HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-21-2013 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
No Informal Meeting on February 18, 2013
Thursday, February 21, 2013 - 7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
410 E. Washington Street
FACI21017_�1
A. Call to Order
�S.* , TI]
C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
D. Comprehensive Plan
Public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to adopt an update to Iowa City's
Comprehensive Plan: "Iowa City 2030." (Staff recommends this item be deferred to March 7th)
E. Comprehensive Plan / Rezoning Items
1. Public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan -Central District Plan to change the land use
designation from Office Commercial to High Density Multi -Family Residential for property located at 821
E. Jefferson Street.
2. REZ12-00030: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Clark for a rezoning from Commercial
Office (CO-1) zone to High Density Multifamily (RM-44) zone for approximately for .465 acres of
property located on 821 E. Jefferson Street. (45 day limitation period: Waived to February 21, 2013)
3. Setting a public hearing for March 7, 2013 to amend the Comprehensive Plan -Central District Plan to
change the land use designation from Multifamily to General Commercial located at the southeast
corner of the intersection of Highway 6 and Broadway Street.
4. REZ13-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by Casey's General Stores, Inc. for a rezoning
from Commercial Office (CO-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for approximately 2.31-
acres of property located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Broadway Street and Highway 6.
(45 day limitation period: March 17, 2013)
F. Rezoning Item
REZ13-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by University of Iowa for a rezoning from Institutional
Public (P2) zone to Public/Medium Density Multifamily (P2/RM-20) zone for approximately 27.8-acres of
property located west of Mormon Trek Boulevard, north of Hawkeye Park Drive.
(45 day limitation period: March 17, 2013)
G. Urban Renewal Plan
Discussion of Proposed Camp Cardinal Urban Renewal Plan for approximately 7 acres of property located
north of Melrose Ave between Camp Cardinal Road and Highway 218.
H. Other
I. Adjournment
J. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: February 4 and February 7, 2013
r
CITY OF IOWA CITY
, MEMORANDUM
Date:
February 15, 2013
To:
Planning and Zoning Commission
From:
Sarah Walz
Re: Update to the Comprehensive Plan
We are still completing work on maps for the Comprehensive Plan as well as a few charts and
illustrations. Over the next two weeks we will put out a community notice and invite all those
who participated or expressed interest in the plan.
Please continue the public hearing until your March 7 meeting at which time we will present the
draft plan to the public.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 21, 2013
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Robert Miklo and Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern
RE: REZ12-00030 821 E. Jefferson Street
This item was deferred from the February 7 meeting to allow consideration of a
Comprehensive Plan amendment to the change the Central District Plan Map
designation of this property from Office Commercial to High Density Multifamily.
The property at 821 E. Jefferson contains a medical office building, which is currently
vacant. Medical offices were an allowed use in the R3A Zone, which was the zoning
designation for this property when the office building was first built in the 1960's.
When a new zoning structure was adopted in Iowa City the early 1980's, medical
offices were no longer included as an allowed use in the multi -family zones, so a
number of the properties that contained medical offices were rezoned to Commercial
Office to avoid creating nonconformities. This was the case for the medical office at
821 Jefferson Street. The current land use designation contained in the
Comprehensive Plan was based on the presence of a medical office building on this
property.
The medical practice closed at this location three to four years ago. The property was
marketed for office use but attracted no buyers for that use. The existing building is
located within the floodplain of Ralston Creek and does not conform with the current
standards requiring buildings to be elevated above the flood hazard elevation. Given
its age and design the building may no longer be suitable for use as an office building.
The designation of this mid -block property for Office Commercial uses may be
obsolete.
Considering the existing High Density Multifamily land use designation and the other
existing uses in this block, Multifamily may be appropriate provided the policy
concerns regarding neighborhood stabilization can be addressed.
The applicant has submitted a proposal to build 18 one -bedroom apartments on this
property. He has requested RM-44 zoning because it is drafted in such a way that
there is a bonus for the construction of one -bedroom apartments. A type of apartment
that the City has indicated we wish to see produced. The lower density zoning
districts that otherwise would be appropriate in this location would actually permit a
greater number of bedrooms than what is proposed by the applicant.
February 15, 2013
Page 2
The density formula for RNS-20 zoning, which is another logical zone for this area
would likely result in the production of three -bedroom units. Density bonuses for
one- bedroom apartments were intentionally not included in the RNS-20 zone to
avoid creating an incentive to replace historic housing stock with new buildings
containing one -bedroom apartments. Therefore if the property was zoned RNS-20
there would be an incentive to build three -bedroom apartments.
Table 1 lists potential zoning designations for the subject property, along with the
maximum number of units and bedrooms attainable under each zone. Up to 40 one -
bedroom units could be built under RM-44 zoning, even though the applicant has
agreed to limit the number of one -bedroom units in the proposed building to 18.
Table 1: Maximum units allowed at 821 E. Jefferson Street in different zones
Zone
Type of unit
Minimum lot
area er unit
Maximum number
of units
Maximum number
of bedrooms
1-bedroom unit
2,725
7
7
2-bedroom unit
2,725
7
14
CO-1
3-bedroom unit
2,725
7
21
1-bedroom unit
2,725
7
7
2-bedroom unit
2,725
7
14
RM-12
3-bedroom unit
2,725
7
21
1-bedroom unit
1,800
11
11
2-bedroom unit
1,806
11
22
RNS-20
3-bedroom unit
2,700
8
21
1-bedroom unit
500
40
40
2-bedroom unit
1,000
22
44
RM-44
3-bedroom unit
1,500
15
45
Staff believes that the applicant's plan responds to the City's encouragement of the
production of one -bedroom apartments, which are in short supply and are more likely to
attract longer -term occupants. The applicant's proposal also includes floor plans and
amenities which should be attractive to longer -term residents. We recommend approval
of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and REZ11-00018, an application to
rezone the property located at 821 Jefferson Street from Commercial Office (CO-1) to
High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-44), subject to a Conditional Zoning
Agreement that ensures that design of the building and landscaping will be generally
February 15, 2013
Page 3
consistent with the submitted drawings and that the building be limited to 18 one -bedroom
apartments.
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern
Item: REZ13-00001 Hawkeye Court Date: February 21. 2013
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: University of Iowa
4 Jessup Hall
Iowa City, IA 52242
319-335-3500
Contact Person: Michael Muhlenbruch
2834 Northgate Drive
Iowa City, IA 52245
319-354-3040
mmuhlenbruch@shive-hattery.com
Requested Action: Rezoning from Institutional Public (P-2) to
Institutional Public/Medium-Density Multi -Family
Residential (P-2/RM-20)
Purpose: To allow a private developer to construct and
maintain an apartment complex on University -owned
land.
Location: Mormon Trek Boulevard and Hawkeye Court
Size: 27.8 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Multi -family residential, Institutional Public (P2)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Iowa Interstate Railroad, Industrial and
Commercial (Coralville)
South: Public (P-2)
East: Public (P-2)
West: Public (P-2)
Comprehensive Plan: Public
File Date: January 29, 2013
45 Day Limitation Period: March 15, 2013
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, the University of Iowa, has requested rezoning of a 27.8-acre property located at
Mormon Trek Boulevard and Hawkeye Court from Institutional Public (P-2) to Institutional
Public/Medium-Density Multi -Family Residential (P-2/RM-20). The rezoning would allow the
property owner, the University of Iowa, to lease land to a private developer for the construction of
an apartment complex. This land is currently being used for the Hawkeye Court Apartments, a
University -owned and managed student housing complex. UI students will be given first priority in
leasing the new apartments, though it may be leased by others if space is available.
The Zoning Code requires that the subject property be rezoned before the new private housing
use is established. The new zoning would function as an overlay zone with the underlying zone
retaining the P-2 designation because the University will continue to own the land.
The complex features 15 two-story buildings containing 504 one- and two -bedroom units. A
portion of the existing Hawkeye Court Apartments was damaged by flooding in 2008. The
university plans to demolish the flood -damaged units and leave the flooded area as open space.
The proposed development will be constructed in compliance with our flood plain regulations
which require that structures be elevated at least 1foot above the flood hazard elevation.
The applicant has indicated that they plan to use the "Good Neighbor Policy" and hold discussions
with neighboring property owners.
ANALYSIS
Current Zoning: P-2 zoning applies to public uses of land owned or otherwise controlled by state
or federal government. Property zoned P-2 is not ordinarily subject to City development
regulations, although some minimum guidelines apply. Thus, P-2 zoning mainly serves as a notice
to those owning or purchasing land near publicly -owned land. Because the University will continue
to own the land upon which this private development is constructed, the current P-2 zone will
remain in effect.
Proposed Zoning: The applicant proposes an overlay zone of RM-20. This zoning provides for
medium -density multi -family housing and allows for a mix of detached and attached single-family
housing, duplexes and multi -family housing. It is well -suited to sites adjacent to commercial areas
with good access to City services and facilities.
The existing Hawkeye Court Apartments (which are planned to be demolished) meet the
dimensional requirements of the RM-20 zone. RM-20 zoning requires a minimum area per unit of
1,800 square feet for multi -family uses, which translates to up to 24 units per acre. The existing
Hawkeye Court Apartments are developed at about 18 units per acre. It is anticipated that the new
development will have similar density.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: This property is located within the Northwest District
of the Comprehensive Plan and is shown as public/semi-public on the land use map to
acknowledge the University's ownership. The Comprehensive Plan states that the City and the
University should work cooperatively in planning and developing projects to assure that mutual
interests are addressed. The Plan refers to the University's West Campus Plan, which calls for
relocation and establishment of various university facilities west of Mormon Trek Boulevard.
The proposed development appears to comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
Compatibility with neighborhood: A student housing complex has existed on this site for
decades, and has proven to be compatible with the neighborhood. The area surrounding the
subject property except on north is also zoned P-2. Finkbine Golf Course is located to the
southeast, an Iowa Interstate Railroad line and industrial and commercial uses in Coralville to
the north, recreational areas and university athletic fields to the west and east, and wooded
area to the northwest. The property is located on Mormon Trek Boulevard, an arterial street,
and has access to public transit, and pedestrian and bicycle trails. Given the proximity to
amenities and university facilities, options for transportation and existing use of the property,
staff believes the proposed rezoning would be compatible with the neighborhood and
appropriate for multi -family housing.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas: A portion of the subject property falls within the 100-year
floodplain. The existing buildings will be removed from the floodplain and the area will be used
as open space. The new multi -family development will be constructed outside of the floodplain
and will comply with the City's floodplain regulations.
Summary: The rezoning would allow the property owner, the University of Iowa, to lease the land
to a private developer for redevelopment as a private multi -family use. As publicly -owned land, the
underlying zone will remain P-2. The property has been used for student housing for a number of
years. This use would continue but the buildings would be privately owned and managed. The
property has good access to the arterial street network and is close to commercial areas,
therefore it meets the purpose of the RM-20 zone.
