Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-01-06 OrdinancePrepared by: John Yapp, Assoc. Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5247 (REZ03-00020) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 119.94 ACRES FROM INTERIM DEVELOPMENT SINGLE-FAMILY, IDRS, AND INTERIM DEVELOPMENT MULTI-FAMILY, IDRM, TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY - SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, OPDH-5, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF PEPPERWOOD ADDITION AND EAST OF GILBERT STREET. WHEREAS, Southgate Development has applied for a rezoning to Planned Development Housing Oveday - Single-Family Residential, ODPH-5, for 119.94 acres of property located south of Pepperwood Addition, east of Gilbert Street, in conjunction with an application for a Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Site Plan of Sandhill Estates, a 379-1ot residential subdivision; and WHEREAS, the adopted South District Plan states the predominant land use in the part of the city will be single-family residential, and one of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to develop neighborhoods wi[h smaller lots and more common open space; and WHEREAS, the proposed Sandhill Estates plan is a single-family residential development with smaller lots and an approximate 17 acre area of open space; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed rezoning and Preliminary Plat and has recommended approval subject to certain conditions related to access, and the appropriate design and layout of houses on smaller lots in order to maintain a residential appearance in the neighborhood; and WHEREAS, Iowa Code Section 414.5 (2003) provides that the City of Iowa City, on granting an applicant's rezoning request, may impose certain conditions over and above existing regulations in order to satisfy public needs directly caused by the reasoning request; and WHEREAS, the South District Plan states that "as housing density increases and lot sizes are reduced, attention will need to be paid to design issues, such as garage and driveway locations; to ensure that new neighborhoods are attractive and livable; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended a Conditional Zoning Agreement to ensure the above-reference comprehensive plan policies are addressed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: ~.~. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein, the property described is hereby reclassified from Interim Development Single-Family, IDRS, and Interim Development Multi-Family, IDRM, to Planned Development Housing Overlay-Single-Family Residential, OPDH-5: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA; THENCE S88°23'31"W ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER AND GOVERNMENT LOT 4, ALL IN SAiD SECTION 22, A DISTANCE OF 36.53 FEET; THENCE N52°43'16"W, 350.30 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 328.12 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A 1040.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, WHOSE 326.77 FOOT CHORD BEARS N61o45'35"W; THENCE N21o01'13"E, 56.59 FEET; THENCE N52o43'16"W, 449.64 FEET; THENCE N71o05'50"W, 158.60 FEET; THENCE N52o43'16"W, 432.68 FEET; THENCE N25o00'58"W, 26.81 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 56.88 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A 60.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, WHOSE 54.77 FOOT CHORD BEARS N87o51'31"W; THENCE N60o42'05"W, 5.34 FEET; THENCE N01o41'35"W, 204.14 FEET; THENCE S60o42'05"E, 748.28 FEET; THENCE N17o22'29"E, 242.32 FEET; THENCE N30o21'43"E, 38.20 FEET; THENCE N60°25'38"W, 322.36 FEET; THENCE N48°08'37"W, 217.98 FEET; THENCE N23o34'36"W, 254.77 FEET; THENCE N01°50'58"W, 174.62 FEET; TI~IENCE N88o09'02"E, 123.42 FEET; THENCE N03o13'36"E, 40.16 FEET; Ordinance No. Page 2 THENCE S88°09'02"W, 369.66 FEET; THENCE N01o41'35"W, 728.02 FEET, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 206 OF PEPPERWOOD ADDITION, PART 11, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF; THENCE N88o08'13"E, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PEPPERWOOD ADDITION - PART 11 AND ALSO ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF PEPPERWOOD ADDITIONS- PART 7, PART 3 AND PART 2, A DISTANCE OF 1520.66 FEET TO THE EAST ONE-QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 22; THENCE N88° 07'03"E, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PEPPERWOOD ADDITION - PART 2, A DISTANCE OF 280.60 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 95121 AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 36 AT PAGE 81 IN SAID RECORDER'S RECORDS; THENCE S01°02'57"E, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL, 1120.00 FEET; THENCE N87o49'06"E, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL, 945.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL; THENCE S01o03'50"E, 586.43 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 73, SOUTH POINTE ADDITION, PARTS 1-6 AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 33 AT PAGE 312 IN SAID RECORDER'S RECORDS; THENCE S01°06'34"E, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTH POINTE ADDITION, 930.10 FEET, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 30 OF SAID SOUTH POINTE ADDITION; THENCE S87°45'02"W, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 23 OF SAID TOWNSHIP AND RANGE, 1243.31 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 114.70 ACRES AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA; THENCE S88o23'31"W ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER AND GOVERNMENT LOT 4, ALL IN SAID SECTION 22, A DISTANCE OF 36.53 FEET; THENCE N52°43'16"VV, 350.30 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 328.12 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A 1040.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, WHOSE 326.77 FOOT CHORD BEARS N61o45'35"W; THENCE N21o01'13"E, 56.59 FEET; THENCE N52o43'16"W, 449.64 FEET; THENCE N71o05'50"VV, 158.60 FEET; THENCE N52o43'16"W, 432.68 FEET; THENCE N25o00'58"VV, 26.81 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 56.88 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A 60.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, WHOSE 54.77 FOOT CHORD BEARS N87o51'31"VV; THENCE N60o42'05"VV, 5.34 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUEING N60o42'05"W, 11.46 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 54.62 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A 60.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, WHOSE 52.76 FOOT CHORD BEARS N34o37'12"W; THENCE N52o43'16"W, 305.56 FEET; THENCE N88o18'26"E, 212.43 FEET; THENCE S60o42'05"E, 74.23 FEET; THENCE S01o41'35"E, 204.14 FEET, TO THE SAID POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID TRACT OF LAND CONTAINS 0.70 ACRE, AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA; THENCE S88o23'31"W ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER AND GOVERNMENT LOT 4, ALL IN SAID SECTION 22, A DISTANCE OF 36.53 FEET; THENCE N52°43'16"W, 350.30 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 328.12 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A 1040.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, WHOSE 326.77 FOOT CHORD BEARS N61o45'35"W; THENCE N21o01'13"E, 56.59 FEET; THENCE N52°43'16"W, 449.64 FEET; THENCE N71o05'50"W, 158.60 FEET; THENCE N52o43'16"VV, 432.68 FEET; THENCE N25o00'58"W, 26.81 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 56.88 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A 60.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, WHOSE 54.77 FOOT CHORD BEARS N87o51'31"W; THENCE N60o42'05"W, 5.34 FEET; THENCE N01o41'35"W, 204.14 FEET; THENCE S60o42'05"E, 748.28 FEET; THENCE N17o22'29"E, 242.32 FEET; THENCE N30°21'43"E, 38.20 FEET; THENCE N60o25'38"VV, 322.36 FEET; THENCE N48°08'37"W, 217.98 FEET; THENCE N23o34'36"W, 254.77 FEET; THENCE N01o50'58"W, 174.62 FEET; THENCE N88o09'02"E, 123.42 FEET; THENCE N03o13'36"E, 40.16 FEET; THENCE S88o09'02"W, 369.66 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUEING S88o09'03"W, 68.37 FEET; THENCE N53o41'50"W, 288.80 FEET TO THE Ordinance No. Page 3 SOUTHEAST CORNER OF A PLAT OF SURVEY OF A 10.0 ACRE TRACT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 13 AT PAGE 61 IN THE RECORDS OF THE dOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER; THENCE N02o43'14"W, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT, 549.60 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 184 OF PEPPERWOOD ADDITION, PART 9, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF; THENCE N88o08'13"E, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PEPPERWOOD ADDITION - PART 9, A DISTANCE OF 305.82 FEET; THENCE S01°41'35"E, 728.02 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 4.54 ACRES AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. SECTION II. VARIATION,C;. To encourage the development of smaller lots and larger common open space, the Sandhill Estate Planned Development contains lots with narrower frontages and smaller lot sizes than would normally be permitted in the Iow-density single-family zone. With approval of the OPDH-5 zoning designation and Sandhill Estates preliminary plat, these lots are deemed to be legal conforming lots. SECTION III ZONINC, MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the Zoning Map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon final passage, approval, and publication of this Ordinance as provided by law. SECTION IV CONDITIONAL ZONING A~REEMENT. Following final passage and approval of this ordinance, the Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to sign, and the City Clerk to attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owners and applicant of the Sandhill Estates property requested for rezoning and subdivision. SECTION V. CERTIFIC;ATION AND RECORr31N(3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this Ordinance and the Conditional Zoning Agreement and to record same in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the applicant's expense upon passage and approval of this Ordinance. ~. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION VII ~FVERAI~II I'rY. If any section, provision or pad 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 adjudicated invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION VIII EFFECTIVE DATF This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this __ day of ,20.~. MAYOR AI-I'EST: CITY CLERK Approved by City Attomey's Offic~ Ordinance No, Page 4- It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Champion Kanner Lehman O'Donnell Pfab Vanderhoef Wilbum First Consideration Vote for passage: Second Consideration Vote for passage: Date published Ppdad min~ord~ez03-00020.doc Prepared by: John Yapp, PCD, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5247 (REZ03-00020) CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"), and SG & M Properties, LLC, (hereinafter "Owner") and Southgate Development (hereinafter "Applicant"); and WHEREAS, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 119.94 acres of property located south of Pepperwood Addition and east of Gilbert Street; and WHEREAS, the Applicant and Owner have requested the rezoning of the approximately 119.94-acre property from Interim Development Single Family, IDRS, and Interim Development Multifamily (IDRM) to Planned Development Housing-Single Family Residential, OPDH-5, in conjunction with the Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Site Plan of Sandhill Estates, a 379-1ot single family subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions regarding access, the design of structures on narrow ~ots with alley access, and the size and placement of garages on lots less than 60 feet wide without alley access, the proposed rezoning is in conformance with the South District Plan, which is part of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the South District Plan states that "as housing density increases and lot sizes are reduced, attention will need to be paid to design issues, such as garage and driveway location, to assure that the new neighborhoods are attractive and livable'; and WHEREAS, Iowa Code § 414.5 (2003) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and WHEREAS, the Owner and Applicant acknowledge that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to ensure the development of the property is in general accordance with the principles of the South District Plan and Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, Owner and Applicant agree to use this property in accordance with the terms and conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the Parties agree as follows: 1. SG & M Properties is the owner and title holder and Southgate Development is the applicant for a rezoning of the property legally described as follows: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA; THENCE S88°23'31'~V ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER AND GOVERNMENT LOT 4, ALL IN SAID SECTION 22, A DISTANCE OF 36.53 FEET; THENCE N52°43'16'~/V, 350.30 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 328.12 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A 1040.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, WHOSE 326.77 FOOT CHORD BEARS N61°45'35"W; THENCE N21°01'13"E, 56.59 FEET; THENCE N52°43'16'~/, 449.64 FEET; THENCE N71°05'50"W, 158.60 FEET; THENCE N52°43'16"VV, 432.68 FEET; THENCE N25°00'58'~/V, 26.81 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 56.88 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A 60.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, WHOSE 54.77 FOOT CHORD BEARS N87°51'31'~/V; THENCE N60°42'05'~V, 5.34 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUEING N60°42'05'~/V, 11.46 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 54.62 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A 60.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, WHOSE 52.76 FOOT CHORD BEARS N34°37'I2'~N; THENCE N52° 43'16'~V, 305.56 FEET; THENCE N88°18'26"E, 212.43 FEET; THENCE S60°42'05"E, 74.23 FEET; THENCE S01°41'35"E, 204.14 FEET, TO THE SAID POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID TRACT OF LAND CONTAINS 0.70 ACRE, AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA; THENCE S88°23'31"W ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER AND GOVERNMENT LOT 4, ALL IN SAID SECTION 22, A DISTANCE OF 36.53 FEET; THENCE N52°43'I6'~V, 350.30 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 328.12 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A 1040.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, WHOSE 326.77 FOOT CHORD BEARS N61°45'35"W; THENCE N21 °01'13"E, 56.59 FEET; THENCE N52°43'16'~/, 449.64 FEET; THENCE N71°05'50'~/V, 158.60 FEET; THENCE N52°43'16"W, 432.68 FEET; THENCE N25°00'58"VV, 26.81 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 56.88 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A 60.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, WHOSE 54.77 FOOT CHORD BEARS N87°51'31"VV; THENCE N60°42'05"W, 5.34 FEET; THENCE N01°41'35"VV, 204.14 FEET; THENCE S60°42'05"E, 748.28 FEET; THENCE N17 °22'29"E, 242.32 FEET; THENCE N30°21'43"E, 38.20 FEET; THENCE NE0°25'38"VV, 322.36 FEET; THENCE N48°08'37"W, 217.98 FEET; THENCE N23°34'36"W, 254,77 FEET; THENCE N01°50'58"VV, 174.62 FEET; THENCE N88°09'02"E, 123.42 FEET; THENCE N03°I3'36"E, 40.16 FEET; THENCE S88°09'02"W, 369,66 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUEING S88°09'03"W, 68.37 FEET; THENCE N53°41'50"W, 288,80 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF A PLAT OF SURVEY OF A 10,0 ACRE TRACT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 13 AT PAGE 61 IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER; THENCE N02°43'14"W, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT, 549.60 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 184 OF PEPPERWOOD ADDITION, PART 9, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF; THENCE N88°08'13"E, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LiNE OF SAID PEPPERWOOD ADDITION - PART 9, A DISTANCE OF 305,82 FEET; THENCE S01°41'35"E, 728.02 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 4.54 ACRES AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA; THENCE S8823'31'~V ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER AND GOVERNMENT LOT 4, ALL IN SAID SECTION 22, A DISTANCE OF 36.53 FEET; THENCE N52°43'16'~/, 350.30 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 328.12 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A 1040.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, WHOSE 326.77 FOOT CHORD BEARS N61°45'35"W; THENCE N21 °01'13"E, 56.59 FEET; THENCE N52°43'I6"W, 449.64 FEET; THENCE N71°05'50'~/, 158.60 FEET; THENCE N52°43'16"W, 432.68 FEET; THENCE N25°00'58'~V, 26.81 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 56.88 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A 60.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, WHOSE 54.77 FOOT CHORD BEARS N87°51'31'~/; THENCE N60°42'05'~/, 5.34 FEET; THENCE N01°41'35"W, 204.14 FEET; THENCE S60°42'05"E, 748.28 FEET; THENCE N17 °22'29"E, 242.32 FEET; THENCE N30°21'43"E, 38.20 FEET; THENCE N60°25'38"W, 322.36 FEET; THENCE N48°08'37'~/V, 217.98 FEET; THENCE N23°34'36"W, 254.77 FEET; THENCE N01°50'58'~N, 174.62 FEET; THENCE N88°09'02"E, 123.42 FEET; THENCE N03°13'36"E, 40.16 FEET; THENCE S88°09'02'~/V, 369.66 FEET; THENCE N01°41'35'~N, 728.02 FEET, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 206 OF PEPPERWOOD ADDITION, PART 11, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF; THENCE N88°08'13"E, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PEPPERWOOD ADDITION - PART 11 AND ALSO ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF PEPPERWOOD ADDITIONS - PART 7, PART 3 AND PART 2, A DISTANCE OF 1520.66 FEET TO THE EAST ONE-QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 22; THENCE N88°07'03"E, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PEPPERWOOD ADDITION - PART 2, A DISTANCE OF 280.60 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 95121 AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 36 AT PAGE 81 IN SAID RECORDER'S RECORDS; THENCE S01°02'57"E, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL, 1120.00 FEET; THENCE N87°49'O6"E, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL, 945.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAiD AUDITOR'S PARCEL; THENCE S01°03'50"E, 586.43 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 73, SOUTH POINTE ADDITION, PARTS 1-6 AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 33 AT PAGE 312 IN SAID RECORDER'S RECORDS; THENCE S01°06'34"E, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTH POINTE ADDITION, 930.10 FEET, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 30 OF SAID SOUTH POINTE ADDITION; THENCE S87°45'02"~N, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 23 OF SAID TOWNSHIP AND RANGE, 1243.31 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 114.70 ACRES AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 2. Owner and Applicant acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure appropriate residential development that generally conforms to the principles of the Comprehensive Plan and South District Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code § 414.5 (2003) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change, including provisions for adequate infrastructure necessary to support urban development. Therefore, Owner and Applicant agree to certain conditions over and above City regulations as detailed below. 3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner and Applicant agree that development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the zoning chapter, as wetl as the following conditions: A. A separate left-turn lane on Gilbert Street for southbound to eastbound traffic must be constructed before more than 25 units are constructed. This can be added to the existing roadway as a temporary feature, or can be constructed as part of the permanent improvements including a four-lane PCC roadway with left-turn lane. B. For lots less than 60 feet of lot width, the following shall apply: i. The length of any garage wall that faces a street may not exceed 50% of the length of the street-facing building far,,ade, as measured along the same street frontage. On corner lots, only one street-facing garage wall must meet this standard. This percentage may increase to 60% if the garage is set back at least 6 feet behind the longest street-facing wall of the dwelling unit. ii. A street-facing garage door must be located no closer to the front lot line than the longest street-facing wall of the dwelling, with the following exception. A street-facing garage door may be located up to six feet in front of the longest street-facing wail of a dwelling unit, if the following conditions are met: a. There is a porch at the main entrance of the dwelling along the same street-facing wall of the dwelling as the garage door; b. The garage door is located no closer to the front lot line than the front of the porch; c. The porch is at least 48 square feet in area, with no dimension less than 6 feet; d. The porch has a solid roof, the eave of which is not more than 10 feet above the floor of the porch. C. Vehicular access to lots 161-204, 304-330 shall be from the alley. C. The design of the homes on lots 161-204, 304-330 shall be subject to Planning and Zoning Commission approval, along with the final plat, according to the following criteria: i. A variety of fa(;ades and variation on rooflines, such as the use of gable and hip roofs, to minimize a "cookie cutter" appearance and a different fa(;:ade at least every third unit is required. ii. The sidewalls of lots 161, 177, 178, 190, 191,204, 304, 316, 317, and 330 that face the street, should include elements of the front fa(;ade. iii.Front porches that are at least six feet in depth shall be included. iv. Slightly staggered footprints, also to avoid a monotonous appearance are required. v. Ten feet between buildings to meet normal setback requirements between buildings is required, and to allow for eaves or overhands at the side of buildings. vi. Planning and Zoning Commission review of the building elevations and footprints as a condition of approval of the final plat is required. 4. The Owner, Applicant and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2003), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change. 5. The Owner, Applicant and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. 6. The Parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land and with the title to this land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the City of Iowa City. The Parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the Parties. 7. Applicant acknowledges that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner or Applicant from complying with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 8. The Parties agree that 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 Applicant's expense. Dated this day of ,2004. SG & M PROPERTIES CITY OF IOWA CITY By: By: Ernest Lehman, Mayor SOUTHGATE DEVELOPMENT By: Attest: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Approved by: C~'ty Attorney's (~¥ice STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this day of , 20 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County. in said State, personally appeared , to me known to be the identical person(s) named in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that (he/she/they) executed the same as (his/her/their) voluntary act and deed. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa My commission expires: STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this day of , 20 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County, in said State, personally appeared , to me known to be the identical person.~ named in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that (he/she/they) executed the same as (his/her/their) voluntary act and deed. Notary Public in and for the State of iowa My commission expires: STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this day of , A.D. 20 , before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared Ernest W. Lehman and Marian K. Karr, to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of said municipal corporation executing the within and foregoing instrument; that the seal affixed thereto is the seal of said municipal corporation; that said instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City Council; and that the said Mayor and City Clerk as such officers acknowledged that the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said corporation, by it and by them voluntarily executed. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa My commission expires: ppdadm/agt/CZA-REZ03-00020.doc Staff reports and memoranda related to Sandhill Estates Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and Sensitive Areas Site Plan City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: November 12, 2003 (for November 20 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting) To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: John Yapp, Associate Planner Re: Update on SUB03-00028 / REZ03-0002q, Sandhill Estates rezoning and preliminary plat Garage setback issue The remaining unresolved issue regarding the Sandhill Estates is the setback and size of the garage in relation to the street and the house. As lots become narrower (in this case narrower than the 60 foot permitted in the Low Density Single Family, RS-5 zone), the dominance of the garage on the street becomes more of a concern because of the cumulative effect, of garages along the street. In order to accommodate street-facing garages on these narrower lots, the residential portions of the house, including windows, doorways, and any porch area, are often pushed into the background. The appearance of the public street and the neighborhood is less residential and the integrity and function of the neighborhood is compromised as a result. The cumulative effect of a garage-dominated streetscape results in a less pedestrian-friendly neighborhood. These concerns are consistent with the South District Plan, which states "as housing density increases and lot sizes are reduced, attention will need to be paid to design issues, such as garages and driveway locations, to assure that the new neighborhoods are attractive and livable" (Page 7, South District Plan). Staff is recommending the garage be flush with or set back from the front wall of the house, and in general be no more then 50% of the house, as measured along the street frontage. Staff is recommending a provision for wider garages (up to 60% of the facade of the house) be included to allow wider garages under certain conditions. Staff's recommendations are summarized below. These proposed garage-placement standards are based on houses with street-facing two-car garage houses that have been recently constructed in Iowa City. To date, the applicant has indicated an unwillingness to meet this standard. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Please note some of the lot numbering has changed from the original staff recommendation due to plat revisions. Staff recommends that REZ03-00020, a request for a rezoning of 119.94 acres from ID-RS, Interim Development Single-Family and ID-RM, Interim Development Multi-Family, to OPDH-5, Planned Development Overlay-Single-Family Residential, be approved subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement with the following conditions: 1. A separate left-turn lane on Gilbert Street for southbound to eastbound traffic must be constructed before more than 25 units are constructed. This can be added to the existing roadway as a temporary feature, or can be constructed as part of the permanent improvements including a 4-lane PCC roadway with left turn lane. 2. For lots with less than 60 feet of lot width the following shall apply: A. The length of any garage wall that faces a street may not exceed 50 percent of the length of the street-facing building fa~;ade, as measured along the same street frontage. On corner lots, only one street-facing garage wall must meet this standard. This percentage may increase to 60 percent if the garage is set back at least 6 feet behind the longest street-facing wall of the dwelling unit. B. A street-facing garage door must be located no closer to the front lot line than the longest street-facing wall of the dwelling, with the following exception. A street-facing garage door may be located up to 6 feet in front of the longest street-facing wall of a dwelling unit, if the following conditions are met: 1. There is a porch at the main entrance of the dwelling along the same street-facing wall of the dwelling as the garage door; 2. The garage door is located no closer to the front lot line than the front of the porch; 3. The porch is at least 48 square feet in area, with no dimension less than 6 feet; 4. The porch has a solid roof, the eave of which is not more than 10 feet above the floor of the porch. 