HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-08-25 Public hearingNOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing
will be held by the City Council of Iowa City,
Iowa, at 7:00 p.m. on the 25m day of August,
1998, in the Civic Center Council Chambers,
410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa; at
which hearing the Council will consider:
1. An ordinance changing the zoning
designation of approximately 9.27 acres from
Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) to
Sensitive Areas Oyerlay/Medium Density
Residential (OSA-8) to allow a 72-unit
residential development on property located on
the south side of Taft Speedway west of
Dubuque Street.
Copies of the proposed ordinance are on file
for public examination in the office of the City
Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons
wishing to make their views known for Council
consideration are encouraged to appear at the
above-mentioned time and place.
MARlAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
ppdadnVnphO825.doc
Prepared by: Scott Kugler, Assoc: Planner, 410 E.
Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5243
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING
DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 9.27
ACRES FROM LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (RS-5) TO SENSITIVE AREAS
OVERLAY/MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (OSA-8) TO ALLOW A 72-UNIT
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF TAFT SPEEDWAY WEST OF DUBUQUE
STREET.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Riverview Place
Partners, on behalf of property owner James P.
Glasgow, has requested that the City rezone
approximately 9.27 acres of property located on
the south side of Taft Speedway, west of
Dubuque Street, from Low Density Single-family
Residential (RS-5) to Sensitive Areas
Overlay/Medium Density Single-Family
Residential, to allow a 72-unit residential
development; and
WHEREAS, the proposed development is
intended to provide affordable senior housing
units; and
WHEREAS, there is a demonstrated need for
this type of housing within the Iowa City
community; and
WHEREAS, the proposed development plan
associated with this application meets the
requirements of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance
for a sensitive areas development plan; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Planning and
Community Development, the Department of
Public Works, the Planning and Zoning
Commission, and the Riverfront and Natural
Areas Commission have recommended denial of
the proposed rezoning for reasons of public
health and safety due to concams regarding the
location of surrounding streets within the 100-year
flood plain of the Iowa River and the potential for
access to the property being restricted when
flooding occurs; and
WHEREAS, despite these concerns, the City
Ordinance No.
Page 2
Council feels that the need for affordable senior
housing units outweighs the risks associated with
the potential for restricted access' dudng times of
high water and flooding.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I. APPROVAL. The following
property is hereby rezoned from its current
classification of Low Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-5) to Sensitive Areas
Overlay/Medium Density Single-Family
Residential (OSA-8), subject to the preliminary
sensitive areas development plan associated with
this application:
The following description tract of irregular
shape located in Section 3, Township 79 North,
Range 6 West of the 5th P.M., to-wit:
Commencing as a point of reference at the
center of Section 3, Township 79 North, Range
6 West of the 5th P.M., Iowa City, Johnson
County, Iowa; thence West 817.5 feet along the
south line of Government Lot 2 in the Northwest
quarter of said Section 3 to the point of
beginning; thence N88°37'W 555.4 feet to an
iron pipe; thence S81°41'W 60.3 feet to an iron
pipe; thence S00'26'E 778.7 feet to the Iowa
River bank; thence N16°22'E 233.5 feet to an
iron pin; thence N58°16'E 326.8 feet to an iron
pipe; thence N54°4'E 262.9 feet to the point of
beginning on the South side of said Government
Lot 2.
Commencing as a point of reference at the
center of Section 3, Township 79 North, Range
6 West of the 5th Principal Meridian. Iowa City.
Johnson County, Iowa; thence West 430.9 feet
along the South line of Government Lot 2 in the
Northwest Quarter of said Section 3 to a point of
intersection with the former Westedy
Right-of-Way line of North Dubuque Street (for
purposes of this discription the South line of said
Government Lot 2 is assumed to bear true East
& West); thence continuing West 386.6 feet
along the South line of said Government Lot 2 to
the Point of Beginning of tract herein described;
thence S54°04'W, 262.9 feet; thence S58°16'W,
326.8 feet; thence S16°22'W, 233.5 feet to the
Northerly Bank of the Iowa River; thence
N34°19'50"E, 712.57 feet to the point of
beginning. Said tract of land contains 2.17 acres
more or less. Said tract of land described in
accordance with plats recorded in Plat Book 7,
Page 65 and Plat Book 2, Page 167 Recorder's
Office, Johnson County, Iowa.
SECTION II. VARIATION. The following
variation from the requirements of the Medium
Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) zone
has been approved as part of the preliminary
sensitive areas development plan:
Ordinance No.
Page 3
A. Permitting more than the two dwelling units
per building which would be permitted by the
RS-8 zone, resulting in two 36-unit, multi-
family buildings on the property with
associated parking.
SECTION III. REPEALER. 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 unconsti-
tutional.
SECTION V. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordi-
nance shall 'be in effect after its final passage,
approval and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of
,1998.
MAYOR
A'I'rEST:
CITY CLERK
C: 0v mey'(~~~~<~
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
August 19, 1998
City Council
Scott Kugler, Associate Planner
REZ98-0009. Riverview Place Apartments.
At its July 16 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the
above referenced rezoning. At the time, it was acknowledged that the development plan
associated with the rezoning application did not meet the technical requirements for
approval as a preliminary sensitive areas development plan. However, the Commission
voted to recommend denial of the rezoning due to an over-riding public health, safety and
welfare issue. It was understood that if the applicant wished to proceed with the
application, the deficiencies would need to be addressed prior to consideration by the City
Council. A revised plan has been submitted and is being reviewed by staff.
The revised development plan appears to address most of the deficiencies identified by
staff, although it appears that there may be a few minor items outstanding. Public Works
has not yet completed its review of the revised plan, but it is anticipated that it will be
completed prior to the August 25 public hearing. Any minor items that may be outstanding
at that time could be addressed prior to the Council's first consideration of the application.
