Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-10-11 Public hearing~ ~. NOTICE 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 11th day of October, 2010, in Emma J. Harvat Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk; at which hearing the Council will consider: 1.) An ordinance changing the zoning from Industrial (11) and Interim Development - Industrial (ID-I) to Planned Development Overlay - General Industrial (OPD-11) zone for 175 acres of property located on 420'n Street west of Taft Avenue. 2.) An ordinance conditionally changing the zoning from Interim Development -Office Research Park (ID-RP) to Overlay Planned Development -Office Research Park (OPD-ORP) for approximately 60.32 acres and to Overlay Planned Development - Research Development Park (OPD- RDP) for approximately 56.48 acres and Overly Planned Development - Mixed Use (OPD-MU) for approximately 24.49 acres located northwest of the interchange of State Highway 1 with Interstate 80. 3.) An ordinance amending Title 14, Chapter 5, Article J. Floodplain Management Standards to regulate the 100 and 500 year floodplain and associated changes to 14-9F Floodplain Management Definitions, 14-46-2 Variances and 14-86-5 Floodplain Development Permit. Copies of the proposed ordinances and resolutions are on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the above-mentioned time and place. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~a~ ~~ sc CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMO TO: City Council ~d~~'~"" FROM: Julie Tallman, Development Regulations Specialist!' (, ~-(~,t.h.--- DATE: 21 September 2010 ~-~ RE: Floodplain Ordinance amendments Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission is recommending to City Council revisions to the floodplain chapter of the zoning ordinance, the section of the City's Zoning Code designed to protect residents and minimize property loss and damage due to flooding. If adopted, the changes would help reduce future flood risk, protect homeowners' and business owners' real estate investments, and increase safety and access for emergency responders. The revisions are based on what we learned from both the 1993 and 2008 floods and incorporate the following facts and observations: 1) Along the Iowa River, the flood maps accurately predict the reach of floods that have a 1% chance of occurring in any given year (e.g. 1993 flood) and floods that have a 0.2% chance of occurring in any given year (e.g. 2008 flood). The actual flood of 2008 was only slightly less than what was predicted and mapped. 2) In 1993 and 2008, Iowa City experienced "100-year" and "500-year" flood events along the Iowa River, but not along Ralston, Willow, or Snyder creeks. The Iowa River is subject to regional rain events throughout central Iowa; our creeks will reach predicted flood heights during sustained local rainstorms. 3) The flood insurance study considers the capacities of the Hickory Hill detention, the Scott Boulevard detention, detention ponds along Willow Creek and Snyder Creek, and so flood profile predictions of the 1 % and 0.2% floods along these tributaries should be recognized as reliable. Mapping errors along Willow Creek are due to mis-alignment of the floodplains during digitization and when the alignment is adjusted, the map is a reliable visual tool. Other mapping errors are due to permitted activities where grading and filling occurred, but detailed topographical information was not submitted to FEMA for map revision. Flood hazard areas should be recognized as such without relying on misleading statistical abstractions. It remains necessary to distinguish between the 1 % and 0.2% floods for precise applications, but our ordinance language should reflect the risk of building in any flood zone. The terms "100 year" and "500 year" cause people to misinterpret the actual, annual risk of investing in a flood hazard area. For example, o rer the life of a 30-year mortgage, property in a "100-year" floodplain actually has a 26% chance of flooding. ~ The "1 in 100" chance is only accurate for the first year -the risk of flooding increases over time. In a ten year period, there is a 10% chance of flood occuring in the "100-ye ir" flood hazard area. Ina 30-year period, that likelihood increases to 26%. Ina 50-year period, there is a 39"% chance of flooding. Source: Floodplain Management Desk Reference. - -;k,,: In addition to protecting structures and their inhabitants, floodplain management includes minimizing risk to emergency responders. Evacuating neighborhoods puts responders at risk, and the risks to these responders increase during more time-consuming tasks like evacuating hospitals, care facilities, and jails. Operations centers for emergency responders should be located out of flood hazard areas so that responders are able to mobilize during a flood, and concentrated populations of persons with limited mobility should be located outside of flood hazard areas. The following changes are proposed: 14-9F Definitions 1. Remove references to "100-year" and "500-year" and instead use the expression Flood Hazard Area throughout this section. Note: the flood insurance rate maps will still distinguish between the three types of flood, using the designations "AE", "AH", and "X", respectively. 2. Add a definition of Class 1 Critical Facilities as those structures and uses to which access must be maintained during a flood, like emergency operation centers, communication centers, and hospitals. It also includes those facilities that are difficult or time consuming to evacuate during a flood such as jails, nursing homes, and group homes for persons with limited mobility and/or life-sustaining medical equipment. 3. Add a definition of Critical Facilities as those structures and uses that must be protected from flood damage, but do not necessarily need to be accessible during a flood. Some Critical Facilities, like city halls, courts, schools, and museums, must resume their functions as soon as possible after a flood event. Other Critical Facilities, like water distribution and wastewater treatment facilities, are expected to remain functioning during a flood event. These types of Critical Facilities should be designed and located to minimize potential damage but may be located within a regulated floodplain (indeed, may be located in a floodplain out of necessity). 4. Incorporate "areas of shallow flooding" which are illustrated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (Zone AH) but which to date have not been addressed in Iowa City's floodplain regulations. Iowa City has one area of shallow flooding, where Willow Creek flows across the airport. Shallow flooding differs from other types in that there is no floodway, no predictable path of flooding, and a 1 % or greater chance of flooding in any given year. 14-5J Floodplain Management Standards 1. Expand floodplain building standards and elevation requirements beyond the 1% (100- year) to include the 0.2% (500-year) floodplain. New and substantially improved structures will need to be elevated or floodproofed to one foot above the 0.2% flood elevation profiled in the Flood Insurance Study. In areas of shallow flooding, new and substantially improved structures will need to be elevated or floodproofed to one foot above the elevation shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. 