3. Vehicular access to Lots 161-204, 304-330 shall be from the alley. 4. The design of the homes on Lots 161-204, 304-330 be subject to Planning and Zoning Commission approval, along with the final plat according to the following criteria: A. A variety of facades and variation on rooflines, such as the use of gable and hip roofs, to minimize a cookie-cutter appearance - a different facade at least every third unit. B. The side walls of lots 161,177, 178, 190, 191,204, 304, 316, 317, and 330 that face the street should include elements of the front fa(;ade. C. Front porches that are at least 6 feet in depth. D. Slightly staggered footprints, also to avoid a monotonous appearance. E. Ten feet between buildings to meet normal setback requirements between buildings, and to allow for eaves or overhangs at the side of the buildings F. Planning and Zoning Commission review of the building elevations and footprints as a condition of approval of the final plat. Staff recommends that SUB03-O002~, a preliminary plat and sensitive areas site plan of Sand Hill Estates, a 1,:1,6.48 acre, 379-1ot subdivision located east of Gilbert Street, south of Pepperwood Addition, be approved, subject to the REZ02-00020 being approved as recommended above. If the applicant is unwilling to accept conditions 1-4 as summarized above, staff recommends that SUB03-00028 and REZ0300020 be denied. Approved by: ~~~ F~ober~ M&lo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: October 10, 2003 (for October 16 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting) To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: John Yapp, Associate Planner Re: Update on SUB03-00028 / REZ03-00020, Sandhill Estates rezoning and preliminary plat The applicant, Southgate Development, has submitted a revised preliminary plat for Sandhill Estates based on discussions and public input received at the September 18 and October 2, 2003, Planning and Zoning Commission meetings. The most recent submittal is dated Obtober 8, 2003. Central open space: The significant changes in the October 10, 2003 submittal of the Sandhill Estates preliminary plat are that five lots along Covered Wagon Drive adjacent to Outlot I (the central open space) have been relocated to open up a view-shed from Covered Wagon Drive, and one lot has been relocated from the Settlers Road / Sandusky Drive intersection, to open up more of a view-shed into the open space from the south end of Settlers Road. These lots have been relocated to Ornate Circle, and to the west end of Settlers Road near Birch Street. Overall, one lot has been added to the subdivision, for a total of 379 lots. As a result of these changes, the central open space is slightly larger, approximately 17.9 acres in size. Trail connection to Wetherby Park: The applicant has added the trail connection to Wetherby Park from Sandusky Drive as discussed at past meetings. This will be constructed by the applicant along with other infrastructure, but will be dedicated to the City as an outlot and maintained by the City. Open space management: The applicant has asked for discussions leading to an agreement regarding the management of the central open space. While the applicant is not concerned about burning of the open space for a prairie restoration project early on before homes are constructed, they do have concerns about burning while homes are being constructed and marketed. Staff agrees that a management plan should be developed, to give predictability to the developer, real estate staff, home buyers, and other interested parties regarding how this area is to be managed. In staff's opinion this does not need to be a condition for the rezoning or preliminary plat, but it will need to occur prior to the open space being dedicated to the City in conjunction with the first final plat. Garage setback issue: The remaining unresolved issue regarding the Sandhill Estates is the setback and size of the garage in relation to the street and the house. As lots become narrower (in this case narrower than the 60 foot permitted in the Low Density Single Family, RS-5 zone), the dominance of the garage on the street becomes more of a concern because of the cumulative effect of the garage on the street. The residential portions of the house, including windows, doorways, and any porch area, are pushed into the background. The appearance of the public street and the neighborhood is less residential and the integrity and function of the neighborhood is compromised as a result. This position is consistent with the South District Plan, which states "as housing density increases and lot sizes are reduced, attention will need to be paid to design issues, such as garages and driveway locations, to assure that the new neighborhoods are attractive and livable" (Page 7, South District Plan). Staff is recommending the garage be flush with or set back from the front wall of the house, and in general be no more then 50% of the house, as measured along the street frontage. Staff is recommending a provision for wider garages (up to 60% of the facade of the house) be included to allow wider garages under certain conditions. Staff's recommendations are summarized below. The applicant has indicated an unwillingness or inability to meet this standard. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Please note some of the lot numbering has changed from the original staff recommendation do to plat revisions. Staff recommends that REZ03-0002(}, a request for a rezoning of 119.94 acres from ID- RS, Interim Development Single-Family and ID-RM, Interim Development Multi-Family, to OPDH-5, Planned Development Overlay-Single-Family Residential, be approved subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement with the following conditions: 1. A separate left-turn lane on Gilbert Street for southbound to eastbound traffic must be constructed before more than 25 units are constructed. This can be added to the existing roadway as a temporary feature, or can be constructed as part of the permanent improvements including a 4-lane PCC roadway with left turn lane. 2. For lots with less than 60 feet of lot width the following shall apply: A. The length of any garage wall that faces a street may not exceed 50 percent of the length of the street-facing building fa(;ade, as measured along the same street frontage. On corner lots, only one street-facing garage wall must meet this standard. This percentage may increase to 60 percent if the garage is set back at least 6 feet behind the longest street-facing wall of the dwelling unit. B. A street-facing garage door must be located no closer to the front lot line than the longest street-facing wall of the dwelling, with the following exception. A street- facing garage door may be located up to 6 feet in front of the longest street- facing wall of a dwelling unit, if the following conditions are met: 1. There is a porch at the main entrance of the dwelling along the same street- facing wall of the dwelling as the garage door; 2. The garage door is located no closer to the front lot line than the front of the porch; 3. The porch is at least 48 square feet in area, with no dimension less than 6 feet; 4. The porch has a solid roof, the eave of which is not more than 10 feet above the floor of the porch. 3. Vehicular access to Lots 161-204,304-330 shall be from the alley. 4. The design of the homes on Lots 161-204, 304-330 be subject to Planning and Zoning Commission approval, along with the final plat according to the following criteria: A. A variety of facades and variation on rooflines, such as the use of gable and hip roofs, to minimize a cookie-cutter appearance - a different facade at least every third unit. B. The side walls of lots 161, 177, 178, 190, 191,204, 304, 316, 317, and 330 that face the street should include elements of the front fa(;ade. C. Front porches that are at least 6 feet in depth. D. Slightly staggered footprints, also to avoid a monotonous appearance. E. Ten feet between buildings to meet normal setback requirements between buildings, and to allow for eaves or overhangs at the side of the buildings F. Planning and Zoning Commission review of the building elevations and footprints as a condition of approval of the final plat. Staff recommends that SUB03-00028, a preliminary plat and sensitive areas site plan of Sand Hill Estates, a 146.48 acre, 379-1ot subdivision located east of Gilbert Street, south of Pepperwood Addition, be approved, subject to the REZ03-00020 being approved as recommended above. If the applicant is unwilling to accept conditions 1-4 as summarized above, staff recommends that SUB03-00028 and REZ0300020 be denied. Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: September 26, 2003 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: John Yapp, Assistant Transportation Planner~'~-Z~'- - Re: Additional information related the Sandhill Estates preliminary plat and rezoning request (SUB03/00028/REZ03-00020) A number of questions and requests for additional information were raised at the September 18 Commission meeting. This memorandum is a summary of that additional information. Lot count compared to Arendt concept plan The Sandhill Estates preliminary plat contains 36 fewer lots than the Arendt concept plan, upon which the preliminary plat is based. Arendt concept plan: 300 single family lots (all smaller than RS-5 lots) 114 narrow single family lots 414 total, with apartments and commercial shown on outlots A&B Preliminary plat: 307 single family lots (including approx. 36 RS-5 size lots) 71 narrow single family lots 378 total, with outlots A&B designated as future development Many of the lots were "lost" in the translation from the Arendt concept plan to the preliminary plat due to City street design requirements that were not fully taken into account in the Arendt plan. Specifically, 'smoothing out' the Sandusky Drive collector street curvature in order to meet City requirements resulted in the loss of some lots. Similarly, some of the narrow 30-foot lots had to be re-designed to meet street frontage requirements and to resolve fire access issues. Stormwater management As proposed, the linear-basin stormwater management system can be a wet system (standing water in basins) or a dry system (basins fill with water during rain event, then drain). The basins are a terraced system that directs water to the south and east. Terraced systems such as this are suitable for relatively flat terrain; for example the South Sycamore Greenway system is essentially a system of terraced basins. The information submitted to the City indicate a system of wet basins, however the applicant has indicated they may implement dry basins for ease and cost of maintenance. This can be done within the existing design by altering the depth of intakes and stormwater pipe. City staff is comfortable with the preliminary design of the basin system and capacity calculations. Acceptance of central open space The Director of the Parks and Recreation Department has agreed to accept the central open space (Outlot I) sooner in the development process than is typical for public open space. Typically, open space is not accepted until 90% of the lots in the subdivision are developed and the open space is prepared to be used by the public. However, in this case, the open space will not be groomed in the same way a playground area would, and there is public interest in being able to undertake prairie restoration / creation on this parcel of open space. Outlot I may be accepted as soon as the first final plat is approved, assuming it is platted as a lot with adequate street access. Prairie restoration and maintenance Staff has discussed the potential for prairie restoration and maintenance with the Parks and Recreation Department, Fire Department, and a few experts in the field of prairie management. All parties agree that burning is preferable to mowing as a method of eliminating unwanted and dead foliage. Burning is less expensive, more successful, and mimics the natural prairie fires that the prairie ecosystem evolved with. Mowing needs to be done more often, and must include baling and removing much of the material that has been mowed, so it is very labor intensive. However, as homes are constructed around this open space, burning becomes more problematic from a safety and nuisance perspective, and burning must be balanced with public safety. Burning adjacent to residential development requires very specific wind and barometric conditions to ensure smoke and fire do not impact adjacent homes. The Fire Department does have a permit process for open burning, which includes setting requirements for weather conditions, time of day, setbacks from structures, mowed barriers, and other conditions necessary to ensure the safety of surrounding structures. In general discussions about this open space, staff has discussed more widespread burning of this area as an early strategy, before it is ringed by homes. As restoration occurs, and as homes are established, a transition to mowing may be a long-term strategy, with smaller-scale burning being a possibility in segments of this open space as necessary. Since the area will come under public ownership sooner rather than later, the city or a city-approved conservation group will be able to work on this parcel before extensive development occurs around it. Correspondence Staff has attached some correspondence received regarding this development proposal, including a letter from Randall Arendt, the designer of the concept plan used as a basis for the Sandhill Estates proposal. Consistent with staff, Mr. Arendt suggests removing lots from the north side of Covered Wagon Drive adjacent to Outlot I, in order to preserve views into this open space. Views into the central open space is an important design element of this type of development, whether the open space be prairie restoration, golf course, woodland, or a park such as Willow Creek Park. Also consistent with staff, Mr. Arendt discusses the benefit of requiring the garage to be visually subordinate to the faCade of the house, in order to preserve the residential appearance of the neighborhood, as opposed to an appearance dominated by garages. Staff has discussed this with the applicant, and has shared some home designs that would meet the proposed criteria to ensure the garage does not dominate the faCade of the house, as outlined in the September 18 Sandhill Estates staff report. Some of these home designs are found in recent Iowa City subdivisions, including the neighboring Southpointe subdivision. Staff feels some criteria for garage placement is necessary for sub-60 foot wide lots to preserve a RS-5 single-family appearance for the neighborhood The applicant is considering this issue, and the designs staff has shared as examples of homes that would meet the intent of the garage criteria. If this issue is not resolved by the Commissions October 2 meeting, staff would recommend the application be deferred to allow for further discussion. Alley adjacent to open space At the Commissions September 18 meeting, there was some discussion of the possibility of having narrow-lot homes with alley access back onto Outlot J, the central open space. Having an alley along a border of the open space is actually a design element of the original Arendt design plan. It would be a similar design to the narrow-lot homes on Irving Avenue, which have rear garages and an alley adjacent to a private open space and the Willow Creek corridor and trail (see photos below). In staff's opinion, this type of design is not objectionable provided there is some landscaping along the alley to soften the garage-scape facing the open space. Rear view of narrow-lot homes from open space behind Irving Avenue Rear view of narrow-lot homes from open space behind Irving Avenue Rear view of narrow-lot homes from open space behind Irving Avenue Randall Arendt 43 Prospect Avenue Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882 (401) 792-8;)00- rgarendt@cox.net Memo To: Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission c/o Mr. John Yapp 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 5;)240 From: Randall Arendt Date: September 22 2003 RE: Sandhill Estates I have reviewed Southgate's Preliminary Plan for Sandhill Estates, which closely parallels my original concept plan for the property. With a couple of minor modifications (outlined below), I enthusiastically support the application. 1. I believe that the layout would be greatly enhanced by relocating five lots away from Covered Wagon Drive, to increase views of the prairie open space with an additional 300 feet of unobstructed street frontage. I would whole- heartedly support repositioning those lots in various other parts of the neighborhood, by tweaking the layout here and there, which I believe can be done. ~ would urge the City to encourage conservation subdivisions by not being too stringent on the overall density, as sensitive site design benefits the City and future neighborhood residents too. As you know, the overall unit count has already been cut by about 35 lots, so there is really no more room for cutting back, and still having a project that is worthwhile doing from an economic perspective. 2. I would suggest that front-facing garage doors be visually subordinated by several architectural enhancements. For example, on page 146 of my third book ("Conservation Design for Subdivisions"), there is an illustration of an attractive house with 2400 sq. ft. of floorspace that is 32 feet wide. I included it in the book because its garage doors are down-played by two architectural enhancements. First, they are part of an entire 2-1/2 story elevation, with two windows and two gables above, which integrates the garage element with the house element. Second, the front porch roofline extends all the way across the entire facade, including above the garage doors themselves. A third item to mention is that the garage doors should be painted to match the color of the siding on the house, not the trim color (i.e., definitely not white). That would also help the garage to blend in with the rest of the structure. In addition, I would like to say that I fully support the development of Outlot A into higher density multi-family housing, and 0utlot B into commercial, as shown on my original concept plan. These are areas that I feel should all be planned together, as complementary land-uses in a multi-use conservation subdivision. To the extent that Outlot B could also be developed with some second-story as residential, as was done in the shopping center where Southgate has its offices on Mormon Trek Blvd. that would be an excellent opportunity to provide some mixed uses at this intersection of two arterials. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at the above number, Randall Arendt Cc: Glenn Siders 146 Appendix D The Buckingham: This 2,400 square foot residence is one of five models (each with a choice of fa- cades) built at Fox Heath in Perkiomen Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, by Hovnanian Homes. This model features a spacious living room/dining room, a family room with fireplace and cathedral ceiling, eat-in kitchen, and a laundry room and a powder room on the ground floor, with four bedrooms, two full baths, and two large walk-in closets on the second floor The front elevation comes with a choice of front porches, and although the garage doors face the street, their visual prominence is reduced by the second-story windows and the two roof dormers. By incorporating the SECOND garage into the ground floor plan, the architect was able to design this home at an efficient 32-foot width, allowing it to be sited on 40-foot wide lots. STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: John Yapp, Associate Planner Item: SUB03-00026/REZ03-00020 Date: September 18, 2003 Sandhill Estates GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Southgate Development 755 Mormon Trek Boulevard Iowa City, IA 52246 Phone: 337-4195 Applicant's Engineer: MMS Consultants 1917 S. Gilbert Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: 351-8282 Applicant's Attorney: Joe Holland 300 Brewery Square Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: 354-0331 Requested Action: Rezoning from ID-RS & ID-RM to OPDH-5; Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Site Plan approval Purpose: To create a 378 lot residential subdivision Location: East of South Gilbert Street, south of Pepperwood Addition Size: Rezoning area: 119.94 acres Total area: 146.48 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Undeveloped; ID-RS & ID-RM Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residential; RS-5 South: Commercial; County A1 East: Residential & Park; RS-8, Public West: Undeveloped; ID-RM Comprehensive Plan: The South District Plan identifies much of this area as single family, with townhouse development near the south border of Wetherby Park. Duplex housing with small areas of apartments are indicated along Gilbert Street. The plan also shows a large area of open space and discusses 2 environmental issues associated with the sand hill on the property. File Date: Revised plat and stormwater calculations received September 10. 45 Day Limitation Period: October 25, 2003 SPECIAL INFORMATION: Public Utilities: Water and sewer services are available to be extended into the site. Public Services: The property is within Iowa City corporate limits - Police and Fire protection will be provided by the City. Refuse collection will by done by the City. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This property is located in the South Planning District, east of Gilbert Street, south of Pepperwood Addition and west of Southpoint Addition. The terrain is relatively flat south and west of Wetherby Park, but begins sloping upward to a wooded sandy hill near the center of the property. From there the property slopes downward to a flat area adjacent to Gilbert Street (Outlots A & B). The South Sycamore Trunk Sewer is situated across the southwest quarter of the property; the proposed rezoning and development is east of the trunk sewer easement. Outlots A & B on the west side of the trunk sewer easement are identified as outlots for future development. In 2001 the applicant, Southgate Development, had submitted a concept plan that showed all the available land being developed, with fees in lieu of open space being proposed. The response from surrounding neighbors and from environmental advocates to that early plan was negative: a portion of the property was a known habitat for the ornate box turtle, and there had been discussion about a possible prairie remnant on the property based on the presence of some prairie plants. The Commission requested that staff investigate the question of whether there were sufficient prairie plants to constitute a prairie remnant on this property. As discussed on page 5, an amendment to the sensitive areas map would be necessary if the property were to be regulated as prairie under the sensitive areas ordinance. The property owner declined to allow a botanist access to the property to investigate the possibility of a prairie remnant. The applicant did however contract with Randall Arendt, who designs and writes about conservation and cluster development, to produce a concept plan for the property. The concept plan produced by Arendt proposed to preserve much of the sandy hill near the center of the property (copy of Arendt concept attached). The current plan is based on the Arendt design. One difference worth mentioning from the Arendt plat is the central open space contained in Outlot I has been reduced form approximately 21 acres to approximately 17 acres and does not have as much public street frontage in the proposed Sandhill Estates preliminary plat. As the concept plan evolved lots where added to the north side of Covered Wagon Drive (lots 74-77 and 120-124) and the west side of Sandusky Drive (lots 210-214 and lots 281-289) to replace potential lots shown primarily in the northwest portion of the property that were not possible due to the need to accommodate an adequate curve radius for the collector street. ANALYSIS: REZONING The applicant is requesting the zoning of 119.94 acres from ID-RS, Interim Development Single- Family and ID-RM, Interim Development Multi-Family, to OPDH-5, Planned Development Overlay- Single-Family Residential. The South District Plan identifies this area as suitable for single-family residential development, with some areas of townhouse development near Wetherby Park. The South District Plan identifies a large part of the sandy hiJl as open space, and states that the sandy hill should be preserved. The applicant's request for OPDH-5 zoning is generally consistent with the South District Plan, which indicates that detached single family housing will be the predominate land use in the South District, and shows an area of townhouse development near Wetherby Park. In general the Comprehensive Plan supports the mixing of housing types within neighborhoods. In this case, the 'mix' of housing types is a function of the utilization of some small single-family lots. The overall density of the Sand Hill Estates proposal is 3.15 units / acre, which is in the normal range of overall density for a single family residential neighborhood. While the 17.2 acre sand hill in the Sandhill Estates plan is smaller than what is depicted in the South District Plan, it is approximately 6 % times the required open space for this 119.94 acre property. This is a 'clustered' development design in that many of the proposed lots are smaller and narrower than would normally be permitted in the RS-5 zone. This is being done to preserve various areas of open space, including the 17.2 acre sand hill (Outlot I). The three areas of 30- foot wide small-lots are one block in length. Alley access is proposed for these lots. This is consistent with the policies in the South District Plan: Improve the appearance of streetscapes by using alley access to garages. This is especially important for residential developments with narrow lots. (South District Plan) Encourage neighborhoods that support the principle of diversity of housing types and households, and provide for interaction among neighbors . . . Develop smaller lots and more common open space. (Comprehensive Plan) While the overall density is 3.15 units / acre, some variations from the standard single family dimensional requirements are proposed. The proposed variances from the RS-5 dimensional standards are: · Lots less than 8,000 square feet in size, including 71 detached townhouse-style lots (Lots 166-209, 303-329), which range in size from 3,300 sq. ft. to 6000 sq. ft. · Many lots with ~ess than 60 feet of lot width, including some with 30 feet of lot width. Related to the small lot sizes and the OPDH zoning, staff has requested building elevations and placement details for Lots 166-209 and lots 303-329, the narrow lots with alley access. The applicant has indicated that these houses may be similar to the narrow houses located on Shannon Drive and Irving Avenue. Staff's concern is that there be some variety in the rooflines and facades of these narrow houses. While building design detail is normally required at the preliminary design stage, the applicant has requested the design detai~s not be submitted until the 4 final plat stage. Given that these are single family lots and not multi-family, staff is comfortable with delaying receiving design details for these lots with some agreement that there will be some minimum design criteria such as: · A variety of facades and variation on rooflines, such as the use of gable and hip roofs, to minimize a cookie-cutter appearance - a different facade at least every third unit. · The side walls of lots 166, 183, 195, 196, 209,303, 315, 316, and 329 that face the street should include elements of the front facade. · Front porches that are at least 6 feet in depth. · Slightly staggered footprints, also to avoid a monotonous appearance. · Ten feet between buildings to meet normal setback requirements between buildings, and to allow for eaves or overhangs at the side of the buildings · Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council review of the building elevations and footprints as a condition of approval of the final plat. In addition, staff recommends the Conditional Zoning Agreement specify some criteria for garage size and placement be implemented for lots with less than 60 feet of lot width to avoid the 'garagescape' appearance along residential streets, and in order to