary Public tn u. d for the State of Iowa ` l AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FQA PRO RTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) /� f JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: �, " , This instrument was acknowledged before 'e on , (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (typ' of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner r � f J Notary Public in and for the State of)pwa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 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 LEARY, 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. 4 g) lNotublic Signature YANCE lACSINA NotaryPubli[ California z Riverside County F Comrnimion # 2465809 • �''� My Comm. Expires Nov 3, 2027 Notary Public Seal r-n Cl) M PkD � d��- pe�t hvY(,r re Cz�) 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: q p © l\/ . D od g-e d�- 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): 92 S Al 0,,,e 17'7r-1 HAwlcs , By: �( By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss 57;0'Y s22--t5­ LL G This instrument was acknowledged before me on individual property owner(s)). and Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF l M)VUlq! AgOtSON- COUNTY) ss: H_atA'� This instrument was acknowled ed (name(s) of person(s)) as 1>?� (Date) by (name(s) of r_..s C- Cl) . 7 1- before me on N < �Z� (Date) by IW l ialaL- ly" I ti (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of L[� (name of property owner) . KATE A. GOLD EN j'�,, . Notary Public-Mrnnesota My Commissbn Expires Jan 31, ppp� 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. Ci By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: c-D _ This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by and - (name(s) of individual prope ty owner(s)). `s moll- Mlles" a _"`• = Notary P is in and for tate of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY ONVNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of pergon(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 05/1022 Cc: CA—NDS PROTEST OF REZONING / TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 1 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 By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA 1 cj-) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before one on M a t_Q (Date) by S k )\AV e \)O and (name(s) of indivi ual property owner(s)), VAENDY S. MAYER yr Commission Numhar 729428 My Comm ssion Expires Not Pub ' in and for the *Le 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 Crrr 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: 3 O I`l - Dod-ee d---, Property Owner(s): �. d v'� rRa h rcc:e INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on c, y% k, 2Z 5 (Date) by A k \, 8 r-2 " 5 c i 4cr v\ Zct k, c-<< and (name(s) of individual prop ty owner(s)). _ h' ■ WENDY S: MAYER Commission Number 129428 ' Notary Publi and for the Sta of Iowa My Cornmissian Expires -- z 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 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: Prop By: In INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on _ )kdAkM V,,rN @ and individual property owner(s)). 31112-4z�; Notary Public in and for the State 3 r' _ (Date) by (name(s) of JASON PAULIOS z r Commission Number 841475 My Commission Explres August 8, 2025 owa 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 '"f''u 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/ /�) Z? Property Own INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: W CD - X_ } This instrument was acknowledged before me on U-;rc � u) Z p� (Date) by k2 Q_,F �A and _ (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). �'°�s WENDY S. MAYER a°�r Commisa�an Number 72D42B i M CvmmissiQn Fx fires Notary Publi . in and for the Stlic 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 pergon(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 r*-A.0 IOWA CITY, IOWA '—�- kj 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, 9b0 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. /�' f ` Property Address: 0 3 ► Y DoAA6 -5k- (64 J. Property wner(s): V i �/ I O P_ Vcc & lBy: By: "INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): C, l o i n STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on _ v i(Aor and individual property owner(s)). '41/'?a)_'�_ A_ c 3A(s, KYLE WINTER a a Commission Number 836731 G� * MY Commission Expires A�z ,oWp L'(zc7 Notary Pub ' c 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 05/1022 Cc: CA—NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL M1l 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 1 V b o C�1 Property Owner(s): t3 c n y, V"N By: �it�►�-.—. *� �.•� Im INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on _ 6 e_A,je 4,t B rt Wj\ and individual property owner(s)). M6(VCk �)_ , '2 0 0- 5 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 Rr4s c�, KIRAH MAR1E PATEL Commission Number 845731 M C MISSI �E}Cplres �aw� �yy _ (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: Q l 3 � -3� C7 <4-� `Q- Pro C INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: c-;: _=7 This instrument was ackno ledged before me on e (Date) by � vy t-kk��Sery o and !SC " erA L) (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). �1 ESfEEAf�IA AG�iLAR-ROSALES � 4� Commission f�umber 820442 * My Commission Expires Notary Mublic and for the State of Iowa iax� Cclaher 1, 2D25 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: 900, 9b0 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: _ `-C \ O Prope Owner vt-e- -a By: c_ By: - INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): —i STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: r '• This instrument was acknowledged before me on lAGLa_Z (Date) by i 0. B e (_�)_ and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). ki ESTEFANIA AGUILAR-ROSALES Commission Number Expires T�' My Commission Expires Notary Pu lic in and for the State of Iowa yeti 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: Coumcil 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: 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 lV , 61-0 Vey K0-- Property Owner(s): AmIP- A10f, !fnCIF? 1 F ?.SFACD By: -- r-:_, -� INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): -- =- STATE OF IOWA— JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on mard �Z$ �v�5 i (Date) by r-j,r ZreA21a 6j,'A 01e- �arril and 3&6 �k ah�r�cd AAme- . Zbrgh,',V (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). kVS++A>_S KIRAN MAR1E PATEL o � Commission Number 945731 ? ' °" My am E sion 1»xplres 'P �� Notary Public 'n 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: 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: Lit ouarw,- Sit . [ova ('':N 1 6-2�2 4-5� Property Ow BY By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on M a(ck a -7 , ;2 a 2 5 (Date) by 40,hoc, MLr�e- Caro Nu Y_ka4 and IA k)AI�R CE;"oiu� ►kk4,U (name(s)of individual property owner(s)). �ha+ KiRAN MARIE PATEL Commission Number 845731 M Commission Expires ,carp 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 k 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:b Property Oivy�t.r(s): INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on _ I au M aL,_ and individual property owner(s)). 1 ,t rG% e2-0 2- ��R+�[y KIRAN MARIE PATEL o F Cor-imission Number 845731 x ' " • " C mmission Exp! es - - xv 6 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 (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 "`EAU-- t 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 —1 N ° Gq%jef-nc r S_� Property Owner(s): MCI cw S W By. By: —s-, w INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: -� This instrument was acknowledged before ire on 3 % .;2v ;X,5 (Date) by d�; e S 110 lke S and ame(s) of individual property owner(s)). dr CODY T. NEDDERMMR Commission Number 847131 MyCommlogn Expires Notary tc in and for the State • owa 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 �' `''• - f CITY OFJO 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: f (.P N GoUe_r no r', t -1c C Proper 4 megsk `D�1d& FCAWEr 1'`S V.C� �� �C'1 er I ne w �1 � F'(� I By: �S -- By y •v Y `� INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This ins went as ackn wle ged before me on GZ �►! 5 D a�J� (Date) by {jam. & tm and rt e. � (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). rr�,�-S Wiwi CONNIE MCCURDY Commission Number 855110 My Commission Expires April 04, 2027 LIXIA JA -1-0— �A G Notary Public in and for the Stat a 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 05/1022 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. INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: r; This instrument was acknowledged before ire on A-t_C4 sa (Date) by IAA vn 4- " and (name(s) of individual roperty owner(s)). P��a[ OCK TREVOR POLL 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 (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, IO.WA 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: n.,aay S-1E,p �° i �.► .�� 1 ` Property Owner(s):�}'� By: RPj 1-M INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This in trument w s acknowledged before me on (Date) by and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). ELLEN MAYS Commission Number 827705 Notary Public in an for the State of Iowa My commission Expires 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 05/1022 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: g I -7 beoN Sfi e oa lA 5 a ay 5 Property Owner(s): c—Dimi ,)rt t�l-z(— By: cr INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowled ed before me on and individual property owner(s)). ANGELA PILKINGTON z Commission No. 743670 * , My Commission Expires lot^ 10/26/2027 ptl�,-Ck 0-7 , aoa--s 6F_A .�..Ii' J .�9—IWRI W 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: 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: _ k-A -Z .- t U S—' ; 1 Property Owner(s): T , By: ' J w - -- .-. INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on /rD� C�o2 (Date) by Oand _7�c>e (name(s) of individu 1 property owner(s)). SHEILA WOOTONN AWa A / C'(/ D� 7487Z0-� x Commission Number 796M my 9Wm ° '�,es 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 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: Property Owner(s): By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on cx 6 �t t o . �o�� (Date) by I� and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). k WENDY S. MAYER 9i. I Commission Number 729428 My�—) � sia_L_ }:' s Notary Public and for the State o vwa 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 r� 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: 1 u_�— Froperty. Owner(s): t r` By: t� By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): — � r-- STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on 3 /4 2C�F 1-"d4iwA L�11;a5 and individual property owner(s)). Notary Public in and for the S e of Iowa 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 _ (Date) by (name(s) of _pN� sf SARAH HORGEN z ' Commission Number 795247 . r My Commission Expires March 23, 2025 (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. K Address: S). INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: CJ`1 Cl) rr; This instr unent was acknowledged before me on "2� V_' L�c_ LA _ �i .3 _ (Date) by c La) f— FTLI, C and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). fi! ~L Notary PublV in and for the SWe 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: 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: C/ Q 9 �,._ � [r7� V f. r-Aln 1,V 57% Property Owner(s): By: " , INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged h individual property owner(s)). me on and N AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (naine(s) of person(s)) as _ Z Ong: O.oun fl_ /" A �a cc s p- c Public in and for the S (name of C-3 .� CO of Iowa (q by amef me(�) of P PROPE OWNER(S):t5 a) _ (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of veer). Notary Public in and for the of Iowa u 05/2022 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 y of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) SS. 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 helshelthey executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by hislherltheir 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. �1 f ` YANCE LACSINA Notary Public - California Riverside County Commission # 2465809 my Comm. Expires Nov 3, 2027 Notary Public Seal 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: qy Y " 7 / O l V , ©y h n/ 5- . Property Owner(s): I0 INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY O ER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before r individual property owner(s)). on and Notary kublic in AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: f This instrument was acknowledged befo"e on (name(s) of person(s)) as I ,6le- ;/'�a1Z s% the State of Iowa PERTY OWNER(S):� �J (name of property (Date) by (name(s) of _ (Date) by of authority, such as officer, trustee) of Notary Public in and for the State of 'Ala Ong: Council packet 0512022 • _ - "A M1 0 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. yAyCE LACSINA Notary Public • California Riverside County > C9mmission # 24651104 J My C,,r-m. Expifes Hov 3, 202T Notary Public Seal PROTEST OF REZONING u PO: 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 vhich 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 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: �13-- NDIVIDUAL PROPF Y OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) [OHNSON COUNTY) ss: Phis instrument was acknowledged bore me on ndividual property owner(s)). A.UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SI STATE OF IOWA ) FOHNSON COUNTY) ss: Phis instrument was acknowled ;name(s) of person(s)) as aj N before me on S r� C ZF40IRWOPERTY OWNER(S): �� (name of property owner', _ (Date) by of authority, such as officer, trustee) of Notary Public in and for the State of Drig: Council packet 05/2022 -. � e '.rrmo 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, allotary 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. Notanpublic S i ature YANCE LACSINA r `• Notary Public I California V-4- Riverside County Commission X 2465809 (My Comm. Expires Nov 3, 2027 Notary Public Seal a 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— 2/,? Property Owner(s):� By �— By. _ c INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY WNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) -w JOHNSON COUNTY) ss:f This instrument was acknowledged be rare me on _ and individual property owner(s)). 1 N AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNIN STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged b are me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Public id'and for the State of Iowa PROPERTY OWNER(S): �Sz' (name of property (Date) by _ _ (name(s) of _ (Date) by of authority, such as officer, trustee) of Notary Public in and for the State oNowa Orig: Council packet 05/207.2 l fl A TTT%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 LEARY, 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. Loc'--olm YANCE LACSINA Notary Public - California Riverside County Commission # 2465809 y Comm. Expires Nov 3, 2627 Notary Public Seal -s�- q, / Kellie Grace From: Bahrick, Audrey S <abahrick@uiowa.edu> Late Handouts Distributed Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 11:03 PM To: *City Council _ Subject: Letter re: Rezoning of 911 Governor St Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; City Council Ree+r�g fe�t�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 (R313) 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 R313 plats. Yet what is permitted is not the same as what is feasible. Regardless of the court order, development potential of the R313 area is physically limited due to: e 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 R3B 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 Yellow highlight shows properties of signed protest petitions Rezoning outlined in blue ��� 'i ^� 412 1032928 1028 1011 406 50 919 1009 W 402 1022 r_ 334 903, _- 1 a31 829 900, 827 3�0 8?5 828 3 815 1/2 81� 1618 Brown Street 1007 100! 5 F; 931 915 { 914 814--Q L�- 84 1{ Submitted by Sharon DeGraw FI Lf P k L City C Iowa Cit;. 1 Item Number: 9.d. I, CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT April 15, 2025 Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning Code, and Title 15, Land Subdivision, to adjust standards, increase flexibility, and clarify language related to form -based zones and standards (REZ25-0002). Attachments: REZ25-0002 Packet PZ 3.5.25 minutes REZ25-0002 Ordinance a r 4 Date: March 5, 2025 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Rachael Schaefer, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Zoning Code Amendment (REZ25-0002) related to the Form -Based Zones and Standards Introduction The Iowa City Zoning Code (Title 14) and Subdivision Code (Title 15) are subject to alteration and clarification as situations and circumstances change throughout the city. The proposed ordinance (Attachment 1) addresses many issues that have come to light with various aspects of the form -based code language and how the form -based code is applied. These code amendments adjust standards, increase flexibility, and clarify language within the form -based code. Background The form -based code is a key tool for guiding the physical development of Iowa City, specifically the South and Southwest Districts. Unlike traditional zoning, which focuses on land use, the form -based code emphasizes the design, form, and character of the built environment to foster cohesive, walkable, and vibrant neighborhoods. Iowa City adopted its current form -based code in 2021 to encourage high -quality development and align growth with the community's long-term vision for the South and Southwest Districts. However, no significant development has occurred within the form -based code districts since its adoption. Feedback from a recent developer working to rezone and develop in the form -based zones has highlighted areas of the code that could be clearer, more streamlined, and better aligned with practical applications. Addressing these aspects will help improve the code's effectiveness and support its intended outcomes. The proposed updates aim to address these issues by making development under the form - based code more feasible. By adjusting regulations, clarifying standards, and removing unnecessary complexities, the revisions detailed in this memo are intended to encourage investment, reduce delays, and ensure the form -based code better serves Iowa City's goals for sustainable, functional, and inclusive growth. While considering potential updates Staff also created and published a user-friendly guide that highlights key standards and walks users through the requirements for development in areas planned for form -based zones (see Attachment 1). If approved, this guide will be updated with the proposed code changes. The proposed code amendment (Attachment 2) includes changes to Article H, Form -Based Zones and Standards, of the Zoning Code (Title 14). Staff also proposes amending Title 15 (Land Subdivisions) to allow flexibility for unique situations related to block sizes and configurations. While the Planning and Zoning Commission does not review changes to the City Code outside of Title 14, they are summarized in this memo so the Commission can understand how the proposed changes work together towards implementing the proposed standards. Proposed Amendments The existing code, proposed code amendments, and justification for each proposed change are detailed below. BUILDING PLACEMENT Building placement standards regulate setbacks and the orientation of buildings to create cohesive streetscapes, support walkability, and protect privacy between neighboring properties. 1. Minimum Side Yard Setbacks for Primary Buildings (Table 14-2H-2C-5 and Table 14- 2H-2D-5) Summary of Existing Code: The minimum side yard setback for primary buildings is 10' in the T3NE zone, 7' in the T3NG zone, 5' in the T4NS and T4NM zones, and 0' in the T41VIS zone. Summary of Proposed Change: Reduce 10' and 7' minimum side setback requirements to 5' minimum in the T3NE and T3NG zones. EXISTING PROPOSED T3 Neighborhood Edge Zone (T3NE) 10, 5' T3 Neighborhood General Zone 7, 5' (T3NG) T4 Neighborhood Small Zone (T4NS) 5' 5' T4 Neighborhood Medium Zone 5' 5' (T4NM) T4 Main Street Zone (T4MS) 0' 0' Justification: Reducing the side setback allows for slightly increased buildable areas on lots. This change aligns with the City's goal of effective land utilization and increasing housing availability. The decrease to 5' mirrors the minimum side setbacks standards in the other form -based zone districts and many of the City's traditional residential zones, which also require a 5' minimum side setback. The consistent setback standard streamlines implementation. 2. Placement of Garages Associated with a Duplex Side -by -Side or Townhome Building Type (Table 14-2H-2C-5, Table 14-2H-2D-5, Table 14-21-1-2E-5, Table 14-2H-2F-5, and Table 14-2H-2G-5) Summary of Existing Code: Depending on which zone the building is in, accessory structures must be setback 10', T, or 5' from side property lines. Summary of Proposed Change: When used for parking, the accessory structure side setbacks and side parking setbacks would be reduced to 0' for Duplex Side -by -Side and Townhome building types. This change would only be applied to interior side setbacks, not to street -side setbacks. This change would also reduce the wing offset to 0' for attached Townhomes where the wing is being used as an attached garage at the rear of the building. The duplex side -by -side does not allow wings so an update to the duplex standards is not required. EXISTING I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PROPOSED CHANGE 0101010 'IrwGarage Justification: Both the Duplex Side -by -Side and Townhome building types allow for residential units to be attached. By allowing 0' setbacks and wing offsets these building types would be allowed to have the garages of each unit also be attached. This change allows for a more efficient use of the buildable area. Due to other site standards, this change will most frequently be utilized for rear access garages, decreasing any potential visual impacts of the change. BUILDING TYPES Building type guidelines set clear rules for each kind of building so that each zone achieves the intended physical character. They also support a mix of housing options and small businesses as amenities in walkable neighborhoods. Each block must have at least two different building types (e.g. townhouse, cottage court, house, small). 1. Maximum Wing Dimensions for House Large and House Small Building Types (Table 14-2H-6D-3 and Table 14-2H-6E-3) Summary of Existing Code: A wing is a structure physically attached to, and smaller in footprint and height to, the main body of a building. Another way to think of it is an addition to a home. For the House Large and House Small building types, the maximum width of the wings is 20', and the maximum depth is 20'. Summary of Proposed Change: Increase the maximum width and depth of wing for the House Large and House Small building types to 24'. Max. Wing Width 20' 24' House Large Max. Wing Depth 20' 24' Max. Wing Width 20' 24' House Small Max. Wing Depth 20' 24' Justification: Increasing the allowed wing size accommodates modern housing needs by allowing functional attached garages with space for two vehicles, stairs, and storage. This change improves usability, supports market demand for attached garages, and enhances site planning flexibility without significantly impacting neighborhood character. By updating the wing size, the code better supports practical home designs. 2. Wings Off -set from Main Body (Table 14-2H-6D-3, Table 14-2H-6E-3, and Table 14-2H- 6G-3) Summary of Existing Code: Wings must be offset a minimum of 5' from the main body of the building. Summary of Proposed Change: Create an exception for the House Large, House Small, and Duplex Stacked building types when wings are adjacent to the corner of a building that connects to two building faces that do not front a public right-of-way. When this placement is met, then the minimum wing offset may be reduced to 0'. Justification: Allowing a 0' offset for wings on House Large, House Small, and Duplex Stacked building types provides enhanced design flexibility and a more efficient use of space. This exception recognizes that the typical concerns addressed by a 5' offset, such as creating visual breaks in the building mass, are less critical on interior or less visible building faces. The update maintains the standard on the most visible sides of buildings while offering developers flexibility in optimizing their building layouts EXISTING r-----------i I I I L u I w I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------ Main Body I I I - 1--------------- Main Body Main Body I I I 1-------------- I I STREET r w r N PROPOSED UPDATE r-----------7--------------- T-------------- I Iw i I Iw -----------1--------------- 1------------ STREET Key: 0wing must heoffset from this corner a wing does not need lobe offset from ihiscorner 3. Duplex Side -by -Side Building Type Standards (Table 14-2H-6F-3) Summary of Existing Code: For the Duplex Side -By -Side building type, the maximum width of the main body of the building is 48', and the maximum depth is 40'. Summary of Proposed Change: When units are rear -loaded and only one story in height, the maximum width of the main body of the building can be increased to 60', and the maximum depth can be increased to 70'. Max. Main Body 48' 60' Duplex Side -By -Side Width (Single Story 8t Rear - Loaded) Max. Main Body 40' 70' Depth Justification: The larger main body sizes allow for the development of single -story duplexes, which would otherwise be infeasible using the current standards. This building type adds to the mix of housing types that form -based districts can provide and cater to families, seniors, and those with accessibility needs. The increased main body width of 60' is only 5' and 10' wider than the House Large and Multiplex Small building types, respectively. These two building types are the bulkiest buildings that could be built on the same block as a single - story duplex. While the change would allow single -story duplexes to be wider, the other two building types can be 2.5 stories tall, making them larger in comparison. The increased main body depth of 70' allows for more space within the single -story duplexes by adding bulk lengthwise, allowing the scale at the street to remain in harmony with other building types. The additional requirement of having these buildings be rear loaded is also aligned with the goal of maintaining a walkable neighborhood environment. 