6*31F_1; Ia:1*01i111IT, M1W.111 Ilork
Staff recommends approval of REZ13-00001, and application submitted by the University of Iowa
to rezone a 27.8-acre property located at Mormon Trek Boulevard and Hawkeye Court from
Institutional Public (P-2) to Institutional Public/Medium-Density Multi -Family Residential (P-2/RM-
20).
ATTACHMENTS:
Location Map
Approved by: / - `tY'07-" "'
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
I�
G/eor 1
Creek
CITY OF IOU CITY O
UU
n � QD
nn n
T�
SITE LOCATION: Mormon Trek Blvd./ Hawkeye Ct.
C/nor Croek
\1
e>
UNiVE
P2
UNIVERSITY
of Iowa
REZ13-00001
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Robert Miklo and Andrew Bassman,
Planning Intern
Item: REZ13-00005 1906 Broadway Street Date: February 21, 2013
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Casey's General Stores Inc.
Attn: Melani Samora
One SE Convenience Boulevard
Ankeny, IA 50021-0030
515-965-6100
melani.samora@caseys.com
Contact Person:
Property Owner:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Wally Pelds
2323 Dixon Street
Des Moines, IA 50316
515-265-8196
Nordstrom Oil Co.
Attn: Steve Nordstrom
815 Compton Drive
Hiawatha, IA 52233
319-360-4239
Rezoning from CO-1 to CC-2
To allow for construction of a convenience store
1906 Broadway Street
Approximately 1.04 acres
Vacant, Commercial Office
North: Highway 6 and residential - RS-5
South: Residential - RM-44
East: Residential - RM-44 and RS-12
West: Commercial - CC-2
South District Plan: Multifamily Residential
January 31, 2013
March 17. 2013
The applicant, Casey's General Stores Inc., has proposed rezoning an approximately 1.04-acre
property located at on the south side of Highway 6 east of Broadway Street from Commercial
Office (CO-1) to Community Commercial (CC-2). The property at the southeast corner of Highway
6 and Broadway has two different zoning designations —approximately half of the area is already
zoned CC-2 and the other half zoned CO-1. The split zoning resulted from a rezoning proposal in
2006, which conditionally rezoned the lot at 1904 Broadway Street and the southwest portion of
the lot at 1906 Broadway Street from CO-1 to CC-2.
The 2006 proposal involved removing a law office and apartment buildings from 1904 Broadway
Street and the southwest portion of 1906 Broadway Street, and combining the lots in order to build
a drive -through restaurant. The eastern part of the property was reserved for a future office
development. A special exception to allow a drive -through facility at 1904 Broadway Street and
the southwest portion of 1906 Broadway Street was approved in 2007. However, the restaurant
was never built and the property has been vacant ever since.
Prior to the 2006 rezoning, the zoning pattern in the area made Broadway Street a clear boundary
between the more intensive commercial uses to the west and less intensive office and residential
uses to the east. Conditions attached to approval of the 2006 rezoning addressed the need for a
transition between CC-2 zoning and adjacent residential uses: a buffer area of no less than 35
feet with screening to the S3 standard and a 5-feet high masonry wall on the southern property
line. The Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) also required a landscaped setback of no less than
20 feet along Broadway Street, S3 screening between the CC-2 zoning and residential uses to the
east and south, limited the number of signs to one free-standing sign at the northwest corner, and
included design standards for any building or structure with a canopy.
A concept plan submitted with this rezoning application shows that the applicant intends to build a
gas station and convenience store. The gas station and convenience store use would cover the
area currently zoned CC-2 and a portion of the area zoned CO-1, which would leave
approximately .6 acres to be used for a stormwater basin and open space between the proposed
convenience store and the residential property to the east. A trail easement runs along the
northeastern part of the property and contains the Highway 6 Trial. The concept plan shows trees
forming a screen between the trail and vacant space. There would also be landscaped median
between the gas station and convenience store use and the remaining vacant space.
The applicant has indicated that they plan to use the "Good Neighbor Policy" and hold discussions
with neighboring property owners.
Current Zoning: CO-1 zoning designates space for office uses and compatible businesses,
apartments and certain public and semipublic uses. CO-1 zoning permits personal -service
oriented retail uses, such as banks, dry cleaners, tailors and beauty salons. The zoning
provisionally allows multi -family residential uses and hospitality -oriented retail, such as hotels and
convention centers. CO-1 zoning can also function as a buffer between residential and more
intensive commercial or industrial areas. Based on the 2006 CZA vehicular access for the CO-1
area would be provided to and from Broadway Street by an easement across the CC-2 area.
Proposed Zoning: CC-2 zoning provides for major business districts that serve a significant
segment of the entire community rather than just nearby residents. These areas feature large
traffic generators requiring access from major thoroughfares. CC-2 zoning permits office uses,
restaurants and services such as hair salons, dry cleaners and banks. CC-2 zoning also permits
most types of retail uses, except for outdoor storage and display -oriented uses, which are allowed
provisionally. Multi -family residential uses are allowed by special exception. A convenience store
is perhaps the most intensive use allowed in the CC-2 zoning.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The South District Plan future land use scenario map
PC Mt5 ff Repotlshez13d00051904 R 1906 b,oadway staff ropod.doc
shows the subject property as appropriate for apartment buildings. Thus, an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan land use map would be necessary before the rezoning proposal could be
approved. The Commission's agenda includes setting a public hearing for March 7 to consider
an amendment to the land use map to designate this area for general commercial use.
The Comprehensive Plan identifies the area to the west on the south side of Highway 6, as part
of a significant community commercial center with both small and big box retail establishments.
The Plan states that new commercial development should be located in areas where
commercial development has the least negative impact on the neighborhood. And since
commercial development occurs close to where people live or along transportation corridors,
special care should be taken in the site design of these establishments. As provided for in the
2006 CZA any commercial development on this property should be subject to a buffer that
minimizes negative effects on adjacent residential uses.
Compatibility with neighborhood: The subject property is between the end of the Highway 6
commercial corridor to the west and the expanse of residential development to the south and
east. CC-2 zoning stretches along the south side of Highway 6 from Broadway Street to just
beyond Gilbert Street, about three -fourths of a mile. There is one gas station located along this
section of CC-2 zoning.
High -Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-44) zoning is located adjacent to the south and east
of this property. High -Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12) is located adjacent to the
southeast. Typically, a buffer exists between residential development and CC-2 zoning. CO-1
zoning, due to its compatibility with adjacent residential uses, makes for an ideal buffer between
residential development and CC-2 zoning.
The rezoning proposal should be considered in relation to the residential neighborhood to the
east and south of the subject property. In lieu of an office development providing the transition,
between more intense commercial development and residential uses, the applicant's concept
plan shows an approximately 130' to 170'-wide open space buffer between the residential
development to the east and the proposed convenience store and paved areas. To the south
the buffer would be the same as approved by the 2006 CZA unless modifications are approved
in conjunction with this rezoning application.
The design of landscaping in this area will be crucial in determining whether there will be a
sufficient buffer between the existing residential uses and the proposed commercial
development. As specified in the CZA careful design of the building, canopy, lighting and
signage will also be necessary to assure that commercial development makes a positive
contribution to the neighborhood. This item will need to be deferred to the March 7 meeting to
allow consideration of a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Staff will work with the applicant
prior to that meeting to in hopes of achieving a design that addresses these needs.
Access and street design: Highway 6 provides the major thoroughfare required to serve the
uses allowed in CC-2 zoning. The subject property would not have direct access from Highway 6,
but rather a single access point from Broadway Street. Pedestrian access is provide by the
Highway 6 Trail and sidewalks on Broadway The existing street improvements are adequate to
serve uses allowed in either the existing CO-1 zone or proposed expanded CC-2 zone.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends REZ13-00005, a proposal to rezone an approximately 1.04-acre lot located at
1906 Broadway Street from CO-1 to CC-2, be deferred to March 7 to allow consideration of an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and to allow staff and the applicant to
PCMStaif RoPOrIMM713OD0051904 6 1906 broadw y staff report doe
n
achieve a site and building design that creates a sufficient buffer and that would ameliorate
negative effects on adjacent residential properties and also promote the development of an
attractive commercial addition to this entryway to Broadway and Pepperwood Plaza.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Site Plan
Approved by:
Jeff Davidson, Director
Department of Planning
and Community Development
PC M\ toff Repo. s\,e,13-000051904 & 1906 broad,, staff repad. d.c
CITY OF IOWA CITY ON �I,JJJL J JL _, g
w
Creek
ISITE LOCATION: Mormon Trek Blvd./ Hawkeye Ct.
C/eon Creek V
N/�
UNI VE
P2
UNIVERSITY
of Iowa
REZ13-00001
< (D
0%
ri
Ih r —4 CITY OF I O WA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 15, 2013
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinator
Re: Proposed Camp Cardinal Urban Renewal Area
Presented for the Planning and Zoning Commission's review is the proposed Camp Cardinal
Urban Renewal Plan. The urban renewal plan is proposed for the purpose of and the
prerequisite to establishing a tax increment financing district. State Code requires that prior to
the City council holding a public hearing on a new urban renewal area, the Planning and Zoning
Commission must review and submit a written recommendation about the urban renewal plan to
the City Council regarding its conformity with the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan.
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan
The economic well-being goals outlined in the comprehensive plan are to:
• Diversify and increase the property tax base by 1) encouraging the retention and expansion
of existing industry and 2) attracting industries that have growth potential and are compatible
with existing businesses;
• Increase employment opportunities consistent with the available labor force;
• Provide and protect areas suitable for future industrial and commercial development;
• Cooperate with local and regional organizations to promote economic development within
Iowa City;
• Improve the environmental and economic health of the community through the efficient use
of resources; and
Consider financial incentives and programs to facilitate achieving the above goals.
The proposed urban renewal project area is near the interchange of Highway 218 at Melrose
Avenue and is part of the Northwest Planning District from which the following paragraph is
excerpted from the Comprehensive Plan:
Land uses proposed for the undeveloped portion of the Northwest Planning District
include low density residential and Office Research Park (ORP). Commercial zoning is
not proposed for the area around the Melrose Avenue interchange with U.S. Highway
218. Intensive commercial development in west Iowa City is to be concentrated at the
Highway One interchange with U.S. Highway 218.
The subject property is also within the area covered by the Clear Creek Master Plan, which
indicates that this is a good location for office park/research type uses and could provide a good
image along the "technology corridor" and buffer residential uses from Highway 218.
The designation of the urban renewal project area for office, research, production and/or
assembly uses is consistent with the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan.
Urban Renewal designation allows for potential tax increment financing (TIF)
TIF is a mechanism that may be used to finance projects within a designated urban renewal
area. The difference between taxes derived from the unimproved property and those derived
after is the "increment" of taxes which may be pledged by a City to retire loans, advances,
February 15, 2013
Page 2
bonds, or other indebtedness incurred by a developer or the city in furtherance of the
development.