keep the appearance consistent with a standard single family neighborhood usually present in an RS-5 zone. The garage and driveway standards (illustrated on the following page) staff is recommending are: A. The length of any garage wall that faces a street may not exceed 50 percent of the length of the street-facing building fa(;ade, as measured along the same street frontage. On corner lots, only one street-facing garage wall must meet this standard. This percentage may increase to 60 percent if the garage is set back at least 6 feet behind the longest street-facing wall of the dwelling unit. B. A street-facing garage door must be located no closer to the front lot line than the longest street-facing wall of the dwelling, with the following exception. A street-facing garage door may be located up to 6 feet in front of the longest street-facing wall of a dwelling unit, if the following conditions are met: t. There is a porch at the main entrance of the dwelling along the same street-facing wall of the dwelling as the garage door; 2. The garage door is located no closer to the front lot line than the front of the porch; 3. The porch is at least 48 square feet in area, with no dimension less than 6 feet; 4. The porch has a solid roof, the eave of which is not more than 10 feet above the floor of the porch. Staff believes that with these basic standards, the lot size and widths in this development can be reduced without sacrificing the RS-5 character of the neighborhood or the principles of the Comprehensive Plan, which encourage the development of pedestrian friendly neighborhoods with attractive streets. As discussed below under subdivision design, staff believes clustering of the 14 lots to the west of the intersection of Sandusky Drive and Covered Wagon Drive would greatly improve the overall neighborhood and OPDH design. Garage and Driveway Standards Garage I I Garage I ~Longest ~50% ~ I I 60%_ I street-facing max max I I I I II I I I II dwelling wall Street-facing Street-facing building facade building facade Standard A1 Standard A1 - alternative Garage Dwellim I I Garage _ ~Dwelling I I I ~ I Garage flush ~ ---~ Longest I ~Por~h '~r~L°ngest with dwelling I I street-facing I i street-facing wall or behind ~ dwelling wall 48 sf min I dwelling wall Ill ---- I I I I I I Street-facing Street-facing building facade building facade Standard A2 Standard A2, a-b 5 Ornate Box Turtles: This property has been a known habitat for the Ornate Box Turtle, a threatened species which is protected under Iowa Code Chapter 481B Endangered Species and Wildlife. Staff has discussed this most recent rezoning and subdivision application with the local Wildlife Biologist with the Department of Natural Resources, and he is aware of the development application. The Department of Natural Resources is aware of the proposed development on this property, and in recent years has been working with the applicant on relocating the ornate box turtle population from this property. Staff will continue to keep the Department of Natural Resources apprised of development proposals on this property. Threatened species are regulated by the State, not the City. Any development activity, even if approved by the City, will still need to be in compliance with state regulations. Gilbert Street Intersection: As part of this development, the new east-west arterial street will be established, including it's intersection with Gilbert Street. The South District Plan recommends that streets and other elements be named after historic figures important in the history of the neighborhood. Staff suggests that the arterial street be named McCollister Avenue after the McCollister Farm that was located in this area. Staff will confer with the Historic Preservation Commission regarding the appropriateness of this name. Because this segment of Gilbert Street is not yet improved to City standards, staff recommends the following condition be incorporated into the Conditional Zoning Agreement to ensure adequate infrastructure for the future population in the area: · A separate left-turn lane on Gilbert Street for southbound to eastbound traffic must be constructed before more than 25 units are constructed. This can be added to the existing roadway as a temporary feature, or can be constructed as part of the permanent improvements including a 4-lane PCC roadway with left turn lane. Staff believes that these improvements and the trail discussed below are necessary to provide adequate vehicular and pedestrian access to a subdivision of this size. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE AREAS SITE PLAN Sensitive Areas: A Sensitive Areas Site Plan is required due to the presence of hydric soils and steep slopes. A note on the plat indicates that a granular subbase and subdrain will be used beneath the pavement in areas of hydric soils. Much of the steep slope are will be preserved as part of the sand hill open space - some of the steep slopes are pad of lots 76-77 & 122 near the pond. The grading and erosion control plan is under review. Due to the presence of hydric soils and potential wetlands shown on the Sensitive Areas Map, the property was investigated for the presence of wetlands. The wetland specialist for MMS Consultants determined that while some 'wetland edge' environment exists around the man-made pond on the sand hill, the area lacks the size, wetland hydrology and connection to a waterway, and hydrophytic vegetation needed to be considered a regulated wetland. There has been considerable public discussion about the possible presence of a prairie remnant on the property, specifically a sand or xeric prairie. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance states that sensitive features governed by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance include prairie remnants as shown on the Iowa City Sensitive Areas Inventory Map - Phase I, as amended (italics added). No prairie is shown on this map for the property, therefore, even if there is a prairie remnant it cannot be 6 regulated under the Sensitive Areas Ordinance unless the Sensitive Areas Map is amended through a code amendment process. The attached memo from First Assistant Attorney Holecek goes into more detail on this conclusion. Subdivision Design: The concept behind the general design of the development is to preserve a large central open space (the sand hill), and utilizing smaller lot sizes than would normally be permitted in the standard single-family zone, so that overall density is not lost as a result of preserving open space. There are also several smaller open spaces scattered throughout the street system meant to break up the streetscape. The Arendt design commissioned by the applicant included much more of a public edge and public views into the central open space than the proposed plat, in that the east and nodh east sides of the open space were open to the street. Staff has suggested to the applicant that access and views of the open space can be enhanced without losing overall density by narrowing and clustering some of the lots adjacent to the southeast portion of Outlot I. For example an earlier design of the subdivision included 14 more 30-foot wide lots on the west side Sandusky Drive (vicinity of the currently proposed lots 210 to 214). Clustering some of the larger lots (Lots 74 to 77 and lots 120 to 124) as smaller lots in the vicinity of lots 210 to 214, would allow the opening up of the open space along Covered Wagon Drive in the spirit of the Arendt design. This would improve the overall neighborhood design making the open space more visible and accessible to the larger neighborhood rather than concealing it behind private lots. It would also place the same housing types on both sides of Sandusky Drive in this vicinity. A basic principle of zoning and neighborhood design is to place the same housing type on both sides of a street where possible. The applicant has indicated a willingness to remove lot 281 to allow better views of the open space from Settlers Road and to help make the existing pond more of a focal point for the neighborhood. The applicant has not agreed to other suggestions regarding improving access and views of the open space. The majority of the lots on the Sand Hill Estates plan are between 6,000 and 9,000 square feet, with some larger lots mixed in, as well as 71 small single family lots approximately 30 feet wide, between 3,300 and 5,000 square feet in size. Staff is recommending some design criteria for these smaller lots, as noted above. Some loop and cul-de-sac streets are proposed to be 22 feet wide due to their Iow volume nature. Staff is comfortable with the narrower width provided they are posted as one-way streets and parking is restricted to one side of the street only. Street network: The general design of the street network is an interconnected system surrounding the sand hill preserve, the 17.18 acre outlot near the center of the property. Street connections are proposed at Birch Street and Sandusky Drive on the north, Langenberg Avenue on the east, and Gilbert Street on the west. The east-west arterial and a new street will stub to the south property line. As per past practice, the City will pay the oversize cost for the collector and arterial streets. Outlot P, an outlot at the northwest side of the development, is identified as future right-of-way. The city's interest in this is that if a portion of the property to the west ever develops, it is able to have access from this property. There is some question, however, whether the property to the west will develop further due to it being associated with a historic house and property. Therefore, the right-of-way is available for a future street extension if necessary. If not used for a street 7 extension, the property will remain unpaved. The applicant has agreed to pay for a street extension through Outlot P if the property to the west develops within ten years. This will need to be specified in the legal papers at time of final plat approval. Trail and sidewalks: The applicant has agreed to construct an extension of the Iowa River Corridor Trail, that currently terminates in Napoleon Park, along the sewer easement through this property. This will be an important extension of the regional trail system. Because Gilbert Street has no sidewalks, this trail will provide pedestrians and bicyclist access to this development. There are connections between this trail and the neighborhood sidewalks shown on the preliminary plat. A sidewalk connection is also shown in Outlot O between Sandusky Drive and Settlers Road, as a means of improving pedestrian circulation at the approximate midpoint of this long block. Maintenance of these sidewalk connections will be the responsibility of adjacent lot owners or a homeowners association. Parks and Recreation staff has agreed to assume maintenance and ownership of a trail connection into Wetherby Park provided the trail connection is constructed to City standards. The specific location of this connection has not yet been determined. The applicant has agreed to construct a trail connection to Wetherby Park provided the City assumes ownership and maintenance of it. Open Space: As per the city's open space requirement, 2.6 acres of open space are required for this development. The applicant is proposing to dedicate approximately 17.4 acres of open space to the City, the 17.2 acre central open space (Outlot I) and a 0.2 acre outlot (Outlot K) at the northeast corner of the property to become part of Wetherby Park. At it's September 10 meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission agreed to accept this open space as public open space. The remaining open space outlots will need to be maintained by a homeowners association. Related to the central open space, representatives from the Pepperwood neighborhood association have requested there be a written agreement to allow burning on the central open space, either by the City or another entity. Once this open space becomes controlled by the City it will be up to the Parks and Recreation Department to manage this property. The neighborhood association has also requested a fence or other demarcation be placed around this central open space to prevent encroachment be construction equipment - the applicant is not opposed to this. Also, the neighborhood association has requested to be allowed to remove certain prairie plants from the area to be developed - the applicant has agreed to work with interested parties to allow them to move plants prior to construction provided this does not delay development. Outlot C is a strip of open space at the rear of Lots 51-60 & 86 in between the rear lot line and the east-west arterial street. Without this strip of open space, Lots 51-60 & 86 are double-fronting lots. Double fronting lots are discouraged in the subdivision regulations due to the lack of privacy provided to rear yards, and the propensity for tall fences to be erected along the rear yards, creating a 'tunnel effect' along the arterial street. Staff has requested and the applicant has agreed to landscaping in Outlot C, a mixture of coniferous and deciduous species, to help screen the rear yards from the arterial street traffic. Archeological sites: the applicant commissioned an archeological study in 2002, completed by the Louis-Berger Group in October 2002. No previously unrecorded prehistoric or historic archeological sites were found on the property. Artifacts from one previously recorded site were recovered; the site had previously been determined to be not eligible for listing within the National Register of Historic Places. The conclusion of the archeological study is that no further exploration 8 can be recommended. Stormwater Management: A system of stormwater basins is proposed along the north and east portions of the property, directing and regulating stormwater as it makes its way toward a basin established in Southpoint Addition. Stormwater basins are also proposed at the southwest corner of the property in order to capture runoff from the southwest 1/3 of the development. Stormwater calculations and the basin design are under review by Engineering staff. Tap on fees: Fees of $395 / acre are required for the water main tap-on fee. Fees of $1,796.50 / acre will be required for portions of the development served by the South Sycamore Trunk Sewer. Summary: The applicant has made an effort to complete a subdivision design that sets aside much of the sand hill area, incorporates open spaces into the street network, and meets many of the goa~s of the Comprehensive Plan. The street network and sidewalk and trail connections will help integrate this neighborhood with the regional trail and sidewalk network. Staff is confident that this will become a valuable addition to the South District. However because of the way in which the subdivision design has evolved, some of the principles of the Arendt design - access and views of the open space - has been lost. Clustering more of the lots on the edge of the open space would allow the subdivision to have greater public views and access to the central open space, an important aspect of conservation design. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ03-0002(~, a request for a rezoning of 119.94 acres from ID-RS, Interim Development Single-Family and ID-RM, Interim Development Multi-Family, to OPDH-5, Planned Development Overlay-Single-Family Residential, be deferred to allow discussion of the cluster of units to open access and views of the open space on the north side of Covered Wagon Drive. Upon resolution of this neighborhood and OPDH design concern Staff would recommend approved, subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement with the following conditions: 1. A separate left-turn lane on Gilbert Street for southbound to eastbound traffic must be constructed before more than 25 units are constructed. This can be added to the existing roadway as a temporary feature, or can be constructed as part of the permanent improvements including a 4-lane PCC roadway with left turn lane. 2. For lots with less than 60 feet of lot width the flowing shall apply: A. The length of any garage wall that faces a street may not exceed 50 percent of the length of the street-facing building fa(;ade, as measured along the same street frontage. On corner lots, only one street-facing garage wall must meet this standard. This percentage may increase to 60 percent if the garage is set back at least 6 feet behind the longest street-facing wall of the dwelling unit. B. A street-facing garage door must be located no closer to the front lot line than the longest street-facing wall of the dwelling, with the following exception. A street-facing garage door may be located up to 6 feet in front of the longest street-facing wall of a dwelling unit, if the following conditions are met: 1. There is a porch at the main entrance of the dwelling along the same street-facing wall of the dwelling as the garage door; 2. The garage door is located no closer to the front lot line than the front of the porch; 9 3. The porch is at least 48 square feet in area, with no dimension less than 6 feet; 4. The porch has a solid roof, the eave of which is not more than 10 feet above the floor of the porch. 3. Vehicular access to Lots 166-209, 303-329 shall be from the alley. 4. The design of the homes on Lots 166-209, 303-329 be subject to Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council approval, along with the final plat according to the following criteria: a. A variety of facades and variation on rooflines, such as the use of gable and hip roofs, to minimize a cookie-cutter appearance - a different facade at least every third unit. b. The side walls of lots 166, 183, 195, 196, 209,303, 315, 316, and 329 that face the street should include elements of the front fa(;ade. c. Front porches that are at least 6 feet in depth. d. Slightly staggered footprints, also to avoid a monotonous appearance. e. Ten feet between buildings to meet normal setback requirements between buildings, and to allow for eaves or overhangs at the side of the buildings f. Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council review of the building elevations and footprints as a condition of approval of the final plat. Staff recommends SUB03-00028, a Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Site Plan, be deferred, pending resolution of the deficiencies and discrepancies below. Upon resolution of these deficiencies and discrepancies, staff recommends that SUB03-00028, a preliminary plat and sensitive areas site plan of Sand Hill Estates, a 146.48 acre, 378-1ot subdivision located east of Gilbert Street, south of Pepperwood Addition, be approved. DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES: 1. Staff approval of the stormwater basin system - this is currently under review 2. Agreement on the location of a trail connection into Wetherby Park. Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development Attachments ~ ~ ~ "~, ~: :xSubdivision RFB '~,,~ '~~ Rezoning & H _ ",,, ~ ~ Subdivision , /~11~11 I1~//////////~ ,, ', ',, ~,, ~ I I ,' / I I ~ ,, ', ,,, SITE LOCATION: Sandusky Dr. S~BO3-OOO28/BfiZ03-O0020 ~. ~'I~;LIMINARY PLAT & SENSITIVE AREAS SITE PLAN --'-'mFz:--- ~ , - ..... ~ SANDHILL ESTATES ~'~ : :'-q; .~ .~ ~~~ . -~ ' . =..~ . ~ · . .. ~ __ .... ~- __ ~ I :~:~ .,~ ....... · '. ._ -,-,-~z City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM January 31,2002 To: Zoning Code Interpretation File Re: Applicability of Sensitive Area Ordinance (SAO) Prairie Remnant Regulations The question raised was the applicability of the SAO prairie remnant regulations to property south of the Pepperwood Addition and east of Gilbert Street, which is referred to as Napolean Heights. Evidence has been presented to the City that prairie remnants of one acre or more may or do exist in this area. The initial question is not the existence of the remnants but assuming their presence, whether the SAO regulations apply in this location. Section 14-6K-1C addresses the applicability of the ordinance. Subsection one speaks to the necessity of a Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone when certain sensitive features exist. Prairie remnants are not listed. Subsection two addresses those instances in which the lesser level of review is required, namely a Sensitive Areas Site Plan. Prairie remnants of one acre in area or larger are listed. Subsection three outlines the" Sensitive features governed by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance..." In this listing, subsection 7, are "Prairie remnants as shown on the Iowa City Sensitive Areas Inventory Map-Phase I, as amended." Of all the features listed in 14-6K-1 .C.3.a, prairie remnants are the only feature qualified by reference to the Sensitive Areas Inventory Map; some other features are qualified by other references. In reviewing minutes of the committee which drafted the SAO, it appears there was concern that other prairie remnants that were not presently shown on the map be able to be included within the applicability of the ordinance, but that such inclusion would occur through an amendment to the map rather than through any other process. Since the language in the ordinance as drafted and adopted included specific reference to the Map, it is the Panel's conclusion the Sensitive Areas Ordinance prairie remnant regulations apply only to those prairie remnants on the map and that in order for the SAO to apply in Napolean Heights an amendment to the map would need to be considered and adopted through the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. ek, s omey ~3 '~ ~ ~ (~ ~, ~.~.Zoning Cod~ on--Prairie Remnants-January.., 31, 2002 Douglas B ~thro~,, Dir~tor, HIS '~ ~-?aJin Frankli~n, ~D 2 Written public input received related to Sandhill Estates Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and Sensitive Areas Site Plan ..... Original Message ..... sent: M~r~(Jay, October 13, 2003 2:30 PM To: planningzoning~iowa-citv.org Subject: comments on sandhill estates Dear Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission, There has been alot of good work done relative to Southgate's development proposal from people in the Weatherby and Pepperwood neighborhoods. I don't know if the same advocacy has been made relative to the west side of the development, that is, the land from the top of the ridge west to Sand Road. It's an unpopulated area, yet it's the appearance of this side that will impact the entry-way to Iowa City on Sand Road, in an area bursting with recreational potential for the community at large. I hope Planning and Zoning has tried to get a feel for the big picture as they approach voting on this proposal, and have been aware of the following. · The South District Plan is full of references to the desirability of someday having the S & G Quarry land be considered for public use. This option is not years off. Manager of S & G Maury Sass told me the area will be mined out this coming spring. Many of the slopes have already been reclaimed, and they expect the land to be on the market in 2-3 years. · Terry Trueblood at Parks & Rec told me that it was his impression that there is still a possibility the McCollister property may be donated to the city. In my opinion, an unattractive development on the land from the ridge west to Sand Road would be a shame, considering the over-all potential of that area. I hope that Planning & Zoning considers the big picture along the Sand Road area, and moves carefully in what it approves for this area of the development. Sincerely, Dave Moore Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shoppinq.yahoo.com ..... Original Message ..... IF~: sa~ah~wai~ui~ edu r~ii~!~i'ah ~wai~uiowa ed a~ Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 11:39 AM To: plan ninqzonin.q~,iowa-city.or.q Subject: Sand Prairie Dear Commissioners: I am concerned that there may have been some misinterpretation of something I said at the last P&Z meeting. Namely the issue of how the Sand Prairie Park will be used by the public. I perhaps misunderstood what Mr. Shannon meant when he asked, "Will people be allowed to tramp around the park?" I thought he was asking whether people would be allowed to use the park--as in having physical access to the land. The Parks and Recreation commission is working closely with the Concerned Citizens for the Sand Prairie. The park concept they have proposed is one in which people will have access to the natural area for passive recreation via trails. Trails seem to be a good option for giving folks access to a natural park while guiding them away from particularly sensitive areas. Of course we would never advocate that people and animals have free run of the park, and, hopefully, the establishment of the prairie, with its longer grasses will discourage "tramping" off the trails. I am sure there will be a considerable amount of thought and discussion of this issue within Parks and Rec. My own personal feeling is that the single loaded road provides both physical and visual access that are important to making a park (even a nature preserve such as this) a public amenity. (We want people to know about this park and know how to get to it.) I also think it fosters community ownership of the park and a greater willingness to protect and care for the park (more eyes watching over it more hands maintaining it)--something that I think is lacking when the access is restricted by private property. Secondly, one P&Z commissioner asked whether the Parks and Recreation Department might consider purchasing additional land for the Sand Prairie. The current City budget reflects that Parks and Recreation funds for land acquisition have been eliminated--that is, nearly all of these funds were reallocated by the City to make up for the budget shortfall this year. The small amount that remains, something in the neighborhood of $50,000, has already been earmarked for a parks master plan. Though we may have money in the future, there is no budget for land acquisition in the near term. I also thought it might be helpful to forward to you the letter that I sent to Terry Trueblood regarding the Sand Praire. Terry has indicated that he will add this to our P&R agenda. Here is the letter: Terry: Late last week I was contacted by Amy Bouska with a concern about the Sand Prairie park issue. Her concern is the developer's current plan to double load the street that would otherwise run along the future park (I believe it is Covered Wagon Road). Obviously, the folks in the Sand Prairie group have some concerns about this with regard to environmental issues, but I think there is an important park design and maintenance issue that deserves consideration as well. A double loaded road that creates a park border surrounded by houses means that there is less access (physical and visual) to the park. In other words, the park will look and act as more of a private feature rather than a public (neighborhood and community) open space. Secondly, the single loaded road would serve the issue of fire maintenance better since the road would act as an additional fire break, if private residences abutt the park, the issue of fire becomes more politically contentious, especially if homeowners are unaware of the maintenance regime before they purchase their homes. I think the city has a number of good examples of lovely parks on single loaded streets--Willow Creek and the future Peninsula Park come to mind. I think it is important to note that the plan that the developer presented to the neighborhood a year ago showed a single loaded road along the park. it is also wodh noting that the developer can make up for the removal of at least 5-7 of the lots by shifting them to other areas of the design plan--this is what is being worked on now. I have discussed this briefly with Judith Klink who may be calling you sometime today. Of course I realize this is coming at the 11th hour--the P&Z work session is tonight with a possible vote on thursday (the vote may be delayed due to some other issues with the developers's plan). I am willing to do whatever I can to help with this if it something that the commission can and wishes to voice an opinion on. Sarah Walz Park and Recreation Commission John Yap}) From: Bob Miklo Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 5:15 PM To: John Yapp Subject: FW: Sandprairie development ..... Original Message ..... From: Steve Nelson [mailto:snelson@mozart. peds.uiowa.edu] Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 4:44 PM To: planningzoning@iowa-city.org; Bob-Miklo@iowa-city.org Cc: steven-nelson@uiowa.edu Subject: Sandprairie development To: Members of Planning and Zoning Commission and City Staff Several issues and concerns regarding Southgate' proposed development in the South District need to be addressed. The South District plan guidelines adopted