4. Cottage Court Building Type Standards (Table 14-2H-6H-3) Summary of Existing Code: For the Cottage Court building type, the maximum depth of the main body of the building is 24'. Summary of Proposed Change: Increase the maximum depth of the main body of the building to 30'. Max. Main Body 32' no change Width 32' Cottage Court Max. Main Body 24' 30' Depth Justification: The Cottage Court building type is a unique "missing middle" housing type that the City would like to see developed to increase housing variation and affordability. Increasing the maximum main body dimensions from 32' by 24' to 32' by 30' allows for more flexibility for interior layouts. This adjustment accommodates slightly larger layouts while maintaining the compact nature of this building type. This change can make this building type an attractive and viable option for developers and residents alike. 5. Cottage Court Lot Depth (Table 14-2H-2C-3, Table 14-2H-2D-3, and Table 14-2H-2E-3) Summary of Existing Code: For the Cottage Court building type, the maximum depth of the lot is 180'. Summary of Proposed Change: Increase maximum lot depth to 200'. Max. Lot Width 120' no change120' Cottage Court Max. Lot Depth 180' 200' Justification: The maximum design site depth was increased from 180' to 200' to accommodate the increased building depths described in the section above. This change allows adequate space for buildings, required setbacks, shared courtyard, sidewalks, parking spaces, landscaping, etc. ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS Architectural element standards establish requirements that supplement the zones standards to further refine the intended building form and physical character of the zone. 1. Residential Building Glazing (14-21-1-713-2b) Summary of Existing Code: The ground floor of all residential buildings is required to be 30% glazing. Glazing is defined as, "openings in a building in which glass is installed". The current standard does not mention if attached garages are exempt or not. Summary of Proposed Change: Reduce the glazing requirement to 15% of the ground floor with a minimum of one window per building side and exempt attached garages from this standard. Justification: Reducing the ground -floor glazing requirement to 15% while exempting attached garages provides a more practical and achievable standard for residential buildings. This new percentage is similar to the glazing standards required for City -funded affordable housing projects. The update ensures that homes maintain an active and visually appealing streetscape while allowing for functional design flexibility; such as, room for upper cabinets along exterior walls in kitchens, places to attach televisions to living room walls, showers in bathrooms, and headboards of beds in bedrooms. Requiring a minimum of one window per building side preserves natural light and architectural interest. Exempting attached garages allows for enhanced privacy for items stored inside, aligning the standard with typical residential construction while maintaining overall design quality. FRONTAGE TYPES Frontages are the components of a building that provide the transition and interface between the public realm (street and sidewalk) and the private realm (yard or building). Frontage type standards establish base standards for each allowed frontage type. Frontage type examples include porch projected (open on three sides), porch engaged (open on 1 or two sides, other sides are the building itself), stoops, and dooryards. Each block must have at least two different frontage types. 1. Minimum Depth and Width of Porch Projected and Porch Engaged Frontage Types (Table 14-2H-8C-2 and Table 14-2H-8D-2) Summary of Existing Code: For both the Porch Projected and Porch Engaged frontage types, the width and depth measurements are taken from the inside of the porch posts, "width, clear" and "depth, overall". The minimum width, clear is 15' and the minimum depth, overall is 8' for porches elevated less than twelve inches and 6' for porches elevated twelve or more inches. Summary of Proposed Change: Remove "clear' and "overall" from the width and depth standards, respectively, to simplify implementation and review. Reduce the width from to 12' minimum and the depth to 6' minimum regardless of the porch elevation. E Width, Clear 15' min Width 12' min Depth, Overall Depth 6' min Elevated < 12" from average finish grade $' min Elevated 12" from 6' min average finish grade W.163 91►141 sethnk ROW street Q:tQ &1-14 OXON F_1► Eel SPt6eck ROW Key: (A) — Width (B) - Depth slreel Justification: The proposed change simplifies the implementation and review process by standardizing minimum porch dimensions. Eliminating "clear" and "overall" from width and depth measurements reduces confusion, ensuring consistent application of the standards. In addition, using a "clear' dimension is difficult at plan review since certain details like column are unknown. Adjusting the minimum width to 12' and depth to 6' regardless of elevation creates a more flexible and practical requirement that accommodates a wider range of housing designs while maintaining functional and visually appealing porches. This update streamlines code review and supports efficient development. Depth of Recessed Entries (Table 14-2H-8E-2 and Table 14-2H-8F-2) Summary of Existing Code: For both the Dooryard and Stoop frontage types, there is a depth of recessed entry maximum of 12". This is measured from the front facade to the front door. Summary of Proposed Change: Increase the depth of recessed entry maximum to 3' for both the Dooryard and Stoop frontage types. PROPOSED CHANGE Depth of recessed entries 12" max. Depth of recessed entries 3' max. EXISTING PROPOSED CHANGE Setback ROW Street Setback ROW Street Key: (E) - Depth of Recess Entries Justification: Increasing the maximum recessed entry depth from 12" to 3' for Dooryard and Stoop frontage types provides greater flexibility for architectural design while maintaining an inviting and pedestrian -friendly streetscape. A slightly deeper recess allows for better weather protection, improved privacy, and a more functional transition space between public and private areas. This change enhances building usability and aligns with common architectural practices without negatively impacting the overall frontage character. 3. Dooryard Frontage Type Glazing Spacing (Table 14-2H-8E-2) Summary of Existing Code: For the Dooryard frontage type, there is a distance between glazing (i.e. window) standard that limits the distance between glazing to 4' maximum. Summary of Proposed Change: Remove distance between glazing requirements. Justification: Removing the 4' maximum distance between glazing for the Dooryard frontage type provides greater design flexibility while still encouraging an active and visually engaging streetscape. By eliminating this requirement, the update allows for more adaptable designs while still relying on other frontage standards to ensure high -quality, pedestrian - friendly development. 4. Stoop Frontage Type (14-2H-8F-1 and 14-2H-9B-3) Summary of Existing Code: For the Stoop frontage type, the landing of the stoop is required to be elevated a minimum of 12" above the sidewalk. The description and miscellaneous sections state that stairs and ramps can be used to access the elevated landing. Summary of Proposed Change: Add language to allow a sloped walkway to access the landing. The sloped walkway shall connect the stoop landing to the public sidewalk or driveway. EXAMPLE OF SLOPED WALKWAYS (for illustration purposes) Justification: Adding language to allow a sloped walkway provides more accessible and flexible entry options for the Stoop frontage type. This change improves accessibility for individuals with mobility challenges and offers an alternative to stairs or ramps. By permitting a sloped walkway to connect the stoop landing to the sidewalk or driveway, the update enhances usability while maintaining the intended elevated entry design. PARKING Each zone has its own set of parking standards. Parking standards regulate how many private parking spaces are required, where parking spaces and driveways can be located, and their allowed size. 1. Minimum Distance Between Driveways (Table 14-2H-2C-7, Table 14-2H-2D-7, Table 14- 2H-2E-7, and Table 14-2H-2F-7) Summary of Existing Code: The minimum distance between driveways is 40' in all form - based zones. Summary of Proposed Change: Decrease the minimum distance between driveways to 20'. Distance between driveways is measured at the property line. Justification: Reducing the minimum distance between driveways allows for more efficient use of smaller lots, particularly in areas with higher -density housing or compact development patterns. The change supports the City's goals of maximizing land use. This change also allows for flexibility of driveway placement, which is needed in instances where the site's topography restricts driveway placement. One of the main intents of this standard is to mitigate concerns about the visual dominance of curb cuts and prioritize streetscapes that increase walkability. While the reduction from 40' to 20' will allow for more driveways per block, it is still much less than what would be allowed in the City's traditional single-family residential zones, which only require 6' between driveways. The form -based zones also require front -loaded garages to be setback 15' from the facade of the main body of the building to further reduce the visual dominance of the garage. FLEXIBILITY FOR UNIQUE SITUATIONS These changes are proposed to allow adjustments to standard requirements for unique site conditions while maintaining the intent of the Form -Based Code. 1. Maximum Lot Depth and Width Adjustment (14-2H-4E-1) Summary of Existing Code: Each building type has a maximum lot depth and width. Summary of Proposed Change: This change allows applicants to apply for an administrative adjustment to the maximum design site depth and width standards if specific approval criteria are met. The applicant must demonstrate that the adjustment to the lot standards is needed to avoid a regulated sensitive area, existing topography constraints, configuration of existing streets, or block size of abutting neighborhood. Justification: This adjustment recognizes that certain sites may have unique challenges that make meeting design site standards impractical. The proposed adjustment protects sensitive areas by allowing site design to adapt to natural conditions. Sites with steep grades, irregular shapes, or existing infrastructure constraints may find strict adherence to depth and width standards impractical. Allowing an administrative adjustment ensures that projects can respond to these challenges without compromising functionality or quality. In areas where existing conventionally zoned blocks have unique site and street configurations, allowing adjustments ensures that new developments integrate seamlessly with existing developments. By allowing flexibility in lot depth and width standards, this change supports creative site designs that work with the site's characteristics and constraints. By establishing clear approval criteria, the adjustment process ensures that changes are thoughtfully considered and aligned with the City's goals. 2. Two -Way Traffic Driveway Width Adjustment (14-2H-4E-1) Summary of Existing Code: The maximum driveway width for all zones is 12'. Parking areas must be behind the residential buildings or setback from the public right-of-way. Summary of Proposed Change: If alley access is not feasible, a longer drive aisle is needed to access the parking area. These drive aisles will be used for two-way traffic and warrant a larger driveway width. This change allows applicants to apply for an administrative adjustment to increase the maximum driveway width to 18' if specific approval criteria are met. The applicant must demonstrate that the adjustment is needed to access a parking area for a building with 3 or more units and alley access is not feasible. Justification: Allowing an administrative adjustment for increased driveway width provides necessary flexibility for developments with three or more units where alley access is not feasible. This change ensures that Cottage Court and other multi -unit building types have adequate access to off-street parking while maintaining safe and functional site design. LANGUAGE CLARIFICATION & CODE CLEAN UP These changes are proposed to improve clarity, remove inconsistencies, and streamline the code to ensure easier interpretation and application. 1. Encroachments Into Setbacks (Table 14-2H-2C-6, Table 14-2H-2D-6, Table 14-2H-2E-6, Table 14-2H-2F-6, and Table 14-2H-2G-6) Summary of Existing Code: Architectural features (i.e. eaves, bay windows, window and door surrounds, light fixtures, canopies, and balconies) and stairs can encroach into building setbacks a certain amount depending on the zone. Architectural features and stairs can encroach a maximum of 3' to 5' into side setbacks depending on the zone. Summary of Proposed Change: Reduce the maximum side setback encroachment for architectural features and stairs to align with the reduced side setbacks for all zones. See page PROPOSED I EXISTING PROPOSED i EXISTING PROPOSED T3 Neighborhood 5' min. 5' max. 3' max. 5' max. 2' max. Edge Zone (T3NE) T3 Neighborhood General Zone 5' min. 5' max. 3' max. 5' max. 2' max. (T3NG) 5' min. T4 Neighborhood 5' max. 3' max 5' max. 2' max. Small Zone (T4NS) T4 Neighborhood Medium Zone 5' min. 5' max. 3' max 5' max. 2' max. (T4NM) L 0' min. 3' max. 0' IT4 Main Street Zone (T4MS) 3' max. 0' Justification: This change is required because of the proposed change to the side setbacks (see "Minimum Side Yard Setbacks for Primary Buildings (Table 14-2H-2C-5 and Table 14- 2H-2D-5)" above. The proposed change ensures that the maximum allowable encroachment of architectural features and stairs remains proportional to the reduced side setbacks across all zones. Aligning encroachment limits with the updated setbacks enhances consistency in site planning, simplifies code application, and reduces potential conflicts between neighboring properties. 2. Driveway Curb Width and Curb Cuts (Table 14-2H-2C-7, Table 14-2H-2D-7, Table 14- 2H-2E-7, Table 14-2H-2F-7, and Table 14-2H-2G-7) Summary of Existing Code: The current code language only refers to "curb cut width". The measurement "curb cut width" is referring to is the width of the driveway. The maximum curb cut width is 12'. Summary of Proposed Change: We have found that most code users define "curb cut width" as the width of a driveway where it meets the street pavement. For clarity we are proposing to change "curb cut width" to "driveway width". This standard will be measured at the property line. 3 EXISITING PROPOSED CHANGE r-----------------� I � I � I � I � I � I � I � I � I � I � I � I � Driveway Width — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Key: — — — - ROW/Property Line Justification: Clarifying the distinction between curb cut width and driveway width ensures consistency in interpretation and application of zoning regulations. This change helps prevent confusion among developers, homeowners, and staff by clearly defining each measurement's role in site design. Townhome Building Type (Table 14-2H-2G-3, 14-2H-6K-1, and Table 14-2H-6K-2) Summary of Existinq Code: The Townhouse building type is described as a "small -to -large sized, typically attached, building with a rear yard that consists of three to eight townhouses placed side -by -side. Each townhouse consists of one unit or up to three stacked units as allowed by the zone. As allowed by the zone, this type may also be detached with minimal separations between buildings. This type is typically located within moderate -to -high intensity neighborhoods or near a neighborhood main street". Summary of Proposed Change: The change simplifies the description to a small -to -large sized, typically attached, building with a rear yard that consists of two to eight townhouses placed side -by -side. Each townhouse consists of one unit or up to three stacked units as allowed by the zone. As allowed by the zone, the house -scale townhouse type may be detached. Justification: The simplified description provides a clearer, more concise explanation of the Townhouse building type, making it easier for stakeholders, including developers, staff, and residents, to understand the intended use and design characteristics. The update removes the confusion of what minimally separated means and broadens applicability by clarifying that the house -scale Townhouse building type may be detached and setback from adjacent properties at the minimum setback distance. Adjusting the description to include two townhouses as the minimum (rather than three) accommodates smaller -scale developments, which can help diversify housing options. The revised description eliminates potential ambiguities about the number of townhouses, their configuration, and their placement, ensuring consistency in how the type is interpreted and applied across zones. 4. Neighborhood Plan (14-21-1-1 E) Summary of Existing Code: The current code requires an updated Neighborhood Plan to be submitted and approved prior to site plan or building permit approval when any changes to the Neighborhood Plan are requested. Summary of Proposed Change: The proposed change streamlines the process by requiring that all requested changes from the original Neighborhood Plan be clearly identified on site plans and building plans instead of requiring the applicant to prepare and submit an updated Neighborhood Plan. City staff will internally update and track changes to the Neighborhood Plan to maintain consistency and accuracy. Justification: The proposed change aims to streamline the development review process while maintaining oversight and ensuring that changes are properly addressed. This adjustment provides greater flexibility for developers by reducing the need for extensive updates to the entire Neighborhood Plan. Instead, they can focus on the specific modifications relevant to their project, making the process less burdensome and more tailored to individual development needs. This approach supports ongoing development while ensuring that significant changes are still considered, approved, and documented. 5. Architectural Features Definition (14-9A-1) Summary of Existing Code: The current definition for Architectural Features is, "Exterior building elements intended to provide ornamentation to the building massing, including, but not limited to: eaves, cornices, bay windows, window and door surrounds, light fixtures, canopies, and balconies". Summary of Proposed Change: Add awnings, belt courses, and chimneys to provide more examples within the definition. Justification: Expanding the definition of Architectural Features to include awnings, belt courses, and chimneys provides greater clarity and consistency in code interpretation. By explicitly listing these common design elements, the update helps ensure predictable application of encroachment standards while reducing ambiguity for developers and staff. 6. Code Cleanup (Table 14-2H-2E-5, Table 14-2H-4E-1, Table 14-2H-6K-2, 14-2H-8G-1, 14- 2H-9B-2, and Table 14-2H-9L-2) Summary of Proposed Change: Several formatting errors were noted as Staff utilized the form -based code. These edits remedy those errors. Justification: The proposed code cleanups, such as removing duplicate words and correcting formatting with superscripts, aim to enhance the clarity, accuracy, and professionalism of the City's Zoning Ordinance. These edits help users interpret requirements without confusion. TITLE 15 — LAND SUBDIVISIONS 1. Block Size Adjustment (15-3-4A) Summary of Existing Code: Maximum block lengths range from 360' to 500' depending on the zone. With a Pedestrian Passage, the maximum block lengths range from 500' to 800'. The maximum block perimeter lengths range from 1,440' to 1,600'. With a pedestrian passage added, the maximum block perimeter lengths range from 1,750' to 2,200'. A Pedestrian Passage (see graphic below) allows for greater block lengths and perimeters because they help to maintain walkability and connectivity without requiring additional street infrastructure. Longer blocks can sometimes create barriers for pedestrians, making it harder to navigate a neighborhood efficiently. By incorporating mid -block Pedestrian Passage, residents and visitors maintain direct and convenient walking routes without the addition of cross streets. l - Block Length `l STREET ---1---—T-----r----T-----f----1-----T-----1 1 I I I I I I I I BLock Perimeter 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 W I I I I I I I I i W W I I I I I I I I 1 UJ cc L----1-----L---------1-----L----1-----J STREET Passage: Summary of Proposed Change: Allow applicants to apply for an administrative adjustment to the block size standards if specific approval criteria are met. The applicant must demonstrate that the adjustment to the block standards is due to at least one of the following special circumstances: 1) The adjustment is needed to avoid a regulated sensitive area. 2) The adjustment is needed to reduce the amount of grading needed due to the property's existing topography. 3) The adjustment is needed because the alignment of an existing street that must be extended creates a configuration that makes compliance impractical. 4) The adjustment is needed because the abutting neighborhood is designed with longer blocks that impact the proposed development. The new blocks abutting the existing longer blocks cannot accommodate new streets and pedestrian passages are infeasible. 5) The adjustment is needed because a single -loaded street or passage has been determined to be undesirable for the block to protect the sensitive nature of public parkland. 6) The adjustment is needed because visibility and access to public parks, civic uses, and natural open spaces are provided through other means besides a single - loaded street. The areas being developed using the Form -based Code may be directly adjacent to sensitive areas and conventionally zoned development or have topographical features that create unique site design constraints. The situations noted in criteria 1-3 are related to the need to slightly increase a blocks length to incorporate a sensitive area, topographical feature, or to extend an existing street. There are unique situations where simply expanding a block past the allowed length is the most efficient use of the property being developed. The situations noted in criteria 4 -6 relate to when adding a pedestrian passage is not feasible, which is the only way block size can be increased using the current code. This is because, to add a pedestrian passage there must be two parallel streets to connect to. When a block abuts an existing neighborhood, sensitive park land, or a single -loaded street is not needed only one street will abut the block making pedestrian passageways infeasible as they would not lead to a parallel street on the other side of the block. Justification: The proposed change to allow applicants to request an administrative adjustment to block size standards provides flexibility for addressing unique site -specific constraints while maintaining overall development quality and compatibility. Introducing an adjustment process acknowledges that not all development sites are uniform. Factors such as regulated sensitive areas, existing topography, existing street configurations, and the block size of abutting neighborhoods can present challenges in meeting standard block size requirements. By permitting adjustments in cases where block standards would negatively impact wetlands, steep slopes, or other sensitive areas, this change supports the City's commitment to environmental stewardship and sustainable development practices. Sites with significant grade changes or existing infrastructure constraints can also create practical challenges for meeting block size requirements. Allowing adjustments provides a pathway for developers to design functional and efficient projects that work with, rather than against, these conditions. For sites adjacent to sensitive areas, strict adherence to public access and block size standards can limit development potential or create inefficient layouts. The adjustment process ensures that public access, visibility, and block size standards are not compromised but instead adapted to site -specific needs in a way that aligns with the City's long-term goals for accessibility, connectivity, and environmental preservation. Requiring applicants to demonstrate alternative methods for achieving public access and visibility ensures that adjustments are thoughtfully considered and still fulfill the intended goals of the standards. For sites abutting neighborhoods with established block sizes or street layouts that differ from the form -based zone standards, this adjustment process ensures new developments integrate seamlessly with existing patterns, preserving neighborhood character and connectivity. Allowing administrative adjustments provides a more efficient and predictable review process for developers compared to seeking formal approval via a public process. This promotes timely project approvals while maintaining a high level of scrutiny and accountability through clear approval criteria. A single -loaded street or pedestrian passage may not always be a desirable way to achieve public access and visibility to areas as it could invite unwanted disturbance of sensitive parkland. Allowing adjustments ensures that public access and visibility can be achieved while protecting environmentally sensitive areas. Certain developments may require innovative design approaches to achieve access and visibility goals. Administrative adjustments allow for flexibility in how these objectives are met, particularly in constrained sites or sites with unique topography. This change ensures that even if a single -loaded street or passage is not feasible, public access to parks, civic uses, and open spaces can still be maintained through other design solutions, such as easements or view corridors. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan The proposed amendments support several goals from the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan: • 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. • Encourage pedestrian -oriented development and attractive and functional streetscapes that make it safe, convenient, and comfortable to walk. • Plan for commercial development in defined commercial nodes, including small-scale neighborhood commercial centers. • Support preservation of valuable farmland, open space, and environmentally sensitive areas. • Ensure that future parks have visibility and access from the street. • Discourage parks that are surrounded by private property; encourage development of parks with single -loaded street access. In addition, the proposed amendments also help to further the form -based land use policies recently incorporated into the South District Plan (CPA21-0001) and Southwest District Plan (CPA22-0002). Next Steps Pending a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council must hold a public hearing to consider the proposed text amendments. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that Title 14 Zoning be amended, as illustrated in Attachment 2, to enhance land use regulations related to the form -cased code and to further implement the City's goals. Attachments 1. Form -Based Code User Guide 2. Draft Zoning and Land Subdivision Code Text Amendments Approved by: Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ATTACHMENT 1 Form -Based Code User Guide This reflects the code as it was adopted on 11-16-2021. Staff is currently considering multiple amendments. This document will be updated as those amendments are approved. This document highlights key form -based code standards to guide those new to developing in form -based zone districts. It is not comprehensive or intended to replace the use of the Iowa City Zoning or Subdivision Codes. Form -based zoning regulations are different than the conventional approach to zoning. Form -based zoning focuses less on land use (e.g., commercial v. residential) and more on the scale (e.g., bulk and height) of the development and its relationship to the street and the public realm. The City of Iowa City's form -based code standards are designed to improve walkability, increase housing diversity and affordability, and provide for a more sustainable neighborhood pattern. The form -based code promotes a compatible mix of non-residential uses, including neighborhood nodes. These nodes may encompass commercial areas that serve local needs as well as open spaces within walking distance. Additionally, a key goal of the code is to create a highly interconnected network of streets and paths that provide easy access to homes and neighborhood amenities. This document is for reference only. Please see the Iowa City Zoning and Subdivision Code for full details. A 111', IIII f ��f � l 1 Contact the Iowa City Development Services - Urban Planning to schedule a meeting to discuss the development process. Anne Russett, Senior Planner p: (319) 356-5251 e: arussett@iowa-city.org Review the Future Thoroughfare Map for the planned street network. Refer to the Zoning Code for the thoroughfare type standards. ilkREVIEW DISTRICT PLANS The Zoning Code includes form -based zone information and standards. The Subdivision Code includes information related to street design, utilities, public amenities, length and layout of blocks and lots, etc. ubdivis on Code Staff is available to review concepts prior to formal application submittal. CREATE STREET NETWORK This document is for reference only. Please see the Iowa City Zoning & Subdivision Codeforfull details. The South District Plan and Southwest District Plan address the unique issues and opportunities in each district based on extensive community participation. Southwest I District Plan DETERMINE ZONES Review the Future Land Use Map to see what zoning districts are envisioned for the area. Refer to the Zoning Code for the REVIEW THE ZONING A SUBDIVISION CODES i- DETERMINE BUILDING TYPES SUBMIT CONCEPT FOR STAFF REVIEW zone standards. After creating a concept of the street network and determining zone districts, determine what building types will be used for each block based on the relevant zone district. T3NE I T3NG I T4NS IT4NM IT4MS s *4000—+ Open Space: Form -Based Land Use Designations r,r _ Public Civic Space - T3 Neighborhood Edge It M Private Civic Space T3 Neighborhood General - Extension of Existing Public Park/Open Space T3 Neighborhood General -Open To improve functionality of proposed blocks)_ Maybe _ T4 Neighborhood Small reconfigured to conform to the e istingbaundary if preferred. T4 Neighborhood Small -Open Ll Existing Public Park/Open Space T4 Neighborhood Medium - Existing & Potential Wetlands/Lagoons t T4 _—� Neighborhood Medium -Open LLJ LLl1 t� - T4 Main Street oeee� ` o� ■ 1 � ooa v ■ ■ CnLI�n�I Llli 1,1I �LJD CL,�i—'L7L. — --T IH.., 'I� Ilil�r ' .IIIIII��I ALRIE�� p ` 5w 1000 FT i This document is for reference only. Please see the Iowa City Zoning & Subdivision Code for full details. Street and Block Network: - Main Street with Median 1OU ROW Alloy:20' ROW 2110 _ Utility FasementArea : Yffdr? - Main Street without Median: 80' ROW Passage: ROW LMiity Fasement Area. O'm1n- access Pedestrian access only y a n - Avenue 2 ■ New Roundabout • Without Pnrk ng: 1 W ROW Utility Eosemv„tArea 15'm,n- Existing Roundabout 4r ii it Future Parldng:109 RDW Udity Easement Area 15'min- '- Avenue 3: 100' ROW UtilityFasemgntArgo i5'min. - Avenue se ent rea 1 Utility FasernentArea� 75' min. -Extension of Covered Wagon Drive l Rility Fauunartl Brea- 10'mm - Neighborhood Street: 70' ROW Utility Easement Areo-l�' min_ �DE�] H11 n This document is for reference only. Please see the Iowa City Zoning & Subdivision Code for full details. 0 500 1000 FT ROHRET SOUTH SUBAREA Q� 8 aeope 0 0 %a4epe■� p— p vp' O Aa 0� p v.�ao 'a o CVV ■y a r- a■ d pea o v 4� Special Thoroughfares 0 c a.r e a o a a e ;ooa °"s n mo� �° Q • j"6+■� ey ® e Passage Oe�O o Alk[[[{{yr�r�r�}}}]]] ynap i•..L � 9 C 4�o e � Tf Isle "a Future Land Use 4 *. -°� q • • Private Open Space NIv Public Open Space 0a+� ! ? []]1Cy T3: Neighborhood Edge �17 _+ T3: Neghborhood General —` T4: Neighborhood Small . r T4: Neighborhood Medium - T4: Main Street Open school Site — — Other Chic '�,., ■, ,,, � Commercial [ - Commercial Office fn IN 7 ►i 5= 0 _MMMMMW MMO -r - ---r i r— This document is for reference only. Please see the Iowa City Zoning & Subdivision Code for full details. Iwo n p4oa Op G } f we 'i • A ita Il ■ es . ca ■ 1141W r _• 4 625 i �`' •�• . *� �. _ I Miles 11. ROHRET SOUTH SUBAREA p .�.vr a u 14 n� + a �•+' ! jr ~ 0 .0. j ■■ G p •- r*tea • K M M +� F' � r Thoroughfare Types c e ¢ o e -°�`� `.': Cy•`'+ Alley [20' ROW] a+� °p D 6 a o •' 0 a `l P �00 d' �p►� O a +� Passage (20' ROW) a, --La) • •• s a Aa 6 w 1 • f ■ y - Main Street w Median (100' ROW; O' Utddy Easement Area) ap �s Neighborhood Street (70' ROW; 10' Utility Easement Area) t " ' *' t 3 ` ■ " + - Main Street w/o Median (80' ROW; 0' Utifily Easement Area) Avenue 2 - No Parking (100' ROW; 15' Utility Easement Area) �Y r A ~ Avenue 3 (100' Row; 15' Utility Easement Area) + tip. • ■'y, Avenue 5 (Undetermined ROW; 15' Utility Easement Area) Future Land Use �` •• L Private Open Space ~ Public Open Space Blocks .r ow i 0.25 us This document is for reference only. Please see the Iowa City Zoning & Subdivision Code for full details. moo `D4� f s-wrr" e"." aR �► r M • c� [ 104, ■ • 1{g�J�p'� cp n ems•■ " VC5 04 - m �I 0.5 ❑ 75 1 4 1111111111"Miles °•" A walkable neighborhood environment of detached, small -to -large building footprint, low -intensity housing choices from house large, duplex side -by -side to cottage court, supporting and within short walking distance of neighborhood - serving retail, food and service uses. Setbacks Front (Fagade Zone)1,2 Side Street (Fagade Zone)1,2 Side Rear Interior Design Site [F] Corner Design Site Primary Building [G] Accessory Structures [H] Primary Building [I] Accessory Structures [J] Primary Building [K] Accessory Structures [L] Building Within Fagade Zone Min 25' 25' 20' 20' 10, 5' 25' 5' Max 35' 35' 25' Front 50% Total length of facade required within or abutting the facade zone, exclusive of setbacks. Side Street 40% (design site width — both side setbacks) x facade zone standard = total length of the facade required within or abutting the facade zone Standards 1. Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). 1If utility easement is 10' as determined by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14-2H-9), subtract 5' from required setback. 1The area between the front and side street design site lines and the building shall not be paved (except for allowed driveways and pedestrian routes) and is subject to the require- ments in section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards). • I II II m�", �� d �i IIIIIO � ills I� --- --— ..— - —J Street(Front: Narrowest Side) Key . Buildable Area ---- ROW/ Design Site Line Accessory Structure(s) --- Setback Line Facade Zone General Note: the illustration above are intended to provide a brief overview of the zone and are descriptive in nature. Height Primary Building 1 Stories 2.5 stories max' To Roofline3 30' max [C] Accessory Structure(s)1 Carriage House 2 stories max Other 1 story max Ground Floor Ceiling Height 9' min [D] Footprint Depth, ground -floor space 30' min [E] a Stn d d ar s 1. Design site coverage defined by max. building size of primary building type allowed and carriage house per section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) and Item 5 (Building Placement) standards of this zone. 1 See section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) for refinements to massing and height standards. z ".5" refers to an occupiable attic. 3 Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems shall not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See building height in article 14-9A (General Definitions). 12' min. for cottage court building type. Key - ROW Line Mid -Point of Roof This document is for reference only. Please see the Iowa City Zoning & Subdivision Code for full details. Required Spaces Residential Uses Studio or 1-2 bedrooms 1 min per unit 3 or more bedrooms 2 min per unit Non -Residential Uses 1,500 SF None > 1,500 SF 2.5 min/1,000 SF after first 1,500 SF Setbacks (Distance from ROW/Design Side Lines): Fronts House Large 15' min behind face of frontage types or building whichever is closerto the street [Q] All other building types 50' min [R] Side Street 20' min [S] Side 5' min [T] Rear 5' min [U] Characteristics Curb Cut Width 12' max' [V] Distance between driveways 40' min [W] Standards 1. Parking may be covered or uncovered and may be attached or detached from main body. 2. Parking may be located in rear or side wing in compliance with main body and wing(s) standards per section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards). 3. Porte-cochere allowed if integrated into building facade. 4. Curb cut width along alley may exceed 12'. 5. A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites. 1 Front access is not allowed in corner design sites. z With 2' planting strip on each side. III II III � 11� II B ��I I Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key ---- ROW/ Design Site Line Parking Area --- Building Setback Line Frontage Type There shall be a mix of frontage and building types per block as outlined in sections 14-2H-6.B.6 (Building Type Standards) and 14-2H-B.B.5 (Frontage Type Standards). Min Max Max Max Max Max Separation Offset from BUILDING TYPES ALLOWED Width Width MI& Min Max Max Min Max Width Depth Width Depth Between Wings Main Body House Large 60i1 95' 110iz 180' 1 2.5 1 55' 55i3 20' 20' 15' 5i4 Duplex Side -by -Side 60" 75' 100'z 180' 1 2.5 2 48' 40i3 Cottage Court 90'1 120' 120" 180' 3 9 1.5' 15 327 24' Carriage House Accessory Dwelling Unit — See 14-2H-6C for details 1 Min. width may be reduced by 10' if vehicle access is provided from rear. z Min. depth may be adjusted as follows: a. It may be reduced by 10' if utility easement is relocated to alley; and/or b. It may be reduced by 15' if the design site fronts new civic space (14-2H-5) not shown on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. Min. depth reduction may not exceed 25' total. 3 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body depth may be increased by 5'. °Except when used for parking, front parking setback shall complywith standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone. 5 Most rear cottage (i.e. cottage furthest from the street and located at the rear of the design site) may be a building with up to 3 units. B Max. height to mid- point of roof : 18' 7 Max. width of most rear cottage: 40', Min. separation between cottages: 10' aSee 14.2H.6 for the respective building type subsection 3 to see building size and massing standards 'See 14.2H.6 for the respective building type subsection 7 to see private open space standards. House Large ALLOWED BUILDING TYPES ALLOWED FRONTAGE TYPES Duplex Side -by -Side Cottage Court Porch Projected Porch Engaged Stoop Dooryard This document is for reference only. Please see the Iowa City Zoning and Subdivision Code for full details. Area Dimension Porch Porch Dooryard Stoop Projecting Engaged 400 SF A A A A 225 SF/unit 15' A A A A See Code' See Code' A A A OTHER FORM -BASED ZONE STANDARDS Use Standards Site Standards Civic Space Standards Architectural Element Standards Frontage Type Standards Thoroughfare Type Standards Affordable Housing Incentives A walkable neighborhood environment of small footprint, low -intensity housing choices from house small, duplex side -by -side, duplex stacked, cottage court, multiplex small to townhouse, supporting and within short walking distance of neighborhood -serving retail and services. Setbacks Front (Fagade Zone)1,2 Side Street (Fagade Zone)1,2 Side Rear Interior Design Site [F] Corner Design Site Primary Building [G] Accessory Structures [H] Primary Building [I] Accessory Structures [J] Primary Building [K] Accessory Structures [L] Building Within Fagade Zone Min 20' 20' 15' 15' 7' 5' 20' 5' Max 30' 30' 25' Front 60% Total length of facade required within or abutting the facade zone, exclusive of setbacks. Side Street 50% (design site width — both side setbacks) x facade zone standard = total length of the facade required within or abutting the facade zone Standards 1. Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). 1If utility easement is 10' as determined by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14-2H-9), subtract 5' from required setback. 1The area between the front and side street design site lines and the building shall not be paved (except for allowed driveways and pedestrian routes) and is subject to the require- ments in section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards). I III I 0,11 � 0-4"Is i i �� III m�O pis -11 Key . Buildable Area ---- ROW/ Design Site Line 1 AcceSsory Structure(5) --- Setback Line E Facade Zone General Note: the illustration above are intended to provide a brief overview of the zone and are descriptive in nature. Height Primary Building 1 Stories 2.5 stories max' To Roofline3 30' max [C] Accessory Structure(s)1 Carriage House 2 stories max Other 1 story max Ground Floor Ceiling Height 9' min [D] Footprint Depth, ground -floor space 30' min [E] a Stn d d ar s 1. Design site coverage defined by max. building size of primary building type allowed and carriage house per section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) and Item 5 (Building Placement) standards of this zone. 1 See section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) for refinements to massing and height standards. z ".5" refers to an occupiable attic. 3 Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems shall not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See building height in article 14-9A (General Definitions). 12' min. for cottage court building type. Key - ROW Line Mid -Point of Roof This document is for reference only. Please see the Iowa City Zoning & Subdivision Code for full details. Required Spaces Residential Uses Studio or 1-2 bedrooms 1 min per unit 3 or more bedrooms 2 min per unit Non -Residential Uses 1,500 SF None > 1,500 SF 2.5 min/1,000 SF after first 1,500 SF Setbacks (Distance from ROW/Design Side Lines): Fronts House Small 15' min behind face of frontage types or building whichever is closer to the street [Q] All other building types 40' min [R] Side Street 15' min [S] Side 5' min [T] Rear 5' min [U] Characteristics Curb Cut Width 12' max' [V] Distance between driveways 40' min [W] Standards 1. Parking may be covered or uncovered and may be attached or detached from main body. 2. Parking may be located in rear or side wing in compliance with main body and wing(s) standards per section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards). 3. Porte-cochere allowed if integrated into building facade. 4. Curb cut width along alley may exceed 12'. 5. A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites. 1 Front access is not allowed in corner design sites. z With 2' planting strip on each side. 7y— 7,— III I m� III I II Illy III IIIII O Illy I I II Ill: � ill: I I Street (Front Narrowest Side) Key ---- ROW/ Design Site Line Parking Area --- Building Setback Line Frontage Type BUILDING TYPES ALLOWED House Small Duplex Side -by -Side Duplex Stacked Cottage Court Multiplex Small Townhouse (House Scale) Carriage House House Small Cottage Court There shall be a mix of frontage and building types per block as outlined in sections 14-2H-6.B.6 (Building Type Standards) and 14-2H-B.B.5 (Frontage Type Standards). Min Max Min Max Max Max Width �M Depth Depth` Min Max Max Min Max Width Depth 50" 75' 100'2 180' 1 2.5 1 35' 45" 60i1 75' 100i2 180' 1 2.5 2 48' 40" 50" 70' 100'2 180' 1 2.5 2 36' 40" 90i1 120' 120" 180' 3 9 1.512 111 32'13 24' 70' 100, 110, 150' 1 2.5 3 6 50' 50i5 25'3 125A 100'2 180' 17 2.5 1 18' min 50,5 $ 30' max Accessory Dwelling Unit — See 14-2H-6C for details 1 Min. width maybe reduced by 10' if vehicle access is provided from rear. 2 Min. depth may be adjusted as follows: a. It may be reduced by 10' if utility easement is relocated to alley; and/or b. It may be reduced by 15' if the design site fronts new civic space (14-2H-5) not shown on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. Min. depth reduction may not exceed 25' total. 3Represents 1 townhouse. °Represents 3 townhouses side -by -side or attached. 6 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body depth may be increased by 5' 6 Except when used for parking, front parking setback shall complywith standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone. House -scale building, 2 -3 buildings 2 - 3 individual townhouses max. per row. a Max. width per building: 90' This document is for reference only. Please see the Iowa City Zoning and Subdivision Code for full details. Max Max Separation Offset from MM Porch Porch Door yard Stoop Width Depth Between Wings Main Body Projecting Engaged 20' 20' 15' 5'6 400 SF A A A A 225 SF/unit 15' A A A A 15' 20' 15' 5' 225 SF/unit 15' A A A A See Code10 See Code10 A A A 20' 30' 15' 5' 225 SF 15' A A A A 15' 15' 8' 64 SF/building 8' A A A A 95ee 14.2H.6 for the respective building type subsection 3 to see building size and massing standards. 10See14.2H.6for the respective building type subsection 7 to see private open space standards. 12 Most rear cottage (i.e. cottage furthest from the street and located at the rear of the design site) may be a building with up to 3 units. 12 Max. height to mid- point of roof : 18' 13 Max. width of most rear cottage: 40', Min. separation between cottages: 10' ALLOWED BUILDING TYPES ALLOWED FRONTAGE TYPES Duplex Side -by -Side Duplex Stacked Porch Projected Porch Engaged Dooryard Multiplex Small Townhouse (House Scale) Stoop OTHER FORM -BASED ZONE STANDARDS MUse Standards Site Standards Civic Space Standards Architectural Element Standards Frontage Type Standards Thoroughfare Type Standards Affordable Housing Incentives A walkable neighborhood environment of small -to- medium -footprint, moderate -intensity housing choices from cottage court, multiplex small, courtyard building small to townhouse, supporting and within short walking distance of neighborhood -serving retail and services. Setbacks Front (Fagade Zone)1,2 Side Street (Fagade Zone)1,2 Side Rear Interior Design Site [F] Corner Design Site Primary Building Accessory Structures [H] Primary Building [G] Accessory Structures [H] Primary Building [1] Accessory Structures [J] Building Within Fagade Zone Min 15' 15' 15' 15' 5' 3' 15' 5' Max 30' 30' 25' Front 65% Total length of facade required within or abutting the facade zone, exclusive of setbacks. Side Street 55% (design site width — both side setbacks) x facade zone standard = total length of the facade required within or abutting the facade zone Standards 1. Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). 1If utility easement is 10' as determined by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14-2H-9), subtract 5' from required setback. 1The area between the front and side street design site lines and the building shall not be paved (except for allowed driveways and pedestrian routes) and is subject to the require- ments in section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards). WT01 II ili ©III 'I I I I I I I' O � O I I I I I I II ' I I I O II I II I Street (Front. Narrowest Side) Key Buildable Area - ROW/Design Site Line Accessory Structure(s) --- Setback Line Facade Zone General Note: the illustration above are intended to provide a brief overview of the zone and are descriptive in nature. Height Primary Building 1 Stories 2.5 stories max' To Roofline3 30' max [C] Accessory Structure(s)1 Carriage House 2 stories max Other 1 story max Ground Floor Ceiling Height 9' min [D] Footprint Depth, ground -floor space 30' min [E] a Stn d d ar s � 1. Design site coverage defined by max. building size of primary building type allowed and carriage house per section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) and Item 5 (Building Placement) standards of this zone. 1 See section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) for refinements to massing and height standards. z ".5" refers to an occupiable attic. 3 Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems shall not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See building height in article 14-9A (General Definitions). 12' min. for cottage court building type. Key - ROW Line Mid -Point of Roof This document is for reference only. Please see the Iowa City Zoning & Subdivision Code for full details. Required Spaces Residential Uses Studio or 1-2 bedrooms 1 min per unit 3 or more bedrooms 1.5 min per unit Non -Residential Uses 1,500 SF None > 1,500 SF 2.5 min/1,000 SF after first 1,500 SF Setbacks (Distance from ROW/Design Side Lines): Fronts 40' min [Q] Side Street 15' min [R] Side 5' min [S] Rear 5' min [T] Characteristics Curb Cut Width 12' maxZ [U] Distance between driveways 40' min [V] Standards 1. Parking may be covered or uncovered and may be attached or detached from main body. 2. Parking may be located in rear or side wing in compliance with main body and wing(s) standards per section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards). 3. Porte-cochere allowed if integrated into building facade. 4. Curb cut width along alley may exceed 12'. 5. A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites. 1 Front access is not allowed in corner design sites. 1 With 2' planting strip on each side. S I I III i t I II 11I Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key ---- ROW/ Design Site Line Parking Area - Building Setback Line This document is for reference only. Please see the Iowa City Zoning and Subdivision Code for full details. There shall be a mix of frontage and building types per block as outlined in sections 14-2H-6.B.6 (Building Type Standards) and 14-2H-B.B ' (Frontage Type Standards). Max Max Max Max Separation Offset from Porch Porch BUILDING TYPES ALLOWED Min Width Min Depth Min Width Depth Max Max Min Max Max Width Max Depth Width Depth Area Between Main Body Dimension Projecting Engaged Dooryard Stoop Cottage Court 90'1 120' 120" 180' 3 9 1.511 112 32'13 24' See Code' See Code' A A A Multiplex Small 60" 100, 110'2 150' 1 2.5 3 6 50' 50' 10 20' 30' 15' 5' 225 SF 15' A A A A Townhouse (Block -Scale) 18'3 1604 100'2 180' 15 2.5 1 18' min 630' 50' 10 15' 15' 8' 64 SF 8' A A A A max Courtyard Building Small 100'1 130' 150'2 180' 3 1' 2.5 10 16 100, 100'10 30' width A A A 50' depth Carriage House Accessory Dwelling Unit — See 14-2H-6C for details Cottage Court 3 Min. width may be reduced by 10' if vehicle access is provided from rear. Z Min. depth may be adjusted as follows: a. It may be reduced by 10' if utility easement is relocated to alley; and/or b. It may be reduced by 15' if the design site fronts new civic space (14-2H-5) not shown on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. Min. depth reduction may not exceed 25' total. 