Chapter 403 of the Code of Iowa sets forth the provision of tax increment financing. To establish
a TIF district, a city must first prepare an urban renewal plan for a specific urban renewal area.
A city may designate an urban renewal area as either a "blighted," "slum," or "economic
development" area, each of which s defined in Chapter 403.
The proposed Camp Cardinal Urban Renewal Area would be founded with an economic
development designation, which is defined as "an area of municipality designated by the local
governing body as appropriate for commercial and industrial enterprises."
Objectives of the Camp Cardinal Urban Renewal Area
The City's stated objectives for the urban renewal area are outlined in the urban renewal plan
and include the following:
• To encourage and support development that will expand the taxable values of property
within the Urban Renewal Area;
• To encourage new development of businesses in the Urban Renewal Area, in particular
office and research park development that will expand employment opportunities in the
area;
• To make public improvements as deemed necessary by the City to support office activity
within the Urban Renewal Area;
• To provide financial incentives and assistance to qualifying projects and businesses as
necessary;
• To provide for the orderly physical and economic growth of the city;
The urban renewal plan also explains why it is in the City's interest to establish this urban
renewal area. Communities are increasingly called upon to offer financial incentives to attract to
potential new businesses and business expansions and to compete with communities outside of
our region. With the plan in place the City could make TIF available for a desirable project in the
Camp Cardinal Urban Renewal Area.
In addition to the Planning and Zoning Commission's review and recommendation, the City
must also hold a consultation with representatives from the county and school district in order to
provide these taxing entities an opportunity to comment on the use of the incremental tax
revenues. This consultation will be also be held February 21.
After the consultation with the affected taxing entities and the public hearing, the City Council
will consider adoption of the urban renewal plan. Following that, a TIF ordinance may be
adopted.
A TIF ordinance simply enables the mechanism for dividing incremental tax revenues from the
base tax revenues, if in the future, City Council would approve a development agreement for a
project within the area. A development agreement would outline specific performance
requirements between the developer and the City. At this time, there are no pending requests
for a development agreement.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a written recommendation
to the City Council stating that the Camp Cardinal Urban Village Urban Renewal Plan conforms
February 15, 2013
Page 3
to the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan, which is the general plan for the development of the City
of Iowa City as a whole.
Attachments
Camp Cardinal Urban Village Urban Renewal Plan
Approved by:
Jeff Davidson, Director
Department of Planning & Community Development
Camp Cardinal
Urban Renewal Plan
City ®f Iowa City, IA
2012
Table of Contents
Section I - Introduction
Section 2 -- Description of Urban Renewal Area
Section 3 - Area Designation
Section 4-Base Value
Section 5 - Urban Renewal Plan Objectives
Section 6 - Proposed Urban Renewal Activities
Section 7-Proposed Urban Renewal Projects
Section 8 Confonnance with Land Use Policy and Zoning Ordinance
Section 9 - Relocation
Section 10 - Financial Data
Section 1 l - Urban Renewal Plan Amendments
Section 12 - Property Acquisition/Disposition
Section 13 - Effective Period
Section 14- Severability Clause
Addendum No. 1 - Legal Description
Addendum No. 2 - Location Map: Camp Cardinal Urban Renewal Project Area
Section I- Introduction
This Urban Renewal Plan ("Plan") for the Camp Cardinal Urban Renewal Area ("Urban
Renewal Area" or "Area") has been developed to help local officials promote economic
development within Iowa City, Iowa. The primary goal of the plan is to stimulate, through public
involvement and commitment, private investment in new office and research park development
in the Urban Renewal Area.
The goals outlined in this Urban Renewal Plan include the following, which include goals
detailed in the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan — 1997, as amended:
• Diversify and increase the property tax base by (1) encouraging the retention and expansion
of existing industry and (2) attracting industries that have growth potential and are
compatible with existing businesses;
• Increase employment opportunities consistent with the available labor force;
• Provide and protect areas suitable for future office development;
• Improve the economic health of the community through the efficient use of resources; and
Consider financial incentives and programs to facilitate achieving the above goals.
To help the City of Iowa City ("City") achieve these goals, the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan
states that the City may provide financial incentives as a catalyst for private enterprise. Other
development sites in the metro area, which already cater to office uses, make tax increment
financing available to qualifying businesses. The Comprehensive Plan, as amended, identifies
the Urban Renewal Area as suitable for development of office research park uses. The extension
of municipal sanitary sewer lines and expansion of arterial streets, including the completion of
Camp Cardinal Boulevard and the future extension of Highway 965 between Highway 6 in
Coralville and Melrose Avenue, facilitates growth in office development in the Area. The Urban
Renewal Area's location along U.S. Highway 218 makes it a highly visible development site and
provides the opportunity for the Area to serve as an attractive western gateway to Iowa City.
The City has concluded it is in the interest of its citizens to encourage the development of land
zoned for office research park use in order to provide competitive development sites for office
and research park uses. The City intends to make available the use of tax increment financing as
a means to finance the construction of some of the necessary public infrastructure improvements
within Camp Cardinal Urban Renewal Area. In addition, the City may make available the use of
tax increment financing to provide direct grants, loans, rebates or other incentives for qualifying
commercial or residential developments that help achieve the goals and objectives set forth
herein.
To achieve the primary objectives of this Plan, the City of Iowa City shall undertake the urban
renewal activities as specified in this Urban Renewal Plan, pursuant to the powers granted to it
under Chapters 15A and 403 of the 2011 Code of Iowa, as amended.
Section 2- Description of Urban Renewal Area
The legal description of this Urban Renewal Area is attached and incorporated herein as
Addendum No. I -- Legal Description.
The location and general boundaries of the Camp Cardinal Urban Renewal Area are shown on
Addendum No. 2 — Location Map: Camp Cardinal Urban Renewal Area, attached and
incorporated herein. This area is approximately 8 acres.
Section 3- Area Designation
With the adoption of this Plan, Iowa City designates this Urban Renewal Area as an economic
development district that is appropriate for office and research park development, which is
consistent with the current Iowa City Comprehensive Plan.
Section 4- Base Value
If the Camp Cardinal Urban Renewal Area is legally established and debt is certified prior to
December 1, 2013, the taxable valuation within the Area as of January 1, 2012 will be
considered the "base valuation." if the debt is not certified until a later date, the "base value"
will be the assessed value of the taxable property in the Urban Renewal Area as of January 1 of
the calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the City first certifies the amount of any
debt.
Section 5- Urban Renewal Plan Objectives
The overall goal of this Plan is to formulate and execute a workable program using public and
private resources to develop the Urban Renewal Area for office and research park uses. The
following objectives are hereby established for the proposed Urban Renewal Area:
• To encourage and support development that will expand the taxable values of property within
the Urban Renewal Area;
• To encourage new development of businesses in the Urban Renewal Area, in particular office
and research park development that will expand employment opportunities in the area;
• To make public improvements as deemed necessary by the City to support office activity
within the Urban Renewal Area;
• To provide financial incentives and assistance to qualifying projects and businesses as
necessary;
• To provide for the orderly physical and economic growth of the city;
• To provide other support as allowed under Iowa Code Chapters 15, 15A and 403.
Section 6 - Proposed Urban Renewal Activities
1. Undertake and carry out urban renewal projects through the execution of contracts
and other instruments.
2. Make or have made surveys and plans necessary for the implementation of the Urban
Renewal Plan or specific urban renewal projects.
3. To use any or all other powers granted by the Urban Renewal Act to develop and
provide for improved economic conditions for the City of Iowa City and the State of
Iowa.
2
4. Financial Incentives: To meet the objectives of this Plan and to encourage the
development of the Area, the City may determine to provide financial assistance to
qualified private businesses through the making of loans, rebates or grants under all
applicable provisions of the Iowa Code, including but not limited to Chapter 15 and
15A, and through the use of tax increment financing under Chapter 403 of the Code
of Iowa.
a. Loan, Rebates or Grants. The making of loans or grants ofpublic funds to private
businesses within the Area may be deemed necessary or appropriate for economic
development purposes and to aid in the planning, undertaking and carrying out of
urban renewal project activities authorized under this Urban Renewal Plan and the
Code of Iowa. Accordingly, in furtherance of the objectives of this Urban
Renewal Plan, the City may determine to issue general obligation bonds, tax
increment revenue bonds or such other obligations or loan agreements for the
purpose of making loans or grants of public funds to private businesses located in
the Urban Renewal Area. Alternatively, the City may determine to use available
funds for making such loans or grants.
b. Tax Increment Financine. The City may utilize tax increment financing as a
means to help pay for the costs associated with acquisition and the development
of the Area, as well as utilizing such financing to achieve a more marketable, and
competitive land offering price and to provide for necessary physical
improvements and infrastructure. General obligation bonds, tax increment
revenue bonds, internal loans or such other obligations or loan agreements may be
issued by the City, and tax increment reimbursement may be sought for, among
other things, the costs of urban renewal projects(if and to the extent incurred by
the City), including but not limited to:
i. Constructing public improvements, such as streets, sanitary sewers, storm
sewers, water mains, utilities or other related facilities.
ii. Making loans or grants to private businesses, including debt service
payments on any bonds or notes issued to Finance such loans or grants.
iii. Providing the local matching share of state or federal grant and loan
programs.
iv. Encourage the incorporation of energy efficient building techniques
such as those specified in the Iowa Green Building Standards, or those
attaining LEED certification.
v. Other authorized urban renewal projects
Nothing herein shall be construed as a limitation on the power of the City to exercise any lawful
power granted to the City under Chapter 15, Chapter 15A, Chapter 403, Chapter 42713, or any
other provision of the Code of Iowa in furtherance of the objectives of this Urban Renewal Plan -
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, qualifying businesses shall be determined by the City
Council. The Council's determination shall be based upon any current economic development
3
policy, which may be amended from time to time, as necessary in Council's discretion, and on
additional performance criteria the Council finds appropriate on a case by case basis.
Section 7 — Proposed Urban Renewal Projects
Proposed Projects for the Area include entering in to development agreements providing
financial incentives, including but not limited to provisions of land, grants, loans or other
incentives to qualified businesses or private developers interested in locating businesses in the
Area. The estimated costs of these projects arc approximately $2,000,000-$5,000,000. Any
project considered would be in accordance with the adopted Economic Development Policies.
Section 8- Conformance with Land Use Policy and Zoning Ordinance
Comprehensive Plan
This Urban Renewal Area is located within the Northwest District of the City, as stated in the
Iowa City Comprehensive Plan, which designates this Area as appropriate for office research
park (ORP) uses particularly in planned developments which allow flexibility in the placement
and clustering of buildings, the modifications of street standards, and the use of open space. This
Plan is consistent therewith.
