Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-20 OrdinanceItem Number: 9.a. a CITY OF IOWA CITY "QF T-4 COUNCIL ACTION REPORT May 20, 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) (Second Consideration) Attachments: 5.15.25 Memo from Assistant City Manager 3.27.25 Memo from City Attorney REZ24-0001 Staff Report -Final -UPDATED 03.03.2025-Late Correspondence PZ 2.19.25 final minutes 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) Ordinance & CZA Council correspondence from the following - Audrey Bahrick, James Davies CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: May 20, 2025 To: Mayor and City Council From: Kirk Lehmann, Assistant City Manager Re: N. Governor Street Rezoning Introduction On May 6, 2025, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the rezoning between N. Governor Street and N. Dodge Street. Council discussed several elements of the proposed Planned Development Overlay (OPD) Plan at length, including pedestrian access to Happy Hollow Park, vehicular access on N. Governor Street, and the south retaining wall. This memo is intended to provide an overview of these elements and lay out staff's recommended approach. Background On February 19, 2025, the Planning & Zoning Commission considered REZ24-0001, a proposal to rezone approximately 5.49 acres of land between N. Dodge Street and N. Governor Street to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) and High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zones with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD). The OPD is required due to impacts to critical slopes beyond what can be approved administratively. As such, a Level II Sensitive Areas review was triggered which requires Council approval. The preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan (SADP) was submitted for Council consideration as part of this OPD rezoning (see Attachment 2, Sheet #3 of the REZ24-0001 Staff Report Packet updated February 14, 2025). The Commission recommended approval by a vote of 6-1, subject to the following conditions: 1. No building permit shall be issued for Lot 1 on the Preliminary OPD Plan until the subject property is resubdivided to conform to the zoning boundaries. 2. Prior to approval of the final plat, the existing duplex on Lot 2 of the Preliminary OPD Plan shall be converted to a single-family home to comply with maximum density standards. 3. As part of final plat, public Right -of -Way (ROW) and easements shall be dedicated along N. Governor Street consistent with the Preliminary OPD Plan. 4. As part of final plat, a temporary construction easement shall be granted on the western 10' of the subject property abutting N. Dodge Street. 5. Existing water services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge Street tapped off the N. Governor Street water main shall be abandoned, and new services tapped off the N. Dodge Street water main shall be installed prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot 1. 6. S3 screening shall be added to help screen the south retaining wall. Conditions tied to rezonings are enforced through Conditional Zoning Agreements (CZA) which run with the property. This means that subsequent owners must abide by the conditions. Should Council wish to modify the above conditions or impose additional conditions as part of this rezoning, the rezoning must be sent back to the Planning & Zoning Commission for their recommendations, and Council must properly notify the public and reopen the public hearing. Conditions may be added only where Council identifies a public need caused by the rezoning that the conditions will help address. Preliminary OPD/SADPs expire after 24 months unless a final OPD/SADP has been approved by staff. Changes to an approved preliminary or final OPD/SADP may be made administratively if they are not substantive and do not violate the conditions in the CZA. However, substantive changes to the plan require a new OPD rezoning process to amend the plan. A substantive change is any significant change in the land uses, street locations, or character of the May 20, 2025 Page 2 development from what is on the approved OPD/SADP, or changes that would clearly be considered substantive by Council, given Council discussions on the rezoning application. Analysis Specific elements including vehicular access and retaining walls are typically evaluated during administrative processes including the site plan, design, and building permit reviews rather than during the rezoning process. These elements may be modified during subsequent reviews without constituting a substantive change to the OPD/SADP. Modifications may be due to insight from more advanced architecture and engineering work, or to ensure compliance with City Code and City standards. Pedestrian access to Happy Hollow Park may be accomplished either by a public access easement through the subject property or along the N. Governor Street ROW. Staff from multiple City departments evaluated the feasibility of these options and concluded planning for pedestrian access via a sidewalk within the N. Governor Street ROW, as shown on the proposed OPD, is the best course of action for the following reasons: • It provides greater connectivity across the City's robust network of sidewalks. • It is easily visible and accessible to all users. • Existing street lighting improves the comfort of pedestrians when it is dark. Conversely, there are numerous challenges with a public pedestrian access easement through the subject property. For example: • A public sidewalk through the middle of a private site is unusual and may lead to confusion and apprehension as residents may not perceive it as a public walkway regardless of the existence of a public access easement. Even if they are aware of the easement, residents who do not live on the subject property may not feel comfortable using a walkway through private property. • Slopes through the subject property and the park are likely too steep for an ADA accessible route unless switchbacks or another extended route are incorporated. This would result in the loss of additional trees along the north side of the park. • Access through the subject property does not provide direct, accessible pedestrian connections to the larger sidewalk network which follow ROWs. • Crossing both public and private properties creates snow removal and maintenance challenges. Pedestrian improvements along N. Governor Street may be completed as part of a reconstruction of N. Governor Street, which will be