HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 08.20.2020PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, August 20, 2020
Electronic Formal Meeting – 7:00 PM
Zoom Meeting Platform
Agenda:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
County Development Items
4. Case No. CREZ20-0001
Applicant: Lindsey N. Fudge
Location: 4477 Sioux Avenue SE, Unincorporated Johnson County
An application for a rezoning of approximately 1.76 acres of County Agriculture (A) to
County Residential (R) within Fringe Area B – Outside the Growth Boundary of the
City/County Fringe Area.
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is
impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of
Commission members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19.
You can participate in the meeting and can comment on an agenda item by
going to: https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJYpcOmvrD8rHd3lv-
QdhluWaVt5dkh4qTLL to visit the Zoom meeting’s registration page and
submitting the required information. Once approved, you will receive an email
message with a link to join the meeting. If you are asked for a meeting or
webinar ID, enter the ID number found in the email. If you have no computer
or smartphone, or a computer without a microphone, you can call in by
phone by dialing (312) 626-6799 and entering the meeting ID 924 7072 4179
when prompted. Providing comment in person is not an option.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 20, 2020
5. Case No. CREZ20-0002
Applicant: Bryan Jensen
Location: Lot 2 and Outlot A of 4665 Herbert Hoover Hwy; Unincorporated Johnson
County
An application for a conditional use permit to allow for a kennel and dog care facility in
the County Residential (R) zone within Fringe Area B – Inside the City’s Growth
Boundary of the City/County Fringe Area.
6. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: August 8, 2020
7. Planning & Zoning Information
8. Adjournment
If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please
contact Anne Russett, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5251 or anne-russett@iowa-city.org.
Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: September 3 / September 17 / October 3
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
Date:August 20, 2020
To:Planning & Zoning Commission
From:Joshua Engelbrecht, Planning Intern
Re:CREZ20-0001 – 4477 Sioux Ave. SE
Background Information
The applicant, Lindsey N. Fudge, is requesting a rezoning from County Agricultural (A) to
County Residential (R) for approximately 1.76 acres of land located in Johnson County
at 4477 Sioux Ave. SE in Fringe Area B – Outside of Iowa City’s Growth Area. At this time
the family of Tin Rose LLC, the property owner, would like to rezone this parcel for a
family member. Because the property is within Iowa City’s two-mile Fringe Area, the
Fringe Area Agreement specifies that the City will make a recommendation to the County
Planning and Zoning Commission before the County Commission considers the
application. The final decision on the rezoning falls within the County’s jurisdiction.
In addition to the rezoning application, the applicant has submitted a subdivision
application to the County to create two lots. One lot is the proposed residentially zoned
lot, while the other 34.6-acre lot will remain zoned Agriculture (A). Per the Fringe Area
Agreement, subdivisions of land into fewer than three lots will continue to be regulated by
the County; therefore, the City will not be reviewing the subdivision.
Analysis
Existing Land Use and Zoning
The subject area is zoned County Agricultural (A) and currently contains a single-family
residence. Properties to the north, south, east and west are zoned County Agricultural
(A) with the exception of two properties (4433 & 4439 Sioux Ave. SE) to the north zoned
County Residential (R).
Proposed Zoning & Surrounding Area
The applicants are requesting a rezoning to County Residential (R) which allows single-
family homes on lots with a minimum area of 10,890 square feet in size (1/4 Acre) and a
maximum area of 1.99 acres. The maximum development density allowed is 1 dwelling
unit per acre. Sioux Ave. SE contains several other single-family homes apart from the
one on the subject property. Sioux Ave. SE is also currently zoned County Residential
(R) north of Osage St. SE. The subject area is surrounded by row crop fields on all sides.
Compliance with the County’s Comprehensive Plan
The Future Land Use Map of the County’s Comprehensive Plan designates this area
Agricultural. The Agricultural Land Use category typically includes land devoted to
agriculture with limited residential development. Any “residential development should be
associated with food production or be consistent with the historic use of the property and
area.”
Compliance with the Fringe Area Agreement
In reviewing proposed rezoning in the Fringe Area, staff relies on the policies outlined in
the Fringe Area Agreement. The Fringe Area Agreement is a component of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and applies to areas not specifically planned for in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. The Fringe Area Agreement is intended to provide guidance
regarding the development of land located within two miles of Iowa City’s corporate limits.
The agreement’s slated purpose is to provide for orderly and efficient development
patterns appropriate to non-urbanized areas, protect and preserve the fringe area’s
August 13, 2020
Page 2
natural resources and environmentally sensitive features, direct development to areas
with physical characteristics which can accommodate development, and effectively and
economically provide services for future growth and development.
This property is located in Fringe Area B – Outside the City’s Growth Area. For this area,
the agreement states that agricultural uses are preferred. Specifically, the agreement
states:
“Until otherwise changed by amending this agreement, this area shall be
restricted to those uses consistent with a Rural/Agricultural area as
indicated in the Johnson County Land Use Plan, and as designated for a
Rural/Agriculture area in Chapter 8:1.6 Class A District of the Johnson
County Unified Development Ordinance, as amended.”
According to the Johnson County Comprehensive Plan, the Agricultural land use category
envisions agricultural uses, such as row crops and animal husbandry, with “very limited
residential development.” According to the Johnson County Zoning Code, Agricultural
uses are defined as farms, nurseries and greenhouses, orchards and tree farms, with
residential uses to be restricted to two single-family dwellings on a farm 40 acres or larger.
Summary
Although the proposed rezoning does not directly align with the land use policy direction
in the Fringe Area Agreement, the residential use already exists and no additional
residential development would be allowed by the proposed rezoning.