Current and Proposed Zoning and Land Uses
The Urban Renewal Area is currently undeveloped and zoned interim development- office
research park (ID-ORP), as defined by the Iowa City Zoning Code. The purpose of the interim
development zone (ID) is to provide for areas of managed growth in which agricultural and other
nonurban uses of land may continue until such time as the city is able to provide city services
and urban development can occur_ The interim development zone is the default zoning district to
which all undeveloped areas should be classified until city services are provided. Upon provision
of city services, the city or the property owner may initiate rezoning to zones consistent with the
comprehensive plan, as amended. The purpose of the office and research park zone (ORP) is to
provide areas for the development of large office and research firms and other complementary
uses. The requirements of this zone protect uses in the zone from adverse impact of uses on
adjacent land and protect adjacent more restrictive uses.
The proposed land uses include general office and research office uses. When the Area is
developed, it will need to be rezoned to ORP, thus removing the interim development
designation, to reflect the change in the use from non -urban undeveloped land to office research
park development. Any further rezoning requests must comply with the Comprehensive Plan, as
it may be amended from time to time.
Section 9- Relocation
As the Area is currently undeveloped, the City does not expect there to be any relocation
required of residents or businesses as part of the proposed urban renewal projects; however, if
any relocation is necessary, the City will follow all applicable relocation requirements.
4
Section 10- Financial Data
Constitutional Debt Limit: $ 222,654,937
2. Current general obligation debt: $ 80,575,000
3. Proposed amount of indebtedness to be incurred: Although a specific amount of tax
increment debt to be incurred (including direct grants, loans, advances, indebtedness, or
bonds) for projects over time has not yet been determined, it is anticipated that the cost of
the Proposed Urban Renewal Activities and Proposed Projects identified in Section 6 and
7 above will be between $2-5 million. In no event will debt be incurred that would
exceed the City's debt capacity. It is further expected that loans, advances, indebtedness
or bonds to be incurred for the Proposed Projects or subsequent projects, including
interest on the same, will be financed in whole or in part with tax increment revenues
from the Urban Renewal Area. The City Council will consider each request for financial
assistance or a project proposal on a case -by -case basis to determine if it is in the City's
best interest to participate.
Section 11- Urban Renewal Plan Amendments
This Urban Renewal Plan may be amended from time to time for a number of reasons, including,
but not limited to changes in the boundary, to add or change land use controls or regulations, to
modify goals or types of renewal activities, or to amend property acquisition and disposition
provisions.
If the City of Iowa City desires to amend this Urban Renewal Plan, it may do so in conformance
with applicable state and local laws.
Section 12 - Property Acquisition/Disposition
The City may provide incentives for land acquisition in the Area. The City will follow applicable
procedures for the acquisition and disposition of property.
Section 13 - Effective Period
This Urban Renewal Plan will become effective upon its adoption by the City Council of Iowa
City and will remain in effect as a plan until it is repealed by the City Council. The use of tax
increment financing revenues (including the ainormt of grants, loans, advances, indebtedness or
bonds which qualify for payment for the division of revenue provided in Section 403.19 of the
Code of Iowa) by the City for activities carried out under the Urban Renewal Plan is limited to
fifteen (15) years from the calendar year following the calendar year in which the City first
certifies to the County Auditor the amount of any grants, loans, advances, indebtedness or bonds
which qualify for payment from the incremental property tax revenues attributable to that
property. The use of tax increment financing incentives shall be limited as deemed appropriate
by the Council and consistent with all applicable provisions of law.
5
Section 14: Severability Clause
Ifany part of this Amendment is determined to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity of the previously adopted Plan as a whole or the
previous amendments to the Plan, or any part of the Plan not determined to be invalid or
unconstitutional.
Addendum No. f
Legal Description of the
Urban Renewal Area
Commencing at the SW corner of the NE quarter of the SE quarter of Section 12, Township 79
north, Range 7 west; Thence NO 31 ' 14"W along the east line of the Northeast quarter of said
Southeast quarter to the northerly right of way of Deer Creek Road S.E. A distance of 625.38
feet; thence N44'22'30"W along said northerly right of way a distance of 422.28 feet; Thence
N47'30'30"W along said northerly right of way a distance of 140.05 feet; Thence N72'57'46"E
to the southerly line of area "A" stonnwater management facility easement as recorded in Book
3877, pages 442-446 in the office of the Johnson County recorder a distance of 411.97 feet;
Thence N83'34'00"E along said southerly easement line a distance of 196.33 feet; Thence
N87' 59'39"E along said southerly easement line to the westerly right of way of Camp Cardinal
Boulevard a distance of 136.56 feet; Thence S3'49'42"W along said westerly right of way a
distance of 155.89 feet; Thence southerly a distance of 179.54 feet along said westerly right of
way and the are of a 760.00 foot radius curve, concave westerly (chord bears S2'56'21"E a
distance of 179.12 feet); Thence S9'42'24"E along said westerly right of way a distance of
410.07 feet; Thence S16' 11'05"W along said westerly right of way a distance of 45.56 feet;
Thence S76'39'32"W along said westerly right of way a distance of 71.32 feet; Thence
N 87'27'39W along said westerly right of way to said northerly right of way of Deer Creek Road
S.E. a distance of 66.21 feet; Thence N44'22'30"W along said northerly right of way to the point
of beginning a distance of 352.54 feet.
Addendum No. 2
Location Map: Camp Cardinal Urban Renewal Area
Coralville
Iowa City
Johnson Co."
i;
o�
Camp Cardinal Urban Renewal Area
>1 III rw•��a.�i
218
Camp Cardinal Urban Renewal Area �,,
ARproxnnatelg S Aucs C�Z
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY
FEBRUARY 7, 2013 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe
Martin, Paula Swygard, John Thomas, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Mary Gravitt, Del Holland, Jan Palmer, Jeff Clark, Nancy Carlson,
Mike Wright, Chad Kuhne, Glenn Siders
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of SUB-00015, an application
submitted by Advantage Custom Builders for a preliminary plat for Mackinaw Village Part
5, an 8-lot, 3.95 acre residential subdivision located on the north end of Mackinaw Drive.
The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of SUB12-00016, a preliminary plat of
Lindemann Subdivision Parts Five and Six, a 12-lot, 22.53-acre residential subdivision
located on Lindemann Drive.
The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of amendments to Section 14-4E-8 of
the Zoning Code regarding modification of nonconforming development as
recommended by the staff in their memorandum of February 1, 2013 included in the
packet for this meeting.
The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of amendments to paragraph 14-413-
413-12 of the Zoning Code to include new standards for Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses if
located in the Towncrest Design Review District or the Riverfront Crossings District.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Mary Gravitt of 2714 Wayne Avenue said she had gone to a community meeting where they
were told that the Chauncey was not zoned yet. She said the question was how can that
building be designated there when it hasn't been zoned for being there. She said her objection
to that building is that twenty to twenty-two stories are too tall for that neighborhood. She said
according to the City's Comprehensive Plan, a building like that has to relate to the
neighborhood. She said the rest of the buildings in the area are low-rise. She said The
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 7, 2013 - Formal
Page 2 of 13
Chauncey is out of place, and she wants to know more about zoning. Miklo said that the site is
currently zoned Public (P), and in order for it to be developed privately, it will have to be rezoned
to some other zoning classification. He said there would be hearings before this Commission
and City Council before it will be rezoned. Gravitt asked how the property could be turned over
to the Moen Corporation to build, when there's no zoning there. Miklo said the City still owns it.
Gravitt said that the people of the community then could still protest that oversized building. She
said she appreciates the look and the beauty of this little city. She said the people have rolled
over and are so depressed about this decision, and she feels depressed too.
Eastham asked Miklo to explain how requests for rezonings can be initiated. Miklo explained the
three ways that rezonings can occur. The City Council or the Planning and Zoning Commission
can initial a rezoning. He said the most expeditious way to bring the question to the Commission
would be for a citizen to file an application for a rezoning. Eastham asked if a citizen would have
to own the property. Miklo said anyone can apply to have it rezoned.
Del Holland of 1701 East Court Street said he wants to encourage the Commission to try and
guide the City to make sure that the development at the corner of Gilbert and College Streets is
as energy efficient as possible, that it could be a model. He said it seems like the developer and
the proposal so far is not that energy efficient. He said he wants to make sure the Commission
keeps that in mind as they help guide the City in those negotiations. He said they need to be
dealing with these issues right now and here's an opportunity and the City has some say and
he'd like this Commission to help guide the City Council in doing that.
Jan Palmer of 814 Bowery Street said it's the Chauncey building that brings her to the meeting.
She said she would like to understand more about the process. She asked if the City put in their
Request for Proposal that they would accept buildings with the Central Business (CB-10)
designation. She asked what the relationship is between City Council and this Commission. She
asked what real authority the Commission has at this point in this decision.
Freerks explained that City Council always has the final say on rezonings. She said if they vote
against whatever the Commission recommends, the two groups would have a meeting and try
to come to some agreement. Greenwood Hektoen said the Planning and Zoning Commission's
role is to consider these items in detail and make a recommendation to the City Council.
Palmer said that she very much hopes that each and every one of the Commission members
will consider the sensibleness, the appropriateness, and the value and impediment to the larger
cultural climate of Iowa City of this proposal in light of the guidelines that the master plan
created, which to her understanding, would currently mitigate against such a building at this
location. She asked each one of the Commission to make an independent decision, regardless
of whether or not it concurs with the direction that the City Council is moving, because it's very
important to the community and she thinks the Commission owes it to the people of the
community to give the City Council honest guidance whether or not that is popular. She said we
are at a point where the City Council really needs to hear the will of the larger community in
whatever form that takes, and to not have an easy time making decisions that may go against
the larger will of the community. She asked the Commission to use their consciences, their best
judgment and speak the truth to the City Council.
Comprehensive Plan / Rezoning Items
REZ12-00030: An application submitted by Jeff Clark for a rezoning from Commercial Office
(CO-1) zone to High Density Multifamily (RM-44) zone for approximately for .465 acres of
property located on 821 E. Jefferson Street.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 7, 2013 - Formal
Page 3 of 13
Setting a public hearing for February 21, 2013 to amend the Comprehensive Plan -Central
District Plan to change the land use designation from Office Commercial to High Density Multi -
Family Residential for property located at 821 E. Jefferson Street.
Miklo showed the Commission on a map where the property is located and explained the
various zones on the block. He said the property became vacant within the last two years and
was put on the market. He said there was an application to rezone this property to High Density
Multi -family (RM-44) a little over a year ago. He said that proposal included a concept plan for
an apartment building with forty one -bedrooms and twenty-nine parking spaces. He said
concerns were raised about that proposal due to the large number of three -bedrooms, and it
was recommended against by the Planning and Zoning Commission. He said the application
was withdrawn before the Council acted on it.