in 1997 makes numerous mention of the environmentally sensitive area now known as the Sand Prairie. Indeed, it is specifically noted as open space on the recommended land use map. The known archeological sites at that time include Site No. 13JH251, 13JH292, 13JH293, and 13JH716 on the State Archaeology Iowa Site File. In addition, page 3, paragraph 4, states: "As the South District continues to grow, it is important to preserve links to the early history of the area, including the remaining elements of the McCollister-Showers farmstead and significant archaeological discoveries. Naming important elements of the new neighborhoods, such as streets, the elementary school, and parks, after early settlers and Native Americans, who lived in this area, will serve to remind future generations of the important history of the district." With this background in mind and with the persistent urging of South District residents, Southgate Development contracted with Randall Arendt to help design a development to preserve a portion of this area as open space. One element of this "conservation design" was the use of single-loaded streets near the open space to promote a open, uncongested and welcoming view to all residents and public wishing to share in the archaeological, environmental and historical treasure of the area. The additional lots placed on the pride land in this proposal defeat this concept. Lots located on the prairie interfere with and present obstacles to the preservation of this natural asset. The simple act of residents throwing garden refuse and grass clippings over their back fence onto the prairie must be zealously avoided. Keeping houses off of the pride and across a street will alleviate potential conflicts with residents in the area. Land development is by its nature speculation. Southgate purchased the McCollister-Showers property for development. They should have known that the Sand Prairie area was to be open space if they did any research at all of the area. When first confronted by concerned citizens, Southgate offered to sell the area. Later, they retracted the offer, used Randall Arendt to create a development concept using the open space to bargain with the city for higher housing density. Now they are proposing further deviations from Arendt's concept for more housing because they are setting 1 aside more open space than is required. Stop! The fact that the city and community is willing to negotiate any development on the prairie is a gift to Southgate Development. It is NOT a bargaining chip for Southgate's use to negotiate higher density zoning and greater number of housing units. It is a GIFT from the community to Southgate for unimpeded access and view of the prairie area and it NOT to be negotiated away. Further, Southgate has not closely followed the guidelines of the South District plan to name streets after early settlers and Native Americans. Two streets, McCollister Court and Powashiek Drive, are merely tokens acknowledging the district guidelines and fall short of compliance. I am very wary of the intent to make the homeowners association responsible for the maintenance of the stormwater areas. As of two weeks ago, designs and engineering specifications of the stormwater basins was incomplete or non-existent. It was unclear if there would be wet- or dry-bottom basins, or both. For several years, residents along Sandusky Drive in the Pepperwood addition have pleaded with city officials to alleviate flooding problems in the neighborhood, including using the stormwater basin east of Keokuk St between Sandusky and Cross Park to hold excess stormwater from the retention area. The city engineering staff has consistently refused to consider this idea citing concerns for maintenance if the area is wet and liability concerns for open, standing water. It is unreasonable and unfair to ask homeowners to assume responsibilities that the city itself deems unacceptable. The association should have a supervisory roll in the required management of the stormwater areas, but the maintenance responsibility should remain with the developer or with the city. The homeowners have no input into the design of the stormwater systems and it is NOT their responsibility to maintain. Stormwater management is a major concern in new developments (or certainly should be). Of particular concern is management of stormwater in areas near or on steep slopes. Previous Southgate development in the South district (Pepperwood) and in west Iowa City (near Walden Place) have had problems because the development design did not protect homes and apartments from runoff from hillsides. This problem is not unique to Southgate's developments or any other developments in Iowa City. It happens to many developments in areas all over the world. Rainwater has been known to flow downhill over steep slopes for millenia. But some of housing developments occur without anticipating this phenomenon. In the current proposal, some of the lots 1-78 are particularly vulnerable. The peak of the sand prairie is about 700 ft elevation. McCollister Court is about 665 ft with the front of the houses facing uphill. The rear of the lots are at about 650 ft elevation. Thus the lots are on a 10% slope, and face uphill even steeper slope. The sand prairie is a very unique soil of extreme rarity in Iowa and probably little is known of its hydrological properties concerning water runoff. No engineer can state with certainty, if or if not, stormwater runoff will be a continuing concern to the residents west of the prairie's ridge. What can be stated with more conviction however is that if the stormwater management system is built between the base of the slope and the houses, water runoff can be dealt with and controlled. Thus, the stormwater basins should be built at the base of the hill, along the sewer trunk easement, and the homes should be built west of the sewer trunk closer to Sand Road. It may be without precedent in the Iowa City area, but I strongly feel that independent review and oversight of this development is needed. This oversight is needed for both the city specifications and requirements as well as Southgate's proposals. A brief background of the Pepperwood developments illustrates my. point. The initial development of Pepperwood neighborhood began in the late 70's or very early 1980's west of Taylor Dr 2 including the 900, 1000, and 1100 blocks of Sandusky Dr and south including the Pepper and Briar Dr. homes. In order to avert having to install a large stormwater line to carry stormwater from the Hollywood subdivision, Southgate and the city staff co-designed the city's first "storm-water retention area". It soon became apparent it was a inappropriate and inadequate design. Southgate soon claimed they were not responsible because the city signed-off on the design, and later excused their lack of responsibility because the city made them accept the design even though Southgate objected that it wouldn't work. It didn't work, and it still doesn't. Raspberries to the city engineering staff and Southgate for their design and construction expertise. Phase II, extension of Sandusky Dr west to Keokuk St. and areas south. Two problems developed. The sanitary sewer system along Sandusky Dr. was inadequate in design, lacked sufficient capacity, failed, and had to be replaced when itwas less than 10 years old. Raspberries to city and Southgate engineers and designers. Taxpayers have to pick-up the tab. Homeowners along the 800 and 700 blocks of Sandusky Dr. experience flooding from water runoff down the slope from the south. Raspberries to Southgate for failure to create stormwater protection. Due to the 'Floods of 1993' and the wet conditions of that summer, less than 10 years old, large sections of the sanitary sewer system of upper Pepperwood needed replacement because the sandy subsoil of the area became saturated and too unstable to support the sewer lines. Reconstruction required relocating the lines sometimes as deep as 16 feet below street level to provide firm soil to support the sewer infrastructure: Raspberries again to Southgate and city engineers for lacking expertise in designing and constructing important infrastructure components in fragile environments. Four raspberries, but I hold a kudoo in reserve for the Phase Ill development including the Birch Street and Sandusky Dr access into the proposed new development. I am unaware of flawed engineering or design weaknesses on flat or gently sloping terrain in western Pepperwood. I do not mean to imply any wrong-doing on the part of city staff or Southgate Development. The history of the prior development in the South District does suggest a pattern of inadequate expertise by city staff and perhaps Southgate engineers, as well as a pattern where cost efficiency and cost containment have eroded the concept of sound and adequate engineering approach to land development. Page 3, Appendix A, of the South District Plan recognizes the challenges of development in the Sycamore West area. "Areas of hydric soils that are not wetlands can be developed, but may require special construction practices for streets, structures and stormwater management facilities." "Because a preponderance of the soils in this area are subject to ponding, wetness, poor drainage and high water capacities, planning for adequate drainage and stormwater management for this area will be needed prior to development." I see little of this advice applied to the proposed development. No specifications other than standard city code are applied to the street or sewer construction specifications. No justification and defense ofthe proposed stormwater management areas is given. No risk management assessment of stormwater issues are addressed. The guidelines and advisories of the South District Plan are ignored by developer and city. I am not opposed to Southgate being allowed to develop again in the South District. I insist that Southgate and Iowa City not be given another 'chance' to create substandard development. After city and Southgate agree on design and construction specifications, an independent review by qualified staff of an outside firm, at Iowa City's expense, should be mandated and adherence to the South District special guidelines and advisories be explicitly followed, defended, and enforced. 3 Finally, housing design issues need to be addressed. As stated in the South District Plan (page 7, paragraph 1) "As housing density increases and lot sizes are reduced, attention will need to be paid to design issues, such as garage and driveway locations, to assure that the new neighborhoods are attractive and livable." This especially applies to the proposed development east and north of the sand prairie. The higher density allowance is a gift to Southgate Development by the citizens of Iowa City and should not be abused due to corporate greed. Ignoring for the moment lots 1-78 west of the Sand Prairie (which need redesign and relocation due to stormwater issues), there are 22 or fewer of the proposed 300 lots which are larger than 8600 sq ft., 7.33%. Over 92% of the single-family lots are smaller than ID-RS5 or average OPDH-5 density allowances. The majority of these lots fall into three categories: 50-52 ft frontage, 44 ft frontage and 30 ft frontage with similar lot sizes with minimal deviation in each category - cookie cutter houses. As lot sizes decrease, so does the number of housing types than can be built leading to even greater monotony in housing design. Because this proposed South District development is so large, it needs greater diversity in single-family, Iow to medium density multifamily, townhouse and duplex style housing in a compatible mix to meet the design guidelines of the South District Plan. A mixture of upscale and affordable housing is needed to attract people to this South District neighborhood. People should WANT to live in this area, not because there is a large number of affordable or Section 8 housing. A block of rowhouses would be preferable to a block of small identical 1200 sq ft houses. A block of garages with small houses sticking up in back would not entice people to stay and create a real neighborhood. It would encourage a transient group of first-time home buyers eager to establish equity and then move into "a real house, in a real neighborhood." Since this large development will define the new South District, it needs to attract short and long term inhabitants. It needs variety. It needs diversity. It needs to be the ideal embodiment of the neighborhoods envisioned in South District Plan. Its design will impact all future growth of the district. It needs to be creatively bold in defining new neighborhoods for the future of Iowa City. The present development offers little of that vision with its limited housing designs. In summary, the present proposal fails to promote the archeological, historical and enviromentally sensitive assets of this area. It fails to provide the recommended special requirements for construction in its hydric and special soils. It fails to assess and specify the needed stormwater managements requirements of the South District Plan. Although it may technically meet the housing requirements of the district plan it does not in any consistent manner promote the neighborhood guidelines proposed in the district plan. It needs refinement and detail before it is acceptable for a rezoning approval. --Steven Nelson 1033 Sandusky Drive 354-1762 (home, eve) 356-7202 (work, day) September 26, 2003 To: Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission Subject: Sandhill Estates Dear Commission: After reviewing the latest proposed revision of the Sandhill Estates development, I have the following concerns: 1. The lot sizes for the development are consistently smaller than those in the surrounding neighborhoods - with these small lot sizes, it was my initial understanding that the trade-off was to preserve more open space and protection of the prairie remnant that exist on the site. The streets adjacent the prairie should not be double loaded. 2. The stormwater detention basins should be designed in a manner that would provide permanent storage for runoff water instead of a dry basin that would have greater maintenance and a potential unattractive look within the proposed development and the surrounding neighborhood. A properly designed detention pond (with well planned buffers and open space surrounding it) also adds an additional feature to the site that would provided multiple benefits including improved water quality, wildlife habitat, and aesthetic value for the entire neighborhood. 3. The narrow proposed townhouse lots are located in a place that destroys natural vistas available to existing residents in the surrounding neighborhood. I feel that the Iowa City has done a great job in trying to get input on this project and presenting the planned information to the community. I thought there were some very positive aspects that came out of the public meetings, and the design assistance provided by Randal Arendt. The major points of some of those meeting are being left out of this latest plan. Please give citizen input an opportunity to truly have a role in setting an example and standard on how win - win development should work in a community. It all boils down to adhering to the original intent of the South District's Plan- OPEN SPACE should be maintained as proposed. People want to enjoy their homes in a development that does not create or accelerate environmental problems, but rather protects/prevents them from occurring. Let's get it right this time. Sincerely, bSf) Wendell Jones September 26, 2003 Dear Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission, Sandhill Estates is one of the largest proposed developments in recent years. This development will have profound effects on the South District. Over the past two years, I have worked alongside my neighbors to help integrate the principles of the South District plan into the proposed development. Much progress has been made. Southgate's hiring of Randall Arendt to create a conservation subdivision design was the catalyst to progress. However, I recommend you defer the application until the following two issues are resolved. 1. Conservation subdivisions preserve large open spaces by clustering homes and creating smaller lots. Open space is strategically placed throughout the entire development so all homes can experience the vistas and have accessibility. Arendt's original plan (that was presented at the neighborhood meetings) utilized single loaded roads along Outlot I. That way, everyone, no matter the size or location of the lot, had access to the vistas. The current plan has double loaded streets, along Outlot I, which restrict the vistas to a select few homes. For conservation subdivisions to be successful, the smaller lots must have access to the vistas. Single loaded streets will also serve as natural firebreaks needed for the long-term maintenance of the restored/reconstructed prairie areas. The single loaded streets will also provide a definitive border helping avoid mowing or chemical spraying in the prairie areas by adjacent homeowners. Lots 74-77 and 120-124 along Covered Wagon Drive and 210-214 and 281- 289 along Sandusky Drive should be removed to create single loaded streets reflecting Arcndt's original plan. To remedy the removal of lots, density should be transferred to Outlot A along Gilbert Street. The South District Plan designates Outlot A for higher density. Transferring density to reestablish single loaded streets would help create a win-win situation. Everyone in the neighborhood would be able to experience the vistas and have accessibility to the open space and Southgate would be able to achieve their density. 2. The design of the homes and garages is critical to the overall appearance and atmosphere of the neighborhood. Garages should not dominate the streetscape. Design standards should be incorporated with this development proposal to ensure that this doesn't happen. The OPDH-5, Planned Development Overlay-Single-Family Residential classification allows you flexibility to make changes to the current plan for a reason. This is a large development with a mixture of RS-5 and RS-8 lots. Please give this conservation subdivision a chance to be successful. Defer this application until the vistas have been restored and building design standards are established. Sincerely, ~ka 1049 Briar Drive September 25, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Iowa City Iowa City, Iowa Dear Members of the Commission, 1 am writing to you in regards to the planned housing development Sandhill Estates, which is currently under your consideration. I am recommending that you defer approval of this proposal until two key aspects are rectified. The first aspect that will be critical to the future of this new neighborhood is the current lack of public vistas of the proposed preserved portion of the existing sand prairie that is within this development~ When it became clear that only a portion of this rare natural resource could be saved, a conservation subdivision design was proposed to and accepted by Southgate Development Corporation. This type of development design is ideal for land that has significant and valuable natural features and allows for development to proceed while maintaining these features. Allowing these features to be preserved enhances the development that surrounds them, improving marketability and value, adding to visual attractiveness and enhancing quality of life for the people who live in and around these neighborhoods. The noted conservation subdivision designer, Randall Arendt, created a plan for Sandhill Estates that did an excellent job (except that he did not have a critical environmental study of the sand prairie) of meeting all the criteria for such a design. This plan was presented by Southgate to the neighborhood as their intended development proposal. However, the current plan has been significantly altered from Mr. Arendt's plan. Single-load streets around the proposed prairie are critical to making the shifted densities attractive and marketable. Smaller lots and houses that are closely spaced must have open vistas to offset what would otherwise be a congested and hemmed-in feel to the neighborhood. This type of design must have all features in place for it to work as a whole concept. Leaving certain features out, such as critical vistas of the open spaces, is not optional. I wish to see Mr. Arendt's original concept restored; specifically lots numbered 281-289, 210-214, 120-124 and 74-77 should be removed. If these vistas are not restored, this new neighborhood is in danger of being less desirable to the public as single family housing. I fear that high turnover in this new- neighborhood and a reversion to rental housing wilt be a real possibility if single family-owned homes are not marketable. This will have a long-term impact on the surrounding neighborhoods as well. The South District cannot be allowed to deteriorate any further in this regard. The second key aspect that must be resolved also relates to a key feature of conservation subdivision design. Housing types and appearances must be carefully planned and regulated in order for the smaller lots to work. Every effort must be made to avoid a "row house" type of appearance in these neighborhoods. Again, houses that have garages that are set back or are within the main footprint of the house, ensure that the overall appearance of the neighborhood is visually appealing. Individual styles and features of each house are also critical to the overall feeling of being in an interesting and varied neighborhood. These specifications must be part of the planned development before it is approved. I believe that this development is the first test of the strength of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission can play a key role in communicating to area developers that the Comprehensive Plan must be taken into consideration and followed with respect to any new development in our community. Please do not approve Sandhill Estates until these two critical issues are resolved. Respectfully, en L. Dawes 1055 Briar Drive (Pepperwood neighborhood homeowner since 1987) From: Bob Miklo Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 12:45 PM To: John Yapp Subject: FW: Comments on Sandhill Estates Importance: High ..... Original Message ..... IF~om! Jim QuigieY [maiiteiiaui~leV~va;l~ni~etl; sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 12:32 PM To: plan ninqzonin q~.iowa-city.orq Subject: Comments on Sandhill Estates Importance: High September 25, 2003 Dear Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission, As a member of the Pepperwood neighborhood, I have been following Southgate Development's various plans for the land they purchased in the South District in 2001, now called Sandhill Estates. Many people believe it was a shame that ten years ago the City did not acquire, at agricultural prices, the land containing the Sand Hill Prairie. I would hate to hear people say ten years from now that it was a shame that the City allowed Southgate to do this, or it's too bad that Southgate didn't do that. I want to see Southgate's plans conform as close as is feasible to the original vision expressed in the City's South District Plan. I don't do this in a spirit of nit-picking or in a quest for perfection. I believe that tweaking these plans will improve this new neighborhood. Discussing these details of the development is like paying attention to the finishing work on a new house. Getting the last finishing touches right will greatly add to the feel of the neighborhood instead of detracting from it. I was very pleased that Southgate had the imagination to employ Randall Arendt to design a plan for the subdivision which preserved a sizeable portion of the sand hill, as an open space, through the clustering homes and reducing of lot sizes. I was disappointed that Arendt's concept plan was not based on a plant inventory. I suspect that Randall's choice of the location of the preserved section of the sand hill was based mainly on the visual aspects of the open space. This creates the problem that some of the best areas containing prairie remnants could be developed instead of preserved. To mitigate this, I'd like Southgate to allow plant rescue throughout the entire sand hill, so that any remnants could be saved. Having a land management plan in place before construction actually begins seems essential. Arendt's plan was unveiled at a meeting in August 2002. I think that even the neighbors who were disappointed that more of the sand prairie wasn't preserved were generally happy that the Arendt design would make this subdivision quite livable. The combination of a significant amount of open space, public accessibility to that space and the visibility of that space by many of the smaller lots contributed to that sense of livability. However, the most recent version of the plan contains a change for the worse. Dropping the amount of open space from Arendt's plan by about three acres is disappointing. More serious is the fact that the extra houses that encroach on the prairie hill will reduce public accessibility of the space and the visibility of the space for many lots. I also worry it will make managing the prairie hill with burns more difficult. If my house was next to the prairie, I would certainly feel more comfortable durin9 a prairie burn to have some concrete, either a sidewalk or a street, as a barrier between my yard and the burning area. The current plan before the City has improved dramatically over the past two years and I applaud Southgate's and the City's efforts. I feel that these final improvements follow the vision of the South District Plan and will make this a great instead of just a good neighborhood to live in. Sincerely, Jim Quigley Jim Quigley, 915 Pepper Drive, Iowa City, IA 52240-2210 phone:319-338-4958 email address <mailto:iqui~lley~.avalon.net> Other email address <mailto:iames john quiqle¥~,¥ahoo.com> John Yapp From: Bob Miklo Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 12:10 PM To: John Yapp Subject: FW: Sand Prairie Importance: High ..... Original Message ..... From: I. nugent [mailto:lynne-nugent@uiowa.edu] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 9:40 AM To: plan ningzoning@iowa-city.org Subject: Sand Prairie Importance: High Dear Planning and Zoning Commission: I am concerned about the Sandhill Estates development, which will be discussed at your meeting October 2. The design has changed from what was presented to community members wishing to preserve the sand prairie, and what was designed by conservation designer Randall Arendt. Please keep the plan that allows all to enjoy the open space. How ironic it would be if "Sandhill Estates" destroyed the actual sandhill! Yet, this is an all too common irony these days in many communities. Here is a chance to do something to show that it doesn't have to be that way, that allows everyone to win, and that helps preserve Iowa City's unique features. Thank you for your attention, Lynne Nugent 719 Streb St. Iowa City, IA 52246 CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR SAND PRAIRIE PRESERVATION "£eavi a £eflacy" htt?:l/wwwjccniowa.orfl/-$an~£rai September 15, 2003 Dear Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission, In response to the original development plan that was submitted in 2001, we have spent the last two years working with Southgate Development, the City of Iowa City, neighbors, and the community to incorporate the philosophies of the South District Plan into the proposed Sand Hill Estates. We applaud the efforts of Southgate for employing Randall Arendt to create a conservation subdivision for this property. The conservation subdivision design allows for the preservation of larger open space areas by clustering homes and reducing lot sizes. Although Arendt's conceptual plan was not based on a plant inventory and some of the proposed open space contained areas of known land disturbance, the proposal more closely followed the South District Plan. The plan dated 6/12/03, currently before Planning and Zoning contains a majOr difference from Arendt's plan that we would like to see resolved. Arendt's plan called for single loaded streets (houses only on one side of the road) in strategic areas along the main open space which is now called Outlot I. The single loaded streets played an important role in creating vistas for the clustered areas of the development. This gave homeowners a sense of open space despite the smaller lots. Although the proposed double loading of Streets only reduces the amount of open space from Arendt's plan by three acres, the toss of the vistas makes smaller lots less desirable and reduces public accessibility. Clustering only wOrks if all homeowners can see and sense the open