The changes that have been made to the plan since the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting have not affected the layout or design of the development.
Two items to note regarding the revised plan include storm water management and the
proposed building elevations. Storm water management is not required for this
development due to its proximity to the Iowa River. Under the storm water management
ordinance, run off from this property can be routed directly into the river. However, a
wetland on this property lies between the development and the river. The Sensitive Areas
Ordinance discourages the direct discharge of storm water into a wetland unless it can be
demonstrated that no adverse impact to the wetland area will result. Therefore, staff has
been recommending some pre-treatment of the run off from this development prior to its
discharge into the wetland. The revised plan indicates that a vegetative filter strip is being
proposed to accomplish this. Staff feels this is a potential solution, but would recommend
that the Soil and Water Conservation Service or other organization with technical expertise
in this area be involved in the design of this system. If this rezoning is approved, staff
recommends that it be conditioned upon the SWSC or others with technical expertise in the
area of sediment and erosion control or wetland preservation being involved in the
preparation and/or review of the final plans for the proposed filter strip.
Because of an earlier design change to the layout of north end of the site staff requested
revised building elevations, which were submitted along with the revised plans. Because
this rezoning is a planned development and buildings larger than typically permitted in this
zone (RS-8, Medium Density Single-Family Residential) are being proposed, building
elevations are reviewed along with the development plan. Staff feels that there is room for
improvement to the building elevations along the north side, which would directly face the
street. The current elevation indicates that there will be two windows along the face of
each three-story, 55-foot wide building face. This would create a rather monotonous
appearance of the property from the street. Staff recommends that these elevations be
revised to include windows on all three floors, and perhaps another set of windows near
the center of the building. This would add some interest to the north building elevations as
seen from the street. A copy of the building elevations is attached for review.
Upon completion of Public Works' review of the revised plans, staff will work with the
applicant to have any remaining deficiencies corrected and building elevations revised.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Revised preliminary sensitive areas development plan.
2. Proposed building elevations.
3. Memo from Robert Engel regarding plan revisions.
5YING
". -' , .t
,t.
/
/
./
,I
/
/
./ /'
/'
/
/
y.
/
/
/
CROSS SECT I ON e TYP I C AL
l'Z'!'l
l
m
c)
IT1~n
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Mr. Scott Kugler
August 14, 1998
Riverview Place Apartments
In response to your memorandum dated July 10, 1998, I am forwarding you the revised
plans on the above captioned project.
As you will, hopefully, note and as I believe to be the case, we did address each of the
specific items listed in your July 10th memo, with the exception of items ten, thirteen and
fifteen. I will address these three items separately below.
Please let me know, at your earliest convenience, if we have not responded fully to the
individual items we believe to be here-in addressed.
With regard to the items not addressed by the enclosed plans, I would like to provide the
following comments:
Item Ten requests that the owners consider moving several garages so as to permit a view
from the courtyard to the south.
Response: I am, presently, worlCing with Farnam Group to see how we might
'accomplish this. We are looking at what workable alternatives exist.
Item Thirteen directs that a grading plan be provided.
Response: A full and complete Grading Plan will be made for this project and
provided to your Department for approval.
Item Fifteen indicates a requirement for the set-aside and dedication of .34 acres for
public open space.
Response: Farnam Group has reviewed this requirement and have indicated that it
will willingly comply with this requirement and will be happy to accept the Parks and
Robert W, Engel and Associates Architects · 2110 South 156th Circle
Omaln:'~. Nebrnskn 68130-2503 · 402-330-82F~7 · FAX 402-330..~q331
Recreation Departments recommendation that the Iowa River buffer (as shown on the
plans) be dedicated to the City for this purpose.
On behalf of Faxnam Group, Inc., I hope the above responses axe both adequate and
satisfactory to the purpose at hand. I know that Farnam Group is keenly interested in
being responsive to the Departments recommendations and has directed my Finn to be
fully cooperative.
As for the several other items covered on your July lOth memo, I do believe, as I've
indicated above, that we have managed to address each specific item fully and completely.
I will rely on you to inform me otherwise and I will be available at your convenience if
clarification may be necessary.
CO:
Farnam Group, Inc.
John Hayek, Esq.
m~tlzt/m~m.:~h~kl/8.14.98
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
July 1 O, 1998 (for July 16 meeting)
Planning and Zoning Commission
Scott Kugler, Associate Planner
REZ98-0009. Riverview Place Apartments.
This item was deferred at the July 2 meeting, consistent with the Commission's policy of
holding at least two public discussion sessions on rezoning items. In addition, both the
Commission and the applicant raised questions or requested additional information
regarding the following issues:
· Whether past grading and filling activities that occurred on the property were approved
or authorized, or whether mitigation requirements have been met;
· Whether or not the filled portion of the property is still located within the Iowa River
flood plain;
· What criteria were used by the Housing and Community Development Commission in its
decision to award financial assistance to the applicant for this project;
· Whether or not the existing roadway providing access to this property is adequate to
accomodate the increase in traffic that would be generated by the development,
regardless of the flood plain issue; and
· Other than emergency vehicle access, what other potential problems may be associated
with the temporary closing of Taft Seedway if flooding occurs in the area.
These issues are discussed in more detail below. In addition, staff indicated in its July 2
report that the development plan submitted with this application did not meet the technical
requirements for consideration as a sensitive areas development plan. The applicant has
submitted a revised plan that is currently being reviewed by staff. Comments regarding the
revised plan are also provided below.
Previous Grading/Filling Activities: According to Gene Walsh with the Army Corps of
Engineers, mitigation requirements have been met to satisfy unauthorized filling activities
that occurred on the site in the 1980s. Additional fill was recently deposited on the site
which the Corps has found to be acceptable, as the fill was placed on the portion of the
property that was previously filled. Additional filling and grading will likely have to occur in
this area for the proposed development.