3Represents 1 townhouse. °Represents 4 townhouses side -by -side or attached. 6 Block -scale building, 4 - 8 individual townhouses max. per row. 6 Max width per building: 120' Primary buildings may be designed as a up to two adjacent buildings not more than 15' apart. a See 14.2H.6 for the respective building type subsection 3 to see building size and massing standards. 9See 14.2H.6 for the respective building type subsection 7 to see private open space standards. ALLOWED BUILDING TYPES Multiplex Small r� _dn' Courtyard Building Small Townhouse (Block -Scale) Porch Projected 10 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body depth may be increased by5'. 11 Max. height to mid- point of roof : 18' 12 Most rear cottage (i.e. cottage furthest from the street and located at the rear of the design site) 13 Max. width of most rear cottage: 40', Min. separation between cottages: 10' ALLOWED FRONTAGE TYPES Porch Engaged Dooryard Stoop OTHER FORM -BASED ZONE STANDARDS MUse Standards Site Standards Civic Space Standards Architectural Element Standards Frontage Type Standards Thoroughfare Type Standards Affordable Housing Incentives A walkable neighborhood environment with medium -footprint, moderate - intensity housing choices from multiplex large, courtyard building small to townhouse, supporting and within short walking distance of neighborhood - serving retail and services. Setbacks Min Front (Fagade Interior Design Site [F] 15' Zone)1'2 Corner Design Site 15' Side Street (Fagade Primary Building [G] 15' Zone)1'2 Accessory Structures [H] 15' Primary Building [I] 5' Side Accessory Structures [J] 3' Primary Building [K] 15' Rear Accessory Structures [L] 5' Building Within Fagade Zone Max 25' 25' 25' Front 65% Total length of facade required within or abutting the facade zone, exclusive of setbacks. Side Street 55% (design site width — both side setbacks) x facade zone standard = total length of the facade required within or abutting the facade zone Standards 1. Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). 1If utility easement is 10' as determined by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14-2H-9), subtract 5' from required setback. 1The area between the front and side street design site lines and the building shall not be paved (except for allowed driveways and pedestrian routes) and is subject to the require- ments in section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards). ---- y-- '�------ 211 I Im I OIL lej " O I d� II � IOI I I ------------------ L-------------- { Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key . Buildable Area -"- ROW! Design Site Line \\ Accessory Structure(s) --- Setback Line 0 Facade Zane General Note: the illustration above are intended to provide a brief overview of the zone and are descriptive in nature. Height Primary Building 1 Stories 3.5 stories maxZ [C] To Roofline3 40' max Accessory Structure(s)1 Carriage House 2 stories max Other 1 story max Ground Floor Ceiling Height 9' min [D] Footprint Depth, ground -floor space 30' min [E] a Stn d d ar s � 1. Design site coverage defined by max. building size of primary building type allowed and carriage house per section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) and Item 5 (Building Placement) standards of this zone. 1 See section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) for refinements to massing and height standards. z ...5" refers to an occupiable attic. 3 Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems shall not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See building height in article 14-9A (General Definitions). Key - ROW Line Mid -Point of Roof This document is for reference only. Please see the Iowa City Zoning & Subdivision Code for full details. Required Spaces Residential Uses Studio or 1-2 bedrooms 1 min per unit 3 or more bedrooms 1.5 min per unit Non -Residential Uses 2,000 SF None > 2,000 SF 2.5 min/1,000 SF after first 2,000 SF Setbacks (Distance from ROW/Design Side Lines): Fronts 40' min [Q] Side Street 15' min [R] Side 5' min [S] Rear 5' min [T] Characteristics Curb Cut Width 12' maxZ [U] Distance between driveways 40' min [V] Standards 1. Parking may be covered or uncovered and may be attached or detached from main body. 2. Parking may be located in rear or side wing in compliance with main body and wing(s) standards per section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards). 3. Porte-cochere allowed if integrated into building facade. 4. Curb cut width along alley may exceed 12'. 5. A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites. 1 Front access is not allowed in corner design sites. 1 With 2' planting strip on each side. S I II III I III II I I III III II I Tt Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key ---- ROW/ Design Site Line Parking Area - Building Setback Line This document is for reference only. Please see the Iowa City Zoning and Subdivision Code for full details. There shall be a mix of frontage and building types per block as outlined in sections 14-2H-6.B.6 (Building Type Standards) and 14-2H-B.B.5 (Frontage Type Standards). BUILDINGS PER UNITS PER ALLOWED FRONTAGE TYPES Min Max Min Max Separation Offset Porch Porch BUILDING TYPES ALLOWED — Width _ Width Depth.,�h Min Max Max Min Max Max Width Max Depth Between from Main Area Dimension Projecting Engaged Dooryard Stoop Terrace Forecourt Multiplex Large 75i1 100' 130" 150' 1 3.5 7 12 60' 60i10 20' 40' 15' 5' 225 SF 15' A A A A Townhouse (Block -Scale) 18i3 130'4,6 100i2 180' 16 3.5 112 18' min 50'10 15' 15 8' 64 SF 8' A A A A A 30' max 30' d h Courtyard Building Small Carriage House Multiplex Large 100'1 130' 150'2 180' 111 3.5 10 16 100, 100'10 50' A A A A depth Accessory Dwelling Unit — See 14-2H-6C for details 1 Min. width may be reduced by 10' if vehicle access is provided from rear. 2Min. depth may be adjusted as follows: a. It may be reduced by 10' if utility easement is relocated to alley; and/or b. It may be reduced by 15' if the design site fronts new civic space (14-2H-5) not shown on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. Min. depth reduction may not exceed 25' total. 3 Represents 1 townhouse. 4 Represents 4 townhouses side -by -side or attached. 5In the open sub -zone, each townhouse may be divided vertically into 3 units. 6Block-scale building, 4 -8 individual townhouses max. per row. 7Max width per building: 100' a See 14.2H.6for the respective building type subsection 3 to see building size and massing standards. 95ee 14.2H.6 for the respective building type subsection 7 to see private open space standards. 10 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body depth may be increased by5'. ALLOWED BUILDING TYPES Townhouse (Block -Scale) Courtyard Building Small Porch Projected Stoop n Primary buildings may be designed as a up to two adjacent buildings not more than 15' apart. 12 3 max in T4NM-0 zone ALLOWED FRONTAGE TYPES Porch Engaged Terrace Dooryard Forecourt OTHER FORM -BASED ZONE STANDARDS MUse Standards Site Standards Civic Space Standards Architectural Element Standards Frontage Type Standards Thoroughfare Type Standards Affordable Housing Incentives A walkable, vibrant district of medium -to -large -footprint, moderate -intensity, mixed -use buildings and housing choices from townhouse and courtyard building large to main street building, supporting neighborhood -serving ground floor retail, food and services, including indoor and outdoor artisanal industrial businesses. Setbacks Min Max Front (Fagade Interior Design Site [F] 0' 10, Zone) Corner Design Site 0' 10, Side Street (Fagade Primary Building [G] 0' 10, Zone) Accessory Structures [H] 0' Primary Building [I] 0' Side Accessory Structures [J] 3' Primary Building [K] 10, Rear Accessory Structures [L] 5' Building Within Fagade Zone Total length of facade required within or abutting the Front 80% facade zone, exclusive of setbacks. Side Street 70% (design site width — both side setbacks) x facade zone standard = total length of the facade required within or abutting the facade zone Standards 1. Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). 2. Utility easement required in alley as identified by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14-2H-9). Street (Front; Narrowest Side) Key E Buildable Area ---- ROW/ Design Site Line \\\\Xl Accessory Structure(s) --- Setback Line E Facade Zone General Note: the illustration above are intended to provide a brief overview of the zone and are descriptive in nature. Height Primary Building 1 Stories 4 stories max To Roofline2 45' max [C] Accessory Structure(s)1 Carriage House 2 stories max Other 1 story max Ground Floor Ceiling Height 14' min [D] Footprint Depth, ground -floor space 30' min [E] Standards 1. Design site coverage defined by max. building size of primary building type allowed and carriage house per section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) and Item 5 (Building Placement) standards of this zone. 1 See section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) for refinements to massing and height standards. Z Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems shall not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See building height in article 14-9A (General Definitions). Key - ROW Line Mid -Point of Roof This document is for reference only. Please see the Iowa City Zoning & Subdivision Code for full details. Required Spaces Residential Uses Studio or 1-2 bedrooms 1 min per unit 3 or more bedrooms 1.5 min per unit Non -Residential Uses 5,000 SF 0 max > 5,000 SF 2 max/1,000 SF after first 5,000 SF Setbacks (Distance from ROW/Design Side Lines): Front 40' min [Q] Side Street [R] 75' from front 25' min [S] > 75' from front 5' min Side 0' min [T] Rear 5' min [U] Characteristics Curb Cut Width 12' max' Standards 1. Parking may be covered or uncovered and may be attached or detached from main body. 2. Parking may be located in rear or side wing in compliance with main body and wing(s) standards per section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards). 3. Curb cut width along alley may exceed 12'. 4. A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites. 1 With 2' planting strip on each side. I� -----------p I�--— 0 -- I�---- � T� F } Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key ---- ROW/ Design Site Line Parking Area -- Building Setback Line This document is for reference only. Please see the Iowa City Zoning and Subdivision Code for full details. ALLOWED FRONTAGE TYPE Min Max Min Max Max Max Separation Maker BUILDING TYPES ALLOWED Width Width Depth Depth Min Max Max Min Max Max Width Max Depth Width Depth Between Area Dimension Dooryard Stoop Terrace Shopfront Shopfront Gallery Forecourt Arcade Townhouse (Block -Scale) 18i2 220i " 100i1 180' 15 3.5 3 18' mint 50i10 15' 15' 8' 64 SF 8' A A A 30' max Courtyard Building Large 100, 150' 180i1 200' 17 3.5 18 24 100, 140' 3 A A A A 0' depth Main Street Building 25' 150' 100i1 200' 1 3.5 Unrestricted11 200' 120' Not Required Al2 A A Al2 A A A A Carriage House Accessory Dwelling Unit — See 4-2H-6C for details 1 Min. depth maybe reduced by 15' if the design site fronts anew civic space (14-2H-5) not shown on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. Min. depth reductions may not exceed 25' total. 2 Represents 1 townhouse. 3 Represents 8 townhouses side -by -side or attached. Each townhouse may be divided vertically into 3 units. 5 Block -scale building, 4 - 8 individual townhouses max. per row. 6 Max width per building: 200' Primary buildings may be designed as a up to two adjacent buildings not more than 15' apart. 8See 14.2H.6for the respective building type subsection 3 to see building size and massing standards. 9See 14.2H.6 for the respective building type subsection 7 to see private open space standards. 10 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body depth may be increased by 5'. 11 Number of units restricted by Iowa City's adopted Building Code, Fire Code, and Housing Code standards. 12 Only on neighborhood (side) streets and min. 60' from front of design site. ALLOWED BUILDING TYPES Townhouse (Block -Scale) Courtyard Building Large Main Street Building a Dooryard ALLOWED FRONTAGE TYPES Stoop Terrace Gallery Forecourt Maker Shopfront Arcade OTHER FORM -BASED ZONE STANDARDS MUse Standards Site Standards Civic Space Standards Architectural Element Standards Frontage Type Standards Thoroughfare Type Standards Affordable Housing Incentives ALL ZONES An MIJ There shall be a mix of frontage and building types per block as outlined in sections (Building Type Standards) and (Frontage Type Standards). This document is for reference only. Please see the Iowa City Zoning and Subdivision Code for full details. Min Max Min Max Separation Offsetfrom BUILDING TYPES ALLOWED T3NE T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS Width Width Depth Depth Min Max Max Min Max Max Width Max Depth Max Width Max Depth Between Main Body Area Dimension House Large A 60" 95' 110'2 180' 1 2.5 1 55' 55'5 20' 20' 15' 5'6 400 SF porch projecting, porch engaged, dooryard, stoop porch projecting, porch engaged, House Small A 50" 75' 100'2 180' 1 2.5 1 35' 45" 20' 20' 15' 5'6 400 SF dooryard, stoop Duplex Side -by -Side A A 60" 75' 100'2 180' 1 2.5 2 48' 40'5 225 SF/unit 15' porch projecting, porch engaged, dooryard, stoop Duplex Stacked A 50" 70' 100'2 180' 1 2.5 2 36' 40" 15' 20' 15' 5' 225 SF/unit 15' porch projecting, porch engaged, dooryard, stoop Cottage Court A A A 90'1 120' 120'2 180' 3 9 1.512 111 32,13 24' See Code10 See Codelo porch projecting, dooryard, stoop 18' min 64 SF/ porch projecting, porch engaged, Townhouse (House Scale) A 25'3 125'4 100'2 180' 17 2.5 1 8 50" 15' 15' 8' 8' 30' max building dooryard, stoop, terrace Townhouse (Block Scale) A A A 18'3 1308 100'2 180' 116 2.5 117 18' min 8 50'5 15' 15' 8' 64 SF 8' porch projecting, porch engaged, 220 30' max dooryard, stoop, terrace Multiplex Small A A 70'14 100, 110, 150' 1 2.5 3 6 50' 50" 20' 30' 15' 5' 225 SF 15' porch projecting, porch engaged, dooryard, stoop Multiplex Large A 75" 100, 130'2 150' 1 3.5 7 12 60' 60'5 20' 40' 15' 5' 225 SF 15' porch projecting, stoop, forecourt, terrace 30' width 50' porch projecting, porch engaged, stoop, Courtyard Building Small A A 100'1 130' 150'2 180' 3 115 2.5 10 16 100, 100'S depth terrace Courtyard Building Large A 100, 150' 180" 200' 17 3.5 18 24 100, 140' 30' width stoop, shopfront, terrace, gallery 70' depth 1 Unrestricted" Re- dooryard 20, stoop, forecourt, maker shop- Main Street Building A 25' 150' 100' 200' 1 3.5 Unrestricted11 200' 200' 120' quired Not Required front20, shopfront, terrace, gallery, arcade Carriage House Accessory Dwelling Unit — See 14-2H-6C for details 1 Min. width may be reduced by 10' if vehicle access is provided from rear. lOSee for the respective building type subsection 7 to see private open space standards. 2 Min. depth may be adjusted as follows: 11 Most rear cottage (i.e. cottage furthest from the street and located at the rear of the design site) may be a building with up a. It may be reduced by 10' if utility easement is relocated to alley; and/or to 3 units. b. It may be reduced by 15' if the design site fronts new civic space ( ) not shown on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive 12 Max. height to mid -point of roof: 18' Plan. Min. depth reduction may not exceed 25' total. 13 Max. width of most rear cottage: 40', Min. separation between cottages: 10' 3 Represents 1 townhouse. 14 60' min in the T4NS zone. 4125' - Represents 3 townhouses side -by -side or attached. 15 Primary buildings may be designed as a up to two adjacent buildings not more than 15' apart. 5 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body depth may be increased by 5'. 16 Block -scale building, 4 - 8 individual townhouses max. per row. 6 Except when used for parking, front parking setback shall comply with standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone. 17 In the open sub -zone (T4NM-0), each townhouse may be divided vertically into 3 units. House -scale building, 2 - 3 buildings 2 - 3 individual townhouses max. per row. 1s 160 - Represents 4 (T4NS) townhouses side -by -side or attached. 130 - Represents 4 (T4NM) townhouses side -by -side or attached. 220 - Represents 8 (T4MS) townhouses side -by -side or attached. 8 House Scale: Max. width per building: 90' (T3NG). Block Scale: Max width per building: 120' (T4NS) 100' (T4NM) 200' (T4MS). 19 Number of units restricted by Iowa City's adopted Building Code, Fire Code, and Housing Code standards. 9See 14.2H.6 for the respective building type subsection 3 to see building size and massing standards. 20 Only on neighborhood (side) streets and min. 60' from front of design site. ATTACHMENT 2 Draft Zoning and Land Subdivision Code Text Amendments DRAFT ZONING CODE TEXT A. Amend 14-2H-1 E, Neighborhood Plan, by adding the underlined text: E. Neighborhood Plan: 1. The Neighborhood Plan, submitted as an accompanying document with the final plat, ensures compliance with the standards in this Article. It shall substantially conform to the Future Land Use Map included in the Comprehensive Plan and District Plan, as applicable. 2. The Neighborhood Plan shall include the following components in plan view on application forms provided by the department, along with any additional information as requested by the City: a. Identify all applicable Form -Based Zones, lots, and design sites. b. Identify all proposed building types pursuant to section 14-2H-E (Building Type Standards) and proposed frontage types pursuant to section 14-2H-8 (Frontages) for each lot and/or design site. c. Apply thoroughfares in an interconnected network and identify proposed thoroughfare types pursuant to sections 14-2H-9 (Thoroughfare Type Standards) and 15-3-2 (Streets And Circulation), including all proposed passages (14-2H-9L) and/or alleys (14-2H-9K). d. Identify natural open space and civic space types pursuant to section 14-2H-5 (Civic Space Type Standards) and delineate all proposed buildings, paved areas, trees, and/or landscaping in civic spaces. e. Identify all connections to existing streets and sidewalks and lots and design sites on adjacent properties in conformance with block standards pursuant to section 15-3-4 (Layout Of Blocks And Lots). 3. Following adoption of the final plat, the following changes to the Neighborhood Plan may be administratively approved concurrently with building permit or site plan review. `"'"QPQ ^""P@I4& All requested changes from the original Neighborhood Plan must be identified on site plans and building plans. a. Substituting one building type for another where the lot and/or design site meets the requirements of sections 14-2H-2 (Zones) and 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards) and where the change does not limit the ability of other lots and/or design sites on the block to change or maintain their building type. b. Substituting one frontage type for another where the lot and/or design site meets the requirements of section 14-2H-8 (Frontage Type Standards) and where the change does not limit the ability of other lots and/or design sites on the block to change or maintain their frontage type. c. Substituting one civic space type for another, including changes to the design of said civic spaces, where the civic space type meets the requirements of section 4-2H-5 (Civic Space Type Standards). d. Changing the number, size, and layout of design sites within a single lot where all modified design sites meet the size and shape requirements of section 14-2H-2 (Zones). (Ord. 21- 4866, 11-16-2021) B. Amend Table 14-2H-2C-3, Building Types, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: Primary Design Site Building Type Width (A) Depth (B) Standards House Large 60' min. 95' max. 110' min.2 180' max. 14-2H-6D Duplex Side -by- Side! 60' min. 75' max. 100' min.2 180' max. 14-2H-6F Cottage Court 90' min. 120' min.2 14-21-1-61-1 120' max. 490 200' max. 1 Min. width may be reduced by 10' if vehicle access is provided from rear. 2 Min. depth may be adjusted as follows: a. It may be reduced by 10' if utility easement is relocated to alley; and/or b. It may be reduced by 15' if the design site fronts new civic space (14-21-1-5) not shown on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. Min. depth reduction may not exceed 25' total. 3 For fee simple arrangements, no side setback is required between the units of this building type. C. Amend Table 14-2H-2C-5, Building Placement, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line) Front (Facade Zone)', 2 (F) Interior Design Site Corner Design Site 25' min.; 35' max. 25' min.; 35' max. Side Street (Facade Zone)', 2 Primary Building Accessory Structure(s) 20' min.; 25' max. (G) 20' min. (H) Side Primary Building Accessory Structure(s)3 49 5' min. (1) 5' min. (J) Rear Primary Building Accessory Structure(s) 25' min. (K) 5' min. (L) b. Building Within Facade Zone Total length of facade required within or abutting the facade zone, exclusive of setbacks. Front Side Street 50% min. 40% min c. Standards (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section 14-21-1-7 (Architectural Element Standards). 1 If utility easement is 10' as determined by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14-21-1-9), subtract 5' from required setback. 2 The area between the front and side street design site lines and the building shall not be paved (except for allowed driveways and pedestrian routes) and is subject to the requirements in section 14-21-1-8 (Frontage Type Standards). 3 For Duplex Side -By -Side and Attached Townhouses, no side setback is required for accessory structures used for parking. D. Amend Table 14-2H-2C-6, Encroachments Into Setbacks, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Encroachment Type: Front (M) Side St. (N) Side (0) Rear (P) Architectural Features 5' max. 5' max. ' max. 5' max. Stairs X 5' max. ' max. 5' max. b. Standards: (1) Encroachments are not allowed within utility easement area, ROW, alley ROW or across a property line. (2) Upper story encroachments on front and side street require 8' min. of clearance. (3) See Item 8 (Frontages) for allowed frontages and section 14-21-1-8 (Frontage Type Standards) for further refinements. E. Amend 14-2H-2C-6, Encroachments Into Setbacks, by removing the image with red border and adding the image with the no border: y r-----� I r---4b--, I r------ I �I 'I I I ICI min. I I I II min_ I I ICI I I I© II I I I ©�I I T I � Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key ---- ROW/ Design Site Line Parking Area --- Building Setback Line F M 3 I n. min. I I I I AEI I I I li© I i I i min. ©� I min. II y III IIII i I R li: Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key ---- ROW/ Design Site Line Parking Area --- Building Setback Line Frontage Type V1 F. Amend Table 14-2H-2C-7, Parking, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Required Spaces: Residential Uses Studio or 1- 2 bedrooms 3 or more bedrooms 1 min. per unit 2 min. per unit Non -Residential Uses 1,500 sf. > 1,500 sf. None 2.5 min./1,000 sf. after first 1,500 sf. b. Setback (Distance From ROW/Design Site Line): Front' House large All other building types 15' min. behind face of frontage type or building whichever is closer to street (Q) 50' min. (R) Side Street 20' min. (S) Side 5' min. (T) Rear 5' min. (U) c. Characteristics: Sib -Gut Driveway Width 12' max.2 (V) Distance between driveways 40 20, min. (W) d. Standards: (1) Parking may be covered or uncovered and may be attached or detached from main body. (2) Parking may be located in rear or side wing in compliance with main body and wing(s) standards per section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards). 4 (3) Porte-cochere allowed if integrated into building facade. (4) GuFb Cut Driveway width along alley may exceed 12'. (5) A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites. Front access is not allowed in corner design sites. 2 With 2' planting strip on each side. G. Amend Table 14-2H-2D-3, Building Types, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: Primary Design Site Building Type Width (A) Depth (B) Standards a. House -Scale: House small 50' min. 1 00'min.2 14-2H-6E 75' max. 180' max. Duplex side -by- 60' min. 100' min.2 14-2H-6F sides 75' max. 180' max. Duplex stacked 50' min. 100' min.2 14-2H-6G 70' max. 180' max. Cottage court 90' min. 120' min.2 14-2H-6H 120' max. 4-88 200' max. Multiplex small 70' min. 110' min.2 14-2H-61 100' max. 150' max. Townhouses 25' min.3 100' min.2 14-2H-6K 125' max.4 180' max. 1 Min. width may be reduced by 10' if vehicle access is provided from rear. 2 Min. depth may be adjusted as follows: (a) It may be reduced by 10' if utility easement is relocated to alley; and/or (b) It may be reduced by 15' if the design site fronts new civic space (14-2H-5) not shown on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. Min. depth reduction may not exceed 25' total. 3 Represents 1 townhouse. 4 Represents 3 townhouses sidebyside ^r -a++-ar+head s For fee simple arrangements, no side setback is required between the units of this building type. H. Amend Table 14-2H-2D-5, Building Placement, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line) Front (Facade Zone)', 2 (F) Interior Design Site 20' min.; 30' max. Corner Design Site 20' min.; 30' max. Side Street (Facade Zone)', 2 Primary Building Accessory Structure(s) 15' min.; 25' max. (G) 15' min. (H) Side Primary Building Accessory Structure(s)3 7- 5' min. (1) 5' min. (J) Rear Primary Building Accessory Structure(s) 25' min. (K) 5' min. (L) b. Building Within Facade Zone Total length of facade required within or abutting the facade zone, exclusive of setbacks. Front Side Street 60% min. 50% min c. Standards (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section 14-21-1-7 (Architectural Element Standards). 