2. Add two items to factors of consideration for a variance: the risk to emergency responders during a flood; and the importance of preserving the availability of the services during a flood. 3. Variances to the floodplain management standards currently require that a variance be granted only if "the situation is unique to the property in question and not shared by other landowners in the area, or due to general conditions in the neighborhood." For buildings in the floodplain, it is a standard that is impossible to meet. The amendment proposes to remove this requirement, while keeping the other tests intact.2 4. Within the realm of possible variances, include the provision that historic structures may be exempt from full compliance with elevation requirements if this standard would compromise the historic character of the structure. 5. Prohibit the construction of Class 1 Critical Facilities within the regulated floodplain. 14-86-5 Floodplain Development Permit Changes to our administrative procedures are proposed based on actual practices over the last several years. There are not substantive changes. 14-4B-2 Variances There is one small change in language for consistency with the amendments in 14-5J. Impacts The difference between regulating the 1 % and the 0.2% floods vary in the height and reach of expected flood events. Along the Iowa River and the main branch of Ralston Creek the elevation difference between the two flood events ranges from one foot to 4'6". Along other tributaries to the Iowa River (Willow, South Branch Ralston, Clear, Snyder, and Rapid creeks), the differences are not as extreme, on average ranging from zero to one foot. Existing residential structures would be required to elevate their lowest floor to one foot above the 0.2% floodplain whenever one of three changes occur: 1) the original floor area is increased by 25% (this is a cumulative measure, beginning with the year of Iowa City's first flood insurance study -1977); • it is important to note that "floor area" is defined such that it includes the total area of all floors measured to the outside surface of exterior walls, and includes space in the basement, cellar, or attic, if that space is used for a principal or accessory use 2) a building permit is issued for repairs to a structure and the value of repairs is 50% (or more) of the structure's value before the damage occurred; • the damage does not have to be damage from aflood - it can be from any disaster (e.g. flood, fire, tornado) 3) a building permit is issued for improvements to a structure and the value of improvements is 50% (or more) of the structure's current value. These provisions are intended to allow a reasonable amount of additional square footage or improvement to existing buildings within the floodplain, but require compliance with the floodplain regulations if more extensive investment is being made in a flood-prone property. Existing commercial structures, or structures with commercial uses on the ground floor and residential uses above, have the option of flood-proofing the building such that the finished floor on the lowest level is not required to be one foot above the flood hazard elevation. This is accomplished by using flood-resistant materials like concrete; waterproof adhesives; pressure treated lumber; metal doors and window frames. '` 14-4B-2A. Approval criteria: 1. The proposed variance will not threaten neighborhood integrity, nor have a substantially adverse affect on the use or value of other properties in the area adjacent to the property included in the variance; and 2. The proposed variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Title and will not contravene the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, as amended; and 3. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if required to comply with the requirements and standards specified in the Title; and 4. The hardship is not of the landowner's or applicant's own making or that of a predecessor in title. ^ To advise the public of the proposed changes to the floodplain regulations, staff sent out two press releases -one on June 10 and one on August 10. Both resulted in newspaper, radio, and television reports on the proposed amendments and the opportunity for the public to express views to the Planning and Zoning Commission. We also posted information on the proposed amendments on the City website and provided legal notice in the Press Citizen. The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the amendments at several meetings between June 14 and September 2. During its deliberation the Commission had several questions and requested further research. A summary of the research done by staff is attached. 4 Answers to Questions about Flood Insurance What happens to flood insurance premiums when there are changes in a mapped floodplain? • First of all, it's important to remember that Iowa City's ordinance amendments, if adopted, will not change the federally-mandated flood insurance requirement for structures in the 1 % flood hazard area. There will not be a subsequent flood insurance requirement for structures in the 0.2% flood hazard area. • Let's use Parkview Terrace (Normandy Drive) as an example. A home is built in 2001 with its lowest floor one foot above the 1985 mapped flood elevation. Flood insurance premiums are based on the structure's compliance with minimum elevation requirements. After 2002, the flood elevation for the Iowa River goes up a foot and the home is no longer in compliance with the elevation requirement. Premiums for the home owner do not change until 1) the home is sold and a new insurance policy is issued; or 2) the homeowner decides to refinance or switches lenders. Essentially, the 2001 homeowner maintains the grandfathered premium as long as s/he owns the home and doesn't make changes to the terms of her/his loan. What happens if a home is damaged to 50% or more by a non-flood event, and has to be elevated to one foot above the flood hazard elevation, as that elevation is defined by the City of Iowa City? • Homeowners' insurance varies from carrier to carrier, obviously. Using State Farm as an example, there is an automatic coverage built in to homeowners' policies for "Building Ordinance and Law". Fora $250,000 policy, 10% ($25,000) is available for costs associated with elevating asubstantially-damaged home in order to comply with local ordinances. • According to a Consumer Affairs staffer in the Iowa Insurance Division, there is not a state requirement that homeowner policies sold in Iowa include coverage for compliance with new ordinances and laws. What are the implications of State Farm's recent decision to stop administering flood insurance premiums after October 2010? • Scott Cofoid, of the Insurance Services Organization (ISO) believes that other private insurance companies will step up to offer these policies. • A related issue is that there were four occasions in 2010 when the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) expired and was not reauthorized by Congress, creating lapses when new policies could not be issued nor could existing policies be renewed. • The NFIP lapses in combination with State Farm's decision could increase the loss-vulnerability of structures in the floodplain. We should view these occurrences as reason to be cautious about continuing our present course and allowing minimal elevation or floodproofing standards for buildings in flood hazard areas. Answers to Questions About Applyinq the New