Iowa River Flood Plain: The applicant has questioned whether the revised flood plain map
provided by staff at the last meeting accurately reflected the past filling that occurred on
the property, as nearly all of the property was still shown as being in the 100 year flood
plain. The City Engineer has confirmed that the updated flood plain maps do take the filled
area into account. However, the map presented at the July 2 meeting is not the final
version of the map update being proposed for this area. The 100 year flood elevation
proposed on that map for this area was 651.0'. This has been revised to 650.5', resulting
in other portions of the site being located above the 100 year flood elevation. However,
the majority of the property is still located within the flood plain. A copy of the current
proposal, expected to be adopted later this year, is included in Commission members
packets.
HCDC Criteria: A copy of the criteria used by the HCDC in ranking CDBG/HOME projects it
attached to this memo, as well as a rank order list of applications funded for fiscal year 99,
and the Commission's comments on the Riverview Place Apartments application.
According to the Community Development staff, issues such as zoning, the location of the
property within the flood plain, etc. are not typically addressed by the HCDC, as those
issues are generally under the purvue of other commissions, such as P&Z.
Existing Roadway: Questions were raised at the July 2 meeting about the existing Taft
Speedway, and whether it is adequate for the proposed development. In absense of the
flood plain' issue, staff would typically recommend that the roadway be upgraded to current
City design standards to provide adequate access to the property given the number of
dwelling units being proposed. Because it is intended to be an affordable housing
development it is possible that the City would have worked with the developer to improve
the roadway. However, in this case it does not make sense to upgrade the roadway if it is
not to be elevated above the flood plain at the same time. If the Commission is inclined to
approve this rezoning, the issue of maintenance of the current roadway should be
considered, as well as the possibility of a contribution from the applicant toward the future
improvements to the roadway, which would typically be addressed at this time.
Potential Flood Related Problems: At the July 2 meeting, the applicant questioned the
likelihood of there being another flood event large enough to close access to Taft
Speedway between now and the time the City undertakes the raising of Dubuque
Street/Taft Avenue. It was also indicated that if this did occur, residents would be able
to stay at the facility and supplies would be brought in to the site until the flood subsided,
rather than be displaced for the duration of the flooding. This would not be a solution to
the access problem due to a number of other issues that would not be addressed by this
plan. First, the issue of emergency vehicle access would not be resolved. Also, according
to the City Engineer, in a long term flood situation there is an increase in the potential for
problems with utilities such as sanitary sewer surcharging, interuption of electricity and
phone service, etc. If any of these occur repairs would likely be delayed as a result of the
flooding. There is also no guarantee that the applicants will continue to own and operate
the proposed facility forever. Future owners may not be prepared to provide a similar level
of service in such an event. The idea of raising Dubuque Street as a capital improvements
project has been raised with the City Council many times in the past, and it has yet to be
prioritized. When this project will be undertaken by the City is very much an uncertainty.
It is also important to remember that while the 1 O0 year flood estimation is based on a
historical analysis of past flooding events, it is simply an attempt to estimate the
probability of a certain magnatude flood occurring in any given year. It does not indicate
that there will be 1 O0 years between floods of this level. Basically, in any given year it is
estimated that there is a 1% chance of a flood of the magnatude illustrated by the 1 O0
year flood plain. This estimate for Iowa City does take into account the existence of the
Coralville Dam.
Revised Sensitive Areas Development Plan: The revised development plan appears to be in
general compliance with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, although the plan does contain a
number of deficiencies that will need to be addressed before the Commission could
recommend approval. Staff has forwarded these items on to the applicant to be addressed.
Some of these items are discussed in more detail below.
The revised plans is similar to the previous plan in that two 36-unit buildings are being
proposed around a central courtyard with a drive and parking located around the perimeter.
The garages that were previously being proposed along the north side of the building have
been relocated to the rear to address staff's concerns about the appearance of the
buildings from the street. The configuration of the east building has been altered slightly to
avoid encroachment into the wetland buffer.
A 100 foot wetland buffer is illustrated on the plan, as well as a buffer along the Iowa
River. Both are required by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The Parks and Recreation
Commission has recommended that land be dedicated to satisfy the neghborhood open
space requirement of .34 acres for this development, specifying that the open space be
located between the apartments and the Iowa River, and that it be at least 50 feet in
width. Dedication of the required buffer along the river would meet this requirement.
The wetland and its required buffer, as well as the Iowa River buffer if not dedicated to the
City, should be included within a conservation easement to ensure protection of these
areas in the future. Legal papers associated with the approval of the final sensitive areas
development plan and an easement plat at that time would establish this easement, as well
as a construction easement for future improvements to Taft Speedway. If this rezoning
and development plan are approved, these items would be required in association with the
final plan.
A grading plan is required for this development due to the presence of the Iowa River and
the wetland. Erosion control measures must be detailed on that plan, which must be
submitted and approved prior to City Council consideration of the plan. Staff recommends
that stormwater not be permitted to be released directly to the wetland as proposed on the
plan, but that rather measures such as a vegetative filter strip or a settlement basin be
incorporated into the plans to adress water quality issues. If the applicant demonstrates
that the direct release of the runoff into the wetland will not threaten the quality of the
wetland habitat, pre-treatment of the runoff may be waived. The assessment of a wetland
specialist would be required to demonstrate that there would be no impact in this instance.
If a vegetative filter strip is proposed it may be located within the wetland buffer, but
would be permitted to include only native, non-invasive species.
A number of other deficiencies have been identified with regard to the current plan, as
detailed in a copy of correspondence to the applicant attached to this memorandum.
Staff's recommendation for denial of this application was detailed in its July 2 report.
However, if the Commission is inclined to recommend approval of this application, staff
recommends that this consideration be deferred at the July 16 meeting to allow the
applicant to address the deficiencies that have been identified with the plan and to allow
for staff review and approval of the revised plan when submitted.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Revised preliminary sensitive areas development plan.