space. The current plan does not provide the necessary vistas to mitigate the smaller lots. Double loading also removes a "natural" firebreak for future prairie restoration and reconstruction activities. Controlled burns and tree removal are critical components in prairie restoration projects--espeCiallY in~e crime of Sand Hill Estates where grazing has occurred. Outlot I will continue to degrade wi~hottt reintroduction of fire and removal of invasive tree species. Without g6ntrolled burng and ~ee r~em~0val, prairie efforts will be greatly hindered if not impolitic We recognize that those uninfom~d ab0ut prairie rest6rati6~ may ¢~tiengo the necessity of tree removal and controlled bums. Therefore, prior to the City's acceptance of Outlot I, we request there be a written agreement between Southgate and the City to allow for ~ Printed on recycled, 30 fi post consumer paper. Concerned Citizens for Sand Prairie Preservation tree removal and controlled burus subject to approval of the fire department staff and development of a land management plan. We also request that a written land management plan be developed for Outlot I. Because of the size and uniqueness of the natural area, it is essential that a management plan be developed with the assistance of our group and other natural resource professionals. Finally, prior to any land disturbance on this property, we request that plant rescue be allowed in areas where disturbance will occur and that the area to be preserved is clearly marked by fencing to prevent construction damage. Active monitoring during construction will also be needed to ensure that construction equipment does not damage preservation areas. The current plan before you has changed dramatically over the past two years. We acknowledge Southgate's and the City's efforts to make these changes happen. We believe our requests outlined above will help the proposed plan follow the spirit of the South District Plan and leave a legacy for future generations to enjoy. Sincerely, Amy Bouska Karen Dawes Dave Klockau Lori Klockau Steven Nelson Jim Quigley CC: Southgate Development HOLLAND & ANDERSON LLP ¢. Joseph Holland jholland~icialaw.com 123 N. Linn St., Suite 300 P.O. Box 2820 Lars G. Anderson Iowa City, IA 52244-2820 landerson~icialaw.com Phone: (319) 354-0331 LeAnn Heun Fax: (319) 354-0559 lheun~icialaw.com December 31, 2003 City Council Members Ci~ of Iowa Ci~ 410 E. Washington Street Iowa Ci~, IA 52240 Dear Council Member: I represent Southgate Development which is the subdivider of Sandhill Estates. With this letter I m sending you some information about that subdivision. Over the course of three years, the subdivision has moved from concept to nearly complete agreement between the subdivider and the Ci~ staffupon a prelimina~ plat which can be recommended to the Council for approval. There remains an area of disagreement over cegain design restrictions on housing on ce~ain lots within the subdivision. I am sending you the enclosure to help you beaer understand the issues that will come before you next Tuesday evening at the public hearing. CJH:ses ~Y~~ Enc. cc: Glenn Siders SANDHILL ESTATES January 2004 Sandhill Estates is a proposed residential development in south Iowa City. The Preliminary Plat will come before the City Council for a public hearing on January 6, 2004. The City staff and the Subdivider have come to agreement on nearly all aspects of the proposed subdivision. There is a division of opinion and position upon proposed design restrictions applying to certain lots and houses in the subdivision. On the following pages you will see illustrations of a bit of the history of this proposed subdivision, as well as material relating to the lingering issue of design restrictions. Those are: A preliminary plat showing development of the property with no reservation of prairie open space as is included in the plat pending for approval. This plat complies with City requirements in the RS-5 zone, including open space. This plat was never submitted to the City, but is included to contrast what could be proposed with what the Subdivider did propose. A concept plan prepared by Randall Arendt, well know for conservation subdivision design. The Subdivider hired Arendt to prepare this concept to address concerns expressed at an early stage over use of the property. The plat currently pending consideration and approval by the City Council. This has evolved from the Arendt concept in the course of discussion with City staff and the practical necessities of the site. It remains remarkably faithful to the Arendt concept. A Conditional Zoning Agreement proposed and prepared by City staff. The disagreement is over the provisions of paragraph 3B, design restrictions of houses on lots of less than sixty feet width. Photographs showing the street scape on Irving Avenue and Emily Court as they exist now and how they may appear when plantings and landscaping mature. The City staff has cited Irving Avenue in particular as an area they find objectionable in appearance. A letter from the Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association expressing concerns over the very design restrictions which the city staff desires to impose on Sandhill. We ask that the Preliminary Plat and Conditional Zoning be approved, but without the unneeded design restrictions ~ough_~in the proposed Conditional Zoning Agreement ~6~ ~ THE "FULL DEVELOPMENT" PLAT This plat illustrates development of the property in compliance with City requirements in the RS-5 zone, including open space. There is no prairie reserved in the center of the subdivision. The 18 acres of prairie to be dedicated to the City is not needed to satisfy the open space requirement of new subdivisions. The required open space is found in the areas left open for storm water management. This plat was never submitted to the City for consideration. This plat has 380 RS-5 size lots. It is included to demonstrate what could have been proposed for use of the property. PRELIMINARY PLAT & SENSITIVE AREAS SITE PLAN SANDHILL ESTATES IOWA CITY, IOWA ~CATION MAP NOT TO SCA~ :~..,-.'*t ~ . ,'. '. -..'. I THE ARENDT CONCEPT PLAN Randall Arendt is a nationally recognized expert in conservation subdivision design. That is an approach to subdivision design which works to maintain open space in exchange for clustering housing and utilizing smaller lots. The Arendt Concept plan proposes 300 single family lots (all smaller than RS-5 lots) and 114 narrow single family lots, for a total of 414 lots. THE PENDING PLAT The plat currently pending consideration and approval by the City Council has evolved from the Arendt concept in the course of discussion with City staff and the engineering consideration of the site. Nonetheless, it remains remarkably faithful to the Arendt Concept Plan. The pending plat proposes 308 single family lots (including approximately 36 RS-5 size lots) and 71 narrow single family lots, for a total of 379 lots, or 35 fewer than the Arendt Concept Plan. PRELIMINARYsANDHiLLPLAT & SENSITIVEEsTATEsAREAS SITE PLAN ~~,'~.~' -"-- '~-'" '-- ~ ~f~- ~ %~i~.~_~-~"1' ....... ~~ ~CATION MAP NOT TO SCA~ - [ THE CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT The proposed Conditional Zoning Agreement has provisions in paragraph 2B which seriously restrict the design of houses which can built on a substantial number of lots in the subdivision. The City staff has identified a currently popular style of house, which is pejoratively termed "snout house." The staff has aesthetic objections to the houses. It is important to remember that neither the Subdivider nor those who purchase lots to build upon have said that any particular design of house will be built upon lots within the subdivision. Those decisions will be driven by market forces, i.e. what homeowners find desirable and what is cost effective to the homeowner. The City staff desires to restrict the range of choices available, including what has proven to be highly popular with consumers. prepared Dy: John Yapp, PCb, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319} 356-5247 (REZ03-00020) CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "CitT~), and SG & M Properties, LLC, (hereinafter "Owner") and Southgate Development (hereinafter "Applicant"); and WHEREAS, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 119,94 acres of property located south of pepper~vood Addition and east of Gilbert Street; and WHEREAS, the Applicant and Owner have requested the rezoning of the approximately 119.94-acre property from Interim Development Single Family, IDRS, and Interim Development Multifamily (IDRM) to Planned Development Housing-Single Family Residential, OPDH-5, in conjunction with the Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Site Plan of Sandhill Estates, a 379-I0t single family subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions regarding access, the design of structures on narrow lots with alley access, and'the size and placement of garages on lots less than 60 feet wide without alley access, the proposed rezoning is in conformance with the South District Plan, which is part of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the South Distdct Plan states that "as housing density increases and lot sizes are reduced, attention will need to be paid to design issues, such as garage end driveway location, to assure that the new neighborhoods are attractive and livable"; and WHEREAS, Iowa Code § 414.5 (2003) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and WHEREAS, the Owner and Applicant acknowledge that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to ensure the development of the property is in general accordance with the principles of the South Disb'ict Plan and Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, Owner and Applicant agree to use this property in accordance with the terms and conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the Parties agree as follows: 1. SG & M Properties is the owner and title holder and Southgate Development is the applicant for a rezoning of the property legally described as follows; COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P,M., CITY OF iOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA: THENCE S8S°23'31'~/ ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER AND GOVERNMENT LOT 4, ALL IN SAID SECTION 22. A DISTANCE OF 36,53 FEET; THENCE N52'43'16"W. 350.30 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 328.12 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A 1040.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY. WHOSE 326.77 FOOT CHORD BEARS N61"4,~'35'~/V: TRENCE N21=Ol'13"E, 56.59 FEET: THENCE N52°43'16"W, 449.64 FEET; THENCE N71°05'50''W, 158.60 FEET; THENCE N52'~43'16"W, 432.68 FEET; THENCE N25"00'58"W, 26,81 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 58.88 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A S0.OO FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, WHOSE 54.77 FOOT CHORD BEARS N87°51'31"W; THENCE NE0~'42'05''W, 5,34 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUEING N60°42'05''W, 11.46 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 54.62 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A 60.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, WHOSE 52.76 FOOT CHORD BEARS N34°37'12'~N; THENCE N52° 43'16"W, 305.56 FE~ET; THENCE N88°lE'26"E, 212.43 FEET; THENCE S60~42'05"E, 74,23 FEET; THENCE S01~41'35"E, 204.14 FEET, TO THE SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID TRACT OF LAND CONTAINS 0.70 ACRE, AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER oF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 THENCE 7o WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA; ~"8°23'31"W ALONG THE SOUTH LiNE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER AND GOVERNMENT LOT 4, ALL IN SAID SECTION 22, A DISTANCE OF 36,53 FEET; THENCE N52~43'16''W, 350,30 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 328.12 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A 1040.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, WHOSE 326.77 FOOT CHORD BEARS N61o45'35"W; THENCE N21 °01'13"E, 56.59 FEET; THENCE N52°43'16''W, 449.64 FEET; THENCE N71°05'50"W, 158,60 FEET; THENCE N52°43'16''W, 432.68 FEET; THENCE N25~'00'58"W, 26.~,1 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 56,68 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A 60,00 FOOT R~DiUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, WHOSE 54,77 FOOT CHORD SEARS N87°51'31"W; THENCE NE0'~42'05''W, 5.34 FEET; THENCE N01°41'35"W, 204.14 FEET; THENCE S60°42'05"E, 748,,28 FEET; THENCE N17 °22'29"E, 242.32 FEET; THENCE N30"21'43"E, 38.20 FEET; THENCE N60"25'3S"W, 322.36 FEET; THENCE N48"'06'3T'W, 217.98 FEET; THENCE N23~'34'36"W, 254,77 FEET; THENCE N01~'50'58''W, 174,62 FEET; THENCE N88°09'02"E, 123.42 FEET; THENCE N03~13'36"E, 40,16 FEST; THENCE S88°09'02"W, 369.66 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUEING S88°09'03''W, 88.37 FEET; THENCE N53~'41'50'~V, 288,80 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF A PLAT OF SURVEY OF A 10.0 ACRE TRACT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 13 AT PAGE 61 IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER; THENCE N02°43'14"W, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT, 549.60 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF lOT 184 OF PEPPERWOOD ADDITION, PART 9, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF; THENCE N88°OS'13"E, ALONG THE sOuTHERLY LINE OF SAID PEPPERWOOD ADDITION - PART 9, A DISTANCE OF 305.82 FEET; THENCE S01°41'35"E, 728,02 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAiNiNG 4.54 ACRES AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M,, CiTY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA; THENCE $8823'31"W ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER AND GOVERNMENT LOT 4, ALL IN SAID SECTION 22, A DISTANCE OF 36.53 FEET: THENCE N52"43'lE"W, 350.30 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 328,12 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A 1040,00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, WHOSE 326,77 FOOT CHORD BEARS N61°4S'35"W; THENCE N21 °01'13"E, 56.59 FEET; THENCE N52°43'16''W, 449,64 FEET; THENCE N71°05'50"W, 158.60 FEET; THENCE N52~43'16"W, 432,68 FEET; THENCE N25*O0'58"W, 26.81 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 56.88 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A 60.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, WHOSE 54.77 FOOT CHORD BEARS N87"51'31"W; THENCE N60°42'05'NV. 5.34 FEET; THENCE N01~41'35"W. 204.14 FEET; THENCE S60°42'05"E, 748.28 FEET; THENCE N17 °22'29"E, 242.32 FEET; THENCE N30°21'43"E, 38.20 FEET; THENCE N60°25'38'IN, 322.36 FEET; THENCE N48°08'37'~N, 217.98 FEET; THENCE N23°34'36"W, 254.77 FEET; THENCE N91050'58'NV. 174.62 FEET; THENCE N88"O~'02"E, 123.42 FEET; THENCE N03°13'36"E, 40.16 FEET: THENCE S88°09'02'~V, 369,66 FEET; THENCE Nnl°41'35"W, 728.02 FEET, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 206 OF PEPPERWOOO ADDITION, PART tl, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF; THENCE N88°08'13"E, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PEPPERWOOD ADDITION - PART 11 AND ALSO ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LiNE OF PEPPERWOOD ADDITIONS - PART 7, PART 3 AND PART 2, A DISTANCE OF 1520.66 FEET TO THE EAST ONE.QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 22; THENCE N88o07'03"E, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LiNE OF SAID PEPPERWOOD ADDITION - PA~T 2, A DISTANCE OF 280.60 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF AUDITOR'S pARCEL 95121 AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3~ AT PAGE 81 IN SAiD RECORDER'S RECORDS; THENCE S01°02'57"E, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL, 1120.00 FEET; THENCE N87°49'06"E, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL, 945.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAI0 AUDITOR'S PARCEL: THENCE S01°03'50"E, 586.43 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 73, SOUTH POINTE ADDITION, PARTS 1-6 AS RECORDED tN PLAT BOOK 33 AT PAGE 312 IN SAiD RECORDER'S RECORDS; THENCE S01°06'34"E, ALONG THE WEST LiNE OF SAID SOUTH POINTE ADDITION, 930.10 FEET, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 30 OF SAID SOUTH POINTE ADDITION; THENCE S87"45'02~V, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 23 OF SAID TOWNSHIP AND RANGE, 1243.31 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 114.70 ACRES AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD, 2, Owner and Applicant acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure appropriate residential development that generally conforms to the principles of the Comprehensive Plan and South District Plan, Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Coda § 414.5 (2003) provides that tile City~o~ Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezcning re(lues~over an~bove the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested ~_~.~..e, ir~_quding provisions for adequate infrastructure necessary, to. supp_o.~t urba,n .developm, .eh!. ~,re~__ wn~l- and Appl cant agree to certain conditions over an~3 adore (fi~y regulations as ~3e~aiie~m'~ . ~ ;--- " 3, In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner and Applicant agree that development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the zoning chapter, as well as the following conditions: A. A separate left-turn lane on Gilbert Street for southbound to eastbound traffic must be constructed before more than 25 units are constructed. This can be added to the existing roadway as a temporary feature, or can be constructed as part of the permanent improvements including a four-lane pC;C roadway with left-turn lane, B. For lots less than 60 feet of lot width, the following shall apply: i, The length of any garage wall that faces a street may not exceed 50% of the length of the street-facing building fa¢ade, as measured along the same street frontage. On corner lots, oniy one street-facing garage wall must meet this standard. This percentage may increase to 60% if the garage is set back at least 6 feet behind the longest street-facing wall of the dwelling unit. ii. A street-facing garage door must be located no closer to the front lot line than the longest street-facing wall of the dwelling, with the following exception, A street-facing garage door may be located up to six feet in fi.ant of the longest street-facing wall of a dwelling unit, if the following conditions are met: a. There is a porch at the main entrance of the dwelling along the same street-facing wall of the dwelling as the garage door; b. The garage door is located no closer to tho front lot line than the front of the porch; c. The porch is at least 48 square feet in area, with no dimension less than 6 feet; d. The porch has a solid roof, the eave of which is not more than 10 feet above the floor of the porch. C, Vehicular access to lots 161-204, 304-330 shall be from the alley. C, 'ale design of the homes on lots 161-204, 304-330 shall be subject to Planning and Zoning Commission approval, along with the final plat, according to the following criteria: i. A variety of facades and variation on rooflines, such as the use of gable and hip roofs, to minimize a "cookie cutter" appearance and a different facade at least every third unit is required. ii, The sidewalls of lots 161,177, 178, 190, 191,204-. 304, 316, 317, and 330 that face the street, should include elements of the front fagade, iii. Front porches that are at least sit feet in depth shall be included, iv. Slightly staggered footprints, also to avoid a monotonous appearance are required. v. Ten feet between buildings to meet normal setback requirements between buildings is required, and to allow for eaves or overhands at the side of buildings. vi, Planning and Zoning Commission review of the building eievatons and footprints as a condition of approval of the final plat is required. 4. The Owner, Applicant and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under iowa Code §414,6 (2003), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested ;zoning change, 5. The Owner, Applioant and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. 6. The Parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shell be deemed to be a covenant running with the land and with the title to this land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the City of iowa City. The Parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the Parties. 7, Applicant acknowledges that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner or Applicant from complying with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 8, The Parties agree that this Conditianal Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publicetian of the ordinance, thia agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense. Dated this . day of ,., 2004, SG & M PROPERTIES CITY OF iOWA CITY By: By: Ernest Lehman, Mayor SOUTHGATE DEVELOPMENT Attest: Marian K, Kerr, City Cler~( Approved O~ A~orney s ~ce STATE OF IOWA ) jOHNSON cOUNTY ) On this ~ day of __, 20 ., before me, the undersigned, a Notary - Coun, in said State, personally appeared __ Public in and for said ty , . and whoexecutedthewithin , to me known to be the ~dentical perSon.(~ named in J~Is/her/thei0 ~nd foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that {he/she/thev~ executed the same as voluntary act and deed, Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa My commission expires: STATE OF IoWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY ) day of __, 20 , before me, the undersigned, a Nobiry On this ...... d Coun+'g in said State, personally appeared: ........ tad the with~ Public In a~ie Tar ~ ': - '- '~ ""*-tical ,-erson~s~ named in aha WhO , to me known to De u~e tu~.._ .~_- ,.~.~..~- ..... *ed the came as and foregoing instrument, and ac, know[edged e/n~ voluntary' act and deed, Notary public in and for the State of Iowa My commission expires; STATE OF IoWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) i,A.D, 20.~....._, before me, the undersigned, a On this __ day of ....... a--eared Ernest W Lehman and Marian K. Kan', to m,e notary public in and for the. State or ~o, .w~,., pe?_On~l~ ~,~,o~ they are th; Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, personally known, who being by me oU~y sworn, u~u ~ ,,,,,, ~ of said municipal corporation executing the within and foregoing instrument; that the seal affi×ed thereto is the seal of said municipal corporation; that said instrument was signed and sealed on behalf cf said municipal corporation by authority of its City Council; and that the said Mayor and City Clerk as such officers acknowledged that the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed Of said corporat)on, by it and by them voluntarily executed, ~ilc in and for the State of Iowa My commission expires: ~pdadrnlagUCZA-REZO3-OOOZO.dec PHOTOGRAPHS The City staff has identified Irving Avenue as an example of housing they find objectionable. These houses are in a subdivision in west Iowa City developed by the Subdivider of Sandhill Estates. (The Power Point presentation previously given by staff uses examples of housing they find objectionable from other developments elsewhere). The following photographs illustrate how the street scape may change as plantings mature. Ail new construction looks a bit stark, but time softens the appearance, something the staff has not accepted. THE HOME BUILDERS LETTER The staff is proposing to require the Subdivider to agree to restrictions which the staff is proposing be adopted Citywide as part of a new, proposed zoning ordinance. The proposed restrictions concern the Home Builders. The comments on choice and affordability apply to Sandhill, but what happens here is also part of the bigger issue of adoption of additional Citywide restrictions on design. Ms. K~qn Fr'~mk~ 410 E W~n~oa S~eet Iowa Ci~, ~owa 52240 , De~ I ~ ~g m c~ ~c c~c~s of~e ~r b~ Ci~ ~eff ~o~ ~uild~ ~sociafion rc~d m a pro~ m~t m ~e Developmcn, C~e ~d~g Resident21 Smd~d; Wc have s~om rc~n'a~o~ ~ to the va~diV ~ wclI ~ ~c ncccshV proposal. ~e ~A of Iowa Cie mem~s have serious re~afio~ about o~'1~ govcmem ~i~ ~ for pfimte homeo~crs; ~icul~ly when s~h ~ m~l~on is se~in~y ~d ~y no m~clEng public in~t. On i~ face, tMs ~oposal is in dke,t o~o~fi~ · e ~A's mrkct and m~ driven philo~phy ~d me~sm~ ~ges on ~c ~ of the ~d~l wivatc ho~o~e~ choice~, ' ~e c~ proposal wo~d ~u~e mong o~er ~n~, at l~s~ 15% of ~y su~t-fac~g f~ being window or p~d~ en~way md rcqui~g any 1~ of ~y ~a~ wag f~ng a to not exceed 50 p~ccnt of the lm~h of t~ ~et-fac~g build~s fiCde. ~so ~clud~ proposal ~c r~uirm~ts f~ r~r ~l~s ou msldenti~ lots less ibm 4B feet M ~d~ as ~11 as rcs~ictions on how clese a homeo~er's ~ge may be ~ t~ ~t lot l~c. A~ifio~l ~t~c r~red m ~e fora ofall~s and ~s~iamd ~MaSe s~ subs~fi~y to the cost of~nsm~g ~ hous~g ~ir, ~ 2002 Mmns Site Work ~d ~m~ Co~ ~m~ csfimtes ~t lab~ and ma~aIs co~ f~ thc ins~lah~ of 12-foot ~de ~halt ~ley, (~clu~g con.em curb~g md ~ociat~ ~imge and e~w0rk) would m ~pm~tely $~8,9J0,40 per ~le. Co~id~Mg a sub~hsi~ m~ 604oot ~ lo~, ~s wo~d eq~ additional S4. fOS. 8OF~r home for ~ provision of~c aIl~ay. O~ local go~mmm~ m~late r~id~fial devel~mem md ~e bulldog ~ a ~ of ~Ios ~d rcguhfi~s de~ed m pro.ct cmt res/d~B, m~y o~ which we m~ as ~ess~ to proi~t the safe~ ~d heal~ of ~e home buy~s Ho~c~, in ~ny cas~, p~oses of ~c m~fl~ and proced~s have ei~ ~n lo~ or[su~c~ed by o&~ concerns ~c Rc~tial Desi ...... . - . . ~ 5~d h~ no app~cntj~caflon ~ a com~mg pubic ~re~ ms~er, ~u~ ~er ~ mot~ ~ a MgMy ~bjmfive basis of ae~e~cs.' Page 2. Iowa City Council Unnecessary requirements and procedures limit the number of homes that can he built, ir~rease the cost oftho~e that are buil~ and red, ce the affordabfliry of fll homes. ORe~ the net effect, even ifumttended, is to restrict those who can live in some areas tO only the wealthiest. The greates~ impa~ falls on young families, first tLme home buyers, minofifio$, and others w~th limited incomes. ~ ' We recommend the Residential D~sign Standards provision to be ~oved in its entirety from consideration. It has no compelling publlc safety b~s. Moreover, Lt is fm u~neees ary and. costly mtruslon into the fights of private homeowners. A~ alway~, we look £urwa~d to working with you on this ma~er and other knport~nt issu~ affecting ~e bm,'lding and construction indusU'y of the Iowa City community. ?lease do not hesitate to contact our office if we oan be of any assisumce. ,. Boyd Crosby Prcsid~n~ ~ Franklin Stove Aflcir~ '77 Marian Karr From: Dale Helling Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 11:13 AM To: 'Mike Hensch' Cc: *City Council; Kathryn Johansen Subject: RE: Cintizen Input Regarding PuNic Hearing for Sandhill Estates on January 6, 2004 Hr. Hensch, Thank you for your recent email message te the City Council. It will be forwarded to Council members and will be formally accepted as part of the consent calendar at an upcoming Council meeting. Dale Helling Assistant City Hanager cc. Kathi Jehansen, Administrative Assistant ..... Original Message ..... From: Hike Hensch [mailto:mike.hensch@mercyic.org] Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 9:07 AM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Cintizen Input Regarding Public Hearing for Sandhill Estates on January 6, 2004 Dear City Council Members, Please follow the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Con~ission and City Staff regarding their recommendation that Sandhill Estates garages be no more than 50% of the length of the front facade of the house and not be located forward of the front facade of the house. My family and I live at 815 Pepper Drive and our property will abut Sandhill Estates. I am pro-developemnt but I do not believe that developers have the right to negatively impact their neighbors or detract from an existing good quality of life. I do believe that the recommendations of City Staff and the P & Z Commission should be followed. Thank you for your consideration and dedication to Iowa City. Mike Hensch Sandhill Estates: Zoning Standards and Garage Placement ~-cx Page 1 of 2 Marian Karr From: Dale Helling Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 11:10 AM To: 'Joel Fagan' Cc: *City Council; Kathryn Johansen Subject: RE: Sandhill Estates: Zoning Standards and Garage Placement Mr. Fagan, Thank you for your recent email message to the City Council It will be forwarded to Council members and be formally accepted as part of their consent agenda at an upcoming formal Council meeting, Dale Helling Assistant City Manager cc. Kathi Johansen, Administrative Assistant ..... Original Message ..... From: Joel Fagan [mailto:joelfagan~mchsi.com] Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 11:45 AM To: council~iowa-ci%org