HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-17-2008 Planning and Zoning Commission
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Monday, April 14 - 5:30 PM
Informal Meeting
City Hall- lobby Conference Room, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City
Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 7:30 p.m.
Formal Meeting
City Hall- Emma J. Harvat Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
C. Rezoning Items
1. REZ08-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Hendrickson for a rezoning
from Medium Density Single Family (RS-8) zone to Planned Development Overlay (OPD-
8) for approximately 9.48 acres of property located south of Olive Court and leamer
Court and east of Marietta Avenue. (45-day limitation period: May 22)
2. REZ08-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Streb Investment Partnership
for a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2)
for approximately 10.08 acres located north of Highway 6 west of Commerce Drive and
north of Liberty Drive. (45-day limitation period: May 22) .
3. REZ08-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a
rezoning of approximately 11.7 acres from Community Commercial (CC-2) zone to
Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone, and approximately 8.95 acres to Neighborhood Public
(P-1) zone for property located on Ruppert Road west of Old Highway 218.
D. Comprehensive Plan Item
Consider setting a public hearing for May 1 on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to
amend the land Use Map to change the land use designation from industrial to general
commercial for approximately 10 acres located north of 420th Street, east of Scott Boulevard
and west of Commerce Drive.
E. Development Item
SUB08-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development for an
amended final plat and sensitive areas development plan to remove the construction limit line
on lot 9 for Cardinal Point South, a 21-lot, 31.6-acre residential and commercial subdivision
located east of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and south of Kennedy Parkway. (45-day limitation
period: May 11)
F. Vacation Item
VAC08-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by William and Mia Wang for vacation
of an alley located south of 829 Kirkwood Avenue.
G. Other
H. Approval of Minutes from March 20, 2008 Meeting
I. Adjournment.
Informal
Formal
Commission Meetin s:
June 2 June 16
June 5 June 19
5T AFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Prepared by: Karen Howard
Item: REZ08-00001 & SUB08-00002
Hendrickson Lytham Condominiums
Date: April 17, 2008
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Jeff Hendrickson
2601 Flagstone Court
Coralville, IA
319-351-6186
Contact:
same as above
Property Owner:
Otella, LLC
83 Woodside Avenue
Chalfont, PA 18914
Requested Action:
Rezoning from RS-8 to OPD-8; Preliminary
Plat and Sensitive Areas Development
Plan approval
Purpose:
Development of a 2-lot planned
development with 9 detached single family
dwellings and 24 attached dwelling units
Location:
South of Melrose Avenue as an extension
of Olive Court, Leamer Court, and Marietta
Avenue
Size:
9.48 acres / 8.10 net acres (acreage less
street ROW)
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Three dwellings and associated
outbuildings, remainder of the land is
undeveloped; RS-8
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Single family residential; within the
city of University Heights
South: Single Family residential; RS-5
East: Multi-family residential; OPD-8
West: Single family residential; within the
city of University Heights
Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan identifies this
area as appropriate for duplex and small
lot single family residential
2
Neighborhood Open Space District:
Brookland/Roosevelt (SW3)
February 28, 2008
Revised plan submitted April 8, 2008
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
May 22, 2008
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The subject property is an approximately 9A8-acre parcel containing three single family homes
and a number of smaller accessory buildings. All of these homes currently have access from
Olive Court. The remainder of the property is undeveloped land surrounded by developed
residential neighborhoods in University Heights and Iowa City. The demolition plan indicates that
all of the existing structures on the property will be torn down to make way for the new
development.
While the parcel is located in Iowa City, the only street access to the property is from University
Heights. The parcel is located south of Melrose Avenue at the southern terminus of Olive Court
and Leamer Court and northeast of the terminus of Marietta Avenue. The southern boundary of
the property abuts the back yards of homes along Tower Court, a cul-de-sac that provides no
access to the subject property. There is a steep ravine running east-west through the center of the
property, making development challenging. Another unique aspect of this property is that it has
been used for years as an informal parking lot during Iowa Hawkeye football games. This
property and others in the area have dealt with associated nuisance issues and also profited from
the thousands of football fans parking and walking through the neighborhood during football
weekends.
The applicant has indicated that they have used the "Good Neighbor Policy" and have had a
meeting and discussions with neighboring residents.
ANAL YSIS:
The applicant is requesting a rezoning of 9.48 acres of land from Medium Density Single Family
Residential (RS-8) to a Planned Development Overlay (OPD -8). The applicant has noted that the
proposed planned development falls into several planned development categories: Sensitive
Areas Development; Alternative ownership - condominium development; and Infill Development.
Staff concurs with this characterization, since the development is proposed on property that
contains regulated sensitive features, the property is surrounded by existing residential
development, and a condominium regime is proposed. A two-lot subdivision with a total of 31
dwelling units is proposed with 9 detached single family dwellings and 22 attached single family
dwellings. All the units will be sold as condominiums with the land held in common.
A Levell! Sensitive Areas Review, a type of planned development, is required due to proposed
disturbance of steep, critical, and previously altered protected slopes and a request to reduce a
required wetland buffer.
General Planned Development Approval Criteria
Applications for Planned Development Rezonings are reviewed for compliance with the following
standards according to Article 14-3A of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance.
3
1. The density and design of the Planned Development will be compatible with and/or
complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass and scale,
relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout.
Densitv - The existing RS-8 Zoning is a medium density single family zone, which allows a mix
of single family detached homes with attached single family or duplexes allowed on corner lots
at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per net acre. After accounting for streets, storm
water management and open space, RS-8 zoned areas have typically developed with
approximately 5.2 units per acre. The overall density of the proposed planned development is
approximately 3.8 dwellings per net acre, well below the maximum allowed. This housing
density is consistent with the pattern of modest-sized home lots along Leamer Court, Olive
Court and Marietta Avenue. The density of the existing development adjacent to Leamer and
Olive Courts is approximately 4.9 units per acre.
Land uses proposed and aenerallavout - Given that this property is completely surrounded by
existing development and is bisected by a steep ravine, there is limited opportunity to create a
typical block pattern of intersecting streets that provide opportunities for duplex units on corner
lots. The planned development process encourages a mix of housing types and allows the
flexibility to locate those housing types in a manner that fits the site.
The land uses proposed are attached single family units and detached single family dwellings.
To provide a transition between the largely single family neighborhood along Olive Court and
Leamer Court, the applicant is proposing single detached units along the extension of these
streets, transitioning to the larger 2-unit buildings that will back up to the ravine. Attaching
some of the units will provide the opportunity to combine side yardS to create more space
between the buildings; 20 feet instead of the1 0 feet that would be required between single
family detached dwellings. Staff finds that the proposed land uses are compatible with the
intent of the underlying zoning and with the surrounding neighborhood.
Mass and Scale - The proposed dwellings are considerably larger in square footage that most
of the homes in the area. The detached units will be approximately 4300 square feet in total
floor area (the building footprints are approximately 2,300 square feet including the garage)
and the attached units range in size from approximately 3600 square feet to 4300 square feet
(the building footprints range from approximately 5,000 square feet to 5,400 square feet
including the garage). The larger floor area notwithstanding, the height and scale of the
detached units as viewed from the street are similar to existing homes. The proposed units
are one story units as viewed from the street with walk-out basements at the rear. The
applicant has designed the front facades to mimic house styles existing in the neighborhood.
Four different fa<;ade designs are proposed within the development.
The larger two-unit buildings are located interior to the property, which will provide a transition
between existing homes and these larger buildings. The applicant is proposing to vary the
fa<;ade designs in a similar manner to the single family detached units.
To prevent monotony, staff recommends that the designs vary such that immediately adjacent
buildings do not have the same exterior fa<;ade design. Staff also recommends varying the
paint colors of the units to provide some visual relief to these buildings that have very similar
building footprints.
Staff notes that the garages, particularly for the two-unit buildings are larger and in a more
4
prominent position than for other homes in the area. The applicant is proposing several
design solutions to help reduce the mass and visual presence of garages along the street.
The proposed garages take up approximately 55% of the front fayade of each dwelling unit,
but are set back from the front fayade to reduce their mass and appearance from the street.
An entry porch and bays will help emphasize the residential aspects of the buildings. A variety
of garage door designs are proposed with multiple window openings and other architectural
features, such as roof overhangs and columns, that provide visual relief to the fayade. The
applicant is also proposing to separate and taper the driveways to the two-unit buildings to
reduce the amount of paving in the front yard. These design solutions are consistent with the
garage placement standards suggested in the zoning code.
Open space - According to the submitted plat, about 72% of the property will remain open
space. Much of this area will be concentrated in the rear yards of the detached single family
units and in the ravine located behind the two-unit buildings. These areas will be retained as
private open space to be shared by residents of the development. A 6-foot-wide trail will cross
the ravine to provide pedestrian access to the open space and to the other part of the
development. This trail will coincide with the sanitary sewer easement so will not require
additional grading in the ravine. Staff notes that the grade of this trail as proposed will not
meet ADA requirements. While compliance with these standards is not a requirement for
private trails, staff suggests that the applicant explore ways to reduce the steepness of the
grade.
Front yards can also provide open space in a neighborhood. While the required front setback
in the RS-8 zone is 15 feet, the applicant is proposing a setback of 25 feet for the east and
west facing units along Leamer and Olive to be consistent with the setbacks of existing homes
along these streets. The existing homes along Marietta Avenue also have front setbacks of
approximately 25 feet. However, the applicant would like to use a smaller 15-foot setback for
the units along Marietta in order to keep the homes further from the steep slopes of the ravine.
To mitigate for the change in the front setback, to preserve existing mature trees, and to
create a transition between the existing homes and the new homes in the development, the
applicant is proposing a larger side yard buffer of approximately 33 feet between the existing
home at the end of Marietta and the first new building of this development. Staff finds this to
be a good compromise to balance the goals of reducing impacts on sensitive features and
creating compatibility with neighboring properties.
Traffic circulation - Olive Court, Leamer Court, and Marietta Avenue are all currently dead-end
streets. The fact that these streets do not end with housing built around cul-de-sac bulbs or
other types of turn-arounds provides some notice and indication to surrounding property
owners that these streets could at some point be extended to provide for future development
of this tract of land. The developer is proposing to connect Olive and Leamer into a loop
street rather than end each street in a cul-de-sac. This will allow the developer to maximize
the number of dwelling units that have access and views of the open space in the ravine and
to provide a more logical transition from the single unit buildings to the two-unit buildings.
When compared to cul-de-sacs the loop street design has the public benefit of providing
better access for emergency vehicles, provides an alternative route in the event the either
Leamer or Olive are blocked, will allow more efficient deliver of services and snow removal
and provides for better pedestrian access.
There has been some concern expressed by neighboring property owners that connecting the
5
two streets will encourage cut through traffic for drivers not willing to wait for the traffic signal
at the intersection of Koser and Melrose. Since the intersection of Koser and Leamer is so
close to the Melrose traffic signal, City transportation planners find it unlikely that this will be a
route that would provide any advantage to drivers, who would have to drive out of their way
and then have to wait an undetermined length of time at the stop sign at the intersection of
Olive and Melrose or when traveling the opposite direction at the intersection of Leamer and
Koser.
The projected increase in the level of traffic and the requested increase in the length of the
Marietta Avenue cul-de-sac are addressed in following sections of this report.
2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities.
City sewer an!:! water is available to this property. Capacity is adequate to accommodate
development of these additional dwelling units. Onsite storm water management is required.
Preliminary storm water calculations indicate that the capacity of the proposed storm water
basin is adequate to handle the projected run-off from the site.
According to policy guidelines used by the City, a local street is considered overburdened if
traffic exceeds 500 vehicle trips per day. The applicant has submitted a traffic analysis that
describes the projected increase in traffic from the additional dwelling units proposed (see
attached). This analysis is consistent with the analysis completed by the City's transportation
staff. Transportation staff note that we do not have traffic counts for the existing affected
streets, however we can make some assumptions based on traffic studies in the metropolitan
area. We assume approximately seven trips per day for a single family home and fewer trips
for each apartment unit. The following table summarizes the existing and projected traffic
volumes and provides a comparison with other similar low volume residential streets in Iowa
City where we have recently completed traffic counts. As the table indicates, the projected
post-development traffic level is well within the accepted norms for a low volume residential
street.
Current vehicle trips per day (estimated) Projected vehicle trips per day
Marietta Avenue 49 126
Leamer Court 98 182
Olive Court 170-200* 226-256
Vehicle trips per day**
Lee Street 252
Beldon Avenue 359
McLean 294
*depending on occupancy of the apartments on this street
** based on recent traffic counts
3. The development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property values and privacy of
neighboring properties any more than would a conventional development.
While the proposed development will be a significant change to what has been appreciated for
many years by surrounding neighbors as open space, staff finds that the proposed
6
development is not a significant departure from what would be allowed under the current RS-8
zoning with regard to views, light and air, property values and privacy of neighboring
properties. In most locations the proposed building setbacks from the streets and between
buildings are similar or greater than the existing development in the neighborhood.
4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying zoning
requirements or from City street standards will be in the public interest, in harmony with the
purposes of this Title, and with other building regulations of the City.
All planned developments must comply with all the applicable requirements and standards of
the underlying zoning district and the subdivision regulations, unless specifically waived or
modified through the planned development process. Variations to the dimensional
requirements of the underlying base zone and subdivision regulations are allowed:
. to facilitate the provision of desired neighborhood amenities or open space;
. to preserve or protect natural, historic, or cultural features;
. to achieve compatibility with surrounding development; or
. to create a distinctive or innovative neighborhood environment for area residents.