Information from the Housing and Community Development Commission regarding
the review criteria and ranking of FY99 CBDG/HOME projects.
3. Correspondence to the applicant regarding plan deficiencies.
i
,/
'WETLAND AREA'
PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREA
(~5,V,.E.L, oO~MENT PLAN
SITE ~REA:
WETLAND ~REA:
WETLAND BUFFER
LANDSCAPING AP
AP~,nth,~J~- BUIL
APARTMENT BUIL
GARAGE t~r-: . ·
I MDEP~i ;i
TP~C' ,
The ~'c
Sec~ ]
to-w':
Sec!: cr
] owQ [
the
Sect i or
roan
thence
23%5
p~pe;
S~th 5
C~
d~ns~
Govern~
Of iqte,
Oubuqje
Govern~
C~f
to the
262,9
~o
to the
iF, Plo,
1 O0
RANKING CRITERIA FOR CDBG\HOME PROJECTS
This ranking sheet will be used to assist the Housing and Community Development Commission (HCDC)
'~ the FY99 allocation process. HCDC members will rank each project according to the questions\criteria
shown below. Each question or criteria will then be assigned a point value. The five categories below
are given a total number of points and have been weighted according to their importance. M~rk the
number of z~oint(s) for each (luestionlctfteria and total the points in each section.
Need\Priority (maximum 90 total points)
1. Meets a CITY STEPS priority?
2. Has the applicant documented a need for this project?
3. Project meets the goals or objectives in CITY STEPS?
(High = 1 O, Medium = 6, Low = 3 points)
(0-5 points)
(0-5 points)
Leveraging Resources (maximum 25 points)
1. Does the project allow for the re-use of CDBG\HOME funds?
A. Principal and Interest [30 year or less Amortization]
B. Principal and No Interest [30 year or less Amortization]
C. Principal with a Balloon Payment [interest ?]
D. Conditional Occupancy Loan (future repayment)
E. Declining Balance Lien (amount forgiven over time)
F. Grant (no repayment)
2. Project leverages human resources [volunteers, etc.]
3. Project leverages other financial resources? [Including in-kind]
Feasibility (maximum ;>0 points)
' The project will be completed within the required time period?
_. Project budget is justified? [Costs are documented\reasonable]
3. The level of public subsidy is needed? [Private funds not available?]
4. Has applicant documented efforts to secure other funding?
Impact\Benefit (maximum 25 POintS
SUB-TOTAL
(0-9 points) ...
9 points
8 points
5 points
I point
0 points
0 points
(0-8 points)
(0-8 points)
SUB-TOTAL
(0-6 points)
(0-6 points)
(0-4 points)
(0-4 points)
SUB-TOTAL
1. Primarily targets low income persons (0-30 = 10, 31-50% = 6, 51-80 = 4 points)
2. Project produces adequate benefits to the community related to cost? (0-5 points)
'~ 3. Does the project help persons gain self-sufficiency? (0°5 points)
4. Outcome data indicates program objectives can be met? (0-5 points)
SUB-TOTAL
Capacity\History (maximum 10 points)
1. Applicant has the capacity to undertake the proposed project?
2. If previously funded, has applicant completed prior project(s) and
maintained regulatory compliance?
3. If new, applicant can maintain regulatory compliance?
(0-4 points)
(0-6 points)
(0-6 points)
SUB-TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL:
PROJECT NAME:
. .(OPOSED ALLOCATION:
(Projects under 60 points receive ~0)
J3~3<l~d~)g/rlnk:ng8 doc
FY99 CDBG\HOME ALLOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS
' P"0j' = :'T'NAME ....t RANK
Greater iowa City Housing Fellowship 1
_S_uccessful Li_v_ing ............ 2
pV_IP_- _Fu_rni_ture_Pro_ie_ct .................
City of Iowa City - First Home Program
Riverview Place Apartments
City of Iowa City - Housing Rehab
HACAP - Second Steps (Support Service)
Eldedy Services Agency
Neighborhood Centers of Johnson Co.
Emergency Housing Project
Community Mental Health Center
I.C. Housing Authority - Rent Assistance
Torus Precision Optics
HACAP - Second Steps II (Acquisition)
I.C. Housing Authority - Tenant to Owner
Iowa Center for AIDS Resources & Educ.
Small Business Development Center
Mayor's Youth Employment Program
Institute for Social & Economic Dev.
Iowa City IHA Senior Housing - Rent Asst,
United Action for Youth
Swenson and Associates
Performance Measures
Public Access TV
Art-House
Hoover Elementary School
E. Conner Center for Independent Living
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
27
TOTAL'
PS = Pubhc Servfce :
Note Prolects with less than 60 fx)ints'~/e'f~'71'ot ~;l~r~'for~nding
AVERAGE
SCORE
83.8 $ 427,040.00 $
79.9 $ 11,000.00 $
79.4 $
78.8
78.6
77.1
75.3
75.1
74.3
72.1
71.0
70.9
70.1
70.0
69.9
68.8
68.6
67.0
67.0
60.9
52.9
50.7
47.7
46.8
42.8
42.8
35.8
$.
$
$
$
!$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
REQUE~TE~ ....... PROPOSED
AMOUNT AMOUNT
300.040,00
8,300.00
50,000.00
180,000.00
505,000.00
12,387.00
30,000.00
21,140.00
49,645.00
33,300.00
150,000.00
105,000.00
99,000.00
100,000.00
150,000.00
20,700.00
7,500.00
30,000.00
233,344.00
2,700.00
105,000.00
5,000.00
150,000.00
200,000.00
5,740 O0
7,150.00
2,698,946.00
11,000.00 PS
8,300.00 Ps
30,000.00
90,000.00
384,388.00
10,687.00 Ps
26,000.00
12,500.00
25,945.00
20,140.00
100,000. O0
75,000.00
77,000.00
120,000.00
Ps
1,291,000.00
5
Riverview Place Apartment~
Affordable Senior Rental Housing
S180,000 1% loan over 15-18years
Housing Projects
S90, 000 1% loan 15 yrs
ao
Affordable senior housing is a high City Steps priority.