Miklo said the proposal before the Commission now is for RM-44 zoning, and that the applicant
would agree to a conditional zoning agreement that would limit the development on the subject
property to eighteen one -bedroom apartment units. He said there have been changes in the
overall zoning code that would prevent four and five bedroom apartments in the RM-44 zone,
and density is regulated by bedroom versus unit count. He said that up to forty one -bedrooms
are possible given the square footage of the subject property or twenty two -bedrooms or fifteen
three -bedrooms, but those densities likely can't be achieved unless there is structured parking.
He said staff thinks this proposal, as opposed to the previous proposal, does address some of
the concerns the staff, the Commission, and the neighborhoods had. He said the
Comprehensive Plan does encourage the preservation of neighborhoods, but it also encourages
housing that serves a variety of household types, and given the zoning pattern in this block and
with the conditions that the applicant has agreed to, the RM-44 is appropriate.
Miklo showed aerial views of the block and a concept site plan which, if the zoning is approved,
staff would recommend that this site plan be included in the conditional zoning agreement so
that any development on this property would have to adhere to this plan with only minor
adjustments allowed. He said there are requirements in the Code for neighborhood
compatibility, and the plan will have to be reviewed by the design review committee for
compliance with that. He said the building is designed to be similar an apartment building that
would have been built in the early part of the twentieth century, with the first two floors being
brick carried around the first third of the building and the remainder of the building covered in
siding.
Miklo said that staff believes that this plan is generally consistent with the intention of the RM-44
zone and the recent amendments that were passed to encourage a different form of multi -family
housing, including 1-bedroom apartments. He said because the current Comprehensive Plan
shows this as Office, there will need to be a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change that
designation to multi -family or high density multi -family. He said staff recommends approval of
the rezoning but asks that the Commission defer voting until the February 21 meeting when
there can then be a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Eastham asked if the surrounding uses in the area that are now zoned RM-44 would be non-
conforming under a less intense zone. Miklo identified properties that would be. Eastham asked
if Miklo could say if there's a substantial issue about spot zoning if this parcel were zoned
Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20 or RNS-12). Miklo said that is a possibility
because there is RNS-12 to the north and RNS-20 is a large part of that neighborhood, so he
doesn't think that would be a spot zoning. He said staff had considered what other zoning might
be appropriate here. He said an issue is that the subject property is in the flood plain and the
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 7, 2013 - Formal
Page 4 of 13
building currently on the site is obsolete, and in order for this to redevelop there needs to be
some return on the property and it might take this number of units to accomplish that.
Howard said the RNS-20 zone was explored by several developers. She said when the density
formulas were recently changed for the multi -family zones, one -bedrooms in the RNS-20 didn't
get bonuses so that there wouldn't be a reason to take down more historic buildings that might
be in these areas without more careful study of that option. She said to get that bonus in an
RNS-20 zone, a developer would have to do larger units.
Freerks asked if it would be prudent to add to the Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) that
there will be no more than 18 one -bedroom units, because that is not really specified in the
CZA. Greenwood Hektoen said that could certainly be part of the Commission's motion.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Jeff Clark, the applicant, said he had a good neighbors meeting with some of the people in the
area, and he said the general consensus was that they liked it or said it was an acceptable
building for the neighborhood.
Nancy Carlson of 1002 East Jefferson Street said she is at the meeting to talk about green
space in relation to what the City says about it. She read from the City's Comprehensive Plan of
1997 regarding parks and open space and said from1997 until the present she has been hoping
to see more action in providing more of it. She said she attended the City workshops in 2006
regarding open space for the Central District. She said in 1997 there was already a deficit of
green space in both the Northside and College Green, and none has been added since then but
redevelopment has continued. She read more from the plan. "The Comprehensive Plan
provides a guide for decision -making so that the decisions we make today do not jeopardize our
vision for the future. This enables us to address the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their needs..." "...The Comprehensive Plan has little
use if there is no clear strategy of action to carry it out." She said the City has spent lots of
money putting these words on pages. She said her trust and her patience are gone. She asked
the Commission if they are part of the problem or part of the solution.
Mike Wright of 225 North Lucas Street said this is clearly better than the last plan he saw for this
site, but he has concerns about development on this property. He said although the plan would
accommodate a space for each unit there is a serious parking problem in this neighborhood for
any non-residents of the neighborhood. He said this development flies in the face of the Central
District Plan, which has among its other goals, achieving a healthy balance of rental and owner
occupied housing in the central neighborhood. He said this is a neighborhood with a rental rate
of more than eighty-five percent. He said he would like the Commission to consider how this
achieves the City Council's stated goal of neighborhood stabilization. He said they really don't
need any more apartment buildings in the neighborhood although he appreciates Mr. Clark's
efforts. He said the RM-44 to the west of the subject property has in particular been a trial, and
he would ask the Commission to consider if we need any more trials placed on a neighborhood
that is seriously in jeopardy.
Miklo said that staff had looked at the question of what would be possible on this site with a
lower multi -family designation, like Low Density Multi -family (RM-12) or RNS-20. He explained
that more units would be possible with each of those zonings than what is being proposed. He
said the staff feels that the applicant's willingness to limit this to eighteen units justifies the RM-
44 zone. He said that given the expense of removing the existing building on this site it would be
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 7, 2013 - Formal
Page 5 of 13
unlikely for someone to develop single family homes on this location, so staff feels that multi-
family is a reasonable land use in this location.
Eastham asked about the economic feasibility of RNS-12. Greenwood Hektoen cautioned
against statements about the economic return on the investment and said those should be
directed to the applicant.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Weitzel moved to defer this item.
Thomas seconded the motion.
Weitzel said he would like staff for the next meeting to address some of the green space issues.
He said they often hear that infill development is not what triggers green space issues but many
statements from the Comprehensive Plan suggest otherwise. He said they also hear that
because the City isn't interested in attaining more parkland we don't want to add more green
space.
Eastham said he agrees with Weitzel. He said there is an extensive discussion about green
space in developed areas in the Central District Plan especially. He said he would like to see
more discussion about that in relationship to the development of this parcel.
Freerks said she would like to know more from the staff about the limitation to 18 units.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
Eastham moved to set a public hearing for February 21, 2013 to amend the
Comprehensive Plan -Central District Plan to change the land use designation from Office
Commercial to High Density Multi -Family Residential for property locate at 821 E.
Jefferson Street.
Martin seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
Development Items
SUB12-00015: An application submitted by Advantage Custom Builders for a preliminary plat for
Mackinaw Village Part 5, an 8-lot, 3.95 acre residential subdivision located on the north end of
Mackinaw Drive.
Miklo said this property was preliminary platted as part of Mackinaw Village Subdivision in 2004.
He said the previous owner final platted much of the subdivision but not this Part 5, so it has
expired. He said there is a planned development on the same property that did not expire. He
said the applicant is adding one lot to the plan. He said this is not adding any lots when
compared to the previously approved planned development. He said that required a buffer strip
to be planted with trees along the interstate. He said the applicant has agreed to move that tree
buffer closer to the house sites than where it was previously planted and to include faster
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 7, 2013 - Formal
Page 6 of 13
growing varieties. He said the drainage issue that required this be deferred from the last
Commission meeting has now been resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. He said
staff is recommending approval of this item.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Chad Kuhne, owner of Advantage Custom Builders, said he was there to answer any questions.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Thomas moved to approve SUB-00015, an application submitted by Advantage Custom
Builders for a preliminary plat for Mackinaw Village Part 5, a 8-lot, 3.95 acre residential
subdivision located on the north end of Mackinaw Drive.
Weitzel seconded.
Freerks invited discussion.
Eastham stated for the record that Mr. Kuhne is the contractor for a nonprofit that he is involved
with as a board member, but he sees no conflict of interest.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
SUB12-00016: An application submitted by Southgate Development for the preliminary plat of
Lindemann Subdivision — Part Five and Six, a 12-lot, 22.53-acre residential subdivision located
on Lindemann, Charles and Kenneth Drives.
Miklo said parts of the subdivision have been final platted and built, and other parts have been
final platted but the streets have not been put in yet. He said Parts Five and Six have expired
and need to be reapproved. He said the applicant is proposing twelve lots in Part Five while
keeping Part Six as an outlot for future development. He said the original approved plan had a
cul-de-sac bulb that was designed to be extended to connect with Hummingbird Lane. He said a
subdivision was approved some years ago which precludes that connection. He explained the
new design for that connection. He said this plan is very similar to the previously approved
subdivision with some small changes and staff is recommending approval of this item.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Glenn Siders of Southgate Development said he was available to answer questions.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Eastham moved to approve SUB12-00016, a preliminary plat of Lindemann Subdivision
Part Five and Six, a 12-lot, 22.53-acre residential subdivision located on Lindemann
Drive.
Swygard seconded.
Freerks invited discussion
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 7, 2013 - Formal
Page 7 of 13
Comprehensive Plan
Public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to adopt an update to Iowa City's
Comprehensive Plan: "Iowa City 2030." (Staff recommends this item be deferred to
February 215)
Weitzel moved to defer public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to
adopt an update to Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan: "Iowa City 2030" to the meeting of
February 215t, 2013.
Martin seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
Code Amendment Items
Discussion of amendments to Section 14-4E-8 of the Zoning Code to modify how
nonconforming development is regulated.
Howard said this concerns only nonconforming development, which is basically the site
elements: parking, lighting, screening, landscaping, outdoor storage, exterior elements on a
property. She said they made adjustments to these provisions in 2010 and 2012 to make it
easier for older properties to be reused or redeveloped while ensuring that over time sites would
be brought into compliance with the new standards adopted in 2005. She said the challenge has
been to find the right set of triggers that allow buildings on existing properties to be improved,
reused, or expanded while at the same time requiring a minimum amount of investment in site
improvements that will gradually bring a site into compliance with these types of standards.
Howard said contractors are often unaware of the requirements to make changes to
nonconforming development until they apply for a building permit and discover that the changes
will increase the cost of their project. She said staff recommends deleting the dollar and
assessed value triggers and instead establishing a standard whereby only structural alterations
that actually result in an increase in the occupancy load of a building or an increase in the
number of bedrooms or dwelling units or otherwise increase the allowable residential occupancy
of a building will be the trigger for some additional requirements. She said the same
requirements would apply and the ten percent cap would be in place so that in no case would
the site improvements that were triggered exceed ten percent of the project being proposed.
Freerks asked if something is already a nonconforming use or there is a maximum occupancy
on a building so that you could never legally increase occupancy without upzoning, is there no
way to ever bring it into compliance. She asked if there would be no way to request that
changes be made to such a property. Howard replied that was true, but that's the case today as
well. Freerks asked if there would be no way to ever fix anything, that there's nothing that can
be done to improve it unless owners do it voluntarily.