Standards Do the proposed changes reflect the purpose of the ordinance as enumerated in 14- 5J-1 ? • 14-5J-1 states that the purposes of the floodplain ordinance are 1) to protect and preserve the rights and privileges and property of Iowa City and its residents and to protect, preserve and improve the peace, safety, health, welfare, comfort and convenience of its residents by minimizing flood losses; 2) reserve sufficient floodplain area for the conveyance of flood flows so that flood heights and velocities will not be increased substantially; 3) restrict or prohibit uses that are dangerous to health, safety or property in times of flood or that cause excessive increases in flood heights or velocities; 4) require that uses vulnerable to floods, including public utilities that serve such uses, be protected against flood damage; and 5) maintain eligibility for property owners to purchase flood insurance through the national flood insurance program. • The proposed amendments are an improvement over the existing language in that they extend protection to those structures in the 0.2% flood hazard area while preserving the rights of Iowa City residents who currently live in a flood hazard area to remain in their homes, under guidelines that are designed to increase the degree of flood protection when significant investment is made in existing structures. The purpose language goes so far as to allow the City to prohibit uses that pose dangers to health and safety in times of flood, and the amendments include prohibitions against locating vulnerable populations or uses that increase the risk to emergency personnel during a flood evacuation. Finally, the amendments not only preserve Iowa City's eligibility to offer flood insurance to its residents, inasmuch as they surpass minimum standards set by FEMA, they will be a key factor in securing discounted flood insurance premiums for structures in Iowa City. At Parkview Terrace and Idyllwild, if the homes had been constructed with the finished floor one foot above the 0.2% flood hazard elevation, how many homes would have been damaged? • The best answer to this question is a qualified one; first of all, there would still have been damage in garages and if we want to imagine the best possible outcome we have to assume that all mechanical and utility equipment was also elevated to one foot above the 0.2% flood elevation, all crawl spaces were fitted with flood openings, etc. Here is what we know about the flood elevations: at its crest, the flood in June 2008 reached 655.8 at Parkview Terrace, and 655.2 at Idyllwild. The 0.2% flood elevation at Parkview ranges from 655.5 to 656 and at Idyllwild it ranges from 655-655.25 (Source: Flood Profiles Iowa River). Again, assuming that garages would be built at-grade and utility and mechanical equipment elevated at the same height as the first finished floor, the water would not have gotten inside the finished floors of either subdivision. What about homeowners with modest homes who want to make small changes, like putting a bathroom on the main floor, or adding a small porch addition? Won't these changes prohibit investment in existing property? • In a review of floodplain development permits between 2000 and 2008, there were 20 applications for "substantial improvements" (total applications were 288). Most of the applications (14) were for post-flood damages after June 2008. The remaining six were applications for additions to residential structures. I reviewed these six cases to see how they would have been regulated if we were requiring substantially- improved structures to have their lowest floor elevated to one foot above the 0.2% flood. At the time the permits were issued, substantially- improved structures had to have their lowest floor elevated to one foot above the 1 % flood. a. 1326 College is in an area where the 0.2% flood is one foot higher than the 1 % flood. The homeowners decided to abandon the project so there was no certificate of elevation. We know they would have had to fill in their basement but we can't say whether the main floor would have to be elevated in addition to filling in the basement to grade. b. 703 Normandy had its floor-above-grade elevation surveyed at 652.6. So in addition to having the basement filled to grade, the next highest floor would have had to be raised another 3.6 feet to get one foot above the 0.2% flood elevation. (703 Normandy was demolished after the 2008 flood). c. 451 Rundell is in a location where the 0.2% flood elevation is one foot above the 1 % flood elevation of 674. Adopting the 0.2% flood as the regulated flood would require the lowest floor be elevated to 676, three inches higher than the floor was surveyed (at 675.9) in 2009. d. 821 Eastmoor is in a location where the 0.2% flood elevation is 4'3" higher than the 1 % flood elevation of 651. Adopting the 0.2% flood as the regulated flood would require the lowest floor be elevated to 656.3, 3'3" higher than the floor was surveyed in 2005. e. 703-4th Avenue is in a location where the 0.2% flood elevation is 9.5" higher than the 1 % flood elevation (691.2). In 2002, the lowest floor was certified at 694. The 0.2% flood elevation is 692 so there would be no additional elevation required. f. 711-4th Avenue is in the same area. A 2001 certificate of elevation certifies that the top of floor is 692.5. The elevation requirement based on the 0.2% flood elevation would require that the lowest floor be elevated another 6" to 693. What we can take from this review of floodplain permits is this: between 2000 and 2008, 93% of the floodplain permits were issued for improvements that didn't reach "substantial improvement" threshold and were therefore not subject to elevation standards. When the "substantial improvement" threshold was reached, one out of the six structures was already elevated to one foot above the 1 % and 0.2% flood elevations. Answers to Questions about Other Iowa Communities What have other communities done? Is Iowa City the only Iowa community to propose regulating in the 0.2%floodplain? • Cedar Falls amended their zoning ordinance and adopted the new elevation standard of one foot above the 0.2% flood elevation. Other changes in their ordinance include: 1) Subdivision plats are disallowed in any portion of the 500-yr floodplain. This means that only "existing lots" (those in existence on Jan 1, 2010) can be built upon or rebuilt. 2) FEMA Letters of Map Revision (LOMR), typically involving fill or other land altering activities, are not allowed. A LOMR is afederally-issued instrument that certifies a portion of land is removed from the flood hazard area because it's been filled. Cedar Falls has chosen to not recognize LOMRs. Cedar Falls' decision doesn't make the LOMR invalid, it just makes it irrelevant in Cedar Falls. 3) Letters of Map Amendment (COMA) are still permitted, which are simply map corrections. A COMA is afederally-issued instrument that certifies a portion of land was never in the flood hazard area by virtue of its natural elevation. 4) Fill is limited to three feet in height at any one site and no more than 1/3 of any single parcel can be filled. If more than three feet of fill is required to achieve required building elevation, the structure must be elevated upon piers or raised foundation. Fill is only allowed underneath the elevated structure, the driveway providing access, and must extend out 18' from the structure's foundation. Filling also requires mitigation by removing an equal volume of fill from a comparable elevation within the 0.2% flood hazard area. 5) Detached accessory structures larger than 576 sq ft (basically atwo- stall garage) must be elevated. Smaller accessory structures may be exempt from the elevation requirement if fitted with openings. 