Fifty percent funding recommended because Iowa Finance Authority awarded
project only 50% of tax credits, with the intended outcome of reducing the size of
the project from 72 to 36 units.
Loan allows for reuse of funds.
High leveraging of private dollars.
6
City of Iowa City
Housing Rehabilitation Program
$505,000 grant and loans
Housing Projects
$384,388 grant and loans
bo
The Housing Rehabilitation Program has demonstrated success in maintaining and
improving the city's housing stock, especially in older neighborhoods and
manufactured housing parks.
Much of the assistance is in loan form which allows for future use of ~unds.
High City Steps priority serving low and moderate income households.
HACAP
Second Steps
$12,387 grant
Public Services
$10,687
Transitional housing support services for low income families with special needs is
a high City Steps priority.
HACAP has a long track record of providing services in this community.
8
Elderly Services Agency Housing Projects
Small Repair Program
$30,000 grant $26,000 grant
a. Elderly Services Agency has a demonstrated ability to assist low income elders.
b. Program helps maintain and improve city's housing stock.
c. Program efficienfiy fills in gaps in the City of Iowa City Housing Rehabilitation
Program.
Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County
Broadway Neighborhood Center Improvements
$21,140 grant
Public Facilities
$12,500 grant
Partial allocation will pay for basement work to meet compliance with fire, safety
and day care licensing requirements,
Agency has an established capacity to carry out high quality programming.
Renovation allows Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County to expand child
care slots for very low income working families.
July 10, 1998
To:
Fr:
Re:
Larry Mazzotta, Farnam Group
Scott Kugler, Associate Planner
CITY OF I0 WA CITY
REZ98-0009. Riverview Place Apartments - Revised Sensitive Areas Development
Plan Review Comments.
3.
4.
5.
The following information must be listed on the plan:
· Name & address of property owner, applicant, and applicant's attorney.
· Location map.
· Signature block for the City Clerk (Marian Karr, City Clerk) See example
attached.
· Dimensions of buildings, and distances between buildings. Note that the City
Code requires that multiple buildings on a lot be separated by the height of the
tallest building at a minimum, unless a waiver of this requirement is requested
through the OSA rezoning process.
· Existing trees of 8 inches in diameter or more, or a general outline of the wooded
area. (I incorrectly noted during the last review that building coverage trees of one
per 550 square feet of building coverage would be required· Existing trees can be
counted toward that requirement.)
· Proposed grades for parking areas and drives.
· Location of all existing utilities along Taft Speedway.
The right-of-way trees should be planted in an area one foot above the 100 year
flood plain elevation (mis-information from me from previous review).
Revised elevations of the street side of the building will be needed as a result of the
change in plans.
It appears that a retaining wall will be needed for the drive at the southeast corner
of the drive/parking area. If so, note on plan and provide its approximate height.
A reduction of pavement width where possible is encouraged. The City's required
minimum drive width for parking aisles is 22 feet. The drives shown on the plan are
24 and 30 feet in width. Reduce to 22 feet or justify why the wider drives are
necessary.
The maximum width of the "curb cut" on Taft Speedway is 42 feet. Provide a
dimension for this cut on the plan.
Include a typical cross-section of the drive/parking area.
The man hole location shown on the plan appears to be in error. Please verify. The
existing sanitary sewer along Taft Speedway is 36 inches, not 18 as shown on the
plan.
What appears to be a 20 foot construction easement along Taft Speedway is not
readable.
Staff recommends relocating a few of the garages to provide a view from the
courtyard to the south ("river view")· Also, could some of the parking be shifted to
the east side of the aisle along the east side of the site to minimize the
encroachment toward the wetland buffer at the southeast corner of the drive?
410 EAST XVASItlN(;T(IN STREET · IOX%A ('11'~,, IO%~A 52240-1826 · (319) 356-51100 * FAX (319) 356-5009
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
A conservation easement should be shown on the plat encompassing the wetland
and its buffer.
Legal papers will be needed at the time of final plan approval addressing at a
minimum the construction easement and the conservation easement. This is a two-
step approval process: preliminary plan along with rezoning consideration, and if
approved a final plan would be approved administratively - legal papers would be
required at that time.
A grading plan will be required for this development, which must be approved prior
to consideration of the plan by the City Council. Contact Public Works to discuss
the requirements for this plan (Dennis Gannon - (319) 356-5142). Erosion control
measures must be shown on the grading plan.
What does PIV mean?
The City's neighborhood Open Space Ordinance requires the dedication of .34 acres
of public open space as a result of this development. The Parks and Recreation
Commission is recommending that the Iowa River buffer be dedicated to the City to
satisfy this requirement.
The plan notes that the storm sewer will be "daylighted" to the wetland. The
Sensitive areas Ordinance suggests pretreatment of the stormwater prior to
releasing it into the wetland unless a wetland specialist verities that the direct
release of stormwater will have no impact on the wetland. Staff recommends the
use of a vegetative filter strip, which could be within the wetland buffer, or a
settlement basin, or both, to address this issue.
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ98-O009. Riverview Place Apartments
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Contact person:
Requested action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing land use and zoning:
Surrounding land use and zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
Applicable Code requirements:
File date:
45-day limitation period:
SITE INFORMATION:
Public Utilities:
Prepared by: Scott Kugler
Date: July 2, 1998
Riverview Place Partners, L.P.
1650 Farnam Street
Suite 920
Omaha, NE 68102
Phone: (402) 341-0888
Lawrence Mazzotta
Phone: (402) 341-0888
Approval of a Sensitive Areas Overlay
rezoning.