Thomas said he thought what Freerks meant was that we are limiting ourselves to any increase
in occupancy, so if the building is grandfathered, realistically we aren't going to see an increase
in occupancy ever performed on that building. Freerks asked if this meant that no amount of any
kind of alterations in any way will ever bring it into compliance in terms of its nonconforming
parking lot or whatever. She asked if what she heard at the informal meeting on February 4
was that an internal remodel or something like that would have been a trigger.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 7, 2013 - Formal
Page 8 of 13
Howard said most of these concerns and the nonconforming development that they are trying to
address are commercial standards. She said there are already triggers in the Code for
residential properties that are different than commercial properties. Freerks said she wants them
all to realize that there are no triggers to bring some of those things into compliance.
Eastham asked if Freerks thought there were triggers before. Freerks said she thought there
were.
Howard said the previous trigger was that the project had to exceed $25,000 or thirty-five
percent of the assessed value of the property. She said she's not certain there were ever any
residential properties that were affected.
Freerks asked about occupancy loads in commercial buildings. Weitzel said if it's a restaurant
and the parking lot is nonconforming but there's never going to be an addition because location
constraints allow them to be as big as they will ever be, that parking lot will never be brought
into compliance.
Howard said an example of an internal remodel that would increase the occupancy load would
be creating a new bathroom or expanding the seating area even if the building is not expanded
itself.
Thomas asked about the term "structural".
Howard explained that anything that increases the occupancy load of a building is considered a
structural alteration, whether it be internal or external. She said a structural alteration could also
be something that increases the volume of a building.
Greenwood Hektoen said it is her belief that in the commercial zones the occupancy load of a
building is not limited by the zone the way that occupancy is in a residential zone. She said
there wouldn't be a nonconforming commercial building based on occupancy load so you would
never be nonconforming because of your occupancy load in a commercial zone.
Thomas asked if the ten percent is of the project cost or just the costs associated with the
structural alteration. Howard said it would be a portion of the structural alterations. She said
someone could voluntarily make site improvements that they are doing at the same time, but
that wouldn't be added to the total to increase the value of what that ten percent would be.
Dyer said it would be smarter to make improvements smaller than that sequentially. Howard
said the ten percent is based on the project value so no matter how small the project, if it's a
structural alteration it would still be ten percent of whatever that amount is.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Glenn Siders of Southgate Development Services said he understands most of what the staff is
trying to do but he has some questions and concerns. He said Howard had mentioned that if
you increase the occupancy load, you trigger certain standards, and he would like to know what
those standards are and how it impacts the site. He said the concern he has is how does
increasing the occupancy load impact his site development improvements and what are these
certain standards that he's going to have to do on his site if he increases that occupancy load by
one. Howard said that structural alteration is any change in the configuration of the exterior
walls, foundation or roof of a building that results in an increase in the area height or volume of
the building. Siders asked who is going to tell him what he's going to spend that ten percent on
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 7, 2013 - Formal
Page 9 of 13
and maybe that won't be enough to make any improvements. Howard said the standards are
listed in an order of priority, but if the only money available is a small amount, you would go
down that list to find something reasonable.
Eastham asked what happened if there was nothing on the list that is a development standard
that the property is nonconforming on and the owner can correct with the ten percent. He asked
what happens to the owner's requirement to do something to bring the site up to standards.
Greenwood Hektoen said the City has the discretion to waive or modify by minor modification
the standards that can't be met.
Howard said if they are talking about a change to the actual exterior structure of a building,
there will be some major cost to that. She said she had asked the Building Department if they
shouldn't still have a minimum threshold of cost, and their feeling was that a change in the
exterior structure would be up in a range where there will be a significant amount of money to
use for site improvements.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Eastham moved to recommend approval amendments to Section 14-4E-8 of the Zoning
Code regarding modification of nonconforming development as recommended by the
staff in theirmemorandum of February 1, 2013 included in the packetforthis meeting.
Weitzel seconded.
Freerks invited discussion.
Freerks said it's probably not perfect, but it's very difficult to come up with a solution for so many
situations that vary.
Thomas said he understands how people coming in to pull permits would be upset when they
discover the additional costs. He said his concern is that they are moving this to the point where
it's going to be exceedingly rare that they meet the trigger. He asked if anyone is overseeing
this to see if we've gone too far with our definitions.
Freerks said she has that concern also and would be interested in knowing what results from
this change.
Howard said the new standards that were added are mostly about parking lot screening, so the
broader question is should those improvements be triggered by individual projects happening to
individual properties that may create ill will and lead to people not improving their properties or
should it be some other type of improvement project that's not individual based but rather a
streetscaping project. She said there are other methods the City can use to improve business
districts besides having individual triggers.
Eastham said it would be good if there were some sort of inventory of nonconforming
development standards that are above some level. He said it would be helpful if there were
some sort of inventory that staff, the Commission and Council could refer to to see if progress is
being made to reduce the items on the list.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 7, 2013 - Formal
Page 10 of 13
Howard pointed to the Towncrest Redevelopment Plan as a way to improve the streetscape.
Eastham responded that the uses out there are not all nonconforming. Howard said they aren't
talking about nonconforming uses but rather nonconforming development.
Dyer said there's one place in town that had a very small lot and added an addition to the
building which required them to put in greenery in front of their parking. She said the cars drove
over it, creating a muddy place that makes getting in and out difficult.
Thomas said he wanted to keep an eye on how this would be working and wanted to know if
there's an internal process where they monitor where these nonconforming conditions are.
Freerks asked if Housing and Inspection Services could do it.
Howard said that Housing and Inspection Services could be asked to address the Commission
at a future meeting about the problems they are experiencing. Freerks asked if in a year's time
the Housing and Inspection staff come to a Commission meeting and assess how it's working.
She said she thinks it would be an educational tool for the Commission. She says she thinks
good follow-up on things like this is time well spent.
Eastham agreed with Freerks. He suggested that Housing and Inspection Services present
them with a check list. Freerks said she thought that was asking too much of them, and all she
wants is an honest assessment of how things are working.
Miklo said one possibility is that as site plans come in the staff could note which ones under the
current standards would have had to do something.
Thomas asked if that portion that is applied toward nonconforming site conditions could be a
line item that can be identified. Howard said she's not sure that's possible because they would
have to go through every building permit that was pulled. She said they could invite the Building
Department to come and speak to the Commission by deferring the discussion to the next
meeting.
Freerks said she's fine passing this, but she would like a future assessment. Howard said she
can talk to the Building Department to find out what's possible. Freerks said that would be fine.
Swygard said she's in favor of passing the amendment at this point and it would be nice to have
some follow-up if that's possible but she thinks they'll also get some feedback from the
community and developers as this proceeds.
Freerks said bringing nonconforming properties into compliance is important but it's also a fight
not to have an undue burden upon people who are trying to have a business, especially in an
older, smaller area where we want to have businesses in order to have a vital community.
Thomas said he was willing to support the amendment but he feels that it's important to address
nonconforming site conditions and he's concerned that if they lower the bar too low, they won't
see any money going toward it.
Howard asked Thomas if he would like staff to invite the Building Department to come to a
future informal meeting. The Commission agreed that would be a good idea.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 7, 2013 - Formal
Page 11 of 13
Discussion of amendments to paragraph 14-4B-4B-12 of the Zoning Code to include new
standards for Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses if located in the Towncrest Design Review District or
the Riverfront Crossings District.
Howard explained that detailed plans for Towncrest and Riverfront Crossings have recently
been adopted by the City Council. However, new zoning tools to match haven't yet been put in
place. She said that it may take some time to develop the zoning since it is a large area and a
fairly complex code. She said the concern is that in the meantime, development projects may
be proposed that are counter to the recently adopted plan if not carefully considered. She said
one of the issues that has been identified is how to integrate auto -oriented into new walkable
neighborhoods envisioned by the plans. As an interim solution, staff recommends adopting new
standards for Quick Vehicle Servicing uses that it would apply by special exception to any
property in the Towncrest Design Review District or the Riverfront Crossings District. These
would be the same standards that currently apply in the Central Business Zones. She said that
Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses would be allowed by special exception. Any new building would
have to be located close to the street with the vehicle use areas located behind or to the side.
This is sometimes called a "gas backwards" and there is an illustration and photo in the
Riverfront Crossings Plan that describes how this has worked in other cities.
Freerks asked if in the code they are putting together it would allow apartments on top of
convenience stores. Miklo said in the illustration Howard is using it is actually offices on the
second floor, not apartments.
Dyer said in the illustration Howard is showing what's behind the gas station is actually along a
side street and isn't really obscured. Howard said the idea is to pull the building up to the street
and ensure that there are storefront windows and doorways along the public sidewalk with the
gas pumps located behind and to the side.
Swygard asked how that would affect vehicles entering and exiting the property to get to the
pumps toward the back of the building. Howard said the reason to make it a special exception is
that every property is going to be different and that gives them the flexibility to design the site
and the use for that particular site and so all those various traffic concerns can be taken into
account.
Miklo said it fits in with their goal of getting the driveways as far from the intersections as
possible.
Freerks invited discussion.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Weitzel moved to recommend approval of amendments to paragraph 14-4B-4B-12 of the
Zoning Code to include new standards for Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses if located in the
Towncrest Design Review District or the Riverfront Crossings District.
Swygard seconded.
A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 7, 2013 - Formal
Page 12 of 13
OTHER:
Consideration of Meeting Minutes: Dec. 17, 2012, January 14 & 17, 2013
Martin moved to adopt.
Dyerseconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
ADJOURNMENT:
Eastham moved to adjourn.
Swygard seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 7-0 vote.
0
W
§
�
0
�
0
06
0
§
§
a
�
0
)
u
K
§
§
2
§
\§
04�
2
§xx
x
xx
x
x
§xx
x
xx
x
x
§xx
x
xx
x
x
d<-
§
F)
§
}§kd/k/§�/wkw
2
§
�
/
b
»
//xxxxxx
�2oonw��n
�-§§§§§§§§
wo��-w
MWOMM
z0WLLkm&
\}§w�I
2°«?
«Ew333.
w
(DEN
°§
ow
w
-
February 11, 2013
Planning and Zoning Commission
401 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa
Subject: 821 E. Jefferson St. Rezoning Application
Dear fellow Planning and Zoning Commissioners,
The rezoning application of 821 E. Jefferson provides a major opportunity to address tine fundamental cause
of neighborhood instability throughout the University Impact Zone: the preponderance of short-term
residents. The problem is especially severe in the near east side. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, renters
make up 94.4% of the 2,989 occupied housing units in Census Tract 16. This percentage is up from 92.5% in
2000 (see attachments]. The percentage of residents between the ages of 18 and 24 has increased from
74.4% to 80.5% over the same period.
In 2010, the age distribution of the 7,267 residents in Census Tract 16 is as follows:
Percentage of population between 0 and 17; 1.6% (114 residents)
• Percentage of population between 18 and 24: 80.5% (5,854 residents)
• Percentage of population between 25 and 29: 7.5% (546 residents)
• Percentage ofpopulation between 30 and 39: 3.8% (278 residents)
• Percentage of population between 40 and 84: 6.6% (480 residents)
Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan addresses the need for more diverse, affordable housing in the central
neighborhoods. In addition to helping revitalize the neighborhoods themselves, doing so would place more
long-term residents within a short walking distance of the downtown and campus, thereby encouraging more
diverse interest in the downtown's many offerings and allowing workers to live near Johnson County's largest
employer, the University of Iowa.