6) Nonconforming structures that are damaged to less than 50% of fair market value may be reconstructed to the same elevation as before the damage occurred, if work begins within six months of the damage. If six months elapses before work is begun, the structure must be elevated to one foot above the 500-year flood level, regardless of the amount of damage sustained. 7) A nonconforming structure that is damaged to 50% or more must be elevated to one foot above the 500-year flood hazard elevation. Are there forecasted impacts of Coralville's levee plan? • I spoke with Bill Cappuccio at IDNR. My assumption was that the levee would be constructed in the floodway, and subject to "no-rise certification" which requires a licensed engineer to certify that proposed construction will not create any increase, however small, in the flood elevation. Bill informed me that the levee is NOT in the floodway and therefore the "no- rise certification" is not required. • The delineation of floodplains and floodways uses a formula that allows for no more than cone-foot increase in flood elevation, with development on both sides of the channel occurring along the length of the floodway. 4 There is a built-in assumption that there will be an increase of not more than one foot in the flood elevation once a floodplain is fully developed to the outside edge of the floodway. Therefore, the levee is just one more structure that could conceivably add to the allowable increase of one foot in the flood elevation, but it alone would not be expected to cause a one foot increase in the flood elevation. 2010 Floodplain Ordinance Amendments • Broaden regulations to include both floodplains; • Articulate when a Variance might be justified; • Prohibit some uses from locating in a flood hazard area; • Reserve open land in the flood hazard area. Broaden regulations Flood events of 1993 and 2008 caused ~~ ~ e o n x r G ~" ~ ."g" $ 56n ~ ~ ~ +4'r; fr t: ~„~R'tt 4k+3',"a'.R i ~ .. _ta 4:~ R itQ~ifi h p7 ;, ~° :,~ .§tl.i ~'~ 3~Ya".9 ~. _ n ~~iv,1~-x~. .r ~s~~y5l~~.m.~n. ~ 'X b~}.~ vm^.xa s'e~ _ ~ ~ ~~i ~~ ~ - 8 - ~ ~ ~ ~ 'J~: ~ III' - .-~~, , w In Broaden regulations ~~~o , -: ~:o ~, ~II ~ .~ roaden regulatioi Broaden regulations How? Require that new structures, flood protection systems, wastewater and water distribution infrastructure be elevated or floodproofed to one foot above the 0.2% chance flood elevation. Stop using the expressions "100-year flood" and "500-year flood" and treat both as a flood hazard area. Broaden regulations How? When significant investment is proposed, require that existing commercial property be elevated or floodproofed so the lowest floor is one foot above the flood hazard elevation when 1) improvements equal or exceed 50% of the building's assessed value; or 2) improvements expand the building's original floor area by 25%. Broaden regulations How? When significant investment is proposed, require that existing residential properties be elevated so the lowest floor is one foot above the flood hazard elevation when 1) improvements equal or exceed 50% of the home's assessed value; or 2) improvements expand the home's original floor area by 25%. Articulate when a variance ~~ floodproofing requirem might be justified rticulate when a variance Articulate when a variance might be justified How? Change the approval criteria under which a variance may be granted. Add a factor of consideration regarding whether compliance with elevation standards would compromise defining architectural characteristics of an historic structure. '~ ~ ~. '"~ ~' S. E--~ ~ -- - ' ~ ~ ,. as r_ t c 1 - ~ - Lain facilities, such as emergency operations centers, hospitals and jails, must remain accessible during such a flood event. _ g ~~ r~ a-~co .. ~ _''~s _:d ~~ ~_ ~'' __ ~: y k sr~ _~ -. ~~~:~ io i ~' ~ ,. Prohibit some uses from flood hazard areas How? Add a class of uses "Class I Critical Facilities" and prohibit new construction of Class I Critical Facilities in a flood hazard area. ood r _ ~ _ ~ ~~m•4 . "r . .: ~_a ., c, ~ ~ - ~, , . _ ^ V ~~~ 1 . -- n .~ r e ~~ - R u . __ ~° "' ' - ~ ~ _ e ~ ~, M ~ ~ r - ° '~ ~ ~ ~ ~u ~ _ ,~ ~~~ 1 ~~W ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~- ~ ~~~ ~ ear , ~ ~ ;`~, =,It '~ ,~ ~~ ~~ • ~ .~~~ ~, ~ ~, o ;& E~ 1 ~ Wh ~ ~~Y 3 ~, ~`. -. ,. ~, :~~. After the ~ flood, the fled elevation forthe ~~ ~~ Iowa River was determined to have risen o ~~ '~ ~LL r foot above the elevation shown on the ~~ ;. ~: ~.~. Az flood insurance rate map. ~.~~ r, e Jr m 1.*Q .. ~~ ioi ~ ~ ~~ I~~~ ~5 a ` ~~ w9 N ~s ~~ ; ~~ `': s ~,; b . ~.~ `1 ~~, ~ ~~ 1 ~~ .Lak `_ Reserve open land in the flood hazard area How? Broaden the regulations that apply in the 1 chance floodplain, so the same regulations apply to the rest of the mapped flood hazard area identified in Iowa City's Flood Insurance Study. Reserve open land in the flood hazard area How? Demolish properties that were purchased by the City after the 2008 flood, opening up land in the Iowa River floodplain. ~~ ~~~ ~~ '~~. ~~.. 4J S i 1 !~ R ~~ ~~ ~tr I W~ ~ , ~~~~•~~ arr 1 ~` '._ 4~ d k IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES • Approval of Iowa City amendments is pending, with non-substantive additions and substitutions - severability language -language about required compliance with State and Federal floodplain regulations -distinguishing recreational vehicles from mobile homes - new definition for "start of construction" L. ~ {} ~ (11 k 111,11 I ,~ w I ~' i ,; ~'j ~~ i ^'~~ ~ ,, f~' ~,~'f ,% ~,. :r 1 r~r f ! ~,/ f ~,. ~ `,,,~~' f '. ,- ,~ ~ /,,f't//f ;.~,. %i .: ~^'" ~%`~/ ~' ,~ ",,f/ f` f` f ,F'~ ,,, %'` 'o ~ ~"/ SITE L~CATI~]14T: Hi~h~va ~ ,'~ I-~~ '' t ~irr' ~~ ~ Y v r i fV,°'~,~~~,~ v~ r~ Q ~~ `~ / I- ~sC. '~I~~ C~] 1 cH1 i X ~ z 1o-ooaa~ / suB 10-oo~oa~~ Wetly Rn ,- - _ -~ Jurisdictional Wetlands ~_ o. ~,o~~~ ~e~~o« red ~o s~~o. ~ n/>, Stream Corridors r ® ,o a~ ~r aea ~~ m ~o~~~~o ~o ae sa u~i-~ Regulated Slopes ~Rto~ .oo~e~o,o q «.~.ma~ 9 nnrooapo Wooded Areas o ~o 0 0 0 „~ ~a o, ,~ Ro ~ ~ ~'~li~d a o „~M ~o,~ a~ Fully Hydric Soils Prairie Remnants Archaeological Sites Construction Area Limit n. m«n~n~.",'y.z me~~~~`oin ena;~:~~;~~~;~a ~~~i,~v~~'„~;. sP°s~~;~'P A~NO`~°ae~~~,~~o Wetland Cross Section J~~ ~ `"~ / /i ~/ / ~..~e. M.,., a'rlar,~~:al~. /V/VJJ C1KCC/V UKLYH/Y V(LLH(iC SENS/T/I~EAREA /OWA Cl7Y, /OWA ~!~ ! 1 V~~ ii ~~ a ~~~ ..~~o ~' ~~ i` 'it I ~~ - ~ ~. _ ....... _ i ~7`E ~.,~I°~+ 4D~k~ tract ~ 4 :r fr~1 #- - B RE1{]~[~~1~J~7/''SLTB7f~-0(}004 „,"` e 3"~' r, I ~t~~ ~ _ - s. ~ ~ .P ,.r x.^ ~~~ I _l jl i PRELIMNARY" PLAT AND SENSITIVE AREAS DE~`ELOPIViENT PLAN IOWA CITY INDUSTRIAL CAMPUS lOW A CITY iOHhSON COUNTti lOW'A ~r. s.~, _, ~ w ~a «.~a~ ~. ~ ~,~ ~.o_ ~ .,,,~. ~~ ~-,as ~. ,,.o,_ ,~ ~ ~.,~_ Y ,u ,~,~- i _ ~ ~ ~ '~,!, ~~ ~.,~, ~'~ ~~ .~ ~ ~ ~i ~~~ ~~~ ie ,~, ~. 4 ~~~~ -Y ~. ~ ,. I _ _ I ~~_ I -~ '!~` u~ ~ "v~==- v ~~ ~~. I~ . ° ~, ~ _~ o. ~..ro ,~- ~~ ,\ e a- a ~ e ~i ~- ~,, ,., ii,~ I !i ~n J ~ _ _ ~' w,~ >; , ,.,_.~ 19 i ~e., rt. ~ I b -_ - _ { p- a ~ ..... .. «o~ 1-'l~ ~ i rrm i r~ ~~ ~~e E'~~ ~~ t. ~~~~ ~~~ k,~u r1 R~~u1~cIivi~~~~~ oaf I~ga~.