To allow the construction of two 36
unit apartment buildings
South side of Taft Speedway, west of
N. Dubuque Street
9.27 acres
Vacant, RS-5
North: Church, RS-5;
East: Park, P;
South: Iowa River, Park, P;
West: Vacant, RS-5.
Residential, 2-8 dwelling units per acre
Sensitive Areas Ordinance
June 10, 1998
July 25, 1998
City water and sewer are available to
the site.
Public Services:
Police and fire protection would be
provided by the City, however,
emergency vehicle access would be
limited in times of flooding due to the
fact that the surface of Taft Speedway
is currently several feet below the 1 O0
year flood elevation for this area.
Transportation:
The nearest regular public transit route
is the Manville Heights route, which
passes near the site on Dubuque
Street.
Sensitive Areas:
According to the Sensitive Areas
Inventory, this site contains a potential
wetland and a stream corridor. All of
the site is located within the 100 year
flood plain.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Riverview Partners, L.P., is requesting a rezoning from RS-5, Low Density
Single-Family Residential, to OSA-8, Sensitive Areas Overlay, to allow the development of 72
eider apartment units in two 36-unit buildings on property located on the south side of Taft
Speedway, west of N. Dubuque Street. The property contains a known wetland along its
east and south property lines, requiring the approval of the Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning
and an associated sensitive areas development plan.
This property was down-zoned from RS-8 to RS-5 in 1990 along with additional acreage to
the north and west. The City's records indicate that prior to that action, a rezoning request
to permit the development of a fraternity/sorority complex was denied for this parcel. The
down-zoning was initiated by the City and supported by residents of the peninsula area at the
time in an effort to minimize the potential impact of future development on the
floodplain/wetland environment that exists in the area.
ANALYSIS:
This application is not complete in that all of the information required for a preliminary
sensitive areas development plan has not been submitted. However, due to other public
health and safety considerations, staff feels that it would be appropriate to proceed with the
review of the application before the Commission at this time prior to the submittal of this
information. Staff feels that there is an overriding public safety concern that needs to be
considered. Rather than defer this item and require the applicant to spend time and money
finalizing a development plan for this project, staff feels the Commission should discuss the
application relative to staff's concerns at this time. If the Commission agrees with staff's
assessment it can indicate this to the applicant at its July 2 meeting. The applicant can then
decide whether or not to proceed with the completion of the sensitive areas development
plan and continue with the application. If the Commission does not share staff's concerns,
the applicant can proceed with the completion of the plans for consideration by the
Commission at its July 16 meeting.
At issue is the lack of a safe means of access to the property during times of flooding. The
surface of Taft Speedway is currently several feet below the l O0-year flood elevation of
650.5' (the roadway is at approximately 645'). As recent as five years ago this roadway
was under water and not passable by emergency vehicles. It has been under water on
several occasions over the last few decades. Although it is possible to elevate the building
so that it remains above the 100 year flood level, elevating the roadway would likely be cost
prohibitive for the applicant and is not included in the City's Capital Improvements Program
(CIP) at this time. The improvement project would necessarily include also raising a portion
of Dubuque Street, a project that has been discussed in the past but never prioritized in the
CIP. In fact, federal money was available after the 1993 flood to assist in making the
improvements to Dubuque Street, but the City Council decided at that time not to reconstruct
the roadway. It is not known when roadway improvements will be made.
It could be argued that the probability of the occurrence of a 1 O0 year flood between now
and the time that the roadway is improved is relatively small. However, it is important to
note that it does not take a 100 year flood event to inundate the roadway and make it
difficult or impossible to pass. The uncertainty regarding the timing of the needed
improvements to Taft Speedway and Dubuque Street and the recent flood history of the area
are reasons to be cautious when considering development applications for property in this
location. Staff feels that it would be unwise to rezone this property to allow a greater
density of development given the circumstances.
There are some existing single-family homes located to the west of this site along Taft
Speedway, many of which were damaged by the flooding that occurred in 1993. The current
RS-5 zoning would permit additional low density development in this area provided it is
elevated above the 1 O0 year flood elevation. However, staff recommends against permitting
a higher density to be developed in such an area. The fact that the intended population is to
be comprised of senior citizens, resulting in a potential for increased demands for emergency
services, compounds these concerns. Unless a safe means of access that is not subject to
periodic closure due to flooding can be provided to this site, staff recommends denial of this
application. The City's 1990 action to zone this property for low density development was
based on the environmental characteristics of this area. The applicant has provided no
information to indicate that conditions have changed and that the rezoning is warranted.
Sensitive Areas Ordinance: Much of the information required for a preliminary sensitive areas
development plan is missing from the plan submitted by the applicant. In addition, some of
the information supplied needs further clarification. According to the Sensitive Areas
Inventory, all of the property located south of Taft Speedway in this area is a potential
wetland. In addition, there is a stream corridor shown on the map which is located on this
property. This property has been the site of some filling in the past, which has likely
displaced the wetland environment that once existed on a portion of the site. The applicant
has indicated an "approximate limit of wetland area" on the plan. The Sensitive Areas
Ordinance requires that the applicant provide a delineation of the wetland accepted by the
Army Corps of Engineers prior to the submittal of an application, unless a 150 foot buffer is
provided around the suspected wetland. In this case, a 70 foot buffer is being proposed, and
both a parking lot and a portion of the building are located within 150 feet of the approximate
limit of the wetland. An actual delineation is needed and must be shown on the plan.
The required buffer around an identified wetland is 100 feet. That buffer may be reduced
only if certain conditions are met. If the wetland is located within a stream corridor, for
instance, the buffer may not be reduced. This property is located adjacent to the Iowa River.