Staff Recommendation
Although the proposed rezoning does not directly align with the policies outlined in the
adopted Fringe Area Agreement, staff recommends approval of this rezoning for the
following reasons:
1.The subject area already consists of a residential property. Dividing the parcel and
rezoning the 1.76 acres would better reflect current land usage.
2.The proposed rezoning would not allow for further residential development, as only
one unit is allowed based on the size of the lot.
Attachments:
1.Aerial Map
2. Zoning Map
3.Fringe Area Map
4. Rezoning Exhibit
Approved by: ________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
SIOUX AVE SECREZ20-00014477 Sioux Ave. SEµ
0 0.05 0.10.025 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: August 2020
An application submitted by Lindsey N. Fudge forthe rezoning of 1.76 acres of property located at4477 Sioux Ave. SE from County Agricultural (A)to County Residential (R).
A
SIOUX AVE SECREZ20-00014477 Sioux Ave. SEµ
0 0.05 0.10.025 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: August 2020
An application submitted by Lindsey N. Fudge forthe rezoning of 1.76 acres of property located at4477 Sioux Ave. SE from County Agricultural (A)to County Residential (R).
SIOUX AVE SEJohnson County PD & S
CREZ20-00014477 Sioux Ave. SEµ
0 0.05 0.10.025 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: August 2020
An application submitted by Lindsey N. Fudge forthe rezoning of 1.76 acres of property located at4477 Sioux Ave. SE from County Agricultural (A)to County Residential (R).
Date:August 20, 2020
To:Planning and Zoning Commission
From:
Re:
Joshua Engelbrecht, Planning Intern
CREZ20-0002 Conditional Use Permit for Dog Kennel and Daycare Facility in
Unincorporated Johnson County
Background Information
Bryan Jensen has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application to the Johnson
County Board of Adjustment for the allowance of a dog kennel and daycare facility
located on Lot 2 and Outlot A of 4665 Herbert Hoover Highway, in Johnson County. It is
the role of the Planning and Zoning Commission to determine if the conditional use that
is being applied for, a dog kennel and daycare facility within the City/County Fringe
Area, should be recommended for approval to the City Council.
The subject property is within Fringe Area “B” of the Fringe Area Policy Agreement, and
inside of the City’s growth boundary. The Johnson County Zoning Ordinance requires
that cities be allowed to review Conditional Use Permits within their extraterritorial
jurisdiction (the area covered by the Fringe Area Agreement). Conditional Use Permits
in Johnson County require a 4/5 majority vote of the Board of Adjustment to approve if
the use is opposed by a vote of the City Council.
The subject property is zoned County Residential (R). Adjacent properties to the
immediate north, south, east and west are also zoned County Residential (R).
Properties to the east within City Limits are zoned Low Density Single-Family (RS-5)
and Low Density Multi-Family (RM-12). Properties to the west within City Limits are
zoned Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS), and Medium Density
Multi-Family (RM-20), and Commercial Office (CO-1).
Proposed Land Use:
The Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) defines a kennel as:
“An establishment, including structures and run areas, where domesticated
animals, such as cats and dogs, are boarded, bred, or raised commercially or
for compensation. Includes daytime-only boarding and daycare facilities”.
The proposed kennel is intended to provide daycare and boarding for dogs with the
ability for customers to request additional services such as grooming, teeth brushing
and baths. Although the definition for kennel states specifically that daytime-only
boarding is allowed, it does not exclude overnight boarding. The applicant has stated
that they estimate an occupancy of 50 dogs per day as well as 6-8 employees.
The subject property is located inside of the City’s Growth Boundary and the City’s
Northeast District Plan identifies this area as appropriate for single-family residential. It
also identifies the existing residential land uses in this area. The County’s future land
use map land use category for this area is Agricultural. The existing neighborhood
character features low density residences to the east, multi-family residential and
August 13, 2020
Page 2
commercial buildings to the west, and large amounts of open space to the north and
south. The subject property contains approximately 8.2 acres.
The proposed dog kennel and daycare facility must comply with the following
supplemental conditions (summarized) from section 8.1.23 of the Johnson County
Unified Development Ordinance pertaining to Kennels:
1.Kennels shall not be located on parcels of fewer than five (5) acres, except as
provided in this section.
2.Kennels may be located on parcels three (3) acres or larger where the
following conditions are met.
The facility does not provide overnight boarding services.
No more than 4 dogs which do not reside on the property are present at
any given time.
3.All structures and run areas used to house or exercise animals shall be
setback a minimum of two hundred (200’) feet from all property lines.
4.Animal boarding facilities may exceed the limits for keeping of dogs or cats
contained in this section when counting animals temporarily boarded for
compensation. The number of animals permanently residing on the premises
shall comply with said limits at all times.
Due to the layout of the site, it is unlikely that the project will be able to meet the 200’
setback minimum. Although the County has not yet received an application, it does
allow for the setback to be reduced to 100’ through the special exception process.
City Analysis
Zoning
The proposed dog kennel and daycare use is allowed as a conditional use in
Residential (R) County. The use is therefore an allowable conditional use in the current
County Residential (R) zone.
Fringe Area Agreement
For land within Fringe Area B, Inside the Growth Boundary, the Fringe Area policy
states the following:
•“Prior to annexation, any zoning changes in Iowa City’s projected growth area
shall also be consistent with the City’s adopted land use.”
o Staff Comment: The proposed application does not contemplate a change
in zoning.
•Development projects within Iowa City’s projected growth area shall
conform to City Urban Design Standards contained in Title 14, Chapter 7 of the
City Code of Iowa City, including but not limited to City specifications for streets
and roads, sanitary sewer lines, stormwater management facilities and water
lines. Developments which are approved prior to annexation shall be required to
be served by a package sanitary sewage treatment plant and common wells with
sanitary sewer and water collection and distribution systems which are
August 13, 2020
Page 3
constructed to City standards and can be connected to municipal systems upon
annexation.
Staff Comment: In addition to complying with the City’s Urban Design
Standards, staff wants to ensure street connectivity in this area. The existing
north/south streets, Nex Ave and American Pharoah Drive, are over 1,000 feet
apart. Another north/south street is needed in this area, as well as the extension
of Grindstone Drive, which is currently stubbed. Due to the importance of
ensuring an interconnected street network, staff is recommending a condition
that prior to obtaining any building permits from the County, written approval from
the City is needed on the location of any future buildings or structures (including
fences) to ensure future street connectivity.
Current and Future Land Use
The subject parcel will likely be included in the future expansion of the City’s limits.
However, the land cannot be annexed at this time without creating an island of
unincorporated County land to the south, which is not allowed by State law. The
County’s Future Land Use Plan indicates that the subject parcel is appropriate for
Agricultural land uses. There is one structure, an outbuilding, currently located on the
site.
Figure 1 shows the approximate location of the project site to the City limits. To the west
of the project site and within the City’s jurisdiction, is a recently constructed multi-family
building. To the east is a City subdivision that consists predominately of single-family
land uses, but also some multi-family. The distances shown in Figure 1 are in addition
to the County’s setback requirements. Due to the proximity of existing residential, staff
proposes imposing a condition that requires any overnight boarding facilities to be
located completely indoors within a soundproof building.
Figure 1. Proximity of Site to City Limits
160’
232’
170’
August 13, 2020
Page 4
Compliance with County Conditions:
Staff recommends that all County supplemental requirements be fulfilled in addition to
conditions recommended by staff.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of an application submitted by Bryan Jensen for a
conditional use permit to allow for a dog kennel and daycare facility on Lot 2 and Outlot
A of 4665 Herbert Hoover Highway in unincorporated Johnson County, subject to the
following conditions:
1.That the overnight boarding facilities be located completely indoors within a
soundproof building; and
2.Prior to obtaining any building permits from the County, written approval from the
City on the location of any future building or structure (including fences) to ensure
future street connectivity.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Fringe Area Map
4. Application Information
Approved by: ________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator,
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
M ID D L EB U RY
R
D
A L L E Y
ROCHESTER A
V
E
ALLEYWESTBURYDR BARBARO AVE
G LA S T O N B U R Y S T AFFIRMED STGRINDSTONE
D
R
WESTBURY DREASTBURY DRHANKS DR SESILVERCHARMLN
THORNBURY AVEUNBRIDLED AVE
HA N KSDRQUARTERDALECTSEAMERI
CANPHARAOHDRCHARISMATIC LNHERBERT HOOVER HWYHERBERTHOOVERHWYSE
CREZ20-00024665 Herbert Hoover Highwayµ
0 0.07 0.140.035 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: June 2020
An application submitted by Bryan Jensen for aConditional Use Permit for a dog kennel on property located at Lot 2 and Outlot A of 4665Herbert Hoover Highway.
City Limits
R
C RMFMIDDLEBURY
R
D
ALLEY
ROCHESTER A
V
E
ALLEY
BARBARO AVE
G LA S T O N B U R Y ST AFFIRMED STGRINDSTONE
D
R
WESTBURYDRWESTBURY DR SILVERCHARMLN
EASTBURY DRHANKS DR SETHORNBURY AVEUNBRIDLED AVE
H A NKSDRQUARTERDALECTSEAMERI
CANPHARAOHDRCHARISMATIC LNHERBERT HOOVER HWYHERBERTHOOVERHWYSE
RM12
ID-RS
RS8
RS5
CO1MU
RM20
CC2
CREZ20-00024665 Herbert Hoover Highwayµ
0 0.07 0.140.035 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: June 2020
An application submitted by Bryan Jensen for aConditional Use Permit for a dog kennel on property located at Lot 2 and Outlot A of 4665Herbert Hoover Highway.
City Limits
M ID D L E B U RY RD
A L L E Y
ROCHESTER A
V
E
ALLEY
BARBARO AVE
G L A S T O N B U R Y S T AFFIRMED STGRINDSTONE DR
WESTBURYDRWESTBURY DR SILVERCHARMLN
EASTBURY DRHANKS DR SETHORNBURY AVEUNBRIDLED AVE
H A N KSDRQUARTERDALECTSEAMERI
CANPHARAOHDRCHARISMATIC LNHERBERT HOOVER HWYHERBERTHOOVERHWYSE
Johnson County PD & S
CREZ20-00024665 Herbert Hoover Highwayµ
0 0.07 0.140.035 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: June 2020
An application submitted by Bryan Jensen for aConditional Use Permit for a dog kennel on property located at Lot 2 and Outlot A of 4665Herbert Hoover Highway.
City Limits
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 6 , 2020 – 7:00 PM
ELECTRONIC FORMAL MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Mark Signs, Billie
Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Carolyn Dyer
STAFF PRESENT: Ray Heitner, Sara Hekteon, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Jon Marner, Jon Harding
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 5-0 the Commissions recommends approval of CPA20-0001, a proposed
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the future land use designation from
Public/Private Open Space to General Commercial for Parcel #1112476001, located north of
Camp Cardinal Boulevard and west of Camp Cardinal Road.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CASE NO. CPA20-0001:
Applicant: MMS Consultants
Location: Parcel #1112476001 (north of Camp Cardinal Blvd, west of Camp Cardinal Rd)
A public hearing on an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan future land use map
designation from Public/Private Open Space to General Commercial for approximately 3.11
acres.
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting was held because a meeting in person is impossible or impractical
due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission members, staff and the public
presented by COVID-19.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 6, 2020
Page 2 of 13
Lehmann stated MMS Consultants submitted it on behalf of Jon Harding to amend the
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use from Public/Private Open Space to General Commercial
for approximately 3.11 acres. He showed an aerial map noting the parcel in question is located
north of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and west of Camp Cardinal Road. Across the street are
Cardinal Pointe Condominiums as well as St. Andrew’s Church. He next showed the zoning
map, it's currently zoned Neighborhood Public Zone (P1), around it is interim zones to the north,
and then to the east there is low density multifamily (RM-12) and low-density single family
residential with the Plan Development Overlay (RS-5 OPD). To the south it's pretty much the
highway. On the other side of the highway is some county-owned property. Lehmann showed
photos of the property showing there is a clearing for most of it, there's a stream that goes down
the hill and some other sensitive features.
Regarding background on this application, Jon Harding owns the land and he hired MMS
Consultants, to prepare three applications to allow the development of a community event center
that will be 7,000 square feet. This application proposes to amend the Comprehensive Future
Land Use Plan by changing it to General Commercial from Public/Private Open Space. The
property is in the Northwest Planning District, but it doesn't have an adopted plan. The other
concurrently submitted applications include a right-of-way vacation (VAC20-0001), which would
allow the owner to acquire additional land on Camp Cardinal Road, and a rezoning (REZ20-
0001), which would change its zone from Neighborhood Public (P-1) to Community Commercial
(CC-2) with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD) to protect on-site sensitive features.
Generally, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment must be approved for the rezoning to comply
with the Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant did send Good Neighbor letters on June 30, informing neighbors that they'll accept
comments and questions directly, they opted not to hold an in-person meeting due to COVID-19.
Lehmann next showed the site plan noting again they're changing the designation for the whole
space. In this case, the role of the Commission is to determine whether the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment includes evidence that the following approval criteria are met. First, that
circumstances changed and or additional information or factors have come to light such that the
proposed amendment is in the public interest and second, that the proposed amendment will be
compatible with other policies or provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, including any district
plans or other amendments that are part of that. So regarding that first criteria that circumstances
have changed, initially, Johnson County got the Poor Farm in 1875 as part of a larger farm tract.
This portion of the Poor Farm was severed by Highway 218 and the Camp Cardinal Blvd right-of-
way in the 1980s. In 2014, Johnson County sold the property to Jon Harding, which was just
after Iowa City had adopted its 2013 Comprehensive Plan. At the time the Comprehensive Plan
was adopted the land was in public ownership and contained sensitive features so that led to its
designation as Public/Private Open Space. Lehmann noted those sensitive features include
steep slopes, wetlands and a stream corridor. Previous plans, going back to at least the 60s
show the areas as Public Use and at the time, there was no City infrastructure. It was generally
used for agriculture. The surrounding area began experiencing development following Camp
Cardinal Boulevard construction in 2007 and there's a number of different housing types and
compatible other types that aren't residential in the area. Cardinal Pointe South is a quarter mile
north and has a mix of single-family townhouse and duplex units. Kennedy Parkways is a half
mile north and has a medical office and elementary school. Directly east across Camp Cardinal
Road is Cardinal Villas Condominiums and St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, and then
additional development is just expected in the area in the near future. Therefore, because of the
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 6, 2020
Page 3 of 13
change in ownership and development of the neighborhood, staff believes that this constitutes a
change of circumstances. Additionally, the neighborhood's recent development changes the
context that that property exists, and on-site sensitive features will still need to be
accommodated through the City Sensitive Areas Ordinance, regardless of its future land use
designation. Lehmann noted for this staff is only looking at the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and just looking at those related proposals for what the space might be. General Commercial
allows uses that are compatible with nearby development and that could include an event center.
Regarding the second criteria, which is compatibility with other policies or provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan, Lehmann reiterated the Northwest District doesn't have an adopted plan
so they rely on the Comprehensive Plan’s descriptions and their relevant policies about land use,
and relevant policies about natural resources. For the land use policies buffers are encouraged
between residential development and major highways like US 218. Alternatives of single-family
development may be appropriate for properties at major intersections, and the Plan supports
appropriate transitions between high and low density development and commercial residential
land uses. In this case, the property is on the corner of Camp Cardinal Boulevard, an arterial
road, and Camp Cardinal Road, a collector street. Generally, commercial uses are less sensitive
to highway noise and will buffer the residential areas from Highway 218, and they can also
benefit from the visibility that comes with high traffic volumes along busier corridors. Higher
intensity commercial use also maintains that appropriate transition. There's also multifamily and
institutional uses directly east and then further away there are some lower density residential
uses to the north and the east. Looking past Highway 218 to the southwest, it doesn't really
seem appropriate given the size of that right-of-way. In addition, the area has seen increasing
density from Comprehensive Plan Amendments recently. In 2016, CPA 16-01 was adopted and
changed the Future Land Use map designation for the property north of Melrose Avenue and
east of Camp Cardinal Boulevard from Residential 2-8 Dwelling Units per Acre to Office
Commercial. Then CPA 16-03, adopted in 2017, changed the future land use map designation
for the property at the northeast corner of Camp Cardinal Road and Camp Cardinal Boulevard
from Residential 2-8 Dwelling Units per Acre to Residential 8-16 Dwelling Units per Acre.
Lehmann noted the policies that would be relevant in this case are the sensitive areas, so some
policies regarding natural resources that they considered were discouraging sprawl by promoting
infill development, then continuing to identify and preserve environmentally sensitive areas by
enforcing Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Lehmann stated this is not really an infill site, it's a
greenfield site, but it is contiguous and it's an area that's under development and it would make
sense and discourage sprawl. Also changing the Future Land Use from Public/Private Open
Space to General Commercial will still require the property follow the Sensitive Areas Ordinance
and for that reason the rezoning application concurrently submitted includes a Planned
Development Overlay (OPD) to preserve these features. Overall staff believes that that change
in the Future Land Use from Public/Private Open Space to General Commercial is compatible
the policies in the Comprehensive Plan, especially those as they relate to land use and natural
resources which are most directly affected by this proposal.
Staff recommends approval of CPA20-0001, a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
to change the future land use designation from Public/Private Open Space to General Commercial
for Parcel #1112476001, located north of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and west of Camp Cardinal
Road.
In terms of next steps, upon recommendation from the Commission of approval or denial of the
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 6, 2020
Page 4 of 13
Comprehensive Plan Amendment will be considered for approval by City Council.
Hensch asked if the other applications for the right-of-way vacation and the rezoning would
subsequent to the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. Lehmann stated they were all going
to come at the same time but there were some delays in working through the sensitive areas.
Therefore the applicant decided to go ahead with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment because
that has to happen first regardless. The other applications will now come once this is considered.
Hensch noted further speaking on the sensitive areas he looked at the PIV of this property and it
looks like with the slopes it's going to be pretty tough with the concept plan they have, however
that is not relevant to this, but are there any issues right now with the sensitive areas ordinance
for this parcel.
Heitner responded like Lehmann stated, they are still reviewing the Sensitive Areas Ordinance
pursuant to the OPD that's accompanying this application and they’re working with the applicant
on the wetland mitigation side of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and there's a couple steps that
they need some closure on with that piece. Additionally there's a few other aspects of the
preliminary OPD plan they need another review with the applicant on but as far as slopes go,
they think that the site can be accommodated.
Hensch had another question regarding the current zoning of Public One or P1, he presumes
this is simply because of the historical use of the property, not because of any planning that was
done, it's just a remnant piece from the farm. Lehmann confirmed that was correct. Hensch
stated lastly, on the Northwest District Plan, he understands there's not a plan for that but is it in
the queue somewhere to eventually start working on the Northwest District Plan because there's
a lot of development going on in this area. Russett answered it is really not in the queue but
they’re at a point now where they think they need to review the entire Comprehensive Plan and
look at the entire City. So that will likely be the focus of any future plan updates.
Signs had questions about the topography of the site because it is pretty severe in parts of it and
he is also pretty sure there's been some fill in there. He noted they ran into this situation a year
ago or so ago on a project on South Gilbert Street where there had been fill and land changes
happening before anything even started coming before the Commission. He noted if there is
anything in the overall process that can address people preparing land for future use without
really following the rules, effectively.
Martin asked if a traffic study had been done in the area or when it comes time for something to
be built, will here be a traffic study done to know how cars would flow. Russett confirmed that
the rezoning point is normally when the traffic study would be done, however they have been
coordinating with the transportation planner on this rezoning and based on the development in
this area, it wasn't felt that a traffic study was warranted for the project. In terms of what's going
to be built, a lot more detail will be provided in the Planned Development Overlay Rezoning.
There will be a site plan and elevations that can be looked at as part of the rezoning process.
Craig asked what other kinds of things are allowed in General Commercial, because what
happens if in five years this purposed use is no longer a financially viable operation. Lehmann
stated it could be most types of commercial uses, it could include offices, but it could not be
intensive commercial, which is typically things that have lots of outdoor storage or things outside.
Craig asked if it could be a gas station. Lehmann responded it could but there may not be
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 6, 2020
Page 5 of 13
enough room there for that kind of thing. But it could be a retail store, it could be gas station,
General Commercial is a pretty broad category.
Russett added this will come up during the rezoning but since it's an OPD rezoning as part of
that, an OPD plan is approved that basically approves a site plan for the site. So even though
theoretically it could be all sorts of uses, it's going to be approved through the rezoning process
and if anyone wanted to do something different, they would have to come through the rezoning
process again for a different type of use.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Jon Marner (MMS Consultants) is speaking on behalf of the applicant, Jon Harding. He wanted
to talk briefly and then he’ll let the applicant speak if he has any additional comments. Marner
stated staff has done a good job of explaining all of the circumstances with the site and the
emphasis is to, for now, given the other issues they're working through with these sensitive
areas, the issue before them now is just to go ahead and get the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment change for the General Commercial use. Because there's a lot of residential over to
the east and there's also the church site over to the east, he thinks it's a compatible use with the
surrounding areas. Regarding the right-of-way, staff concerns was that street need to be planned
as a collector street, so one of the comments that came back from staff that they will address
with the right-of-way vacation is to widen it and sure there's adequate width for a 33 foot wide
away-of-way instead of the 30 foot on they had originally proposed. It's again a natural location
given that it's near the collector, it's proposed higher density or possible densities up to the north
and the recent development with the multifamily. Marner next wanted to touch real briefly on a
couple of the questions that came up regarding the timing of the application. They’re waiting on
some approval permits from the Core and working through some of the things with the wetland
delineations and the wetland buffer, but they wanted to go ahead and move forward with the
Comprehensive Plan. He noted it is a complex and challenging site and those are definitely
some of the things that as they get into the rezoning application, those are things they've been
working through. The plan that they have right now will avoid the protected slopes and it's done a
pretty good job of avoiding most of the slopes where possible. They’ve got retaining walls,
they've minimized the parking down to the south to try to limit the impacts. Regarding the fill at
the site in the past, it has primarily been in the northeast corner of the site and did not directly
impacted any of the protected slopes or sensitive slopes on the site. It is adjacent to some of the
some of the other sensitive areas, but they’re working through those issues with staff to try and
come to resolution on those.
Jon Harding (applicant) noted that regarding the fill at the site, his initial plan with that property
was to build his primary residence four or five years ago, and they were allowed to bring in one
acre of fill into that site for a residential structure there. Then over the last year or two, they
changed their minds because the area started becoming surrounded by apartment buildings and
commercial property and they didn't feel was a good fit at that time to have their primary
residence on that site. They have not brought any fill in for probably four or five years once they
reach that one acre maximum. Also regarding a possible gas station, that site is not very
conducive for a gas station because there's no access to Camp Cardinal Boulevard. So yes, it is
certainly a challenging site, but they think with their proposed venue there will embrace the
surrounding woods that are there and they’re trying to salvage as much as they can and make
that a part of the commercial buildings.
Harding also wanted to mention that as part of this project he did reach out to the church and
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 6, 2020
Page 6 of 13
wanted to make sure it was a good fit with them and making sure they weren't a competitor if
they decided to hold receptions or banquets there. The church was actually very excited about it
and wanted to work with them on the project so it's definitely a good fit with the church across the
street.
Hensch asked if they received any input in relation to your good neighbor letter that they sent
out? Harding stated not to his knowledge and Marner confirmed they never received any
correspondence back from the good neighbor letter.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend approval of CPA20-0001, a proposed amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan to change the future land use designation from Public/Private Open
Space to General Commercial for Parcel #1112476001, located north of Camp Cardinal
Boulevard and west of Camp Cardinal Road.
Martin seconded the motion.
Hensch noted he believes the current P1 designation is just a historical artifact, so he is not
concerned about the amending the Comprehensive Plan for commercial because he thinks that
actually makes sense for this site. He agrees it is a difficult site and a Planned Development
Overlay is really the best thing they could come up with to deal with the Sensitive Area
Ordinance on this site. He would support this amendment.
Signs agrees, there is commercial property to the north on Camp Cardinal Boulevard there's a
medical clinic and some commercial space on the Coralville side of the line. It seems like this is a
good buffer, and a good usage for buffering any future residential development to the north and
east of there. Signs noted he intends to support it.
Townsend noted she drove through the area and was surprised to see so much development up
the hill from there. Her concern was in the summertime, how many of the residents use that
winding road that goes up the hill to come down to Camp Cardinal for access to either Coralville
or Iowa City. So when they do look at the traffic flow, she would want to know is it different in the
summer than in the wintertime. In the wintertime it likely wouldn’t be a problem because people
wouldn't use that road but in the summertime it might be a concern as many residents might use
that road for access.
Hensch noted they will hear about a traffic study and other such issues at the rezoning.
Craig stated she is supportive of the change and how the use has changed over the years and
seeing how the area's developing she think this use fits in. She does think that the sensitive
areas may be an enhancement to what they are choosing to do, because the outdoors may be
an attractive feature. She asked the question about the gas station because that seems like
something that would not enhance the sensitive areas.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
DISCUSSION ON THE GOOD NEIGHBOR PROGRAM
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 6, 2020
Page 7 of 13
Russett noted at the June 4 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission it was brought up
that the Commission would like to have another discussion of the good neighbor program. She
began with a few slides to provide a little background and context and then she will turn it over to
the Commission for discussion.
Regarding background on the good neighbor program, this is a voluntary approach for proactive
dialogue between the developer and the neighborhood prior to coming to the Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting. These are encouraged for most discretionary applications,
Comprehensive Plan Amendments, rezonings and subdivisions. It's an opportunity for the
developer to share their project and for neighbors to ask questions, provide input and express
concerns. These are generally coordinated by the applicant, the applicant will hold the good
neighbor meeting, they will facilitate it, they will notify neighborhood residents, but coordination is
recommended with the City staff prior to the good neighbor meeting. Property owners within 300
feet are notified of the good neighbor meeting, sometimes staff recommends that that area be
expanded based on the project. When City staff is notified and involved in the planning of these
good neighbor meetings, the neighborhood association representative is notified if the project is
happening in an area that has an association. The program was established in 1998. The City
revisited the program in 2013 and at that time staff and City Council both agreed to keep the
good neighbor meetings voluntary. In 2019 there was a more comprehensive review of the land
development process and good neighbor meetings were a component of that and at that time
staff recommended keeping the program voluntary because projects do vary. Some meetings
happen at the rezoning stage but not at platting and here are other notification requirements.
Based on review of the minutes from the discussion that the Commission had in April of 2019, it
was generally expressed by most Commission members there was an interest in making good
neighbor meetings mandatory for rezonings. In July of 2019, the Planning and Zoning
Commission had a work session with City Council on this item. Again, it was a larger discussion
of the land development process and the good neighbor program was a small aspect of that
discussion. The City Council continued that discussion in August of last year and then in June,
the Commission requested opportunity to discuss this program.
In addition to the good neighbor meetings, there was also an interest in learning more about the
deadlines the City has for various applications. For Planning and Zoning Commission items, they
have a 45 day review period from when they receive a complete application for rezonings or for
preliminary plats to get it to the Commission and the Commission must make a recommendation
within that 45 days otherwise it's assumed that the Commission is recommending approval of
that rezoning or preliminary plat. For final plats, which the Commission doesn’t review, City
Council has 60 days to act on a complete application. Additional notifications are staff post signs
at the property for vacations, rezonings, and plats. Letters are mailed to property owners within
300 feet of the project boundary. For Comprehensive Plan Amendments like they had tonight,
they set a public hearing, so it was mentioned at the previous Commission meeting and then
discussed tonight at the public hearing.
Russett next showed a example of what 300 feet might look like in an urban neighborhood. She
showed a rezoning they had last year at 2130 Muscatine Avenue and the 300-foot radius so they
could see the properties that were sent letters. She next showed a table of some recent cases
where the application held a good neighbor meeting. The first one is the Tamarack Ridge
rezoning where there was a very contentious rezoning a good neighbor meeting held at the
rezoning stage. At the subdivision stage, a good neighbor meeting was not held because it was
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 6, 2020
Page 8 of 13
held at the rezoning. For the 305 and 315 East Prentiss Street rezoning they did have a good
neighbor meeting. For the rezoning at 310 South Gilbert and 348 Highland Avenue they held a
good neighbor meeting. There was a preliminary plat application for property near Big Grove on
South Gilbert Street and there was not a good neighbor meeting for that application but there
was one at the rezoning stage, which was held a four years prior to the plat. For the most recent
application that triggered the interest in revisiting this topic was the Westside Estates preliminary
plat where they did not hold a good neighbor meeting for the plat but they did hold one two years
prior when the previous preliminary plat came before the Commission.
Russett also mentioned that they received five letters from members of the public regarding this
item, and those have been passed on to the Commission. In general, there was support for the
good neighbor program and there was an interest in making it mandatory, and there was an
interest in increasing the notification boundary.
Before turning the discussion over to the Commission, Russett just wanted to note some goals
that staff generally has with these is that they want to have a consistent message. They don't
want any requirements to be too burdensome. She doesn’t know if that's the case with the
neighbor meetings but they just want to think creatively about ways to keep residents informed.
Hensch thanked Russett for the information. He noted it is his sixth year on the Commission and
sort of the reoccurring theme that he hears is people saying they weren't notified, or they're just
outside the notification zone. It concerns him because he believes that gathering the community
input up front can resolve some of the problems later on. It allows the neighbors the opportunity
to feel like they're being heard and the developers aren’t obligated to do anything, it's simply a
listening session at most. He acknowledged he is very concerned about anything that's
burdensome to the staff, with the current program staff is present, but he’s not sure that's
necessary because the whole point is for this to be a listening session for the developer to
explain what they're doing and have the neighbors feel like they're being heard. He is interested
in simply increasing that circumference of that notification circle, it just seems like 300 feet
seems a little small to him, he won't make it too large, but 500 feet seems pretty reasonable.
The only other thing he’d say is that the meeting should be mandatory. He thinks there certainly
has to be one meeting per project, so they shouldn't have to repeat for the subdivision or the
preliminary plat or the final plat or vacation, just one meeting on the whole project would be
sufficient. He does have a concern about being burdensome for everybody but the overall
objective is so neighbors can be heard, and maybe potentially resolve some issues up front.
Martin stated she completely agreed with the things that Hensch is saying but also want to bring
up rentals. She understands that a tenant does not have the rights as a homeowner but there are
residents that have been renters for 10-15 years that don't get notifications, their landlords get
notifications, but don't tell their tenant what's going on. Granted that should be the responsibility
of the landlord, but could that letter also go to the resident of the rental address.
Craig agrees with what both Hensch and Martin have said and 300 feet is not very large and
looking at that map that was shown earlier, if that was 500 feet instead of 300 feet, they would
get across the street on those northern edges and include more people. Maybe 500 isn't the
right amount but she doesn’t think she would support more than that. She also agrees with
Martin that the renters should get some kind of notification, even if it's not the same as what the
owner gets, but a letter that's addressed to resident at a certain address doesn’t contain much
more than what's on the sign that gets put up before the public meeting.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 6, 2020
Page 9 of 13
Townsend noted her concerns are sometimes there are things the Commissioners just don’t
think of. They can think it's a small project, but the people that are affected by it, there may be
extenuating circumstances that they don't know, until they start the conversation. Like with the
project on Gilbert, the big apartment buildings where there were concerns with all that traffic and
is there going to be enough parking for all of those residents. There wasn't a concern until the
people that own the store on the corner were complaining about people going through their
driveway to get where they were going. So those are things that the Commission or the applicant
won’t don't know about unless people tell them. The other concern she has is if the plans for a
project start today, but they don't actually start building until four years down the road, the people
that were at the neighborhood meeting when it started may be totally different from those that are
there now. Perhaps the meetings need to have some sort of expiration dates on them.
Hensch noted the plans do have expiration dates on them, if they don't proceed in a certain
timeframe then they have to reapply. Russett confirmed preliminary plats expire after 24 months
unless they are extended by Council.
Townsend stated another concern which is the signage and maybe there's more that can be on
those signs that are placed by the project saying that there's maybe an email address or a web
website where they can go and get more information for those if there's not a good neighbor
meeting. If there is a good neighbor meeting, then maybe that information is available on the
signage too.
Signs followed up on that and stated one of the things they’ve heard before on the sign
placement issue is that sometimes they're not in great places to see especially if there are places
where construction started or dirt has been moved or whatever. The other thing they have heard
in the past is trying to find these things on the website, even if they do see the sign. Staff has
changed over to a new online system recently but doesn’t know if it makes it easier for the public
to find out that information.
Signs feels a big issue is voluntary versus mandatory, and he thinks it needs to be mandatory.
The struggle is at what phase. For example, a Comprehensive Plan change doesn't require a
sign to be put out and he thought that was really odd since it’s kind of a big change. He agrees
that if the project is moving along at a decent pace, one meeting should be enough but if there is
a Comprehensive Plan change and then four years later they come forward with the rezoning
plan, the good neighbor meeting four years ago may not be sufficient. He does think they should
be mandatory and agrees the radius should be increased to 500 feet. The resident versus the
owner, that was one of the things he did see in at least one of the letters, the concern about just
owners getting a letter when it's very legitimate in some areas of town, it is predominantly rental
properties in any given 500 foot radius and in many cases there are long term renters who have
a good stake in the community. He can't imagine it would be too difficult to include owners and
residents or tenants in the notification.
Signs noted the other thing that came up throughout the letters and was the letters came through
the neighborhood association, leadership. He doesn’t see any reason why they couldn't notify a
neighborhood association that a property is involved in. And then basically if the neighborhood
association sees a bigger issue, they're going to put the word out to make sure that anybody who
wants to be involved does. So he would be supportive of adding if there is a neighborhood
association and a contact for that association, adding that person to the to the mailing list .
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 6, 2020
Page 10 of 13
Hensch stated to the point about the renters, because that's a very difficult topic to find a way to
effectively communicate with the renters, maybe the way is by notification of the neighborhood
associations and let each neighborhood association figure out how about how they want to do it.
Maybe they want to post a flyer in a building.
Martins noted in the case of Muscatine Avenue, one of her rentals fell just outside of that and
she’s had the same tenant for eight years and she called her and asked about the sign and if it
was something she could call the City about. She told her she could, but that's because she
knew that she could tell her to do that, not all landlords or folks will know that. Also there are not
always neighborhood associations in every neighborhood, so notification should go to every
residence. There can still be notification to a neighborhood association, absolutely, more
communication is better and she doesn’t think that over communicating is burdensome for
anybody.
Townsend noted she has been in Iowa City now a little over 30 years and prior to that, she didn’t
think there had been much change in Iowa City. Since she’s been here it's drastically changed,
and you don't know what's going to go up next. From the huge buildings downtown to the malls,
all these things are so different from when she came 30 years ago. So she would like to know as
a resident, is there something big going to happen next door to her, it may have not been a
concern 30 years ago because nothing drastic was going to happen, but that has changed.
Signs acknowledged there's probably some truth to that in the sense that as the land has
become way more valuable and way more scarce people are looking to existing land in existing
areas under existing uses to make change to.
Townsend stated it's a whole different era now and things are being built and the companies that
are coming in are ones that they never would have expected to be here.
Craig added a comment on the mandatory part, she has a sense from what she’s read from the
staff is they would not like to see it be mandatory because they think there are some instances
regularly where the project is so minor, that it's not necessary. Before she could support that, she
would want to hear from staff about what the burden on them is to make it mandatory for every
single thing and how many have not been held that in hindsight should have been held. She is
not 100% supportive of the mandatory requirement until she hears from staff.
Hensch recommends they don't be particularly prescriptive just give some general ideas and let
staff figure out maybe some exceptions because there's some things that probably don't need to
be made mandatory because they're so small He wants to give staff the ability to make those
decisions. In general they’ve agreed the 300 foot range is too small and are recommending 500.
They’re almost in agreement the meetings should be required but agrees perhaps to leave part
of it up to staff discretion for things that they regard just minor changes that really no one would
be interested in. Finally they’ve all agreed that somehow the renters need to be notified in at
least maybe just a resident to that address letter and including possibly the neighborhood
association leader for the area if there is one.
Russett stated as a team they have not discussed this issue since last April, when it was their
official recommendation not to make them mandatory as they didn't want to get into a position of
having a meeting for every comp plan and the rezoning and subdivision, one meeting per project
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 6, 2020
Page 11 of 13
makes more sense. She noted the time at which these are very controversial is typically the
rezoning, subdivisions are very technical reviews of the zoning code and subdivision code based
on the zone that is already applied to that land. So if someone comes with concerns at the
subdivision phase, it's not as much a policy discussion as more technical discussion on that the
plat meets the requirements of the code. So for projects like that, it makes more sense to have
that discussion upfront at the plan amendment stage and at the rezoning stage. She doesn’t
think it would end up being burdensome for staff, a lot of this falls on the applicants. They do
coordinate with them, but for the most part staff wouldn’t be doing anything different from what
they are already doing.
Townsend asked how often is there a good neighbor meetings and no one attends. Hensch
responded in his six years here it's not infrequent for it to be very sparse attendance, maybe two,
three people showing up or zero, but that's okay because you're giving people the opportunity.
Townsend asked if there any way to have them pre-register for these so that if no one registers
they’re not wasting the staffs time and energy. Martin noted sometimes it's pretty short
turnaround so there may not be time to RSVP.
Signs agreed and noted another thing he forgot to mention was they hear quite often they didn't
get the notice until a day before or the day of the meeting. He added his faith in the US Postal
Service is diminishing daily in their ability to get stuff delivered on time. So he is wondering if they
do need to expand that window a little bit.
Hensch noted he doesn’t want to send this recommendation to Council until they make sure that
they're working as a team with City staff. Again, they’re in agreement about the 500-foot
recommendation, a mandatory meeting most of the time, there could be some exceptions that
staff could establish for those minimal changes, one meeting per project or if the project goes
over X number of years and they have to hold another one, and some method of notifying the
renters and the neighborhood association, if there is one.
The Commission and staff were in agreement that staff will come up with a recommendation to
discuss at a future meeting and take that recommendation to Council.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JULY 16, 2020:
Craig moved to approve the meeting minutes of July 16, 2020.
Signs seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0-1 (Townsend abstained).
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett gave a couple updates, one is the rezoning on Highway One West which was approved
at the last meeting of the City Council, it was where they amended the conditional zoning
agreement. Second is the Council deferred the appointment of the Planning and Zoning
Commissioner vacancy until the next meeting.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 6, 2020
Page 12 of 13
Signs asked if there were there no applicants. Hensch said it was an issue of gender balance
because currently they're out of compliance for the State law on gender balance. So they are
restricted to an appointment of a male unless they have advertised it for 90 days and no male
applies and they can appoint outside of balance. Hektoen noted they did have one applicant who
was a realtor, but they felt like the Commission was already efficient in that area.
ADJOURNMENT:
Townsend moved to adjourn.
Signs seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2020-2021
7/16 8/6
CRAIG, SUSAN X X
DYER, CAROLYN O/E O/E
HENSCH, MIKE X X
MARTIN, PHOEBE X X
SIGNS, MARK X X
TOWNSEND, BILLIE O/E X
Vacancy
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member