~~c~~-';~ P~,r+~~~:] ~~~{7;;t3 :~d~~ ~t 1, ,o~ ~~~ 17~;-i~ Auld. Yd ~. nJ Mc inra9 F~i~13MF$ ~' IL' Ql?l~ A vsi 1 _e..P~ n Ya +e4. +l.R ~! 8I'9e 1 tldYPl dL4~A e~t~ 4 Y.1'+d tali ~ 941Y+! wT4 i?5. ! eaaa. aGfia '^'^~n"~ =a.~,1~e;z ~w1~-ew ~v~s aFL rb+F~rc~w~+~,~. ee~,.„. .ars.w~... bw r. s.*+'ao-€ x Y+ rme+rs ~ 4~ca+~; ~+ rw. e.~ ~ ~ti ~ ~ c.rae ~:e-+a erna., s • aariR sa ~s ~+ ~: m.T + ~,~ r.u~ 4rR!su !ww A~ i+m-s Oa.a~a 4ea 4e tie.~MWrI~ ~ #~o W ~+F4 FR«? Fl w d~iY1 !n V IL 611113 :ate G~ I nea 4 !sire yF T'eY. T'9M +!eMY 4'~W Rod A. se Fe1tr M 5 M +R lW 1i RY $T^}v QgicJ R±lelll~ Pie d eIb [ayM ±-[Ilre 6 ,~},r1y Yh ~'+e ~Ie+ ti~ d ~ tr M ~I~ i^~ i'y} ~ k.. [a ~! J d. ~f tWp=6Y~Y"'a :f6s ?PA ;'-h+ trill i^ !IW 8lIJTf '~' N 1PS N 4 e14h+' + wre!fe a ~YL hf1 d I-S ~~ ~~ti ~'y ~ r ~ ~~ o- kv .II l ~ }, I .~ lY x ~1(^'a ' ~ ~a'> a 'S ~~~. .+. .Ar ?A {~ u~~.i \ L~x54.b'f 1!~'l~~ I $'~ I ~ TN 4'~` PYt~. 1 f~- ... c r-> Pr '~~.r ra?>. n .,r = wr F~ .~r rlc ruo-=!. r 1-c ~ ~ x r° Ij;Y .o-.,u., ImP=,• ee, ~:r.^..v. .xnre ~ ~'~ < 1~ ~5 .~ ~; a.pP.~' s, t , l- 9 I P~iiJ t1KGUYWP}L ,~ R I e~ ~.. p ~k .t_S ,~ ~° F~{j FF T -~ t I 'fir., sE --n --- - -- - - - _:I.i~ LET 1 ~ ~' .},~ ~d~ ~ ~:.,:.ar~' a rlt ott I n rf p°.~'Pe v'M I xa ..+a r ~ r r ~~n l.° .+r..,L I(4S-0 SFP' 'tN' PIL`° /~C4FP }u' Xal t ~__~ _.~_ L5 ~ , °~~~,.n _~ LEGEN[7 .Ar<II 'J i.rES ° p^_ - pYaslli4%k~Wl ISdPo[R. HFRTMCJV`# _ rLkU6'lw%t1L c~P6oe Ircamm IlCJ.'~PI ^ wtClfP^° ~Ft5.1p :~.>M.: ~ruF,.. m.>.r5 ~i 6 I{9g1Y ~d Cd C1ieBPJ'^PM A'~r~s lS. dq ra +tFa ~P5° } R - 0.P 1T! i %ar 601Y111M.Y lfO - - - WFq~12i4 YLTBt IIE9 -.-.- - - -F+41-1-1~Y LEH - .1 :~ 1105 .A" LMS. P•IYe1{4. _.. x °•IS, rnvs.x.' ilEL P/Pa4dE YG'm '! - kf'aYCYL ':YIZ'AJlS .:: am SlALY" W.~cR IN T 'i,YY. J. _Y:v3ffC klG k P1 r-0 :4Li[]I14 - ~_ r ~-''~~ } ~a+}r I ,ie Lar 3 wrP~ Pu.~e x dLIIYtlM FOt€~9 POHT ~'~,, r ~' ~Y ~ A!0[MP~ ~a s" ,:3} }~ ~ Y W E09nGQ E4i~kFMx au PA9110l9tG ins i ,wo x r `'~~qt r Yll @! RYA` 'bidVl hlGff6~3 A ffiSA16 ~ k ~ oar krr PSt*-IYB P'$iN:'IF MpQd3~T rlm i I'3~01'18° ~ kFf 8Pk-4" I}q 'rg1 ~IL113.i11S EAU 40110 rc r$ n ~vw. naa o1x-r ffi'N ! ft u+r xC`IY~ il'Y@ Af]4bCTLN {^ W.iJ' . gf-0sWP .nalUP~ ' 1 t sYq~3,~ l b. ~ lA_ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ _ 3 ~ 3 ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ti 7:~ s1 ~ • ~ '~ ~C, ~ LET 2 ~ {~~ ., --- -~ d ~,~ tn~Y ~ -- --- ~ 1 Lrr1v '4 ~--~ raB NYL 4T"R ~ s}* ~___ SMSUtP T~d511~ k .. ~ ryL N`~~~ ~-1„=-~rN~~..~ L51~'1 _-?~~~I1LII~C {~~ft. 41 o-x +~9'y,. 4~.,;. ~~~'Fw'0,,~ ~~~ ffi F'i.ADID N IkA' Ph'R k• rP ruY hF a°'P M R.°i1YA.1 Lt 11Y ._ f ~ ~ 1 i '' .1,1119 &I ttIPR9 R':..~tta•. RPkC Tr ~ .,' .~-AOx *' ~ ~"'°x... 5? PF R'JU't- Q~F'°/f JYI - C BILLII DC~I`~II ,~ Resu~divasic+n of a~:l~dik~r~~ Parr.L~l 2410038 anc~ Laf t of ,4JR C7avis Addrir~rt ~C7W~, ~It~„ ~UV4+~3 r',Lh-PngerFrESh ~c~rlHpl.UAl•Y41X 6::~t7Gi4S k]T]R4LY ^.G SA"+uruPrs aw.. ~_kunrnh'h991E~]IC, ilk T+CNS8M 6s3Ww t$TF CIE.3E~TST 3M 5YT Ti161 ~'R.CT 5C1E W°}+ETeP-FEi- P°.6'JAfin,lt~7v 51G&xkL 3959]6 tGa'1F C1 T31A [y'+',~CS / J City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: September 10, 2010 A To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard, Associate Plann RE: REZ10-00004/SUB10-00005 -Moss Green Urban Village The applicant for REZ10-00004/SUB10-00005, Moss Green Development Corporation, has submitted a revised sensitive areas development plan for your review and approval because additional wetlands were identified within the stream corridor during the delineation process. If you recall, when the Commission initially reviewed the Sensitive Areas Development Plan (SADP), it was too early in the spring for the applicant to fully investigate the site for wetland features. Based on early field investigations, the applicant did not believe that any additional wetlands would be found beyond what was identified on the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). The proposed Oakdale Boulevard alignment was designed to avoid this NWI wetland, which was shown on the original Sensitive Areas Development Plan. The Commission voted to approve the original submittal provided that a final wetland delineation report was accepted by the U.S. Corps of Engineers prior to City Council approval. During subsequent field investigations, which were conducted by a wetland specialist from Stanley Consultants, Inc. with direction from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, several additional wetlands were delineated within the Rapid Creek stream corridor. As a consequence the City Council deferred consideration of the rezoning and plat of Moss Green Urban Villlage to provide the applicant time to revise the SADP and plat accordingly. The applicant has now received correspondence from the Corps accepting the revised wetlands delineation. The Corps has made a jurisdictional determination that any disturbance of Wetland B or D as shown on the attached SADP will require compensatory mitigation. The applicant has revised the SADP accordingly and now re-submits it for your review and approval. The revised SADP shows that two of the wetlands located in the stream corridor will be avoided (identified as Wetland B and the NWI wetland on the attached SADP). Note that the 100-foot buffer of Wetland B will be disturbed during construction of the bridge on Oakdale Boulevard. The sensitive areas ordinance allows disturbance of a buffer area for necessary stream crossings, provided that necessary state and federal permits are secured. The applicant has indicated that measures will be taken to prevent erosion and disturbance of Wetland B during bridge and roadway construction. The smallest wetland (identified as Wetland D on the attached SADP), which is located in the western section of the proposed development where Moss Place crosses the stream, will be eliminated when the road and bridge is constructed. The developer has submitted a mitigation plan indicating that they will compensate for September 21, 2010 Page 2 the loss of this wetland (0.08 acres) by constructing a new 2-acre wetland in Outlot C. The City requires that wetlands located in a stream corridor be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1. The applicant is proposing to mitigate the loss of Wetland D on the revised Sensitive Areas Plan at a 25:1 ratio. They have submitted a mitigation plan to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for their review and approval. The Corps has begun its review of the mitigation plan, but final approval has yet to be received. Corps approval of the mitigation plan and associated federal permits will be required prior to commencement of any development activity. Evidence of said approval must be submitted at the time application is made for a final plat. Attached is the revised sensitive areas development plan for your review. Staff finds this revised SADP complies with the City's sensitive areas ordinance for the reasons stated above and therefore recommends approval. Attachments: • Revised Sensitive Areas Development Plan Wetlands Delineation Report Addendum dd. July 3, 2010 5 3 s T x FFm in ~~ a ~" ~$ ~`' }~ fi ~l5 . $.~ ~~~ ,, g~~ "~ a ~~. ?~9 °~ ~"6 gG~ S6 pq~$Eg aa, YES dF a' ~bs „, E ~'m -a gg.~ ^7 £m ,"$$ QLM ~° R3P o$u ~o ~~~ 5L~ ~~? dP qpRp# ~iY ~F ~£ €: wg sF w+mo>o. >c _F~m~'o ~o ooo~~y°o 0 $ zo- iizm iina ~° 00~-N-A~^O pr02m~p ;~ti~N~tmm x ~~ ~~~ ~m~m" ~ gg 7g~;~ns~ m~mN~ A7~ m~a~ mo sm A~ °~ mo A i ~ f o t ~ t ~ Q~~ .