needed in the future, or as an independent project. Either way, the process would be planned for as part of our Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Recommendation Staff does not recommend that the City Council impose any additional conditions regarding pedestrian access to Happy Hollow Park, vehicular access on N. Governor Street, or the south retaining wall. Staff will review elements including vehicular access and retaining walls through subsequent administrative processes. However, staff does recommend that the future public pedestrian access from the subject property to Happy Hollow Park be provided within the N. Governor Street ROW. This does not require additional conditions. Council may direct staff to prioritize a project for the design of a sidewalk along the east side of Happy Hollow Park in the N. Governor Street ROW. Should that occur, the project will be incorporated into the City's budget and CIP, to be reviewed by Council in January 2026 as part of the regular budgeting process. On May 6, Council directed this topic be added to the pending Work Session list to provide an opportunity for future discussion. 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 PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OPD LOT 1, SCARLETT POINT, IOWA CITY IOWA, ACCORDING TO THE LOT 2, SCARLETT POINT, IOWA CITY IOWA, ACCORDING TO THE LOT 3, SCARLETT POINT, IOWA CITY IOWA, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF IN THE PLAT OF RECORDS OF RECORDED PLAT THEREOF IN THE PLAT OF RECORDS OF RECORDED PLAT THEREOF IN THE PLAT OF RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS APPLICANT PLANS TO CONSTRUCT 2 BUILDINGS FOR PROPOSED ZONING IS OPD/RM-20 PROPOSED ZONING IS OPD/RS-12 MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE ON 3.5 ACRES. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS SETBACK REQUIREMENTS DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE BUILDING SETBACKS: REQUIRED PROVIDED BUILDING SETBACKS: REQUIRED PROVIDED FRONT YARD 40 FEET 20.80 FEET FRONT YARD 15 FEET 22.92 FEET APPLICANT PLANS TO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION IN SPRING 2025, SIDE YARD 10 FEET 10 FEET SIDE YARD 5 FEET 17.86 FEET LASTING THRU SPRING 2026. REAR YARD 20 FEET 20 FEET REAR YARD 20 FEET 20.50 FEET DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM LOT SIZE 5,000 SF 76,231 SF MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED ZONING IS OPD/RM-20 LOT FRONTAGE 40 FEET 319 FEET MINIMUM LOT SIZE 6,000 SF 7,597 SF LOT WIDTH 60 FEET 290 FEET LOT FRONTAGE 40 FEET 75.03 FEET SETBACK REQUIREMENTS MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 35 FEET 35 FEET LOT WIDTH 55 FEET 67 FEET BUILDING SETBACKS: REQUIRED PROVIDED MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 35 FEET 35 FEET 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) LOT CHARACTERISTICS REAR YARD 20 FEET 20 FEET IMPERVIOUS AREA 40,339 SF (52.9%) LOT AREA 7,597 SF (100%)(0.17 AC) BUILDING AREA 12,330 SF (16.2%) IMPERVIOUS AREA 2,466 SF (32.5%) MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS GREEN SPACE AREA 35,892 SF (47.1%) BUILDING AREA 1,808 SF (23.8%) MINIMUM LOT SIZE 5,000 SF 152,461 SF GREEN SPACE AREA 5,131 SF (67.5%) 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 PARKING REQUIREMENTS TOTAL REQUIRED SPACES 84 SPACES 2 TWO BEDROOM UNITS 4 SPACES LOT CHARACTERISTICS TOTAL REQUIRED SPACES 4 SPACES LOT AREA 5246 SF (100%)(3.50 AC) 15246 PROVIDED GARAGE PARKING 2 SPACES BUILDING AREA -PROPOSED ,1 SF (21.6%) PROVIDED OUTDOOR PARKING 56 SPACES PROVIDED GARAGE PARKING 2 SPACES PAVING AREA - PROPOSED 35,430 SF (23.4%) TOTAL PROVIDED PARKING 58 SPACES PROVIDED OUTDOOR PARKING TOTAL PROVIDED PARKING 2 SPACES 4 SPACES GREEN SPACE AREA 84,347 SF (55.3%) TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE LOT AREA 76,231 SF TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE PARKING REQUIREMENTS BUILDING FOOTPRINT 12,330 SF LOT AREA 7,597 SF 36 ONE BEDROOM UNITS 36 SPACES BUILDING COVERAGE PERCENTAGE(MAX 50%) 16.2% BUILDING FOOTPRINT 1,808 SF 48 TWO BEDROOM UNITS 96 SPACES 96 BUILDING COVERAGE PERCENTAGE(MAX 50%) 23.8% TOTAL REQUIRED SPACES SPACES 5 ADA OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED: 84 BEDROOMS X 10SF/BEDROOM = 840 SF OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS PROVIDED GARAGE PARKING 82 SPACES PROVIDED: 900 SF OPEN SPACE REQUIRED: 4 BEDROOMS X 10SF/BEDROOM = 400 SF OPEN SPACE 2 PROVIDED OUTDOOR PARKING 50 SPACES PROVIDED: 400 SF OPEN SPACE TOTAL PROVIDED PARKING 132 SPACES 5 ADA REQUIRED BIKE PARKING - (1.5 X 84) + (76 X .75) = 107 SPACES P O DED B E P G- 0 SP CES 98 G GE 9 0 TDOO R VI IK ARKIN - 1 7 A ( ARA , U R) 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 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'. / i \ / T / V / / / O EE / / / IOWA CITY IOWA PREPARED BY: MMS CONSULTANTS INC. SCARLETT POINT 1917 S. GILBERT STREET IOWA CITY, IA 52240 APPLICANT: TSB HOLDINGS LLC PO BOX 1490 IOWA CITY, IA 52244 I I I I I v \ � OUTH(U 1 [F=4s=r • \ � S �C=fl • m 3=77nnCJ m=R0101� N00°13'35"W) ) BLOC 4.49' � N89'37'57"E 342.88' ° • `'` � N89'18'10"E-172.08' 96.71' 246.1T 00 CO \ / / / / ❑ f� / / / / EXISTING BUILDING 0 �MPOH (01F =r 7� O^� 1 O � / - - - - - r7 m� ��0j - - - - - / 20.00 FOOT SHARED ANGE wlm THE PLAT mEREOF RECORDED IN / / / ACCESS EASEMENT PAGE I OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER"S OFI=ICE. / EE -- W w h. w �- 6N, W - / \N - - / ? W�/ -W Ica, / LOT 0 EE I I I I I I I I I I a / 177.98' / o / EXISTING / / a oo BUILDING CA / = 29 UNITS o o a SCo)M=rC;IC��� 67 QUARTER 0 F TH E !n� ' SIDE SETBACK 60.20 20.50' M .................. .... .......... EXISTING N L- BUILDING 400 S V 2 UNITS OPEN LOT3 SPACE ' 20' REAR SETBACK V- ca v 55.62' o C 0 N89'23'45"E 185.89' 0. 4' fV 23.68' a) I w / EXISTING BUILDING O ---'---��� I �l M 0 900 & 900 z I �` N DODGE ST oc 1 UNIT3 46.15' I n' / _---J - o° o --- ----- _-_�-- I I EXISTING I I I I I I I I I I 2 . oo' RETAINING WALL v v EXISTING N N BUILDING IQ 12 UNITS w �: 0 3 15 30 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET V=30' RETAINING WALL--'C' AZ A \R \ `® \ V _ L- _......... - ..... 