Subject: Sandhill Estates: Zoning Standards and Garage Placement TO: City Council Members: RE: Sandhill Estates Garage Placement Standards I am writing to strongly encourage the Council to require that the existing standards and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Staff be maintained with regard to the placement of garages in the proposed Sandhill Estates Development. This large development will be the dominant influence in establishing the overall character of residential areas on the south side. It is therefore crucially important that the highest standards of planning and design be maintained in this project. The existing recommendations of the Planning Staff and the principals already incorporated in the District Plans must be upheld. Any proposal to vary from the recommended standards for garage placement should cer[ainly be denied in order to protect the character and appearance of this potentially very attractive neighborhood. Sincerely, Joel Fagan Joel L. Fagan 741 Chestnut Court Iowa City, IA 52240 joelfagan@mchsi.com 319-358-7100 hom_e 319-337-7318 work 1/5/04 Page 1 of 1 Marian Karr From: RICK AND KAREN ALLEN [RICKANDKARENALLEN@MSN.COM] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 11:51 AM To: council@iowa-city.org To whom it may concern, We support the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Staff in regard to the issue of placement of garages in the proposed Sandhill Estates. Please keep our neighborhood looking good and maintain, or improve upon, the current quality of neighborhood we currently have. Rick and Karen Allen 709 Chestnut Ct. 1/6/04 Marian Karr From: Ross Wilbum Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 1:54 PM To: moore Cc: Marian Kart Subject: RE: from dave moore Hello Dave, I'm just getting your note now because we just received out computers back. I'll take a look at your message and give you a call before the New Year. I bike down Sand Road quite a bit and live near Whetherby, so I am familiar with the area. Thanks for expressing your concerns. Ross Wilburn ..... Original Message From: moore [mailto:david lysa@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, December T8, 2003 12:53 PM To: ross wilburn@iowa-city.org Subject: from dave moore hi ross- hope all's well with you. the issue i'm interested in is southgate's rezoning proposal and development off sand road. it should be coming before city council in january. rather than lay out all my thoughts to you, if you don't mind, i'm going to forward to you an email i wrote to dee about a month ago. and an email i wrote to regenia about 10 days ago. regenia's email has sort of a background on the whole affair, and dee's email lays out why i think this re-zoning proposal should be turned down. if you'd like, perhaps after xmas, i could pick you up and we could take a quick drive down there...it's only 2 miles out, probably take a half hour total, it's a little easier to get a feel for the issue if you're onsight .... we would'nt even have to leave the car. let me know. thanks, dave Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree Sa THE FOLLOWING PHOTOS WERE SUBMITTED BY LOUANN LATHROP AT PUBLIC HEARING. Prepared by: Robert Miklo, Sr. Planner1410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5240 (REZ03-00024) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REZONING 16.1 ACRES FROM RESIDENTIAL FACTORY BUILT HOUSING RESIDENTIAL (RFBH) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING OVERLAY 12 (OPDH-12) AND AN OPDH PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON HEINZ ROAD. WHEREAS, the property owner, The Paddock LLC, has requested a rezoning to allow the development of a mix of multi-family townhouse-style and duplex dwellings; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has found that the proposed High Density Single-Family (RS-12) zoning with a Planned Development Overlay (OPDH-12), provides a transition between the existing Residential Factory-Built Housing (RFBH) and Medium Density Multi-family (RM- 20) zone in the area; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission found the proposed RS-12 zoning and OPDH plan to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval of the proposed preliminary OPDH plan, including variations from the underlying RS-12 zoning to allow a mix of multi- family, townhouse-style and duplex dwellings; and WHEREAS, the Iowa City City Council concurs with the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. APPROVAL. The property described below is hereby reclassified from its current classification of RFBH to OPDH-12 and the associated preliminary planned development plan is hereby approved: Lot 7 and Lot 8 and portion of Lot 4 and Lot 6 of Saddlebrook Addition Part 2 to the City of Iowa City as recorded in Plat Book 42 - Pages 246 & 247 lying in the W 1/2 NE 1/4 Section 25, T. 79 N., R. 6 W., of the 5th P.M., Johnson County, Iowa, described as follows: + Beginning at the northeast corner of said Lot 7; thence S00°02'21"E - 1038.77 feet; thence S67°52'28'~/- 315.94 feet; thence westerly 378.07 feet along a 960.00 foot radius curve concave northerly with a central angle of 22°33'53" and a chord of S79°02'46"W - 375.64 feet; thence N19°40'31"E - 36.65 feet; thence N00°59'52"W - 93.52 feet; thence N06°31'36"W - 49.83 feet; thence N07°47'00"E - 546.33 feet; thence N10°21'31"E - 67.35 feet; thence northerly 83.25 feet along a 150.00 foot radius curve concave westerly with a central angle of 31047'54.. and a chord of N04°15'20"W - 82.18 feet; thence N20°09'17"W - 55.60 feet; thence northeasterly 141.71 feet along a 114.00 foot radius curve concave northwesterly with a central angle of 71°13'21" and a chord of N32057'36"E - 132.76 feet; thence N03°20'32'¥V - 193.70 feet; thence northwesterly 197.75 feet along a 300.00 foot radius curve concave southwesterly with a central angle of 37°46'03'' and a chord of N22°13'43"W - 194.19 feet; thence N40°14'52"E - 159.04 feet; thence N68°25'23"E - 241.00 feet; thence S20°31'09"E - 47.01 feet; thence S22°26'14"E - 89.62 feet; thence S20031'09"E - 75.79 feet; thence southerly 168.42 feet along a 470.00 foot radius curve concave westerly with a central angle of 20o31'53" and a chord of S10°15'12"E - 167.52 feet; thence S00°00'45'~V - 22.34 feet; thence N89°57'39"E - 173.42 feet to the Point of Beginning. Said Parcel contains 16.41 acres. SECTION I1. VARIATIONS. A.)The RS-12 requirement that townhouses be located on individual lots is hereby waived to allow the clustering of up to 8 townhouse-style dwelling units on lot 4. B.) The RS- 12 requirement that duplexes are limited to one building per lot is hereby waived to allow 9 duplex buildings on Lot 4, 8 duplex buildings on Lot 6, 5 duplex buildings on Lot 7 and 5 duplex buildings on Lot 8. C.) The RS-12 prohibition of multi-family buildings is hereby waived to allow 2 8-plex buildings on Lot 4. Ordinance No. Page 2 SECTION III. REPEALER. All ordinances and pads of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION IV. 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 V. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of ,20 MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK City Attorney's Office ppdadm/ord/saddle brookpt2.doc Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Bailey Champion Elliott Lehman O'Donnell Vanderhoef Wilburn First Consideration :~/6/04 Voteforpassage:AYES: Champion, E1]iott, Lehman, Vanderhoef, Wilburn, Baile~,. NAYS: 0'Donnell. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration Vote for passage: Date published STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Robert Miklo Item: REZ03-00024, Lots 4, and Lots 6-8 Date: November 20, 2003 of Saddlebrook Addition, Part 2 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: The Paddock L.L.C. Contact Person: Brenda Nelson 112 West Fifth Street West Liberty, IA 52776 (319) 627-6818 Requested Action: Rezoning from RFBH to OPDH-12 Purpose: To allow the construction of 27 2-dwelling buildings, 2 4-dwelling buildings and 2 8- dwelling buildings Location: Heinz Road south of Paddock Blvd. Size: 16.1 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Vacant RFBH Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: RFBH and OPDH 12, club house, and Multi-family residential South: Wetland Conservation Area, RR-1 East: Agricultural, county zoning West: Residential, RFBH Comprehensive Plan: Residential duplex or small-lot single-family File Date: October 30, 2003 45 Day Limitation Period: December 14, 2003 SPECIAL INFORMATION: Public Utilities: Municipal water and sewer service are available to serve this property. Public Services: Police and fire services will be provided by the City. Garbage collection will be provided by a private hauler. 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Saddlebrook development was annexed into the City in 1994. At that time this property and the large area to the west were zoned Residential Factory Built Housing (RFBH). The area to the north was zoned Medium Density Multi-Family (RM-20). In early 2003, 2.8 acres to the north and east of this property were rezoned from RFBH to High Density Single Family (RS-12) with a Planned Development Overlay (OPDH-12) to allow construction of 26 townhouse-style dwellings. Those units are currently under construction. The applicant is now requesting that Lot 4 and Lots 6-8 of Saddlebrook Addition, Part 2 be rezoned to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) with a Planned Development Housing Overlay to allow the development of 78 multi-family units in the form of duplex-style, townhouse-style, and multi-family dwellings rather than the 66 manufactured housing units that the current RFBH zone allows. ANALYSIS: Comprehensive Plan: The land use plan for this area indicates that it is appropriate for small-lot single-family or duplex dwelling units. This designation was given to the property in 1997 and recognized the development plan that had already been approved for Saddlebrook, including small-lot single family homes in the RFBH zone. The current RFBH zone and the manufactured housing site plan approved for this property allow 66 dwelling units. The proposed RS-12 zone allows single-family dwellings, duplexes and zero lot line dwellings and townhouses on separate lots. The minimum lot size in the RS-12 zone is 5000 square feet (6000 for a duplex). The RS- 12 zone does not allow multi-family buildings or multiple buildings on a lot. Therefore the applicant is requesting the Planned Development Overlay to allow multiple buildings per lot and to allow the multi-family buildings. In staff's view the proposed RS-12 zone with the Planned Development Housing Overlay is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Although the OPDH plan will result in two 8-unit apartment buildings the overall character of the development will be that of a duplex development. Out of the total 78 units, 16 will be in the two apartment buildings, 54 will in duplex style buildings and 16 will be in townhouse style buildings. The proposed apartment buildings are small in scale, being only 2 stories tall. The resulting mix of housing types will meet the Comprehensive Plan's goal of a diverse mix of housing. The applicant has designed the buildings and layout according to the housing policies contained on pages 6-7 of the South District Plan. The two apartment buildings, the townhouse style buildings and 3 of the two-unit buildings will be served by a rear lane or private alley and will have parking behind the buildings in garages. Where rear lanes are not proposed the applicant has designed buildings so the garages do not dominate the streetscape as often occurs in medium density development or on smaller lots. For many of the units the garages are entered from the side so that residential portion of the building is more visible from the street. Where the garages are entered from the front they constitute 50% or less of the fa~:ade and are generally flush with the facade or a porch so that they do not sit forward of the residential part of the building. This design generally meets the garage placement standards being considered in the new zoning code. These design techniques will allow a higher density development yet the buildings will present a more residential appearance to the streets in accordance with the policies of the Comprehensive plan. In addition to presenting more of a residential appearance the rear lane and side entry units will cut down on the number of curb cuts along Heinz Road. The currently approved Manufactured Housing Site Plan illustrates 30 driveways onto Heinz Road. The proposed plan includes only 14 driveways. This will reduce the amount of paving in the front yards, and will allow more on- street parking spaces and enhance the function of Heinz Road. 3 The applicant has proposed two areas of common open space on lots 4 and 6 that may be used by the residents of this development. A trail is proposed in the center of the common area and will connect to a larger trail network in the Saddlebrook Development. A storm water management pond will be located on lot 6. Because this rezoning will allow an increase in density of 12 units, greater amounts of traffic will be generated from this development. Heinz Road is a collector street and therefore should be able to accommodate the additional traffic. However, because Heinz Road currently is the only means of vehicular access to over 500 potential housing units, a previous Conditional Zoning Agreement on this property has limited development of the overall Saddlebrook development to 460 housing units prior to the construction of secondary vehicular access. There are currently 293 housing units within Saddlebrook and 39 under construction. Therefore, the 78 housing units permitted by this rezoning will be allowed at this time. But once 460 units are built, no further units may be located in the development until a second means of street access is provided. The proposed mix of dwelling units will lend to the housing diversity in this neighborhood and will provide a transition between the existing apartments and the single-family homes in the Saddlebrook development. The buildings and site layout have been designed according to the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Although this rezoning will allow an increase of the total number of dwellings permitted in Saddlebrook, its design results in fewer curb cuts onto Heinz Road. STAFF RECQMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the rezoning of 16.1 acres from RFBH to OPDH-12, and a preliminary Planned Development Housing Oveday Plan for 78 units including multi-family buildings and multiple buildings on lots located on Heinz Road south of Paddock Boulevard, be approved. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. ©PDH plan Building Elevations 4. Applicant's statement 5. Previously approved site plan Karin/Franklin, Director Dep~rtment of Planning and Community Development ppdadmin\stfrep/rez03-O004 dr~¢ & RFBH ID-RS RS8 Regionol © RS8 RFBH SITE LOCATION: Saddlebrook Addition Part 2 REZ03-O0024 The Paddock., LLC 805 S. Gilbert St. Iowa City Ia. 52240 Ph: 319-354-1961 Fax: 319-351-0070 :~2)~C)~. ~:~ Part of lots 4 and 6, lot 7 and lot 8 of Saddlebrook Addition Part 2 Statement of Intent It is the intention of The Paddock, LLC to rezone part of lots 4 and 6, lot 7 and lot 8 of Saddlebrook Addition Part 2 from its current RFBH zoning to a PDH 12 zoning. The purpose of this rezoning is to allow the construction of 78 condominium units on these lots. Description of Development Saddlebrook is a 320 acre development located on Heinz Rd. on the SE side of Iowa City. Currently there are 4 different zones in the development plus 160 acres of preserved wetlands. Lot 1 is The Triple Crown Condominiums which is 156 quality built, affordable condo units selling for a base price of under $85,000. Lot 2 is The Mane Gate Apartments, 60 luxury apartments focusing on non- student residents who live and work in the Iowa City area. Both of these lots are zoned RM-20. Lot 5 is the Belmont Townhomes which is 26 townhome units currently under construction. These units are all 2-story and range in price from $135,000-$155,000. This lot is zoned PDH-12 Lots 3, 4, and 64 is The Paddock and is approximately 80 acres zoned RFBH. Lot 3 includes a 4,000 sq. fl. clubhouse that serves all of the residents of Saddlebrook plus 54 mini-storage units. Lots 4 and 6-8 are currently platted for 285 manufactured home sites. There is also 62 acres zoned RS-8 just to the West of lots 4 and 6. The concept plan in this application is approximately 16 acres, not including private Beets or public right-of-ways and is currently zoned RFBH and is platted for manufactured homes. The concept calls for 27 2-unit condo buildings, 2 4-unit condo buildings and 2 8-unit condo buildings. Emphasis is placed on an aaractive street front on Heinz Rd., the public street serving this area, and on eliminating the number of curb cuts and driveways along Heinz Rd. Included in the concept plan is an extensive trail system that will link up with the existing trails system in the Seddlebrook Development, a pond and a picnic area. There is adequate green space to serve this concept and the Seddlebrook development as a whole. The density is 4.8 units per acre. The 8-plex buildings will feature units that have about 1,000 sq. fi. of living space, 2 bedrooms, 2 baths and a 2-car detached garage. The kitchens will feature a complete appliance package including a built-in microwave oven. The units include a washer/dryer hookup. These units will offer 1 level living. The 4-plex buildings will be 2-story townhome type units. They will be about 1450 sq. i~., 3 bedroom, 2 ~ bath and an attached 2-ear garage. The kitchens will feature a complete appliance package including a built-in microwave oven. The units include a washer/dryer hookup. Each of these units has a large front porch. The duplex buildings will be combination of ranch style and 2-story. On the site plan, Type II, Type IV and Type V will be the ranch style and the Type I will be the 2-story. They will all feature 2-3 bedrooms, 2-2 ½ baths and an attached 2-car garage. Many will have front porches and some will have basements. They all will have kitchens that feature a complete appliance package including a built-in microwave oven. All units will have a washer/dryer hookup. The trail system will link the development along Heinz Rd. with the rest of development to the West, and as the 62 acres is developed the Saddlebrock trail system will eventually hook up with the City trail system. The pond will be stocked with a variety of fish and also serve as the water detention system for part of the Saddlebrook Development. All streets and access points are to be privately owned and maintained by the homeowners association except Heinz Rd., Shetland Lane and the part of Mustang Lane to the East of Heinz Rd. These 3 streets will be built by the developer and then be dedicated to the City. Heinz Rd. will be built to connect into the proposed parkway that runs between Mormon Trek and Scott Blvd. The parkway is slated to run along the south edge of the development in this area. All owners of units in this concept plan will have full rights to all of the Saddlebrook amenities, including the Clubhouse and the many activities that are part of the Saddlebrock Community. The Paddock, LLC 805 S. Gilbert St. Iowa City Ia. 52240 Ph: 319-354-1961 Fax: 319-351-0070 Intended time schedule for completion Upon approval of the proposed project, it is the intent of the developers to begin the project immediately. Infrastructure work will begin as soon as weather allows in the spring of 2004, Heinz Rd. will be continued to the south and Mustang Ln. will be built to the east. Buildings will begin once infi-astructure is complete and it is expected that the first units will be available for sale in the early winter of 2004. It is anticipated that the project will be absorbed in 4 years; therefore all units will be complete and sold by the fall of 2008. The Paddock, LLC 805 S. Gilbert St. Iowa City la. 52240 Ph: 319-354-1961 Fax: 319-351-0070 Part of lots 4 and 6, lot 7 and lot 8 of Saddlebrook Addition Part 2 Statement as to why zone change is warranted ~' The vision of the Saddlebrook Development to provide to its residents a real sense of community through diversity aaac~enities, value in their housing ehoien and a lifestyle that is unique in the Iowa City Area. With a 4,000 sq. ft. clubhouse complete with a full and media room, walking trails throughout the development and the wetlands kitchen gathering room, conference room, fitness ce.nter,~ .......... a o,-,,le o-reen soaen we feel we offer an amenity package area, 2 ~0nds, a picnic shelter, 2 playground areas, a oasKetoan ~,, ......... r *' seeund to none in this area. We currently offer 4 types of housing; luxury, affordable apartments for the professional person who is not yet ready to buy a home, quality condo units under $85,000 for those buying their first home or others looking to downsize, large, single family manufactured homes for those that want and need a detached home at an affordable price and well appointed 2-story tnwnhomeS that are perfect for the person needing more than a small condo can offer but also needs the convenience of condominium This current concept plan, the Clubhouse Condos at Saddlebrook, will allow us to continue the vision of Saddlebrook by expanding the diversity ofhunsing we offer, while at the same time providing value and lifestyle· Traditional neighborhood design is a popular trend, and we have tried to follow those concepts in this site plan by placing garages and driveways away from public streets and designing homes with inviting front porches. We also have included ample green space, a trail system, several outdoor meeting areas such as playgrounds and picnic shelters and of course the community clubhouse, all of which promote interaction among the residents· · design With the help and guidance of City Staff and the proposed zoning change from RFBH to PDH 12 we were able to improve the and diversity of housing in this area. We were able to substantially reduce the number of curb cuts and driveways along Heinz Rd. and we were also able to take an area that had no green space other than the pond and create several large open spaceS, a trail system and a picnic shelter. The housing units will include a design that is a step up f~om the typical 12-plex, 2 bedroom unit that has been very popular in the Iowa City area. These units will be a single level design in a 2 story building with 4 units on each level. They will include 2 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, a separate dining room and a 2-car garage. While un upgrade from the current offerings in the Iowa City area, they will still be an affordable housing choice in a quality neighborhood. 2 unit condo buildings will also be introduced to the Saddlebrook Development with this phase. These duplexes offer the convenience and easy financing of fee simple ownership, the feel cfa single family home with f~ont, back and side yards and the carefree living found in a condominium regime. The Clubhouse Condos at Saddlebrook will offer the residents of Iowa City several quality housing choices to meet their needs, along with an improved streetseape, more green space and an enhanced trail system. We feel the proposed site plan meets the needs of all parties involved and will continue to enhance the quality of housing in southeast Iowa City. Thank You for the consideration of our request. Steve Gordon General Manager AM Management The Paddock, LLC T~?~ V 'q EOEO E~ E]EOE Copyright Ahnmnn Home Hans, Inc. Ahmann Design, Inc. 2202 Heritage Gre~ Dvi~ Hiaw~,ha, lA 52233 1-800,725-6852 DDDDDDDD 0 (~ Afmuon H~ne Plans, I~. Abstain I:Juip, Inc. Hiswmfh, Lq 52233 1-800-~2 Copyright Alnnann Home Plans, Inc. Ahmann Design, Inc. I '~0-725-~52 T~ ~_ Copyright Ahmann Home Plans, Inc. Ahmann Design, inc. 2202 Heritage Green Drive Hiawa~a, IA 52233 ~-seo-72.s-6~2 Kordick Surveyi. ng & Engineering Late 4, §. e. 7. & & 689 i85th Si,reeL Tipton, Iowa 52772 {563) 432-6424 N Legend: THERE ARE NO LOTS NUMBERS: 17, 27, 30, 35, 36. 115 116, 121, 131, 153, 216-220 The Paddock at Saddlebrook contains 285 res;denticd le(~ee pads. Table of Contents: AMENDED MANUFACTURED HOME ~D~g~CX)~ ADDmO~ I- Prepared by: John Yapp, PCD, City of Iowa City, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5247 (REZ03-00027) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 26.98 ACRES FROM HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL, CH1, TO SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY, SAO/CH1, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF MORMON TREK BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 1. WHEREAS, James R. Davis has applied for a preliminary plat of J JR Davis Addition, an approximate 26.98 acre, 8-lot commercial subdivision located west of Mormon Trek Boulevard and south of Highway 1; and WHEREAS, because wetlands exist on the property and the property owner has proposed disturbing the wetlands, a Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning is required; and WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Compensatory Mitigation Plan which proposes replacing the wetlands proposed to be disturbed with created wetlands at a ratio greater than 1:1; and WHEREAS, the applicant has proposed to reduce the required buffers around the wetlands and to take advantage of the buffer averaging provisions, as is permitted, in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan has also been submitted to the United States Army Corps of Engineers in order to obtain appropriate federal permits related to disturbing wetlands; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the Sensitive Areas Development Plan, Compensatory Mitigation Plan and proposed wetland buffer averaging and reductions, and has recommended approval, subject to United States Army Corps of Engineers' approval of the Compensatory Mitigation Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. APPROVAL: The property described below is hereby reclassified from its current designation of Highway Commercial, CH1, to Sensitive Areas Overlay, OSNCH1, and the associated Sensitive Areas Development Plan and Compensatory Mitigation Plan are hereby approved: Commencing at the East Quarter Corner of Section 20, Township 79 North, Range 6 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian; Thence S89°55'42"W, along the North Line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 20, a distance of 1008.23 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence Southeasterly, 24.28 feet, along a 450.00 foot radius curve concave Northeasterly, whose 24.28 foot chord bears S17°53'32"E; Thence Southeasterly, 1575.96 feet, along a 1850.00 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, whose 1528.74 foot chord bears S40°45'03"E; Thence S00°08'54"W, 43.34 feet; Thence S89°'58'36"W, 1360.64 feet, to a Point on the Easterly Right-of-Way Line of Primary Road No.518; Thence N11°39'22"W, along said Right-of-Way Line 367.90 feet; Thence N41°27'40"W, along said Right-of-Way Line, 157.58 feet; Thence N ll°27'40"W, along said Line, 556.10 feet, to its intersection with the Southerly Right-of-Way Line of Iowa Highway Number 1; Thence N34°54'32"E, along said Right-of-Way Line, 245.30 feet; Thence N40°02'41"E, along said Right-of-Way line, 181.03 feet; Thence N31°21'09"E, along said Right-of-Way line, 140.66 feet; Thence N47°08'12"E, along said Right-of-Way line, 54.15 feet; Thence S49°45'28"E, 210.60 feet; Thence S02°33'29"W, 3.66 feet; Thence Southeasterly, 75.58 feet, along a 940.00 foot radius curve, concave Southwesterly, whose 75.56 foot chord bears S45°'52'07"E; Thence S20°27'03"E, 31.29 feet; Thence S33°39'47"W, 88.67 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Tract of land contains 26.98 acres, more or less, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. SECTION I1. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector 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 this ordinance by law. SECTION II1. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, and after execution of the Conditional Zoning Agreement, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and the Conditional Zoning Agreement and to record the same, along with the approved Sensitive Areas Development Plan, at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, at the owner's expense, all as provided by law. Ordinance No. Page 2 SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION V. 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 VI. EFFECTIVE DATF. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of ,20 MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK C'I'I~Y ATToRNI~Y'S OFFI~;E ppdadmin/ord/rezO3-00027.doc Ordinance No. Page _. It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Bailey Champion Elliott Lehman O'Donnell Vanderhoef Wilburn First Consideration 1/6/04 Voteforpassage: AYES: Elliott, Lehman, 0'Donne11, Vanderhoef, ~/ilburn,Bailey. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration Vote for passage: Date published City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: December 22, 2003 To: City Council From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Re: REZ03-00027/SU B03-00027 The deficiencies and discrepancies noted in the December 4 staff report for this item were corrected prior to the December 4 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at which the Commission recommended approval of the Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning and preliminary plat. STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: John Yapp Item: REZ03-00027 J JR Davis Addition Date: December 4, 2003 SUB03-00027 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: James R. Davis 4097 Kitty Lee Road Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: 338-5327 Applicant's Engineer: MMS Consultants 1917 S. Gilbert Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: 351-8282 Applicant's Attorney: Thomas Gelman 321 E. Market Street Iowa City, IA 52245 Phone: 354-1104 Requested Action: Preliminary Plat approval Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone approval Purpose: An 8-lot commercial subdivision Location: East of Highway 218, west of Mormon Trek Boulevard, south of Highway 1 Size: 25.07 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Vacant, CH-1 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residential; CH-1 South: Agricultural & Residential; County RS East: Vacant; C1-1 West: Highway 218 Comprehensive Plan: The South Central District Plan identifies this area as appropriate for intensive or highway commercial File Date: November 13, 2003 45 Day Limitation Period: December 28, 2003 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On June 12, 2003, the State of Iowa's City Development Board approved the annexation of this property to Iowa City, as part of a larger annexation including approximately 150 acres of territory. The zoning of this property to CH-l, Highway Commercial, was approved by the City Council on June 24. The extension of Mormon Trek Boulevard and associated public utilities, that make it possible for private development to occur on adjacent properly, is nearly complete adjacent to the Davis property. The intent statement for the CH-1 zone states that the highway commercial zone is intended to permit development of service uses relating to expressways or along other major arterial thoroughfares. At certain access points, food, lodging, motor vehicle service and fuel can be made conveniently available to the thoroughfare user. A Sensitive Areas Rezoning and Development Plan are required because the applicant has proposed development activity in a wetland and reduction and averaging of the wetland buffer located in the southern portion of the subdivision. ANALYSIS: Subdivision Design: The proposed 25.07-acre subdivision consists of eight commercial lots between 0.8 and 8 acres in size. One new street is proposed, designed as a loop street with both ends accessing Mormon Trek Boulevard. Two ouflots are proposed at the south end of the property. Outlot A, which is zoned Interim Development Residential (ID-RS), which is on the south side of the wetland area, is designated for future development. Outlot B, which includes the wetland area, is designated as the storm water management and wetland buffer area, to be maintained by a landowners association. Access Control: Careful consideration of street and curb cut locations is necessary due to the property abutting Mormon Trek Boulevard, an arterial street. Staff determined appropriate vehicular access control for this property several months ago when a concept plan was submitted. Two new access points are proposed to Mormon Trek Boulevard, the two ends of Florence Lane. Florence Lane is designed to include a left turn lane and a right turn / through lane at each intersection with Mormon Trek Boulevard. This design was requested by staff in order to minimize conflict and delay on Florence Lane, a commercial street which will have a mixture of truck and car traffic. One existing access point to Mormon Trek Boulevard will remain, the old Rock's Roadhouse access point. This access point is being incorporated into Lot 1. Lots 5-8 will not have direct access to Mormon Trek Boulevard; The access for Lot 8 will be via an access easement across Lot 7, which is shown on the plat. An access control plan such as this is important to avoid future problems with conflict points along arterial streets. Storm Water Management: Two storm water management basins are proposed, one on the property to the east for Lot 1, and one on the south side of the property in Outlot A. A wetland has been identified on the south side of the property, which the applicant is proposing to make some changes to in order to use a portion of it as a storm water basin (see discussion below). Preliminary storm water calculations are under review by Engineering Staff. Wetlands Issues: In order to accommodate the proposed storm water management basin, the applicant is proposing a compensatory wetland mitigation plan, a request for a wetland buffer reduction, and a request for buffer averaging. The applicant's engineer has also submitted these materials to the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for their permit approval. Approval from the Army COE is required before the wetland may be disturbed or compensatory mitigation may occur..."; however, the COE does not require buffers around wetlands. The buffers are required by the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The proposed buffer reduction and buffer averaging can be approved only by the City. Project Alternatives Analysis: According to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (14-6K-1G(4b)), Compensatory mitigation may be permitted only if it is clearly demonstrated that avoiding and minimizing the impact of a wetland is unreasonable. The applicant's engineer has submitted an Alternatives Analysis to explore other alternatives to constructing the storm water basin in the area of the wetland. Based on the topography of this area, storm water flows to the iow point of the property where the wetlands are located. The alternatives analysis concludes that constructing a basin upland from the wetland is impractical. Staff concurs with this conclusion. The proposed plan is to construct an upland detention basin to accommodate runoff from Lot 1 of the proposed development, for which the City has already received a site plan application for an auto-sales business. To accommodate runoff from Lots 2-8, the plan proposes a smaller basin in a portion of the wetland, which is the natural Iow area of the immediate topography. The grading and berms necessary to construct the storm water basin wou~d result in 1.41 acres of 'permanent impact' to the existing wetland area, which means 1.41 acres of the existing wetland would no longer function as or be defined as a wetland. To address this loss of wetland area, the applicant is proposing a compensatory mitigation plan. Compensatory Mitigation Plan The applicant has submitted a copy of the compensatory mitigation plan submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers. According to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan must include the following information: 1 ) An assessment of the value of the wetland to determine the appropriate replacement ratio. According to the research completed by the applicant's engineer, the wetland does not contain endangered or threatened species, or diverse plant associations of infrequent occurrence. The wetland is also not located within a stream corridor as defined by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, nor is it in a forested area. Therefore, the appropriate replacement ratio is one to one, which means for each acre of wetland disturbed, one acre needs to be created. A total of 1.41 acres of wetland is proposed to be disturbed; a total of 1.48 acres of wetland is proposed to be created. 2) A clear statement of the goals of the mitigation plan, including specific statements regarding the expected rate of establishment of a vegetative cover over specified periods of time. The goals of the mitigation plan are to: a) Create 0.67 acres of wetland area, enhancement of 0.12 acres of wetland area and seeding of a 1.08 acre buffer area on a site west of Kitty Lee Road. While this area is not in the same location as the wetland being disturbed, it is in the same watershed, and also drains to Willow Creek. b) Create 0.81 acres of wetland adjacent to the wetland being disturbed. C:/DOCU ME~ 1\b~k~o\LOCALS~1/Temp~sub03-00027 Davis Addition doc 4 c) Enhance 1.43 acres of remaining wetland. d) Create a 4.46 acre buffer area around the existing and newly constructed wetland areas. e) The mitigation plan contains a planting and vegetation plan, with an expected plant survival rate of 80% after the first year. This survival rate is proposed to be monitored by the Army Corps of Engineers. 3) Analysis of the soils, substrate and hydrology of the proposed site of the constructed or expanded wetland in terms of their suitability to provide proper growing medium for the proposed vegetation. The mitigation plan contains an analysis of soils and hydrology, and the appropriate areas for wetland mitigation are based on this information. 4) A list of the plant species to be used, which should include only native, noninvasive species, and their proposed locations. Transplanting as much of the native vegetation from the original wetland as possible, as well as the upper six to twelve inches of the soil is encouraged. A list of plant and tree species proposed to be planted is contained within the mitigation plan. It is stated the planting of these species will increase the diversity of the plant life in this wetland. 5) Provisions for monitoring the condition of the new or enhanced wetland area for a period of five years, and identification of the party responsible for replanting in the event of poor initial growth or predation resulting in a failure of over 30% of the planted stock. Information collected during the monitoring process shall be submitted to the City annually and include the following: a) Data on plant species diversity and the extent of plant cover established in the new or enhanced wetland; and b) Wildlife presence; and c) Data on water regimes, water chemistry, soil conditions and ground and surface water interactions; and d) Proposed alterations or corrective measures to address deficiencies identified in the created or enhanced wetland, such as the failure to establish a vegetative cover or the presence of invasive or foreign species. The wetland mitigation plan proposes to designate the Army Corps of Engineers as the monitoring agency. According to this code section, the annual reports submitted to the Corps must also be submitted to the City for a minimum of five years, and must contain the above (5a-d) information. Buffer Reduction: The required 100 foot wetland buffer may be reduced by up to 50 feet if the wetland: 1) Is less than five acres in size; and 2) Does not contain species listed by the federal and/or state government as endangered or threatened, or critical or outstanding natural habitat for those species; and 3) Does not contain diverse plant associations of infrequent occurrence or of regional significance; and 4) Is not located within a 'stream corridor' as defined in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. C:\DOCUME-1 ~bmiklo/LOCALS~l/Ternp/sub03-00027 Davis Addition.doc The applicant's engineer has submitted a request for reducing the wetland buffer to fifty feet, including statements based on the wetland delineation and mitigation report that the wetland meets all the requirements to allow a buffer reduction. The City's Development Regulations Specialist, who has attended the Wetlands Training Institute, has reviewed the submitted documentation and has concluded that as a result of the proposed wetland modifications the quality of the existing wetlands will not be diminished and is likely to be improved. Improvements to the quality of the wetland are likely to occur because of the plan to remove invasive plant species and introduce more diverse wetland plant species. Staff recommends approval of the sensitive areas rezoning and development plan and approval of reducing the required wetland buffer to 50 feet, subject to conformance with the compensatory mitigation p~an, and subject to said plan being approved by the Army Corps of Engineers. The wetland mitigation plan will be recorded as part of the Sensitive Areas Development Plan to assure that it will apply to the property in the future regardless of the property's ownership. Buffer Averaging The Sensitive Areas Ordinance states that 'buffer averaging' may be permitted or required where an increased buffer is deemed necessary or desirable to provide additional protection to one area of a wetland for aesthetic or environmental reasons. In this situation, the width of the required buffer around other areas of the wetland may be reduced by up to 50%, but the area of the provided buffer must be equal to or greater than the total area of the required buffer. In determining whether to reduce or not to reduce the required buffer, the City shall consider the following: 1) The proposed land use of the property and its potential impact on the wetland. 2) The design and layout of the proposed development in relation to the wetland. 3) The physical characteristics of the site and the wetland. 4) Any other factor related to the shod or long term environmental stability and health of the wetland. The total buffer area in the Davis Addition wetland, based on the 50-foot buffer requirement is 3.56 acres of buffer. The total area of the proposed buffer, which is down to 25 feet in some locations, but over 100 feet at the widest locations, is 4.46 acres. The proposed buffer averaging will leave more ~and developable for commercial lots, specifically lots 3 and 7. The total buffer area will be larger than what would be required. Given the physical characteristics of the site and that the applicant is proposing to enhance the remaining wetland by removing invasive species and supplanting them with wetland plantings, staff feels the proposed buffer averaging is adequate for this site. If this were a wetland that contained a variety of native wetland plants, and / or provided habitat for endangered or threatened species, or was part of a stream corridor, staff would be reluctant to recommend buffer reductions or buffer averaging. The applicant is proposing a sanitary sewer along the northern portion of the wetland - utilities defined as necessary infrastructure are permitted to disturb areas such as this. Engineering staff is of the opinion that the sanitary sewer can coexist with the wetland provided the trench it is placed in does not inadvedently wick away water from the wetland site. Staff has asked the C:/DOCU ME- 1\bmiklo\LOCALS-1\Ten~o~Sub03-00027 Davis Addition doc 6 applicant to place a note on the plat indicating the sanitary sewer design will be compatible with the function of the wetland - the design will be approved with the final plat and construction plans. Water Main Extension Fee: A water main extension fee of $395 / acre will be required. Sanitary Sewer Tap-On Fee: A sanitary sewer tap-on fee of approximately $2,400 / acre will be required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ03-00027., a request for a rezoning from Highway Commercial, CH-1 to Sensitive Areas Overlay, OSA/CH-1 and the Sensitive Areas Development Plan for the Davis Addition, an approximate 25.07 acre properly located west of Mormon Trek Boulevard and south of Highway 1, be approved, subject to Army Corps of Engineers permit approval for the proposed Compensatory Mitigation Plan and recording of the Sensitive Areas Development Plan. Staff recommends that SUB03-00027 be deferred subject to resolution of deficiencies and discrepancies noted below. Upon resolution of these deficiencies and discrepancies, staff recommends that SUB03-00027, a request for preliminary plat approval of Davis Addition, an approximate 25.07 acre, 8-lot commercial subdivision located west of Mormon Trek Boulevard and south of Highway 1, be approved. DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES: 1. Iowa City already has a Florence Street - street name will need to be changed. The proposed Dane Road on the east side of Mormon Trek Boulevard should have the same street name as the proposed loop street. 2. Title needs to be changed to Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan. 3. Symbol used for existing wetland does not match what is shown on the plan. 4. There are errors in the legal description. 5. The buffer averaging, if approved, may be no closer smaller the 25 feet - revise area near Lot 7 where the wetland is within 20 feet of the buffer. 6. Other various notes on the plan, typos, etc. A'I-I-ACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary Plat 3. Wetland Alternatives Analysis (Commission Only) 4. Compensatory Mitigation Plan (Commission Only) Approved by: ./ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development C:/DOCUME-1'~rnikJo\LOCALS~11Ternp~ub03-00027 Davis Addition doc I 5. SITE LOCATION: Botween Hwy. 218 & proposoct SUBO3-OOO27/Ft[703-O0027 Mormon -l'rok Blvd. extension . Preliininary Plat & Sensitive Areas Site Plan .... J JR Davis Addition 8 REQUEST FOR A WETLAND BUFFER REDUCTION J JR DAVIS SUBDIVISION IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA Request to the City of Iowa City for a Wetland Area Buffer Zone Reduction for the J JR Davis Subdivision, which is in the southeast quarter of Section 20, Township 79 North, Range 6 West, in Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa. MMS Consultants, Inc., on behalf of our client Mr. James Davis, would like to request a wetland buffer reduction. A wetland delineation for this property has already been completed and transmitted to the City of Iowa City. As mentioned in the wetland delineation, 2.38 acres of the total 3.07 acres of wetland is described as a seasonally flooded basin (palustrine; flat; emergent; persistent and non-persistent (Area A)) and the remaining 0.62 acres is described as floodplain forest (palustrine; emergent; broad and narrow leaved persistent (Area B)). Area for which we are requesting buffer reductions: Total wetland acreage on this property is 3.07 acres. The wetland areas do not contain species identified by the federal and/or state governments as endangered or threatened; and do not provide critical or outstanding habitat for any species of that type. The wetland area does not contain diverse plant associations of infrequent occurrence or of regional significance and is not identified as a blue line stream on any USGS topographical maps (Figure 1). Area A In a year of average precipitation, Area A does not contain standing water throughout the calendar year. Area A is not a forested wetland and does not provide a known habitat for migratory birds of local or regional significance. Area B In a year of average precipitation, Area B does not contain standing water throughout the calendar year. Area B does not provide a known habitat for migratory birds of local or regional significance. However, Area B is a forested wetland Due to the following circumstances, we would like to request a 50' buffer reduction for both Area A and Area B. In addition, due to the proposed construction of a storm water attenuation basin, 0.81 acre of wetland will be created by the hydrologic alteration of this site. A 50' buffer area surrounding both the existing wetland and the 0.81 new wetland area has been calculated. Both the Ideal 50' buffer area (3.56 ac.) and a Proposed 50' buffer area (4.46 ac.) are outlined on the attached Figure 2. Our proposed buffer area will be seeded with an easy-to-maintain short grass seed mix (see the J JR Davis Wetland Mitigation Plan - Part II for specit ~) that will protect the wetland area from infiltration of contaminated overland runoft OV 1 3 2003 MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. FIGURE 1 1917 South Gilbert Street Location Map Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa City West - USGS 7.5 Minute Topographical MMS Project Number 5479-002 Quadrangle Map FCURE 2 J JR DAVIS SUBDIVISION /3UFFER EXH BI- W~TLaND SUMMARY TOTAL EXISTNG WETLAND 3 O7 AC TOTAL WOOD[D ~TLANO (AREA Prepared by: Robert Miklo, PCD, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5240 ORDINANCE NO. 04-4106 AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 113 OF AN ACRE FROM PLANNED HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (PRM) TO SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY PLANNED HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (OSA-PRM), FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 512 S. DUBUQUE STREET. WHEREAS, the applicant, University View Partners, has requested that said property be rezoned from Planned High Density Residential (PRM) to Sensitive Areas Overlay Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential (OSA-PRM); and WHEREAS, the applicant has also requested approval of a Sensitive Areas Development P~an to allow construction within the previously altered protected slope located on the property; and WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a report prepared by Terracon, a professional engineering firm, that demonstrates that development activity will not undermine the stability of the slope; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer and the Planning and Zoning Commission have reviewed the Sensitive Areas Development Plan and the associated engineering report; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that the proposed development activity is consistent with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the proposed rezoning and Sensitive Areas Development Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. APPROVAL~ The property described below is hereby reclassified from its present classification of PRM, Planned High Density Residential to Sensitive Areas Overlay Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential (OSA-PRM) and the associated Sensitive Areas Development Plan is hereby approved. Lot 7 and the South 10 feet of Lot 8, in Block 9, in that part of Iowa City, Iowa, laid off as the County Seat of Johnson County, Iowa, according to the plat thereof recorded in Book 1, Page 253, Deed Records of Johnson County, Iowa. SECTION II ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector 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 this ordinance as provided by law. ~FCTION II1. C. ERTIFICATION 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 to record the same, along with approved Sensitive Areas Development Plan, at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, all as provided by law. ~. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION V. SFVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part ofthe 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 VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approva[ and publication, as provided by law. Pax,~d and approved this__.~tJ3, dayof 8anuary ,20 04 · MAYOR . ATTEST:'"~.~ %/~. ~ CITY'CLERK City Attorney's Office P pdad rnin~ord~o~ec~g512sd ubuque2.doc Ordinance No. 04-4106 Page 2 It was moved by. and seconded by that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll cell there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: -------- Champion -- Kanner -------- _. Lehman O'Donnell -- Pfab Vanderhoef Wilbum First Consideration Voteforpassage:AYE$: Lehman, O'Donnell, Pfab, Vanderhoef, Nilburn, Champion. NAYS: Kanner. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration ............... Vote for passage: Date published .. ;[/14/04 Moved by O'Donnell, seconded by Champion, that the rule requiring ordinances to be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at Which it is to be finally passed be suspended, th~ second considerati, and vote be waived and ordinance be voted upon for final passage at this time. AYES: O'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilburn, Bailey, Champion,Elliott, Lehman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. It was moved by 0' Donnel 1 and seconded by Vanderhoef that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x -- Bailey . X Champion X _ Elliott . X __ Lehman X __ O'Donnell _ X Vanderhoef X __ Wilburn Prepared by: Jessica Hlubek, Planning Intern, City of iowa City, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5231 ORDINANCE NO. 04-4107 AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF AN ALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED SOUTH OF KIRKWOOD AVENUE AND WEST OF DIANA STREET, WHEREAS, the applicant, Michael Lensing, has requested that the City vacate the unbuilt portion of an alley right-of-way located south of Kirkwood Avenue and west of Diana Street; and WHEREAS, the said right-of-way is not used by abutting properties for vehicular or pedestrian access; and WHEREAS, the City has no plans to develop the right-of-way for street access; and WHEREAS, it is in the City's interest to vacate and dispose of public right-of-way, or portions thereof, that will not be used for public access; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended vacation of this right-of-way subject to the retention of any necessary utility easements, the conveyance of the right-of-way being approved concurrently with the approval of the ordinance vacating the alley, and the inclusion of a curb along the east-west graveled alley to prevent vehicular access from commemial property to Diana Street. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. VACATION: Subject to the retention of any necessary utility easements, the conveyance of the right-of-way being approved concurrently with approval of the ordinance vacating the alley, and the inclusion of a curb along the east-west graveled alley to prevent vehicular access from commercial property to Diana Street, the City of Iowa City hereby vacates the right-of-way legally described as follows: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TM PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF KIRKWOOD AVENUE 460'; THENCE SOUTHERLY 35' TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 3, BLOCK 6 OF LUCAS ADDITION; THENCE SOUTHERLY 150' TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER .OF SAID LOT 3, WHICH IS THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTHERLY 284' ALONG WESTERN BOUNDARY OF ORIGINAL PLATTED ALLEY; THENCE EASTERLY 20' TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 6, BLOCK 6 OF LUCAS ADDITION; THENCE NORTHERLY 264' ALONG EASTERN BOUNDARY OF SAID ALLEY TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 4, BLOCK 6 OF LUCAS ADDITION; THENCE EASTERLY 50' ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 4; THENCE NORTHERLY 20' TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 3, BLOCK 6 OF LUCAS ADDITION; THENCE WESTERLY 70' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in cenfiict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part 9f 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 adjudicated invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Pa~/~.nd approved this 6'~h day of ~]anuary ,2004. Iv~'~YOR -----~. . ~- ATTEST: /f/,~q.,~,~.-~,~ '~'~. CI'P~3LERK Approved .b y~.._ City ~,t~orney's Offic~ Ppdadrnin\ord\vacatekirkwood-diana.doc Ordinance No. 04-4107 Page. 2 It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Champion Kanner Lehman O'Donnell Pfab Vanderhoef Wilbum First Consideration 11/25/03 Voteforpassage: AYES: Champ*ion, Kanner, Lehman, 0'Donne]l, Vanderhoef, Nilburn. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Pfab. ~cond Consideration 12/16/03 Voteforpassage: AYES:Lehman, O'Donnell, Pfab, Vanderhoef, Wilburn, Champion, Kanner. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Date published 1/14/04 It was moved by ~ and seconded by Wi 1 burn that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ADSENT: __X __ Bailey _ X -- Champion ~ Elliott _~X -' __ Lehman X - O'Donnell ~X - __ Vanderhoef -- __ Wilbum REVISED Prepared by: Brian Boelk, Public Works, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5141 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3 ENTITLED "CITY FINANCES, TAXATION & FEES," CHAPTER 4, "SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FINES, AND PENALTIES"; AMENDING TITLE 14 ENTITLED "UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE," CHAPTER 3, "CITY UTILITIES," ARTICLE A, "GENERAL PROVISIONS," SECTION 14-3A-2, "DEFINITIONS," AND SECTION 14-3A-4, "RATES AND CHARGES FOR CITY UTILITIES" AND; AMENDING TITLE 14 ENTITLED "UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE," CHAPTER 3, "CITY UTILITIES," ARTICLE G, "STORM WATER COLLECTION, DISCHARGE AND RUNOFF," TO CREATE A STORMWATER UTILITY AND ESTABLISH A STORMWATER UTILITY FEE. WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City, since its incorporation, has constructed a stormwater infrastructure with point source and non-point source discharges into the Iowa River and the six major creeks; and WHEREAS, the City stormwater infrastructure carries stormwater runoff either directly or indirectly from properties within the City to the Iowa River; and WHEREAS, the Iowa River, the major creeks, and the City's stormwater infrastructure are available for stormwater and ground water discharges; and WHEREAS, the City incurs costs to monitor, maintain, replace, and improve its stormwater infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the City is now required to have a national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit to operate and maintain its stormwater infrastructure and to otherwise protect the waters of the Iowa River and the six major creeks; and WHEREAS, the City has identified an ongoing need to fund water quality improvements in streams, creeks, and ditches within the city as well as the need to fund improvements for maintaining and improving water quality and to mitigate and prevent flooding from stormwater runoff into City-owned storm sewers; and WHEREAS, current and pending Federal and State regulations require the City to take additional affirmative steps in such areas as public education, public improvements, detection of illicit discharge in stormwater systems, construction of site runoff control, stormwater management, and pollution prevention programs to address water quality issues and flood control, which additional activities will create additional funding 0obligations for such mandated services; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 388, Code of Iowa (2001), the City is authorized to establish City utilities including a stormwater drainage system utility; and WHEREAS, the City now desires through this ordinance to create a stormwater drainage system utility and establish authority to implement and enforce user fees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I AMFNDMENT Title 3, Chapter 4, entitled "Schedule of Fees, Rates, Charges, Bonds, Fines, and Penalties" is hereby amended by: a. Renumbering Section 3-4-8 to Section 3-4-9. b. Renumbering Section 3-4-7 to Section 3-4-8. c. Renumbering Section 3-4-6 to Section 3-4-7. d. Adding a new Section 3-4-6 as follows: 3-4-6: STORM WATER UTILITY FEE Description of Fees, Charge, Bond Fine or Penalty: Storrnwater Utility Fee. Users include all users owning or occupying developed property in the city of Iowa City. Amount of Fee, Charge, Bond, Fine, or Penalty: One Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) = $2.00 SECTION II AMENDMENT. Title 14, Chapter 3, Article A, entitled "General Provisions" of the City Code is hereby amended by: a. Repealing the Subsection entitled "City Utilities, City Utility Services" in Section 14-3A-2 and substituting the following in lieu thereof: City Utiliti~.~ City Utility. Services: The providing of water, wastewatar, stormwatar drainage, and/or solid waste services to persons who are obligated to pay for said services. Ordinance No. Page 2 b. Adding a subsection entitled "Stormwater Drainage" in Section 14-3A-2 as follows: ~: Stormwater, ground water, and spent water discharged to the City's stormwater infrastructure. c. Repealing Subsection 14-3A-4(A)(2) and substituting the following in lieu thereof: 2. All contributors or users owning or occupying property in the city of Iowa City shall be charged for the service used. In addition, a fee shall be charged to all account holders for operation, maintenance, and improvements to the City's stormwater infrastructure utility. The City shall review the user charge system and revise user charge rates as necessary to ensure that the system generates adequate revenues to pay the costs of operation and maintenance, necessary expansion and debt service, and that the system continues to provide for the uniform distribution of operation and maintenance among all users. The City will annual notify all users, in conjunction with a regular bill, of the wastewater treatment charges and that portion of the user's bill attributable to wastewater treatment services. Such rates and charges shall be in the amounts set forth in the schedule of fees, Title 3, Chapter 4 of this Code. ~EC_TJQbLJ~ That Title 14, Chapter 3, City Utilities, Adicle G of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended by adding the following Section 14-3G-10, entitled "Stormwater Utility and Stormwater Utility Fee": 14-3G-10 STORMWATER UTILITY & STORMWATER UTILITY FEE A. ~ It is determined and declared to be necessary and to lead or contribute to a result conducive to the protection of the public health, safety, welfare, and compliance with federal regulation, that a stormwater management utility district be established within the city. It is further determined and declared to be necessary and conducive to the protection of the public health, welfare, and safety of the city and its residents that charges be levied upon and collected from the owners or occupants of all developed lots, parcels or real estate, and buildings that discharge stormwater or surface or subsurface waters, directly or indirectly, to the city stormwater drainage system, and that the proceeds of such charges so derived be used for the purposes of management of storm water runoff quantity and quality, construction, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement and debt service for construction of the stormwater drainage, flood protection and stormwater quality improvements comprising the stormwater utility. B. Definitinq,,:i As used in this Section, the following definitions shall apply: City: City of Iowa City Developed Property: Property upon which a structure or impervious surface has been placed or constructed, thus increasing the amount of rainwater or surface water runoff. Director: The Public Works Director or designee. Drainage Course: A shallow narrow grassed or paved overland route, either natural or constructed, over which water passes. Dwelling Unit: A singular unit or apartment providing complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation. Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU): The average impervious area of a single family residential properly located within the city as periodically determined and established as provided in this Section. ERU Rate: The dollar value periedically determined and assigned to each ERU as a charge for stormwater management services, and expressed as SX.XX per ERU. Exempt Property: Public streets, alleys and sidewalks; all University of Iowa properties; all undeveloped properties. Ground Water: Water beneath the surface of the earth which is not bound to soil particles. Impervious Area: The number of square feet of hard-surfaced areas which either prevent or resist the entry of water into soil mantle, as it entered under natural conditions as undeveloped property, and/or cause water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from that present under natural conditions as undeveloped property, including but not limited to roofs, roof extensions, patios, porches, driveways, sidewalks, pavement, athletic courts, and semi-impervious surfaces such as gravel which are used as driveways or parking lots. Multi-family Residential Property: Residential structures designed with two or more dwelling units to accommodate two or n~ore families or groups of individuals living separately and not sharing the same living space. Non-Point Source Discharge: Water discharged from the earth's surface to a drainage course or water course. Non-residential Property: Any developed lot not exclusively residential, including but not limited to, transient rentals, commercial, institutional, churches, hospitals, governmental properties and parking lots, Ordinance No. Page 3 and multi-use properties incorporating residential uses. Point Source Discharge: Water discharged to the earth's surface through a pipe, conduit, tube, duct, channel or pumping facility. Single-Family Residential Property: A detached residential structure designed as a single dwelling unit to accommodate one family or group of individuals living together and sharing the same living space, but excluding multi-use properties which include single-family residential uses. Stormwater Drainage System District: The area served by the stormwater utility. Stormwater Infrastructure: The entire constructed and natural stormwater and ground water drainage system within the City limits of Iowa City. Stormwater Management: The tasks required to control stormwater runoff to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public, and comply with state and federal regulations. It includes but is not limited to street sweeping, erosion control, stormwater basin improvements and maintenance, culvert and storm sewer maintenance, stormwater management planning and related public education. Stormwater Utility: The utility established under this Section for the purpose of managing stormwater and imposing charges for the recovery of costs connected with such stormwater management. Surface Water: Stormwater, ground water, and spent water received by the earth's surface. Undeveloped Property: A parcel that has no impervious area. User: The owner and/or occupant of any developed property within the limits of Iowa City. Water Course: A natural overland route through which water passes, including drainage courses, streams, creeks, and rivers. C. ~. The entire City is hereby organized into one stormwater utility district. D. Powem and Dutie~ The City shall have the following powers, duties, and responsibilities with respect to the Stormwater Utility: 1. Prepare ordinances as needed to implement this division and forward the ordinances to the City Council for consideration and adoption, and adopt such regulations and procedures as are required to implement this division and carry out its duties and responsibilities. 2. Administer the design, construction, maintenance and operation of the utility system, including capital improvements designated in the comprehensive drainage plan. 3. Acquire, construct, lease, own, operate, maintain, extend, expend, replace, clean, dredge, repair, conduct, manage, and finance such facilities, operations, and activities, as are deemed by the City to be proper and reasonably necessary for a system of storm and surface water management. These facilities may include, but are not limited to, surface and underground drainage facilities, storm sewers, watercourses, ponds, ditches, and such other facilities relating to collection, runoff, and retention as will support a stormwater management system, whether such facilities are owned and operated directly by the City or are provided under statutory or contractual provisions and furnishings of which facilities create or impose a cost or charge upon the City for the service afforded by such facilities. 4. The City shall separately account for the stormwater utility finances. The stormwater utility shall prepare an annual budget, which is to include all operation and maintenance costs, costs of borrowing, and other costs related to the operation of the stormwater utility. The budget is subject to approval by the City Council. Any excess of revenues over expenditures in a year shall be retained in a segregated fund, which shall be used for stormwater utility expenses in subsequent years. Stormwater utility fees collected shall be deposited in the stormwater enterprise fund and shall be used for no other purpose. E. Establi.~hment of Equivalant Rasidenfial [Jnif (EEII) rate and .~fnrmwa/er utility c. harge 1. For purposes of this article, an ERU shall be equivalent to 3,129 square feet of impervious area. 2. Except as provided in this article, every user owning or occupying property that is not exempt property in the City of Iowa City shall pay to City a stormwater utility charge as determined in this article. In the event the owner and the occupant of a particular property are not the same the liability for payment of the stormwater management charge attributable to that property shall be joint and several as to the owner and occupant. 3. The ERU rate to be applied to properties shall be as defined in §34-6 of the City Code. 4. The monies derived from the starmwater utility charge shall be used solely for the operation and maintenance of the City wide stormwater infrastructure and related water quality programs. F. Datarminatinn of stormwater utility, charge Ordinance No. Page 4 1. The stormwater utilitY charge for single-family residential properties shall be 100% of the ERU rate per month. As to these propedies, the stormwater utility charge shall commence upon the earlier of the following: a. The issuance of a certificate of occupancy; b. 90 days after construction is halted, provided construction is at least 50% complete; or c. 90 days after construction is completed, even if a certificate of occupancy has not been issued for the residence. 2. For multi-family residentiaJ properties the stormwater utility charge shall be 50% of the ERU rate multiplied by the number of individual dwelling units existing on the property. As to these properties, the stormwater utility charge shall commence upon the earlier of the following: a. The issuance of a certificate of occupancy; b. 90 days after construction is halted, provided construction is at least 50% complete; or c. 90 days after construction is completed, even if a certificate of occupancy has not been issued for the residence. 3. For non-residential property, the stormwater utility charge shall be 50% of the ERU rate multiplied by the numerical factor obtained by dividing the total impervious area of the particular property by the number of square feet in one ERU. The minimum charge shall be equal to 100% of the ERU rate. As to these properties, the stormwater utility charge shall commence upon the earlier of the following: a. The issuance of a certificate of occupancy; b. 90 days after construction is halted, provided construction is at least 50% complete; or C. 90 days after construction is completed, even if a certificate of occupancy has not been issued for the residence. G. Appaal~. 1. An owner or occupant of a multi-family residential property aggrieved by the initial or any subsequent calculation of the number of dwelling units upon or in such property, calculation of the stormwater utility charge, or allocation of such charge among occupants, may appeal such calculations and allocation to the director. Upon such appeal, the stormwater utility charge for such property may be recalculated utilizing information supplied by the appealing owner or occupant, provided such information is verified as correct by the director. 2. An owner or occupant of non-residential property aggrieved by the initial or any subsequent determination of the total impervious area of such property, calculation of the stormwater utility charge for such property, or allocation of such charge among occupants, may appeal such calculations and allocation to the director. Upon such appeal, the stormwater utility charge for such property may be recalculated utilizing information supplied by the appealing owner or occupant, provided such information is verified as correct by the director. 3. Any adjustment of the stormwater utility charge resulting from such appeal shall be retroactive to the date the appeal was filed. 4. Appeals by the owners or occupants of property subject to stormwater utility charges shall include a statement of the number of dwelling units, total property area, and/or total impervious area, as appropriate for the particular grounds for appeal. Such information may be shown on the stormwater utility reporting forms or on appeal forms, and may be accompanied by plats, County Assessor's records, or survey data. The director may request additional information from the appealing party. Based upon the information provided by the utility and appealing party, the director shall make a final calculation of the stormwater utility charge. The director shall notify the parties, in writing, of the director's decision within 90 days after receipt of the appeal. If still aggrieved, a party may request, in writing, a review by the City Manager of the director's decision. Such request must be filed with the City Manager within 30 days after the director's decision, shall cite the specific error by the director, and shall include the calculation of stormwater utility charge which the appealing party believes to be correct. The City Manager shall review the record presented and render a written decision within 30 days after receipt of the request for review. The City Manager may request additional information from the director or the appealing party. If still aggrieved, a party may request review of the City Manager's decision by the City Council in the same manner as above, provided for review by the City Manager. The filing of an appeal shall not excuse the payment of the stormwater utility charge when due. However, the City shall refund any portion of the charge paid subsequent to the filing of the appeal which is adjudged to be excessive, with interest at the rate provided by law. H. Billing pmcedHres d~linqHent ar~nunf~ and cnllactic~n proc~.durer: 1. The charges established hereunder will be billed monthly to customers in the Iowa City stormwater Ordinance No. Page 5 utility district. 2. Collection and delinquent account procedures shall be as in {}14-3A-6 of the City Code. SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION V. 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 VI. EFFECTIVE DATF This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication. Passed and approved this __ day of ,20___ MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by Ci~f'A~'~r~'ey's Of~ce ~- pweng/ord/stormwater 11-03.doc Ordinance No. Page __ It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Bailey Champion Elliott . Lehman O'Donnell Vanderhoef Wilburn First Consideration Vote for passage: Second Consideration 1/~/fl4 Vote for passage: AYES: Lehman, Vanderhoef, Wi]burn, Bailey, Champion. NAYS: Elliott, O'Donnell. ABSENT: None. Date published Ordinance No. Page __ It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance as nad be adopted, and upon roll call then wen: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Champion Kanner . Lehman O'Donnell . Pfab Vanderhoef Wilbum First Consideration 12/16/03 Voteforpassage: AYES: Wi]burn, Champion, Kanner, Lehman, Vanderhoef. NAYS:0'Donnel~ Pfab. ABSENT: None. Second Con$ideraUon Vote for passage: Date published City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: December 22, 2003 To: City Council From: City Manager Rick Fosse and Brian Boelk of our engineering staff met with Pat Guard and Rebecca Neades from the Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce on Thursday, December 18, regarding the proposed stormwater facility. Both parties discussed their background on the issue, and shared their goals and objectives with each other. We have scheduled a meeting for Tuesday, December 30th, to discuss this topic in more detail. Included in this meeting will be four or five commercial owners who have expressed an interest in discussing this issue. Between now and the next meeting, Rick will be providing some additional stormwater utility information requested by the Chamber of Commerce. This information includes materials previously shared with Councit, as well as the newly attached revised budget that represents the 50% reduction in non-residential properties. cc: Rick Fosse Ron Knoche Brian Boelk Mgr\memo\stormwater.doc ~ · STORMWATER UTILITY ESTIMATED ANNUAL BUDGET 12/16/03 Category Annual Budget Program Management $137,700.00 Storm Water Brochures $5,000.00 Storm Drain Stenciling $5,000.00 Storm Water Web Site $5,000.00 Adopt-An-Intake* $4,000.00 Community Clean-Ups* $5,000.00 Storm Water Ordinance $2,000.00 Mapping & Database Management $60,000.00 USGS - Gage Stations and Telemetry* $6,700.00 Billing System $35,000.00 Outfall Map $5,000.00 Information Management System $5,000.00 Engineering and Administration $50,000.00 Engineering Position (1/2 Time) $25,000.00 Various StaffTime (Director, Legal, HIS, Streets, Wastewater, etc.) $25,000.00 Inspection and Enforcement $41,500.00 Erosion Control, Grading, Sensitive Areas* $25,000.00 Inspection Program $11,500.00 Review & Inspection* $5,000.00 Operation and Maintenance $83,000.00 Storm Sewer Lift Station Maintenance* $5,500.00 Storm Sewer Maintenance & Cleaning* $27,500.00 Stormwater Management Basin Maintenance* $50,000.00 Stormwater Capital Improvements* $426,800.00 Total: $739,000.00 * Existing Services or Duties Budget 12/16/2003 STORMWATER UTILITY ESTIMATED ANNUAL BUDGET 12/16/03 Program Management 19O/o Engineering and Administration 7% Stormwater Capital Inspection and Improvements* Enforcement 57% 6% Operation and Maintenance 11% Prepared by: Mitchel T. Behr, Assistant City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, ENTITLED "UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE", CHAPTER 4, ENTITLED "LAND CONTROL AND DEVELOPMENT", ARTICLE C, ENTITLED "HISTORIC PRESERVATION REGULATIONS", TO ADD CERTAIN PROVISIONS TO SECTION 4, ENTITLED "RULES OF THE COMMISSION" AND CERTAIN PROVISIONS TO SECTION 7, ENTITLED "APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS", IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGN REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE TO REVIEW APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS. WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission and City Council wish to provide for the establishment of an historic preservation design review subcommittee to review applications for certificates of appropriateness and make recommendations to the Historic Preservation Commission; and, WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to provide for careful review and consideration of such applications NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: ~. City Code Title 14, entitled "Unified Development Code", Chapter 4, entitled "Land Control and Development", Article C, entitled "Historic Preservation Regulations", Section 4, entitled "Rules of the Commission", sub-section C, is hereby amended to add the following: The Commission shall have the authority to establish an historic preservation design review subcommittee to review and make recommendations to the Commission regarding applications for certificates of appropriateness. Said subcommittee shall consist of three members of the Commission, appointed annually by the Commission. SECTION II. AMENDMENT. City Code Title 14, entitled "Unified Development Code", Chapter 4, entitled "Land Control and Development", Article C, entitled "Historic Preservation Regulations", Section 7, entitled "Applications for Certificates of Appropriateness'"', sub-section C-2, is hereby amended to add the following: If an historic preservation design review subcommittee has been established by the Commission, the Commission shall immediately transmit the application and accompanying plans and other information, to said subcommittee. The historic preservation design review subcommittee shall, within a reasonable time, give written notice to the applicant, hold a meeting to review and consider the application and its compliance with the guidelines established by law and this Article, and make a recommendation regarding the application to the Commission. ~EC%~,JJL~;P~2&LE~. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION IV 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 V EFFECTIVE DATF This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this __ day of ,20___ MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by ~'~y',E, ttorn eC"s O~ice Ppdadmin\or\historicdesignreview.ord Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Bailey Champion Elliott Lehman O'Donnell Vanderhoef Wilburn First Consideration ]./6/04 Voteforpassage:AYES: Lehman, 0'Donnell, Vanderhoef, Wilburn, Bailey, Champion, Elliott. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration Vote for passage: Date published Prepared by: Mitchel T. Behr, Assistant City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030 ORDINANCE NO. / ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, ENTITLED "UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE", CHAPTER 4, ENTITLED "LAND CONTROL AND DEVELOPMENT", AB'rlCLE C, ENTITLED "HISTORIC PRESERVATION REGULATIONS", TO ADD CERTAIN/PRovISIONS~ TO SECTION 4, ENTITLED "RULES OF THE COMMISSION" AND CERTAIN PROVISIONS TO SECTION 7, ENTITLED "AP FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS", IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR THE ~POINTMENT OF A HISTORIC RI~VIEW SUBCOMMITTEE TO REVIEW APPLICATIONS :-RTIFICATES OF APPROPRI.~TNESS; WHEREAS, the Preservation Commissi and City Council wish to provide for the establishment of a to review applications for certificates of appropriateness and Historic Preservation Commission; and, WHEREAS, it is in the public to for careful review and consideration of such applications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENT. City entitled "Unified Development Code", Chapter 4, entitled "Land Control and Developn entitled "Historic Preservation Regulations", Section 4, entitled "Rules of the Co~ ', sub, section C, is hereby amended to add the following: The Commission/ ..... have the authority to establish a Historic Review Subcommittee to ~eview and make recomme~ations to the Commission regarding applications for c~rtificates of appropriateness. ~ Said subcommittee shall consist of three members,/of the Commission, appointed annually by the Commission. / SECTION II. REPEALF;zl~ All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provi- sions of this Ordinance ar/~ereby repealed. / \ SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part bf the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this __ day of ,20 MAYOR Ordinance No. Page 2 ATTEST: CITY CLERK City Attorney's Office ', Mitch/B/HPC Ord & Bylaws/Oral / / / / City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager and City Council ./.~' Shelley McCafferty, Associate Planne/~-? FROM: DATE: December 19, 2003 RE: Historic preservation issues The Historic Preservation Commission and staff are recommending two items for Council consideration for the purpose of improving and expediting the historic preservation review process and regulations. 1. Ordinance allowing the Historic Preservation Commission to establish a historic review subcommittee, At this time, applications for certificates of appropriateness are deliberated by the full Commission, which currently consists of 10 members. Deliberation with this large of a group can be daunting for homeowners and contractors, and can result in lengthy meetings. The Commission is recommending that a three-person subcommittee be established to review applications, work with homeowners and contractors to resolve any issues that do not comply with the guidelines and make recommendations regarding these applications to a quorum of the Historic Preservation Commission during their regularly scheduled meetings. 2. Resolution revising the Historic Preservation Commission bylaws. The revisions to the Historic Preservation Commission bylaws are as follows: · Clarify the size and membership of the Commission. This revision updates Section I of the bylaws, which pertains to membership, so that the bylaws comply with State law. State law requires that a representative from each historic district be appointed to the Historic Preservation Commission. In addition, local ordinance requires four at-large representatives. At the time the bylaws were originally adopted, there were only three historic districts in Iowa City and the Commission had seven members. Currently, there are six historic districts and the Commission has ten members. · Specify when terms expire. Commission terms have always expired at the end of March. This revision clarifies this practice. · Specify policy reqardinq ex parte contacts. At times it is necessary that property owners consult with Commission members for design and technical assistance. This amendment addresses the policy regarding ex parte contacts. · Provision for a historic review subcommittee. This item reiterates the ordinance amendment discussed in item one above. Cc: Karin Franklin Bob Miklo