1 If utility easement is 10' as determined by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14-21-1-9), subtract 5' from required setback. 2 The area between the front and side street design site lines and the building shall not be paved (except for allowed driveways and pedestrian routes) and is subject to the requirements in section 14-21-1-8 (Frontage Type Standards). 3 For Duplex Side -By -Side and Attached Townhouses, no side setback is required for accessory structures used for parking. I. Amend Table 14-2H-2D-6, Encroachments Into Setbacks, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Encroachment Type: Front (M) Side St. (N) Side (0) Rear (P) Architectural Features 3' max. 3' max. 5 3' max. 5' max. Stairs X 3' max. 5 2' max. 5' max. b. Standards: (1) Encroachments are not allowed within utility easement area, ROW, alley ROW or across a property line. (2) See Item 8 (Frontages) for allowed frontages and section 14-21-1-8 (Frontage Type Standards) for further refinements. J. Amend 14-2H-2D-6, Encroachments Into Setbacks, by removing the image with red border and adding the image with the no border: r-----� I r---4b--, I r------ I I i I I min. I I I II min. min. I I I II I I I© I min.--)-. min:I I I I I I y I I L_----J L—_ .—J L-- ---J T C j r► Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key ---- ROW/ Design Site Line Parking Area --- Building Setback Line Frontage I II I 04 min. � I III ,E+ min. I III 1 ; I I I I I I i I I I I I I© I I li i.l� � illmmp�I min. min. I I Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key ---- ROW/ Design Site Line Parking Area --- Building Setback Line Frontage Type M V) K. Amend Table 14-2H-2D-7, Parking, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Required Spaces: Residential Uses Studio or 1- 2 bedrooms 3 or more bedrooms 1 min. per unit 2 min. per unit Non -Residential Uses 1,500 sf. > 1,500 sf. None 2.5 min./1,000 sf. after first 1,500 sf. b. Setback (Distance From ROW/Design Site Line): Front' House small All other building types 15' min. behind face of frontage type or building whichever is closer to street (Q) 40' min. (R) Side Street 15' min. (S) Side 5' min. (T) Rear 5' min. (U) c. Characteristics: Curb -Gut Driveway Width 12' max.2 (V) Distance between driveways 40 20, min. (W) d. Standards: (1) Parking may be covered or uncovered and may be attached or detached from main body. (2) Parking may be located in rear or side wing in compliance with main body and wing(s) standards per section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards). (3) Porte-cochere allowed if integrated into building facade. (4) GuFb-Sut Driveway width along alley may exceed 12'. (5) A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites. Front access is not allowed in corner design sites. 2 With 2' planting strip on each side. L. Amend Table 14-2H-2E-3, Building Types, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: Primary Design Site Building Type Width (A) Depth (B) Standards a. House -Scale: Cottage court 90' min. 120' max. 120' min.2 490 200' max. 14-2H-6H Multiplex small 70' min. 100' max. 110' min.2 150' max. 14-2H-61 Courtyard building small 100' min. 130' max.4 150' min.2 180' max. 14-2H-6L b. Block -Scale Townhouses 18' min.3 160' max.4 100' min.2 180' max. 14-2H-6K Min. width may be reduced by 10' if vehicle access is provided from rear. 2 Min. depth may be adjusted as follows: (c) It may be reduced by 10' if utility easement is relocated to alley; and/or (d) It may be reduced by 15' if the design site fronts new civic space (14-21-1-5) not shown on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. Min. depth reduction may not exceed 25' total. 3 Represents 1 townhouse. 4 Represents 4 townhouses sidebyside 5 For fee simple arrangements, no side setback is required between the units of this building type. M. Amend Table 14-2H-2E-5, Building Placement, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line) Front (Facade Zone)' ° 2 Interior Design Site Corner Design Site 15' min.; 30' max. (F) 15' min.; 30' max. Side Street (Facade Zone)' 2 Primary Building Accessory Structure(s) 15' min.; 25' max. 15' min. (H) Side Primary Building Accessory Structure(s)3 5' min. kG) 3' min. {#) Rear Primary Building Accessory Structure(s) 15' min. 04 5' min. 4�LLJ b. Building Within Facade Zone Total length of facade required within or abutting the facade zone, exclusive of setbacks. Front Side Street 65% min. {144 55% min {1.4 c. Standards (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section 14-21-1-7 (Architectural Element Standards). 1 If utility easement is 10' as determined by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14-21-1-9), subtract 5' from required setback. 2 The area between the front and side street design site lines and the building shall not be paved (except for allowed driveways and pedestrian routes) and is subject to the requirements in section 14-21-1-8 (Frontage Type Standards). 3 For Duplex Side -By -Side and Attached Townhouses, no side setback is required for accessory structures used for parking. N. Amend Table 14-2H-2E-6, Encroachments Into Setbacks, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Encroachment Type: Front (M) Side St. (N) Side (0) Rear (P) Architectural Features 3' max. 3' max. 5 3' max. 5' max. Stairs X 3' max. 5 2' max. 5' max. b. Standards: (1) Encroachments are not allowed within utility easement area, ROW, alley ROW or across a property line. (2) Upper story encroachments on front and side street require 8' min. of clearance. (3) See Item 8 (Frontages) for allowed frontages and section 14-21-1-8 (Frontage Type Standards) for further refinements. O. Amend 14-2H-2E-6, Encroachments Into Setbacks, by removing the image with red border and adding the image with the no border: M Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key ---- ROW/ Design Site Line Parking Area --- Building Setback Line 10 II I III �� I ©min min. i I I I I i min. j 1 I i I I r I I � o �T T Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key ---- ROW/ Design Site Line Parking Area --- Building Setback Line v v N P. Amend Table 14-2H-2E-7, Parking, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Required Spaces: Residential Uses Studio or 1- 2 bedrooms 3 or more bedrooms 1 min. per unit 2 min. per unit Non -Residential Uses 1,500 sf. > 1,500 sf. None 2.5 min./1,000 sf. after first 1,500 sf. b. Setback (Distance From ROW/Design Site Line): Front' 40' min. (Q) Side Street 15' min. (R) Side 5' min. (S) Rear 5' min. (T) c. Characteristics: 96-Sut Driveway Width 12' max.2 (U) Distance between driveways 40 20, min. (V) d. Standards: (1) Parking may be covered or uncovered and may be attached or detached from main body. (2) Parking may be located in rear or side wing in compliance with main body and wing(s) standards per section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards). (3) Porte-cochere allowed if integrated into building facade. (4) G6iFb-Gut Driveway width along alley may exceed 12'. (5) A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites. 11 1 Front access is not allowed in corner design sites. 2 With 2' planting strip on each side. Q. Amend Table 14-2H-2F-3, Building Types, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: Primary Design Site Building Type Width (A) Depth (B) Standards a. House -Scale: Multiplex large 75' min. 130' min.2 14-2H-6J 100' max. 150' max. Courtyard building 100' min. 150' min.2 14-2H-6L small 130' max. 180' max. b. Block -Scale Townhouse6 18' min.3 100' min.2 14-2H-6K 160' max.4,5 180' max. 1 Min. width may be reduced by 10' if vehicle access is provided from rear. 2 Min. depth may be adjusted as follows: (a) It may be reduced by 10' if utility easement is relocated to alley; and/or (b) It may be reduced by 15' if the design site fronts new civic space (14-2H-5) not shown on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. Min. depth reduction may not exceed 25' total. 3 Represents 1 townhouse. 4 Represents 4 townhouses side by side r -a++-ar0head 5 In the open sub -zone, each townhouse may be divided vertically into 3 units. 6 For fee simple arrangements, no side setback is required between the units of this building type. R. Amend Table 14-2H-2F-5, Building Placement, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line) Front (Facade Zone)' 2 Interior Design Site Corner Design Site 15' min.; 25' max. (F) 15' min.; 25' max. Side Street (Facade Zone)', 2 Primary Building Accessory Structure(s) 15' min.; 25' max.(G) 15' min. (H) Side Primary Building Accessory Structure(s)3 5' min. (1) 3' min. (J) 12 Rear Primary Building Accessory Structure(s) 15' min. (K) 5' min. (L) b. Building Within Facade Zone Total length of facade required within or abutting the facade zone, exclusive of setbacks. Front Side Street 65% min. (K) 55% min (L) c. Standards (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section 14-21-1-7 (Architectural Element Standards). 1 If utility easement is 10' as determined by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14-21-1-9), subtract 5' from required setback. 2 The area between the front and side street design site lines and the building shall not be paved (except for allowed driveways and pedestrian routes) and is subject to the requirements in section 14-21-1-8 (Frontage Type Standards). 3 For Duplex Side -By -Side and Attached Townhouses, no side setback is required for accessory structures used for parking. S. Amend Table 14-2H-2F-6, Encroachments Into Setbacks, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Encroachment Type: Front (M) Side St. (N) Side (0) Rear (P) Architectural Features 3' max. 3' max. 5 3' max. 5' max. Stairs X 3' max. 5 2' max. 5' max. b. Standards: (1) Encroachments are not allowed within utility easement area, ROW, alley ROW or across a property line. (2) Upper story encroachments on front and side street require 8' min. of clearance. (3) See Item 8 (Frontages) for allowed frontages and section 14-21-1-8 (Frontage Type Standards) for further refinements. T. Amend 14-2H-2F-6, Encroachments Into Setbacks, by removing the image with red border and adding the image with the no border: 13 • I I I.' 04• ;`T-in.11 min. i I I y I I i min. L---J L-----J I L-----J I Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key ---- ROW/ Design Site Line Parking Area --- Building Setback Line I I I I i I I ©4 I I I I I I I j l I I I I r I I I I �..tf __o-OJT_. �_.�_.J.--•-------� li Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key -••- ROW/ Design Site Line Parking Area --- Building Setback Line Md U. Amend Table 14-2H-2F-7, Parking, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Required Spaces: Residential Uses Studio or 1- 2 bedrooms 3 or more bedrooms 1 min. per unit 2 min. per unit Non -Residential Uses 2,000 sf. > 2,500 sf. None 2.5 min./1,000 sf. after first 2,000 sf. b. Setback (Distance From ROW/Design Site Line): 14 Front' 40' min. (Q) Side Street 15' min. (R) Side 5' min. (S) Rear 5' min. (T) c. Characteristics: GuFb Gw Driveway Width 12' max.2 (U) Distance between driveways 48 20, min. (V) d. Standards: (1) Parking may be covered or uncovered and may be attached or detached from main body. (2) Parking may be located in rear or side wing in compliance with main body and wing(s) standards per section 14-2H-6 (Building Type Standards). (3) Porte-cochere allowed if integrated into building facade. (4) C;6irb-C6it Driveway width along alley may exceed 12'. (5) A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites. Front access is not allowed in corner design sites. 2 With 2' planting strip on each side. V. Amend Table 14-2H-2G-3, Building Types, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: Primary Design Site Building Type Width (A) Depth (B) Standards a. Block -Scale: Townhouse45 18' mina? 220' max.�3 4 100' mina 180' max. 14-2H-6K Courtyard building large 100' min. 150' max. 180' min.-! 200' max. 14-2H-6M Main street building 25' min. 150' max. 100' min. 1 200' max. 14-2H-6N {�} Min. depth may be reduced by 15' if the design site fronts a new civic space ) not shown on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan.{2}Min. depth reductions may not exceed 25' total. 42 Represents 1 townhouse. 23 Represents 8 townhouses side by side ^r -a++-ar0head 34 Each townhouse may be divided vertically into 3 units. 45 For fee simple arrangements, no side setback is required between the units of this building type. W. Amend Table 14-2H-2G-5, Building Placement, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: 15 a. Setback (Distance from ROW/Design Site Line) Front (Facade Zone) Interior Design Site Corner Design Site 0' min.; 10' max. (F) 0' min.; 10' max. Side Street (Facade Zone) Primary Building Accessory Structure(s) 0' min.; 10' max.(G) 0' min. (H) Side Primary Building Accessory Structure(s)i 0' min. (1) 3' min. (J) Rear Primary Building Accessory Structure(s) 15' min. (K) 5' min. (L) b. Building Within Facade Zone Total length of facade required within or abutting the facade zone, exclusive of setbacks. Front Side Street 80% min. 70% min. c. Standards (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section 14-21-1-7 (Architectural Element Standards). (2) Utility easements requiring in alley as identified by the applicable abutting throughfare type (14-21-1-9) For Duplex Side -By -Side and Attached Townhouses, no side setback is required for accessory structures used for parking. X. Amend Table 14-2H-2G-6, Encroachments Into Setbacks, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Encroachment Type: Front (M) Side St. (N) Side (0) Rear (P) Architectural Features 3 X 3 X 2-� X 3' max. Stairs X 3 X 2�X 3' max. b. Standards: (1) Encroachments are not allowed within utility easement area, ROW, alley ROW or across a property line. (2) Upper story encroachments on front and side street require 8' min. of clearance. (3) See Item 8 (Frontages) for allowed frontages and section 14-21-1-8 (Frontage Type Standards) for further refinements. 16 Y. Amend 14-2H-2G-6, Encroachments Into Setbacks, by removing the image with red border and adding the image with the no border: y F Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key - - ROW/ Design Site Line Parking Area -- Building Setback Line _ I 0 ©� IF I min � I 1 Street (Front: Narrowest Side) Key - - ROW/ Design Site Line Parking Area -- Building Setback Line Z. Amend Table 14-2H-2G-7, Parking, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Required Spaces: Residential Uses Studio or 1- 2 bedrooms 3 or more bedrooms 1 max. per unit 1.5 max. per unit Non -Residential Uses 5,000 sf. 0 max. 17 > 5,000 sf. 12 max./1,000 sf. after first 5,000 sf. b. Setback (Distance From ROW/Design Site Line): Front' 40' min. (Q) Side Street 75' from front > 75' from front (R) 25' min. (S) 5' min. Side 0' min. (T) Rear 5' min. (U) c. Characteristics: G6irb G6i Driveway Width 12' max.2 (V) d. Standards: (1) Parking may be covered or uncovered and may be attached or detached from main body. (2) Parking may be located in rear or side wing in compliance with main body and wing(s) standards per section 14-21-1-6 (Building Type Standards). (3) G6irb G6it Driveway width along alley may exceed 12'. (4) A driveway may be shared between adjacent design sites. With 2' planting strip on each side. AA.Amend Table 14-2H-4E-1, Adjustments to Standards, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: Table 14-2H-4E-1: Adjustments to Standards Eligible Standards and Required Findings Adjustment/Amount Allowed Adjustments of Adjustment Design Site Design Site Dimensions (Depth/Width) Decrease in the minimum 1 The adjustment accommodates Up to 10% of the standard. required or increase the an existing feature including, but not maximum allowed. limited, to a tree or utility; and 2 An existing or new design site can still be developed in compliance with the standards of the zone. Increase the maximum 1 Demonstrates that one or more of No Limit allowed. the following special circumstances apply to the Property, which make it impractical to comply with the subject regulation: a. The adjustment is needed to avoid a regulated sensitive area. b. The adjustment is needed to reduce the amount of grading 18 needed due to the property's existing topography. c. The alignment of an existing street that must be extended creates a configuration that makes compliance impractical due to irregularly shaped blocks. d. Corner design sites within non -rectangular blocks (see figure below). Additional Width with Adiustment Max. Width 2 The building(s) complies with the setbacks of the zone. 3 The adjustment fits the characteristics of the site and the .surrounding neighborhood. Building Setbacks C-,r acauc Building Within Facade Zone Reduction of the minimum 1 The adjustment accommodates Up to 20% of the standard. amount of facade building an existing feature including, but not required within the facade limited, to a tree or utility. zone. 2 The proposed development is visually compatible with adjacent development and the intended physical character of the zone. Building Footprint Size of Main Body or Wing(s) Increase in the allowed 1 The adjustment accommodates Up to 10% of the standard. length or width. an existing feature including, but not limited, to a tree or utility. 2 The wing(s) maintains the required 5' offset from the main body. 3 The building complies with the setbacks of the zone. 4 The proposed development is visually compatible with adjacent development and the intended physical character of the zone. 19 Parking' ^.A. 4 Front Setback! Reduction in the required 1 The adjustment accommodates Up to 10% of the standard. parking setback. an existing feature including, but not limited, to a tree or utility. 2 If accessed from the street, the driveway complies with the Form - Based Zone standards. 3 The ground floor space is in compliance with the Form -Based Zone standards. Characteristics Increase in driveway width 1 The adjustment is needed to access a parking area for a Up to 18' driveway width building with 3 or more units. 2 Alley access is not feasible. Screening Maximum Screening Height Increase in the total height 1 There will be little or no impact on Up to 33% of the standard. of screens and the retaining the adjoining properties or the walls that they are mounted surrounding neighborhood. on or attached to beyond 6'. 2 The height is necessary to achieve the objectives of this sub- section or is required for health and safety. Affordable Housing Zones (14-2H-2) Select one of the following 1 The adjustment is in a building Building type design site minor adjustments. that contains Affordable Housing depth may be adjusted by units.2 up to 1513; or 2 The adjustment fits the Building type design site characteristics of the site and the width may be adjusted by up surrounding neighborhood. to 15%; or 3 The adjustment is consistent with Minimum amount of facade the intent of the standard building required within the being adjusted and the goals of the facade zone may be Comprehensive and District Plans. reduced by up to 20%. Building Type Standards (14-2H-6) Select one of the following 1 The adjustment is in a building Building main body and wing minor adjustments. that contains Affordable Housing standards may units.2 be adjusted by up to 15%; or 2 The adjustment fits the characteristics of the site and the Maximum building height surrounding neighborhood. may be increased by up to 3 The adjustment is consistent with 0.5 stories.4 the intent and the standard being adjusted and the goals of the Comprehensive and District Plans. 20 Additional Minor Adjustments Select an additional The Affordable Housing units are An additional minor adjustment each for income restricted to households minor adjustment to each of the two sets of making 50% or less of the Area the minor adjustments for Median Income.2 minor adjustments described affordable housing for Affordable Housing described above. above. ' In compliance with section 14-2H-3 (Frontage Standards). 2 In compliance with section 14-2H-10 (Affordable Housing Incentives). 3 This may be combined with other reductions in section 14-2H-2 (Zones) up to a combined maximum of 25'. 4 With this adjustment, the building height may exceed the maximum standards for primary buildings found in item 4a (Building Form; Height) of section 14-2H-2 (Zones) by 0.5 stories and by 5' BB.Amend Table 14-2H-6D-3, Building Size and Massing, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Height: T3NE Max. number of stories 2.5 b. Main Body': Width 55' max. (A) Depth 55' max. (B) c. Wing(s)' Width 29 24' max. (C) Depth 29 24' max. (D) Separation between wings 15' min. Offset from main body 5' min.3 (E) d. Standards: (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). (2) Maximum one carriage house is allowed per sub- section 14-2H-6C (Carriage House). (3) Rooftop room allowed on uppermost roof per sub -section 14-2H-7F (Rooftop Room). 1 In compliance with the standards of the zone. 2 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body depth may be increased by 5'. 3 Except when used for parking, front parking setback shall comply with standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone. 4 Except at a corner of two building faces where neither of those faces front a public 21 right-of-way, then the minimum is 0'. CC. Amend Table 14-2H-6E-3, Building Size and Massing, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Height: T3NG Max. number of stories 2.5 b. Main Body': Width 35' max. (A) Depth2 45' max. (B) c. Wing(s)' Width 2G 24' max. (C) Depth 28 24' max. (D) Separation between wings 15' min. Offset from main body 5' min. 34 (E) d. Standards: (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). (2) Maximum one carriage house is allowed per sub- section 14-2H-6C (Carriage House). (3) Rooftop room allowed on uppermost roof per sub -section 14-2H-7F (Rooftop Room). 1 In compliance with the standards of the zone. 2 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body depth may be increased by 5'. 3 Except when used for parking, front parking setback shall comply with standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone. 4 Except at a corner of two building faces where neither of those faces front a public right-of-way, then the minimum is 0'. DD. Amend Table 14-2H-6F-3, Building Size and Massing, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Height: T3NE T3NG Max. number of stories 2.5 2.5 b. Main Body': Widths 48' max. (A) Depth 3y4 40' max. (B) c. Standards: (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). 22 (2) Maximum one carriage house is allowed per sub- section 14-2H-6C (Carriage House). (3) Rooftop room allowed on uppermost roof per sub -section 14-2H-7F (Rooftop Room). 1 In compliance with the standards of the zone. garages) the maxim,,m main herrb, epth magi be inrro�cor•! hi F o 2 When units are rear loaded and only one story in height, the max. main body width may be increased to 60'. 3 When units are rear loaded and only one story in height, the max. main body depth may be increased to 70'. a When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body depth may be increased to 45'. EE.Amend Table 14-2H-6G-3, Building Size and Massing, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Height: T3NG Max. number of stories 2.5 b. Main Body': Width 36' max. (A) Depth 40' max. (B) c. Wing(s)' Width 15' max. (C) Depth 20' max. (D) Separation between wings 15' min. Offset from main body 5' min. (E) d. Standards: (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). (2) Maximum one carriage house is allowed per sub- section 14-2H-6C (Carriage House). (3) Rooftop room allowed on uppermost roof per sub -section 14-2H-7F (Rooftop Room). 1 In compliance with the standards of the zone. 2 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body depth may be increased by 5'. 3 Except when used for parking, front parking setback shall comply with standards in Item 7 (Parking) of the zone. 4 Except at a corner of two building faces where neither of those faces front a public right-of-way, then the minimum is 0'. 23 FF. Amend Table 14-2H-6H-3, Building Size and Massing, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Height: T3NE T3NG T4NS Max. number of stories 1.5 1.5 1.5 Max. height to mid- point of roof 18' 18' 18' b. Main Body: All Cottages Width 32' max. (A) Depth 24 30' max. (B) Most Rear Cottage Width 40' max. (C) Depth 24 30' max. (D) Separation between cottages 10' min. (E) c. Standards: (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). (2) Maximum one carriage house is allowed per sub -section 14-2H-6C (Carriage House). 1 In compliance with the standards of the zone. 2 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body depth may be increased by 5. GG. Amend 14-2H-6K-1, Description, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. A small -to -large sized, typically attached, building with a rear yard that consists of thFee two 2 to eight (8) townhouses placed side -by -side. Each townhouse consists of one (1) unit or, up to three (3) stacked units as allowed by the zone. As allowed by the zone, this the house -scale townhouse type mayafse be detached `"^th minim-aI separatieRG hehyee.n build) rrs This type is typically IGGated within rvmerlerate to high iRteRsity Reighherheeds er Rear a Reighherheed main street , HH. Amend Table 14-2H-6K-2, Number of Units, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: Units per primary building 1 max. 3 max. in T4NM-0; T4MS Primary buildings per design site 1 max. House -scale building,—: attached — 2 townhouses min. 3 townhouses max. , detached — 2 townhouses minimum - 3 h„ilydiRg te,n,r,he„ses max. per T3NE X T3NG A T4NS X T4N M X 24 T4MS X Block -scale building;_ attached - 4 townhouses min, 8 townhouses max. 4--8 i nrdiyirdi a t-m.1 ices mw per rGw T3NE X T3NG X T4NS A T4N M A T4MS A Key: A = Allowed X = Not Allowed II. Amend Table 14-2H-6K-3, Building Size and Massing, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Height: T3NG T4NS T4NM T4MS Max. number of stories 2.