The Iowa River is a stream corridor as defined in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, and
therefore, the 1 O0 foot buffer must be maintained. The site plan will have to be revised to
accommodate the larger required buffer. In addition, the wetland buffer is to be an
undisturbed natural buffer, meaning no grading or development activities are to take place
there. The proposed plan indicates that grading activities are to take place within the buffer
to accommodate a paved drive. This is not one of the activities that is permitted within a
wetland buffer. It appears that some revisions to the plan will be needed to comply with the
requirements of the Sensitive Areas ordinance.
Development Plan: As mentioned above, more information is needed to meet the
requirements of a sensitive areas development plan. Staff has requested this information
from the applicant should the application proceed beyond the July 2 meeting. In addition to
the development plan, the landscaping plan also does not meet the requirements of the City's
tree regulations, which require right of way trees, parking lot trees, and building coverage
trees for residential developments. This information should be corrected on the plans before
the Commission votes on this item.
The plans and building elevations indicate that the site will include attached garages at the
short ends of the buildings, including those that face directly onto the public street. Staff
recommends that the plan be redesigned to relocate these garages to other portions of the
site which are less visible from the street. Although set back a bit from the roadway, the
garages would create the type of streetscape that the City has been trying to avoid in other
developments recently.
Neighborhood Open Space: This development will require the dedication of .34 acres of
neighborhood open space or the payment of a fee in lieu of the dedication of land. One
possibility would include the dedication of the required 50 foot buffer along the Iowa River,
which could be used for the construction of a portion of the Iowa River Corridor Trail at some
point in the future. Fees may also be considered in this case. The Parks and Recreation
Commission will review the plan at its July 8 meeting, and will make a recommendation
regarding the open space requirement.
Riverfront and Natural Areas Commission: Because this property is located within the Iowa
River flood plain, this application has been referred to the Riverfront and Natural Areas
Commission (RNAC) for a recommendation. The RNAC will review the application at its July
15 meeting.
Fees: A watermain extension fee of $395 per acre will be required for this development if
approved. In addition, a payment for the construction of a sidewalk along Taft Speedway of
82.55 per square foot should be required rather than the actual construction of the sidewalk.
When Taft Speedway is rebuilt the funds can be used to install the sidewalk at that time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REZ98-0009, a request to rezone approximately 9.27 acres located
on the south side of Taft Speedway, west of Dubuque Street, from RS-5 to OSA-8, be
denied. If the Commission is inclined to consider approval of this rezoning, this item should
be deferred to the July 16 meeting to allow the preliminary sensitive areas development plan
for this property to be brought into technical compliance with the City Code.
DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES:
The Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) requires a 1 O0 foot wetland buffer. This may be
waived under certain conditions, but in this case there is a stream corridor within the
wetland area, which would preclude a buffer reduction. The size of the wetland should
also be listed.
e
The plan notes an "approximate limit of wetland area." However, the SAO requires that
the actual delineated wetland boundary be shown on the plan, unless a 150 foot buffer
is provided around the approximate area.
The required wetland buffer is to be undisturbed by development activities. However,
the plan submitted shows grading within the buffer to accommodate a paved drive. It
appears that a redesign of the proposed development will be needed to avoid grading in
this area. The plan should indicate that construction fencing will be installed at the
edge of the buffer prior to development to ensure that construction equipment does not
inadvertently encroach into the buffer area.
Staff feels that the garages located along the north ends of the two buildings, directly
facing the public street, are inappropriate and should be relocated so as to be less
visible from the street.
Much of the required information is missing from the site plan. The applicant has been
forwarded these requirements.
The City is in the process of updating its flood information city-wide. New flood maps
are to be adopted by FEMA and the City Council later this year. This new information
indicates that the 100 year flood elevation in this area is 650.5. Elevations shown on
the plan should be revised to reflect this change. The first floor elevation of the
buildings should be 651.5, and 650 should be used as the minimum elevation for the
internal parking and drives.
A 20 foot construction easement should be shown along the south side of Taft
Speedway.
The proposed right-of-way trees should be located outside of the 20 foot construction
easement, and in an area elevated to at least the 100 year flood elevation.
All drives and parking must be located behind the required 20 foot setback. It is
difficult to tell if this requirement is being met at the northwest corner of the site.
10.
11.
12.
14.
There are tree requirements for properties containing more than 18 parking spaces. No
parking space shall be located more than 60 feet from a tree. The plan should illustrate
that this requirement is being met. In addition, there is a right-of-way tree requirement
of one tree per 40 feet of frontage. For residential uses, one tree must also be provided
for every 550 feet of building coverage (parking lot and right-of-way trees are counted
toward this requirement). The plan should provide these calculations and show the
required number of trees on the site landscaping plan.
The "Site Layout Plan" should be titled as a "Preliminary Sensitive Areas Development
Plan. '
A 50-foot buffer is required along the Iowa River, measured from the floodway. This
should be shown on the plan.
The plan indicates that storm water runoff will be diverted directly into the wetland.
The SAO discourages this. Have any pre-treatment options been considered?
ATTACHMENTS:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Location Map.
Site Layout Plan.
Landscaping Plan.
Building Elevations.
Applicant's Statement·
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and
Community Development
_1
o -LS 3DOD~DC1 ~
J
q~ oN 0..
0
Z
0
0
0
PLAN
~./
~/
/,Y/
/
/
.
/ /
I' \ c/
7/
">-\ >
//:
,_~
,L'
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN/PLAT PLAN
ROBERT W. lNralL AND
GoYernmmt Lot Z In tine N~rtrmst 0u~rter of ~ld Section ] to a ~alnt
of Int~rsactlen with tr~ formre- Is~tm-ty Right-of-lay tlne of N~rth
ABBOCIATEB ARCHITECTB
LANDSCAPING PLAN
· = lO0'-O'
|
I
/
"WETLAND AREA"
I
/
/
/
/
f
jil~j~l PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPING PLAN
ROBERT W. ENr'4EL AND ABBDClATEB ARCHITECTB
BJ, n:t.i. IH:3UV Ba.LVlDDBBV ONV q=E]Na 'M .LUaBDU m~
/ II
II
Z
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - IOWA CITY
APPLICATION FORM
DOCUMENTS REQUIRED FROM APPLICANT
FOR SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, & 10
3.