20' SIDE SETBACK / /. \ / - \ L -1 L -1 L -1 41a s �z o EE A 10 10 =r H 236.83' / / / / / �iSIN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF / O RECORDED IN t'00f', I/o AT PAGE I/o% OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY / 8.50' 10' UTILITY EASEMENT \ o \ RECORDER'S OFFICE PROPOSED BUILDING D. in 7J W io v Ul P v m RETAINING WALL o p m: U) D 44.29' m s c6 EM I�I I ) [Fa 00 Q) (0 v C ' 900 SF /OPEN SPACE 30'X30' NORTH 5-3 FEET OF THE WEST VO FEET BUILDING of OUTLOT 14 OF THE ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA CITY I I O 18 IN C wn�ff (010)0L LO'�W I ; IN ACCORDANCE TH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN BOCK (o7 AT PACE 223 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. I 00 FO / W // CEMENT S F -1-1 F / EA T T�REDJ� > \ \ \ 4.5' PEDESTRIAN PUBLIC ACCESS AND PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT 00 / 2 \ // // / / % R6�. EE PCC PAVEMENT r� / / �` / 5 vp. o BICYCLE PARKING / 1b' 0 "V Jr / AREA �jso zo / A=27'50'59' 30.00 FOOT WIDE STORM / / � ,/ / � R=390.00' WER AND DRAINAGE / 8� / /// LT 196.69' ° EASE (CENTERED) / l C=187.71' / / \ CB=N14'41'15"W HORTHMOGE PROPOSED BUILDING -�� I �� OT 1 N89°08'45"E \ ` i � > \ ��-� � � / I ° s ` °I I IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN 11.03' \ / °�OGI� 18 AT PACE 3_7 OF THE REG OF THE RETAINING WALL s JOrN50N G'uNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. \ L I / PLC P EMEN STO M T R ANA « EA M N w \ RETAINING WALL / I Ln \ I a I U) ► N J \ I/ O N m. _ m o o v c): \ a ooaao as / LIMITS OF v ° 40.00 FOOT WIDE STORM SEWER AND DRAINAGE / DISTURBANCE a .....................EASEMENT (CENTERED) I .............. 10,SIDESETB Q .K........ 428.79'X i I II I 4.5' °PEDESTRIAN PUBLIC ACCESS AND PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT 10' IUTILITY EASEMENT . .................. RETAINING WALL ....... ........ .................................... .: I N89'33'04"E 758.91' ° ' w r /// z o% 0 11.00'J Z a a O 1 I N / o I u)LO s ° O p,a ed<I °^�1°..w o Cn UJ w L0 I PATIO AREA ITH SEATING I o z I AMENITY I (n 1, s / I BLOCK �� OUTLOT oOoiF DOwQ c0 ryMONEYS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN bODKI AT PAGE 116 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON�� COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. I I I I IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN i�00K 16 AT PACE 166 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S DFFICE. 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 low - 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 - GUY POLE r - LIGHT POLE Os - SANITARY MANHOLE - FIRE HYDRANT - WATER VALVE O ® - DRAINAGE MANHOLE ® ❑ - 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 - - -OLE - 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. BUILDING NOTE: THREE -SEASONS PORCHES ARE TO BE UTILIZED IN PLACE OF BALCONIES WHERE BUILDINGS ARE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES RA RA 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 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 APPLICANT: TSB HOLDINGS LLC PO BOX 1490 IOWA CITY, IA 52244 )IF OKA IN AGGORPANGE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF REGORPEP IN F)OOK I AT PACOE Of= THE REGORP� OF THE JOIIN�ON COUNTY REGORPER's 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. v \ O \ � � O \ \ \ \ O v �O v I \v I \ v 0 v � I \ WV I V v O O \ \ O l d C O O a \ BL= 3 _ a ................. ..... �` \ O d A n \/ �A 10) 10) \ d a \ d O a a v IN AGGORPANGE WITH THE PEAT THEREOF= d O 1 \j O v v REGORPEP IN BOOK AT PAGE 1(,6 OF THE �a vv vv REGORPs OF THE JOHNsON COUNTY � a aA A \ J71 \ °'�739.32WT s \ \\ 1739.34WB \ \ IQ 4 g d d O a �. J d . da d \ / O / 1 d` d J/.a Sd \ / si O a d of w � r 4=27'50'59" N s R=390.00' L=189.57' d T=96.69' rn y C=187.71' / it \ CB=N14'41'15"W l / 1 a ED BUILDING j W J / 736.00 Ln a a — 46 _ O d N AGc -74 — / 737 a. - 1 746.96 WB 746.94WT d a- 9 ` �t I rr sa I I 1 d d O O 00 ° e 1 a 1 / A 1 Ln 71 LLJ O / T^/� / LO — — Ono 4 I/ // 1 w \ LA r l LO to LT% N v II '35.00WT — _ t — — _ _ i r as a a -.T.-._......... _ ............. E.l.. d d JO vv v v v v v v v v v /11.00' w I I LLI ll I 0 0 13 I O I I i � I W \ O O ll I � I I \ IN &I � I l ;TT 0 2 5 10 15 20 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 1 "=20' UTILITIES 10WA77- THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY IOWA 0ONE CALLSIVI 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 — BENCHMARK (R) — RECORDED DIMENSIONS 22-1 — CURVE SEGMENT NUMBER —EXIST— —PROP— — POWER POLE — POWER POLE W/DROP All 41p-- — POWER POLE W/TRANS — POWER POLE W/LIGHT c — GUY POLE {x — LIGHT POLE Os ® — SANITARY MANHOLE Icy — FIRE HYDRANT \° — WATER VALVE OO ® — DRAINAGE MANHOLE ® ❑ — 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 TO — 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. EROSION CONTROL LEGEND 11 ■mmmmmmmmr FINAL FILTER SOCK PERIMETER SILT FENCE SILT FENCE 0 o 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 111 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 x —x—x x x x x x x x x /x x x x x x Ix x x x x x/ x x l x xi x x l 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 xI x x x� ix x� x x �x x �x �O t. 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 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 x �x xl x x x x i x � x �x x x xl: / 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 � x > x x 1y x x x x_ x xx x x x x x x x xx x x x xxx x x x Ix x x bt xl xIx Ix x x �x xxx xI -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 k xl x I x x x ix 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 Ix x x X xI xl x x x x x x �x xlx l Ix' x x x x x x x x x x x x -xxx x x x x—x—x x x_x—xxx x -x x_x xI x jx xl x ax /x x� x x lx 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 r x x� x �x x, x x x x :�—x—max X x x x -x —xx x-x—x_x —x—ma x x _x -x- x x x x_x—>, -x —x �r-7c�x-x �c x x r� N _ 0 — 0 — 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 N 0 APPLICANT: TSB HOLDINGS LLC PO BOX 1490 IOWA CITY, IA 52244 I \ \ \ \ u U u u u —J L U LL= u &-, V V u —J 01F OwAc7y IN AGGORPANGE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF REGORPEP IN F)OOK I AT PAGE Of= THE REGORP� OF THE JOIIN�ON COUNTY REGORPER's OffFIGE. 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. \ \ y0 \ 1 \ o v 2 � 1 \ WV> i o \ A . O d O F'7 0 4.