° ay2 s (~ 2 ~~ f °F, yp, a ~ [ ~3 ti ~i U W ~ n €a m ~°. 3'`aple€~ ~~ ~~~a ~sg~ a 'g3~ea~e mz4ua °~~ ~~"~5 ~ PQ~ v ~ ~ ~°qe~ ~~ e~9 $s$ ggga~ D ~ $s~„c, ~ ~ a3 . ° ~~ - $~~Bd~~C X33 A~s 3~mp .. $~8go~g~ a~3 ~a3 g~s€ E ~ ~~ $ R ~~~~°~S bas $~ ~`' k~~A E~B .y~ ~~S LBor g d~7~„ F a,i 3:fE ~€ _ `g, a[` ~j ,_ -~~= 'sa; a a%~ $ , k~s i i° o sa~~.'b=3.'z toe a~. 3„'~oaa~b a3S ~;° 3~;~aa z3? ~_ ~~ ~; v~;'a a~ as a = ~q~a ~.~o 80 ~ -~ ' ~38~ ~a a§4 ~' 3 _~ 1 I ~ ~I~ ~1 1 ~, ~ ~ ~ I ~ i r .. . !i !ice, "S h ~.,~~~ f _ .., i~ `. r ~ j/~~ ~ -_ ~ - t ,. ~~.~~ ti ~ ~~ ~~ ,~ ~ ~ - ; , i ~~ i ~ 9 ~ :" ~ ~~ , ~. _, M1_~ --~ ~/ '~ -~, x~ s ' __,- f_ ~" ~~~`~ -+i _ _ ~ ~ ~ rn - , ! ~~ -~ v _ . ~ _. '# ~r~ F ..~,I a ~.~~s~, ~ ~ ~ ~ rn ~ i ~ y-- ~ ~ ~+~ ~ d , -~ ~~ { { ~~ p ~-~,~ .r f ~~ , ~I I ~,f 1 ~t 7 ~ ~ _ _ i ~ ' ~~ a ~ ; ~. ~ lr 1 ~ r ~ ' ~ \\ ~ ' ' ~ , ~` ` ~" ' ~ t' _ ~~ ~ i ~ r ~ ~ ~ i ~ ,~ ~ ~" t ,~ ;, d ~~a _~ ~„ ~ ~V ~ 4 ~ . ._a =o dp ,~ aF ~a ~~ °D a:E€a~m z¢®i ^ ° °sE3 i O B~~g~ `° ~~ e3 c~ x~ rt £##N ~~ g - ~~F ~~~ E E C EEtE j FESF O SD~$ J ~ ~ N N E8 a b f'E °aE !"N E3E0 £'£ f7i C c 2.,. 333dd» N ~?gE ~N~~o~ a3§8 .a os ~~ ~ ~4?'N ~„n g a 3.° ~: $~e ~ ¢ ~, e _ ;~ ~-_~ ap ,X ^ ga~A ~$ ~~a gad ~R G ~~~ E ~~ a 9q~ $ '~ ~~ ,~ x ~ ;',€ a ~ s= .~ ~ Stanley Consultants irlc A StanlFy Group Company Enginrering, Environmental and Corxtrir.*.ar Sernces World:vide July 23, 2010 Gene Walsh Project Manager, Enforcement Section U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District Clock Tower Building P.O. Box 2004 Rock Island, IL 61204-2004 Dear Mr. Walsh: Subject: Report Addendum Moss Green Urban Village Pelds Engineering Company Executive Summary As a follow up to our meeting on June 17`s and the subsequent July 1 site visit to the proposed Moss Green Urban Village development by Stanley Consultants (Stanley) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE), Stanley is submitting this letter as an addendum to the report titled "Wetlands Delineation -Moss Green Urban Village, Pelds Engineering Company, Johnson County, Iowa" dated May 2010 as prepared by Stanley on behalf of Pelds Engineering Company (Pelds). Following submittal of that report to the COE as an attachment to the Joint Application dated June 7, 2010, a site visit was conducted and a request made by the COE that portions of the riparian corridor along Rapid Creek be reevaluated for the presence of wetlands and that the boundary of identified Wetland 2 be reevaluated. The requested field investigation took place on July 1. Based on the information provided in the May 2010 wetland delineation report and collected during conversations with the COE on the June 17 site visit, development plans were revised to reduce the construction footprint of the project to reduce or avoid impacts to existing wetlands. The site was reinvestigated using this information and the updated construction limits are depicted on Figure 1-1: New Construction Extents. July 1 Site Visit Ms. Megan Dusing and Mr. Ed Slattery of Stanley Consultants arrived on site at 6:30 AM and the COE arrived at 8:00 AM. Weather at the time of the site visit was pleasant with mostly sunny skies and highs in the upper 70s. Heavy rains had passed through the area during the prior weeks, but not within 3-4 days of the field investigation. Because the original wetland delineation was performed in May, site conditions were significantly different in those areas being farmed. Vegetation not present during the original This document was sent electronically Oakdale Research Park • 2658 Crosspark Road, Suite 100 • Coralville, IA 52241-3212 phone 319.626.3990 fax 319.626.3993 Internet: www.stanleyconsultants.com Gene Walsh Corps of Engineers July 23, 2010 Page 2 delineation had time to develop, within the farm field. Hydrological conditions were more visible due to the amount of rainfall in the preceeding weeks. Wetlands identified during the July 1 site visit as well as those wetlands included in the original delineation report are depicted on Figure 1-2: Addendum Wetlands. Upon arrival Stanley staff proceeded north along North Dodge Street to the proposed intersection with Oakdale Boulevazd. From this point Stanley staff headed west into an agricultural field within the new construction boundaries. In this area three isolated wetlands were identified, two located within construction boundaries (Wetland A and Wetland C). These wetlands were also observed by COE staff who confirmed that both wetlands aze isolated. Both areas aze described in more detail below and their corresponding data forms are included in Attachment A. Photos taken during the site visit are included in Attachment B. The third isolated wetland was found to be outside the azea of proposed construction and was therefore, not field investigated as it will not be impacted. The wetland boundazy however, was documented using a handheld GPS for reference. Stanley staff proceeded to the azea designated Wetland 4 in the original delineation report. At the request of the COE, the wetland boundary was reevaluated based on the amount of precipitation that had fallen in the preceeding weeks. The boundazy was identified by following a change in topography and vegetation, Basswood (Tilia american) being the prime identifier. The new wetland boundary is identified as Wetland B, and is described in more detail in the following pazagraphs. Data forms for this location can be found in the original delineation report. Stanley staff investigated a small wetland along the southern banks of the creek (Wetland D) in the western portion of the site. This area and the area to the north of the creek aze discussed in further detail in the following paragraphs and their corresponding data forms attached. Because heavy rains had passed through the azea prior to both the June 17 and July 1 site visits, problematic hydrology and soils were present on site. Per the instructions outlined in the COE Midwest Regional Supplement stream gauge data recorded at Rapid Creek was evaluated. It was found that flooding of the creek has not occurred for a consecutive 14 days in 5 or more years out of the past 10 years. Therefore, evaluated soils in problematic azeas aze likely not hydric. In addition, sediment deposits observed during the site visit were likely the result of flash flooding, not ponding. Gauge data for Rapid Creek is included in Attachment C. Findings of Wetlands Evaluation During the July 1 site visit, the COE performed a spot check of several wetland and non-wetland areas that had been included in the original report. It was the finding of the COE that all locations had been identified properly and that the findings outlined in the May 2010 report were correct. Data Point 02 and 10 were confirmed as non-wetland locations and Wetlands 1 and 2 were found to be isolated. This was confirmed during conversations between Stanley and the COE during the July 1 site visit. In addition to those confirmed areas, Stanley was asked to reevaluate the agricultural field through which the proposed Oakdale Boulevard with cross and the riparian corridor near the western portion of the. Gene Walsh Corps of Engineers July 23, 2010 Page 3 Findings resulting from the July 1 site visit are detailed in the following: Wetland A This wetland is an isolated wetland within an agricultural field (See Figure 1-3: Wetlands A, B, C) and is approximately 0.28 acres in size. A drainage Swale flows in a southerly direction