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 b. Main Body: Width 18' min.; 30' max. (A) Depth2 50' max. (B) Max. width per building 90, 120' 498160' 200' (C) c. Wing(s)': Width 15' max. (D) Depth 15' max. (E) Separation between wings 8' min. (F) c. Standards: (1) Facades facing a street or civic space must be designed in compliance with section 14-2H-7 (Architectural Element Standards). (2) Maximum one carriage house is allowed per sub -section 14-2H-6C (Carriage House). (3) In T4NM-0 and T4MS, each townhouse may be divided vertically into 3 units. 1 In compliance with the standards of the zone. 2 When a porch is designed to extend the full width of the front facade (excluding garages), the maximum main body depth may be increased by 5'. 3 No separation is required for wings used for parking, when entirely behind attached townhomes. JJ. Amend 14-2H-7B-2b, General Standards, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: b. Ground floor glazing on residential buildings shall be tY fifteen percent (88 15%) minimum with a minimum of one (1) window on the ground floor of each building elevations se. Attached garages are excluded from this standard and calculation. Ground floor glazing on shopfronts shall be seventy- five percent (75%) minimum. 25 KK.Amend 14-2H-8C-1, Description, by removing the image with red border and adding the image with the no border: Setback ROW Street Setback ROW Street LL. Amend Table 14-2H-8C-2, Size, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: Width, lear 4& 12' min.! (A) Depth, Overall frern average f�TRTGh (B) 8, monr 6' min. grade €Iev;;ted#ever f�Rrie Height, Clear 8' min. (C) Stories 2 stories max.1 Pedestrian Access Width 3' min. (D) 26 Utility easement area as identified by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14- 21-1-9). (E) 1 Glear Width reduce to 8' when applied to Cottage Court (14-21-1-61-1) building type. Story height maximum reduced to 1 story. MM. Amend 14-2H-8D-1, Description, by removing the image with red border and adding the image with the no border: Setback ROW Street Setback ROW Street NN. Amend Table 14-2H-8D-2, Size, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: Width, lea 4& 12' min. (A) 27 Depth, Overall frem average f� de (B) A'GTIT T 6' min. rRiSh €Iey�tedfe�er�+�slie Height, Clear 8' min. (C) Stories 2 stories max. Pedestrian Access Width 3' min. (D) Utility easement area as identified by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14- 2H-9). (E) Encroachment Area of Building Facade Depth Width 6' max. (F) 1/3 min. of overall building facade' (G) May not exceed porch clear width ( (A) ) 00. Amend 14-2H-8E-1, Description, by removing the image with red border and adding the image with the no border: Setback ROW Street Key ---- ROW / Design site Line Setback Line Setback I I I I h� I I I I I I ROW Street 28 Setback ROW Street Key ---- ROW / Design site Line Setback Line Setback ROW Street PP.Amend Table 14-2H-8E-2, Size, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: Depth, lea 10' min. 1 (A) Length 15' min. (B) Depth of recessed entries 42-! 3' max. {DAL Pedestrian Access Width 3' min. {€ LQJ Height of dooryard fence/wall above finish level 36" max. {F4(E) Utility easement area as identified by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14- 2H-9). (G) 1 Reduce to 8' when applied to Cottage Court (14-2H-6H) building type. QQ. Amend 14-2H-8F-1, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: Description: The main facade of the building is near the front design site line with steps to an elevated entry. The stoop is elevated above the sidewalk to provide privacy along the sidewalk -facing rooms. Stoop landings may be accessed via stairs, ramp, or a sloped walkway. Stairs-oamps#steer may lead tG thP— ssG f"'IL A-F may be parallel te the sidewalk RR. Amend 14-2H-8F-1, Description, by removing the image with red border and adding the image with the no border: 29 Key — --ROW/ Design site Line Setback ROW Street Key — — ROW / Design site Line Setback Line Street Setback ROW Street SS.Amend Table 14-2H-8F-2, Size, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: Width, lear 5' min. (A) Depth, r� 3' min. (B) Height, Clear 8' min. (C) Stories 1 story max. Finish level above c;;dk average finished grade alonq frontage 12" min. (D) Depth of recessed entries 4-2!1 3' max. (E) Utility easement area as identified by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14- 2H-9). (F) TT. Amend 14-2H-8G-1, Description, by removing the image with red border and adding the image with the no border: 30 ibLI n; Setback ROW Street Key ---- ROW / Design site Line Setback Line Setback ROW Street Setback ROW Sh eet Key — — ROW / Design site Line Setback Line UU. Amend Table 14-2H-8G-2, Size, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: Width, Glear 15' min. (A) Depth, leaf 15' min. (B) Ratio, height to width 2:1 max. (C) Height from sidewalk 12" max. (D) Utility easement area as identified by the applicable abutting thoroughfare type (14- 2H-9). (E) W.Amend 14-21-1-913-3, Miscellaneous, by adding the underlined text: 3. Miscellaneous: a. Stairs may be perpendicular or parallel to the building facade. b. Ramps shall be parallel to facade or along the side of the building. 31 c. Sloped walkways shall connect to the public sidewalk or driveway. d. Entry doors are covered or recessed to provide shelter from the elements. 4, e. Gates are not allowed. e- f. All doors shall face the street. WW. Amend 14-2H-9B-2, by adding the underlined text: 1. The individual standards of each thoroughfare type in this section may be adjusted as part of the subdivision process. In considering adjustments, the Director of Public Works and the Director Neighborhood and Development Services shall find that the proposed adjustment meets the following criteria: XX.Amend Table 14-2H-9L-2, Overall Widths, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: a. Widths: ROW Width 20' (A) Pavement Width 10' (B) b. Additional Standards: (1) Side/front street adjoining design sites to comply with section 14-2H- 9 (Frontage Standards). (2) Pedestrians share 10' section with bicycles. (3) See sub -section 14-2H-,6451 (Passage) for additional standards. (4) Passage shall be open to the public at all times. YY.Amend 14-9A-1, Definitions, by adding the underlined text: ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES: Exterior building elements intended to provide ornamentation to the building massing, including, but not limited to: , light fiat iron GaRG IeS and ba'GGnioc, awnings, balconies, bay windows, belt courses, canopies, chimneys, cornices, eaves, light fixtures, and windows and door surrounds. DRAFT LAND SUBDIVISIONS CODE TEXT ZZ. Amend 15-3-4A, Blocks, by adding the underlined text: A. Blocks: 1. Blocks should be limited in size and be laid out in a pattern that ensures the connectivity of streets, provides for efficient provision of public and safety services, and establishes efficient and logical routes between residences and nonresidential destinations and public gathering places. 2. Block Lengths: 32 a. Except as required by Article 14-2H (Form -Based Zones And Standards), to provide multiple travel routes within and between neighborhoods, block faces along local and collector streets should range between three hundred (300) and six hundred feet (600') in length and for residential subdivisions have a width sufficient to accommodate two (2) tiers of lots. Longer block faces may be allowed in cases of large lot commercial, industrial, or rural residential development, or where topography, water features, or existing development prevents shorter block lengths, although midblock pedestrian connections may be required (see section 15-3-3 of this chapter). Block faces are measured from centerline to centerline. b. Where the area is subject to Article 14-2H (Form -Based Zones And Standards), the block network shall substantially comply with the Form -Based Code Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan and shall meet the following standards: (1) Individual block lengths and the total block perimeter shall comply with the standards in Table 15-3-4A-1 (Block Size Standards). Where a block contains multiple Form -Based Zones, the most intense zone is to be used to establish the standards for block size. Blocks may exceed the maximum allowed length if a compliant passage (14-2H-9L) is provided to break up the block. Table 15-3-4A-1: Block Size Standards Zone Length (max.) Length (max.) With Passage' Perimeter Length Perimeter Length With Passage' T3 NE 500' max. 800' max. 1,600' max. 2,200' max. T3 NG 500' max. 800max. 1,600' max. 21200' max. T4 NS 360' max. 600' max. 1,440' max. 1,950' max. T4 NM 360' max. 600' max. 1,440' max. 1,950' max. T4 MS 360' max. 500' max. 1,440' max. 1,750' max. 1 In compliance with the standards fora passage in sub -section 14-2H-9L (Passage). 2 Adjustment to block size standards may be requested according to the approval criteria and procedures for admustments contained in 15-3-4A-5. (2) Blocks shall be a minimum width to result in two (2) halves of developable design sites in compliance with the minimum design site depth standards of the allowed building types in the Form -Based Zone. When the zone has a range of minimum design site depths, the applicant may show the shortest minimum design site depth with an acknowledgement that the selected depth may not accommodate the full range of building types allowed by the zone. A single half is allowed when adjoining an existing half -block. (3) The size, shape, length, location, and design of blocks may vary from the Future Land Use Map where required to accommodate sensitive areas, or where the variation complies maintains street connectivity, complies with Table 15-3-4A-1 (Block Size Standards, minimizes changes to Form -Based Zones on each block, and adjusts all blocks affected by the proposed change(s). Where this affects the location, shape, or design of civic space, the variation shall maintain civic space of a similar size in a nearby location within the subdivision. 3. Block faces along arterial streets should be at least six hundred feet (600') in length. Intersecting collector streets should be spaced in a manner that provides adequate connectivity between neighborhoods, but also maintains the capacity of the street for the safe and efficient movement of traffic. Longer block faces may be required along high capacity or higher speed arterial streets where the interests in moving traffic outweigh the connectivity between areas of development. The city may approve shorter block faces in high density commercial areas or other areas with high pedestrian counts. 4. Cul-de-sacs may not exceed nine hundred feet (900') in length. The length of a cul-de-sac is measured from the centerline of the street from which it commences to the center of the bulb. 5. Adjustments to Block Size Standards 33 a. The individual block lenaths and the total block aerimeter standards of each zone in this section may be adjusted as part of the subdivision process. In considering an adjustment, the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services shall find that the proposed adjustment meets the following criteria: M Demonstrates that one or more of the following special circumstances apply to the Property, which make it impractical to comply with the block size standards: 1. The adjustment is needed to avoid a regulated sensitive area. 2. The adjustment is needed to reduce the amount of grading needed due to the Property's existing topography. 3. The adjustment is needed because the alignment of an existing street that must be extended creates a configuration that makes compliance impractical. 4. The adjustment is needed because the abutting neighborhood is designed with longer blocks that impact the proposed development. The new blocks abutting the existing longer blocks cannot accommodate new streets and pedestrian passages are infeasible. 5. The adjustment is needed because a single -loaded street or passage has been determined to be undesirable for the block to arotect the sensitive nature of aublic parkland. 6. The adjustment is needed because visibility and access to public parks, civic uses, and natural open spaces are provided through other means besides a single -loaded street. The adjustment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or be incurious to other property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the Property is located. The adjustment requested is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the regulation modified. The requested adjustment complies with other applicable statutes, ordinances, laws, and regulations. 34 Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 2025 Page 4 of 17 can't be built on. Conley confirmed that's correct. A home could be built on Lot 25 but just not on that specific 0.06 acres of that triangular piece. Wade stated since this is such a minor rezoning was there any consideration to just go through staff approval, versus having to always come through the Commission. Russett replied not for a rezoning, no matter how small or how minor it's a legislative action that has to come to the Commission for a recommendation to Council. Quellhorst opened the public hearing. Ron Amelon (MMS Consultants) is present on behalf of the applicant to answer any questions. Having no questions or other speakers, Quellhorst closed the public hearing. Miller recommends approval of REZ25-0003, a proposed rezoning to rezone 0.06 acres of the property located at 691 E Foster Rd from OPD/RS-12 zone to RS-5 zone subject to the following conditions: a. In consideration of the City's rezoning of the subject property, Owners agree that no building permit shall be issued for Lot 25 Conway's Subdivision until the City approves a boundary line adjustment for the subject property that conforms to the zoning boundaries established by the rezoning ordinance to which this Agreement is attached. b. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Lot 25 Conway's Subdivision, Owner shall install additional pavement at the intersection of St. Anne's Drive and Buresh Avenue, similar in design to what exists at the other end of the block adjacent to 840-852 St. Anne's Drive, so as to allow City vehicles to provide services to the lot without having to back up. Prior to issuance of a building permit for said lot, Owner shall submit construction drawings for the proposed improvements and obtain approval of said construction drawing by the City Engineer. Any property acquisition needed to make said improvements shall be acquired by the Owner prior to the issuance of a building permit for said lot. Wade seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS CASE NO. REZ25-0002: Consideration of a Zoning Code Amendment to amend 14-2H Form -Based Zones and Standards to clarify standards and address potential barriers to development. Schaefer began the staff report with background about the form -based code zones. This zone was adopted in 2021 to support high quality, walkable and vibrant neighborhoods and guides physical development, specifically in the South and Southwest Districts of Iowa City. Comparing form -based code zones to conventional zoning code, the form -based code focuses more on design, form and character, rather than land use as the main focus. Unfortunately, since its adoption in 2021 no significant development has occurred within the form -based code district Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 2025 Page 5 of 17 and feedback from recent developers working to rezone and develop in the form -based code district has highlighted areas of the code that could be clearer, more streamlined and better aligned with practical applications. Addressing these aspects will help improve the code's effectiveness and support its intended outcomes, so staff is proposing some updates to the code. Staff is proposing to adjust regulations to improve feasibility, clarify standards and remove unnecessary complexities. They're hoping to improve the codes effectiveness and support its intended outcomes. To implement these updates, staff is proposing to amend Title 14, the Zoning Code and also Title 15, the Land Subdivision Code. P&Z doesn't officially review amendments outside of the zoning code, but staff wanted to also inform them of those Title 15 changes since they do work together with the zoning code. In addition to the code updates, staff also created a user guide to highlight key standards of the form -based code, which was included in the agenda packet, and walks users through the requirements for development in this area in a little more simplified and more graphic way than the code itself. The first section is regarding building placement standards. Schaefer explained these standards regulate setbacks and the orientation of buildings to create a cohesive streetscape, support walkability and protect privacy between neighboring properties. The first change is related to the minimum side yard setbacks for primary buildings. She shared a table noting the existing minimum side yard setback standards for each zone. Staff is proposing for the T3NE and the T3NG to reduce the side yard setback from 10' and 7' to 5' so they're consistent with the other form -based zones and also mimics what is in the traditional zones for residential properties. This makes all side setbacks 5' instead of changing for those zones. The second change is regarding placement of garages associated with the duplex side by side and the townhome building type. Currently, depending on the zone the accessory structures have to be set back between 5' and 10' from the side property lines. Staff is proposing that, when used for parking, accessory structure side setbacks could be reduced to as little as 0 for duplex side by side and attached townhome building types. This change allows for more efficient use of the building area and provides more flexibility for developers. Quellhorst asked if these changes being proposed are from staff of a private applicant. Schaefer stated this is coming from staff. Schaefer moved on to building types. She stated the building type standards set clear rules for each kind of building so that each zone achieves its intended physical character. This also supports a mix of housing options within the form -based code districts and in the form -based zones, each block of a development has to have at least two different building types. She noted it's a little different than a traditional zone. Examples of building types include a house small, a duplex, townhome, things of that nature. The first change is related to the wing dimensions for the house large and the house small building types. A wing is a structure that is physically attached to and is smaller in footprint and in height to the main body of the building, similar to an addition to the main home. For the house large and house small building types currently the maximum dimensions allowed by the code are 20' by 20' and staff is proposing to increase those dimensions to 24' by 24' because they're seeing developers utilizing these wings as attached garages and increasing the size to 24' by 24' allows enough space for two vehicles, stairs if needed to go into the main home and storage for items. Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 2025 Page 6 of 17 The second change is wing offset, currently there is a requirement that wings have to be offset 5' from the main body of the building and staff is proposing to create an exemption for the house large, house small and duplex stacked building types. When wings are adjacent to the corner of a building that connects two building faces that do not front a public right of way, when this placement is met then the minimum wing offset may be reduced to 0. Schaefer showed a graphic of the requirement. Elliott asked if the wing could this be an ADU. Schaefer stated they could fill that in with what would be considered an ADU with a kitchen, a bathroom, etc. Russett added that for the building types Schaefer is discussing, house large, house small, they also have maximum sizes for those building types so the wing does add an additional square footage. Wade asked if there is anything dimensionally that makes the wings separate from the main structure. Schaefer replied nothing significantly different. Quellhorst stated the wing is really just used where they need extra square footage. Schaefer noted unlike in a traditional zoning code which would be restricted by the setbacks alone in the form -based code they are more concerned with the form of the building so there's additional restrictions for what width and depth of building can be. Schaefer stated there must be an offset between wings, they cannot have two wings butted up against each other, there's some separation required. Next, for the duplex side by side building type the maximum width of the main body is 48' and the maximum depth is 40'. Staff is proposing that when units are rear loaded and only one story in height, the maximum width of the body of the building can be increased to 60' and the maximum depth increase to 70'. The larger main body sizes allow for the development of single story duplexes, ranch style duplexes, which would otherwise be infeasible using the current zoning standards and thus providing this building type to individuals such as seniors and those with accessibility needs. Schaefer stated while this would be the widest building allowed in several zones, approximately 10' wider than the biggest currently, it is only one story in height compared to 2.5 stories that typical buildings can have. The next is related to cottage court building type standards. Currently the maximum depth of the main body of the cottage court style building is 24' and staff is proposing to increase the maximum depth to 30' by increasing the maximum main body dimension. Schaefer explained this allows for more flexibility with interior layouts while maintaining the compact nature of this building type. The cottage court building type is unique, it's one of those missing middle housing types that the City is trying to develop to increase housing variation and affordability, and this change would make the building type slightly more attractive and a viable option for developers and residents alike. Staff is also proposing to increase the maximum depth of the lot for cottage court building type from 180' to a maximum depth of 200' and increasing that lot depth is related to having bigger buildings and that increase in depth allows for adequate space for the buildings themselves, the required setbacks, the shared courtyard that's required with these building types, sidewalks, parking spaces, landscaping, and all those things. The next section is architectural element standards. Schaefer explained these establish requirements that supplement the zone standards and further refine the intended building form Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 2025 Page 7 of 17 and physical character of the zoning district. The one staff is proposing to update is related to glazing. Glazing is defined as an opening in a building which glass is installed. Windows are mainly what's utilized as glazing. Staff is proposing to reduce the glazing requirement to 15% of the ground floor with a minimum of one window per building side. They're also proposing to exempt attached garages from this standard. Schaefer stated this change provides a more practical and achievable standard for residential buildings and this new percentage is similar to the glazing standards required by the City funded affordable housing projects. Additionally, this update ensures that homes maintain an active and visually appealing streetscapes while allowing for functional design flexibility. For example, reducing that glazing requirement allows room on walls for upper cabinets in kitchens, spaces for televisions to be mounted and other things instead of having windows there, exempting attached garages also allows for enhanced privacy for items stored inside of a garage. She stated this also aligns with the standards for typical residential construction by not requiring those windows all around a garage. Craig stated with this particular one she was taken aback because she feels that people generally want to have natural light in their homes, but she doesn't have a good sense of what 15% versus 30% means. Schaefer concurred that staffs gut reaction was sort of similar when they were first reviewing decreasing these, but when they saw it in practice, as they were working with developers, 30% was hard to accomplish for a lot of these smaller homes and 15% seemed more reasonable and still met what staff felt was the standard of having ample windows for the homes. Quellhorst asked out of curiosity what is the percentage of a typical single family house. Russett is not sure, it's not a standard that they have now in the code so it's not something that they check for current development. Based on what they saw from a developer they have been working with, the developer submitted plans that range from below 15% up to 20% so staff thought 15% struck a balance with the calculations that they had provided on their proposed elevations. Additionally, staff did add that they needed to have at least one window per side, because they thought that would help ensure that there was glazing on all four sides of the building. Townsend added that these are just minimums, there are no maximums. Craig noted personally if she lived in a house with houses 5' on either side of him he would want all the glazing on the front and the back, not on the sides. She has no problem with the garage, but the jump from 30% to 15% just seems like a big jump down. She asked where did the 30% come from in the first place. Schaefer explained it was recommended by the consultant that drafted the form -based code and staff did reach out to them and they've made similar adjustments in other communities they've worked with where developers and builders and planners are also saying that 30% is hard to accomplish on many of the homes they're developing. Russett added one more point, this is just the first floor glazing requirement so there will be windows on the second stories of these buildings too, just because they're needed for egress so the 15% is only for the first floor and there will be additional windows that are not calculated in that 15% on the second story. Miller noted it would probably help to see what this actually looks like or what examples that they based the decision on because especially the front facing if those are too small it starts to make the neighborhood feel less friendly. Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 2025 Page 8of17 Wade thinks that's the most challenging, on the right of way facing, whether it's a corner or such, how do they incentivize on those corners that to get windows on both street facing sides. Schaefer stated the City does have a blanket architectural standard that requires similar feature treatments for corner lots. Townsend asked if there is a standard that every room has to have a window. Schaefer replied yes, it is in the building code for ingress and egress. Quellhorst noted windows are expensive so is this mostly a financial concern. Schaefer acknowledged that from the developer side it is a concern. Quellhorst noted it sounds like staff looked at a few different proposed plans for residential buildings and were happy with the esthetics of 15%. Russett stated there were some that were not happy with it if caused certain sides with no windows and there was a totally blank facade, so that's why they added that additional requirement that there must be at least one window on all four sides. Schaefer stated if the Commission wants they can discuss this later and change the 15% they can if they have a good sense of what they think it should be, but they should table this for now and continue with the staff presentation. Schaefer moved on to frontage types, frontages are the components of the building that provide the transition and interface between the public realm, the street and the sidewalk, and the private realm, the yard and the building itself. Frontage type standards establish the base standards for each of the frontage types that are defined within the form -based code. Frontage type examples include porches, stoops and dooryards, which are like a hedge or a fence around the front yard, and each block, similar to the building types, requires two different frontage types per block, so there has to be some design variation within the block. The first change staff is proposing is related to the depth and width of the porch projected and the porch engaged frontage types. Currently both of those frontage types measure the width and the depth using a "clear" or "overall" measurement which basically means that they're being measured from within the posts of the porch. Then the minimum width clear is 15' and the minimum depth overall is 8' for porches elevated less than 12" and 6' deep for porches elevated 12" or more. Staff is proposing to simplify the measurements by removing the "clear" and "overall" terms and proposing to reduce the width to 12' wide by 6' deep for all porches, regardless of elevation. Eliminating the "clear" and "overall" from the width and depth measurements reduces confusion and ensures consistency. Applying these standards and reviewing them, in addition using a clear dimension, is difficult at plan review since certain details like column width might be unknown, and because of this staff is also proposing to carry over the removal of the "clear" and "overall" measurements to all frontage types to reduce that confusion and ensure consistent application and review of frontage type standards. The second change that's being proposed is related to the Dooryard and Stoop frontage types and their depth of recess entry standards. Currently, for both those frontage types the depth of recess entry maximum is 12" or 1', this is measured from the front of the facade to where the front door is placed. Staff is proposing to increase the depth of recess entry maximum to 3' for both the Dooryard and the Stoop frontage types as this change provides greater flexibility for architectural design while maintaining and inviting a pedestrian friendly streetscape. Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 2025 Page 9of17 The third change is related to the Dooryard frontage type and again another standard related to glazing. Currently, there's a standard for the Dooryard frontage type that the distance between glazing or windows can be no more than 4' maximum. Staff is proposing to remove this glazing measurement standard, and by eliminating this requirement it will allow for more adaptable designs while still relying on other frontage standards to ensure a high quality, pedestrian friendly development. Schaefer noted a lot of times they've run into issues because Dooryards allowed for some of the single family homes to have windows on either side of the of a door and it's harder to meet those glazing requirements. Next is related to the Stoop frontage type. For the Stoop frontage type the landing of the stoop is required to be elevated a minimum of 1' above the sidewalk and stairs and ramps can be used to access the elevated landing. Staff is proposing to maintain the same elevation standard but change slightly the way they are describing the measurement to be consistent to how they measure height of a building. Schaefer explained there was confusion about what sidewalk were they talking about, was it the public sidewalk or the sidewalk leading to the door, so they've changed that to above average finished grade along the frontage, which is the same way they measure height. Staff is also proposing to add language to explicitly allow a sloped walkway, which provides a more accessible and flexible entry option for the Stoop frontage type and this change improves accessibility for individuals with mobility challenges and offers an alternative to stairs or a ramp that would have to be parallel to the building. This update enhances usability while maintaining the intended elevated entry design of the Stoop frontage type. Elliott asked for clarification on a sloped walkway. Schaefer explained the sidewalk to the building is elevated slightly and not a flat, zero entry. Elliott asked why not just do a zero entry and Russett clarified there's no elevation change, with zero entry the sidewalk and door are at the same elevation and here they have a home that's slightly elevated from the elevation of the sidewalk, with the Stoop frontage house type there is a sidewalk and the front door is above the sidewalk with stairs that are elevated to provide that privacy between the private living space and the public realm. Typically, it is stairs but providing a more accessible way than building a ramp and keeping it slightly elevated is the sloped walkway. It is just providing another option for builders. Wade noted then with this type of house if there was an attached garage doesn't that become a challenge from the garage to in house, because of those are two different heights. Russett acknowledged it could be and in the building code there is what's called visibility standards which states every house does not necessarily have to be designed to provide zero entry but designed so that it could be altered easily to provide zero entry access. If someone does need zero entry at all access points, then they're going to have to figure out how to design that home accordingly. Wade noted the 12 inch above grade is one of the biggest challenges in building homes, many have zero entry front doors but then have a garage that's usually a foot above the floor grades. Schaefer also wanted to note that this is one option for frontage types, both porch options do allow zero grade with no elevation requirement for those porches so that's also an option for builders to use as well for those Stoop and the Dooryard. Schaefer moved onto parking standards which regulate private parking spaces such as how many are required and where those parking spaces are. It also regulates driveways, where driveways can be located and the allowed sizes for both parking spaces and driveways. The first change staff is proposing is the minimum distance between driveways. Currently the minimum Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 2025 Page 10 of 17 standard is to have a 40' spacing between driveways in the form -based code and they're proposing to decrease the minimum distance between driveways to 20'. Schaefer explained this change allows for flexibility of driveway placement which is needed in instances where the site's topography restricts where the driveway can go for drainage reasons and other things. She also noted one of the main intents of the standard is to mitigate concerns about the visual dominance of curb cuts and prioritize streetscapes that increase walkability and while reduction from 40' to 20' will allow for more driveways per block it is still much less than what is allowed in the City's traditional single family residential zones, which only requires a separation distance of 6'. The next section is related to the flexibility for unique situations and these changes are being proposed to allow adjustments to standard requirements for unique site conditions, while maintaining the intent of the form -based code. The first one is related to maximum lot depth and width adjustments. Schaefer stated each building type has a maximum lot and width dimension that it must meet and this change allows applicants to apply for an administrative adjustment to the maximum design site or the lot depth and width standards if specific approval criteria are met. The applicant must demonstrate that the adjustment to the lot standard is needed to avoid a regulated sensitive area, existing topography constraints, configurations of existing streets, or the block size of an abutting neighborhood. She explained this adjustment recognizes that certain sites may have unique challenges that make meeting lot standards impractical and allowing an option for an administrative adjustment ensures that projects can respond to these challenges without compromising functionality or quality. One example of a unique scenario that might utilize this adjustment is if at the end of a block there's a large hill or a ravine that makes that portion of the property unbuildable, making that topographical problem and an outlot for an HOA to maintain. Having this adjustment would allow the lot dimensions of that adjacent site to absorb that topographical challenge to increase efficiencies and how things are subdivided. The second is related to two way traffic and driveway width adjustments. Currently, the maximum driveway width for all zones in the form -based code area is 12' and parking areas for a lot of these sites must be behind the residential building or set back from the public right of way. If alley access is not feasible a longer drive aisle is then needed to access the parking area and these longer drive aisles will typically be used for two way traffic, as there's multiple residents of these sites, and therefore warrant a larger driveway. This change allows applicants to apply for an administrative adjustment to increase the maximum driveway width to 18' if specific approval criteria are met. The applicant must demonstrate that the adjustment is needed to access a parking area for a building with three or more units, and they must also prove that alley access is not a feasible option for that site. This change ensures that multi -unit building types have adequate access to off street parking while maintaining safe and functional site design with that two way driveway. The next section is language clarification and code cleanup. Schaefer stated these changes are proposed to improve clarity, removing inconsistencies and streamline the code to ensure easier interpretation and application. The first one is related to encroachments into setbacks. Currently, architectural features such as bay windows, light fixtures, canopies, balconies and stairs can encroach into building setbacks a certain amount depending on the zone. Architectural features and stairs can encroach a maximum of 3' to 5' into side setbacks, depending on the zone district. Staff is proposing a change to ensure that the maximum allowable encroachment of architectural features and stairs remains proportional to the reduced side setbacks across all zones. Aligning encroachment limits with the updated setbacks enhances consistency in site planning, simplifies code application, and reduces potential conflicts between neighboring properties. Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 2025 Page 11 of 17 Next is related to driveway curb cut widths. The current code language only refers to curb cut width, which is meant to refer to the width of the driveway, and that is 12' maximum however staff found that most code users define curb cut width as the width of the driveway where it meets the street payment, so the width of the driveway at the curb. Therefore, for clarity they are going to change that from curb cut width to driveway width and for consistency it will be measured at the property line. Schaefer noted this change helps prevent confusion among developers, homeowners and staff by clearly defining what measurement they're talking about. Townsend asked if one can't have a driveway more than 12' how would that affect a larger garage, like a three -car garage. Schaeffer stated the way the code is set up it doesn't lend itself to three car garages because of the wing dimensions mentioned earlier that are a maximum of 24' by 24' but if someone did have a two stall garage it is allowed since it's set back from the property line and they could have a wider driveway at the garage, this measurement would be just at the property line. Schaefer stated the next one is related to the Townhome building type description. Currently the Townhome building type is described as a small to large size, typically attached building with a rear yard that consists of three to eight townhouses placed side by side. Each townhouse consists of one unit, or up to three stacked units as allowed by the zone. As allowed by the zone, this type may also be detached with minimal separations between buildings. Staff is proposing to change it by simplifying the description to small to large size, typically attached building with rear yard that consists of two to eight townhouses placed side by side. Each townhouse consists of one unit or up to three stacked units, as allowed by the zone. As allowed by the zone, the house -scale townhouse type may be detached. She explained this change aligns with the definitions used in other sections of the Townhouse building type that distinguishes house -scale townhomes from block -scale townhome units and this update removes the confusion of what minimally separated means and broadens applicability by clarifying that the house -scale townhome building type may be detached and set back from adjacent properties at the minimum setback distance. Next is related to the Neighborhood Plan and the current code requires an updated Neighborhood Plan to be submitted and approved prior to the site plan or building permit approval when any changes to the Neighborhood Plan are requested. Schaefer stated the proposed change streamlines the process by requiring that all requested changes from the original Neighborhood Plan be clearly identified on site plans and building plans, instead of requiring the applicant to prepare and submit an entirely updated Neighborhood Plan. City staff will internally update and track changes to the overall Neighborhood Plan to maintain consistency and accuracy. She stated the proposed change aims to streamline the development review process while maintaining oversight and ensuring that changes are properly addressed, and this adjustment provides greater flexibility for developers by reducing the need for extensive updates to the entire Neighborhood Plan and instead they can focus on the specific modifications relevant to their project. Schaefer explained in the form -based code developers are required to provide an entire Neighborhood Plan detailing where the lots will be and lot dimensions, similar to a subdivision, but then also stating what building types they're planning to use for each of those lots and which frontage types. Staff is foreseeing issues if a separate developer is developing one portion of a site that was different than the person who originally updated the Neighborhood Plan, so this just streamlines that process by allowing them to update the site plans and building plans they're specifically working on and staff can track those changes Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 2025 Page 12 of 17 internally Next update is related to the architectural feature definition. Currently, the definition for architectural features doesn't list several features that staff often receives questions about. Staff proposes to add awnings, belt courses and chimneys to the definition to provide more examples within that definition. Staff hopes by explicitly listing some of those common design elements the update helps ensure predictable application of the encroachment standards, while reducing ambiguity for what's allowed to encroach. Townsend asked what a belt course is. Russett explained a belt course as like a horizontal band across a building and can function as a separation between the first story and the second story. Schaefer stated the last change within the zoning code is just code cleanup, again staff is going through this more in depth noting as other people are utilizing the code, they are noticing small mistakes like missing super scripts and some of the table's items mislabeled, or slight spelling errors, things like that. The last section is related to Title 15, the Subdivision Code, which P&Z won't make a recommendation on but staff wanted to inform the Commission on the proposed update. The only update staff is proposing for the subdivision code is related to the block sizes. Currently, the form -based code has a maximum block length range from 360' to 500', depending on the zone. There is also a maximum block perimeter length and there's an allotment for both the block length and the perimeter lengths to be increased if a pedestrian passage is added mid -block to connect streets on either side of the block. Staff is proposing an adjustment that allows applicants to apply for an administrative adjustment to the block size standards if specific approval criteria are met. The applicant must demonstrate that the adjustment to the block standard is due to at least one of the following special circumstances. The first three criteria are related to the need to slightly increase the block lengths to incorporate sensitive area, topographical features, or to extend existing streets. For example, a block layout may be limited due to an existing street grid and to lay out the streets efficiently will require curves and can make for some funky block configurations so this adjustment would allow for some flexibility with those perimeters and block lengths for situations where there's existing topography or an existing intersection, or right of way. Criteria four through six are related to when adding a pedestrian passage isn't feasible, which again is the only way right now to increase block size using the current code standards. An example of where adjustment might be necessary is related to the block lengths of abutting neighborhoods. If there is a form -based code area that is developed abutting an existing conventionally zoned district that has a 1300' long block it doesn't make sense to have a single loaded street on the on the rear of those lots because it would make a stub street that goes through the middle of one block to split it up. It also doesn't make sense to have pedestrian passageways going to people's backyards. Criteria five is related to a single loaded street or pedestrian passageways not being desirable because of a highly sensitive nature of a public park land. Schaefer noted this one is fairly specific for Sand Prairie Park, which is one of the most sensitive areas in Iowa City in the South District. The highly sensitive nature of the park and the efforts to revive the prairie mean that this area functions more as a preserve, instead of an active park with sidewalks and pedestrian paths. This adjustment would allow homes to be built along the prairie instead of a street and would allow the block to extend the full length of the prairie without those pedestrian pathways breaking it up. An example of criteria six regarding visibility and access to public parks, civic uses and natural open spaces is the land to the east of Sycamore Greenway is proposed to be developed in the form -based code, if it were Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 2025 Page 13 of 17 in the current code it would require a single loaded street to be developed along the western portion in order to break up the blocks. However staff thinks there might be some more unique ways to utilize and enjoy the Sycamore Greenway, which is really just used as a bike path and this would allow an adjustment to have homes in this area but then have pedestrian pathways that don't lead to a parallel street, but lead directly to the bike way itself. This still allows for that public access and enjoyment of the Greenway but wouldn't necessarily require the developer to build a single loaded street. Schaefer stated there's places like Weatherby Park where public access and visibility is something they want so they would prefer not to have a single loaded street along the park land. She acknowledged those are some very unique scenarios, but ones they foresee happening. Finally, regarding consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Schaeffer stated the proposed amendments support several goals for the IC 2030 Comprehensive Plan such as helping to ensure a mix of housing types, encouraging pedestrian oriented development, encouraging small scale neighborhood commercial centers, the form -based code in general, preserving open space and sensitive areas, ensuring parks have visibility and access from the street, and encouraging developments of parks with single loaded street access where appropriate. In addition, the proposed amendments also help to further the form -based land use policies incorporated into the South and Southwest District Plans. Staff recommends that Title 14 Zoning be amended, as illustrated in Attachment 2, to enhance land use regulations related to the form -cased code and to further implement the City's goals. Schaefer noted that in the staff memo it says attachment one, but an additional attachment was added and the recommendation is attachment two. Pending a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council must hold a public hearing to consider the proposed text amendments. Townsend wanted to mention that even though they have these codes contractors are still going to ask for exceptions correct. Russett stated there are some cases where a minimum has to be met, like the glazing and there's no exception but there are some code amendments where staff thought more flexibility is needed and where it made sense to have the ability to adjust the standards, but that doesn't apply to every standard in the code. Quellhorst opened the public hearing. Gina Landau (Navigate Homes) noted there was reference to working with a developer with some of these changes and that's her, she's been working closely with the City for well over a year on some of these changes. Navigate did a concept solely on the form -based code, following everything to a T as well as they understood it to be and then they did a concept that would work financially, and the two were so far apart that it was decided at that time that either form -based code wasn't ever going to come to fruition and all that land was just going to sit there, or possibly they could work with the City to make a few changes that would update it and clarify things. Landau stated that's the path they've been on over the last year and City staff have been fabulous to work with. Schaefer has become the expert on the form -based code and she developed a great user guide for any developer coming and wanting to develop the land. To address a couple things mentioned, the glazing with the windows, Landau noted they worked with an architect that designs homes all across the nation and have probably seven or eight Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 2025 Page 14 of 17 different locations, Dallas, Des Moines, everywhere and they came up with the initial plans but had issues with the glazing percentages. The just basically did windows how they normally do but when they added in the garages and everything the percentages were 10% and that was shocking because 30% doesn't seem like that much. Once they talked with the City and could exclude the garages that made it better and then were at the 11 % to 15% range on almost everything. Landau noted currently Navigate is building in quite a few different areas and have $600,000 to $800,000 homes that are currently being built at Eagle Bend in Coralville, and the windows are very comparable to exactly what is being proposed here so they're not cutting back on windows. She stated they want to make nice architecturally, desirable homes for everyone. She noted she just had a meeting with the architects and looking at the proposed 15% they did have to add some windows in a few places, and had to strategically do it because they need to make