- d BED L= 3 1 4 \ d O \ a d 10) 10)0 d a v \ IN AGGORPANGE WITH THE PEAT THEREOF= REGORPEP IN BOOK AT PAGE 1 (,5,6 Off THE d ` ` REGORPs Of= THE JOh lNeON COUNTY \ a d ad V a <A A � — A G d d a d\ \\ t \ d V \ d O Z� 1 V v d \ 5/0 d W O w ^ a I � / d A� ;45 4 - -746 _ _ _ s 4 °� a I N AGE 747 ----- _ d, 4 - %L — O / / r 4 �•� / 00 ., o 4 4 4 LLJ I ° 0 z�� a —71 a _ 4 - C . i 0 d ' \\04 d r I W � II III I . ..... .. LLI a 0 \ I d I I I II I rL131 O7 W I I I i I I W 0 L z II I I I I I IN Ac I � I I ;TT 0 2 5 10 15 20 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 1 "=20' UTILITIES 10WA77- THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY IOWA 0ONE CALLSIVI 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 --------R ---- _ EXISTING EASEMENT LINES — BENCHMARK ( ) — RECORDED DIMENSIONS 22-1 — CURVE SEGMENT NUMBER —EXIST— —PROP— — POWER POLE — POWER POLE W/DROP — POWER POLE W/TRANS — POWER POLE W/LIGHT — GUY POLE {x — LIGHT POLE Os ® — SANITARY MANHOLE Icy — FIRE HYDRANT — WATER VALVE O ® — DRAINAGE MANHOLE ® ❑ — 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 TO — FIBER OPTIC — — —OHE — OVERHEAD ELECTRIC - — — — — — — — — — — — - — CONTOUR LINES ( INTERVAL) — PROPOSED GROUND — EXISTING TREE LINE 0 — 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 3,836 SF IMPACTED (61.5%) .....x.... 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" ABOVEGROUND O 0 4' HT. CONSTRUCTION FENCE POST EXISTING ao z GROUND 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 _ - Cherry I - — I I I I I I LOCU5t o- 0 o o 0 o o I o oo 0 N 0 PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OPD SCARLETT POINT IOWA CITY. IOWA PREPARED BY: MMS CONSULTANTS 1917 S. GILBERT STIR IOWA CITY, IA 52240 APPLICANT: INC. TSB HOLDINGS LLC EET PO BOX 1490 IOWA CITY, IA 52244 \ \ \ v> ` to \ � 1 z v ` F WV 1 \ d O d d O \ BL=\ v r GDWWW X W I UMU d , D D 0 v )� s v w w v � ��w wad v W W W I W W W W a\ \ IN AGGORPANGE WITI-f THE PEAT ME REGORPEP IN BOOK Ito AT WC o G a ` RECORDS OF THE JOI fN�ON 000N- j % �� S v RECORDER'S OFfIGE i (1) LT,/ (1) GTE _ a ay v \ d a d \ % ,`+IW _ /O -da--. - O a d. v \W \ d w\ W W \\ \ *% W! d a w W W , w O \ % W W \ \ a � \\ WW (1) GD WWW WW W a a (I) LT W� w w- Xa �,�w �w /' mew/� /w� Elm w,�' % w, ;f, 1)PO, �, s4 � I LT Cherry / LIMITS OF _kberry d v �� III�III w ,DISTURBANCEw` w - d = Elm S�,(1 j/UM � w W \ \ w GD' I vw ..�. .. ... \.. .\.W.L\.�' mow.\mow..�...w...Iw .T �. _. �...... W W W a 0 Hackberry S S d d w MAL � 0 0 WH I I / I I I I J O (OU7LO7 131 I I I I IN AGGORPANGE WITI-f TI-fE PLAT TI-IEREOf RECORDED IN DOK AT PAGE W TI E REGORD� O� TI E JO INSON z COUNTY REGORPER's OFFICE. I 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 REQU I REM ENT5 I STREET TREE FOR EVERY 40 LF OF FRONTAGE. - 3G9.8G / 40 = 9 REQUIRED 9 PROVIDED I TREE FOR EVERY 550 SF OF TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE OF THE LOT. - 33,225.34 / 550 = GO REQUIRED 45 PROPOSED (1 5 EXISTING) PLANT 5CH EDU LE SYMBOL CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME — 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 — 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 =OG — GUY POLE 0 zZ — LIGHT POLE OO ® — SANITARY MANHOLE loy 1, — FIRE HYDRANT — WATER VALVE O ® — DRAINAGE MANHOLE Mi ❑ — 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 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. LANDSCAPE LEGEND TURF GRASS PLANTING BED INSTALL SIZE COMMENT MATURE H. X W. GT G Gledit5ia triacantho5 inermi5 'Skycole' TM Skyline Thornless Honey Locust 2" Cal. DCD 45' x 35' • GD 7 Gymnocladu5 dioica 'Espresso' Espresso Kentucky Coffeetree 2" Cal. DCD 70' x 45' • LT 5 Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Tree 2" Cal. DCD 80' x 50' • PO G Platanu5 occidentali5 American Sycamore 2" Cal. DCD 90' x 70' • QD G Quercu5 bicolor Swamp White Oak 2" Cal. DCD GO' x GO' • QR 7 Quercu5 rubra Red Oak 2" Cal. DCD 70' x 70' • UM 8 Ulmu5 x 'Morton Glossy' TM Triumph Elm 2" Cal. DVD GO' x 40' SHRUBS, ORNAMENTAL GRASSES & PERENNIALS 068 CS 14 Cornu5 5ericea 'Farrow' TM Arctic Fire Red Twig Dogwood 24" Ht. Container 4' x 4' HQ 9 Hydrangea quercifolia 'Sike'5 Dwarf' Sike'5 Dwarf Oakleaf Hydrangea 24" Ht. Container 4' x 4' JV G Juniperu5 virgniana Grey Owl' Grey Owl Juniper 18" Ht. Container 3' x G' Q. /• PV 27 Panicum virgatum Prairie Fire' Prairie Fire Switch Grass 24" Ht. Container 4' x 3' j J 55 10 Spiraea x bumalda 'Goldflame' Goldflame Spirea 18" Ht. Container 3' x 4' SM G Syringa meyeri 'Palibin' Dwarf Korean Lilac 24" Ht. Container 4' x 5' j+} TM 13 Taxu5 x media 'Tauntonii' Taunton'5 Yew 18" Ht. Container 3' x 5' OTC 10 T5uga canaden5i5 Moon Fro5t' Moon Frost Hemlock 18" Ht. Container 3' x 3' ® VT 15 Viburnum trilobum Dailey Compact' 13ailey'5 Compact Viburnum 30" Ht. Container x 5' LANPSGAPE NOTES- I - THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHAL VERIFY AL LOCATIONS OF MPERGROM UTILITIES ON SITE PRIOR TO LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION. 2 - PLANT QUANTITIES ARE FOR INFORMATION ONLY: DRAWING SHALL PREVAIL IF CONFLICT OCGUZ5. 9 - KIND, SIZE AND QUALITY OF PLANT MATERIAL SHALL CONFORM TO AMEDIGANI STANDARD FOR NLRSERY STOCK, ANSI W - 11", OR MOST REGENT ADDITION. 4 - LAYOUT OF PLANT MATERIAL AT SITE SHALL M APPROVED PY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 5 - ALL PLANTING UP AREAS SHALL HAVE QUALITY TOPSOIL ADDED (IF NEEDED) DY LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR TO DRING DED GRADES V - 4" Ma -AV EXISTING CONCRETE AREAS AND TOP OF DECORATIVE WALLS. (PRIOR TO DIDDING, CONTRACTOR 16 REGGMMl TO VISIT SITE) A - FINISH GRADING OF PLANT UP AND SOD AREAS SHALL AE PERFORMED DY LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. 1 - ALL SHRUG AND PERENNIAL PLANTING AREAS SHALL HAVE A MINMLM 9 INCH DEEP MP OF DONEE SHREDDED HARDWOOD BARK Ml AND AN APPLICATION OF A PRE -EMERGENT (PREEN" OR APPROVED EQLVL) FOR WEED CONTROL. S - LMDSGAPE EDGING MTWEEN BARK MULH AND LAWN AREAS SHALL M A SPADE GUT EDGE. EDGE SHALL PE INSTALLED VERTICAL AND A660RDIN6 TO DETAILS 9 - STAKING SHALL DE REQUIRED ON ALL TREES (EXCEPT MLLTI-STEM VARETES) STAKE DING (2) OR (3) i' STEEL 'T' POST PLACED OUTSIDE O= ROOT15ALL AD ACHIl TO TRU K OF TREE WITH 10 GAUGE GACLE AND WOVEN NYLON TREE STRAPS. IO - ALL TREES FREE-STANDING IN LAWN AREAS AND IN PLANTING BEDS SHALL bE WRAPPED WITH A STANDARD M/JJIFAGTUREP TREE WRAP AND FASTENED WITH TWINE OR APPROVED METHOD. 11 - ALL TREES FREE-STMDING WITHIN LAWN AREAS 91N HAVE A MINIM M 4 FT. PIA RING OF DO-OLE SHREDDED MARDW06P 15ARK Mil AT A 3 INCH DEPTH. 