from the hill north of the wetland. This feature directs water into the low-lying concave area allowing water to pool. Data point DPOIa was taken at this location. The vegetation in this area is a near monoculture of yellow nut sedge (Cyperus esculentus) with some field horsetail (Equisetum arvense), red-root pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), and soy beans (Glycine max) interspersed. The soil exhibits aloes-chroma color with evidence of redox features below 2 inches of the surface. Standing water was noted within the lowest point of the wetland and the wetland boundary was determined following the change in topography and vegetation. Wetland B Wetland B is the updated boundary of Wetland 4 as detailed in the original delineation report. At the request of the COE, Stanley staff reevaluated the wetland boundary. The boundary was determined based on a change in vegetation and topography. Basswood (Tilia americana), a tree with an indicator status of FACU was the primary indicator. The new wetland boundazy was found to be approximately 0.28 acres in size, a difference of 0.06 acres from the original delineation. Data point DP02a was taken in an area just north of the identified wetland (Photo 1). No wetlands were found to exist at this data point as the vegetation is comprised of primarily FACU and UPL species. In addition, the soil at this location is not hydric. Wetland hydrology was evidenced by sediment deposits however, this is likely due to flash flooding that had occurred in the weeks prior to site evaluation (See attached gauge data). Originally, a portion of this delineated wetland was proposed for construction activities however, based on the initial findings outlined in the May report, site development plans were reconfigured to avoid this azea, and it will not be impacted (See Figure 1-3). Wetland C This wetland is an isolated wetland approximately 0.77 acres in size located at the edge an agricultural field at the base of a hill slope with wooded azeas to the south and west (See Figure 1-3). It appears that this area was recently farmed, but currently is abandoned due to wet conditions (Photos 2 and 3). The vegetation at this data point, DP03a, is a near monoculture of yellow nut sedge (Cyperus esculentus) with various other vegetation scattered throughout. This includes field horsetail (Equisetum arvense), red-root pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), soy beans (Glycine max), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), gazlic mustazd (Alliaria petiolata), yellow cress (Rorippa islandica), slender rush (Juncus tennis), dotted St. John's-Wort (Hypericum punctatum), and red clover (Trifolium pretense). The soil exhibits aloes-chroma Gene Walsh Corps of Engineers July 23, 2010 Page 4 color with evidence of redox features below 3 inches of the surface. The soil was saturated and a think much surface was observed. The wetland boundary was determined by a change in topography and vegetation as noted on the form for data point DP04a (Photo 4). Wetland D This identified Riverine wetland is located in the western portion of the site along the southern bank of Rapid Creek and is approximately 0.08 acres in size (See Figure 1-4). The area is a low- lying riparian wetland that accumulates runoff from the neighboring farm field and from the creek itself during times of high water elevation. The vegetation in the area consists of box elder (Ater negundo), silky dogwood (Corpus amomum), wood nettles (Laportea canadensis), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), stinging nettles (Urtica dioica), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), hedge bindweed (Calystegia sepium), and spotted touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis). The soil at this location has a chroma of 10YR3/1 to a depth of 12 inches and 10YR2/1 for an additional 8 inches. Hydrology was indicated by the presence of sediment deposits, drift lines, and a thin muck surface (Photo 5). The wetlands discussed above are listed in the Table 1 and have been identified on the attached drawings. Two (2) isolated wetland areas and one (1) wetland with the potential for jurisdictional regulation were identified during the delineation process. In addition, the boundary of Wetland 4, designated as Wetland B for the purposes of this addendum, was re-evaluated upon COE request. Table 1 -Areas Aerially Investigated for the Presence of Potential Wetlands Wetland ID Isolated Wetland (Y/N) Potential Acres Disturbed Latitude Longitude A Y NA 41 ° 41' 44.13" N 91 ° 30' 10.79" W B * Y 0.00 41 ° 41' 40.40" N 91 ° 30' 10.06" W C Y NA 41° 41' 44.10" N 91° 30' 5.834" W D N 0.08 41° 41' 33.76" N 91° 30' 35.89" W Total = 0.08 •l.ocatetl outs[oe construction emus. Findings of Stream Crossing Evaluation The site was evaluated for the presence of intermittent and perennial streams using the 1985 7.5-Minute Series United States Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Map. Features were identified as streams if they appeared on the USGS topographic map with a blue line symbol; a dashed blue line representing an intermittent stream and a solid blue line representing a perennial stream. The areas proposed for development were cross-referenced with the topographic map to determine the number of stream Gene Walsh Corps of Engineers July 23, 2010 Page 5 crossings that would result from construction activities. A total of four (4) locations were identified and are detailed below. Four (4) stream crossings were identified during the site drawing/topographic map cross-referencing. All recognized areas are listed in Table 2 and stream crossings where temporary impacts are anticipated are discussed in the paragraphs below. Without additional mitigation, it is anticipated that a total of approximately 2.94 acres of streams will be temporarily impacted by construction activity. Impacted area at stream crossings was determined by multiplying the bridge width of 94 feet by an assumed 140 foot length of the stream crossing or 32,000 square feet (0.73 acre) of disturbed area per crossing. All area impacts are along Rapid Creek. It is the intention of Pelds to use the information outlined below to aide in minimization of stream impacts by construction activities. Refer to Figure I-3 for a graphic depiction of stream crossing locations. Table 2 -Stream Crossings and Impacts ID Latitude Longitude Stream Type Acres Impacted Crossing 1 41° 41' 43.20" N 91° 29' 42.31" W perennial 0.73 Crossing 2 41° 41' 40.94" N 91° 30' 12.90" W perennial 0.73 Crossing 3 41° 41' 38.72" N 91° 30' 20.13" W perennial 0.73 Crossing 4 41° 41' 31.14" N 91° 30' 35.55" W Perennial 0.73 Conclusion Development information outlined in this addendum is based on construction extents and boundaries received by Stanley from Pelds Engineering Company on June 22, 2010. This information was used by Stanley for the July 1 site visit with the COE. All identified streams were taken from the USGS 7.5- Minute Series topographic map of Johnson County as provided by the IDNR Geographic Information Systems Library, May 2010. Where possible, it is the intention of Pelds to use the information outlined in this report to minimize wetland impacts by relocating construction boundaries to areas where wetlands were not found to exist or to areas that would reduce the wetland area impacted. This will minimize the number of acres of wetlands potentially impacted by construction