4.
6.
7.
9.
a.
See Attached 12 Copies of preliminary Plat/Plan
See Attached Location Map
See Attached Legal Description
See Attached Building Design/Elevations
See Attached Landscaping Plan
Additional Reports (As Required)
Not Applicable
b,
Effect of development on surrotmding property
The Riverview Place Apartment project is a senior affordable housing development
comprising thirty-six one and two bedroom apartment units.
This thirty-six unit building will be set-back from Taft Speedway, the main artery to
the development, at such an angle that the Northwest comer of the building will be
approximately 112 feet and the northeast comer will be 128 feet from Taft
Speedway itseft.
The development site is adjacent to Terrill Mill Park on the east, a church on the
north, an undeveloped weftand parcel of approximately ten acres on the west, and
the Iowa River on the south.
Riverview Place Apartments will incorporate at total of 36 parking stalls, fifteen of
which will be garages, sixteen of which will be general surface parking and five of
which will be reserved for handicapped parking.
Total surface parking at Riverview Place will involve considerably less area than that
currently existing at the church across the street.
Traffic Impact
As a senior affordable housing development, it is not anticipated that this project
will have any meaningful negative impact on the existing traffic volume in this
neighborhood.
This particular target population, senior citizens, does not typically have work
related commuting, nor do they have a high volume of evening travel.
For these and other reasons, unique to the target population, we do not anticipate
more than a very minimal change in traffic volume.
n~won~fcm~iac~zo~6~.98
2
Form 653.C Page 1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
AMENDMENT OF CURRENT CITY BUDGET
The Council of the City of Iowa City in Johnson County, Iowa, will meet at the Civic Center, 410 E.
Washington St., at 7:00 p.m. on August 25, 1998, for the purpose of amending the current budget of
the city for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1999, by changing estimates of revenues and expenditure
appropriations in the following programs for the reasons given. Additional detail is available at the City
Clerk's office showing revenues and expenditures by fund type and by activity.
REVENUES & OTHER FINANCING SOURCES
Taxes Levied on Property
Less: Uncollected Property Taxes-Levy Year
= Net Current Property Taxes
Delinquent Property Taxes
TIF Revenues
Other City Taxes
Licenses & Permits
Use of Money & Property
Intergovernmental
Charges for Services
Special Assessments
Miscellaneous
Other Financing Sources:
Total Revenues & Other Sources
Total Budget
as Certified Total Budget
or Last Current after Current
Amended Amendment Amendment
1 21,733,964 21,733,964
2
3 21,733,964 21,733,964
4
5 50,000 50,000
6 456,787 456,787
7 600,735 600,735
8 3,162,056 3,162,056
9 14,461,251 663,576 15,124,827
10 32,403,931 32,403,931
11 23,501 23,501
12 5,404,984 5,404,984
13 119,573,540 26,950,043 146,523,583
14 197,870,749 27,613,619 225,484,368
EXPENDITURES & OTHER FINANCING USES
Community Protection 15
(police,fire,street lighting, etc.)
Human Development 16
(health, library, recreation, etc.)
Home & Community Environment 17
(garbage, streets, utilities, etc.)
Policy &Administration 18
(mayor, council, clerk, legal, etc.)
Non-Program
Total Expenditures 19
Less:
Debt Service 20
Capital Projects 21
Net Operating Expenditures 22
Transfers Out 23
Total Expenditures/Transfers Out 24
i=xcess H, evenues & Other Sources Over
(Under) Expenditures/Transfers Out 25
Beginning Fund Balance July 1 26
Ending Fund Balance June 30 27
11,386,953 803,197 12,190,150
28,147,566 4,608,901 32,756,467
73,087,291 25,625,480 98,712,771
7,436,030 259,524 7,695,554
120,057,840 31,297,102 151,354,942
13,475,434 0 13,475,434
54,137,231 27,606,119 81,743,350
52,445,175 3,690,983 56,136,158
71,912,553 26,571,918 98,484,471
191,970,393 57,869,020 249,839,413
5,900,356 (30,255,401) (24,355,045)
60,396,474 23.068.798 83,465,272
66,296,830 (7,186,603) 59.110,227
Explanation of increases or decreases in revenue estimates, appropriations, or available cash:
REVENUES: Increased Intergovernmental revenues due to state / federal grants for capital
projects in process at June 30, 1998. Increased Other Financing Sources for transfers from
operations and bond control accounts to fund capital projects in process at June 30, 1998.
EXPENDITURES: Community Protection: amended for increased Police, Fire, HIS Admin, &
Traffic Signals expenditures related to prior year approved projects; cash payment of purchase
orders from prior fiscal year. Human Development: Animal Control, Parks, Senior Center, &
Recreation expenditures and capital improvement projects related to prior year approved
projects; cash payment of purchase orders from prior fiscal year. Home & Community:
Continuation from FY98 of budget authority for capital improvement projects in process at
6/30/98, expenditures related to prior year approved projects for operating divisions and
carryover for open purchase orders at 6/30/98. Policy & Administration: Carryover for
expenditures related to prior year approved projects for operating divisions and carryovSr for
open purchase orders at 6/30/98. Transfers Out: increased to continue funding for capital
projects in process at 6/30/98. Additional detail is available at the City Clerk's office, Library,
and Finance Department.
There will be no increase in tax levies to be paid in the current fiscal year named above. Any
increase in expenditures set out above will be met from the increased non-property tax
revenues and increased beginning fund balances.
City Clerk