12 - AL LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS AND SOD AREAS SHALL M THORCUEfiLY WATERED Li INSTALLATION AND A TOTAL OF (9) WATERINGS DEFORE INITIAL AGCEDTANGE AFTER ACCEPTANCE, SOP SHALL M MAINTAINED FOR (W) DAYS OR UNTIL ROOTED IN. 19 - LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR MUST FOLLON AL DETAILS PROVIDED ON SFEETS DESCR161NG LANDSCAPE GGNSTRUCTION T11,HNIl. 14 - ALL LANDSCAPE PLANTING SHALL M GUARANTEED FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM DATE OF INITIAL ACCEPTANCE 15 - SEED AL REMAINING AREAS WITH IDOT Ul l MIX. PRUNE BROKEN BRANCHES AS NECESSARY, MAX. 1/3 NARROW BRANCH UNION ANGLE WITH EVIDENCE OF INCLUDED BARK Al BRANCH/TRUNK DIAMETER RATIO GREATER THAN ifs SHALL BE REJECTED. WOVEN NYLON TREE STRAPS, SIZE TO ALLOW 1.5"0 OF TRUNK GROWTH, PLACE AT % HEIGHT OF FIRST BRANCHING TYPICAL TREE PLANTING DETAIL II N.T.S. NORTH TREE POST CABLE STRAP STAKING ORIENTATION PLAN GALVANIZED AIRCRAFT —GRADE 16 GAUGE CABLES, ONLY TIGHT PLANT WITH BASE OF TREE A ENOUGH TO PREVENT SLIPPING; 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 HARDWOOD BARK MULCH, ENSURE ROOT FLARE IS VIABLE TURF SIDEWALK/PAVING — 3" WATER RETENTION SOIL RING 5" DEEP VERTICAL - SPADE CUT EDGE II — EXISTING UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE — STRIP PLANTING MIX NATIVE SOIL BACKFILL MULCHED AREA III III TREE PIT TO BE MINIMUM OF FERTILIZER TABLETS (3) 2.5 X ROOT BALL DIAMETER PER TREE SPACED EVENLY SLANT AND ROUGHEN SIDES; AROUND ROOTBALL INCREASE PIT DIAMETER IN HEAVY CLAY SOILS SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL (DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN) N.T.S. ROOTBALL (CONTAINER 1)4 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 CONTAINER BEFORE LIST FOR SPACING) BURLAP FROM TOP 1/2 OF INSTALLATION ROOTBALL AND REMOVE BEFORE INSTALLATION EDGE OF SIDEWALK OR CURB PLANTING TOPSOIL FOR BACKFILLING TURFlffii —III III III —III —III III —I —III 5" DEEP VERTICAL 4" MINIMUM DEPTH .` • III=1=1 III=1 = SPADE CUT EDGE III-1 (— _ SHREDDED HARDWOOD III III III —III —III III— FERTILIZER TABLETS BARK MULCH BED —III _— —_ III —III --III— _ _ (3) PER SHRUB SPACED —1 I, _— III III 1-1 III-1 I-1 1— EVENLY AROUND ROOTBALL ,III PLANTING HOLE SHALL BE ,III ,III 2X DIAMETER OF ROOTBALL EXISTING UNDISTURBED AND 6" MINIMUM DEEPER SUBGRADE 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 Revision 12-18-2024 PER CITY COMMENTS 01-28-2025 PER CITY COMMENTS LANDSCAPE AND FINAL STABILIZATION 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 I 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. M M a t NOTE: SEE CIVIL SITE PLAN FOR AVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT TOWER ELEMENT 1<'1 >� � TOP OF PARAPET 37 -0 <3> < > Ll TOP OF TRUSS 5> , TRUSS BEARING 3RD FLOOR 21'-6 3/4" 2ND FLOOR 10'91/2 APARTMENT ENTRY ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" MODULE "A" MODULE"B" 34' 6" <29> 24' 4" F . MECHANICAL SCREENING - BEYOND (NOT VISIBLE FROM STREET LEV L) <5>i 0 H<64 <8> (1) WINDOW TOP OF PARAPET i - �� TOP OF TRUSS TRUSS BEARING 30 -8 3RD FLOOR /4" FF 2ND FLOOR 10'91/2" lLmj6!A •--- --- --- --- S - ---- ---- ------------ -- ■ 1111111111 IIIIIAII�I... 111111� :Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllll. l� , , ,, ,, ,, ,, , , , 21 >I 1 <6> MODULE 'AK 22'-8" <1> <8> 7 <7> 1> <2> ■ NOTE: SEE CIVIL SITE PLAN FOR AVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT <5> ITALINATE FEATURES <1> TOWERS <2> PROJECTING EAVES <3> BRACKETS/CORBELS <4> ELEBORATE CORNICE <5> FRIEZE BOARD <6> PANEL MOLDING <7> LARGE TRIM <8> TALL NARROW WINDOWS <9> DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS <10> SEGMENTED WINDOW <11> WINDOW PEDIMENT/HOOD <12> WINDOW TRIM <6> IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII==-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <14> BALCONIES <15> PROJECTING PORCH <16> FLAT ROOF <17> LOW SLOPE HIP ROOF <18> BRICK <19> CLAPBOARD SIDING <20> CORNER BOARDS <21> INSET PANELS <22> PORCH COLUMNS <23> RECESSED ENTRY <24> RECTANGULAR BAYS <25> PAIRED DOORS (ARCH GLASS) <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 .� =I= =IVA - �_ � IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII <9> Mimi =1 1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" TOWER ELEMENT <1> <16> _ <2> <16>C'T c < > <3> �=.m�w <g> w Q lY• Z CV 1� Z w w w C� <17> . ci <2> Q C� <> <> O^' Q LLJ 0 0 Q � w U Q V) OZ>Q CID >_ 0 0 w N N Q r� m J_ � Q M uj 0 `m <_ W Lo LU w L co CIA O N L O W a Lo 'aye Lo C � M %O 0 W U z U O J � J Q c Z N z0of Z oo Q Q0 w Qua- ofw� �00 Dfr am F_ U_ U)L> F_UIL Ja_O wU)w U)U)F- IL=0 O~J O IL LLJ� Z OHO of of a_a_ a_ Lu Q z Q U) ZwILL Qw0 jU)O w w=� w~O = Z ~ O Z O Q W Lu O Lu � Lu x w Lu U) 236-10" [PROPERTY LINE SIDE] 35-0" 24'-4" 35-0" 24'-4" MODULE"A" MODULE"B" MODULE"A" MODULE"B" ,777=0= ------------ 0=0 PORCH ❑ 2-3EDROO `° PORCH (5 Fj APT. 1- EDRO ❑ ❑ APT. ❑ ❑FJ ❑❑❑❑❑ r- J �r- JCj CORRIDOR 11 Lm- J I I Fimmms- o J 0 J �I ❑ ❑ �I ❑I o ❑I 0 I ��- J ��- J Ll ❑, ❑ ri ❑ ❑ 1-13EDROC M ❑ 2- EDRO M APT. PORCH ❑ APT. o PORCH 7�0 ❑ ❑ L ❑ 10'-8" 14'-0" 10'-4" 14' 0" 10'-4"' 10'-8" 1ST FLOOR PLAN (PRELIMINARY) 15,625 SQ.Ff. Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" ,)u,-1(1" fPP()PFPTV I If\IF CIF)F1 14'-0" NORTH NORTH BLDGA BLDG.2 10'-4" 14'-0" 12'-3" 34'-6" 14'-0" 45'-4" 14'-0" 10'-4" 10'-8" 48'-8" 10'-8" 24'-2" 12'-3" °� VAN PARKING 01 22'-3" ADA PARKING 02 9'-4" BI E WALL RACK BIKE WALL RACKII BIKE WALL RACK BIKE WALL RACK BIKE WALL RACK BIKE WALI RACK BIKE WALL RCK BI E WALL RACK BI 10 9'-4" E WALL RACK 0 11 B KE WALL RACK BIKE WALL RACK BIKE WALL RACK BIKE WALL RACK BIKE WALL RACK BIKE WALL RACK BIKE WALL fi ACK BIKE WALL RACK BIKE WALL RACK 19 20 9'-4" 9'-4" B KE WALL RACK 3'-7" STAIR 8,_6„ VA - 03 04 05 06 9'-4" M07 9'-4" 08 9'-4" 09 PAINTED PARKING LINES & STALL NUMBERS(TYP.) 9'-4" 12 13 14 9'-4" 15 9'-4" 16 9'-4" 17 9'-4" 18 9'-4" 21 FA 11'-8" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-0" > 00 CN 11p PARKING CN 11p CN 235-10" 11p CN o D 11'-8" 22'-3" 18'-8" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 3-7" 11'-8" " I,t OVERHEAD BIKE WALL RACK DOOR Q��s�s�s 6C 8C BIKE WALL RACKI BIKE WALL RACK E 9C 9C 0 BIKE WALL RACK BIKE WALI RACK �� = PAINTED PARKING LINES & STALL NUMBERS (TYP tc Cc �, E WALL RACK PIE 0c E 0 0 BIKE WALL RACK BIKE WALL RACK E 1Z 9Z 0 BIKE WALL RACK BIKE WAI L RACK 9Z tZ E 0 0= BIKE WALL RACK BIKE WALL RACK _ BIKE RACKS �� =Y_ 00 CN BI 00 CN 0t Zc WALL RACK 1,C 7 STAIR BIKE WALL RACK 0 BIKE WALL RACK BIKE WALL R6 _ BIKE WALL RACK T T BIKE WALL RACK �1 BIKE WALL RACK BIKE WALL RACK _ ---- ---- ---- ----L - — — — — 12'-3" 1 ' " 20'-0" 1 34" - - L 14'-0" L - - - - L 45'-4" 14'-0" 10'-4" 10'-8" 48'-8" 10'-8" 24'-2" 12'_3° NORTH NORTH LUVVtK LtVtL F'LAIV (F'KLLlI11VAKY vU 16,342 SQ.Ff. Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" r�� 0 �Lp BLDGA BLDG.2 w N � N =D CN � Q O, cz p M w 0 m �wLo LULU Lr) m O N W a Lo Ln 'aye � � M �a r- a_ C � M %0 0 W U z O a U U w L/) 0 z 0 w 0 w Q 0 Z Q V) Z w 0 0 w w H V) c� CL 0 Q 06 Z 0 � w >o 0 �_ w w J wC)U OZQ 0,-0 u w0 c� c/:) o d N 0 0 } � m m o w ui Q z Y 0 Q p O o z m m = a w 0 U Q Q 0 o0 236-10" [PROPERTY LINE SIDE] 12'-3" 34'-8" 24'-4" 35-0" 24'-4" 35-0" 24'-4" 34'-8" 12'-3" TOWER ELEMENT MODULE"A" MODULE"B" MODULE"A" MODULE"B" MODULE"A" MODULE"B" MODULE"A" TOWER ELEMENT �1 10'-4" CORRIDOR i- iF �- �O LJ O0 �� ��0 �00 LJ ��0 �0 _ FI _ -1 LJ J FT/ 000 1- EDRO M 2- 3EDROOM APT. APT. DECK o 7�0 O O O 10'-8" 14'-0" 10'-4" 14'-0" 10'-4" 10'-8" OO o 3 SEASON 7-7 7 2- 3EDROO SCREENED APT. PORCH 1- EDRO � APT. 0000 O 000 F LJ CJ F-A II LJ IIL J L�7 O 0 OE 0 O O O OIO mO O ME O O O O �O ii�l�lLJ ii�� J O I OI� I _ FI _ LJ 00 1- EDRO M 2- EDRO M APT. APT. DECK o o � O� O O 14'-0" 10'-4" 14'-0" 2ND & 3RD FLOOR PLAN (PRELIMINARY) NORTH NORTH 15,625 SQ.Ff. Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" BLDG.1 BLDG.2 W m = . ....... . ..... - ��in pplim LWIN 11 Am� 0 7w,,. STAIR w N N V) M p w 0 � m �wLo LULU Lr)m 0 N WaLo Ln 'aye � � M �a C � M %0 0 W U z U O J � N �j z z0of Zoo Q OZ 0 w Q J �w� U �00 Dam 0 U U)L)- U q- Jw_O wUw U U H L = U 0 ~ J Boa- Lzo LLJ ono of a_ww m Lu Q Z Q Q Z a_ LL ¢wo w a_wo Lu woo ~ O m m 0 _ (n C 0 Z CD0c� u L0-1 Vry ) Z N o CV } m m o w w Q z Y 0 Q p p o z 0 0 U Q ATTACHMENT 4 Rezoning Exhibit LEGEND AND NOTES REZONING EXHIBIT 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 PROPOSED OPD/RS12 ZONING — PROPOSED OPD/RM20 ZONING 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. _ POLECAT JOHNSON & BERTO FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST / POINT OF BEGINNING ° 5 25 50 REZONING PARCEL #2 ° �a GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET PENNETr J BROWN 1 "=50' S L-O MOH OF UH E SOO�HEASU o�� � � � 600SETOWN RENTALS, LLG I G�DO qUA 1]U D 0 _ U 7 0 H �DI§ l' / N 8 9° 3 7' S 7" E 6ocSErovvNl RENTALS, Lw _IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED ' 96.71' IN BOOK I AT PAGE I OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. /( / Illy I h ^h' PROPOSED ZONING PARCEL #2 JERRY I`VANA =`V (OPD/RS12) _ 7,597 SF 0.17 ACC / o / N89023'45"E S89023'45"W CIIADRIC-K ALLEN OVRR110LSER LLC C 0 VICTORIA CALPIN i 0� i i 50 PATTI BREWER FINN 130.27' N89 37 57 E 246.17 Z O N d1 0 0 W oFt Lri 50 PROPOSED ZONING PARCEL #1 (OPD/RM20) 251,23ACSF 0 SUoDff] SS OH OF 7HE SOU7HEQ87 ARAM C KRUEEER IN ACCORPANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK I AT PAGE I OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. L STEPHEN VOYCE i I N00055'46"W 46.06' . sod IL STACEY NOBLE AIAREY S BAHRIGK 758.91' I I NORTH 53 FEET OF THE WEST I60 FEET SACABA LLG OF OUTLOT 14 OF THE ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA CITY I I I I I I II RDC KMOOD HOLLOM ` ------------------------------------- IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN BOCK /v7 AT PAGE 223 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER"S OFFICE. 51 I I I BERRY COURT LTD PARTNERSHIP S00°13'35"E 4.49' \ J CITY OF IOWA CITY N89018'10"E a 0 172.08' E DIEUPONNR MUANZA MUANZA l� 0 MACK BUILDERS eFZOUP 11_6 �O LOCK 3 DEmy's aDDmm \ KAILIN N 6AR.0-US KHAN s� ,P CP. F DONALD FRITS �C VI REWARD J LEAHY ` REVOCABTRUSLE TRInT JOAN K LEAHY REVOCABLE TRUST I I I V D � Iilr,�, O IfI�\`�f1I ,,(c��l ,,(c��lII II D D �\11II17 ,(,c��l O IfFII�,�\\`JffI11II cn � � C oD 0 V � � � OO LP) v� ICJ 19) D� D O IJ V m JOAN K LEAHY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED REVOCABLE IN BOOK I AT PAGE 5 OF THE RECORDS OF THE TRUST JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. � I 12 S89033'04"W 9 O7LO7 IS 0 G�DC HAL VO M OF D MA MY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK I AT PAGE 116 OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE. 00 ELIZABETH ANN FISHER V I 0 I POINT OF BEGINNING REZONING PARCEL #1 I I BETH ELSA ERICKSON KOC K 12 0E qEr 3 AID DDUDOH 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 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 Address Phone Email r `<''"" + P �0,^— 0(' g� ( /V 1) 0�� e �� I � SIGN IN SHEET Name Address Phone ffzy2L �1R.r � 5 � ��� � S �2 5 q � r o� ►� 3 ��,� 3 3�t - � Email SIGN IN SHEET Name Address Y42 �uiaj-f nVAt7 1 � 1 z t5-P AOv,-, 0Z9 N Phone 7f3-,�if7 Email S Ina%/, Co1� t_;rcek1ie C� — q -7ze / "'r4 SIGN IN SHEET Name Address Phone Email Z T �U �D ('l 0,/Le g/yJvi�Cc�'1 Y)CN( �A,/ k�<2S O 174 + Gc�ve�a�Cif` .39 1-7 qn a1A \ 0 udvey —6 c1 L v uvce . ecei `�'yZ 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 Cell 319.560.2113 t 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. 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 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 (R313), 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 N89°37'57"E, along the North Line of said Lot 49, a distance of 96.71 feet; Thence S00°36'51 "E, 66.71 feet; Thence S89°23'45"W, 130.27 feet, to a Point on the Easterly Right -of -Way Line of North Dodge Street; Thence N25°57'16"E, along said Easterly Right -of -Way Line, 75.03 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Rezoning Parcel #2 contains 0.17 Acre, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. And, subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein, the property described below is hereby classified Medium Density Multi -Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-20): BEGINNING at the Southeast Corner of Lot 12 of Bacon's Subdivision, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Book 1 at Page 5 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S89033'04"W, along the South Line of said Bacon's Subdivision, and the South Ordinance No. Page 3 Line of Lots 51, and 50 of the Subdivision of the Southeast Quarter Section 3-T79N-R6W, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Book 1 at Page 1 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office, 758.91 feet, to its intersection with the Easterly Right -of -Way Line of North Dodge Street; Thence N00°55'46"W, along said Easterly Right -of -Way Line, 46.06 feet; Thence 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 N89037'57"E, along said North Line, 246.17 feet, to the Northeast Corner thereof, and a Point on the West Line of Lot 7 of said Bacon's Subdivision; Thence S00°13'35"E, along said West Line, 4.49 feet, to the Southwest Corner thereof, and the Northwest Corner of Lot 8 of said Subdivision of the Southeast Quarter Section 3-T79N-R6W; Thence N89°18'10"E, along the North Line of Said Lot 8, a distance of 172.08 feet, to the Northeast Corner thereof, and a Point on the Westerly Right -of -Way Line of North Governor Street; Thence 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. 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 Ill. 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 Attorney' Office (Liz Craig — 03/27/2025) Ordinance No. Page No. 4 It was moved by , and seconded by , that the ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Alter Bergus Harmsen Moe Salih Teague Weilein First Consideration: May h, 2025 Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Harmsen, Moe, Teague, Weilein NAYS: Salih ABSENT: None Second Consideration: Vote for passage: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Date published: 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 (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; 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. And BEGINNING at the Southeast Corner of Lot 12 of Bacon's Subdivision, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Book 1 at Page 5 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence 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 N89037'57"E, along said North Line, 246.17 feet, to the Northeast Corner thereof, and a Point on the West Line of Lot 7 of said Bacon's Subdivision; Thence S00°13'35"E, along said West Line, 4.49 feet, to the Southwest Corner thereof, and the Northwest Corner of Lot 8 of said Subdivision of the Southeast Quarter Section 3-T79N-R6W; Thence N89°18'10"E, along the North Line of Said Lot 8, a distance of 172.08 feet, to the Northeast Corner thereof, and a Point on the Westerly Right -of -Way Line of North Governor Street; Thence S28°36'44"E, along said Westerly Right -of -Way Line, 186.77 feet; Thence 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 2 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 11 day of City of Iowa City Bruce Teague, Mayor olWiT _, 2025. TSB Holdings LC Attest: Kellie Grace, City Clerk Approved by: City A ney's Office City of Iowa City Acknowledgement: State of Iowa } 7 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 Nkninq,C tis ERIKA ANDERSON x Commission Number 792095 My Commission Expires My commission expires: I M , 2025 by (title) of TSB Holdings, LLC. Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) My commission expires. q -15 - _ 4 Kellie Grace From: Bahrick, Audrey S <abahrick@uiowa.edu> Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 3:27 PM To: *City Council Subject: Letter re: 911 N Governor St rezoning Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; Critical Slopes letter to City Council.pdf ** 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. This message is from an external sender. May 6, 2025 Staff has stated that they support this rezoning because it allows application of the modern zoning ordinance, including the parts of the ordnance that apply to environmentally sensitive features (in this case steep and critical slopes, and the grove of trees). Yet when you compare this proposal to the language of the zoning code, this plan clearly does not protect and minimize disturbance of the environmentally sensitive feature of the R313 zoned property and the additional land at 905 and 909 Governor (which is not subject to the court ruling). Section (14-51-1) of the zoning law states that the intent is to: - Permit and define the reasonable use of properties that contain environmentally sensitive features and natural resources while recognizing the importance of environmental resources and protecting such resources from destruction. - Provide for ecologically sound transitions between protected environmentally sensitive areas and urban development. - Foster urban design that preserves open space and minimizes disturbance of environmentally sensitive features and natural resources. Section 14-51-9 regarding wood areas says the intent is to reduce damage to wooded areas, particularly on steep slopes and encourage site plan design which incorporate groves as amenities within a development. To help ensure this intent, the ordinance requires that you, the City Council, must approve the disturbance of more than 35% of the critical slopes (14-51-8). The supreme court has relieved the developer of environmental review only on the R313 portion of this property. The ordnance still applies to 905 and 909 Governor. Staff says the goal is to apply the modern ordnance to the entire property. Yet the plan before you clearly does not comply with the purpose of the ordnance to preserve the scenic character of hillside areas, particularly wooded hillsides. (Section 14-51-8: REGULATED SLOPES). It does not minimize disturbance of the these slopes, rather it nearly wipes them out by disturbing 86% of the critical slopes and removing nearly the entire grove of trees. The plan before you is designed to maximize residential density at the expense of the environment and the surrounding neighborhoods. Section 14-3A-4 of the zoning code, the criteria which is to be used by the City to evaluate proposals such as this, makes it clear that when environmentally sensitive areas are present it may not be possible to achieve the maximum density. The zoning code states: "The City will approve a residential density based on the underlying density allowed in the base zone and what is compatible with the natural topography of the site and with surrounding development. The residential density for a planned development may not exceed the value specified in table 3A-1..... Actual residential density allowed, however, may be less than the maximum expressed in the table due to the topographical constraints of the property, the scale of the project relative to adjacent development, and the dimensional, site development, and other requirements of this title. Again staffs rationale for supporting this proposal is to bring the R313 property into compliance with the modern zoning code. Yet this plan wipes out the environmentally sensitive areas not only on the R313 property, but the additional property at 905 and 909 Governor. Neighbors are not opposed to apartment being build on this property, but to comply with the Comprehensive Plan and the intent of the zoning code this current plan should be rejected. Staff and the developer should go back to the drawing board and come back with a plan the preserves more to the wooded slope that provides the backdrop for Happy Hollow Park. Sincerely, Audrey Bahrick Sharon DeGraw Stephen Voyce Matthieu Biger Adam Kreuger Kellie Grace From: Davies, James <jdavies@russellco.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2025 11:05 AM To: *City Council Subject: N Governor Rezoning Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; N Gov Rezoning.pdf i RISC[ ** 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. This message is from an external sender. Dear Council Members, I have followed the rezoning process on N Governor St as it has progressed through P&Z and into Council discussions. It has been frustrating and left me wondering where in the process does the City consider the tenets of our Comprehensive and District Plans. Per the City "The Comprehensive Plan is a roadmap for directing growth and change over time. It describes a broad vision for the kind of community Iowa City should be and the steps necessary to achieve this vision, including policies for the growth and development of specific areas of the City. The Comprehensive Plan also serves as a guide for decisions on planning and development issues as they arise and evolves as amendments are made." I found it particularly troubling that there was little to no mention of the Comprehensive Plan or the District Plan in the joint discussion with P&Z and Council on 5/6. The primary argument made by P&Z was that it was a good location for more dense housing which I agree strongly with. It appears at no point in this long process has there been any effort to advocate for inclusion of the other primary tenets of the Comprehensive and District Plan. I don't understand why we have these documents if seemingly, so little effort is made to ensure development follows their core growth principles: • Interconnected Streets • Streets as more than Pavement ■ Pedestrian/ Bikeway Connections • Parks, Trails and Open Space In my perspective the City Planning Staff has done a poor job of setting this process up for only two bad outcomes — failure and further litigation -OR- rubber stamping a PUD for a poorly designed project that makes no effort to integrate or enhance the neighborhood and its existing amenities. I don't envy your position, but I encourage you to carefully review the specific access challenges that this project presents and ask yourself if is this PUD is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan or the Central District Plan? I think its reasonable to expect that City Staff should be doing a better job of advocating that projects of this size align with the goals and values that the community set in the Comprehensive Plans. There appears to be broad support for this area to have higher density RM-20 zoning but the PUD specifics will create dangerous pedestrian conditions that will encourage residents to drive rather than walk/bike. The complete lack of pedestrian connection to the park and other nearby amenities devalue the development and neighborhood when we should be taking this rare opportunity to encourage park usage and pedestrian access for all. Thanks very much for your time and service to our community, it is greatly appreciated. James Davies I Preconstruction Manager T: (563) 459-4600 M: (563) 594-9022 E: jdavies@russellco.com www.russellco.com 10=© The crossing options are extremely dangerous for pedestrians, bikes, or any ADA use. Wheel chair access into and out of the development is an impossibility. Pedestrian access to the park, school, and grocery amenities for kids or mobility challenged occupants of the development requires a sprint across a two lane highway at the bottom of an S-curve. At peak times this traffic will be moving at different speeds, creating a very dangerous condition for both pedestrians and drivers, With minimal design interventions these could be remedied to better align with the Comprehensive Plan. The land to the west is held by the same developer. By asking to conjoin the parking lots it creates joint access that betters north and south bound access for both the new and the existing developments. Providing a pedestrian connection to the park also enhances both developments while providing a means of safe pedestrian access to the park, elementary school and beyond. Item Number: 10.a. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT May 20, 2025 Ordinance amending Title 3, Entitled "Finances, Taxation And Fees," Chapter 4, Entitled "Schedule Of Fees, Rates, Charges, Bonds, Fines, And Penalties". (Pass and Adopt) 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 IC. Prepared by: Nicole Davies, Finance Director, 410 E. Washington street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5085 OrdinanceNo. 25-4955 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 sett -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 16-3A4 of this Code): Meter Size Charge (Inches) For first 100 cubic feet or less of water used, based on 5/8, % x 3/4 $9.04 meter size 34 _ 9.88 Ordinance No. ?S_499 1 11.63 1'/2 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 wafer 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 Over 3,000 $421 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 163A-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 sanitary sewer and/or solid waste collection accounts (see section 16-3A-5 of this Code) An amount equal to an average 2 month billing for the delinquent account. Can be waived if the account holder 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. 25-4955 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: 3-45: 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 slicker 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. 25-4955 Pape 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 105.001ton 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: 24.001ton 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. ?s-nass Page 5 First Warin trailing 12 months Warning Second or subsequent instances in trailing 12 months $50.00 Electronic waste $3.00 per item; Ns 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 tan (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 It. 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 20 th day of May 2025 Mayor pro T Attest: Deputy City Clerk Approved by City Attorney' Office - 04/1012025 Ordinance No. 29-49ss Page No. 6 It was moved by Bergus , and seconded by _ ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: y Alter x Bergus x Harmsen x Moe x Salih x Teague x Weilein First Consideration: April 15, 2025 Vote for passage: AYES: A] ter. Bees Harmsen, Moe Salih Teague, Weilein NAYS: None ABSENT: None Second Consideration: May 6 2025 Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Harmsen, Moe, Salih, Teague, Weilein NAYS: None ABSENT: Date published: May 29 2025 that the