sure there's room for big TVs on walls, kitchen cupboards, showers, things like that. One may think a window would look great there but then when they look at the room and realize where they are going to put their bed. Landau stated she is pleased with the 15% and knows others will be too as the plans look really good and also a lot of them have gone up above 15% and there's only a few that were really at the minimum. The second thing she wanted to address was the stoops and the discussion about the zero entry. Landau stated that was very important for them, they know that they're able to do porches as zero entry, but they really wanted an option of the stoops to be zero entry as well. Again, the City worked with them and there will be the 12" but they can slope it down and do a zero entry. She noted that is what all of their customers want, they would love zero entry at the front door and the garage, that doesn't always work out, but that would be ideal. Landau stated while she was closely involved with a lot of these amendments, there were quite a few that the City determined themselves that needed clarification which were also very good. Wade noted it's not uncommon now to see a bathroom window, which is a high window in the wall that's a 1' high and 4' wide or so that comes in the percentage but as the builder if that's the single window on a wall it becomes a pretty blank wall except for that one so is there any concern about over a wall length having a certain requirement or what challenges have they run into. Landau stated they have worked really closely with these plans and they agree they don't want to just stick one little sized window just to placate everyone and so have started going towards three 18"x18" being shown on some of their plans. The majority of the windows are on the front and the back, because houses are so close on the sides, but there are still very few sides that will just have one little window. Quellhorst closed the public hearing. Elliott recommends approval of REZ25-0002, a proposal that Title 14 Zoning be amended, as illustrated in Attachment 2, to enhance land use regulations related to the form -cased code and to further implement the City's goals. Townsend seconded the motion. Townsend asked regarding the American Disabilities Act has all the curb cuts for the sidewalks and the door openers been taken all that in consideration with this new plan. Russett confirmed yes, however that more comes into play with the building code, because there are accessibility requirements for certain building types, but not for probably some of the building types they're talking about like a single family home, for example not all single family homes have to be ADA compliant but they are following all federal regulations in terms of new buildings and ADA Planning and Zoning Commission March 5, 2025 Page 15 of 17 compliance Quellhorst thought all the changes made a lot of sense, if there's anything that gave him a little bit of pause it was the window requirement but thinks it makes sense given that it's a minimum and they can always install more. He understands that windows are extremely expensive and when the consultant that recommended 30% is coming back and saying that 15% is more typical of what they're seeing in the market, he is inclined to follow that recommendation. Miller thanked staff and the City for engaging in the dialog and being responsive to what they're hearing, it speaks highly of the City to be able to make it more clear and but still maintaining the integrity of the intent. Wade noted the glazing was a little bit of harboring on 15% especially on the street facing right of way, that feels like it could become an opportunity for a long wall, especially with a wing with one window requirement. On the other two items he is a little bit more relaxed, he knows the challenges that people run into from an accessibility standpoint, from the garage into the house, which is honestly most commonly used, especially from an attached garage, but it has to be made up somewhere, and it's either in the garage or a ramp, and it becomes pretty awkward. Maybe in the future there will be an opportunity to visit the 12" requirement and maybe that doesn't really need to be a requirement. Regarding the 12' driveway, it just seems a little narrow, if there is an 18' garage door this seems like a little bit narrow on the opening, but not a reason to stop it from proceeding, again maybe an opportunity to expand later on or upon further review. Quellhorst stated to elaborate on that a little bit, just for future, thinks one tiny improvement, like with the window change, would be to see an example of what 15% looks like versus 30%. He stated because it's not just one elevation and there's so many different varieties that might be difficult to show. Russett stated part of the reason that they added the standard of one window per side is because they didn't want the 15% to be just on the front and back, but they also know they can't code their way out of these worst case scenarios that they may be envisioning in their head. Craig stated she is still a little concerned about the windows, it just seems like such a big decrease but if that's the industry standard these days so be it. She also is concerned about the driveway and if they have an 18' garage door, which is standard for a two car garage, why only have a 12' driveway. Schaefer clarified that 12' is the standard for front -loaded, if it is an alley - loaded garage they can be as wide as they want to be. Part of the form -based code is they're trying to promote the use of alleyways and rear loaded garages to make the walkability and in front of homes look a little better and not be so dominated by garages. A vote was taken and the motion with the added conditions passed 6-0. DISCUSSION ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE AND STEERING COMMITTEE: Russett shared the list of steering committee members and a summary of what has been done so far. Staff is going to be meeting again with the steering committee on Monday, but if the Commission has any questions, staff can take those. Craig asked how the consultants were picked. Russett explained the City issued a request for proposals, reviewed the proposals, did interviews, and then selected Confluence. Item Number: 10.f. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT April 15, 2025 Ordinance amending Title 3, Entitled "Finances, Taxation And Fees," Chapter 4, Entitled "Schedule Of Fees, Rates, Charges, Bonds, Fines, And Penalties". Prepared By: Nicole Davies, Finance Director Reviewed By: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: Water rate adjustments for FY2026 amounting to an increase of approximately $320,000 per year in revenues for the Water fund. Solid Waste Disposal rate adjustments for FY2026 amounting to an increase of approximately $140,000 per year in revenues for the Refuse fund. Tipping fee rate adjustments for FY2026 amount to an increase of approximately $40,000 per year in revenues for the Landfill fund. Staff Recommendation: Approval Commission Recommendations: N/A Attachments: Notice of Public Hearing Ordinance Executive Summary: Following a public hearing, staff asks that Council consider amending Title 3, Chapter 4 of the City Code. Title 3, Chapter 4 amendments include a 3% increase in water users charges, adding a yard waste fee sticker of $2.00 per bag or bundle and adding a minimum yard waste tipping fee charged at the landfill of $5.00. Background / Analysis: Title 3, Chapter 4 of the City Code is the Schedule of Fees, Rates, Charges, Bonds, Fines and Penalties" Potable Water Use and Service Rate Adjustments In the revised fiscal year 2025, the Water fund has a projected ending fund balance of $14,039,947. With the rate adjustments the projected ending fund balance for fiscal year 2026 would be $12,080,447, a 14.0% decrease. This decrease is due to funding capital projects of $4,150,000 in fiscal year 2026. The City's five-year capital improvement program projects water funding for capital projects over the next five years to total $14,070,000. This figure does not include the cost of repairing emergency water main breaks. Without a rate increase, the fund balance would realize an even larger decrease. The Water fund is an enterprise or a business -type fund that is expected to be self -funding. The primary solution is to review water rates and charges to ensure that the fund is generating sufficient revenue to cover both its operating and capital expenses. By implementing a user rate increase of 3% in fiscal year 2026 the anticipated decline in the water fund's cash balance is reduced. This solution also provides for a much healthier and sustainable fund over time versus financing the necessary capital improvements through revenue bonds or other debt. All fees and charges, within the Water rates, are proposed to be increased 3% in fiscal year 2026, with a few small exceptions. The fee for the direct purchase of water is proposed to remain at $0.50 per 100 gallons, the deposit for residential tenant accounts is proposed to remain at $120.00, and the reconnection of discontinued service is proposed to remain at $45.00. With these changes the minimum monthly charge for households with a 5/8 or 5/8 x 3/4 meter size increases from $8.78 to $9.04 in fiscal year 2026. The proposed fee increases are expected to generate enough revenue to be able to help offset the increases in operational costs and in funding for the capital improvement program and ensuring that the Water fund remains a self -funding enterprise. The expected increase in revenues is approximately $320,000 each year. Solid Waste Disposal Rate Adjustments In the revised fiscal year 2025, the Refuse Collection fund had an ending unassigned fund balance of $2,923,269 The estimated fund balance for fiscal year 2026 with the rate adjustments is $3,205,369, which is an increase of 8.8%.The addition of a yard waste sticker is to help offset the operational costs for yard waste collection. In the revised fiscal year 2025, the Landfill fund had an ending unassigned fund balance of $3,976,366. The estimated ending fund balance for fiscal year 2026 with the rate adjustments is $4,044,366, a slight 1.7% increase. The addition of this minimum yard waste tipping fee of $5.00 is needed to help offset the operational costs of collecting yard waste. The Refuse Collection and Landfill funds are enterprise or business -type funds that are expected to be self -funding. The primary solution is to review user rates to ensure that the fund is generating sufficient revenue to cover both operating and capital expenses. By implementing the solid waste rate increases mentioned previously in fiscal year 2026, the fund balances remain in a stable and sustainable position. This solution also provides for much healthier and sustainable funds over time versus financing the necessary capital improvements through revenue bonds or other debt. The proposed fee increases are expected to generate enough revenue to support the increase in operational costs and ensures that the Refuse Collection and Landfill funds remain a self -funding enterprise. The expected increase in revenues for the Refuse Collection and Landfill funds are approximately $140,000 and $40,000 a year, respectively. Notice of Public Hearing Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held at which the Council will consider: Ordinance amending Title 3, Entitled "Finances, Taxation and Fees," Chapter 4, entitled "Schedule of Fees, Rates, Charges, Bonds, Fines and Penalties," of the City Code to increase water system, and solid waste disposal. Copies of the proposed ordinance are on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, Iowa. Copies are available by telephoning the City Clerk at 319/356-5043 or emailing kgrace(uiowa-citV.orq. The public hearing will be held at 6:00 p.m. on April 15, 2025, in the Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall, Iowa City. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to participate. Kellie K. Grace, City Clerk Prepared by: Nicole Davies, Finance Director, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5085 Ordinance No. Ordinance Amending Title 3, Entitled "Finances, Taxation And Fees," Chapter 4, Entitled "Schedule Of Fees, Rates, Charges, Bonds, Fines, And Penalties" Whereas, pursuant to Chapter 384, Code of Iowa (2025), the City of Iowa City is authorized to establish and provide for the collection of rates to pay for the City's utility systems, including the City's water supply and treatment system, and solid waste disposal services at the municipal landfill; and Whereas, the City's financial policies dictate that the Water fund shall be self-supporting; and Whereas, the City's current water rate structure does not provide sufficient revenue to fund the necessary operations; and Whereas, the Iowa City City Council intends to provide a water rate and fee structure that makes the City's water utilities self-sustaining; and Whereas, the Iowa City City Council proposes to increase water user charges by 3% on July 1, 2025 to recover the City's cost of providing services; and Whereas, the City's financial policies dictate that the Refuse and Landfill funds shall be self- supporting; and Whereas, the City's current solid waste disposal rate structure does not provide sufficient revenue to fund the necessary operations; and Whereas, the Iowa City City Council intends to provide a solid waste disposal rate and fee structure that makes the City's refuse and landfill utilities self-sustaining; and Whereas, the Iowa City City Council proposes to add a yard waste sticker that is $2.00 per sticker per bag or bundle and to add a minimum yard waste tipping fee at the landfill of $5.00 on July 1, 2025, to adequately finance the municipal solid waste operational costs. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. Amendment. 1. Title 3, entitled "City Finances, Taxation, and Fees," Chapter 4, entitled "Schedule of Fees, Rates, Charges, Bonds, Fines, and Penalties," Section 3, entitled "Potable Water Use and Service," of the Iowa City Code is hereby amended by deleting it in its entirety and replacing it as follows: 3-4-3: Potable Water Use and Service: Description Of Fee, Charge, Bond, Fine Or Penalty Amount Of Fee, Charge, Bond, Fine Or Penalty Water service charges (see section 16-3A-4 of this Code): Meter Size Charge (Inches) For first 100 cubic feet or less of water used, based on 5/8, 5/8 x 3/4 $9.04 meter size 3/4 9.88 Ordinance No. Panes 7 1 11.63 1112 23.19 2 31.18 3 57.63 4 100.50 6 202.23 There will be no minimum monthly charge for a single purpose water meter for the months of November to March if no water is used. User charges for water in excess of 100 cubic feet per Monthly Charge Per 100 Cubic Feet month: Usage (Cubic Feet) Dual purpose meters 101 - 3,000 $4.21 Over 3,000 3.03 Single purpose meters Over 100 4.21 Other charges and discounts: Charge Low income discount 75 percent of minimum monthly water charge Temporary water use (see subsection 16-3A-4 B of this Code): During construction for the first 90 days from the date Charge Per Month of the connection to the water main for a new water service or a maximum of 90 days for reconstruction: Single- and two-family residences $ 21.14 Multi -family residences 21.14 Commercial structures 35.22 After 90 days for any structure, until the water meter is 140.82 installed Charge Direct purchase of water fee, per 100 gallons or fraction $ 0.50 thereof (see subsection 16-3A-4 C of this Code) Deposit and delinquency fee for combined City water and/or sanitary sewer and/or solid waste collection accounts (see section 16-3A-5 of this Code): Residential owner account 0.00 Residential tenant account 120.00 Commercial account An amount equal to an average 2 month billing for commercial service for City water and/or sanitary sewer service, or $120.00, whichever is greater 10 percent delinquency charge on current billed portion of the outstanding amount on combined water and/or sanitary sewer and/or solid waste account that is not paid within 22 days of billing date. Can be waived once every 12 months Delinquency deposit fee for combined water and/or An amount equal to an average 2 month billing for the sanitary sewer and/or solid waste collection accounts (see delinquent account. Can be waived if the account holder section 16-3A-5 of this Code) enrolls in SurePay To connect water main extensions, per acre Charge $555.60 Service Fees During Normal After Normal Working Hours Working Hours' Reconnection of discontinued service $45 $97.31 Ordinance No. Page 3 Posting fee for shutting off water in collection procedure $0 Not done after normal working hours Frozen water meters $40.13, plus cost of meter $97.31, plus cost of meter Shut off water service at curb and check for exterior leaks No charge $97.31, plus hourly overtime rate beyond 2 hours Broken or damaged hydrant Repair cost $97.31, plus repair cost Location of City owned water main for other utilities No charge No charge Location of City owned water main for private enterprise No charge $97.31, plus hourly overtime rate beyond 2 hours Check water meter for accuracy at consumer's request $93.67 Not done after normal working hours Annual fire hydrant fee for inspection and operation of fire 110.69 Not done after normal hydrants which are privately owned or owned by other working hours government agencies After hours callout fee for any water work done outside of Not applicable $97.31, plus hourly normal working hours overtime rate beyond 2 hours 2. Title 3, entitled "City Finances, Taxation, and Fees," Chapter 4, entitled "Schedule of Fees, Rates, Charges, Bonds, Fines, and Penalties," Section 5, entitled "Solid Waste Disposal," of the Iowa City Code is hereby amended by deleting it in its entirety and replacing it as follows: 3-4-5: Solid Waste Disposal: Description Of Fee, Charge, Bond, Fine Or Penalty Charge Yard waste collection fees: Per dwelling unit, per month $3.50 Low income discount 75 percent of monthly charge Additional yard waste carts over 1, per month $3.50 Per sticker for each bag or bundle $2.00 Collection of large items fees: Appliance collection, per item collected $20.00 Bulky solid waste $20.00 per stop and 1 item; $10.00 per additional items Tire collection $3.75 per tire; $7.50 tire and rim Residential solid waste collection fees: Curbside household refuse: Per dwelling unit, per month $14.00 Low income discount 75 percent of monthly charge Per sticker for each additional bag beyond each unit's monthly allotment $ 2.50 each Additional refuse carts over 1, per month $14.00 each Per 2 rooming units, per month (in addition to the dwelling unit fees) 15.90 Electronic waste TVs or monitors $21.50 per item Curbside recycling: Ordinance No. Paae 4 Per dwelling unit, per month $8.50 Low income discount 75 percent of monthly charge Iowa City community compost $20.00 per ton, $2.00 minimum Wood chip mulch No charge Deposit and delinquency fee combined for City water and/or sanitary sewer and/or solid waste collection accounts: Residential owner account, per combined residential service for City water and/or sanitary sewer and/or solid waste collection service $ 0.00 Residential tenant account, per combined residential service for City water and/or sanitary sewer and/or solid waste collection service 120.00 10 percent delinquency charge on current billed portion of the outstanding amount on combined water and/or sanitary sewer and/or solid waste account that is not paid within 22 days of billing date 10 percent current billed portion. Can be waived once every 12 months Delinquency deposit for combined water and/or sanitary sewer and/or solid waste collection service An amount equal to an average 2-month billing for the delinquent account. Can be waived if the account holder enrolls in SurePay Special wastes disposal fees: Disposal of special wastes (except for asbestos containing material and contaminated soils) 2 times the landfill use fees in this section Minimum fee 2 times the landfill use fee for 1 ton Asbestos containing material (ACM): Nonfriable ACM, from Iowa City premises subject to a Property Tax and City owned property $100.00/ton Nonfriable ACM, from other locations 105.00/ton Friable ACM, from Iowa City premises subject to a Property Tax and City owned property 100.00/cubic yard Friable ACM, from other locations 105.00/cubic yard Minimum fee for any regulated ACM 100.00 Contaminated soil: 50.00/ton Minimum fee for contaminated soil 150.00 Disposal of large items fees (see also Collection of large items fees above): Appliance disposal fees: Commercial per item disposed 1.00/cubic foot Residential per item disposed $12.50 (at landfill scale house) Tire disposal fee: Per pound $ 0.15 Subject to minimum fee 3.00 Untreated wood waste and yard waste: 24.00/ton Minimum yard waste fee in lieu of tonnage fees (400 pounds or less) 5.00 Landfill use fees: Arriving at the landfill with an unsecured or uncovered load: Ordinance No. D- - F First instance in trailing 12 months Warning Second or subsequent instances in trailing 12 months $50.00 Electronic waste $3.00 per item; TVs or monitors $15.00 per item Solid waste from Iowa City premises subject to a Property Tax and City owned property: Total landfill fee per ton (includes State fee per ton) $47.50 All other solid waste: Total landfill fee per ton (includes State fee per ton) $52.50 Minimum fee in lieu of tonnage fees (600 pounds or less): Solid waste from Iowa City premises subject to a Property Tax and City owned property $14.00 All other solid waste $15.00 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 effect on July 1, 2025. Passed and approved this day of 120 Mayor Attest: City Clerk Approved by City Attorney' Office — 04/10/2025 Ordinance No. _ Page No. _ 6 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: April 15, 2025 Vote for passage: AYES:Alter, Bergus Harmsen, Moe, Salih, Teague, Weilein NAYS: None ABSENT: None Second Consideration: Vote for passage: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Date published: Item Number: 10.g. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT April 15, 2025 Ordinance Amending Title 9, Entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapter 4, Entitled "Parking Regulations," Section 1 Entitled "Parking Prohibited in Specified Places" to Prohibit Parking in City Plaza and Chapter 9, entitled "Towing and Impoundment Procedures," Section 2, entitled "Towing and Impoundment of Certain Illegally Parked Vehicles" to allow towing of vehicles parked in City Plaza. (First Consideration) Prepared By: Darian Nagle-Gamm; Transportation Services Director Reviewed By: Chris O'Brien; Deputy City Manager Jennifer Schwickerath; Assistant City Attorney Fiscal Impact: N/A Staff Recommendation: Approval Commission Recommendations: N/A Attachments: Ordinance Executive Summary: To address intermittent issues with unauthorized vehicle parking on the Pedestrian Mall, staff recommends an amendment to the Iowa City code that would authorize Transportation Services parking enforcement personnel to issue citations for vehicles parked in this area. Background / Analysis: Currently, enforcing vehicles parked in the Pedestrian Mall is inefficient. While unauthorized vehicle operation is prohibited under 10-5-4 (enforceable by simple misdemeanor or municipal infraction, not a parking ticket), addressing parked vehicles requires time- consuming coordination with the City Attorney's office due to the lack of a specific parking violation. To streamline enforcement and deter illegal parking, staff recommends amending 9-4-1(A)(23) to explicitly prohibit parking in the Ped Mall and amending 10-5-4 to allow towing or impoundment of illegally parked vehicles in the Ped Mall, allowing Transportation Services parking enforcement staff to issue standard parking citations and/or tow vehicles as warranted. The fine is $25 per citation. The City Manager or designee has the authority to grant parking authorization for specific purposes for a limited period of time as outlined in 10- 5-4. Prepared by: J. Schwickerath, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030 Ordinance No Ordinance Amending Title 9, Entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapter 4, Entitled "Parking Regulations," Section 1 Entitled "Parking Prohibited in Specified Places" to Prohibit Parking in City Plaza and Chapter 9, entitled "Towing and Impoundment Procedures," Section 2, entitled "Towing and Impoundment of Certain Illegally Parked Vehicles" to allow towing of vehicles parked in City Plaza. Whereas, Iowa City has received complaints about vehicles parked in City Plaza; and Whereas, it would be most efficient to enforce no parking in City Plaza with a parking ticket issued by parking staff and to tow vehicles; and Whereas, it is in the best interest of the City to adopt this ordinance. Now, therefore, be it resolved 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 1, entitled "Parking Prohibited in Specified Places," of Subsection A hereby amended by adding the underlined text as follows: 23. On City Plaza except as allowed in 10-5-4. 2. Title 9, entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapter 9, entitled "Towing and Impoundment Procedures," Section 2, entitled "Towing and Impoundment of Certain Illegally Parked Vehicles," is amended by adding the underlined text as follows: I Any vehicle parked on City Plaza in violation of section 9-4-1(A)(23) of this title. 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 effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of , 2025. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Ordinance No. Page 2 Approved by / G ' City Attorney' Office — 04/10/2025 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 April 15, 2025 Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Harmsen, Moe, Salih, Teague, Weilein NAYS: None ABSENT: None Second Consideration Vote for passage: Date published