For developments such as this one where dwellings are located on a common lot, imaginary
lot lines must be illustrated on the plan for purposes of determining when modifications to the
underlying dimensional standards are being requested. See Sheet NO.7 in the set of plans
submitted by the applicant to review the following requests for variations to the zoning
requirements.
The applicant is requesting the following variations from City Code standards and
requirements:
. Attached single family dwellings other than on corner lots;
(See staff comments on page 3 under Land uses regarding this requested variation.)
. Reduction of the required front setback from 25 feet (based on setback averaging of
existing development) to 15 feet for dwellings located on the extension of Marietta Avenue.
(See staff comments on page 4 under Open space regarding this requested variation.)
. Reduction of the required lot width for five of the units, reduction of the frontage
requirement for 6 of the units, and request to allow front setback coverage to exceed the
maximum for 5 of the units.
The minimum lot width and frontage requirements are intended to ensure that a lot is of a
width and frontage that is appropriate for the uses proposed, ensures a minimum spacing
between dwellings, and ensures that dwellings are visible and accessible from the street.
These standards are particularly important for the provision of public and emergency
services. The subject lots are located on the curves of the loop street and at the end of
the cul-de-sac bulb on Marietta Avenue. The applicant has oriented these dwellings to
face the street, reduced the driveway width, and set the units back further from the street
to provide for some additional front yard area to mitigate for the reduced lot width,
frontage, and increased setback coverage. The fire department has reviewed this lot
layout and determined that it meets public safety standards with regard to access and
visibility in cases of emergency. While the lot dimensions are narrower than the standard,
the proposed lot layout allows for clustering the allowed density away from the steep
ravine and provides for preservation of a significant amount of open space on the
7
property.
The zoning code states that in cases where lot width and frontage are reduced, garages
and off-street parking areas must be located so that they do not dominate the streetscape.
Garages must be located on an alley or rear lane or must be recessed behind the front
fa9ade of the dwelling in a manner that allows the residential portion of the dwelling to
predominate. As mentioned above the applicant has designed the units so the garage is
stepped back from the front plane of the house and has provided garage door windows
and other architectural elements that reduce the visual presence of the garages. To
prevent monotony, City staff recommends varying the front buildings facades and paint
colors as suggested above.
· A request to reduce the street pavement width to 26 feet;
Staff finds that the proposal to reduce the pavement width from 28 feet to 26 feet is
reasonable given that this is a low volume residential street and the width will match the
existing width of Leamer Court and Marietta Avenue. There are many existing streets in
Iowa City that have pavement widths narrower than 28 feet that function well. The
decreased pavement width will help to slow traffic. Olive Court has a pavement width of
approximately 19 feet, so the new street will have to taper to this narrower width to match
the existing pavement width.
· A request to allow a cul-de-sac longer than the maximum standard of 900 feet.
The City discourages the use of cul-de-sacs because they reduce street connectivity,
create inefficiencies for the provision of public and emergency services, and make it
difficult to walk or bike to neighborhood destinations. Increasing the length of a cul-de-
sac increases the extent of the inefficiency inherent to cul-de-sac design. That being
said, the street pattern in this part of Iowa City is already established. Extending Marietta
Avenue is the only means of access to the portion of the property south of the ravine.
Tower Court, another long cul-de-sac located south of the subject property, is fully
developed, so a street connection to the south is not possible. Extending the cul-de-sac
another 100 feet allows the developer to fully utilize the relatively flat portion of the
property where unit 19 is proposed. Given that the extended street will be single-loaded
with dwellings only on one side, thus reducing the number of units and number of
residents affected, the request to increase the length appears to be reasonable.
Pedestrian facilities
Planned developments must include pedestrian facilities to ensure that residents and visitors
have access to public streets and sidewalks, building entrances, parking areas, shared open
spaces, natural areas, and other amenities. In addition, providing street trees and a variety of
building facades that address the street with visible doors and windows make for a more
comfortable environment along the street for pedestrians. Staff finds that the sidewalks,
building designs, and street trees proposed will meet the standard described above. As noted
previously, the trail proposed to cross the ravine should be designed with a more gentle grade
to make it functional for residents.
8
Public Open Space Reauirement:
Based on the City's neighborhood open space formula, 0.41 acres of public open space will be
required or a fee paid in lieu. The Parks and Recreation Commission will review this application
and make a recommendation regarding the dedication of open space or fees in lieu of. In the
past the Parks and Recreation Commission has indicated that this property is not conducive for
park use. If it is determined that fees should be paid in lieu of dedication, the fee can be used
for acquisition of new park land or improvements to existing parks within the SW3 open space
district, including Tower Court Park, Brookland Park, and public open space at Roosevelt
School. The fee will be equal to the fair market value of the land that otherwise would have
been required for dedication. The fee must be paid in full by the developer prior to the issuance
of the first building permit for any lot within the development.
Private Shared Open Space
The applicant must submit a legally binding instrument setting forth the procedures and
financing structure to be followed for maintaining the common areas. The developer has
indicated that a homeowner's association will be established to maintain the common areas.
The details of this arrangement will need to be addressed in the legal papers submitted when
the final planned development plan is submitted.
Levell! Sensitive Areas Review
The applicant has applied for approval of a Sensitive Areas Development, a type of planned
development. The purpose of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is to permit and define the
reasonable use of properties that contain sensitive environmental features and natural
resources, and allowing reasonable development while protecting these resources from
damage. The following paragraphs describe the impact this development will have on the
sensitive features of this site.
Steep. Critical. and Protected Slopes - The purpose of regulating development on and near
steep slopes is to:
1. Promote safety in the design and construction of developments;
2. Minimize flooding, landslides and mudslides;
3. Minimize soil instability, erosion and downstream siltation; and
4. Preserve the scenic character of hillside areas, particularly wooded hillsides.
To build the development as proposed a significant portion of the steep, critical, and protected
slopes will be disturbed: 60% of the steep slopes; 42% of the critical slopes; and 34% of the
protected slopes. The sensitive areas ordinance requires that disturbance of steep and critical
slopes be minimized and sets a maximum of 35% for critical slope disturbance with administrative
staff approval. Disturbance beyond this threshold is proposed, which has triggered the
requirement of this Level II Sensitive Areas Review with Planning and Zoning Commission review
and City Council approval required. Development activity is not allowed on protected slopes or in
the 50 foot buffer required around protected slopes, unless the slopes were previously humanly
altered. In addition, disturbance of altered protected slopes or a reduction of a protected slope
buffer may only be approved if a geologist or professional engineer demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the City that the proposed development activity can and will be designed to
eliminate hazards and will not undermine the stability of the slope or the buffer area.
9
The applicant has indicated that most, if not all, the slopes on the property have been humanly
altered and is requesting permission to encroach into protected slope areas. There is evidence
that this assessment is correct. It appears that previous owner(s) graded the site. This made it
easier to park and move cars around on the property during Hawkeye football game days. This
previous grading is particularly evident in the central portion of the ravine where it appears that the
slopes were altered to allow vehicles to drive from one side of the ravine to the other. In addition,
grading for and construction of the dam that created Melrose Lake is also apparent. However,
there are a number of mature trees on the site, which indicates that certain portions may not have
been previously disturbed or at least not for a very long time. The proposed plan generally avoids
the slopes that contain mature trees.
To assess the stability of the slopes and likelihood of slope failure during and after construction of
the proposed condominiums, the applicant hired Terracon, an engineering firm with experience in
this type of analysis. Terracon's preliminary report is attached. In summary, the report states,
'}!\t this time, our analysis indicates that the proposed slopes with the proposed
construction and retaining walls should have factors of safety greater than 1.3. 1 As
we continue with the completion of our laboratory testing of the soil samples and our
analysis, we anticipate this will be confirmed for all areas; however, it should be noted
that soil conditions may be discovered that would affect this conclusion. It should also
be noted that this analysis pertains to the global stability of the proposed slopes.
Analysis of the internal stability of the proposed retaining walls is beyond our scope of
work."
Staff recommends that the final report from Terracon be submitted and reviewed prior to
approval of the preliminary planned development. In addition, given the limited information
submitted regarding the design of the extensive network of retaining walls proposed, the
City will require an analysis and certification from a structural engineer to ensure that the
retaining walls are designed in a manner that will support the proposed buildings. This
analysis and certification will be required at the time of site plan review and prior to
issuance of building permits for the retaining walls. A building permit is required for any
retaining wall over 6 feet in height.
Staff recommends that healthy, mature trees located in or near the ravine be preserved and
protected from construction activity to the extent possible. A tree protection plan should be
submitted and approved at the time of the final OPD plan. The applicant has indicated that the
individual mature trees and groves of trees near the western end of the ravine will be preserved.
Building 15, the first building along the extended Marietta Avenue will be setback approximately
33 feet from the property line in order to preserve mature trees in this area. Grading at the east
end of the ravine will be necessary to install stormwater facilities and the sewer line. Disturbance
of sensitive features is allowed for installation of necessary uitilities. Since grading in this area will
be necessary for installation of essential utilities, it makes sense to locate the trail in this area as
well. Some additional grading and filling may be necessary to make the trail functional for
pedestrians and also provide a route for maintenance vehicles if work needs to be done on the
sewer line.
A Construction Site Run-off (CSR) Permit will be required before any grading activity commences
1 According to Terracon, current U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Iowa Department of Transportation
standards recommend a minimum factor of safety of 1.3 for an end-of-construction condition.
10
on the site. This permitting process will ensure that erosion control methods are adequate to
prevent erosion during construction.
Provided all conditions are satisfied to prevent erosion, ensure long term stability of the slopes,
and the structural integrity of the proposed buildings, staff finds that the proposed encroachment
into what appear to be previously altered slopes is reasonable.
Wetlands: The subject property contains less than 1 acre of jurisdictional wetlands located in the
southeast corner of the property next to Melrose Lake. A 100 foot natural buffer is required.
However, a buffer reduction may be requested, if it can be demonstrated by a wetland specialist
that the wetland:
1. Is less than 5 acres in area; and
2. Does not contain species listed by the Federal or State government as endangered or
threatened, or critical or outstanding natural habitat for those species; and
3. Does not contain diverse plant associations of infrequent occurrence or of regional
significance; and
4. Is not located within a regulated stream corridor.
The applicant has submitted an analysis from a wetland specialist that indicates that the criteria
for reducing the wetland buffer to 50 feet have been met. (See attached report.) Staff finds that
the proposed reduction of the buffer is reasonable given the limited extent and limited quality of
the jurisdictional wetlands on the property. Emergent wetlands in the ravine are not considered
jurisdictional and so are not regulated under the City's sensitive areas ordinance.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Subdivision Desion: The applicant is requesting to divide the property into two lots. Lot 1
includes the area bounded by the newly proposed loop street. Lot 2 includes the remainder of
the property. The lot layout and street design is discussed in detail in the preceding paragraphs
of this report.
Street desion and connections: As noted above, Leamer and Olive Courts will be extended and
connected into a loop street. Given there are two existing street names involved, a street sign will
need to be posted to indicate for addressing purposes where Leamer ends and Olive begins. To
that end, the City will require a street sign to be posted at the southeast corner of the loop. The
homes along the east-west segment (bottom) of the loop will be addressed as Leamer Court and
Olive Court will terminate before the street curves to the west. Marietta Avenue will be extended
and terminate in a cul-de-sac bulb. As mentioned previously, the applicant has requested to
exceed the recommended maximum length of this cul-de-sac from 900 feet to approximately 1003
feet. The proposed street design and connections are analyzed in a previous section of this
report.
There appear to be a number of private access easements that provide access to the existing
buildings on the property and to the apartments located adjacent to the property near the end of
Olive Court. These access easements will no longer be needed since Olive Court will be extended
to provide access to the remaining properties. Staff notes that Outlots A and B will need to be
dedicated to those adjacent property owners prior to final planned development approval so that
these properties have frontage on and access to the public street.
11
Sanitary Sewer: A sewer connection is available from the property to the east. According to
the City Engineer it will be necessary to reconstruct 50 feet of the sanitary sewer line east of the
subject property in order to make this connection.
Water Service: Water mains will need to be extended to serve this development. A water main
extension fee of $395.00 per acre is required. Resolution of some technical deficiencies on the
plan will need to be resolved prior to approval of the preliminary plan.
Storm water manaaement: Stormwater management will be handled on site with a dry-bottom
basin in the ravine. Preliminary stormwater calculations indicate that the proposed facility will be
able to handle the projected run-off from this development. Any overland overflow routes should
be located so that water will not run over any of the extensive network of retaining walls proposed
for this site. The submitted plan indicates that stormwater will be directed around and away from
the retaining walls so as not to jeopardize the integrity of these walls.
SUMMARY:
The proposed planned development of 31 dwelling units on this 9.48-acre parcel will not
increase the density allowed under the current RS-8 zoning. The proposal complies with the
land use map and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. In staffs opinion its design and density is
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. A planned development is required due to
proposed disturbance of steep, critical, and protected slopes located in the ravine that bisects
the subject property, to allow a condominium development rather than a standard subdivision,
and to allow adjustment of certain zoning and street standards.
Given the developer's desire to cluster the development in a manner that limits encroachment
into regulated slopes, but also takes advantage of the views inherent to the natural areas in the
ravine, certain modifications to zoning and street standards have been requested. Staff finds
that these requested modifications are reasonable as a means of balancing the goals of
encouraging infill development that is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods and
protection of environmentally sensitive lands. Staff recommends compliance with the submitted
building elevations and a requirement to vary the use of those designs to prevent monotony
along the streets in the development. Staff also recommends that best practices be observed
with regard to erosion control and slope stabilization during and after construction to prevent
environmental damage and ensure public safety. Specific staff recommendations and
conditions are specified below.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REZ08-00001 and SUB08-00002, a 2-lot subdivision and a rezoning of
9.48 acres from Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) to Planned Development
Overlay (OPD-8) for property located south of the terminus of Olive Court and Leamer Court and
north of Tower Court, be approved subject to resolution of technical deficiencies, receipt of the
final report from Terracon verifying the stability and suitability of the slopes for the proposed
development, and a note on the plan documents indicating that the fayade designs and materials
will be consistent with the submitted elevation drawings and fayade designs and paint colors of
the dwellings will vary so that immediately adjacent dwellings will not have the same design.
12
DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES:
1. Final report from Terracon required
2. Technical discrepancies and deficiencies as noted by the City Engineer and water department
3. Typical elevations of all building sides should be submitted.
A IT ACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan
3. Preliminary soil stability analysis from Terracon
4. Supporting documents and written statements from the applicant
5. Wetland analysis
6. Public correspondence received to date
Approved by:
~,
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and Community Development
~
T-
o
o
o
o
I
CO
o
N
W
a::
t
:l
o
()
Q)
.>
o
T-
O)
U
C
co
0)
co
. .
Z
o
"""'4
~
U
o
~
~
f-4
"""'4
00
Applicant's statement as to why zone change is warranted. .
This site contains sensitive areas including steep slopes, critical slopes, altered protected
slopes, groves of trees, and wetlands. The zone change from RS-8 to 8AO-8 will allow
the site to be developed with a minimal impact to the sensitive features. A mix of single
units and duplex units will allow a neighborhood that will have a variety of housing
types.
r--..:J
0 =>
=
<;: co
~() ..,.,
)>-: fr1
()-< OJ T/
N -
=iO co r-
~( r-- rn
m ..",
022 ::i: r-1
\.J
-r.;:~ -
<.. ..
J> a
0:>
~
Iii
~I
~ ~
~~~~
~~ffii
;lilll
rn
~ ~ ~
~ ~ 5
u ::;; <.)
25:1:85g
ffi~~ ~~~
:I:...JOQ..,Q
~~ ,T"""'
~- ~I I
:;; ~ I
~ ,",
it
ap,~
a~ .a~
mmw
nwm
nm · ·
.! .!
~ r
IiI. I li~ I
II I
!= linl!r', I
. .; .. III .!I~I i
il I II .'.~ "
Iii' III tlllh;; Ii
I ill illi Ulilll:b'i~
11- '1.. IIMa~lm~1
If
I 8 ~
..,I
i~~ ~i
B
id
\ .'
\~
\\\i
~~1
~~
1\
,
I ~\~
\\':t
\'k~
,---
\~
\
'\"t
..~~
\Ill
.------,
l II ~~flll!I!JI !!~Il!l ~!
1111 !I II I .1 11=1
II II I I III 111111
! !" 'I. f'.- # III \ {0 II~
I i IIII t1o_.. a II I . iil
rl
III i;i
II ...
Ii I.. u.
iii ...
r II ~~~
11.1 Illi uu ...
I II ~m !n
Iii ril i'
I. . II' is;
lill I!I I ',I! III
~hlll
0
; 0
;
~
i5 ~
G i5
iij G
Ii! iij
~
i5 Ii!
z ~
I I
. . .
. . .
. .
. . . .
. .
. . .
. .
. .
.
....a.. __..... ____,.
i ~ C/l
15 ~ ~
~~~~ C/l - ::>
~ ~ 0
U :::!: ()
i!i:l:85g
;111 ffi~15 ~~~
J:...JU_-,_
I!!
;; I!!
:J ;; I!!
loJ :J ;;
~ loJ :J
~ ~ ~ I!!
~ ~ ~ ~ ;;
:J
iil 0 F=
!l: ~ i5
0 G
; loJ loJ ~
~ ~ :>
'" ::I '" I!:
II)
'Sl ~ ~ ~ ~
'" '" '"
I I I I
gl~ ~ V
j
0...
E-<Cf)
z~
~~
:::a~
o...z
s~
f;:~
~o
oQ
Z
~o~
~U?
E=: ~ E--<
......~........
en U
Z
~ ~~
o zo
~ 0........
Cf)
:so
0... ~
>-00:::
:;j~
z~
Sl~
::l
~
~
0...
III
III
15
II I..
rill
It.III"1
I n
IIII j~il
. I I
Ii~f !II
j
0..
e-o(f)
:z;~
~~
::s~
o..z
3~
f;:~
~o
~~
Z
en
~ ~ ~
~ ~ 8
~:l!~~15
Q:t:CUCI)
ffi>:~ g~
:I:...J() QQQ
2E [) !!!Wl~ I!I ~!
~ ~~
~~ffi~
Ilil
~ ~ ~
illlll II
I. I. I. I.
10@~1
!;
~
~
I
, ---
,--,
!~!
: i
1 .
(J 11!llll! i II! ~!
III I
Ih :1 II IIII f II II~
I III JII~ iIJI.u 111:11 I
I"""""'" ~;lrllsHllhIlUIIIIIII
I : III i I t'~=I"'" I' ,'" I '" ~II
I ,II I!. # I \ I I d.
I i III ! I tl"~~'" H II ) 0 ;;i
, 1=1 d -
I",il -.'1
!on .." I
II. : III I
p:1I I, II
~ ! I~ lib i
; !f11i;1 f
. . il_ I'.. .1
i n iH II!, I!
1:.:r~:r9; ~
III
III
If
II I..
r II
11.1111,"
I ..
III. ii,'.
I I I
lib !!I
j
0..
E-oen
z~
r:z::l~
::s~
o..z
s~
~~
r:z::lO
QQ
Z
~o~
~ Uo
~.....-t
~~~
~ ~ G i -r
~.....:l< fO I
Q z~ \
~ o.....-t I '
en I ~
E-o ~ I T--
ju I '1'1
o..~ I 111-
~ ~ 1-0l\IlD
_ z LYI~
- ~ I l
Si~ I --
:::l I
r:z::l I
If I -r..,
! CJhO ":
4-L - n_:_
I
I
I
mw........
I
~
i ~
~ ~I
~~~m
;i~1
en
i5 ?5 t
en _ Z
~ Z ::>
() _ 0
~~~/:~
C:I:C u~
ffi!;:8ZH~
:J:..J QQQ
II r
il I I
~I 11" ~" III i II I
III J!!; :: i:: 1 !i
.1 .......11 I
ili" hi hiD.I-
IU !OO ! Iii '1 II II
II ! 1110 iJo ;~ ~ I!
j ~11!iJ
I 11
&1111
... ....
I
I
II i Ilj ;ml a
Iliilmllll
i.~ l;h!3" ~
~~hpml~l;!
.. II II ..
~
I
...
..."
,
,
,
,---,
11~~(lII!!!II!llilll ~!
;~~~
~~I~
;ilj~~
CJ)
~ ~ ~
~ z is
~ ~ ~ 5~
ffi>:5 ~~~
::I:...J(.) oQo
I'
In !I II f II f',
III · III I I Jill II illllI
II lid IldhlHlllIIIU IIIII II,
I! ' !!!' II Cf;~~l~ "11' I/' \l J~
I i III! I tl'-.. H III I 1;1
III
III
II
Ii 1.1
rill
11.111"1
I II
I'll ~'II
I I I
lib .11
j
p...
[j)
~~
f:i12
p...z
s~
~~
PLIO
~Q
~~<
PLI U i3=
e;j ~9
~ <:r:::>-<- -.- - - : I
..... ~ E-< I
~~U~I :
PLI ......:l < I I
rn i3= I
~ zo I
~ ?;5 -: -(n
~ ~ I I
~ U I I
p...~ I I 0 ..
~~ ~:~ I.\~;
2S ~ I _L
~ ~ ~
PLI I
g: I --r-
! CJ\~O
4-L
+~~L
-t~
-R- - ---
i -~: f1J
I -r -I __
i : i
pb:
: _J
~
I
I'~'"
t
,---,
II ~~[lII!!!!1 !l~i Ii! ~!
~ ~
i~il
;I~~
I ~. ~~Ii
i !I ~
t I ~..
8 i~ ~ ~ i~i Ii~ i,~
~ b~ b ~ .~~ ~~! iA~
It ~~ l b;.~ ~~! !g~1
~ :; I ~~i~i ~~ij liii
z ~! ~ ~J~~B ~~~~ ~~~~
j ~ ~ ~ ~ ----
III
Z ::. ~
o => z
~ ~ 8
~::'~~ii
c<cc.J(/)
ffi~o~ ~~~
J: -J _,_
~ . . l. >> , >>
5!!~~!~! ; ; i, ; , ,
:;; \ ,. \ ) >> ) >>
I......: :::::::
::::::.
~ ~~~~~~~~
~iH ii.
c" "" ~..
~ J P I I I I
!'~i"l 3 I II
i! Ii ; 3 IIlhiH
I
I ;
~ ~:h!lIliihnl!
pI! iHn
~ ~.........~:~~:
~ ~.... II .. .. ... , _
~
I
IIBlGI'HI.!! ~l
11~~IlII&dg !1!jW i
a;;a;; ~~~II I' ~:
i ~
~ ~I
~;ffi
~I;I
CIl
z ::!: ~
o :J z
!:1 ~ is
U ::!: (J
ii!~g5~
~ ~ 8 ~~~
+n
j
P-.
E--Cf)
z:=g
~2
P-.o z
~
....:I:=g
~o
rz:lQ
Qz
~ o~
~ u8
~ ~ ><~
..... ::r:: Eo-<
t: ~-
rJJ U
Z
r:::l~<
rJJ ~
~ zo
~ 0-
Cf)
jo
P-. ~
>-< ~ I
~ ~ ~11l
2S ~ LS:G.-J
::!l ::r:: I l
~ II ~ ~-
g:: II;:
II I..
~I III
11:111-1
I ..
Iii ;I~il
lib MI
\ h \ ~.
\~I!
\
~
I
, , ----
r---l
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---------r:'r1
- --------- I-J
,
,
"
If
"
Ii
'I:
, '"
: w~
:I: ~
h 0,
______...1J t ~ ~
---- ---n-l"
---- L-J
,
, ~-,
__ J I
------- ,
- ------
I:
Ii
Ii
Ii
f
,
------ 1
---:_----- ,.
--- LJ
,
r:"
--- .
------- ,
------ ~
,
,
Ii
Ii
Ii
I,
Ih
::::::::::~J
"
==========Lor:J
,
,
I:
Ii
I:
Ii
I: z
I' "
, "
: ~ ~
Lh ;?:
==========rJ 0,
n-n-nnT:'r~
---------- I
>"
,
"
Ii
"
Ii
"
Ii
"
fh
---------- I
---------- i.J
,
,
n-n--n-n'i
---------- I
I-'
I
"
Ii
"
Ii
"
Ii
II
n_____n_~'i
---------- I
w
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
,
In
:- _:::::::=h :
Ii
I:
Ii
I:
Ii
I:
I' w
, Cl
, ~ ~
::::::::::jJ 8;
,
I
,
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
In
-- _______.LJ I
- --mn-w
Ii
Ii
___n__ml~ ~!
-_mm-TJ .. -
:::n
---1,
w
I I
, ----h---un'~
---------- I
>-'
I
"
Ii
Ii
I:
I'
::::::::::~
,
,
---U-h--n~
---------- I
>-'
,
"
I
I
I
I
__U__h__~'i
---------- I
,~
,
n
- ~ I
-:.J
G ~
"'-
0'
c..!
,
-----uu-M'~
---------- I
,J
I:
Ii
Ii
Ii
I:
__n___u_~'i
---------- I
CJ
n
__-I t
---u
w
"
~ ~
8;
n
__...J I
--..., I
LJ
~
::;;
~ ~
01
,
-------___Li
------nurG
I:
Ii
I:
Ii
I:
Il
::::::::::rJ
I
I
,
I
,
I
,
I ~ ~
, 0,
I ~ I
n
__...J I
---u
M
M
~
('l
<:
F
~
o
Z
gJ
~
'"
r-'
~
o
'"
c
~
<:
tn
-<
o
~
'"
r-'
>-
z
o
"C
r-'
>-
~
tn
~
'"
r-'
~
o
'"
('l
>-
"C
tn
>-
~
:r:
~
('l
....,
'"
~
<:
:;a
~
~
~
~
r-'
'"
"C
tn
('l
;;
r-'
Ui
....,
'"
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
I
IOWA CITY IOWA
OFFICE: 319-351-8282
CEDAR RAPIDS IOWA
OFFICE: 319-841-5188
Your Vision + Our Innovation = Inspired Results
April 7, 2008
Karen Howard
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Re: Hendrickson Lytham Condominiums
Planned developments must comply with all the applicable requirements and standards of the
underlying zoning district and the subdivision regulations, unless specifically waived or modified
through the planned development process. The following is a list of the variations from the
zoning and subdivision standards that the developer requests.
1) RS-8 Zone - Allows attached units only on corner lots.
Variance Request: Developer requests a planned unit development overlay rezoning to allow
attached units along the street.
Support Points: A mix of duplex buildings and single units throughout the development will
help prevent the monotony. Front elevation wall plane variations, including garage setbacks,
also add visual interest. The plan calls for 11 duplex buildings and 9 single, free standing
units. The implementation of duplex structures along each side of the ravine allows for
increased spacing between buildings (20 feet), providing more open space and much better
views from the street. There are four different elevation views, four different color schemes
and four different floor plans to help prevent the perception of uniformity. This allows for 64
different appearances of the buildings.
In order to achieve compatibility with surrounding development, photos of existing
neighborhood homes were used in the design of exterior facades. A 1930's/1940's craftsman
styling is evident in four separate architectural themes. By mixing themes and colors, the
result is a distinctive neighborhood environment along all street frontages that blends in
comfortably with the existing community.
On Olive Court and Leamer Court, the development is transitioned with smaller detached
units and increased front setbacks, to more closely match the existing homes on these streets.
On Marietta Avenue, the development is transitioned with a substantially increased side
setback as a buffer to the first condo building.
2) Setback Requirements: Setback averaging along Marietta Avenue results in an
approximate front setback of 25 feet. Lots around cul-de-sac bulbs also call for a front
setback of 25 feet.
Variance Request: Developer requests setback variances to reduce the front yard setback
along Marietta Avenue to 15 feet.
Support Points: Reducing the setback on Marietta to (15) feet allows for the reduction of unit
encroachment further into the ravine, preserving more of the natural slopes of the property.
The garages have been setback at least 25 feet to allow space for off-street parking and to
reduce the appearance of the garage.
The side setback of the unit closet to the first existing house on Marietta has been
substantially increased to preserve mature trees and to reduce any perception of crowding or
blocking of homeowner views.
3) Lot Width, Frontage, and Front Setback Coverage Standards
Variance Requested: The developer is requesting a reduction in the lot width, frontage, and
maximum front setback coverage. The required lot width for detached single family lots is
45 feet. The required lot frontage for detached single family lots is 40 feet. The required
maximum front setback coverage is 50%. Units lOA, lOB, 14B, 19A and 19B do not meet
the lot width requirement. Units lOA, lOB, 13A, 14A, 14B, 19A and 19B do not meet the
frontage requirement. Units lOA, lOB, 14B, 19A and 19B do not meet the maximum front
setback coverage.
Support Points: Buildings are positioned so that they are clearly visible from the street and
are accessible for emergency and public services.
There will be a similar amount of private open space for these units, as compared to other
units in the development. Driveway curb cuts and widths have been reduced to maximize
yards, creating ample green space and room for tree plantings.
4) Street Pavement Width
Variance Request: Developer requests a variance to allow for (26) foot wide paving for the
extension of Leamer Court, Olive Court and Marietta Avenue.
Support Points: The current standard width is 28 feet for a local street. A street paving width
of26 feet will comply with the new (forthcoming) subdivision code requirements and will be
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood streets.
A paving width of 26 feet will match the existing street width of Leamer Court (approx. 26
feet) and the street will taper to meet the existing width of Olive Court (approx. 19 feet).
The existing paving on Marietta Avenue is approximately 24 feet wide. The new 26 foot
wide paving on Marietta will taper slightly to meet the existing street.
5) Marietta Avenue - Cul-de-sac Length
Variance Request: The developer requests a variance to allow for the cul-de-sac length to be
longer than (900) feet.
Support Points: In order to preserve the natural topography of the site, it is not possible to
connect Marietta Avenue with Leamer Court or Olive Court.
Marietta Avenue will be single loaded; units will be located on the north side of the street
only, matching the existing portion of Marietta Avenue. This means that the number of
homes located along Marietta Avenue will be approximately half the number found on a
normal cul-de-sac.
Consequently, vehicle traffic projections will remain well below city guidelines:
Traffic projections for Marietta Avenue are 49 daily trips from existing homes and 126 total
daily trips after development. The City of Iowa City standard for "local streets" (25 mph or
less) is "less than 500 vehicles per day".
The total length of Marietta Avenue east of George Street (after development) is 1003 feet.
If you have any questions or require any additional information, please contact us accordingly.
Respectfully submitted:
~i:~
MMS Consultants Inc.
T:\1200\1235074 \1235074Ll.DOC
. Tr/he AlYf/~
l.llar1eJ+q Afciltle-
ijfJ.:,(. f)eYe~'i"t'4 7 106 -71?I = V r ft Y" le' · .t.i
ijllf!.., !l(ilCCyi10Y 7 I.f,. I / (J41~" IMI." ./ Z 6 Irrlf I"ff
; [ Leq l1ftY" c;~t{
Ii #'cIolc lecllJlrl1'l J/; . ~ "(/1 = 1;; !rfjJ 1'( cly;
IIAR'<< ff;e1IJK') /'I fA f /2 ""if <26.7/,'1" In. frif! Ir' 7
RevffeJ :l7/o~
.i
~ (
H
j; O~'1t (o&,f
; Ref;/( f)6ch l
20 }Wi("t/ 7 Iff) ;:; I LfO Ir /iJ It ~Iy
t /0 qr'/Ii/f,,,f 4flr6 ' 7 II ~7 = --~~__t(lL-,~r ~/
/ 70 {(1;1 /f'r7'
A4r :~k/elo//irt)J
f? l111fb . -; II ~!i'
t 170 I'YJ - ZZ 6 IlIp Iff' 7
,
A/;<I<fIJ fftre/J;
(lJe/(Of'<.. ;}ro1l1( /~ 500 /JPT frP/II :I{/OT
. ft1llfd fl((I/ ~ 'i(}) AfJT fr~i11 IllOT
P/q(lef'C( )86 ACT wr/ <)1 f(o!fc ?lili If I e<7l ~l f0dfef
MMS CONSULTANTS', INC~
I
IOWA CITY IOWA
OFFICE: 319-351-8282
CEDAR RAPIDS IOWA
OFFICE: 319-841-5188
Your Vision + Our Innovation = Inspired Results
April 11, 2008
Karen Howard
Iowa City Planning Department
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
RE: Hendrickson-Lytham Condominiums Slope Stability Measures
t""
~
The developer of this project is taking several steps to ensure the stability of the existing and
proposed slopes on this property. The first measure that will be used and probably the most
important measure for the existing slopes is to preserve the existing vegetation as much as
possible. Other measures that will be used during and after construction include the placement of
rolled erosion control mat on finished slopes, the extensive use of silt fence to help control
erosion and stabilization seeding of finished slopes. The retaining walls will be designed by a
structural dr geotechnical engineer to ensure their stability. The preliminary geotechnical report
prepared by Terracon indicates that the proposed construction of buildings and retaining walls
and slopes will aU be stable after construction. In addition, Iowa DNR NPDES and City of Iowa
City CSR permits will be obtained for this project and these permits require weekly inspections
and maintenance of erosion control measures. The City oflowa City inspectors will ensure these
permits are being followed. The developer is committed to ensuring the stability of the slopes
and to controlling erosion on this site during and after construction.
CI'l
~
~
~
CI'l
~
"0
i
t""
~
CI'l
(j
>
"0
m
>
f!S
t:!l
~
...,
CI'l
#~~
Ronald L. Amelon, P.E.
MMS Consultants, Inc.
T:\1200\1235074\1235074L2.DOC
~
~
I
CI'l
"0
/!5
:>
t""
riJ
ril
April 7, 2008
lrerracon
Consulting Englnoers & Scientists
Jeff Hendrickson
clo MMS Consultants, Inc.
1917 South Gilbert Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
2640 12th Street SW
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52404-3440
Phone 319.366.8321
Fax 319.366.0032
Attention: Mr. Ron Amelon
Re: Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Hendrickson Lytham Condominiums
Iowa City, Iowa
Terracon Job No: 06085611.01
Dear Mr. Amelon:
Soil borings for the referenced project are completed and laboratory testing of the samples is in
progress. Based on the conditions encountered in the borings and a limited amount of laboratory
testing, we have analyzed the stability of some of the critical slopes for the project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project will consist of the construction of a condominium complex comprising of two-story
buildings (12 single unit and 12 duplex buildings), and associated parking and drive areas. The
project site is located on Marietta Avenue and Leamer Court in Iowa City. Based on the supplied
preliminary development plan, we understand the proposed 8.1 acre site has steep slopes in the
form of a valley with existing ground elevations varying between about 725 and 759 feet. In
general, the steepest part of the existing slopes are about 3%:1 (horizontal:vertical). The
proposed buildings will be located on either side of the valley near the tops of the slopes. New fill
placed between the buildings and on the uphill side of the buildings varies from about 3% to 6
feet. A retaining wall will also be constructed about halfway down each slope. These retaining
walls will be about 8 to 10 feet in height. The types of retaining walls are unknown at this time, but
it is anticipated that they will be some sort of reinforced earth structure.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Soil Conditions
Based on the results of the borings and limited laboratory testing and observation, subsurface
conditions at the project site can be generalized as follows. In general, the borings
encountered silty clay or lean clay (loess) to depths of about 14 to 21 feet below grade in the
borings performed at the top of the slopes and to depths of about 12 to 18 feet below grade in
the borings performed in the valley. The silty or lean clay was generally soft to stiff in
consistency. Below this, the borings encountered sandy, lean to fat clay to depths of about 17
Delivering Success for Clients and Employees Since 1965
More Than 95 Offices Nationwide
Hendrickson Lytham Condominiums Slope Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
Job No. 06085611.01
April 7, 2008
lrerracon
to 28 feet below grade in the borings performed at the top of the slopes and to depths of about
7 to 8 feet below grade in the borings performed in the valley. The sandy lean to fat clay was
generally stiff to very stiff in consistency. Below this, the borings encountered sandy lean clay
with a trace of gravel (glacial till) to the boring's termination depths of about 25 to 50 feet below
grade. The sandy lean clay was generally very stiff to hard in consistency.
Groundwater Conditions
The borings were monitored during and after drilling operations for the presence and level of
groundwater. At the time of boring, groundwater was observed in the borings at depths of
about 12 to 23 feet below existing grade. Delayed groundwater measurements were taken
approximately 24 hours after drilling. At that time, groundwater was measured In the borings at
the top of the slopes at depths of about 5 to 15 feet below existing grade and was measured in
the borings in the valley at depths of about 1 to 5 feet below existing grade. Due to the low
permeability of the cohesive soils encountered at this site, a relatively long period of time may
be required for groundwater to develop and stabilize in a bore hole. Longer term monitoring in
cased holes or piezometers would be required for a better evaluation of the groundwater
conditions and potential for water level fluctuations.
Fluctuations of the groundwater level will occur due to seasonal variations in rainfall, runoff, and
other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. Perched water can develop
within sand seams and layers overlying lower permeability soils following periods of heavy or
prolonged precipitation. Therefore. groundwater levels during construction or at other times in
the future may be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the boring logs. As such,
groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and
construction plans for the project.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
As requested, a global stability analysis was performed using a computer program (GeoStudio
SLOPE/W) that utilizes the Morgenstern-Price force and moment equilibrium method of slices
for circular failure arcs. Global stability evaluates the ratio of resisting to driving forces, and is
referred to as a factor of safety. The magnitudes of these forces depend on the slope
geometry, soil characteristics (texture, density. shear strength. and moisture content),
surcharge loading, and groundwater conditions. A factor of safety of 1.0 indicates that these
forces are in equilibrium and no movement occurs. A factor of safety greater than 1.0 indicates
that there is a margin of safety against movement. The closer the factor of safety is to 1.0, the
probability of movement increases. The degree of risk or the magnitude of the factor of safety
which is considered acceptable is generally established by industry standards and depend on
many factors such as variability of the soil conditions, groundwater conditions, surcharge
2
Hendrickson Lytham Condominiums Slope Analysis
Iowa City, Iowa
Job No. 06085611.01
April 7, 2008
lrerrcJl:on
loading, and cost of repair. It should be noted that current U.S Army Corps of Engineers and
Iowa Department of Transportation standards recommend a minimum factor of safety of 1.3 for
an end-of-construction condition.
Based on the limited data available, our understanding of the site geometry, and our analyses,
it is our opinion that the factor of safety against a deep~seated, slope stability failure will be
greater than 1.3 for the proposed project slopes. At this point in our analysis, it was determined
that a cross-section from north to south, near borings 3, 7 and 12 (see the attached Boring
Location Diagram) represents the worst case scenario if one of the condominiums was
included. The load from the condominium was modeled as a uniform load of about 1500 psf.
The attached sheet summarizes our slope stability analysis for this section.
We understand that the project plans call for slope protection using erosion mats. It is our
opinion that, if installed correctly, these mats should provide sufficient protection against
erosion that could lead to future slope instability.
At this time, our analysis indicates that the proposed slopes with the proposed construction and
retaining walls should have factors of safety greater than 1.3. As we continue with the
completion of our laboratory testing of the soil samples and our analysis, we anticipate this will
be confirmed for all areas; however, it should be noted that soil conditions may be discovered
that would affect this conclusion. It should also be noted that this analysis pertains to. the global
stability of the proposed slopes. Analysis of the internal stability of the proposed retaining walls
is beyond our scope of work.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this phase of your project. We will
continue with laboratory testing and further analyses that will be summarized in our final report.
If you have any questions concerning this preliminary report, or if we may be of further service
to you, please contact us.
Sincerely,
lrerracon
~~t~t~~~
Lisa S. Burch, M.S., E.I.CJ ~
Project Engineer
~~A~
Timothy T. Wiles, P.E.
Geotechnical Services Manager
N:\Pro)ects\200B\060B5611\wp\060B5611.01; Attachments
3
.~
it/'!!,
Ii:}!'
:f
...
. \
...., ~~ "'"
I ~~ 't
.....,. \,.,................"
'.
,.
~
..
.....
~i"
..:>l
!I.~
i~
:;EC/)
~:;E
(!J2
<c~
-~
00
Zo
oz<c
1-0:5:
~OO
O~-:
--,<c~
(!J~-
Z>-O
ii:--'<C
oz:5:
coOO
C/)-
o~
UJ(J
C/)_
00:
0..0
OZ
O:LU
0..:I:
UJ
-I
<(
(J
C/)
o
I-
b
z
OJ
.2
o
co
Q)
Cti
E
.~ c:
B.~
c.ltl
<c g
. --'
+
o
z
w
(IJ
W
....J
~
'8
0'
~
!l..
w
cr:
::l
C!)
u:
<0
o
o
N
:r:
o
cr:
<l:
~
It:
D
u
m
l!m:m
b
~
r-
~~
m"'"
>N
.:1:: It)
Oltl
.,l<::;:
mE
Qui
'0
:;:-
og.
=CI:
~L.
U)ltl
U)"g
ffiO
~
CD
L.:
CD
Cl
lC
c:
lC
~
'8
e-
n..
~ UJ
>. :x:
co
co k
al
:;: ~
.!!!
i1i
a: 0
NC/)
T""(!J
OZ
Z-
<C~
T""1lJ
T""_ (IJ
~Zo..
.- LU
O>~LU
";<CO
-~ I-
C')LUUJ
C\io:W
_ . _ U.
T""0..U)
Cl)LUN
(!)UJW
zOo:
iItu<C
OW
COu.
"0
UJI.!)
I-UJ
00:::
Z<C
z ~ &.....
r-~
Cl
Qj
I::
::J
o
"t:
a;
oE
..0
Cll N
I:: Cll
::Ja::
o
Cl'S:::
., a; Cl
~ E.:.:
.- O.t::
-INn.
:SO .!!! Cl
n. 0 .,
Cll 0 Cll
E 0.5
00('1)-1
,~:E c,g
n. n. ,Q a;
[gE
('I)o..co
'II) ON
"'-(Oo~
...-.. .0...
:Ego
n. '1ij C\I 0
Cll T"",~
.t:: ...t::
00=;;:n.
gO>
i::0..c0
.2C\1E8
l{l"'-OV
..c .w::i '"
0::>01::
O==-f2~
Cll
..c-S.c
~E~8
...-0..
.w::iQi
::>0"011)
>OOC\l
..c:2...-
..c 0 .w
E ~ .-..5:
o ..-I
"5Qi::::!
0"01-..0
OOOE
...:2mo
-g :2"5
~.-..:J 0
.:.;m~td
~w>-15
oO:5~
~d()..:..:
>- Cll
-I<i:I7-g
-I...J-I"",
-()>-.:::;
lL>-O
5:I-Z-I
W--I<(-I
ZOO(J)i=
ci::i::i::
~~~~
a. a. a. C-
'S::: 'S::: 'I:: 'I::
g ~ g g
Cll Q) Q) Cll
0000
...-C\l('I)v
~~~~
CiiiUrotij
'I:: 'I:: 's::: 'S:::
2$-S.s
III ro III III
~:2~:2
N
IJl
OJ
~
Q)
~
.....
...-
(0
II)
1010
00
8t::
i:D~
E.S!
mill
ZO
C\I('I)v
~~~
rotijtij
"C: ~i:: "a=
Cll Cll Q)
--.....
III III III
::2::2~
II II II
.....C\I('I)
ZZZ
000
BBB
WWW
~o::o::
o
00
II) II)
..... .....
~p
.t:: ..c
OJ OJ
'w'w
5:5:
--
"2 'E
2-2-
T"" C\I
LULU
ZZ
:J:J
Q) Q)
... ...
::l::l
mm
~e
a. a.
~l
$
..
\
8
T"'
@
.
Q)
()
c
!9
.~
o
. ..
. ..
. . .
. .' .. .
. . .
. .
o
IX)
o
......
o
([)
f6
~
o
l')
o
N
o
"i
o
lr!
o
<y
"r"
.--...
10
~
.........
.....
(J)
(J)
LU
0::
a.
C\I
CI)
CI)
W
~
a.
.
r ....
o
II)
8
OM
I
~
(leel) UOllBA813
o
M
o
N
o
T"'
M
M
~
()
=2
F
tT1
Z
Cl
Z
tT1
tT1
;;0
en
t"'"
~
"
en
c:
;;0
<
tT1
><
o
;;0
en
t"'"
~
o
"tI
~
;;0
en
r
~
o
en
()
>-
"tI
tT1
>-
;;0
()
::r:
=l
tT1
()
....,
en
r;g
<
~
~
~
....,
>-
t"'"
en
"tI
tT1
()
:;
r
[j;
....,
en
. ,. -^~.~--~-----_._,_..~._.
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC~
I
IOWA CITY IOWA
OFFICE: 3 I 9-35 1-8282
CEDAR RAPIDS IOWA
OFFICE: 319-841-5188
The following pertains to the proposed wetland buffer for the development of the 9.4 acre Neuzil
Tract property in Iowa City. The developer is pursuing a buffer reduction of75% of the required
100' based on the following reasons, which reference Chapter 6, Section 14-6K-1, subsection
G3b of the Iowa City ordinance rules.
Wetland areas identified on the wetland delineation report as areas B and C have been
deemed non-jurisdictional by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The ordinance defines
wetlands as sensitive areas only if they are jurisdictional wetlands. Therefore, the
required buffer areas will only apply to wetland area A.
The three wetland areas on the site comprise a combined total of 0.56 acres. Wetland A
is only 0.02 acres. This is well under the 5 acre maximum size required for buffer
reduction.
During site visits there were no sightings of state or federal listed endangered, threatened,
or critical species. Granted, the site visits were conducted in late October and early
November, which is not necessarily a time of easily observed activity in many species.
However, the type and condition of the existing wetland does not constitute outstanding
natural habitat for the listed species. Lack of sandy areas on the site eliminate possible
Ornate Box turtle habitat. Other listed reptiles or amphibians are not known to be
prevalent to the Iowa City area. Listed fish and mussel species would not be found in the
emergent wetlands on the site. The presence of shagbark hickory, silver maple, oak, and
American elm in the uplands adjacent to the wetlands combined with the permanent
water of Lake Melrose indicate possible Indiana bat habitat. The density of trees present
is very marginal to the minimum 15% required for suitable bat habitat. A solution is to
limit tree removal, if required for the project, between September 16 and April 14, which
is considered outside the summer habitat period for the bat in Iowa. Furthermore, the
location alone, being a small space surrounded by residential development and other
actions of humans, limits the potential for habitats that support species listed as
endangered, threatened, or critical. The main reason for decline in such species is the
lack of adaptation to the activities of man, so it's highly unlikely that this property could
support them.
The wetlands do not contain diverse plant associations of infrequent occurrence or
regional significance. Reed canarygrass and cattail are the two species that dominate the
existing plant community in areas B and C, with only reed canarygrass in area A; both are
known for their invasive and mono-culturistic tendencies. There is a very sparse presence
of swamp milkweed, sedge (likely Carex lupulina, but unconfirmed), and smartweed in
area B. Woody vegetation on the fringe, and sometimes outside, ofthe wetlands include
red-osier dogwood, red raspberry, black willow, American elm, and riverbank grape. All
the species listed above are very common to the area and the plant community is degraded
by the non-native reed canarygrass.
The wetland is not located in a stream corridor, as there is no river, stream, or drainage
way that is shown in blue on the USGS quad map. Lake Melrose is shown in blue as a
lake.
1917 SOUTH GILBERT STREET' IOWA CITY' IOWA 52240
WEBSITE: WWWMMSCONSULTANTS.NET EMAIL: MMS@MMSCONSULTANTS.NET
Inundation was present during the site investigation in areas B and C, but the wetlands on
the property are not the types that contain standing water throughout a year of normal
rainfall. The plant community is dominated by reed canarygrass, a facultative wetland
plant that does not thrive in permanently inundated landscapes. Also, the soil colors in
the low areas of the wetlands show brown, dark brown, and dark reddish brown
redoximorphic features in the top 12 inches of a dark gray matrix. These colors can only
form from the presence of oxygen at certain time periods, which indicates a periodic lack
of soil saturation.
While there is a presence of fringe trees and shrubs around some of the wetland areas, the
plant community is dominated by herbaceous plants. The wetlands are classified as
palustrine emergent wetlands. Wetlands A and B are persistent emergent, while Wetland
C is non-persistent emergent.
The conditions of the wetlands on the property do not provide a known habitat for
migratory birds of local or regional significance. The cattail and reed canarygrass, which
are the dominant plants present, are not significant food sources or resting areas for most
migratory birds.
The quality of the existing wetlands is low. They are a product of man made dams and berms
constructed to create Lake Melrose. The drainage way that Wetlands B and C lie in has had a
history ofberming and piping to create the current conditions and are the reasons they are non-
jurisdictional. They do function to buffer the runoff into Lake Melrose, although the lake
appears to be suffering from intense sedimentation. The water source that feeds the wetlands is
piped through the surround neighborhood to the west, as well as back yard runoff, and produces a
variable flow that is high after rain events and low in-between. Since the majority of the
wetlands watershed is already permanently compromised, it seems unlikely that new
development with a 100' buffer around the wetlands will provide a significant benefit difference
from a 25' buffer.
Mike Barker
Wetland Specialist
MMS Consultants, Inc.
t;
:>
8
~,-
,.
" ~
~,
t;
:>
~. . . . . . . . . . .~
......... :.
...........
...........
r------I
-------
-------
======::
EMERGENT WETLAND - 0.56 TOTAL ACRES
LAKE - 0.09 TOTAL ACRES
Designed by. 5c.ale.
MFB 1"=100'
Dra...,n by: Date:
MFB 11/7/07
c.hec.ked by: prOJec.t No.
MFB IC 1235-075
FIGURE 4- WETlAND DELINEATION
NEUZIL TRACT, 96 OLIVE CT
MMS CONSULTANTS. INC, I ;..~.. ffl i1...-.I. Do'. I ,,"vl"oo
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 If'''\ff1
(319) 351-8282 rAil
CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA 52404 m
(319) 841-5188 ~
www.mmsconsultants.net ~
IOWA CITY
IOWA
't
April 8, 2008
_.
I' :
I,
r -
Steven C. & Kristine L. Schooley
124 Marietta Avenue
Iowa City, Iowa
52246-3231
eDDZ 8 HdV
Ms. Janet Dvorsky
Administrative Secretary
Department of Planning and Community Development
Planning & Zoning Commission
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa
52240
Ms. Dvorsky,
Your letter of notification regarding proposed rezoning changes to 69 Olive
Ct & 91 Olive Ct. (REZOB-00001/SUB08-00002) has been received, along
with the enclosure of the pamphlet "A Citizen's Guide to the Rezoning
Process".
Please find enclosed comments/opinions from property owners affected
regarding the above site intended as public input available to the Planning
and Zoning Commission staff to be shared and included for review and
evaluation during this process.
As stated in the enclosed brochure regarding the 'Rezoning Process',
changing the proposed site to higher density development increases
intensity of use and does not seem in the best interests of the surrounding
neighborhood/property owners/property tax payers/ citizens of the
community. For example, high density development presently exists along
Woodside Drive and Oakcrest in the area immediately adjoining the
proposed rezoning site. Yet another 'condominium/duplex! apartment'
complex/ development exists between Sunset and George. Those units
remain uncompleted and unoccupied detracting from the nature of a
residential neighborhood. Furthermore, more high density/intense usage
units/sites all ready exist along Highway 1, Melrose, Oakcrest, Emerald,
Westgate, West Benton, Mormon Trek, and beyond. Tending to raise the
question as to whether further high density/ high intensity usage of the
proposed re-zoning site is truly needed, is part of the formal plans of the
planning and zoning commission, and desirable not only by the community
but also by citizens' vision of the community.
. "~
Secondly, increasing traffic by at least thirty automobiles contributes to
noise and air pollution detracting from the nature of a residential
neighborhood. Further high density/ intense usage in turn also translates
into increased infrastructure needs and cost for roads and services.
At the same time, one must note that most individuals/families today tend
to own more than one vehicle. Traffic would also be increased by the
necessity of usage by city services such as trash pick-up, snow removal,
and mail delivery vehicles not counting deliveries by private businesses in
an area of the community all ready congested. Increasing
density/ intensity of usage also contributes to traffic issues such as
congestion and traffic control adequacy along Melrose Avenue and in the
surrounding area.
Therefore, we would hope that the Iowa City Planning and Zoning
Commission would deny the application for the proposed rezoning to 69
Olive Ct & 91 Olive Ct. (REZOB-00001/SUBOB-00002) as incompatible with
community development in this residential neighborhood.
Thank-you,
~~/J~
Steve.n C~ SchooJ~y, ~
~~~~
Kristine L. Schooley {1
Karen Howard
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Hettmansperger, Sue E [sue-hettmansperger@uiowa.edu]
Saturday, April 05, 2008 1 :44 PM
PlanningZoningPublic; Karen Howard
louise-from@university-heights.org; amy-moore@university-heights.org;
david-giese@university-heights.org
Zoning proposal (REZ08-00001/SUB08-00002)
Subject:
Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,
As a homeowner located near the proposed rezoning of 9.48 acres for
property located south of Melrose Avenue, Olive Court and Leamer Court, and
east of the terminus of Marietta Avenue, I am in receipt of your
notification of a zoning change. As a neighboring property owner, my views
of the application (REZ08-00001/SUB08-00002) are as follows. I am in
opposition to what I see as a high density development such as the one
proposed by Henrickson Lytham Condominiums, (31 dwelling units). This area
of Iowa City-University Heights already has too much high density housing.
The proximity of the Hospital and Stadium makes this property attractive to
developers eager to cash in on access, but the character of the entire
neighborhood is at risk of deterioration. If this open space sensitive
area is developed at all (and I do not believe it should be), then the only
result in character with the quality of the surrounding homes would be the
construction of a few more s~ngle family homes. The developer has
obviously chosen not to propose such a plan because it would not be as
lucrative. We must respect the charm, quality and character of this
university heights neighborhood by not allowing further in-fill of multiple
family residences.
Thank you for inviting our comment.
Sincerely,
Sue Hettmansperger, Professor of Art, University of Iowa Lawrence Fritts,
Associate Professor of Music, University of Iowa
114 Highland Drive,
Iowa City, IA. 52246
1-319-354-8712 phone
1
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: REZ08-00003
Lots 16-24 Scott-Six
Industrial Park
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Contact Person:
Owners:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
Prepared by: Karen Howard
Date: April 17, 2008
Streb Investment Partnership, LC.
1700 Country Club Drive
Coralville, IA 52241
338-3498
AI Streb
(same as above)
Streb Investment Partnership, LC. &
Inland Transport Co.
572 10th Street SW
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52404 &
Fareway Stores, Inc.
2300 E 8th Street
Boone, Iowa 50036
Rezoning from CI-1 to CC-2
To allow a change in the allowable land uses on
certain undeveloped lots within the Scott-Six
Industrial Park
Area bounded by Scott Boulevard, Liberty Drive,
Commerce Drive and Highway 6;
Specifically, Lots 16-24 Scott-Six Industrial Park;
10.08 acres
Grocery store, gas station and convenience store &
undeveloped lots; (CI-1)
North: Residential; County residential zoning
South: Agricultural; County residential zoning
East: Industrial (1-1)
West: Industrial (1-1)
Industrial
March 13, 2008 I revised April 8
May 22, 2008
2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Streb Investment Partnership, L.C., is requesting to rezone lots 16-24 from
Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Community Commercial (CC-2). These lots include the Fareway
Grocery Store and the convenience store located at the intersection of Highway 6 and 420th Street
and 6 vacant parcels.
In 1997 the Scott-Six Industrial Park was annexed into the City to fill the need for more
industrial land as the BDI Industrial Park was nearing build-out. A number of economic
development incentives were offered by the City to the developer, including waivers of
sidewalks, sewer and water tap-on fees. The subject lots along Scott Boulevard were zoned
Intensive Commercial with the intent that they be used for commercial uses and quasi-industrial
uses that would be compatible with larger industrial uses that might located in the industrial
park.
In 2001, the applicant requested a similar request for CC-2 zoning for lots 17-22 in response to
a purchase offer by Fareway Stores, Inc., who wished to develop a grocery store in this
location. The rezoning request generated a considerable amount of public interest and
controversy. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended against the rezoning and
the City Council concurred due to the intent for this area to be reserved for industrial uses and
compatible intensive commercial uses and concerns about mixing industrial and retail
commercial traffic. However, the City Council did agree to amend the Intensive Commercial
Zone to allow modest-sized grocery stores by special exception. Subsequently, Fareway
Stores, Inc. applied for and was granted a special exception in 2002 to build a grocery store on
lots 17 & 18.
When the City's Zoning Code was updated in 2005, the Intensive Commercial Zone was
revised to exclude land uses that were deemed incompatible with industrial or quasi-industrial
uses. Retail commercial uses that generate large amounts of customer traffic, including
grocery stores, medical offices, and restaurants, were disallowed. Residential uses were also
disallowed because the potential noise, dust, outdoor work activities, and late night operations
associated with many industrial and intensive commercial uses were deemed incompatible with
residential living. As a consequence of these changes to the CI-1 Zone, the Fareway Store is
now considered a legally nonconforming use, which may continue for as long as the current
owner and any future owner chooses, but may not be expanded. Gas stations and associated
convenience stores are still an allowed use in the Intensive Commercial Zone.
ANAL YSIS:
Comprehensive Plan
The Scott-Six Industrial Park was zoned and infrastructure provided to encourage expansion of
industrial uses and compatible intensive commercial uses to fulfill a deficiency in Iowa City and
to implement the Comprehensive Plan for this area. If conditions have changed since the
adoption of the 1997 comprehensive plan such that a rezoning is warranted, an amendment of
the Comprehensive Plan will also be necessary to change the designation of the area from
industrial to general commercial. When deciding whether a change in the Comprehensive Plan
is appropriate, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council should determine 1) what
circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors have come to light such
that the proposed rezoning is in the public interest; 2) whether or not additional retail
commercial land is needed in this part of Iowa City; 3) if so, is this the best location for such
development. If the Commission determines that the answers to these questions are yes, then
a comprehensive plan amendment may be warranted and a public hearing should be set to
3
consider this amendment at the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on May 1.
Distinctions between the Intensive Commercial and Community Commercial
The Intensive Commercial (CI-1) Zone is intended for to provide areas for those sales and
service functions and businesses whose operation are typically characterized by outdoor
display and storage of merchandise, by repair and sales of large equipment or motor vehicles,
by outdoor commercial amusement and recreational activities or by activities or operations
conducted in buildings or structures not completely enclosed. The types of retail trade in this
zone are limited in order to provide opportunities for more land-intensive commercial operations
and also to prevent conflicts between retail customer traffic and industrial truck traffic. The
Intensive Commercial Zone does not generally include the types of retail commercial uses,
restaurants, and personal service uses that tend to be large traffic generators, nor does it
include the type of retail uses that rely on the customer exposure provided from frontage along
a high traffic volume street.
The Community Commercial (CC-2) Zone is intended to provide major business districts that
serve a significant segment of the total community population. The CC-2 zone allows for a
variety of retail uses that generate significant customer traffic and require the access and often
the exposure that major thoroughfares provide. The zone allows all types of retail uses and
personal service uses, motels, restaurants, and both general and medical offices. This zone
also allows residential apartments located above commercial uses.
Have circumstances changed and/or additional information or factors come to light such
that the proposed rezoning is in the public interest? Is additional retail commercial land
is needed in this part of Iowa City? If so, is this the best location for it?
Since a grocery store is already located on lots 17 and 18 and the gas station/convenience
store is located on lot 18, there are only 6 remaining undeveloped CI-1 lots at this corner of the
Scott-Six Industrial Park. These lots are fairly small in size and may be more conducive to
small retail, office, and restaurant uses that might get some economic boost from adjacency to
the grocery store and its associated retail traffic. Since the die has already been cast by the
establishment of the grocery store, it may be in the public interest to acknowledge this corner of
two arterial streets as a commercial node. There may be a need to establish a small
commercial node in this part of town to serve nearby residential areas, employees from the
surrounding industries, and future development as the city grows to the east. When McCollister
Boulevard is eventually extended from the Iowa .River and across the South District to connect
with Scott Boulevard traffic volumes will likely increase to a point that will better support a small
concentration of retail businesses in this location. In addition, the City has plans to reconstruct
420th Street in the next several years to support further economic growth in this area and in the
area to the east. The City's policy is to concentrate commercial growth within established nodes
near the intersection of arterial streets rather than encouraging strip commercial development.
This intersection may be a good candidate for such a commercial node given these factors.
Staff remains somewhat skeptical of the adjacency of community commercial and industrial
zoning due to the potential conflict between retail traffic and industrial truck traffic. In addition,
the outdoor work area, outdoor storage and noise often associated with industrial areas may
limit the owner's ability to market these lots to retail and restaurant users that may find these
factors will detract from the business potential and may be a nuisance to their potential
customers. However, given that more of the industrial area has been built out since the last
rezoning request, this industrial character will be apparent to potential users prior to purchase of
the lots.
Staff recommends that the conditions agreed upon in the 1997 conditional zoning agreement
4
between the City and the applicant remain in force. Of particular note are the following
requirements:
· Sidewalks must be provided along all commercially zoned lots within the development.
· On lots with frontage on Scott Boulevard or Highway 6, all building elevations shall be
primarily masonry, as specified in the agreement, and all elevations visible from Scott
Boulevard must have a finished fa<;ade;
· On all commercially zoned lots within the development, loading docks and receiving
areas, garbage dumpsters, outdoor storage areas, mechanical equipment and other
service areas and functions typically associated with the rear of the buildings shall not
be located in front of or along any building wall facing and/or visible from Scott
Boulevard. When located elsewhere on a lot and visible from Scott Boulevard, these
items shall be screened from view with landscaping or a combination of fencing and
landscaping;
· Landscape beds a minimum of 5 feet in width shall be provided along at least 50% of
building elevations facing Scott Boulevard, and shall be planted with a variety of
evergreen and deciduous shrubbery;
· Freestanding signs within the development shall be limited to one located at each
vehicular access point to the property from an arterial street. Individual lots within the
development may provide monument, fascia, or other signs as permitted by the City's
sign regulations on a lot-by-Iot basis, but shall not provide additional freestanding signs
beyond that specified above.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REl08-00008, a rezoning of approximately 10.08 acres from Intensive
Commercial to Community Commercial (CC-2) for property located along Scott Boulevard and
Liberty Drive between the Iowa Interstate Railway and State Highway 6, be approved, subject to
compliance with the terms of the 1997 conditional zoning agreement, notwithstanding the change
to Community Commercial zoning.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Rezoning Exhibit
3. Applicant's statement
Approved by: ~~ '
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
~
on
~
~
tj
~
~
~'
~
~
tj
u
.2!
~
"0
~
<::
~
o
C\I
rmMCROOft~~ ~
~
N
,..
en
a:
-
c
a..
o
C=
~I
(I)
o
o
o
o
I
CX)
o
N
W
a::
(\J
()
()
.9
,...
-
()
-
~
L.
<<j
a.
<<j
.~
+-'
(J)
::J
'U
c:
.~
en
~
CJ
en
Z
o
~
5
o
~
~
t:
rf:J
lOOlE&.
"- INLAND TRANSPORT CO.
~. ~72 10TH STREET S1I
f:f~~~ " "- . CEDAR RAPIDS, JOllA ~2404
ii 5 ~~".;~~~'''-'''
'I ~.~~...~ ..........."
:: ~ ~~l~~rol8:~~.
-11.......', ~"",
:: ~~;.ir ~I"~.. "-
: : : ..;~~~ '.to "----
II I ""'.""~~
! i f! """ .:~.;.;.~
I I I ~
: : J ..._::;:-S;~
; ; } ..::::::::......
// " ..~...
I I ....
/ / I~j'"
I , /1
, I
I I II
/1 " //
, I'
, I I
,; I I f
II -=..:-:- 1:;~1 ( ^CN\~ / /
!i'!:. ::: 12 I II ~; I
!:!=>~:t ':: : i 1 (Q)~
::: 13 : :: OC~;U'
'II I:: I c:::> -
W_L I I / ~crn
m i Ii ;' ~
011 1(, I I J IT/? 29
II I II I ~ 1-1 I. J
I J I II I
ii;' ~~ 1:1:1
1] / ~~ : I:
/~) "L~~"--====-===j/I~"~:>~=======41 :,!
,/, ( I~ V"~ I' I
1'! '~~~ '~11~l!LI'Il1'~~1~ ~., '~i I :,1
t..:--- q,-C..'L~ ... ~ >>'
I -. .~- -77. - --.".".- -__n_ n___. ~ J ':
UBSlTY DfliYi! -- . -=-- v ~ - : I
;i I rr r-'~~~-''-'-'-T~"O-3:- ~II ~ I
l { ! '~'-'" ~~,i '"
/ I :: O#::~' I:! 41 38 !,aL '-~'
~",.' !i! ~~'! I-I l-l-1::il:
'-J :: I I 1&1 I li:'1
I: I i I I ~:I 38
~/ / 8! . : ~l! I-I
"/"" :: 42 37 !~: :: ~
L".__~-_I____ n---~~I---J L:~~~~~~~-.l._._
~'---'4207llSrnEirSE'-- .--_.~
REZONING
IOWA CITY,
"-...J
'---..
PLAT PREPARED BY'
MilS CONSULTANTS INC.
1917 SOUTH GILBERT ST,
IOWA CITY, IOWA ~2240
~
OllNERI APPIJCANT:
STREB lNVESTYENT PARTNERSHIP. LC.
1700 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE
CORALVILLE. IOWA ~2241
''I
1-1 ,
~,;;~;,d I
~
CI-I
.~
AUDITOR'S PARes.
NO. 2001072
I-I
EXHIBIT
IOWA
w+~
,8>
ft~~ =i.J
~~=
0311 '1li 150 225 !Ill
GRAPHIC SCAl! IN !'I:ET
1'=300'
APPJJCAN'l'S ATTORNEY'
ROBERT N. DOlINER
122 SOUTH IJNN STREET
IOWA CITY. IOWA ~2240
~
FARRAY STORES, INC.
2300 E 6TH STREET
BOONE, IOWA ~0036
REZONE PARerl S FROU C1-1 TO CC-2
LOTS 16 THROUGH 24. All or SCOTT-SIX INDUSTRIAL PARK, IOWA CITY,
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE v.1TH THE PLAT THEREOr RECORDED
IN BOOK 38, AT PACE 137, or THE RECORDS or THE JOHNSON COUNTY
RECORDER'S ornCE, CONTAINING 10.08 ACRES, AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS
AND RESTRICTIONS or RECORO.
,
"'l
~
AUDITOR'S PARCa
NO. 2001073
1-1
I-I
"-
./''':: ............. '-"
',,,,, '---.. .
"0. " "-.
'~~. ~''-
'O~:.~
AUDITOR'll PARCEl
lIO.2OO3139
I-I
~
~
AUDITOR'll PARCEL
NO. 20031411
1-1
01 ~ !il 0
~
~ .
R ~ i
o~ ~
o~ "
r->- cfi '- ~
0 )> 0 ~
g: ;:: ;::
l ~ ""
Ir
0 0:
~ ~ ~
~~
"
'" ~
~ ~ ~
!
I
:MMS CONSUlTANTS, INC,
,
"'"Frm"
'H'",.,,,.~,
,,,,,,.~,,,
'nn.".".,,"
',-'.,-,-"C),,,",
,
,- ",',_"~I,
,-,." "."^.'!,b,o
R"~"""'","'",_';,_Lk'"''''''.l'Pl;",,'',
'Oo"","',f,,,,,,,,",,,,",;,,,,,,";,,,,,;,,";,'~,,',"",,'"'k"",.""".""",..~"j,,
"""""w""'_1;"'''''"''"'"'"'''''"'''.,.,,JN,'''''''L:'''w.)6.Th.=_",,,o.1,,",,
,,,,,",.1, ,,~'C_] ",J'~ ~,~,"' ~,;'" ,C"'. "'~"'."';','C=~;"' ,~,
II
'I
..
R'~";,,_ ,,..,, .. ,,_ .. '0 rc., ~;""..~ :o"'i"~'"."r;"".n'''' -", ,,;,,;,~ ""', ....."."
,";,.",."'h'."""n","~I~'''Jb''",,;,,;,,(lI,,",",'"'~I''',"_"'0'"'' ,,,.In
,"'c-'~"'"
I'
u"',"""~_,'q","O",~~"'"""'"."';,," ;"""",;;","".,",~,,,,,,.",',db,I',
""<m-'" ""_,,,,,,.,
,
,
,
,
Dm',' '_i~'~,.'.'1
-"..","",_"I~_.':";'
,
,,,'''"'''''''~K~","''.OCC
J
",~,n'~"mm~ IT,'''',. ",....,,~.
""."_~"~"'~~'U ~~,"""~.~=."c..mm
-""'""'",,""",C.m",",
""'.~"'"..."""',",o"
.'","~C';;;:"=""N'"
I.,,,,_,,~"O..,.,.C
0'"'''''' I~~a,w.H>'
,-,,'m'
,~".""".,,..
'h=
r,",",,,o.,,,
""".""""
~-
lo"'~,
Pro,""'"
","",I.'''l''''''''''',',
'"ro""",'."",,".","~",
,~,~""'"'~,~,
H","~
"~J" ,~;"",, "';..
'''''REPORT
~"'~"",M,"R",,,",~,,,,",,,,,"
",",""""."03
C","I~"O"
"""""""'"'~'"
'"~C'I.^"''''
"'''"''''''
"'''''\''"'''''00''
,""",,.'"'-""
~1"j""",
C;'''''"~C''
"~'m,'m.'O_'''C'_1
R~",'~,'''_'''P_'
To,,~., ,,,""~~ "',~",',~ ,,'"
'''''',"'''"'''',''''',"^,''''m~c,
-"F"""""'
R"W"R""=.'~',~,"HO",,-
m-<h,''''''.=CO,"'"'o''Are"
"",,,,,,.~,-,,.,,~.;c>r,
""""'.'~,'''.'''':r-1;
U,','"",,,, '0.'
N-"''-'.C"",,,,,"'CG'~'CII
""""'oleA,,,,,,,
"" "'"""Q".C1__~"P
,'."" '~M'~,""CN'",C'_1
T'""'m~',""."P1,,;,='~.,,
~'"""",,,,."."'cr."m,".,,,"o-
~"""~."".
"""".""
'''n''''
=="D"<_O",,"Tm
'.""'O'C~'="'''"'""''''',"''',o.ln''m,,,._,,,.",,P,,,,,,,,,,,,,,",,,,"~
""""''''",'"''"'0 """".'''>M.'''''."rr"=''",,",'''O'"'9'''=~''~
,.'"" A',.'''" Co.~.. e... """ "'co ,",..~ ".""~m... ~,,'" '''~
,~..",~. Co",,~."' To'" "","~ 0,,,,,_,,,'" ~"C ,~. ,._" ~ "..-.,,""
'~o~"m"' U~ ,..,"" "P" "'" "'.. '~""J '""" PI," ,~, ,.."..,.. C"en,",,' ~
C~'~~C'","B^," ~~, ..,," cr,", ,"'.., d'~,,",," """"", "'~'"".. .",
"mm"- ",,,,,",,, '"' .",~ "o<ilk ""~~ CO,,,,,," '" C~m~'f'"~"''''' '"'
-=i"..,.",~", ,","~""'.',ro","',.",,,,c'"""~,,,.~
,"m, ""'~."'" """"oll"d 0'" ",,~m '"" ~ "',,'"' ,~"""~ '''' "''',,''
"mod'~ 'c., ~'''_1. "" ""''=m',,~,~", _""'"" ,",", ..;.,,,""
,'n"~o d ,,,' "'="~ ,~"" '''"'0' e" ""0 '" "'''''' ,~, ~,,~"'" ""
""'wJ 0'.."" '. '"""'",~''''''''''~~C'' "trO"",~'B '"'TI''' m
"""".. ",,,,,,,,.,", ~",,,",, ,,,', Cm'" 0"" ,,~ "" """"" 0' II';'
""""~"'""""","'m~""",,,,,"."A,;,',"Co,"o.=""N'''.''.,.",,,,
co, "',",'''';,~, ,;,b", "" """" "" "~'^''' "~",,. "';'''~ '''' ',,"~m='
".,."~..,"'~""" ~m~-cio'o~'"' ",,'.'"" '0' ,''''''",',,,,, '" """~""
r,"~,o""'O'''""'';"''oo'~''',~c.prn""",'~''"'''CC-',;"',''",,,,,,,,"
,"'C.;"""j,.,r""",,~="',,,''',",'''''~''~'n,,
0"=,, "'<"'''"'' " """'_""" ",,,,CI',"""'''''''''''''''''''''',',,", ,
,'d"",.",,,.."'<A""=,",,'~OC_'''C_' """'~'"~""""""'"I
",~"",;".,,,~-,,,,,-'''''''''''''''"'O-p_,
,."^"'''
""."'.."'-,,~
l~",,,,,",,,,..,,,,,,.",,,,,odCO_,,.,,~,",,C,"m'",'1. ],"m,.".""
'"""'"' ~- ,,"" """ "'" .,,',~ "",,",,,.~ ""'"'~ hOT "b'~' ," ", "",,",
'~m"'",Po'''',",',"'''''''''"'''''.',bl\',;"=,,,,,",,,="",O''''"'''"'''
,"""",""~m,"",'",,""""'''''''''''''CO~''''' II ."""",,,,,,~,,,,,,,.,
,,";"m""~'-"""'_m"'."""
''''''_'.'IT,''''"'~''"". '",,","'.,,"",....,U.~'o,.~'o.'o.,hOT'''''"'.
r"" '"'~='''"'''='m.="m' ",c_""~,,,,",",,,,,'~"'.'d'",",,.,,
""".,,,,,,,,,,r',~,,,,,p""
O.","D""C.~~.,.""",,,,~.",",,"^,,,,,,,,,C". "',"0"""'"
"<B.."".""..'"",."",-",",""",. ^'~ ,"""c'f'=""''''''''''''"'-'
=~" '''"''''0'''''. ,... II,,,, <nol,,,o",", ~"','~ "~d,, ,~, . ,_, _"
'"-'''
'''''~''_~'''""''''".'''''_''',^,."'M
,~"".""",."hC_re",~..~.".."N"'h"',""'"
A"" """",,.. '^"" m.,," ", ="~",,'"",, 0 ''''''.~ 2>)", ih, ,~, =err
","," ,,=,,,~ '""" '~M~,IWO""",,_.,', CO 2, O' "''''.B CO"m~,", "'1, .'"" '"
,,,,,,,.,,, '" '~"'~"'N '" ""'"_,,,,,. ,", W,"" 00 """"">' ~ ,_. ''" ,
'""","1'I""OC',,O'.,
TI~ ,,~ oem",,'", '"" ,~"r,"~ " =",.,~ ""..., ,,,""' ""'",,,..,, ",",
""",,,''''C,., U,d<.~,<"",","""''''..''m,d''- '"'''O"",'~'''''''
_'C1"""~"'O""""""'<1',"",,"C"CO",'",L>-.d""".~'<_"CC.'
"'^~", "" ," "", ....,""f~, ,"," .""0' -,~. ~'" .,,"L~ <=, '"' """,;
"... ,~" ""'''''"~ """" 0'.' m",. '~"""""""'"~ ""'''''''' ~'F<"'"
"""O'"m~"'n'-,o"
'"" """",,,", "'," ",,'~'"'''' ,,,,,_ Icr. ~,;" f~ C'~"'"' """""0"
(''C.', ,'"~ " ,,;"""~ C~,,~,. (""" ""' ("~m".'." 11.' ,,~, '"' "'o"~,,'"
'"~" ,'.1, "" """"',,,,LO, ,,OS ~'J f.- F~"'" I"."" '" ,",,"" Ro.' ... ~ '"
11,,"""'-''''''''-
,""CO""'""
'",""n"
A,~,,",""
Ro"c"~',"J~"'""~
C","c""~,.,",".~"."'<n",D,~b,",,,I
~
.' .,<'~<<~"_"",~~'''_"m
,
,
I
€6:;~,
,:,'-'
,".n-.-' -~,
-' ~ _ _< 4'
- ,-~~~' ~
"/$ ',,1,1
'~""
.' "?<
" '
,
--,'
,,.1
,,", -,.\--1.-.. .
Ll-'TC"~
Y I
,
-
--- ----
"
,""
;,3.
_',r
__..;,:f";gCJ
-~ ,;.-~-'
-"-,,^'-
~
~
~
"
,
.
"
I
r~ . -
"j '"
__--1 ~ ~~',
:" ,-~-".~.,'
T~,,'-.'.l.';':
",,0,
-.;"
I
!
"
----
s'---
,
;;;-.':
o
.
.
!
,
.
,
,
,
"
o
I
,
o
"
,
"
,
,
,
,
o
,
,
,
'-
o
"
,
,
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Adam Ralston, Planning Intern
Item: SUB08-00003 Cardinal Pointe South Date: April 17, 2008
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Southgate Development Services, LLC
755 Mormon Trek Boulevard
Iowa City, IA 52246
(319) 337-4197
Contact Person:
Glenn Siders
755 Mormon Trek Boulevard
Iowa City, IA 52246
Phone:
(319) 337-4197
Requested Action:
Amended final plat and sensitive areas development
plan
Purpose:
To eliminate a construction limit line on lot 9
Location:
East of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and south of
Kennedy Parkway
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
OPD-8 and CO-1
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Undeveloped - Residential (R1 B, Coralville)
South: Undeveloped (ID-ORP)
East: Residential (OPD-5)
West: Undeveloped (ID-ORP)
Comprehensive Plan:
Low-density residential, Office and Research Park
(Clear Creek Master Plan)
File Date:
March 27, 2008
45 Day Limitation Period:
May 11, 2008
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Cardinal Pointe South, Part One, was subdivided in 2007. Construction limit lines were shown on
the final plat to demarcate the extent of development activity on all the lots and outlots where
sensitive areas existed. A construction limit line was included on lot 9. This limit line was shown
by the applicant to be a sensitive area on the final plat and was not requested by the City. The
applicant is requesting that the construction limit line on lot 9 be eliminated.
2
ANAL YSIS:
The area located beyond the construction limit line on lot 9 includes a slope of roughly 30%,
making it a critical slope. This slope was created by grading that was done for the construction of
Camp Cardinal Boulevard. No trees or other sensitive features are located in the area beyond the
limit line. Staff concurs with the applicant that there is no need to' limit the construction area on lot
9.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that item SUB08-00003, an application for an amended final plat and sensitive
areas development plan for Cardinal Pointe South, a 21-lot, 31.6 acre residential and commercial
subdivision located east of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and south of Kennedy Parkway, be
approved.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Exhibit showing details of existing building line in Cardinal Pointe South
3. Exhibit showing proposed amendment to the building line
Approved by: ~
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
pcdlstaff reportslsub08-00003Isub08-00003 staff report,doc
~(
~
(j
~
~
~
~
(j
))
F
(j)
a::
I
c
[~~-'-J
-dI"lVJ
J'-
m
m
N
~
co
<C
U)
o
I
I
!
!
!
i
___J
,...
a::
a::
Slll^lll
Cf)
o
o
o
o
I
CO
o
CO
:::>
U)
"'0
a:
CO
C
"'0
l.-
CO
o
Q..
E
co
o
I
>-
~
~
a..
>-
"'0
ID
C
C
ID
~
l.-
ID
C
l.-
o
()
w
U)
. .
Z
o
~
~
U
o
~
~
f-l
~
CFJ
1'.-' "''' l'>l; .... It "It)" '10 ,I ".:-0 "",ill'" lir.'r.'1"~\I"..r;":!\..~'I"'^ ~
~
~
:ll
;;;
~ ~ ~ !J ~ ti~il- on
I ~~IIJ I ~~E~8 I!; I!i
!i ::1 p: 5d 1;; "tC ti~E!.
r..:ln.o':i!';;;j ~b tJ~
~~iU '! Iii
~~HH
!hU!
I ~6.561
j hU~K
~BHH
~
a.
...J
<:
z
u.
!~I!! Ii
2i~ II
. ~~
~
~ ~
o ..J
U ::l
5~ ~
.~. 8
~~~ ~ j
~ ~j ~ ~
~ J j i
I J I
~~~ 5~
fa'f,g:s
! J ! t ~
t
o
II
~I!~
o..OL~
o;;j.....u
z =<
&:: ~
~.g
I
o
PI!I' ~1 jtif'IW:'t.~:~;I'!~Wj:f~.. {l~J!~IH~HI.!';.H jl!
.}s- 11.1 I'" "~fr.."""I' . f . C' ,f','! I' "I
~ Ilt I ~~I~'.lj f jii?III~ i "I'I-;~ i~.!l ~t:~lA ~ lll'l~ti; I !!t:11Ji Ii
I" I I, 1"1.<) "-1 11.!!h "J;~' la!'I~ 'C:.; .l
H~I iP.!~":;H'JI Ii Uf~.I:~!,jJJ~~;,.;I~s~mii
~;j!~ 'fi~ll1~i!jll! :)II~I~ ;~i~!r; I j!JI:J !Jh:JJ i Ii~!!
~ lhj' . f~j !j! ;.1; I hi1 j~:~ ~~ P"~11 !Jt;~~~!! i !~~I!l't~ i I
.... ~JEJ\j~""'It; ~_~,..IJ ~~:i'l.q~i1'J ~
HW !iH1~i!I'HHlimHHHJ!!}WJ'i'~~iWrmllh;
'llU !-j~i~'O 1;l,htii~.,j[Jjl ~!h .11ln~ljjt~;HI
i'l: j! ~1!i!~h; rl~ Ii !ill~~,IJFi'flHH~~j~i~miH~
I IIi I !h].r IU !_lJM ;fill I~l~ 11'IIjli~!~: t I'Jd~!' 'j I
roli. .i.}'!lI".I ',~!o'J i (f ~ ] J='~I'III~"I~llt. \.
ld,.j ~h~ nUlil'flh!l{ HI~llt.II.~ :: IJ~,='I'!Hil
~-l" If'~J~J~~ ~I~iler~11 JIll J1II~lffl:,~j'~!!.;q
~.HfJ iH1!m:L!iB~I;IHi~ ~1r .~J11jJjdhwJ~il
J ~
~
. i I
~ 1
" I .
i . i
i' ,;
. I !
j i )
i I I
I .
i ~
1 i'
.r I
,1EOU'
,i;t"('U
'1.K.OfJ)(lH
~ ~. ~
An!
'(~~~i~
: 5~ ~R
"'-..-/3 ~~ i
~ !!i ~!
. 1if ~p J J
in ,g i
ill III .
;!g ~WJ I I
i Ih bllllli I,ll
~ m ~;: LU1JJ
""U1..lOIII?71lI~_,," ~1I111
...".". ~ >>""~.. J. '" ~ I""" ~~lI!'f"'\lI:l<JlW'Oo"'~"
((j),Ml\. .lL1l:JI\'ilcdl 31~(CJ]~lI:lIlIW'INl~I1]Il:JIW1~
a..K.tUlOS
~<:
~~~
"7."
~+
~
~ <'b'
~~~
"7."
~~
e ~
li! U
~5_~
'0 ~~o
:i ~
.. u
z .,
<(
o
z .f. 0
w
o
W
.J
~ "
. "
~
II!
..
i gj [Q ~ ~ tin I on
I ~ ~ 11I18 ~ h ~ !II ill r:: II r::'
.r::.r:: ~ rn~lgg ~i r ..-...
u ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ 20li8 ..' :R 2 7 :'~f 111 : C; Ii
11!5 'if ~'ri ;':"':;:":'
~OO~ i~ 5~ ~ ~ ~ ~
..-c ~~ <C <C ~ i t' f f 8 ~
.. ~w ~ ~ Ii! I ! I ~
fU~rmmMlliit1~~Hlil:fmml~I}~;Ulw~un 111
'm!tl1i~I~~ll~ill~i"I!!!!I!!II!IJi~~i!iJ!Jml!! iiI ~
hl_, I" Ilf. 'I]1J ~11'~l.,~l I'R ~lip' JUf~' I J
IlllIi l~fJlf~Ji;!IIII~lrI;!ill!~!III!!lilliill!l!m j l
.li"l j .;111 , J';'JII~iJ ,gdWfl ! !1!'jlfl~H!ll~ J i
!fJj JljJ=l'" .Il={ljl 1~~Jl'fjllrdJ'IJJhUi;if i' t
;l,.f ~h;fJmlii~hiIJJlhn~J 1~:I'ml,J~I~HJtlll .:
diifl hifJmM!h:J~mJlI~hMMmijmHhiiii 1 f
~
~
;
e ~
~~i
l~'O
~ g
~
I i~A;
~~A~~"
. -~f
........... '---../3 I~ i
;In~ III
in .1
.
fij ~il
1111'1 g I
III II. II I
e m ~:: ;
~"~,lJIofJJ'J'~~~
....,.,..au.... _#111#1.... Jll"Wf4 4IdfIIi'l'M.araDU.lniIlkI. M-.........,.".,,,
OV'+i'U .n.~~1dJ 3l~<<]1~ 'It'IM~tOl8:jJ\o/O
ll.tt,1C.OaIi
.....
III .@
+~~;l
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Prepared by: Doug Ongie, Planning Intern
Item: VAC08-00001
Date: April 17, 2008
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
William and Mia Wang
829 Kirkwood Avenue
Iowa City, IA 52240
Contact Person:
Shelley McCafferty
228 S. Summit Street D-4
Iowa City, IA 52240
Phone:
(319) 335-4771
Requested Action:
Vacation of an alley right-of-way
Purpose:
To allow for a contiguous lot and the construction of
a garage at 829 Kirkwood Avenue
Location:
East-west alley located between Lucas Addition Lots
4 and 5, and Lots 5 and 6.
Size:
Approximately 3000 square feet of right-of-way
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Residential - RS-5 & RS-8
South: Residential- RS-5
East: Residential - RS-5 & OPD-5
West: Residential/Public - RS-5 & P-2
File Date:
March 19, 2008
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicants, William and Mia Wang, are requesting that 150-foot by 20-foot east-west alley
right-of-way be vacated to created a single, contiguous lot to allow for construction of a garage to
the south of the primary structure. The 829 Kirkwood property consists of Lucas Addition Lots 3
and 4 located north of the alley right-of-way, and the northern 18 feet of Lots 5 and 6 located
south of the alley right-of-way. The alley was platted in the Lucas Addition, but was never built.
ANALYSIS:
Requests for vacation of a right-of-way are reviewed with regard to the following factors: 1)
impact on pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation; 2) impact on emergency and utility
vehicle access and circulation; 3) impact on access to adjacent private properties; 4) desirability
of right-of-way for future access or circulation needs; 5) location of utilities and other easements
or restrictions on the property; 6) potential use of the property for another public use; and 7) any
2
other relevant factors pertaining to the specific requested vacation.
The vacation of this alley will have a no impact on pedestrian and vehicular access, as well as
emergency and utility vehicle access and circulation because the alley was never built and the
right-of-way is not used for traffic. There are good alternative routes for both vehicular and
pedestrian access already in place throughout this neighborhood. Access to adjacent private
properties will not be affected. A north-south alley provides access from Kirkwood Avenue and
Florence Street to all adjacent properties. The alley is too small to be useable for a public
purpose such as a park.
There are no City utilities within the alley right-of-way. Private utilities have been contacted and
asked to identify any utilities currently on-site. If the right-of-way is vacated, easements will need
to be granted for any utilities that may exist, or alternatively, the utilities would need to be
relocated.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that V AC08-00001, a request to vacate a 150-foot east-west alley right-of-way
located between Lucas Addition Lots 4 and 5, and Lots 5 and 6 be approved subject to the
retention of any necessary utility easements.
ATTACHMENTS:
Location Map
Approved by:
~~~/
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
S:\PCD\Staff Reports\VAC08-0001 829 Kirkwood\VAC08-00001.doc
~
t3
~
~ Q)
~ ::J
C
Q)
~
~ ""C
0
0
t3 ~
.::s:.
'-
~
m
(\J
CO
..
Z
0
~
t-c
~
0
~
~
t-c
~
rJ)
,....
o
o
o
o
I
CO
o
U
~
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 20, 2008 - 7:30 PM - FORMAL SESSION
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT: Elizabeth Koppes, Wally Plahutnik, Ann Freerks, Dean Shannon,
Charles Eastham, Robert Brooks
MEMBERS ABSENT: Terry Smith
STAFF PRESENT: Adam Ralston, Planning Intern; Bob Miklo, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Randy Miller
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL:
Planning and Zoning Commission motioned to approve REZ08-00002, submitted by ITC
Midwest LLC for a rezoning from Community Commercial (CC-2) zone to Intensive Commercial
(CI-1) zone for approximately 17.9.7 acres of property located south of Ruppert Road. Motion
carried 6-0. Smith not present.
CALL TO ORDER:
Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Koppes made a motion to defer this item until the next meeting, so that the entire Commission
can be present. This was seconded by Shannon. Motion carried 6-0. Smith not present.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
No public discussion.
REZONING ITEM:
REZ08-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by ITC Midwest LLC for a rezoning
from Community Commercial (CC-2) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for
approximately 17.97 acres of property located south of Ruppert Road. (45-day limitation
period: April 14, 2008) - Ralston presented the staff report to the Commission, and began by
showing the location of the 17.97 acres on the map. He also showed the Commission an aerial
photo of the parcel, showing it in conjunction to Highway 1, old Highway 218, and the Airport.
Ralston noted that they will be looked at CC-2 and CI-1 zones in his presentation this evening.
The CC-2 zone is primarily meant for retail goods and service operations, and these types of
businesses generally require higher visibility than would be found in a CI-1 zone. The CI-1 zone
typically is characterized by outdoor storage and display operations, as well as sales and repair
of large equipment. These types of businesses require less visibility. Ralston noted that this
property was originally part of the Iowa City Municipal Airport, until it was subdivided in 2000
and zoned both Public and CI-1. In 2005, Ralston noted the interest by Wal-Mart to purchase a
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 20, 2008
considerable part of this commercial park for a Super Wal-Mart. At that time, this property was
rezoned from CI-1 to CC-2 to allow for the Wal-Mart store. At that time, the Comprehensive
Plan was amended, and the Land Use Map and the South Central District Plan was amended,
as well, to show Community Commercial instead of CI-1, and also the text was changed to refer
to Commercial instead of either Intensive or Community Commercial zones. Ralston noted that
this zoning was approved and was changed to CC-2, but as noted, Wal-Mart did not end up
purchasing the property. In 2007, there were approximately 12 acres of land on the eastern part
of the Park that were rezoned from CC-2 back to CI-1, and this was done as there was interest
in purchasing the property and the uses would require the CI-1 zone. At that time, Ralston
noted, the Comprehensive Plan was amended once again. This time the language stated that
either Community Commercial or Intensive Commercial would be appropriate for this area. In
comparing the Comprehensive Plan and neighborhood compatibility, Ralston stated that the
South Central District Plan originally showed this property as being appropriate for Intensive
Commercial, so a rezoning to CI-1 would fit with this plan.
Ralston shared some photos with the Commission, explaining the layout of this area further and
the surrounding commercial areas. Ralston also noted that there are some environmentally
sensitive areas on this property, and it is within a flood plain, as well. He added that any site
plans would have to address these issues. Ralston noted that given the character of this area,
and the intended use by the applicant, staff does recommend that if this rezoning is approved,
that the row of parcels to the north (Ralston showed to Members on a map) would be rezoned to
CI-1 for further compatibility in the area.
Ralston stated that staff is recommending that Item REl08-00002 be approved. Members
asked further questions about the CC-2 zones. Miklo pointed out a drainage way in this area,
and Ralston further explained. Miklo pointed out on the map the area that, when the Airport
Commercial Park was developed, was left as an outlot that will always be owned by the City as
open space.
Members briefly discussed some of the other rezonings on Public zones, versus commercial
zones. The public hearing was then opened, and the applicant was invited to speak first. No
one spoke, and the public hearing was closed.
Freerks noted that they typically have two readings for rezonings such as this, and that it is up
to the Commission if they wish to do this in one meeting. Shannon offered a motion to approve
REl08-00002, submitted by ITC Midwest LLC for a rezoning from Community Commercial (CC-
2) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for approximately 17.97 acres of property located
south of Ruppert Road. Seconded by Koppes. Motion carried 6-0.
OTHER:
No other items were presented for discussion.
ADJOURNMENT:
Koppes motioned to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Shannon. Meeting adjourned at 7:50
p.m.
S:IPCDlMinutesIP&Z\2008103-20-08 - formal session.doc