The first housing goal of the 2007 Central District Plan states: 'Promote the Central District as an attractive
place to live by encouraging reinvestment in residential properties throughout the district and by supporting
new housing opportunities." Among the objectives identified under this goal is "Support the effort to create
affordable workforce housing within redevelopment areas." In response to this policy, the UniverCity
Program is deservedly praised for addressing the need for more single-family work force housing
opportunities both east and west of campus. The imbalance of short- to long-term residency, however, is so
severe that the UniverCity Program alone cannot solve the problem.lnfill development must also address the
imbalance; otherwise, it only adds to it.
This brings us to 821 E. Jefferson Street. The current proposal, 18 one -bedroom units, has been developed for
two reasons: 11 in theory, the rent of a one -bedroom unit will not put a long-term renting household at the
same disadvantage they face with units of two or more bedrooms, where up to three unrelated persons can
outbid them; and 2] if a one -bedroom unit is occupied by short-term renter(s), the likelihood of nuisance
behavior may decrease. Thus, despite the additional cost of providing only one -bedroom units (more
bathrooms and kitchens occupant), the applicant has agreed to this concept. if enough units are allowed
through the rezoning.
The inability of long-term renters to compete with short-term renters for 2-bedroom units reveals where
there is a true housing shortage in the neighborhoods near campus: two or more bedrooms designed for long-
term residency, especially in multi -family housing, While not as common as 2 to 5-bedroom options,
efficiency and one -bedroom units can already be found in the central neighborhoods, as well as other areas in
and near the downtown.
The location and size of 821 E. Jefferson lends itself to providing multi -Family work force housing for several
reasons. First, it is located within the UniverCity boundary, which indicates the neighborhood is sufficiently
stable to support long-term residency. Second, multi -family housing borders it on both sides, making single-
family infill development inappropriate. Third, its size, .41 acres, will allow a significant number of units,
giving it sufficient occupancy to establish a neighborhood presence. Under the RNS-20 zoning designation
(which borders the property to the south), staff reported that the property would yield 11 2-bedroom units. If
dedicated to work force housing, this number would be half the twenty-two homes sold thus far on the entire
cast side through the UniverCity Program. Perhaps a 10% density bonus could be considered, raising the
number of units to twelve. Since a work force household living at this location will be less likely to own two
vehicles, the off-street parking requirement could possibly be reduced for 2-bedroom units from 2 cars/unit
to 1.5 cars/writ. Fewer off-street parking stalls, if combined with a smaller building footprint, could provide
the opportunity for outdoor spaces such as front porches, rear patios or a shared courtyard.
As I review Iowa City 2030: Comprehensive Plan Update I am reminded how much emphasis our
Comprehensive Plan gives to the need for diverse housing options in all our neighborhoods. Despite the City's
efforts over the past forty years to achieve some sense of diversity and balance in the neighborhoods near
campus, the 2010 U.S. Census figures and recent events indicate we're far from achieving that goal, especially
east of campus. In the past year alone, 30 more three -bedroom units have begun construction at two sites
near College Green Park. Despite their excellent location, a household of working professionals would most
likely prefer two bedrooms, and in any case would be hard pressed to afford the rent.
In summation, what are the primary advantages to considering work force rental housing units as at least
part of the unit mix at 821 E. Jefferson?
It will offer opportunities for young professionals to live in a residential neighborhood near
downtown and campus.
The College Green neighborhood will welcome the stability and community engagement long-term
residency encourages. Thus far, this neighborhood has not received much of the UniverCity
Program's attention.
The downtown and university campus, which both serve as arts and culture destinations and
employment centers, will benefit from having working families living a short 10-minute walk away.
At our February 21 formal meeting please consider supporting a motion deferring this item until our March 7
formal meeting and requesting staff to:
1) Discuss with the applicant zoning options that include workforce housing in the conditional zoning
agreement. Such options include rezoning from CO-1 to either RM-44 with a maximum of 18 one -bedroom
units, or RNS-20, with a maximum of 12 two -bedroom units. All two -bedroom units should be designated as
work force housing.
2) Encourage the applicant to continue to discuss with neighborhood residents what would be the most
suitable housing option.
Sincerely,
Finder
QT-H I General Housing Chomdonstics: 2010
2010 Census Summary File 1
NOTF. For In lornlalluI rn Goill(enuality pf otecllon. nonsamcimo orror, and del nit[ons, see hl p wwwv cc muo eov/piod;ccn2o I Tduulatl put
Geography: Census Tract 16, Johnson County, Iowa
Suhleot
Number
Percent
OCCUPANCY S I ATUS
I otai housing units
3,093
100,0
Oc;uulod ha,ising arils
2,989
96.6
Vacant houslna onus
124
3.4
TFNURE
Occupied housing units
2,989
100.0
Uml occupied
106
5.0
OwnCd oath a n)o'igagc or loan
113
3.8
Owned +ree and rba-
53
1.8
Rcnlci occupied
2,823
04.4
VACANCY STATUS
Vacant housing units
104
100.0
Foment
58
SE
Rented, not occpied
9
8.7
For sale cnh
6
5.8
Soldnot occuciod
4
3-8
For seascrfal, rc lcational, or ICUU1101r1l use
8
17
For migrabry workers
0
0.0
Otner acc, 1
19
'H.3
TENURE BY HISPANIC OF LAIINO 0P!Glnt OF
HOUSEl-.OLDEN 3Y FACE OF HOUSE[-iOLDER
Occupied hous'ng units
2,989
100.0
Owner occupied housing units
i 66
5 6
Not Hisoamc or Latino householder
1 G3
_.rf
W+rite alons householder
Ih8
5.3
Black or Alacan Amorican alone householder
0-0
Amoiie,an Indian and Alaska Native alone
0
0 0
'nnrlsel ldw
Allan almro householder
0
0.0
Native Pdav:alian and Otto Pacikc Islander alone
1
0,0
Pro.ieoholder
So[,,e Other Iacc .alono houseP.oldor
0
0.0
Two or More Races householder
3
O.r
-+ispanlc or Latino householder
3
0 1
Ur911te elolle householder
3
0_t
t3lack or A.Incar Amercan alone 1
0
0.0
American Indian and Alaska Nf,Jivc alono
0
1)
no.isehaldei
Asian adcnc householder
0
0.0
Nallve Huwilait and Other cooto Ic rIlGP alone
0
0.0
nousetulder
Seme other Race alone houseFu'4er
0
0.0
Two or Mere Races householder
0
0.0
Rcnlor-occupied housing unh
2,823
94.1
Ncl Hlspant or Latino hcuseholdor
2,735
91.5
101i1e aiune nousehaldu,
2,456
83.2
Check or A I in Aiaierican alone householder
63
2.1
09/fl>.-2012
of 2
Subject
Number
Percent
American indian and Alaska Nalive alone
,
0 s
IOnSChIdder
Asian alone housoholdcr
t15
3.8
Native Hawaiian and Other Paccho Isla, dor alone
2
p,1
h,ouseho:der
Some Other Race alono housoholdcr
2
0,1
Two o More Races householder
60
gp
Hispanic m Latino householder
gg
2.9
Mills along houu NhOder
H
21
Rlack or Alrlcan Ame'ican alone housoholdcr
3
Q1
P.merinan Indian and Alaska Native alone
0
0.0
householcer
Asian alone householder
I
9.0
Native Hawaiian and Other P»cific Islander alone
0
0.0
h. cusal',older
Sumu Othor Race alone householder
11
0.4
Tvro or IJ,a e Races house I iolder
9
0.3
X Nol applicable.
Souo�11.5. Census Bureau, 2010 Census.
Scmmary File 1, Tables f13. H4, H5. and I1CTt.
2 c,, 2 09/072012
m
ur
QT-P2 Single 'Years of Age and Sex. 2010
2010 Census Summary i=ile 1
NOI LFu, iMcrmaI en on ccn uu,,iialit/ pre IcuItoo, nonsampling erro, . and del m lors, see h11).. ea hw coii jov, prod/coi 313 doohll-pdf.
Geography: Census Tract 16, Johnson County, Iowa
Age
Number
Percent
Both sexes
Male
Female
Both sexes
We
Tula. uopulahcn (all ages)
7 ps/
3.975
3292
100.0
100.0
Cnder 5yours
39
19
0-,
0.5
Under 1 yea,
14
7
0.2
_2
I year
7
3
4
0.1
0.'I
2 year.
8
4
0 1
0.1
3 yea
5
2
3
0.1
0.'.
4 years
5
..
2
0.1
0.1
6139 years
32
I!
15
0:1
0.4
5 yeas
4
3
1
0 1
-.
G years
11
6
0.2
03
'7 yee.rs
6
..
3
0.1
0.'.
3 years
6
3
'l
0.1
0.±
9 year=_
5
2
3
0.1
0.'
1010 14 years
,.
12
iD
0.3
0.3
1^cars
p
1
i
0.0
0.0
11 years
5
2
3
1yrars
8
4
4
0.1
0.1
13 vears
1
0
0.0
0.0
1-0ye-ars
6
4
15 to i8 Year
671
293
378
9.2
Z4
15 vears
6
2
YOars
8
4
4
0.1
01
1'i vears
1
G
Q1
!10
18years
47
27
20
0.6
07
19 wars
603
259
341
8.3
C, 5
20 to 24 years
5,204
2.861
2,353
71 B
7 `-.7
20 yea 5
1,508
77P
ibu
20.E
194
21 years
1,G40
B35
805
22.6
2L0
22 years
1,295
715
580
17.8
18.0
23 years
516
357
159
7.1
9.0
2tvears
245
172
7
3A
43
23 is 29 yuars
546
3/9
178
7.5
9 3
_5yea-s
1s1
127
54
2.5
32
26 years
132
87
45
1.8
22
27 Yeas
78
52
26
1.1
3 8
23 yeas
81
68
23
1.1
1 5
29 vears
74
413
28
1.0
1 1
80 to 34 years
'92
I l4
78
2.0
2.9
30 yeas
co
34
26
0.8
0,9
31 years
3/
27
10
0.5
0.7
37 vears
39
23
16
O.b
0.6
33 years
34
18
16
0,5
0.5
34 years
22
12
10
0.3
C.0
35 10 39 yeas
86
37
49
1 2
0.9
1 of 3
094:7%2012
Age
NumU01
Percent
Both sexes
Male
Female
Both sexes Male
35 years
22
8
14
0.3
36years
17
11
0.2
31 yews
12
7
5
0.2
38 years
17
9
8
0.2
39 ymyrs
18
6
12
0.2
40 to 44 year
82
52
30
1.1
40yea s
i5
7
8
G,P
41 years
23
15
8
0.3
d2 years
14
13
i
0.2
43 yews
17
9
8
0.2
4 1 yews
13
8
5
0>
45 to 49 year
63
33
30
0.0
45 years
13
7
6
0.2
40 years
11
6
5
r12
47 years
8
4
4
0.1
48 years
12
5
0.2
19 years
1,9
9
10
0.3
50 nt 54yews
86
44
42
1.2
50 years
12
8
4
02
S. years
18
8
10
0.2
52 yews
17
8
9
0.2
53 years
19
8
11
0.3
54 years
20
12
8
0.3
55 :a59yews
83
52
31
1.1
55 yours
24
17
7
0.3
56 you
12
8
4
0.2
57 ycare
Ih
8
8
02
58 years
17
11
C
0.2
59 years
14
8
.,
0.2
60 -0 54 years
60
43
1 7
0.8
00 years
14
l8
0 2
W yea
14
8
6
02
01 years
10
4
6
0.1
63 years
11
8
0.2
64 years
11
10
1
0.2
65'0 69 year
29
1 /
12
0.4
63 years
6
.,
3
0.1
66 yme
9
_
4
0.1
65 yews
5
4
1
0.1
68 yews
7
4
3
V
G9 year=,
0.0
70 '.a 74 years
26
8
18
0.4
70yews
4
1
3
0.1
7' yews
5
3
2
0.1
72 yea-s
2
0
._
0.0
7'3years
5
1
4
0.1
74years
10
3
7
0.1
75 '.o 79 years
16
6
10
0.2
75 years
2
1
0.0
7Gyews
3
-
2
0.0
77 yews
0
2
0.0
78 Nara
3
1
2
0.0
79 years
6
3
0
0.1
80 l0 84 ye 1
16
4
12
0.2
80 years
d
U
d
O 1
81 years
5
2
5
3 1
82 years
0
1
0 0
83 years
0
3
nD
clveacs
3
2
1^,.Cr
01
C2
0£
0.2
C2
1.3
C2
OA
03
02
C.2
0.8
U2
G2
0.1
02
02
1.1
0.2
C2
02
02
0-3
13
0+1
02
02
0.3
0.2
i.1
G.3
02
0i
02
03
04
01
0.1
0.1
01
00
6.2
�a
C.1
CC
C
0.
0.0
00
00
0A
it
a
00
01
3J
0.0
01
2 0l 6 09107r2012
Age
Numbor
Forcont
Both sexes
Male
Female
Both sexes Male
85 to 09 years
11
1
10
0.2
85 years
0
10
0.0
8U years
2
0
O.li
8' yews1
0
2
0.G
E8 years
_
0
2
0.0
89 years
4
0 1
90 to N yams
2
t
1
0.0
90 years
1
p
1
a c
91 years
0
0
0.0
9 years
7
1
0
0D
93 voara
p
0
0
0,0
94 ve.ars
0
0
0.0
95 Io 99 years
1
0
0-0
95 yeas
ll
0
0
(L0
90" yews
0
0
0
0,0
9' yccj—
0
.,
0
OD
9G ycara
1
1
0
0.0
99 year_-
p
0
0
OA
100 to 1 A yeas
0
0
0
0,0
105 to 109 years
0
0
0
c (I
110 years and ovor
0
0
0
p 0
00
pc
0.0
0-0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
p.o
0!J
CA
CA
0A
00
6.0
0
;0
OD
00
0.0
rt t3 G9i07;201Z
,;.�u�.�ka `*�.,a�T..a�?sa,!��3'?�.a6.hsvn'uc4.w. �`�,ta;.,a�s.'`� s a�._�:`>;:.:€��,.,, <•�."va�.:�v.�".`ua."3",� w..^e�:.�a�
QT-H1 General Housing Characteristics: 2000
Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data
NOTE. For information on ccnfldentia lily protection, nonsamplPng error, definitions, and count corrections see
IMp7/factri nder.census.gov/home/enldatanotes/expsfl uMin,
Subject
Iowa
Census Tract 16, Johnson County,
Iowa
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
OCCUPANCY STATUS
Total housing units
1,232,511
100.0
2,974
100.0
Occupied housing units
1,149,276
93.2
2.911
97.9
Vacant housing units
83,235
6.8
63
2.1
TENURE
Occupied housing units
1,149,276
100.0
2,911
100,0
Owner -occupied housing units
831,419
72.3
219
7.5
Renter -occupied housing units
317,857
27.7
2,692
92.5
VACANCY STATUS
Vacant housing units
83,235
100.0
63
100.0
For rent
23,272
28-0
40
63.5
For sale only
14,067
16.9
2
3.2
Rented or sold, notoccupied
7,444
8.9
8
12.7
Pon seasonal, recreational, or occasional use
16,472
19,8
0
0.0
For migratory workers
77
0.1
0
C.0
Other vacant
21,903
26.3
13
20.6
RACE OF HOUSEHOLDER
Occupied housing units
1,149,276
100.0
2,911
100.0
One race
1,142,272
99.4
2,867
98.5
White
1,098,906
95.6
2,687
91-6
Black or African American
20,550
1.8
58
2.0
American Indian and Alaska Native
2,720
0.2
6
0.2
Asian
10,752
0.9
109
3.7
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
284
0.0
0
0.0
Some other race
9,060
0.8
27
0.9
Two or more races
7,004
0.6
44
1.5
HISPANIC OR LATINO HOUSEHOLDER AND RACE
OF HOUSEHOLDER
Occupied housing units
1,149,276
100,0
2,911
100.0
Hispanic or Latino (of any race)
20,362
1.8
62
2.1
Not Hispanic or Latino
1,128,914
98.2
2,840
97.9
White alone
1,089,018
94.8
2,634
90.5
AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER
Occupied housing units
1,149,276
100.0
2,911
100.0
15 to 24 years
74,436
6.5
1,844
63.3
25 to 34 years
182,688
15.9
506
17.4
35 to 44 years
241,284
21.0
198
6.8
45 to 54 years
223..186
19.4
146
5.0
55 to 64 years
149,615
13.0
77
2.6
65 years and over
278,067
24.2
140
4.8
65 to 74 years
132,575
11.5
57
2.0
75 to 84 years
108,536
9.4
52
1.8
85 years and over
36,956
3.2
31
1-1
1 of 2 02/11/2013
r:�_'! Fll der
QT-P2 Single Years of Age Under 30 Years and Sex: 2000
Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data
NOTE: For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, definitions, and count corrections see
http:lifactfinder.Gensus.gov/home/en/datanotes/expsflu.htm.
Age
Census Tract 16, Johnson County, Iowa
Number
Percent
Both sexes
Male
Female
Both sexes
Male
Total population (all ages)
6,646
3,310
3,336
100.0
100.0
Under 5 years
55
34
21
0.8
1.0
Under 1 year
11
10
1
0.2
0.3
1 year
11
6
5
0.2
0.2
2 years
15
10
5
0.2
0.3
3 years
8
4
4
0.1
0.1
4 years
10
4
6
0.2
0.1
5 to 9 years
53
28
25
0.8
0.8
5 years
11
3
8
0.2
0.1
6 years
10
5
5
0.2
0.2
7 years
12
5
7
0.2
0.2
8 years
11
6
5
0.2
0.2
9 years
9
9
0
0.1
0.3
10 to 14 years
41
25
16
0.6
0.8
10 years
11
10
1
0.2
0.3
11 years
10
5
5
0.2
0.2
12 years
8
4
4
0.1
0.1
13 years
8
3
5
0.1
0.1
14 yea r3
4
3
1
0.1
0.1
15 to 19 years
607
243
424
10.0
7.3
15 years
6
5
1
of
0.2
16 years
6
2
4
0.1
0.1
17 years
13
5
8
0.2
0.2
18 years
70
28
42
1.1
0.8
19 years
572
203
369
8.6
6.1
20 to 24 years
4,302
2,116
2,186
64.7
63.9
20 years
1,266
530
736
19.0
16.0
21 years
1,311
611
700
19.7
18.5
22 years
1.039
567
472
15.6
17.1
23 years
483
282
201
7.3
8.5
24 years
203
126
77
3.1
3.8
25 to 29 years
554
347
207
8.3
10.5
25 years
171
113
58
2.6
3A
26 years
123
74
49
1.9
2.2
27 years
101
60
41
1.5
1.8
28 years
92
59
33
1.4
1.8
29 years
67
41
26
1.0
1.2
1 to 4 years
44
24
20
0.7
0.7
5 to 17 years
119
55
54
1.8
2.0
5 to 13 years
90
50
40
1.4
1.5
14 to 17 years
29
15
14
0.4
0.5
1 of 2 02/11/2013
Ago
Census Tract 16, Johnson County,
Iowa
Percent Males per 100
females
Female
Total population (all ages)
100.0 99.2
Under 5 years
0-6 161.9
Under 1 year
0.0 1,000.0
1 year
0.1 120.0
2 years
0.1 200,0
3 years
0.1 100.0
4 years
0.2 66.7
5 to 9 years
0.7 112 0
5 years
0.2 37 5
6 years
0.1 100.0
7years
0.2 714
8 years
0.1 120,0
9 years
0.0 W
10 to 14 years
0.5 156.3
10 year
0.0 1,000.0
11 years
0.1 100.0
12 years
0.1 100.0
13 year
0.1 60.0
14 years
0.0 300.0
15 to 19 years
12.7 573
15 years
0.0 500.0
16 years
0.1 50.0
17 years
0.2 62.5
18 years
1.3 66.7
19 years
11.1 55.0
20 to 24 years
65.5 96.8
20 years
22.1 72.0
21 years
21.0 87.3
22 years
14.'1 120.1
23 years
6.0 140.3
24 years
2.3 163.6
25 w 29 years
6.2 167.6
25 years
'1.7 194,8
26 years
1.5 151.0
27 years
1.2 146.3
28 years
1.0 178.8
29 years
0.8 157.7
1 to 4 years
0.6 120.0
5 to 17 years
1.6 1204.
5 to 13 years
1.2 125.0
14 to 17 years
0.4 107.1
(X) Not applicable.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary His 1, Matrix PCT12.
2 of 2 021l1/2013
Ji.
L.
�. cu
Ilk -.
�qA a
i I
aw:n i
LJ
a i
r
li e
u
-`ice wo. .. ..
IT
1 � i
Al
,
Amer ,rse ..-
i
I s
c
` a
of:
wP^ni+h cl-
x k�12 "ma
i°r Ili ac 1 l R'.
1
O UniverCity Boundary —
",7
Building Footprintme
UniverCity Property
Owner -occupied & non -rental
Rental a $225,000
Rental > $225,000
m p.
eM PaiF;$Vowa CILy GI51PCO Maw\Comm_DeNIIMveiCM1ylllNvalClty Emlaltle.natl - � _ vvu