activities. Using the updated construction limits included in this addendum report (Figure 1-1), two (2) isolated wetlands were identified and one (1) wetland with the potential for regulation was identified. The boundary of a third isolated wetland was determined and found to be outside of the proposed construction boundaries and was therefore, not field investigated. Also, the boundary of Wetland 4, as recorded in the Gene Walsh Corps of Engineers July 23, 2010 Page 6 original delineation report, was reevaluated and is noted as Wetland B in this addendum. Based on the information provided in the original report, construction limits were reconfigured and it is not anticipated that this wetland will be impacted. With respect to stream crossings, four were identified within the proposed development. By copy of this letter, the addendum package is also being sent to the Floodplain Permits Section and Sovereign Lands at the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments in regards to the addendum. I look forward to your final decision in the permitting process for Moss Green Urban Village. Sincerely, Stanley Consultants, Inc. V V ~ -~.~c.s ~ Vt. ~~ ~~ Megan Dusing Environmental Scientist Enclosures cc: IDNR - Floodplain Permits Section IDNR -Sovereign Lands Voldemars Pelds - Pelds Engineering Company Ed Slattery -Stanley Consultants y3 p O dG q l~ ~ N cdor ~ v r4v N Q1 ~ nj `°a "dam ~ o ~r~o N N ~ ~~4n °° U z ~ E A ar o ~ m ., N o u ° (6 5 O e_2e~ ~y ~ N ~ `o ~ w c ~ k'7 d CI. G~ 4 ~ '$ add y~ ~ ~ ~ o :° ~` G eMI ~ o U~ o N od ~_ I llFYl Z n N ¢O 4 Oj ~- u~ ~ ~.a ~,,, ~ ,ry6~ ..,. O ~ Y o W ~ V~ C T ~ `~ ~ ~ - ~ LLJ ~ trJ O ~ O~~a !- U ~a , ~C7 e ~' Ln _ ~ (~ 8 e ~ ~ _ {_ ~ Q G i ~ W ~ ti ~ ~ 7 C!1 ~_ ~ 9 .{~ ~' A _ ~ 'r+ .~~X\t' ~ sE M R rat ~ ~ :~r' `~ rs fr. ~ yR •, ~+ ~ ~1' ` ~ i ,~~~k•.e 4r t "~ gf l ~ ~b ~,~, ~ „~t~ tea xr ~~ '~, ~~- ~.,. f ~ '. '~. 1g * 1 ~ j ~ ~ ~ t ~; .' ~(~'+'° ' y e`~ 6 F '~, am Y~'~~ ~k~ x h~~ {~ ., hfYy~j,` lo,~~so ~ .Y ., sjl} +{ Y j l ~ ~ i ~ L , y O/Z f +~ 'l ~ ~ ) l °il ~.`1 + j E _~~ ~ V ~~~7 { yy,~ ~' ~ ,~, 4 ~'~~4: yy^^~~ ~~, ,~, , ~a f u y s Y c 'f / a ~ ~' ~yYL ~Y * 1 ~~ ~ R ~ Y ~ ~ a s S ,k ~, 7 .t e ( ~ ' !c n s Y r r~ ~ ~ .e X.. u f ~ ~, ~ ~4 ; ~ L - x ,~ ' Y ~ ~ 'i a L { i t1~C ' '~ if \ j fy X~ ~ ~ + ~ ~, P l/~7 ., $ , +~ \ t ~~ ,{ ! ~'{ ~" Par: ~.. `r ~ - R ~ > ~~ ~ ~~ K~*(//~ R~~ l ? ~n 6~ tl JJ' 14 *~ t ~ F r~ t ~~ ? . ~,~ ~ c ` ~ ti =~a i < ~ Y r :~ ~ ~ ~ Y! Y T Y'f ~ ! r° ~ ~ J ~ ~ 1 r r„~f \ l \y' !~ 4 F 3 /a 1 . ! } i t y~~. S. ~ ~ i '~40 'G~ t ~ ~ G ~ ~ r , {~ ~` ~ ( ~~. j r ~ r J s, 1~ [ f f r 1 ~ ~~. ~>? ~ ~r fi .ti xr '~` 1 r ~ Y +, V .~ t ~.fr rj<i' a y,..: '/ ! ~; . Z,~'r,, y v 1 4 i,, f ~:. p . ~ ,~= k ~ ~ ?' - ~. c? ~ ~~ f.: ~> ley .?> t' `~ V! ~ ~~ , ~yl~ ~~~- '! i ~ ~ r ~ "x'S'Y P ~, i 1~ti`'ix . ~.i ~ '~ ' ,i r~ ~v ~, Yx ~. rf ~~~~o. ... ,r Y ~ ' ' ~ :~ .. - _ _ ++ ~r ~5 ~ >,' 'f~ f ~ . re '.q .i -._~-` - S1AY111151'~O]F31~'C156 Fv 1'L o.-.Llu.iad ~~'.L>..a0,[::"iS }P.s>F'i; ai avYf.tf'as. f.1 ua o.~sL:~fl PL9Z113 sPa': kh l9-~;t - ~ E ~ E N B ~ (15 a .c ~ O pr N ~ ~ ~ 4 N ; ~ ~ ~ r ~.o+°i C d Qf (6 d- ~ ~ ~ ~ t p ~ C ~9v a ~ ~ v 'g ~ m N Q ~ ® ? ~ ~ o=~ 0 c c a ~ 7 c Q V ~ ~ G U O ~i j c 2 4 y~ °g~~ ° ~ ~e`n O ~03 O ~ Q ~ ~ 5 c ~ C> c Z `~ c ~ U Q o g° 3' ~ Q O ,~ 0 w v 0 ii a n oM~~O a ~n o N F Z ~ fH Y) Q ®~ ~' ~ o ~ ~_ ~ ~' 4 ~ ~ C }, F- C S! ft3 7 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ N ~- - ~ ®aa ~ ~ _ 1 n~ Z ,, y W b/ f ~ ~: ~ d d - d~ in [w ll W ~ a~i C7 LL I ~Fe 1` ax ,1~F I -. t`Y~ >F,JC..e ~~1 I ~~ `' A \i! ~~ ~ ' ~ ,yak ;~ fb~,y ' tp.'.1. - - - ~~ 4 C ~ ;~` a d~ o f05,~v Y'7 ~ . O v} N [~ C ',~ to T ~ VNry^' - -~-, a-~w O F~] _ ~ R O N 3 ~ ww~1~ Ya a' I (~ GY7 a ~ c ~ ~ ~9p4 ~ ~ _ ~ gyn. a ~ .+-' d ~ Q1 O Z e b E ` lY1 e ® ~ tW .~ z~ N a a a ~ ~ ~ ~ c c C~~ U~ 2 .. ,, o ~ w ~on° ~ V ~ © Q Q Q ~ fJ ~ ~CJ ao3'r' ~ ~ .ml~>m ~ C o I ~ Q ~ ~~~ ~ zN.N ~o a i~ { ~ 7~ ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~, rs. v°~>f "qC~Y "w~ ~vk~fJ>~ {. ~sJ ~ ~r/~~( f Tr1~ I ~~s. t xS,`.,, t~.r s, ~;,' ?yn xf y~Y' / _' a J j~~}~~. ~ 1S ~ ` {~}cvs~+' ~~h~~,~` of ~' ~ < t> ~ . '{ 9 }t) ,{~~ Q ~t~~,1r6 \ ~ ~~},.."Y F. Jr- l'"'~~ L~~~}rY .4~! YYvl ~1 ~X ~; f f ~ {( r J t S ~~~}I f r ' >~ ~ .~: { r b ~ ~~ Y. l• ~'(tJS ~y l ~. /~ r. J Ti'S` ~ h ys~i i `r '} ~ >< ^. a ~~ >'~\ ~. ~~ {'fit` r { ~~~ s~ ~. ` ~ \\ six ~ 1~..~ rb ~~,v J ~ s } r , F !~ s L z > ~ i{ yr ~ ~ ~~ ~' ~ ~' r 1 Xs r~ ry (~~ ~~,. ~'p~ r ~ ~ {" ~ tr J t fr~`~P f ~ >4 >,~,•C~ J, iP ~ J") 1 ~a ~~`~• / // r,l~ x1`^~Cs ~ ~.~ ~,h ' ,G ? Yr v r~r l x ~ { f ~`~ ~T '<n '~ 1 . , ... ~S ` tier 1 r~ `~ / ~ l '~ ~~^,'~ Z ~r } ~<,' J { 1 ~ 't 4 t\ } rF is , r > \ > xl. ,. ~~ ~y . _ S ^s x' ( +., ,, i ;:' ~, ? }~ `,~~4~; '~~,, `cam s `s' } ~ l~1 y {~.~ a.p.. "~j_~. ~.1, '~ t/a, ~!Y Fem. ~ • ~ ~. ;kl X yh ~f ~ r ~h`~sy ~\r~1~ f ~ Ff''< mil{ f {) rn ~, }x?,~ `~ s x,r `: '~, % . ~ y,~~ a F. i ~. t~ d ~... 1 ; ~'x> { rlK ~,~,/ }s..-. \k~,{ .~ ~; ~ k"> ,,{'\ r,~:h~ ~~r ^y.:.. . . s 1 _ ,: '~o ~ ~ a? ~ /.,<.,{'~~. ,. ~:,`:!/. ~ : `/~',. ~ mss. ` :<,~x, >\ ~`' - ~~ - _~ ,. t f/{ti-_l Lit _ _- _ r+'~t f.~`.l Y'. Set'Ylln S!;?]I31`:Y15 CA G"-+]ev s.'.:.1 F~l-a--E.31+:ay ~;:c;_,;0]+.F'~~Sy:.sc, V54~e4: Yes,: a~:~ti ce;,~s:~li /1¢ZR{ eV): V',4C-F;;s ~~.-~~® o D ~ rn¢ 07 c a ~ o ~ ~ .~ ~ o ~ ~ ~~ ~V G r~ ~-~ ~ ~ sad} '~ _ L_ c ~ ap'e ~ ~ ~l;~o ~ _ ~ ~ N Qr 1~ C C ~l i7~v~ d O ~ ~V p O CJ ~ Z n ~ -.. ~i W (~ ~_ Cy [G ~ N ~ v © a a ~ ~ _ ~ ~ V! ~ i9 ~ ~ ~ G O $ ~ ~ c w o 1 - __. C m '07 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ o$°go ~ ~ q ~ C3 Q ~ ~ ~ 4 d ~ Q a~a V UJ °p ~ ~ ~ "yM0. 4O ~ L ~ N ^ A '~ ~4 ~ ' 4= '~ / Yr..' (71} t~l i~. ~ ~` ~ 7 3.. y~~~ ~ ~~.. ~~~'~ I ~ Cc°7I ~> .,r^~~~.` '">r. ky ~lrl fF. f ~' x ~c r ~,~ 7 .~9 > ~r yr } r >, r~ ,v '' z 1 n ~ , hY ~ ~ ~~?~,~'>.'" o r r ~ yr M~ - l y~ r v.C ' ., , s, ~ 1 ~; ,7 y ,. r;+.,. - c !` t•t v• ~, ; r - .rr < t ~~a`r r r.. ~~~' r ~ r A ',__, v}' ff 1 r ~ ~3 ,, ~: ' ti fr Rv` r h i ~ ~ lvy {i: t~ \, iti I ~ r r jE. ti / t r ~ > / .vt J ~ . t ~: -_ ~ -'1 y ~p. ~~-~ i~r, 2svv., } ~>? vx f ~ f v~ "x+~ i"fix ~ !}'~ ~ Ya. k ~" k : ~{ th`. ,. l~ ( d ~, 4 ~~ r ~~r~jr~< 'Y~yt ~ F ~~ t r~<~ ti ..Ft`~s~~t ~ r ~ ~ ~~ ,~ <" {~ ... CIF r" ~} SinYllnSkJ]h31VY150 fr~'9:"A il-o.-.5ivriad ~r_a_~.,a~n.>;75 :5 s:~ .55~"+: y~sy. sr{,ti •aa:~as.-.rv u9Ll~i r~a;':w is-Li:y r NOTICE 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 11th day of October, 2010, in Emma J. Harvat Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk; at which hearing the Council will consider: A resolution for the partial vacation of JJR Davis Addition Final Plat and conveyance of the vacated right-of-way to Dealer Properties IC, LLC Copies of the proposed ordinances and resolutions are on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the above-mentioned time and place. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Iowa City will hold a public hearing on October 11, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. in the Emma J. Harvat Hall of the Iowa City City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk; at which hearing the Council will consider a Resolution approving a purchase agreement with Van Meter Industrial, Inc. for Lot 10 in North Airport Development Subdivision. Copies of the proposed resolution are available for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the above-mentioned time and place. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK