HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 10.07.2021
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, October 7, 2021
Formal Meeting – 7:00 PM
The Center – Assembly Room
28 S. Linn Street
(Entrance on E. Washington Street)
Agenda:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
Comprehensive Plan Items
4. Case No. CPA21-0003
A public hearing on a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan on an update
to the Fringe Area Policy Agreement between Johnson County and the City of Iowa
City.
5. Case No. CPA21-0002
Location: SW corner of Slothower Road and IWV Road
A request to set a public hearing for October 21, 2021 on a proposed amendment to
change the Comprehensive Plan future land use map to Intensive Commercial and
Public/Private Open Space and to change the Southwest District Plan text and future
land use map to Intensive Commercial and Vegetative Noise/Sight Buffer for
approximately 79 acres of property located south of IWV Road SW and west of
Slothower Road.
6. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: September 16, 2021
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: October 21 / November 4 / November 18
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
Date: October 7, 2021
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Update to the Fringe Area Policy Agreement between Johnson County and the City of
Iowa City (CPA21-0003)
Introduction
The City of Iowa City’s Fringe Area Agreement (Attachment A) with Johnson County has been in
place since October 13, 2006 and is used to establish the policy direction for City and County
review of land use development applications, such as rezonings, subdivisions, and annexations
within the City/County Fringe Area.
The Fringe Area Agreement enables both the City and the County to cooperate for their mutual
benefit through coordinated land use planning. Such policies are necessary to more effectively
and economically provide services for future growth and development, and to protect and
preserve the fringe area’s natural resources and its environmentally sensitive features.
The County regulates land use for land outside of city limits. However, State law allows cities to
establish a two-mile extraterritorial area, known as the Fringe Area, beyond city boundaries for
the purpose of reviewing and approving subdivisions. State law also grants cities the authority to
require that subdivisions within the Fringe Area adhere to the City’s subdivision regulations,
unless the City establishes alternative standards set forth in an agreement between the City and
the County.
Adopted in 2006, the existing agreement has not kept up with amendments to both City and
County comprehensive plans. Based on the land use policies in the recently adopted County
Comprehensive Plan, there are inconsistencies between the policy direction identified in the plan
and the Fringe Area Agreement. These inconsistencies have resulted in conflicts.
In December 2018, the Johnson County Board of Supervisors submitted a letter to the City
Council (Attachment B) requesting that the City Council direct staff to review the current Fringe
Area Agreement and coordinate with County staff on the development of a new Fringe Area
Agreement. Staff has since been coordinating with County Planning staff and working towards an
updated Fringe Area Agreement.
This memo includes the following sections:
1. Existing Fringe Area Agreement: An overview of the layout of the existing Agreement’s
development and administrative policies is provided. Table 1 provides a comparison of
how policies are currently implemented inside and outside of the City’s Growth Area.
2. Proposed Fringe Area Agreement: The proposed Agreement will reduce current land
use policy conflicts between the existing Agreement and the County’s Comprehensive
Plan Future Land Use Map, adopted in 2018. The Agreement accomplishes this goal by
replacing older, more specific land use policy direction within the Fringe Area with direction
from the City and County Comprehensive Plans.
3. Summary Comparison: This memo also includes a summary of major changes between
the existing and proposed Agreements.
4. Analysis & Justification: This section includes a summary of a build-out analysis and a
justification for expansion of the City’s Growth Area. The build-out analysis revealed that
there is sufficient capacity within the City limits and Growth Area, at a higher density build
September 30, 2021
Page 2
out, to accommodate projected population and employment gains through the year 2045.
However, in addition to this finding, rationale for the inclusion of five new areas into the
City’s Growth Area is also provided.
5. Comprehensive Plan Consistency Analysis: The memo concludes with an overview of
how an updated Fringe Area Agreement meets the approval criteria for a Comprehensive
Plan amendment.
Existing Fringe Area Agreement
The majority of the existing Fringe Area Agreement consists of two major sections. One section
details development policy within the Fringe Area, while the other section details administrative
policies.
A few general development standards are highlighted in the beginning of the Development
Policies section of the Agreement. These standards discourage any development within the
Fringe Area that conflicts with wetlands, floodplain, and non-erodible soil. The standards further
elaborate on the need to meet or exceed the County’s water and wastewater system minimum
standards. Finally, the standards encourage cluster development which may preserve
environmentally sensitive land and farmland. The remaining portion of the Development Policies
section provides geographically specific policy direction for three different areas, and whether
those areas are located inside or outside of the City’s Growth Area.
Fringe Areas A, B, and C in the existing Agreement are further divided into two categories – land
within Iowa City’s Growth Area and land outside the City’s Growth Area. The City’s Growth Area
defines the City’s potential corporate limits and was established with the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan in 2013. It includes land that for the purposes of long-range planning, is
projected to be annexed and serve the City’s growth need for 30-40 years. Per the existing
Agreement, the Fringe Area is fixed, and does not adjust as land is annexed and the City grows.
Table 1 outlines how development projects are reviewed per the Fringe Area Agreement.
Proposed Fringe Area Agreement
The proposed Fringe Area Agreement (Attachment C) provides more process-oriented direction
as to which entity (City or County) will be reviewing each type of development review application,
depending on whether subject properties lie within or outside of the Growth Area. The proposed
Agreement also gives the City additional review authority within its Growth Area, while allowing
the County more control for development applications occurring outside of the City’s Growth Area.
This proposed dynamic is described in more detail below.
General Procedures
The proposed Agreement contains the following five general policies which will be implemented
throughout the Fringe Area:
• Applicants must simultaneously file development applications with the County and the
City.
• Pursuant to the requirements of the Fringe Area Agreement, the County shall not hold a
public hearing on any matter subject to City review, comment, recommendation.
• Official review, comment, recommendation, or approval by the City shall be in writing.
• The City must provide in writing any reasons for an application denial.
• The County may proceed with a public hearing on an application, should the City not meet
the stated timelines for comment, review, or approval.
Policies within the Growth Area
With exceptions for specific subareas, the City’s Comprehensive Plan and District Plans will serve
as the basis for the City’s recommendations to the County for Future Land Use Map Amendments
September 30, 2021
Page 3
and Rezonings within the Growth Area. As the City looks to update its District Plans in the coming
years, it is expected that the Comprehensive Plan and District Plans will incorporate more policy
direction toward future land use guidance in the Growth Area. Staff is recommending that the
City’s Growth Area be expanded as part of this Agreement. The proposed expansion areas are
discussed in the Analysis & Justification portion of this memo.
Subarea Policy Direction within the Growth Area
The Agreement includes five subareas (maps of these areas are included in Attachment C) each
having its own land use policy direction. These are areas where City and County planners
determined more guidance was needed. The proposed policy direction for each subarea is as
follows:
1. Subarea #1: Located south of Highway 1 and along the future route 965 corridor, the
County’s Comprehensive Plan has identified this area as appropriate for residential,
commercial, and industrial. Due to City staff’s concerns with commercial and industrial
development occurring outside of the City’s corporate limits, staff is proposing to expand
the City’s Growth Area to include this area. The proposed agreement states that Subarea
#1 shall develop in accordance with the Future Land Use Map of the County’s
Comprehensive Plan as opposed to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Although
development can follow the County’s Comprehensive Plan in this area, any subdivisions
will be required to comply with the City’s Urban Design Standards.
2. Subarea #2: Located south of Highway 218 and Riverside Drive, Subarea #2 may attract
commercial uses due to its highway adjacency and positioning as a southern gateway to
the Iowa City area. Similar to Subarea #1, City staff has proposed to expand the City’s
Growth Area to include Subarea #2. This will ensure that all subdivisions within this area
comply with the City’s Urban Design Standards even though development may align with
the Future Land Use Map of the County’s Comprehensive Plan, which identifies a
Commercial growth area.
3. Subarea #3: Subarea #3 is located north of Highway 6 and near Taft Avenue. Once land
within the City’s Industrial Park is fully occupied, the land use policy vision for this area is
additional commercial and industrial development following annexation into the City. Land
in Subarea #3 shall remain as open space or agricultural land use until annexed by the
City.
4. Subarea #4: Subarea #4 is located to the west of the Herbert Hoover Highway and I-80
interchange. This interchange acts as an eastern gateway to the Iowa City area and
contains prime interstate access. A portion of Subarea #4 is appropriate for certain
commercial development and a portion should remain agricultural in nature. The map of
this subarea included in the Agreement identifies land that shall develop in alignment with
the County’s Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan, which identifies this area
as appropriate for Commercial and Highway Commercial land uses. For the remainder of
land within this area, rezonings to other zones besides Agriculture are not allowed.
5. Subarea #5: Subarea #5 is located to the north of I-80, and east of Highway 1. Subarea
#5 is intended to provide a buffer between non-residential uses to the south and County
Residential uses to the north. Land in Subarea #5 shall remain as open space or
agricultural land use until annexed by the City.
Urban Design Standards within the Growth Area
Any subdivision development within the City’s Growth Area will be required to conform to the
City’s Urban Design Standards (i.e. City’s subdivision regulations). The standards ensure that
development can be adapted to City infrastructure upon annexation. The Standards detail
requirements pertaining to aspects of development such as drainage, utility connections, fire
September 30, 2021
Page 4
safety, erosion control, landscape preservation, and vehicle and pedestrian circulation. The
submission of detailed construction drawings at the preliminary plat stage showing how package
sanitary sewer treatment systems and common wells can adapt to City infrastructure upon
annexation is required. The Agreement also notes that the subdivision will be reviewed against
the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Table 1 below outlines the proposed review processes for development applications within the
Growth Area.
Table 1. Processes within the City’s Growth Area
Future Land
Use Map
Amendments
Rezonings Preliminary
Plats
Final Plats Site Plans
City
Processes
Recommendation
to County based
on FAA & City
Comprehensive
Plan.
Recommendation
to County based
on FAA &
Comprehensive
Plan.
Review &
approve based
on City Urban
Design
Standards and
Comprehensive
Plan.
No review or
approval. Will
coordinate
any
dedication of
necessary
easements
or
infrastructure
with County.
Administrative
review and
comment to
County of
projects more
than 2 acres in
compliance
with certain
criteria from
18-3-2 of City
Code.
County
Processes
Final action based
on City
recommendation
and County
Comprehensive
Plan.
Final action
based on City
recommendation,
FAA, & County
Comprehensive
Plan.
Final action
based on City
approval, City
Urban Design
Standards, &
County
Comprehensive
Plan.
Solely
reviewed &
approved by
County. Will
forward
applications
to City for
notification
purposes.
Final action
based on City
comment and
County Code.
Policies Outside of the Growth Area
Table 2 below outlines the proposed review processes for development applications outside of
the Growth Area.
Table 2. Processes Outside of the City’s Growth Area
Future Land
Use Map
Amendments
Rezonings Preliminary
Plats < 3
Lots
Preliminary
Plats > 3
Lots
Finals Plats Site Plans
City
Processes
Submission of
a staff opinion
to County
based on FAA
& City
Comprehensive
Plan.
No review,
recommendation,
or approval.
No review
or approval.
Staff review
and
comment to
County,
based on
City’s Rural
Design
Standards.
No review or
approval.
Will
coordinate
any
dedication of
necessary
easements
or
infrastructure
with County.
No review,
recommendation,
or approval.
County
Processes
Final action
based on City
Solely reviewed
& approved by
Solely
reviewed &
Final action
based on
Solely
reviewed &
Solely reviewed
& approved by
September 30, 2021
Page 5
staff opinion,
FAA & County
Comprehensive
Plan.
County. Will
forward
applications to
City for
notification
purposes.
County
Comprehensive
Plan to be used
for guidance.
approved
by County.
City
comment &
County
Code.
approved by
County. Will
forward
applications
to City for
notification
purposes.
County, based
on County Code.
Outside of the Growth Area rezonings, subdivisions, and site plans all entail either administrative
or no review at all by the City. Future Land Use Map amendments will require a City staff
recommendation to the County. Preliminary plats for subdivisions with more than three lots will
require staff review and comment to the County’s Planning and Zoning Commission, based on
the City’s Rural Design Standards. All other applications require no review by the City.
While the City has an active interest in staying informed of development that is taking place within
the Fringe Area, development applications happening outside of the Growth Area are less likely
to have a near-term impact on the City’s urban form and functionality since these lands are
unlikely to be annexed into the City for several decades, if ever. This is especially true as the City
looks to implement development strategies that prioritize growth via infill development and a focus
toward development within the City’s Growth Area. Given this context, City staff feels comfortable
forgoing its current rights to review certain development applications that will occur outside of the
City’s Growth Area.
Agreement Review & Effective Period
The proposed Agreement will be reviewed every five years. At any time between five-year
reviews, either the Chair of the County Board of Supervisors or the Mayor of the City may initiate
review of the policies of the Agreement by contacting the other party to this Agreement. Either
party may terminate the Agreement by providing written notification to the other party,
accompanied by an approved resolution of the governing body directing such termination, sent
by registered mail. Annexation of property by the City will not automatically adjust the boundaries
established by this Agreement.
The Agreement will become effective upon acceptance and execution by all Parties and shall be
in effect for 10 years after the date of execution of this Agreement. The Agreement will be
automatically renewed for one five-year period unless the County or City objects to such renewal
prior to the renewal date. The Agreement may be modified or extended by the written mutual
consent of both Parties.
Summary Comparison of Major Changes between the Existing and Proposed Agreements
Attachment D summarizes the major changes between the existing and proposed Agreement.
The major changes are as follows:
• The existing Agreement includes general development standards pertaining to the
avoidance of sensitive areas and clustering development. This language was not carried
over into the proposed Agreement since development in the unincorporated area will need
to comply with the County’s sensitive areas ordinance.
• The existing Agreement outlines specific land use policy direction by assigning land use
policies to specific geographic areas within the Fringe Area (Fringe Areas “A”, “B”, and
“C”). The proposed Agreement states that the City’s Comprehensive Plan is the guiding
policy document for development within the Growth Area, with some specific exceptions,
and allows the County to review and approve most items outside of the Growth Area.
September 30, 2021
Page 6
• New to the proposed Agreement, the City Council will review and provide a
recommendation to the County for County Future Land Use Map Amendments proposed
within the City’s Growth Area.
• In the proposed Agreement, the City Council will only review and provide a
recommendation to the County on rezonings within the Growth Area, not outside the
Growth Area. Per the current agreement, the City currently reviews rezonings both inside
and outside the Growth Area.
• Unlike the current agreement which only requires review of subdivisions of 3 or more lots,
the proposed Agreement requires that the City review all subdivisions within the City’s
Growth Area. The City’s Urban Design Standards (i.e. City’s subdivision standards) will
still be applicable to future development within the Growth Area.
• The proposed agreement states that subdivisions consisting of less than three lots that
take place outside of the City’s Growth Area will only be reviewed by the County. The City
will provide a staff review of subdivisions greater than three lots that occur outside of the
Growth Area and forward comments to the County. The City’s Rural Design Standards will
still apply to subdivisions outside the Growth Area. The current agreement requires a full
review of subdivisions outside the Growth Area.
• The existing Agreement states that development not requiring subdivision, but that is
greater than two acres in size, shall be subject to the review procedures of the City and
County. The proposed Agreement adds more specificity to this section by stating that site
plans that are greater than two acres in size that are located within the City’s Growth Area
will be subject to an administrative review to certain items from the City’s Development
Standards. Site Plans occurring outside of the City’s Growth Area will be reviewed by the
County.
• The existing Agreement states that subdivisions and development projects in the Growth
Area which are approved prior to annexation shall be required to be cluster developments
with a minimum of 50% of the development designated for an outlot for open space,
agriculture, or future development upon annexation. The proposed Agreement removes
this language since the City’s Comprehensive Plan will guide development policy within
the Growth Area. A few of the City’s District Plans, such as the Southeast and South
District Plans, provide greater detail on how larger, undeveloped areas of land within the
Growth Area may develop. The direction from some of these Plans calls for location and
intensity of development that might otherwise be set aside for open space under the
existing Agreement.
• The existing Agreement allows for conflicts between the City and County over proposed
subdivisions, rezonings, or annexations to be reviewed by a committee, comprised of
members of the City Council, Board of Supervisors, and staff to negotiate a resolution
before final action is taken. This provision has not been carried forward in the proposed
Agreement.
Analysis and Justification
Build Out Analysis
In the early stages of planning for an updated Fringe Area Agreement, City staff conducted an
analysis on the need to expand the City’s Growth Area, in the form of a build-out analysis for the
City and Growth Area. The build-out analysis (Attachment E) is an estimate of Iowa City’s ability
to accommodate population and employment growth within the city limits and Growth Area
through the year 2045. A methodology of the build-out analysis is attached to this memo
(Attachment F). To summarize, staff found that with a high-density build-out within the city limits
and Growth Area, there would be little need to expand the City’s existing Growth Area. At a high
degree of infill development, the analysis estimated that there is enough land within the city limits
and Growth Area to accommodate over 61,000 people. The Johnson County MPO’s 2045
population projection estimated an increase of 22,000 new residents from 2017 population
estimates. A summary of these projections can be seen below in Table 3.
September 30, 2021
Page 7
Table 3. Build-Out Analysis Residential Growth Projections (2045)
Est. Dwelling Units Est. Population Increase
MPO Projections 10,794 22,285
City Limits Build Out 16,379 37,756
City Growth Area Build Out 10,175 23,771
Total City+Growth Area
Capacity
26,554 61,527
The results from the build-out analysis are highly dependent on continued high-density residential
growth and development within the City’s Riverfront Crossings area, as about 65% of all future
residential growth from the analysis is projected to come from this area. It is reasonable to assume
that available land within the Riverfront Crossings area will not maximize its allowable
development capacity by the year 2045. Should demand for peripheral growth continue, the
analysis estimated that the City’s Growth Area can accommodate over 23,000 new residents over
4,552 acres that are planned for residential growth. This projection alone is greater than the
22,000 new residents from the MPO’s 2045 population growth forecast for Iowa City.
With respect to commercial growth and overall employment, the analysis estimated that enough
land was available to accommodate over 20,000 new jobs within the City limits with an additional
18,000 new jobs in the Growth Area. The MPO estimates that between 2017 and 2045, Iowa City
will see an increase of approximately 23,000 new jobs. These projections are summarized below
in Table 5. Furthermore, current employment data shows that about 40% of all Iowa City jobs take
place on University of Iowa campus property. If this ratio stays consistent in 2045, the city will
have to absorb about 14,000 new jobs outside of the University campus. While the estimated job
capacity available within the Growth Area is largely concentrated on capacity within potential
future industrial and office park areas, a capacity of over 16,000 jobs exists within the City’s
commercial, downtown, and Riverfront Crossings zones. Furthermore, as office park
development continues its pre-pandemic decline, and as more places of business utilize hybrid
work from home formats, it is expected that the City will have sufficient land capacity for future
employment needs.
Table 4. Build Out Analysis Employment Growth Projections (2045)
Employment Increase
MPO Projections 23,615
City Limits Build Out 20,002
Growth Area Build Out 18,373
Total City Limits+Growth Area 38,375
Attempting to maximize development within the City’s existing limits and Growth Area is a strategy
that further supports several Comprehensive Plan and Climate Action Plan goals. By pursuing
compatible infill development, the City will look to consume less land and slow outward growth.
Infill development has also proven to be less costly to construct and maintain public infrastructure
and less costly to provide and maintain necessary City services such as garbage collection, snow
removal, and emergency response. Furthermore, an infill development strategy helps to preserve
farmland around the City’s periphery. The City’s Climate Action Plan stresses the importance of
increasing compact and contiguous development as a way of reducing the number of vehicle
miles traveled.
Potential Growth Area Expansion
While the build-out analysis indicates that developable land within the city and in the City’s Growth
Area should be able to accommodate anticipated population and job growth by 2045, there are
additional factors that staff considered when it analyzed the need to expand the City’s Growth
Area. In addition to growth demand results from staff’s build-out analysis, the following factors
were also considered:
September 30, 2021
Page 8
• Potential current or future gateways into the City.
• Highway adjacency and access.
• Planned commercial or industrial future land uses in Johnson County.
• Sewerability.
• Adjacency to areas envisioned for residential or commercial development, per the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
• Preservation of sensitive areas.
• Other factors that might promote future land development.
Given these additional points of analysis, City staff identified five separate area where it
recommends expansion of the City’s Growth Area (See Figure 1).
Figure 1. Iowa City Current and Proposed Growth Areas
Area #1 (Area near Highway 1 & Sharon Center Road)
The first area is located southwest of Iowa City along Highway 1 (outlined in black in Figure 2).
This area is currently designated in the County’s Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map for
Residential, Commercial, and Intensive Commercial development.
Non-residential growth for those areas shown in red and purple in Figure 2, is of high concern to
Staff. First, a rezoning of these areas to commercial and industrial County zoning designations
would present a stark conflict of potential uses next to the existing agricultural, and planned
residential, land use and zoning designations. Second, the City has generally tried to direct
commercial and industrial growth into the City limits to encourage more efficient development.
This is done to take advantage of existing utilities and services that these more intense land uses
often require, in addition to curbing urban sprawl and leapfrog development. Staff is proposing to
include this area in the City’s Growth Area, which will allow the City to be more involved in land
use decisions and better ensure these planning principals are followed.
September 30, 2021
Page 9
The residential areas shown in Figure 2 lie directly south from the Rohret South Subarea from the
City’s Southwest District Plan. The Rohret South Subarea will be developable upon extension of
the Abbey Lane trunk sewer west of Route 218, which is included in the City’s capital improvement
program for construction in 2023. Due to the adjacency of this area with the Rohret South
Subarea, including it in the City’s Growth Area would better ensure a smooth transition between
City and County development. Specifically, inclusion in the Growth Area would mean that
development must comply with the City’s Urban Design Standards, which includes standards
related to storm water, streets, and other public utilities. The Southwest District Plan envisions
street connectivity from the Rohret South Subarea continuing southward. The area has limited
sensitive areas and prime highway adjacency that will make it attractive for development once it
is sewerable. Furthermore, the area will be a fitting southwestern gateway into Iowa City for those
traveling northbound on Highway 1. Note that while the area north of Highway 1 is intended for
inclusion into the Growth Area, it will not be included in Subarea #1 per the Agreement. It is the
City’s preference to have this portion of land develop in accordance with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, as opposed to the County’s Comprehensive Plan. This distinction can be
seen in the proposed Fringe Area Agreement. However, the entire area identified as the expanded
Growth Area would be required to comply with the City’s Urban Design Standards (i.e.,
subdivision standards).
Figure 2. Area 1
Area #2 (Area South of Highway 218 and Riverside Drive)
The second area, shown in Figure 3, is located south of Iowa City (south of Riverside Drive). The
current Fringe Area Agreement identifies this area as appropriate for rural, agricultural uses. The
County recently approved an amendment to its Future Land Use Map that designates this area
as appropriate for commercial development. A rezoning of this property to County Commercial
was approved by the Johnson County Board of Supervisors in March of 2020.
September 30, 2021
Page 10
Figure 3. Area 2
Like Area 1, staff has concerns about commercial development taking place outside of the City
limits. Because of its highway adjacency, commercial development of this area is highly attractive.
A rezoning to County Commercial would allow the area to develop with an array of retail and
service-oriented uses. Staff feels it is prudent to include this land into the City’s growth area so
that commercial development in this area is limited until it is annexed into the City. City water and
sanitary sewer are only available to properties upon annexation. Although the proposed
Agreement identifies that development can occur consistent with the County’s Comprehensive
Plan, any subdivision of land in this area will require compliance with the City’s Urban Design
Standards.
A water main is located to the immediate east, where the southernmost property within the City
limits has water service. The area is sewerable per the City’s long-term sewer master plan, but
the nearest sanitary line is located over 1 mile away near Colonial Lanes bowling alley. It is
possible that extension of this sanitary line might open the area between Area 2 and the City limits
for future redevelopment.
Area #3 (Area North of Highway 6 through Taft Avenue)
The third area is north of Highway 6, along both sides of Taft Avenue. This area, shown in Figure
4, would allow for the expansion of the City’s Industrial Park should the need arise in the future.
September 30, 2021
Page 11
Figure 4. Area 3
Area #4 (Area Near Herbert Hoover Highway and I-80)
Area 4 is located east of Iowa City at the intersection of Herbert Hoover Highway and I-80 (shown
in red and transparent white, outlined in black in Figure 5). The County’s Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use Map has identified this area as appropriate for highway commercial.
Capital improvements to Taft Avenue are planned; however, construction is not anticipated for
another five to 10 years. Once these improvements are completed, land to the east of Taft Avenue
(which is currently in the City’s Growth Area) will become more desirable for residential
development. The area shown in red in Figure 5 is only ½ mile east of the current Growth Area
limit. As the Taft Avenue corridor develops, and as residential growth continues eastward, the
Herbert Hoover Highway interchange with Interstate 80 might be a logical place for commercial
or highway commercial development. For the sake of directing anticipated future commercial
growth into the city limits, incorporating this area into the city limits makes sense. The subarea
maps included in the Fringe Area Agreement (Attachment C) indicates where staff feels that future
commercial development may be appropriate. All parts of the subarea outside of these highlighted
areas should remain agricultural/open space land until the Fringe Area Agreement is further
revised.
A portion of this area is already zoned for County commercial land uses and development would
be able to occur in compliance with the existing zoning designation. Staff is proposing to include
this area in the City’s Growth Area, which will allow the City to be more involved in land use
decisions and would require that subdivisions comply with the City’s Urban Design Standards.
September 30, 2021
Page 12
Figure 5. Area 4
Area #5 (Area East of Highway 1, south of Rapid Creek Road NE)
Area 5, shown in Figure 6, is north of Iowa City, east of Highway 1 and south of Rapid Creek
Road NE. The County’s Future Land Use Map has identified this area as appropriate for
residential use. However, the western two-thirds of the subarea is currently zoned County
Agricultural. This area should remain as agricultural or open space land to transition the
commercial office and research park uses in the city limits to the south, from the existing larger
lot residential uses in the County to the north.
September 30, 2021
Page 13
Figure 6. Area 5
Comprehensive Plan Analysis
The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan serves as a land-use planning guide by illustrating and
describing the location and configuration of appropriate land uses throughout the City, providing
notification to the public regarding intended uses of land; and illustrating the long-range growth
area limit for the City. An update to the Fringe Area Agreement is an amendment to the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan amendments must provide evidence that the request
meets the approval criteria in Section 14-8D-3D.
14-8D-3D Approval Criteria: Comprehensive Plan amendments must include evidence that
the following approval criteria are met:
1. Circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors have come
to light such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest.
The County updated its Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map in 2018, which created
several new residential growth areas within the County. The two largest and most problematic
areas with respect to enforcement of the existing Agreement, can be found along American
Legion Road SE, just west of Wapsi Avenue SE, and north and south of Highway 1 SW, just west
of the southwest city limits. The existing Agreement calls for Agricultural uses for many of the
properties that fall within these areas of the updated County Future Land Use Map. Over time,
the City has had to acknowledge that requests for future rezonings to County Residential to match
the County’s Comprehensive Plan no longer align with the policy direction of the existing
Agreement. It is in the public’s interest to update the Agreement to limit these policy discrepancies
going forward.
Additionally, as the City has continued to grow, new public infrastructure projects are planned to
accommodate areas of new growth on the City’s periphery. Funding is currently in place for
September 30, 2021
Page 14
improvements to Taft Avenue between American Legion Road and Lower West Branch Road.
These improvements are in response to residential growth to the west of Taft Avenue. As the
City’s Capital Improvement Program notes, complementary infrastructure improvements to
American Legion Road and the Scott Boulevard trunk sewer expansion will likely give way to
enhanced development in this portion of the Taft Avenue corridor. It is expected that as
development continues eastward, Taft Avenue will become an important north-south corridor
between Herbert Hoover Highway (leading to I-80) and Highway 6 SE. With this potential for an
enhanced Taft Avenue corridor under consideration, the City is recommending the addition of two
different areas to the City’s Growth Area. Area #3, near Taft Avenue and Highway 6, and Area
#4, near Herbert Hoover Highway and I-80. It is possible that both of these locations could
accommodate increased commercial and/or industrial development in the future.
Planning and design work is underway for a sanitary trunk sewer extension along Abbey Lane
from Burry Drive to the west side of Highway 218. Completion of this sewer extension will allow
for development within the watershed west of Highway 218. While much of this watershed is within
the City’s existing Growth Area, it is in the City’s interest to allocate additional land to the south
that the County has deemed appropriate for residential growth into the City’s Growth Area. By
incorporating this portion of land into the City’s Growth Area, any future residential development
will be required to meet the City’s Urban Design Standards, thereby having a more seamless
transition at the time of future annexation. It is in the public’s interest to ensure that the areas
undergoing the above-described infrastructure improvements experience a broader
comprehensive planning effort so that the City’s larger development goals and objectives are met.
2. The proposed amendment will be compatible with other policies or provisions of
the comprehensive plan, including any district plans or other amendments thereto.
Since the existing Agreement was passed in 2006, the City has updated its Comprehensive Plan
(2013) and two District Plans (Southeast – 2011; South – 2015). While many of the
Comprehensive Plan’s broader goals pertaining to how the City grows are reflected in the existing
Agreement (i.e. preservation of sensitive areas, open space, promotion of infill development, etc.),
the South and Southeast District Plans have evolved to incorporate more detailed neighborhood
designs within the existing Growth Area. The direction and detail provided in these plans results
in a level of urban form and density that is at a higher level than what the existing Agreement
prescribes, given the existing Agreement’s direction to preserve 50% of developed land as open
space, agricultural land, and/or future development. In the Southeast District Plan, the Eastside
Growth Area details a village-like residential neighborhood, containing a variety of housing types,
including townhouses and multi-family residential housing. Likewise, the proposed update to the
South District Plan to accommodate form-based land use designations, allows for a variety of
house-scale “missing middle” housing types that engender increased density within a larger
house setting.
The City wishes to implement form-based zones and standards in other portions of the Growth
Area as well. Currently, the City’s Northeast District Plan contains a large amount of undeveloped
land within the area inside the City’s Growth Area, west of Taft Avenue SE. The Northeast District
Plan currently calls for traditional neighborhood development with a neighborhood commercial
center on the portions of this land that are detached from sensitive areas. It is expected that this
area will be studied for potential form-based code implementation when the Northeast District
Plan is updated. It is also possible that as the Southwest District Plan is updated, there may be
opportunities to implement form-based zones in certain portions of the Weber Subarea of the
existing Southwest District Plan. These opportunities will be further studied once the City conducts
its update of this Plan.
The proposed Agreement, which will allow for the City’s Comprehensive Plan to guide
development within the Growth Area (with the exception of the subareas), will implement several
goals and policies from the City’s Comprehensive Plan in the previously described areas that are
September 30, 2021
Page 15
positioned for new residential development. The Plan calls for annexing and rezoning
undeveloped areas to plan for the development of sustainable neighborhoods. Many district plans
include future land use maps that include more details on how land within the City’s Growth Area
could develop. These maps often include a variety of housing types, interconnected street
networks, commercial nodes, and areas envisioned for open space. In addition, staff is currently
updating two District Plans and anticipates updating more Plans in the future.
The City’s larger development strategy of taking an analytical approach to expanding the City’s
Growth Boundary, expanding the Boundary only as necessary, satisfies an overall
Comprehensive Plan goal to encourage compact, efficient development that is contiguous and
connected to existing neighborhoods. By guiding new peripheral development to the City’s Growth
Area, the updated Agreement discourages sprawl and preserves prime farmland.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the proposed the Fringe Area Policy Agreement between Johnson
County and the City of Iowa City.
Attachments
Attachment A. Existing Fringe Area Agreement
Attachment B. Letter from Johnson County Board of Supervisors
Attachment C. Proposed Update to the Fringe Area Policy Agreement between Johnson County
and the City of Iowa City
Attachment D. Outline of Major Changes between the Existing and Proposed Agreements
Attachment E. Build-out Analysis
Attachment F. Build-out Methodology
Attachment G. Updated Comprehensive Plan (page 18)
Approved by: _____________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
crrJ
Prepared by: Robert Miklo, PCD, 410 E. Washing Ion 51., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5232
RESOLUTION NO. 06-,1 R
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE IOWA CITY/JOHNSON COUNTY FRINGE AREA POLICY
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, Chapter 28E of the Code of Iowa (2005) enables two or more local governments to
enter into agreements to cooperate for their mutual advantage; and
WHEREAS, Iowa City and Johnson County entered into an agreement in 1996 (Resolution No.
96-239) establishing policies for the development of land within the extraterritorial area of Iowa
City; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan includes the Fringe Area Policy Agreement; and
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of Johnson County and the City of Iowa City to update Fringe Area
policies for the orderly growth and development within the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, Johnson County and the City of Iowa City mutually agree that such policies are
necessary to more effectively and economically provide services for future growth and
development and to protect and preserve the extraterritorial area's natural resources and its
environmentally sensitive features.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA, THAT:
1. The City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa hereby accepts and agrees to the
amended policies regarding annexation, zoning and subdivision review for the various
designated areas included in the attached Fringe Area Policy Agreement between
Johnson County, Iowa and Iowa City, Iowa; and
2. The City Council of the City of Iowa City hereby incorporates the amended Fringe Area
Policy Agreement into the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan; and
3. The City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa hereby authorizes the Mayor to sign and
the City Clerk to attest to the attached 28E Agreement between Johnson County and
Iowa City establishing land use policies for the two-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction of
Iowa City, for recordation as provided by law upon execution by Johnson County.
Attachment A. Existing Fringe Area Agreement
FRINGE AREA POLICY AGREEMENT
BETWEEN JOHNSON COUNTY AND IOWA CITY
WHEREAS, Chapter 354, Code of Iowa (2005) allows the City of Iowa City to establish an
extraterritorial area, known as the fringe area, within two miles of the city boundaries for the purpose
of reviewing and approving subdivisions; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 354 further grants the City the authority to require that subdivisions within the
fringe area adhere to the City's subdivision standards and conditions, unless the City establishes
altemative standards and conditions for review and approval of subdivisions via a 28E agreement
between the City and the County; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 28E of the Code of Iowa (2005) enables two or more local governments to
enter into agreements to cooperate for their mutual advantage; and
WHEREAS, the Johnson County Land Use Plan adopted December 31, 1998 calls for the
preparation and adoption of development plans and agreements between the County and the City
regarding the municipality and its environment; and
WHEREAS, the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan Update adopted in December, 1997 outlines the
extent of urban development expected within the next 20 years; and
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of Johnson County (the "County") and the City of Iowa City (the "City")
to establish policies for the orderly growth and development within the City's fringe area; and
WHEREAS, Johnson County and the City of Iowa City mutually agree that such policies are
necessary to more effectively and economically provide services for future growth and development
and to protect and preserve the fringe area's natural resources and its environmentally sensitive
features.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. FRINGE AREA DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
The parties accept and agree to the following development policies regarding annexation, zoning,
and subdivision review for the Iowa City fringe area as authorized by Chapter 354, Code of Iowa
2005).
Purpose:
The Fringe Area Policy Agreement is intended to provide for orderly and efficient development
patterns appropriate to a non-urbanized area, protect and preserve the fringe area's 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.
In light of these objectives, the City and the County examined the development capabilities of the
Iowa City fringe area and determined that development within this fringe area is to occur in
accordance with a) the Land Use Plan attached to this Agreement, b) development standards
contained in Section B of this agreement, and c) the fringe area development policies contained in
Section C of this Agreement. The development policies of this Agreement are intended to be
consistent with the policies of the adopted Johnson County Land Use Plan and the Iowa City
Comprehensive Plan.
2 -
A. Land Use Plan
The Land Use Plan, attached to this Agreement as Attachment 1, illustrates the land use patterns for
the fringe area.
S. Development Standards
The following general standards apply to unincorporated development in the fringe area.
1. Discourage development in areas which conflict with the Johnson County Land Use Plan
which considers CSR (Corn Suitability Rating), high water table, wetlands, floodplain,
non-erodible soil, and road suitability.
2. Protect the public health by requiring developers to meet or exceed minimum standards
for water and wastewater systems in all developments within the Iowa City Fringe Area
pursuant to JohnSon County Public Health Department Regulations.
3. Encourage cluster development which preserves large tracts of open space including
environmentally sensitive areas and farm land, results in compact development which
requires less infrastructure, and is more efficient for provision of services.
C. Fringe Area Development Policies
The parties agree to apply the following fringe area development policies.
FRINGE AREA A
1. Land within Iowa Citv's Growth Area. Land in Area A which is presently zoned for
residential development, and within Iowa City's growth area, may develop in
conformance with existing zoning, provided subdivisions and development projects 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 constructed to City standards and can be connected to
municipal systems upon annexation.
Subdivisions and development projects which are approved prior to annexation shall be
required to be cluster developments with a minimum of 50% of the development
designated as an outlot for open space, agriculture, or future development upon
annexation.
Prior to annexation, any zoning changes in Iowa City's projected growth area shall be
consistent with the City's adopted land use plan.
2. Land outside Iowa City's Growth Area but in the Countv's North Corridor. Residential
uses are the preferred use in this area. Any re-zonings in this area will be considered on
the basis of conformity with the Johnson County Land Use Plan and other related
policies. On a case-by-case basis, proposals to rezone land in this area to RS-3 (one
dwelling unit per three acres of lot area) may be considered. RS zoning will be
considered if the application to rezone includes a concept plan showing a minimum of
50% of the property designated as an outlot for open space or agriculture. Development
must comply with City Rural Design standards contained in Appendix A. On the balance
of land outside the North Corridor, agricultural uses are preferred.
3 -
3. Any development on property govemed by the Iowa City/Coralville Agreement Providing
for Future Annexations and Extraterritorial Review of Subdivision Plats (Sept. 1999) shall
be consistent with said agreement. Such agreement shall take precedence over this
Fringe Area Policy Agreement.
4. If land is annexed within Fringe Area A, the City agrees that it will not automatically
extend its fringe area authority to review and approve all subdivisions, which it exercises
pursuant to Iowa Code ~354.9 and Title 14, Chapter 7 of the City Code of the City of Iowa
City, Iowa. The City will review the extension of its fringe area as a result of annexation
on a case-by-case basis in consultation with Johnson County.
FRINGE AREA B
As set forth in Iowa City's adopted growth policy, the City will likely annex land within one mile
of Iowa City to the east and within two miles of Iowa City to the south in the short-range. It is
therefore consistent with the purpose of this agreement that rural subdivisions within these
areas of high annexation potential be required to meet City Urban Design Standards contained
in Appendix A.
1. Land within Iowa City's Growth Area. As applications are received to develop land
contiguous to and within the growth limits of the city, the City will give favorable
consideration to the voluntary annexation of this land and its development at an urban
density in conformance with the City's adopted land use plan.
Prior to annexation, any zoning changes in Iowa City's projected growth area shall also
be consistent with the City's adopted land use plan.
Subdivisions and 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 constructed to City standards and can be connected to
municipal systems upon annexation.
Subdivisions and development projects which are approved prior to annexation shall be
required to be cluster developments with a minimum of 50% of the development
designated as an outlot for open space, agriculture, or future development upon
annexation.
2. Land outside Iowa Citv's Growth Area. On the balance of land in Area B that lies outside
Iowa City's projected growth area, agricultural uses are preferred. 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/Agricultural area in chapter 8:1.6. Class A District of
the Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance as amended. Farmstead splits are
permitted per Chapter 8: 1.6.1.4.c of the Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance.
Given the existence of commercially zoned property and the demand for commercial
uses at the 1-80/Herbert Hoover Highway interchange, rezonings to County CH-Highway
Commercial District of property abutting the interchange, as shown on the attached fringe
area map, will be considered. However, the only uses that will be allowed will be: Auto
and truck oriented uses" Hotels, motels, and convention facilities, Office buildings and
4-
studios, restaurants, and any accessory use normally associated with the permitted
principal use. All existing commercially zoned property and any properties rezoned to
CH-Highway Commercial shall be subject to the City's and the County's Site Plan Review
Requirements with the most restrictive standards applying in instances where the two
standards differ.
3. Upon annexation of land within Fringe Area B, the City agrees that it will not automatically
extend its fringe area authority to review and approve all subdivisions, which it exercises
pursuant to Iowa Code 9354.9 and Title 14, Chapter 7 of the City
Code of the City of Iowa City, Iowa. The City will review the extension of its fringe area
as a result of annexation on a case-by-case basis in consultation with Johnson County.
FRINGE AREA C
1. Land within Iowa Citv's Growth Area. Land in Area C, which is presently zoned for
residential development and within Iowa City's growth area, may develop in conformance
with existing zoning, provided subdivisions and development projects 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 constructed to City standards and can be connected to
municipal systems upon annexation.
Subdivisions and development projects which are approved prior to annexation shall be
required to be cluster developments with a minimum of 50% of the development
designated as an outlot for open space, agriculture, or future development upon
annexation.
Upon annexation to Iowa City, commercial and/or industrial development is encouraged
south and southwest of the Iowa City Municipal Airport as shown on the attached Land
Use Plan and in the portion of Section 20 of West Lucas Township that is located in the
east and south quadrants of the Highway 1 and Highway 218 interchange. It is
consistent with the purpose of this agreement not to approve commercial and/or industrial
developments within this area prior to annexation. As stated in the Johnson County Land
Use Plan, commercial and/or industrial development will be encouraged to locate in the
interchanges of paved roads. Commercial and/or industrial development will be
discouraged in all other areas of Fringe Area C.
As applications are received to develop land contiguous to Iowa City and within this
portion of the City's growth area, the City will give favorable consideration to the voluntary
annexation of this land and its development for uses consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
2. Land outside Iowa City's Growth Area. In the portions of Area C which are not within Iowa
City's growth area and which are zoned for non-farm development, development may
occur in conformance with Johnson County's Unified Development Ordinance and City
Rural Design Standards. 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/
Agricultural area in Chapter 8:1.6 Class A District of the Johnson County Unified
Development Ordinance as amended. Farmstead splits are permitted per Chapter
8:1..6.1.4.c of the Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance.
5-
3. Upon annexation of land within Fringe Area C, the City agrees that it will not automatically
extend its fringe area authority to review and approve all subdivisions, which it exercises
pursuant to Iowa Code 9354.9 and Title 14, Chapter 7 of the City
Code of the City of Iowa City, Iowa. The City will review the extension of its fringe area
as a result of annexation on a case-by-case basis in consultation with Johnson County.
SECTION II. PROTECTING AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS
Any regulations in the Fringe Area Agreement will not interfere with the Right to Farm, as contained
in the Code of Iowa Chapter 335.2, Farms Exempt; and as noted in the Johnson County Zoning
Ordinance, Chapter 8.2, Protecting Agricultural Operations.
SECTION III. ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES
As a rule, zoning regulation is the county's prerogative if a county has adopted a zoning ordinance.
The City, however, exercises authority over subdivision regulation in a city's fringe area. Annexation
is also primarily under exclusive rule of cities. Each of these activities, however, affects both
jurisdictions and produces a clear need for coordination and joint administration. To that end, the
City of Iowa City and Johnson County agree to the following procedures for administration of land
use regulations.
A. Zonino Reoulation:
1. Zoning regulation for all unincorporated territory will remain under the authority of the
Johnson County Zoning Ordinance and the provisions of Chapter 335, Code of Iowa
2005), the enabling legislation for the County's zoning powers.
2. Pursuant to Section 8: 1.23 of the Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance, any
person may request a variance to the lot area regulations of the zoning ordinance or
appeal the decision of any officer of the County as that decision relates to enforcement of
the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The County will forward each request for rezoning of property within the Fringe Areas
specified in this Agreement to the City for review and comment prior to the public hearing
before the County Planning and Zoning Commission. Any zoning change will conform
with the policies identified for the Area in which the property is located.
4. Properties zoned for a classification which is inconsistent with this Agreement, at the time
this Agreement is executed, shall retain the rights under that zoning, unless and until
such zoning is changed through due process.
B. Subdivision Reoulation:
1. Subdivision of land within Iowa City's fringe area will be required to conform to either City
Rural Design Standards or the City Urban Design Standards in accordance with the
policies specified in this Agreement.
2. Persons wishing to subdivide land within the fringe area speCified in this Agreement shall
be required to simultaneously file a subdivision application with both the City and
the County. The City and the County shall coordinate the processing of the application to
ensure concurrent review by both the City Planning and Zoning Commission and the
County Planning and Zoning Commission.
3. Subdivisions of land into fewer than three lots will continue to be regulated by the County.
6-
C. Develooment oroiects not reauirina subdivision:
Any development projects larger than 2 acres within the City's growth area shall be subject to
review by both the City and the County in accordance with the procedural requirements of each
jurisdiction.
D. Annexation:
1. Iowa City will annex territory only in accordance with the policy statements specified in
this Agreement.
2. The City will, upon receipt, forward applications requesting annexation or severance (de-
annexation) of property within the fringe area specified in this Agreement to the County
for review and comment prior to consideration by the Iowa City Planning and Zoning
Commission.
3. As. appropriate and necessary, the City may extend the two-mile extraterritorial
subdivision plat review area. Prior to any such extension, the City will forward to the
County a proposal which includes the extension of the City's plat review authority for any
distance up to the two mile limit provided by State law. The County will have a specified
time within which to respond in affirmative agreement, negatively or with an altemative
proposal. The City will take the County's response under advisement when determining
the extension of extraterritorial review.
E. Conflict Resolution:
If the City and County are in conflict over a proposed subdivision, rezoning application, or
annexation that may violate this agreement, a review committee, comprised of members of the
City Council, Board of Supervisors and staff, shall be established to negotiate a resolution prior
to final action being taken by either body to subdivide, rezone, or annex property.
SECTION IV. AGREEMENT REVIEW
At any time during the term of this Agreement, either the Chair of the Johnson County Board of
Supervisors or the Mayor of the City of Iowa City may initiate review of the policies of this Agreement
by contacting the other party to this Agreement. Both parties to this Agreement shall consider
modifications of this Agreement, as appropriate.
SECTION V. EFFECTIVE PERIOD
This Agreement shall become effective upon acceptance and execution by the parties, and shall be
in effect for five (5) years after the date of execution of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be
automatically renewed unless the County or the City objects to such renewal prior to the renewal
date.
SECTION VI.. RECORDATION
This Agreement shall be filed with the Secretary of the State of Iowa, and with the Johnson County
Recorder in compliance with Chapter 28E, Code of Iowa (2005).
Dated this iJ#! day of d oh~,- 2006.
7-
JOHNSON COUNTY
By: M ~) d7v~Ih
Chairperson, Board of Supervisors
APprry
County Attorney'
f!LdrAttest:
County Auditor
Dated this / 3 t-~
ay of C) c. I" "... I- 2006
CORPORATE S~L
CITY OF IOWA CITY
By: 2 U~
Mayor
Attest: ~ 'CoRP~RA~~AL
Approved by:
Ci!!~~
t'/~/p'w
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Land Use Map for the Iowa City Fringe Area.
2. Appendix A: Definition of Standards
APPENDIX A
Definition of Standards
Citv Urban Desiqn Standards:
Those standards enumerated in Title 14, Chapter 7 of the City Code of Iowa City which the City
imposes on any subdivision within the corporate limits of Iowa City.
City Rural Desiqn Standards:
1.0 Streets
1.1 Streets shall be designed for a minimum surface width of 22 feet. Curb and gutter will
not be required.
1.2 The right-of-way for local streets without curb and gutter shall be 60 feet to enable
retrofit of sewer, water, and sidewalk in the future as necessary; otherwise, the right-
of-way for local streets with curb and gutter and storm sewer shall be 50 feet. The
right-of-way for arterial, industrial, and collector streets for the developed area shall be
determined in conjunction with the Planning and Zoning Commission.
1.3 The maximum street grade for local streets shall be 12%.
1.4 The pavement cross section for all pavements will be a 2% parabolic crown. This cross
slope is equivalent to Y-;-inch per foot.
1.5 The pavement slab shall be constructed of a 6" rolled stone base and a 22-foot wide
chipseal surface.
1.6 Minimum corner radii shall be 20 feet.
1.7 The minimum ditch grade shall be 1.0%. In addition, it will be necessary to place a
12-inch diameter (minimum) culvert, either reinforced concrete pipe or corrugated metal
pipe, through all drive approaches constructed over a drainage ditch. The exact size of
pipe required will be a function of the area to be drained.
1.8 Drive approaches shall be hard surfaced within the right-of-way.
2.0 Water Distribution Svstem
2.1 Well(s) shall conform to the requirements of the Johnson County Health Department
and the distribution system, if installed, (water main) shall be either ductile cast iron pipe
ANSI A21.50 manufactured in accordance with ANSI A21.50) or poly vinyl chloride pipe
PVC-ASTM D1784, Type 1, Grade 1,200 psi design stress and SDR of 17 or less).
2.2 II shall be the responsibility of the Developer's Engineer to establish a fire rating for the
area being developed. Prior to plat approval, there shall be a letter of transmittal from
the appropriate Fire Protection District approving spacing, location, number of fire
hydrants, size of mains, pressure, etc.
2.3 Connection to the City of Iowa City Water Distribution System is subject to City Council
consideration based on availability. Generally, annexation is a criterion which must be
met.
2
3.0 Sanitarv Sewer
All methods of sanitation shall conform to the 1989 Johnson County Board of Health Rules and
Regulations Governing On-site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems and to the 1990
Iowa City Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System Policy.
4.0 Storm Sewers
4.1 With the exception of developments located in the Old Man's Creek watershed, the City
Storm Water Management Ordinance shall apply to new developments located outside
the City limits of Iowa City but within the City's area of extraterritorial jurisdiction.
4.2 All storm sewers shall conform to revised Section VII (Storm Sewers) of the Design
Standards for Public Works Improvements in Iowa City, Iowa.
4.3 Culverts shall be a minimum of 12 inches in diameter; either reinforced concrete pipe or
corrugated metal pipe (minimum gauge 18 and corrugations 2' x )1,", 20" x )1,", and
3"x1 ") shall be used. Culverts shall conform to the Standard Specifications for Hiohwav
and Bridoe Construction. Series of 1977. Minimum cover over the top of culvert shall be
six inches.
5.0 Underoround Utilities
5.1 Whenever a subdivision shall be laid out such that a new street is required, telephone
and electric utilities shall be underground. It is not intended that small subdivisions which
would use an existing county road would follow this requirement since overhead utilities
are probably directly adjacent to the property.
ppdadminldefslandapp.doc
Attachment B. Letter from Johnson County Board of Supervisors
Attachment C.
Proposed Update to the Fringe
Area Policy Agreement between
Johnson County and the City of
Iowa City
Subarea 2
Subarea 3
Subarea 4
Subarea 5
Subarea 1
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Appendix A: Fringe Area Development Map ´
0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles
Interstate
8
0
Highway 1 SW
High
w
a
y
6
S
E
Hig
h
w
a
y
2
1
8
/
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
2
7 N Dodge St / Highway 1Created by: Joshua EngelbrechtSeptember 2021
Herbert Hoover Highway
America
n
L
e
g
i
o
n
R
d
Sand
Rd
SE
Iowa City Corporate Limits
Fringe Area
Growth Area
Outside Growth Area
Subarea
1
Appendix G
City Rural Design Standards
A. Streets
1. Streets shall be designed for a minimum surface width of 22 feet. Curb and gutter will
not be required.
2. The right-of-way for local residential streets shall be 60 feet to enable retrofit of sewer,
water, and sidewalk in the future as necessary. The right-of-way for arterial, industrial,
and collector streets for the developed area shall be determined by City and County
planning and engineering staff.
3. The maximum street grade for local streets shall be 12%.
4. The pavement cross section for all pavements will be a 2% parabolic crown. This
cross slope is equivalent to ¼-inch per foot.
5. At a minimum, the pavement slab shall be constructed of a 6” rolled stone base and a
22-foot wide chipseal or other paved surface.
6. Minimum corner radii shall be 20 feet.
7. The minimum ditch grade shall be 1%. In addition, it will be necessary to place a 12 -
inch diameter (minimum) culvert, either reinforced concrete pipe or corrugated metal
pipe, through all drive approaches constructed over a drainage ditch. The exact size of
pipe required will be a function of the area to be drained.
8. Drive approaches shall be hard surfaced within the right-of-way.
B. Water Distribution System
1. Well(s) shall conform to the requirements of the Johnson County Health Department
and the distribution system, if installed, (water main) shall be either ductile iron pipe
(DIP) or poly vinyl chloride (PVC) pipe, - and conform with Statewide Urban Design
and Specifications (SUDAS) Standard Specifications.
2. It shall be the responsibility of the developer’s engineer to establish a fire rating for the
area being developed, and to identify any infrastructure being constructed (or other
means anticipated) for the purpose of fire protection. Prior to the plat approval, there
shall be a letter from the appropriate Fire Protection District approving the proposed
fire protection measures based on current practices.
3. Connection to the City of Iowa City Water Distribution System is subject to City Council
consideration based on availability. Generally, annexation is a criterion which must be
met.
C. Sanitary Sewer
All methods of sanitation shall conform to all current Joh nson County Board of Health Rules
and Regulations Governing On-site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems.
2
D. Stormwater Management
1. Stormwater facilities shall conform to all current Johnson County stormwater
management regulations and policies.
2. Storm sewer construction shall be in accordance with the Statewide Urban Design and
Specifications (SUDAS) Standard Specifications.
3. Culverts shall be a minimum of 12 inches in diameter and reinforced concrete pipe
shall be used. Culverts shall conform with the Statewide Urban Design and
Specifications (SUDAS) Standard Specifications. Minimum cover over the top of
culvert shall be six inches.
E. Underground Utilities
Whenever a subdivision shall be laid out such that a new street is required, telephone, cable
television, internet, and electric utilities shall be underground. It is not intended that small
subdivisions which would use an existing county road would follow this requirement since
overhead utilities are probably directly adjacent to the property.
Item Existing Agreement Proposed Agreement
Development
Standards/General Policies
Emphasis on:
- Avoiding
wetland/floodplain
conflicts.
- Meeting County
water/wastewater
standards.
- Clustering development
to preserve open
space.
Emphasis on:
- Development process &
application coordination.
Geographically Specific Policy Fringe Areas A, B, C -Removal of Fringe Areas A, B, C.
-City Comprehensive Plan as land use
policy guide within the Growth Area, with
the exception of the subareas.
-County review outside of the Growth
Area.
-Specific direction provided for identified
subareas.
Future Land Use Map
Amendments
Not specifically addressed. In Growth Area – Review by City
Commission and Council, with
recommendation to County.
Outside Growth Area – City staff formal
advisory opinion to County.
Rezonings City – Reviewed by
Commission and Council with
recommendation to County.
County – Review and
approval.
Inside Growth Area – City
recommendation to County. County
approval.
Outside Growth Area – No City review.
County approval.
Preliminary Plats < 3 Lots Reviewed and approved by the
County.
Inside Growth Area – City and County
Commission and Council/BOS review and
approval.
Outside Growth Area – Reviewed and
approved by the County.
Preliminary Plats > 3 Lots City and County Commission
and Council/BOS review and
approval.
Inside Growth Area – City and County
Commission and Council/BOS review and
approval.
Outside Growth Area – City administrative
review and comment to County. County
review and approval.
Site Plans > 2 Acres Subject to review by City and
County in accordance with
each jurisdiction’s review
procedures.
Inside Growth Area – City administrative
review & comment.
Outside Growth Area – Only County
review.
Effective Period In effect for five years,
renewed automatically unless
objected by City/County.
In effect for ten years, renewed for a one
five-year period unless objected by
City/County.
Conflict Resolution Review committee established
to review conflicts between the
City and County on
subdivision, rezoning, and
annexation applications.
No review committee.
Date: January 23, 2020
To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
From: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner and Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood and
Development Services
Re: City/County Fringe Area Agreement Update
Introduction
In 2006, Iowa City and Johnson County executed a Fringe Area Agreement to establish the policies for
the orderly growth and development of land within the area known as the City’s “fringe area” in the
County. This agreement enables both the City and the County to cooperate for their mutual benefit
through coordinated land use planning. Such policies are necessary to more effectively and
economically provide services for future growth and development, and to protect and preserve the
fringe area’s natural resources and its environmentally sensitive features.
In December 2018, the Johnson County Board of Supervisors submitted a letter to the City Council
requesting that the City Council direct staff to review the current Fringe Area Agreement and coordinate
with County staff on the development of a new Fringe Area Agreement [Attachment 1]. After
discussions with City Council in February 2019, staff has been coordinating with County Planning staff
and working towards an updated Fringe Area Agreement. Recently, staff received correspondence from
the County indicating that the Board of Supervisors would like to set up a working group of two
Supervisors, two City Council members, and staff to further discuss the update to the Fringe Area
Agreement.
This memo provides a general overview of the Fringe Area Agreement [Attachment 2], outlines issues
with the existing agreement, and provides a summary of a build-out analysis that assesses growth
potential. Rationale is then provided for consideration of five new areas into the City’s growth boundary.
Finally, the memo outlines some questions for Council to consider as staff finalizes its draft revisions of
the Fringe Area Agreement.
Overview of the Fringe Area Agreement
Land use regulation is under the authority of county governments for land outside of city limits.
However, State law allows cities to establish a two-mile extraterritorial area, known as the fringe area,
beyond city boundaries for the purpose of reviewing and approving subdivisions. State law also grants
cities the authority to require that subdivisions within the fringe area adhere to the City’s subdivision
regulations, unless the City establishes alternative standards set forth in an agreement between the
City and the County.
The Fringe Area Agreement is a component of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Its stated purpose is to:
The Fringe Area Policy Agreement is intended to provide for orderly and efficient
development patterns appropriate to a non-urbanized area, protect and preserve the fringe
area’s natural resources and environmentally sensitive features, direct development to area
Attachment E. Build Out Analysis
January 29, 2020
Page 2
with physical characteristics which can accommodate development, and effectively and
economically provide services for future growth and development.
The Agreement categorizes land into three fringe areas: Fringe Areas A, B, and C [Attachment 3].
These areas are further divided into two categories – land within Iowa City’s growth boundary and land
outside the City’s growth boundary. The City’s growth boundary defines the City’s potential corporate
limits and was established with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 2013. It includes land, that
for the purposes of long-range planning, is projected to serve the City’s growth need for 30-40 years.
Per the existing agreement, the fringe area is fixed, and does not adjust as land is annexed and the
City grows. Table 1 outlines how development projects are reviewed per the Fringe Area Agreement.
TABLE 1. Summary of Review Authority per Fringe Area Agreement, Adopted 2006
Fringe
Area Rezonings Subdivisions
Commercial Zoned
Properties in Fringe
Area B
If no Subdivision
Required and
Development >2
acres
Inside Iowa
City
Growth
Boundary
- County has control
- Review &
recommendation
from the City
- Review & approval
by both City and
County
- Subject to City’s
subdivision
regulations (Urban
Design Standards)
- Subject to review
by both the City &
County in
accordance with
each jurisdiction’s
requirements
Outside
Iowa City
Growth
Boundary
- County has control
- Review &
recommendation
from the City
- Review & approval
by both City and
County
- Subject to Rural
Design Standards
- Subject to the
City’s and County’s
site plan review
requirements (most
restrictive
standards apply)
- No review by City
unless associated
with a rezoning
The agreement also includes a conflict resolution policy for when the City and County disagree over a
proposed subdivision, rezoning, or annexation. This conflict resolution policy was invoked in 2018 with
the proposed rezoning of land located in unincorporated Johnson County south of American Legion
Road and west of Wapsie Avenue SE (CZ18-00002).
The Fringe Area Agreement renews automatically on an annual basis unless the City or the County
object to the renewal. The agreement also includes a provision related to the review of the agreement.
With the County’s recent letter, the County has initiated that review.
Issues with Current Fringe Area Agreement
The Fringe Area Agreement has not been updated since it was adopted in 2006. Since that time the
City updated its comprehensive plan (adopted 2013), and developed several new district plans.
Specifically, the South District Plan and the Southeast District Plan, which abut the fringe area, were
adopted in 2015 and 2011, respectively. In addition, the County has updated its comprehensive plan
twice since 2006. The most recent update was in 2018. Based on the land use policies in the recently
adopted County plan, there are inconsistencies between the policy direction identified in the plan and
the Fringe Area Agreement. These inconsistencies will need to be addressed as the City and County
work together on an updated Fringe Area Agreement.
January 29, 2020
Page 3
Build-Out Summary Methods and Results
To gain a better understanding of how the City may approach updates to the Fringe Area Agreement,
staff conducted a build-out analysis to determine if the City’s adopted land use policy and zoning
designations have the capacity to accommodate the 2045 population and employment projections in
the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County’s Future Forward 2045 Long Range
Transportation Plan. The build-out analysis is an estimate of Iowa City’s ability to accommodate
population and employment growth within the City limits and City’s identified growth boundary (as
identified in the current Fringe Area Agreement) through the year 2045.
The analysis begins by establishing buildable lands within the City limits and growth boundary by
compiling a record of vacant and underutilized properties. Lands that are deemed to be vacant and/or
underutilized then have either a City zoning designation or land use designation from the
Comprehensive Plan applied to each lot. Staff calculated the maximum build-out at the highest possible
density or intensity to each lot and then applied a discount factor to account for infrastructure, parking,
sensitive areas, and other site constraints. The dwelling unit density of residentially-zoned lots was
converted to a population estimate. The development potential of non-residentially zoned lots was
converted to an employment estimate. The total population and employment estimates were compared
to the growth projections from the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County’s Future
Forward 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan.
In short, staff found that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate population and employment growth
within the City limits and current growth boundary through the year 2045. Table 1 compares the results
of the build-out analysis to the 2045 growth projections.
Table 1. Comparison of Build-out Results to Growth Projections
Est. Building
Square Ft.
Est.
Employment
Est. Dwelling
Units Est. Population
City Build-out Potential: 7,419,462 20,002 16,379 37,756
Growth Boundary Build-
out Potential: 7,718,510 18,373 10,175 23,771
Total Build-Out Potential: 15,137,972 38,375 26,554 61,527
JC MPO Projections
(Projected Increases
from 2017 to 2045)1 n/a 23,615 10,794 22,285
1Data comes from the Johnson County Metropolitan Planning Organization’s 2017 Future Forward 2045
Long Range Transportation Plan Link
Summary of Key Findings
• The land currently in the City and growth boundary can accommodate an estimated increase in
population of over 61,000 people, well over the projected population growth of 22,285 for 2045
in the MPO’s Future Forward 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan.
• Assuming an efficiency factor of 70% on each residential lot, the City and growth boundary can
accommodate more than double the projected dwelling units needed.
• Overall, there is enough land to satisfy projected commercial growth and employment by over
14,000 jobs through 2045.
January 29, 2020
Page 4
Table 2 provides more detail on the build-out analysis within current jurisdictional boundaries and
breaks down the non-residential and residential development potential by zoning district.
Table 2. Build-Out Potential within Current City Limits
Non-Residential Development Potential:
Total
Acres
Est. Building Square
Ftg. Est. Employment
Research Development Park 45.6 248,521 816
General Industrial (I1) 96.2 1,047,871 2,083
Commercial Zones (CO-1, CN-1, CH-1, CI-1,
CC-2) 228 4,316,853 12,434
Downtown (CB-2, 5, 10) 1.69 58,836 190
Riverfront Crossings 50 1,747,381 4,479
Total: 422 7,432,303 20,002
JC MPO Projections (2045): 23,615
Residential Development Potential:
Total
Acres Est. Dwelling Units Est. Population
Single-Family (RR-1, RS-5, RS-8, RS-12, RNS-
12) 1,052 1,847 4,149
Multi-Family (RM-12, RM-20, RM-44, PRM) 22 167 375
Interim Development SF & MF 722 3,257 7,540
Downtown (CB-2, 5, 10) 1.69 423 976
Riverfront Crossings 50 10,648 24,631
Total: 1,848 16,379 37,756
JC MPO Projections (2045): 10,794 22,285
Summary of Key Findings (City Limits)
• Assuming the University continues to employ 40% of all Iowa City workers 1, the City has
abundant capacity to absorb projected demands in employment (through 2045).
o On non-university property, Iowa City can absorb approximately 20,002 workers.
o The Johnson County MPO projects an increase of 23,615 workers in Iowa City by 2045.
o If the University continues to employ 40% of all Iowa City workers, Iowa City would need
to absorb 14,169 workers on non-university property.
o It is possible that the University might comprise a smaller proportion of Iowa City’s total
workforce in 2045.
• The City has the capacity to absorb projected gains in dwelling units and population; however,
much of this capacity is dependent upon continued redevelopment of the Riverfront Crossings
area.
o Continued redevelopment (at current maximum base heights) is necessary to
accommodate projected growth, as about 65% of all residential units are projected to
come from the Riverfront Crossings area.
• The analysis excluded Iowa City Local Landmarks, Local Historic Districts, and Local
Conservation Districts, as well as the downtown area currently being pursued for designation in
the National Register of Historic Places. With most of the downtown excluded from the analysis,
there is little capacity for additional employment or residential growth.
1 Figure derived from the Johnson County MPO Long Range Transportation Plan 2017-2045.
January 29, 2020
Page 5
• Development of existing interim single-family and multi-family zoned parcels is projected to
account for almost 20% of residential development within the city limits.
Table 3 summarizes the results of the build-out analysis within the City’s growth boundary.
Table 3. Build-Out Potential within the Growth Boundary
Non-Residential Uses
Total
Acres Est. Building Square Ftg. Est. Employment
Office & Mixed-Use Commercial 27. 518,730 1,354
Intensive Commercial 104 1,127,090 2,053
Industrial 357 3,885,327 7,771
Office Park 201 2,187,363 7,195
Total: 688 7,718,510 18,373
JC MPO Projections (2045): 23,615
Residential Density
Total
Acres Est. Dwelling Units Est. Population
1 DU/Acre 2,586 1,533 3,557
2-8 DU/Acre 1,646 6,522 15,131
2-12 DU/Acre 87 422 979
8-13 DU/Acre 177 1,126 2,612
8-16 DU/Acre 36 381 884
12-24 DU/Acre 19 239 554
16-24 DU/Acre 2 23 53
Total: 4,552 10,175 23,771
JC MPO Projections (2045): 10,794 22,285
Public & Open Space
Total
Acres
Total: 849
Summary of Key Findings (City Growth Boundary)
• Most of the undeveloped or underdeveloped non-residential land (81%) is planned as Industrial
and Office Park. The land planned for Industrial uses is mostly in the Southeast District with
some in the South Central District. The land planned for Office Park uses is all in the North
Corridor north of I-80 on either side of Highway 1.
o There has been a decreasing trend in the use of suburban-style office parks and an
increasing trend in bringing office jobs into more walkable, urban environments.
• The land planned as Intensive Commercial is primarily south of the airport in the South Central
District.
• Most of the residential areas (4,232 acres) are planned for densities between 1-8 dwelling units
per acre. This is consistent with single-family zoning, and accounts for 79% of the residentially
allocated land in the growth boundary.
January 29, 2020
Page 6
• The most densely planned residential areas are in the South and Southeast districts, while the
least dense area is the North Corridor (most of this area is unplanned, but due to topography
and current development, it was estimated to be developed around 1 dwelling unit per acre).
• There is a significant amount of land planned for either public uses or open space (848 acres),
mostly in the South and Northwest districts. The Northwest District has a significant amount of
public space planned east of Highway 218 and north of Rohret Road.
Other Factors to Consider for Potential Growth Boundary Expansion Areas
Although the build-out analysis indicates that there is enough capacity on vacant and underutilized land
to accommodate the residential and employment growth projections, Council may want to consider
expanding the growth boundaries for those areas likely to develop in the near future.
Staff examined areas outside of the current City growth boundary that contain the following
characteristics likely to foster an environment supportive of development.
• Potential current or future gateways into the City;
• Highway adjacency and access;
• Planned commercial or industrial land uses from Johnson County;
• Sewerability;
• Adjacency to areas envisioned for residential or commercial development per the City’s
Comprehensive Plan;
• Preservation of existing sensitive areas; and
• Other factors that might promote future land development.
Considering these factors, Staff is recommending extension of the City’s growth boundary to include
the following five areas [Attachment 3]:
January 29, 2020
Page 7
Area 1 (Area near Highway 1 & Sharon Center Road)
The first area is located southwest of Iowa City along either side of Highway 1 (outlined in black in
Figure 1). This area is currently designated in the County’s Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map
for Residential, Commercial, and Intensive Commercial development.
Non-residential growth for those areas shown in red and purple in Figure 1, is of high concern to Staff.
First, a rezoning of these areas to commercial and industrial County zoning designations would present
a stark conflict of potential uses next to the existing agricultural, and planned residential, land use and
zoning designations. Second, the City has generally tried to direct commercial and industrial growth into
the City limits to encourage more efficient development. This is done to take advantage of existing
utilities and services that these more intense land uses often require, in addition to curbing urban
sprawl and leapfrog development. Staff is proposing to include this area in the City’s growth boundary,
which will allow the City to be more involved in land use decisions and better ensure these planning
principals are followed.
The residential areas shown in Figure 1 lie directly south from the Rohret South Subarea from the City’s
Southwest District Plan. The Rohret South Subarea will be developable upon extension of the Abbey
Lane trunk sewer west of Route 218, which is included in the City’s capital improvement program for
construction in 2023. Due to the adjacency of this area with the Rohret South Subarea, including it in
the City’s growth boundary would better ensure a smooth transition between City and County
development. Specifically, inclusion in the growth boundary would mean that development must comply
with the City’s Urban Design Standards, which includes standards related to storm water, streets, and
other public utilities. The Southwest District Plan envisions street connectivity from the Rohret South
Subarea continuing southward. The area has limited sensitive areas and prime highway adjacency that
will make it attractive for development once it is sewerable. Furthermore, the area would be a fitting
southwestern gateway into Iowa City for those traveling northbound on Highway 1.
Figure 1. Potential Growth Area Boundary Expansion – Area 1
January 29, 2020
Page 8
Area 2 (Area south of Route 218 and Riverside Drive)
The second area to consider adding to the City’s growth boundary, outlined in black in Figure 2, is
located south of Iowa City (south of Riverside Drive). The current Fringe Area Agreement identifies this
area as appropriate for rural, agricultural uses. The County recently approved an amendment to its
Future Land Use Map that designates this area as appropriate for commercial development. Although
the area is currently zoned County Residential and Agricultural, there is a pending County Commercial
rezoning application under consideration by the City and County for the southern portion of Area 2.
Like Area 1, staff has concerns about commercial development taking place outside of the City limits.
Because of its highway adjacency, commercial development of Area 2 is highly attractive. Should the
County Board of Supervisors choose to rezone this area to County Commercial, the area will be
allowed to develop with an array of retail and service-oriented uses. Staff feels it is prudent to include
this land into the City’s growth boundary so that commercial development in this area is limited until it is
annexed into the City.
In terms of City infrastructure, a water main is located to the immediate east of Area 2, where the
southernmost property within the City limits has water service. The area is sewerable per the City’s
long-term sewer master plan, but the nearest sanitary line is located over 1 mile away near Colonial
Lanes bowling alley. It is possible that extension of this sanitary line might open the area between Area
2 and the City limits for future redevelopment.
Figure 2. Potential Area of Growth Boundary Expansion – Area 2
January 29, 2020
Page 9
Area 3 (Area north of Highway 6 to Taft Avenue)
The third area to consider adding to the City’s growth boundary is located southeast of Iowa City
between 420th St on the north and Highway 6 on the south and west of Taft Ave (outlined in black,
Figure 3). Including this area into the City’s growth boundary would allow for the future expansion of
Iowa City’s industrial park if the need should arise.
Figure 3. Potential Area of Growth Boundary Expansion – Area 3
January 29, 2020
Page 10
Area 4 (Area near Herbert Hoover Highway & I-80)
The fourth area to consider adding to the City’s growth boundary is located east of Iowa City at the
intersection of Herbert Hoover Highway and I-80 (shown in red and transparent white, outlined in black
in Figure 4). The County’s Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map has identified this area as
appropriate for highway commercial.
Capital improvements to Taft Avenue are planned; however, construction is not anticipated for another
five to 10 years. Once these improvements are completed, land to the east of Taft Avenue (which is
currently in the City’s growth boundary) will become more desirable for residential development. The
area shown in red in Figure 4 is only ½ mile east of the current growth boundary limit. It is possible that
as the Taft Avenue corridor develops, and as residential growth continues eastward, the Herbert
Hoover Highway interchange with Interstate 80 might be a logical place for commercial or highway
commercial development. For similar reasons, directing commercial growth into the City limits, staff
feels that incorporating Area 4 into the City’s Growth Boundary makes sense.
A portion of this area is already zoned for County commercial land uses and development would be
able to occur in compliance with the existing zoning designation. Staff is proposing to include this area
in the City’s growth boundary, which will allow the City to be more involved in land use decisions.
Figure 4. Potential Area of Growth Boundary Expansion – Area 4
January 29, 2020
Page 11
Area 5 (Area off Highway 1, near Rapid Creek)
The fifth area to consider adding to the City’s growth boundary is located north of Iowa City on either
side of Highway 1 north of the I-80 (outlined in black in Figure 5). Area 5 is designated for agricultural
uses east of Highway 1 NE and for residential uses west of Highway 1 NE with an emphasis on
preserving 50% of the space for open space or agricultural uses in the current Fringe Area Agreement.
The County’s Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map shows this entire area as appropriate for
residential development. Currently, it is mostly zoned County Agricultural. Staff has recently received a
residential rezoning application for a portion of this area west of Highway 1.
Area 5 is bisected by Rapid Creek, and much of the area is in both the 100- and 500- year floodplain.
Additionally, it is important to note that a portion of the area identified for County Residential growth
overlaps with the City’s current growth boundary.
Staff recommends that this area be largely preserved for agricultural uses to help provide a transition
from the planned commercial office and research park uses within the City limits to the south, to the
larger lot residential uses in Johnson County. In revising the Fringe Area Agreement, staff recommends
that the City control the amount of land that is developed for residential purposes in Area 5.
Figure 5. Potential Area of Growth Boundary Expansion – Area 5
January 29, 2020
Page 12
Questions for the City Council
At the City Council Work session on February 4, staff would like input from Council on the build-out
analysis and proposed expansions to the growth boundary. Specifically, staff is interested in Council’s
thoughts on the following questions:
1. Are there any concerns with the proposed expansions (Areas 1-5) to the City’s growth
boundary? If so, what are those concerns?
2. Are there areas that staff has not considered including in the City’s growth boundary that should
be considered?
3. Does Council wish to create a working group to further collaborate with the County on this
endeavor prior to staff providing you with recommended policy language for the updated Fringe
Area Agreement?
Next Steps
Staff will continue to work with County planning staff on updates to the Fringe Area Agreement. At a
future meeting staff will present a draft update to the Fringe Area Agreement that outlines the proposed
land use policy direction, as well as land development processes for areas within City/County fringe
area. In terms of the timeline, staff hopes to have an updated Fringe Area Agreement adopted by
October 2020.
Attachments
1. Letter from the Johnson County Board of Supervisors, December 27, 2018
2. Fringe Area Policy Agreement between Johnson County and Iowa City, Adopted 2006
3. Fringe Area Map, Adopted 2006
4. Potential Areas of Growth Boundary Expansion
1
Build-Out Analysis Methodology
1.Established available buildable lands.
City Limits:
•Using 2018 Assessor data1, staff queried out vacant parcels and underutilized parcels within the
city limits that had an improvement to land ratio of less than 1.0.2
o Staff removed any public parcels.
▪The analysis did include the following properties that have development
potential:
•Area near County Administration Building.
•A portion of the Johnson County Poor Farm.
o Staff removed parcels within Local Historic Districts3, Local Conservation Districts &
Local Historic Landmarks).
•Parcels within the city limits over one acre4 were queried out. These parcels were analyzed for
sensitive areas. Query results were then exported into GIS.
Growth Area:
•Using 2018 Assessor Data, staff queried out vacant and underutilized parcels in the growth area
over one acre5.
•Staff then queried out parcels less than or equal to two acres, and used the improvement to
land ratio of less than 1.0 to determine which of these were vacant and underutilized. Parcels
more than two acres in size were not subject to the improvement to land ratios of 1.0.6
o Any public or otherwise non-developable parcels7 were removed.
▪Staff noted public parcels that have development potential in the near future.
The following parcels were included in the build-out analysis:
•Parcel Numbers: 0919402001, 0919452003, 0919401004 all owned by
the City of Iowa City
Sensitive Areas:
•Staff used GIS and the Johnson County Property Information Viewer to determine which vacant
and underutilized parcels (city and growth area) were free from natural encumbrances
(wetlands, stream corridors, floodways, wooded areas).
1 At the time staff conducted its analysis, 2018 Assessor data was the most recent available data set.
2 Methodology from the previously performed Vacant and Underutilized Analysis, completed Fall of 2018, assume d
that parcels with a value of less than 1.0 had a greater land value than the total value of buildings and dwellings on
the parcel.
3 Included properties with historic use within the Downtown (CB-2-5) area.
4 Staff determined that parcels equal to or greater than 1 acre in size would most likely have the potential to be
developed for traditional residential or commercial use, and had the highest potential to encounter requirements
from the sensitive areas ordinance.
5 Parcels in the growth area less than one acre were typically already developed or non-developable outlots.
6 Most large parcels (2 or more acres) contained farmland that had high improvement to land value ratios, with
one dwelling unit and lots of open land. Large parcels were considered developable in the future as City services
became available and land was annexed into the City.
7 Non-developable parcels may include: park land, golf courses, or parcels with stormwater detention basins.
Attachment F.
Build-out Analysis Methodology
2
o A discount factor of 50%8 for development on land with sensitive features was applied,
based on availability of developable land due to natural constraints.
2. Applied plan or zoning designations to buildable lands.
City Analysis:
• Based on the applicable zone, staff assigned density (DU’s/acre) to each buildable residentially-
zoned parcel within the City limits.
• Staff determined the number of dwelling units that can be achieved for residentially-zoned
parcels.
o An efficiency factor of 70%9 was applied to each residential lot to determine the net
developable acreage.
▪ The efficiency factor accounted for additional unknown development factors
such as streets, stormwater management areas, easements, open space, etc.
o Staff then divided the estimated developable acreage (efficiency factor already applied)
by the applicable maximum density to determine the number of dwelling units likely to
be developed.
• Staff determined the building square footage that could be achieved for non-residentially zoned
parcels.
o An efficiency factor of 80%10 was applied to each Riverfront Crossings (RFC) or CB-2, CB-
5, CB-10 lot to determine the appropriate building to land ratio.
▪ The analysis assumed that parcels within the Downtown and Riverfront
Crossings Master Plan area will all be rezoned to the prescribed RFC zoning from
the Plan.
▪ Base heights for all RFC zoned parcels were applicable. No bonus heights were
assumed in the analysis.
▪ The analysis assumed that the ground floor of each RFC, CB-2, CB-5, and CB-10
zoned parcel will feature commercial uses. Residential uses were assumed on all
upper floors.
▪ In RFC and Central Business District zones, staff multiplied buildable acreage by
the applicable number of floors allowed to determine the estimated amount of
ground floor space for commercial purposes, and upper floor space for the
estimated number of dwelling units.11
8 The discount factor of 50% was used because it assumed, on average, that non-developable sensitive features
would account for approximately half the parcel area.
9 An efficiency factor of 70% was proposed because an analysis of recent residential subdivisions found that on
average, around 64% of land for each subdivision was developed for residential use. An adjusted average of 70%
was proposed to conform with efficiency factors seen in peer literature, noting that efficiency factors around 70%
were appropriate for urban settings.
10 Staff chose an efficiency factor of 80% for the RFC and CB-2, CB-5, and CB-10 zones based on recent building
coverage to lot area buildout patterns in these zones.
11 Based on estimates staff has used for open space calculations in RFC zones, staff assigned a density 71 dwelling
units per acre, or 1 dwelling unit per 614 square feet of space.
3
o An efficiency factor of 25%12 was applied to Research Park, Commercial, and Industrial
zones13 to determine the appropriate building to land ratio.
o Staff then multiplied buildable acreage by the applicable FAR (Floor Area Ratio) for
Research Park, Commercial, and Industrial zones to determine the estimated amount of
commercial/industrial floor space. 14
Growth Area Analysis:
• Based on the prescribed land use designation of the Comprehensive and District Plans, staff
assigned an appropriate density to each residentially-designated15 parcel in the Growth Area.
Staff then assigned land use designations for all commercial, industrial, and office/research park
parcels in the Growth Area.
• Staff determined the number of dwelling units that can be achieved for each parcel designated
for Residential uses.
o An efficiency factor for 70% was applied to each residentially designated parcel to
determine the net developable acreage.
▪ The efficiency factor accounted for additional unknown development factors
such as streets, stormwater management areas, easements, open space, etc.
o Staff then multiplied the applicable maximum density by the estimated developable
acreage (efficiency and sensitive area factors already applied) to determine the number
of dwelling units likely to be developed.
• Staff determined the building square footage that can be achieved for each parcel designated
for Commercial, Industrial, or Office Park uses.
o An efficiency factor of 25% was applied to each parcel designated for Commercial,
Industrial, or Office Park uses to determine the appropriate building to land ratio.
o Staff then multiplied the buildable acreage by the applicable FAR (Floor Area Ratio) to
determine the estimated amount of commercial/industrial/office park floor space16.
3. Estimated the residential and employment populations at buildout.
City and Growth Area:
• Staff applied the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County’s population projection
of 2.32 persons per dwelling17 unit to each potential residential dwelling unit.
• Staff then estimated employment derived from projected commercial/industrial/office park
building square footage.
12 Staff chose an efficiency factor of 25% for Commercial and Industrial zones based on recent building coverage to
lot area buildout patterns in these zones.
13 Excluded RFC, CB-2, CB-5, and CB-10 zones.
14 A FAR of 1.0 was used for commercial and industrial properties located in the current fringe area. FAR’s between
1.0 and 3.0 were used for commercial and industrial properties in the city, depending on the zone.
15 The City does not have a North Corridor plan or land use designations, so parcels in the North Corridor were
designated a density of 1 dwelling unit per acre based on the current development in the area.
16 A FAR of 1.0 was used for commercial and industrial properties located in the current growth area based on
current development patterns.
17 The population projection estimate was obtained from the Johnson County MPO’s Future Forward, Long Range
Transportation Plan 2017-2045, adopted May 2017. The figure of 2.32 persons per household unit is an estimate
for Iowa City that is the projected household unit density.
4
o The estimates used were compiled by the USGBC (United States Green Building Council)
from 2008
https://www.usgbc.org/drupal/legacy/usgbc/docs/Archive/General/Docs4111.pdf.
o The following job per square foot estimates were used, based off of the USGBC
standards:
▪ Industrial – 1 job for every 500 sq. ft.
▪ Office/Research Park – 1 job for every 304 sq. ft.
▪ Commercial – 1 job for every 383 sq. ft.
▪ Neighborhood Retail/Commercial – 1 job for every 588 sq. ft.
▪ Ag/Industrial – 1 job for every 549 sq. ft.
18
An aerial view of the eastern edge of Iowa City.
An important goal of Iowa City’s Comprehen-
sive Plan is to manage urban growth by en-
couraging compact and contiguous develop-
ment. Contiguous development is more effi-
cient since building on land that is adjacent to
existing development and connecting into
existing road and utility networks is cost and
resource efficient and ensures that neighbor-
hoods are not isolated. This saves money for
developers, property owners, and taxpayers.
If the annexation is for residential development that will result in the creation of ten (10) or more new
housing units, the development will support the City’s goal of creating and maintaining the supply of af-
fordable housing. Such support shall be based on providing affordable units equal to 10% of the total
units in the annexed area with an assurance of long term affordability, preferably for a term of not less
than 20 years. Income targets shall be consistent with the City’s existing program requirements. How the
development provides such support will vary depending on the particular circumstances of annexation,
and may include, but is not limited to, transfer of lots/units to the City or an affordable housing provider;
fee-in-lieu paid to the City’s affordable housing fund; and/or participation in a state or federal housing
program. In determining the most desirable option, preference shall be weighted toward options that
help achieve better socio-economic balance among Iowa City neighborhoods and among schools in the
Iowa City Community School District. An agreement committing the Owner/Developer to the affordable
housing obligation, shall be required prior to annexation, and shall be further memorialized, if necessary,
in a conditional zoning agreement.
Fringe Area Agreement
State enabling legislation permits a city to regulate the subdivision of land within two miles of the City ’s
corporate boundaries. This area is known as the urban fringe area. Counties that enact ordinances control
the land uses permitted in this same area through zoning.
In the interest of managing growth and development in Iowa City’s two-mile fringe area in a mutually ac-
ceptable manner, Johnson County and Iowa City have agreed on the appropriate land uses and standards
for development. As Johnson County and Iowa City consider rezoning, subdivision, County future land use map amendment, and certain site plan applications, considers rezoning applications and Iowa City
reviews subdivisions, their decisions will be governed by the Iowa City/Johnson County Fringe Area
Policy Agreement.
The Agreement focuses exurban development in the area north of Iowa City, encourages development in
Iowa City’s growth area, and looks to achieve only upon annexation, and provides some incentive for the
preservation of open space and environmentally sensitive features. The agreement has been working
well to achieve the goals of both the City and County. It will be reviewed every five years, with an effective date of ten years. Although it will be reviewed periodically for updates, the implementation of the Fringe
Area Agreement will likely continue without significant changes. [See Fringe Area Map in the appendix
to this document.]
Attachment G. Update to the Comprehensive Plan
Date: October 7, 2021
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner
Re: CPA21-0002 – IWV/Slothower Comprehensive Plan Amendment Resubmission
BACKGROUND:
On September 16, 2021, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on a
requested amendment to change the Southwest District Plan and Comprehensive Plan future
land use map designations, and related plan text, from residential, open space, and future
development to intensive commercial for approximately 79.4 acres located south of IWV Road
SW and west of Slothower Road. Staff recommended approval based on rationale detailed in
the staff report dated September 2, 2021 (Attachment 2). The motion to approve the
comprehensive plan amendment failed by a vote of 3-2 (Padron and Townsend against)
because a minimum of 4 votes is required to recommend approval.
The applicant, MMS Consultants, applying on behalf of Matt Adam and IWV Holdings, LLC, has
submitted a revised comprehensive plan amendment (Attachment 1) for consideration.
ANALYSIS:
The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan serves as a land-use planning guide by illustrating and
describing the location and configuration of appropriate land uses throughout the City, providing
notification to the public regarding intended uses of land; and illustrating the long-range growth
area limit for the City. Applicants may request an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan
with City Council approval after a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Applicants for a comprehensive plan amendment must provide evidence that the request meets
the following two approval criteria in Section 14-8D-3D:
1.Circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors have come to light
such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest.
2.The proposed amendment will be compatible with other policies or provisions of the
comprehensive plan, including any district plans or other amendments thereto.
The revised submittal contains the following changes from the original submittal:
1.The addition of an approximately 340- to 350-foot Vegetative Noise and Sight Buffer along
the southern property line in the Southwest District Future Land Use Map.
2.The addition of approximately 340 to 350 feet of Public/Private Open Space along the
southern property line in the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map.
The purpose of the new vegetative buffer is to reduce the potential undesirable side-effects of
the proposed use, such as noise or unwelcome views, from future adjacent development. The
new future land use categories typically correspond to open space areas that are free of
structures. While this can indicate parkland or natural areas, in this case, it will likely be used
to preserve sensitive features and to provide for stormwater management. This is consistent
with how these future land use designations are used in other areas of the City.
October 7, 2021
Page 2
Figure 1 below shows the original submittal reviewed by the Commission on September 16.
Figure 2 below shows the revised submittal, which will be presented at the public hearing on
October 21. In Figure 2, Tracts 1-3 would become Intensive Commercial while Tracts 4-6 would
become Vegetative Noise and Sight Buffer / Public/Private Open Space.
Figure 1: Original Comprehensive Plan Amendment Map
Figure 2: Revised Comprehensive Plan Amendment Map
October 7, 2021
Page 3
The proposed revision clarifies which areas of the subject properties are intended for intensive
commercial development and which are intended for an open space buffer. Proposed changes to
the Southwest District Plan text also continue to apply. As such, the revised amendment does
not affect staff’s analysis detailed in the September 2 staff report (Attachment 2). However, staff
has updated the staff report packet with current exhibits and added a description of
intensive commercial land uses in Appendix A of the district plan for additional clarification.
Overall, staff still finds that the approval criteria are met by the applicant’s revision to
the proposed comprehensive plan amendment.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
In addition to public comments attached to the updated September 2 staff report packet, 9
members of the public expressed concerns with the proposed plan amendment at the
September 16 public meeting. Their comments, and the discussion, are included in the
meeting minutes being considered for approval in this agenda packet.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission set a public hearing for October
21, 2021 on CPA21-0002, a proposed amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan future
land use map to Intensive Commercial and Public/Private Open Space and to change the
Southwest District Plan text and future land use map to Intensive Commercial and
Vegetative Noise/Sight Buffer for approximately 79 acres of property located south of IWV
Road SW and west of Slothower Road.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Revised Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Materials
2.September 2, 2021 Staff Report Packet [Updated October 1, 2021]
Approved by: __________________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
(319) 351-8282
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
www.mmsconsultants.net
1917 S. GILBERT ST.
09-27-2021 REVISED LAND USE PER CLIENT -JDM
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
05-20-2021
KJB
RLW
RRN
IOWA CITY
10355-010 1
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN EXHIBIT
1
1"=200'
IWV ROAD SW / F46
SLOTHOWER ROADHURT ROAD SWALBERT AND
FAY'S FIRST
ADDITION
KAUBLE'S
SUBDIVISION NW 14 - NE 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NE14SECTION 13-T79N-R7
W
SE 14 - NW14SECTION 13-T79N-R7
WNE 14 - NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNW 14 - NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNE 14 - NE 14SECTION 14-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7
WSE 14 - SE 14SECTION 11-T79N-R7WSW 14 - SW 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SW 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7
W
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0
1"=200'
20 50 100 150 200
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXHIBIT
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
PORTIONS OF THE NORTH ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7
WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN
PLAT PREPARED BY:
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
1917 S. GILBERT STREET
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
OWNER/APPLICANT:
IWV HOLDINGS LLC
2916 HIGHWAY 1 NE
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
LOCATION MAP - NOT TO SCALE
SITE LOCATION
PORTIONS OF THE NORTH
ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 13,
TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7
WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN
TRACT 1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL 2-8 DU/A
PROPOSED LAND USE: INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL
PROPOSED LAND USE: INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL
TRACT 2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: RURAL RESIDENTIAL
PROPOSED LAND USE: INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: FUTURE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSED LAND USE: INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL
TRACT 3
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: PUBLIC/PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
PROPOSED LAND USE: INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: VEGETATIVE NOISE AND SIGHT BUFFER
PROPOSED LAND USE: INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL
TRACT 1TRACT 4TRACT 2TRACT 5TRACT 6TRACT 3TRACT 4
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL 2-8 DU/A
PROPOSED LAND USE: PUBLIC/PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL
PROPOSED LAND USE: VEGETATIVE NOISE AND SIGHT BUFFER
TRACT 5
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: RURAL RESIDENTIAL
PROPOSED LAND USE: PUBLIC/PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: FUTURE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSED LAND USE: VEGETATIVE NOISE AND SIGHT BUFFER
TRACT 6 (NO CHANGE REQUESTED)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: PUBLIC/PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
PROPOSED LAND USE: PUBLIC/PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: VEGETATIVE NOISE AND SIGHT BUFFER
PROPOSED LAND USE: VEGETATIVE NOISE AND SIGHT BUFFER
1
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: CPA21-0002 IWV & Slothower
Parcel(s): 1113202001, 1113201001,
1113226003
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Contact Person:
Property Owner(s):
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner
Date: September 2, 2021
[Attachments 5, 7, and 8 Updated October 1, 2021]
Matt Adam
IWV Holdings, LLC
madam@spmblaw.com
Lacey Stutzman
MMS Consultants
1917 S. Gilbert Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-351-8282
l.sexton@mmsconsultants.net
IWV Holdings, LLC
2916 Highway 1 NE
Iowa City, IA 52240
To change the Southwest District and Comprehensive
Plan future land use map designations, and related
plan text, from residential, open space, and future
development to intensive commercial
To allow intensive commercial development
South of IWV Road SW, West of Slothower Road
Location Map:
Size: 79.4 acres
2
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Agricultural & Residential; Rural Residential (RR-1)
in Iowa City & Agricultural (A) in Johnson County
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Agricultural; Rural Residential (RR-1) &
Residential - ¼ Acre Lot Minimum (R)
East: Agricultural & Institutional; Neighborhood
Public (P-1)
South: Agricultural; Rural Residential (RR-1) &
Agricultural (A)
West: Agricultural; Agricultural (A)
Comprehensive Plan: Residential 2-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre, Rural
Residential, & Public/Private Open Space
Southwest District Plan: Single-Family/Duplex Residential, Future Urban
Development, & Vegetative Noise and Sight Buffer
File Date: May 27, 2021
BACKGROUND:
IWV Holding, LLC owns approximately 79.4 acres of property located south of IWV Road SW
(Melrose Avenue in City limits) and west of Slothower Road. The owner is working with MMS
Consultants to prepare three applications to allow for intensive commercial development. This
specific application (CPA21-0002) proposes to amend the Southwest District Plan, part of the
Comprehensive Plan, by changing the future land use map designation of the subject properties
to intensive commercial. This includes some changes to the text of the Southwest District Plan as
well. Attachments 7 and 8 illustrate the proposed changes to the plans, and Attachment 6 includes
the applicant statement describing the rationale behind the request, along with other application
materials.
The Southwest District Plan, adopted in 2002, includes the subject properties in the growth limit
of the Weber Subarea. The future land use scenario indicates the properties are primarily
appropriate for Future Urban Development, with Single-Family/Duplex Residential shown along
Slothower Road to the east and a Vegetative Noise and Sight Buffer to the west near the proposed
alignment of US Highway 965, which will run south from the Hurt Road alignment and along the
eastern edge of the Iowa City Landfill (see Attachment 3). The plan describes that limited
residential development may occur west of Slothower in the Future Urban Development area, but
that limitations on sanitary sewer service prevent any significant urban development. It also notes
the importance of buffering residential uses from the landfill and the proposed location of US-965
when development eventually occurs and that a more detailed plan will be needed at that time.
The other concurrently submitted applications include an annexation (ANN21-0003), which would
annex 70.4 acres into City limits, and a zoning map amendment (REZ21-0006) which would
rezone the full 79.4 acres from Rural Residential (RR-1) in Iowa City and Agricultural (A) in
Johnson County to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) and Interim Development Commercial (ID-C).
The Comprehensive Plan Amendment must be approved for changes to the zoning map to be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant held a Good Neighbor Meeting on July 28, 2021. Four neighbors attended.
Attachment 5 provides the summary report of the meeting provided by the applicant.
3
ANALYSIS:
The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan serves as a land-use planning guide by illustrating and
describing the location and configuration of appropriate land uses throughout the City, providing
notification to the public regarding intended uses of land; and illustrating the long-range growth
area limit for the City. Applicants may request an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan
with City Council approval after a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Applicants for a comprehensive plan amendment must provide evidence that the request meets
the approval criteria in Section 14-8D-3D. The comments of the applicant are found in the
attachments. Staff comments on the criteria are as follows.
14-8D-3D Approval Criteria: Applications for a comprehensive plan amendment must
include evidence that the following approval criteria are met:
1.Circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors have come
to light such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest.
The subject properties are in the Weber Subarea of the Southwest District Plan. Before
1990, the area west of US-218 and north of Rohret Road was relatively undeveloped, with
a few houses fronting on Rohret Road and public uses along Melrose/IWV, primarily at
the County Historic Poor Farm. By the time the District Plan was adopted in 2002, housing
was developing west and north of Rohret Road and south of the Poor Farm. The District
Plan’s future land use map primarily shows the subject properties as Future Urban
Development, with Single-Family/Duplex Residential along Slothower Road and a
Vegetative Noise and Sight Buffer to the west. Currently, the land is used for agriculture.
When the District Plan was adopted, Iowa City’s Comprehensive Plan was from 1997. The
1997 Plan was the first to extend the City’s western growth boundary from near Slothower
Road to the proposed future alignment of US-965 (see Attachment 3). Consequently, it
was the first time the City considered the future use of the subject properties, with the
future land use map showing them as interim development/rural residential, a placeholder
category that applied to future residential, commercial, and industrial development. Both
the District and 1997 Comprehensive Plans included a policy to protect the Melrose
Avenue and US-218 interchange from commercial encroachment, instead encouraging
such development at the Highway 1 and US-218 interchange. This policy was first
incorporated into the 1983 Comprehensive Plan, adopted around the time of the
construction of US-218, because of concerns that the City could not support commercial
development at both interchanges. Instead, planning documents maintained public uses
directly west of the Melrose interchange. The City’s current Comprehensive Plan, adopted
in 2013, no longer explicitly discusses this policy. However, it is reflected in the future land
use map, which shows most of the subject properties as rural residential, and in the 2006
Fringe Area Agreement, which is a component of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Since adopting the Southwest District Plan, development west of US-218, and around the
Melrose interchange, has continued. Land east of the interchange developed with more
intense uses following Camp Cardinal Boulevard’s construction in 2007, facilitated in part
by three comprehensive plan amendments. These increased the intensity of uses
northeast of Camp Cardinal Boulevard by introducing Office Commercial (CPA16-00001),
Residential 8-16 Dwelling Units per Acre (CPA16-00003), and General Commercial
(CPA20-0001) future land uses. West of the interchange, public uses intensified, including
the addition of the Iowa National Guard Readiness Center, the Joint Emergency
4
Communications Center, and the Johnson County SEATS facility. Housing development
has also continued north of Rohret Road and east of Slothower Road right-of-way.
Recent development in the area constitutes a change in circumstances near the subject
properties such that it is in the public interest to explore future uses for the site. The subject
properties have been in a holding pattern since they were first considered in Iowa City
planning documents. This was largely because sewer service was not expected to be
available until a lift station could be constructed, which prevented any significant urban
development. However, the application shows that the north side of the properties could
be serviced, which could accommodate some larger users, such as MidAmerican Energy.
Additionally, Iowa City and its neighboring metropolitan cities have seen rapid growth and
a redistribution of population over the past 30 years (Figure 1). Iowa City has added more
than 15,000 new residents, an increase of more than 25 percent. However, the other
metropolitan cities (Coralville, North Liberty, Tiffin, and University Heights) have tripled in
size. This change from 1990 to 2020 is primarily due to residential growth in North Liberty
(+17,553 residents) and Coralville (+11,971 residents), though Tiffin has experienced
recent growth as well (+4,052 residents). With these changes, Iowa City’s population has
decreased as a proportion of the metro, and the center of population has shifted to the
northwest. This makes the US-218 corridor increasingly important.
Figure 1: Population Change from 1990-2020
1990 2000 2010 2020 Change
(#)
Change
(%)
Iowa City 59,735 62,220 67,862 74,828 +15,093 +25%
Other Metro Cities 14,775 22,452 35,279 48,537 +33,762 +229%
Remainder of County 21,609 26,334 27,741 29,489 +7,880 +36%
Johnson County 96,119 111,006 130,882 152,854 +56,735 +59%
Iowa City as Percent
of Metro Cities
80.2% 73.5% 65.8% 60.7%
Source: 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020 Census Data
The proposed amendment changes the future land use of the subject properties to
intensive commercial. The Zoning Code, which helps implement City plans, describes the
Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone as providing areas for sales and service functions and
businesses whose operations are typically characterized by outdoor display and storage
of merchandise, by repair and sales of large equipment or motor vehicles, by outdoor
commercial amusement and recreational activities, or by activities or operations
conducted in buildings or structures not completely enclosed. Types of retail trade are
limited to provide opportunities for more land intensive commercial operations and to
prevent conflicts between retail and industrial truck traffic. It notes that adjacent residential
zones must be buffered from the potential negative aspects of allowed uses, which include
a variety of commercial, light industrial, and limited institutional and residential uses.
The City and metro are expected to continue growing, and commercial and industrial areas
must grow to accommodate increasing demand. The City currently has around 1,239
acres of commercial and 838 acres of industrial zoning, 398 acres of which is zoned
specifically for intensive commercial uses (Figure 2). Most land zoned Intensive
Commercial (CI-1) is occupied, but approximately 51 acres (13%) is vacant land, located
on scattered parcels along Scott Boulevard and south of the Highway 1 north and east of
the airport and at its interchange with US-218 (Attachment 4). While this land does not
5
have buildings, only 45 acres are expected to develop; the rest is used by adjacent
owners. Of developable parcels zoned Intensive Commercial (CI-1), most are less than 2
acres. Other vacant parcels in the City are zoned to accommodate similar land uses, such
as industrial zones, but while there is a relative abundance of vacant land zoned industrial
(217.5 acres), it is primarily in the City’s southeast industrial park which is well-positioned
to attract railroad users but does not have good highway access. As such, the supply of
vacant land in the City currently does not meet all of the needs of users in the City,
including MidAmerican Energy.
Figure 2: Acres Zoned for Industrial and Commercial Land Uses
Land Uses Current Zoning
(Acres)
Current Vacant
(Acres)
Current
Vacancy Rate
General Commercial 322.84 20.04 6%
Highway Commercial 64.22 8.99 14%
Intensive Commercial 397.96 51.23 13%
Industrial 837.74 217.50 26%
Other Commercial 453.63 131.43 29%
Total Commercial/Industrial 2,076.39 429.19 21%
Source: Johnson County parcel information, obtained August 2021
By 2040, the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County estimates Iowa City
will grow to a population of 94,093 (+25.7%). Assuming demand for Intensive Commercial
(CI-1) zoning increases at the same rate, the City should anticipate a need for about 500
acres (397.96 x 125.7%) of CI-1 zoning by 2040. Based on the future land use map, the
City currently plans for an additional 44 net acres of intensive commercial, or a total of
about 442 acres (Figure 3). This leaves a gap in demand of 58 acres, and more than that
will be needed because over 60 acres of expected additions are already occupied, plus
additional land is likely needed to accommodate sensitive features and right-of-way. While
this is based on the current development pattern which is changing (for example, online
retail is supplanting brick-and-mortar stores), staff anticipates that demand for intensive
commercial and light industrial uses will remain relatively stable as warehousing and
transportation uses will fulfill needs associated with logistics and online purchasing. Staff
also anticipates that MidAmerican Energy will utilize a portion of the subject property.
Figure 3: Expected Change in Acres Zoned for Industrial and Commercial Land Uses
Land Uses Current
Zoning
(Acres)
Expected
Additions*
(Acres)
Expected
Losses**
(Acres)
Net
Change
(Acres)
Land Use
Potential
(Acres)
General Commercial 322.84 +10.70 -40.81 -30.11 292.73
Highway Commercial 64.22 +0.00 -0.00 +0.00 64.22
Intensive Commercial 397.96 +107.91 -63.43 +44.48 442.44
Industrial 837.74 +300.79 -14.07 +286.72 1,124.46
Other Commercial 453.63 +613.07 -0.24 +612.83 1,066.46
Total Commercial/Industrial 2,076.39 +1,032.47 -118.55 +913.92 2,990.31
*Expected additions: Land shown as a use on the future land use map which is not currently
zoned for that use (primarily in the City’s growth areas).
**Expected losses: Land currently zoned for a use that is not expected to be developed as that
use based on the future land use map (primarily Riverfront Crossings and publicly owned land).
Source: Johnson County parcel information, obtained August 2021, IC2030 Comprehensive Plan
6
Development and planning in the area constitutes a change in circumstances. Based on
projected long-term demand and the characteristics of the site, including access to US-
218 and intensive commercial uses being appropriate as a buffer against future landfill
expansion and US-965 extension, staff believes that the proposed amendment is in the
public interest.
2.The proposed amendment will be compatible with other policies or provisions of
the comprehensive plan, including any district plans or other amendments thereto.
The Weber Subarea of the Southwest District Plan has several policies relevant to the
proposed amendment relating to transportation, infrastructure, and land use.
With regards to transportation, the subject properties will be bounded by three major
streets to the west, east, and north. To the west, along the City’s growth limit, the City
plans to extend US-965 south as an arterial to connect with Rohret Road and eventually
Highway 1. As development occurs, the City needs to secure adequate right-of-way and
compatible land uses near the Iowa City Landfill. To the east, a north-south collector street
is expected between Melrose Avenue and Rohret Road, primarily along the Slothower
Road right-of-way. To the north, Melrose Avenue needs to be improved to City standards
beyond current City limits. This is currently planned for 2021 in the City’s Capital
Improvement Program.
With regards to land use and other infrastructure, The Weber Subarea future land use
map designates most of the land west of Slothower Road as Future Urban Development
until sewer service is extended and lift stations are constructed where required. Water
service will be expanded as part of the Melrose/IWV project in 2021. The Plan allows for
some residential uses along the west side of Slothower Road, but it discourages “leapfrog”
development without street and trail connections between the proposed US-965 alignment
and Slothower Road. It notes that as development becomes imminent, a more detailed
plan will be needed for areas of future development. The District Plan also discourages
commercial uses around the Melrose and US-218 interchange, noting that there are
nearby commercial areas, including the Highway 1/US-218 interchange, Walden Square,
and future commercial areas south of Rohret Road. It also discusses the importance of
buffering residential uses from the Iowa City Landfill and future US-965.
The proposed amendment generally follows the existing policy direction of City planning
documents. Amending the future land use map permits the accommodation of
transportation policies discussed in the Southwest District Plan through the rezoning and
subdivision processes. Similarly, the application shows that infrastructure needs can be
met while allowing for continuous, contiguous development from Slothower to US-965.
The proposed use is also more compatible with the nearby landfill than residential uses,
which would require buffering, and is an appropriate use near two major streets. While
some buffering is required between intensive commercial and residential uses, those can
be accommodated through the site development standards and rezoning process.
Furthermore, the proposed amendment meets several goals and strategies from the
Comprehensive Plan regarding commercial and industrial development. Specifically:
•Use the District Plans to identify appropriate commercial nodes and zone accordingly
to focus commercial development to meet the needs of present and future population.
7
•Identify, zone, and preserve land for industrial uses in areas with ready access to rail
and highways.
•Target industrial and business sectors that align with Iowa City’s economic strengths,
including biotechnology, healthcare, advanced manufacturing, information technology,
education services, and renewable energy.
•Focus growth within the Iowa City urban growth area by using the City’s extra-territorial
review powers to discourage sprawl and preserve prime farmland.
While goals generally align, some differences between the proposed amendment and
plans must be reconciled. Allowing intensive commercial development along Melrose
somewhat diverges from policy preventing commercial encroachment near the US-218
and Melrose interchange. However, the area nearest the interchange will remain
dedicated to public uses, and the proposed uses are consistent with goals related to
identifying appropriate areas for commercial and industrial development. Another potential
discrepancy is the goal of encouraging new business development in existing core or
neighborhood commercial areas. While this is important, existing commercial areas do not
appear to be able to accommodate all users looking to locate in Iowa City. The amendment
was initially considered because MidAmerican Energy has been unable to find an
appropriate site for a new facility. As such, there appears to be a need for new intensive
commercial areas to meet the needs of Iowa City’s future population.
Other goals of the Comprehensive Plan also need to be met through the rezoning process
for the subject properties. They include the following:
•Discourage linear strip commercial development that discourages walking and biking
and does not contribute to the development of compact, urban neighborhoods.
•Guide development away from sensitive environmental areas, such as floodplains,
wetlands, woodlands, steep slopes, flood hazard areas, and streams.
These will be achieved through the City’s Sensitive Areas Ordinance and conditions on
rezonings, where necessary. Based on information submitted by the applicant, there
appears to be approximately 1.13 acres of wooded wetlands, 1.46 acres of emergent
wetlands, and 2.36 acres of sensitive woodlands and groves of trees on the subject
properties. Sensitive features, required buffers, and potential stormwater detention areas
will limit the acreage on the subject properties that may be developed.
Finally, the proposed amendment meets policies adopted in other documents of the City.
The Fringe Area Agreement shows this land as being within Iowa City’s Growth Area C. It
encourages commercial and industrial development south and southwest of the Iowa City
Municipal Airport, and in interchanges of paved roads, to be annexed prior to
development. However, it discourages such development in all other areas of Fringe Area
C. The subject properties will be at paved intersections, and an application for annexation
has been submitted with the proposed amendment. The City is currently in the process of
updating the Fringe Area Agreement with Johnson County. The new agreement will state
that development should follow the policy direction of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
For the reasons above, staff finds that the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment
(Attachments 7 and 8) is compatible with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan.
However, implementing this proposed amendment requires annexing the property and
amending the zoning map, which should include conditions ensuring the goals of the
8
Comprehensive Plan are met (to be considered under ANN21-0003 and REZ21-0006
respectively).
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Staff received one written comment opposing the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment
due to potential traffic and lighting impacts. The comment can be found in Attachment 5.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve CPA21-0002, a proposed
amendment to change the following, as shown in Attachments 7 and 8, for approximately 79.4
acres of property located south of IWV Road SW and west of Slothower Road:
•The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation from Rural Residential, Open
Space, and Residential at 2-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre to Intensive Commercial; and
•The Southwest District Plan future land use map designation from Single-Family/Duplex
Residential and Future Urban Development to Intensive Commercial, and to change the
text of the District Plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Location Map
2.Zoning Map
3.Proposed Iowa Highway 965 Extension & Fringe Area Maps
4.Map of Current and Expected Intensive Commercial Land Use
5.Correspondence and Good Neighbor Meeting Materials [Updated October 1, 2021]
6.Applicant Submittal
7.Proposed Changes to the Weber Subarea of the Southwest District Plan [Updated
October 1, 2021]
8.Proposed Changes to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map [Updated
October 1, 2021]
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
MELROSE AVE218S B T O M E L R O S E A V E
W ILDCAT LN
C AR LSBADPLTEMPE CTL A K E S H ORE DRMELROSE AVESLOTHOWERRDSANTAFEDRSLOTHOWERRDSWTEMPE PLHIGHWAY 218HURT RD SWSLOTHOWER RDIWV RD SWANN21-0003, CPA21-0002 & REZ21-0006IWV and Slothower Rd.µ0 0.15 0.30.075 MilesPrepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: June 2021Three applications submitted by MMS Consultants, on behalf of IWV Holdings, LLC,for the Annexation of 70.4 acres of property located south of IWV Rd. and west of Slothower Rd.the rezoning of 79.4 acres from County Agricultural (A) and Rural Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) and Interim Development - Commercial (ID-C)and a comprehensive plan amendment changing the future land use fromPublic/Private Open Space, and Rural Residential to Intensive Commercial.
IWV RD SWCARLS B A DPLTEMPE CTMELROSE AVESLOTHOWERRDFLAGSTAFFDRDURANGOPLSANTAFEDRWILDCATLNMELROSE AVESLOTHOWERRDSWHIGHWAY218 TEMPEPLHURT RD SW2 1 8 S B T OMELROSE A V E
SLOTHOWER RDP1/RM12RS5P2P1RR1Johnson County PD & SANN21-0003, CPA21-0002 & REZ21-0006IWV and Slothower Rd.µ0 0.15 0.30.075 MilesPrepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: June 2021Three applications submitted by MMS Consultants, on behalf of IWV Holdings, LLC,for the Annexation of 70.4 acres of property located south of IWV Rd. and west of Slothower Rd.the rezoning of 79.4 acres from County Agricultural (A) and Rural Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) and Interim Development - Commercial (ID-C)and a comprehensive plan amendment changing the future land use fromPublic/Private Open Space, and Rural Residential to Intensive Commercial.
55
IOWA 1U
S 21
8
US 6
MU S C AT I N E AV E
MELROSE AVE
S
GI
L
B
E
R
T
S
T
S
A
ND
R
DROCHESTER AVE
OLD HIGHWAY 218DODGE STE BURLINGTON ST GOVERNOR STOAK CREST HILL RD SES RI
VERSI
DE DRMORMON TREK BLVDUS 6
Legend
Zoned CI-1; N o Expected Change
Not Zoned CI-1; Expected A dditions*
Zoned CI-1; E xpected Losses**
Vacant; Expected to Develop
Vacant; Not Expected to Develop
Major Roads
Intensive Commercial Land UseCurrent and Expected
Prepared by: Kirk Leh mann , Associate Planne rDate: August 25, 2 021Source: Johnson County Parcel Data
*Expected Additions: La nd shown as inte nsive commercial on the future land use map which is not currently zoned Intensive Co mmercial (CI-1).
**Expe cted Losses: Land currently zon ed Intensive Commercial (CI-1) that is not expected to be de ve loped as in tensivecommercial based on the future land u se map.0 0.5 10.25 Miles
¯
From:Pamela
To:Raymond Heitner
Date:Wednesday, August 18, 2021 7:32:08 PM
I am against the rezoning of Slothower Rd. I feel like it will lead to loud traffic and distracting
lighting to our neighborhood.
Pamela Miller-DeKeyser
1630 Lake Shore Drive
Iowa City, IA 52246
Sent from the all new AOL app for Android
From:DEANAGHOLSON
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Rezoning at Melrose and Slothower
Date:Monday, September 13, 2021 4:00:16 PM
Mr. Heitner,
I am emailing you in regard to the recent proposal of rezoning in the area of Melrose and Slothower. We have lived
in Iowa City for twenty years this year. We built our home on the southwest side of town near Weber school and
have loved our neighborhood and location. We have paid close attention to the area to our north (Poor Farm) and
west (farmland) and were happy with the cities comprehensive plan for this area over time.
We are very concerned that the recent rezoning proposal is to go from rural/residential to commercial in this area.
We are aware that rezoning happens (it obviously had to in order for our neighborhood to be developed) but to leap
from rural to commercial seems like quite a drastic change. Once a commercial property area is developed, it seems
likely that it could very well continue to develop in that manner which could effect us in the future.
I am unsure if we will be able to attend the P&Z meeting this week but would request that you log our concerns in
with any others you may have gotten regarding this rezoning. We would like to see the city take a step back and
reassess the situation and come up with a revised comprehensive plan to share with the southwest citizens before
forging ahead at this time.
Thanks for your time!
Deana Gholson
1332 Phoenix Drive
IC IA
This email is from an external source.
From:John Bergstrom
To:Raymond Heitner
Cc:Sherri Bergstrom
Subject:Case CPA21-0002 SW corner of Slothower Road and IWV Road
Date:Monday, September 13, 2021 6:28:15 PM
As representatives of Slothower Farm we are expressing our objections to the dramatic change in
the Comprehensive Plan to allow for Intensive commercial development on land that has long been
anticipated to be residential. This change to the IWV Holding parcel is being brought about to allow
for the development of a Mid American Energy service complex that the City evidently feels that
they have no where else to place it. This is certainly a change to a relatively small parcel that will
affect the future of many existing and future residents. We would like to see the following
addressed or answered:
1. The staff report (as well as the MMS report) refer to the significant changes that have taken
place. Frankly, the changes in the immediate area west of the interchange are not new.
What is new is the significant residential growth to the area abutting the County Farm. The
proposed changes will affect the existing neighborhoods, existing residents and the future
development of the Johnson County Poor Farm.
2. There seems to be concern about the landfill needing a buffer. The proposed 965 extension
will provide a natural separation. MMS has come to its own stated conclusion that the best
buffer is commercial development. Seems a little self serving.
3. Why is a longstanding planning instrument being drastically altered to accommodate a 40
acre development (initially) that will affect a large overlay area. If the Comprehensive Plan is
to be altered like this, it should be much more encompassing, studied and thought out. Not
as a reaction to a single user.
4. The City feels it needs more intensive commercial land? Fine, don’t put it on or next to areas
long slated for residential. Or, if you can’t accommodate certain uses, is there any harm
letting them gravitate to a neighboring community that can?
5. There are complementary non-residential uses that are compatible with neighborhoods that
don’t infringe on residents. The uses allowed under the proposed zoning (including Mid
American Energy) are not compatible.
6. The goal of the existing Comprehensive Plan is to encourage commercial and industrial
development south and southwest of the Iowa City Municipal Airport. Now you appear to
conveniently be changing the Fringe Area Agreement just to accommodate a single user.
7. How does Johnson County feel about this as it relates to the Poor Farm? Intensive
commercial uses would not be complementary to the proposed development schemes we
have seen for the farm.
Please reconsider this change to the Comprehensive Plan and the subsequent zoning changes that
would result. The City needs to slow down and better understand the ramifications of this action.
John and Sherri Bergstrom
From:James Larimore
To:Raymond Heitner
Cc:Jim Larimore
Subject:Opposition to proposed amendment to Comprehensive Plan
Date:Wednesday, September 15, 2021 3:43:33 PM
Dear Mr. Heitner,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of land near the
intersection of Melrose and Slothower in Iowa City.
My family and I live on Wildcat Lane in the Southwest District, and our house is one of those
with a direct line of site to the proposed location of Intensive Commercial development. We
purchased our house seven years ago in large measure because of the assurances provided in
the City's Comprehensive Plan for the Southwest District, which explicitly discouraged "the
establishment of commercial uses around the Melrose Avenue-Highway 218 interchange" and
envisioned that future development of this area should preserve the rural character of the
district, provide a diversity of housing types, and potentially include the creation of a regional
park that could be connected to a planned water reservoir, the Willow Creek trail and other
parks in the Southwest District.
I am certain that others who have purchased homes in this area, at the combined cost of tens of
millions of dollars of personal investment, also took into account the rural and residential
nature of the district when they decided to move into the Southwestern District.
The proposed rezoning will irretrievably damage the rural and residential character of the
Southwest District and creates a risk that the proposed Intensive Commercial development
will eventually cascade further down Slothower Road, impacting home values and quality of
life, as well as introducing unwanted vehicular traffic seeking a faster path to Highway 218.
Furthermore, in stark contrast to the transparent and inclusive process that informed the
current proposal takes a piecemeal rather than comprehensive approach, and with extremely
limited effort at outreach, information dissemination, and community engagement on the part
of the Planning and Zoning office. I am concerned that precipitous action on the part of the
Planning and Zoning Commission puts at risk the public trust which was earned by
the Commission's predecessors, who facilitated direct community engagement in the creation
of the current Comprehensive Plan. Trust is hard to earn and easy to squander, and I urge the
Commission not to trade away public trust and confidence in the expedient pursuit of a
problem for which there are likely alternative solutions.
I look forward to participating in the Commission's hearing on September 16th.
Sincerely,
Jim Larimore
Wildcat Lane
Iowa City
August 5, 2021
City of Iowa City
Planning and Community Development
Attn: Ray Heitner
410 E Washington
Iowa City, IA 52240
RE: IWV Annexation, Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment
In response to the letter provided on July 30, 2021 we offer the following comments on behalf
of the developer.
CPA21-0002 Comments:
1. Because a comprehensive plan amendment is required, this application requires
two meetings at the Planning & Zoning Commission; one to set the public
hearing, and then the public hearing.
We acknowledge this comment.
2. In discussing the area slated for “future urban development” on the subject
properties, the Southwest District Plan notes that “When development becomes
imminent a more detailed plan will need to be developed for this area.” Please
discuss what detailed planning has gone into determining the proposed use for
the area.
The District Plan references the ‘future urban development’ in the final
paragraph of the section titled Land Use for the Weber Subarea. It mentions
the importance of providing a buffer for residential uses from the Iowa City
Landfill and the intended Highway 965 extension along the western most
boundary. Commercial uses are the best option to provide the buffer in our
opinion. This will allow for ease of access to Highway 965 for those
commercial uses as well.
3. Staff anticipates that the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council will
have questions on potential end users and uses of the subject property. Please be
prepared to make this information public prior to the public hearing date for the
comprehensive plan amendment.
We acknowledge this comment. The applicant will take this into consideration
prior to the meetings.
ANN21-0003/REZ21-0006 Comments:
Urban Planning:
1. The rezoning will analyze all potential CI-1 uses and describe any potential
impacts those uses might have on surrounding development. Some examples of
July 8, 2021 City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Re: IWV Road SW Rezoning, Annexation and Comprehensive Plan Amendment On behalf of IWV Holdings LLC we are submitting a request for an Annexation and Rezoning in conjunction with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The described land consists of 79.39 acres in total, the proposal includes 70.39 acres to be annexed into the City of Iowa City with 9.0 acres currently located within the city limits. The area is shown as a future growth area. Scheduled improvements to IWV Road will provide necessary arterial access, with additional access provided via Slothower Road. Public water will be available to the site, and public sewer can be extended to serve the site as required. Circumstances for this site have changed since the current plan was adopted. As mentioned above, there are scheduled improvements to IWV Road, and the city has expressed a plan to revisit the comprehensive plan for this region in the near term. These factors, in addition to the plans by the county for the Johnson County Poor Farm, meet the approval criteria for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. We are proposing a change of the land use from a mix of Public/Private Open Space, Rural Residential and 2-8 DU/A to Intensive Commercial. We feel this amendment is appropriate given the access from the property to an arterial road which provides a direct route to Interstate I-380. The proximity to the Iowa City Landfill and a number of other commercially zoned properties along IWV Road SW shows a consistent pattern of compatibility with surrounding development in this area, and is generally compatible with the policies and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. At this time Intensive Commercial (CI-1) is being requested for the East portion of the property and Interim Development Commercial (ID-C) is being requested for the West portion of the property. The ID-C zoning will allow for managed growth of future development and for the current use of the land to continue until a plan to provide city services can be established. This zoning also allows for a review of the stream corridor and the associated sensitive areas located in the West portion when a permanent zoning classification application is submitted. Development of the West portion, and any potential impacts to the sensitive areas, can be more appropriately reviewed when city services are able to be provided.
If you have questions or require any additional information, please contact us accordingly. Respectfully submitted, Jon Marner. MMS Consultants, Inc. 10355-010L2.DOCX
(319) 351-8282
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
www.mmsconsultants.net
1917 S. GILBERT ST.
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
05-20-2021
KJB
RLW
RRN
IOWA CITY
10355-010 1
PROJAC
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN EXHIBIT
1
1"=200'
IWV ROAD SW / F46
SLOTHOWER ROADHURT ROAD SWALBERT AND
FAY'S FIRST
ADDITION
KAUBLE'S
SUBDIVISION NW 14 - NE 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NE14SECTION 13-T79N-R7
W
SE 14 - NW14SECTION 13-T79N-R7
WNE 14 - NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNW 14 - NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNE 14 - NE 14SECTION 14-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7
WSE 14 - SE 14SECTION 11-T79N-R7WSW 14 - SW 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SW 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7
W
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0
1"=200'
20 50 100 150 200
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXHIBIT
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
PORTIONS OF THE NORTH ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7
WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN
PLAT PREPARED BY:
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
1917 S. GILBERT STREET
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
OWNER/APPLICANT:
IWV HOLDINGS LLC
2916 HIGHWAY 1 NE
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
LOCATION MAP - NOT TO SCALE
SITE LOCATION
PORTIONS OF THE NORTH
ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 13,
TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7
WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIANCURRENT LAND USE: 2-8 DU/APROPOSED LAND USE: INTENSIVE COMMERCIALCUR
R
E
NT L
A
N
D
U
S
E:
R
U
R
AL
R
E
SI
D
E
NTI
AL
PRO
P
O
S
E
D L
A
N
D
U
S
E: I
NT
E
N
SI
V
E
C
O
M
M
E
R
CI
AL
CURRENT LAND USE: PUBLIC / PRIVATE OPEN SPACEPROPOSED LAND USE: INTENSIVE COMMERCIALS89°06'50"W
N89°06'50"E
300.04'
N89°06'50"E 2333.41'S00°00'59"W1305.56'S88°45'34"W
300.07'
S88°45'34"W
414.99'
S00°06'26"E
3.41'
S89°03'31"W1921.53'N00°08'52"E1315.30'G:\10355\10355-010\10355-010N-COMP.dwg, 7/8/2021 6:03:22 PM
DESCRIPTION - REZONING PARCEL NO. 1
THE EAST 300 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13,
TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7 WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA.
SAID REZONING PARCEL NO. 1 CONTAINS 9.0 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
DESCRIPTION - REZONING PARCEL NO. 2
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH,
RANGE 7 WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA.
EXCEPTING THE EAST 300 FEET THEREFROM
SAID REZONING PARCEL NO. 2 CONTAINS 30.7 ACRES, MORE OR LESS
DESCRIPTION - REZONING PARCEL NO. 3
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH,
RANGE 7 WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. SAID REZONING PARCEL
NO. 3 CONTAINS 39.7 ACRES, MORE OR LESS
WEBER SUBAREA
Farm along Rohret Road
The Weber Subarea is located south of
Melrose Avenue and Highway 218, north of
Rohret Road, extending to the City’s growth
limits half a mile west of Slothower Road.
Before the 1980s this area was relatively
undeveloped, with a few houses fronting onto
Rohret Road. Through the 1980's and 90's
housing developed westward on the north
side of Rohret Road and south of the County
Poor Farm property. Roughly two-thirds of
the land area is undeveloped. Some patches
of woodland and native prairie exist, but most
of it is under cultivation. The area contains
three public/institutional uses: Irving B. Weber Elementary School, the Korean
Methodist Church, and Chatham Oaks, a residential care facility located on the
County Poor Farm property. There are no commercial uses in the subarea.
Transportation
In the future next 20 to twenty-five years, the City plans to extend Highway 965
southward along the current western growth limit to connect with Rohret Road via
the eastern edge of the Iowa City Landfill. It will eventually reach Highway 1 and
serve as a far west side arterial. As development approaches this area, the City
needs to secure adequate road right-of-way and sufficient buffer width against the
Iowa City Landfill. As an entryway corridor into Iowa City, Highway 965 should
incorporate boulevard design standards with a well-landscaped median and
generous landscaping along both sides, wide sidewalks and bicycle lanes. This
could serve as additional buffer against the landfill.
In the more immediate future a north-south collector street will be required between
Melrose Avenue and Rohret Road, part of it configured using the Slothower Road
right-of-way. Care must be taken to keep the eventual route somewhat circuitous
between Melrose and Rohret to diminish its desirability as a cut-through route for
non-local traffic. In addition, access routes to the southern portion of the County Poor
Farm should be incorporated into the local street layouts in future phases of both
Wild Prairie Estates and Country Club Estates.
Willow Creek Trail will eventually cross Highway 218 via tunnel and connect Hunters
Run Park to the wider community trail system. A trail link across the County Poor
Farm property to Melrose Avenue will connect this regional trail to the arterial street
system in the far western part of the Southwest District. If a regional stormwater lake
is constructed in the Rohret South Subarea, it will be important to construct a trail
connection between Hunters Run Park and the public open space surrounding this
new lake.
Southwest District Plan
10/8/02 38
As westward development creates the need, both Rohret Road and Melrose Avenue
will be improved to City standards beyond the point of the current corporate limits.
Public Services and Facilities
Before much of the area between Slothower and the landfill can be developed, a
sanitary sewer lift station will have to be constructed. Northern portions of Country
Club Estates can build out without further sewer improvements, but the southern two-
thirds adjacent to Rohret Road drains to the southwest. This portion cannot be
developed until a temporary lift station is built that connects to the landfill’s lift station
or a proposed permanent lift station is built south of Rohret Road on the western
edge of the Rohret South Subarea.
Land Use
Several areas of particular interest stand out in the Weber subarea with regard to
land use: the build-out of Country Club Estates and Wild Prairie Estates; the
development of the area west of Slothower Road; and future use of the County Poor
Farm property.
Johnson County Poor Farm
Future use of the County Poor Farm
property generated considerable discussion
and a wide variety of suggestions during
Citizen Planning workshops. The following
considerations should be used as a guide to
future development of this property:
•The following important elements should
be preserved and protected from the
encroachment of development: the
historic poor farm buildings and
cemetery; Chatham Oaks residential
care facility; and any environmentally sensitive areas.
•Approximately 90 acres of the property are wooded, brushy, or contain prairie
remnants. These areas would be suitable for use as a regional park that could be
connected via the Willow Creek trail to other parks and destinations in the
Southwest District.
•The southwest portion of the property contains approximately fifty acres of
relatively flat ground that is currently row-cropped. This area would be suitable for
residential development. Any new subdivisions in this location should be
connected to the street network developed in the Southwest Estates and Wild
Prairie Estates subdivisions located directly south of the County Farm property.
•If any development occurs on the county property adjacent to Highway 218, a
buffer should be maintained.
•Future use of the county property located north of Melrose Avenue should be
considered carefully with regard to potential impacts on the poor farm property.
Southwest District Plan
10/8/02 39
Wild Prairie Estates will soon reach its northern boundary. Access to and through the
Poor Farm is a desirable option in the future and for now a street stub northward up
to the Willow Creek-Hunters Run Trail extension will be necessary. North of that and
adjacent to Highway 218’s right-of-way, a noise and sight buffer should be
established between residential areas and the highway.
The Comprehensive Plan discourages the establishment of commercial uses around
the Melrose Avenue-Highway 218 interchange. This policy generally should be
maintained because there are several adequate commercial services in the vicinity
to serve this area. The Highway 1-Highway 218 interchange further south provides
community and highway commercial services. In addition, Walden Square in the
Willow Creek Subarea provides neighborhood commercial services, and a future
neighborhood commercial area is proposed in the Rohret South Subarea. However, intensive commercial uses may be appropriate along Melrose Avenue further
from the interchange due to proximity to major thoroughfares and to serve as
a buffer for residential uses from the potential future expansion of the landfill
and Highway 965.
The remaining portion of the Country Club
Estates property is primarily suitable for
low-density single-family development. If
well-designed, the portion of the property
adjacent to Rohret Road may be suitable
for clusters of medium-density residential
uses, such as townhouses or
condominiums. A transition between
existing Rural Residential-zoned (RR-1)
portions of Southwest Estates and future
low-density single-family residential
development to the west may be
accomplished by platting larger RS-5-
zoned lots backing onto the existing rural
residential lots of Southwest Estates.
A New Subdivision in the Weber Subarea
The land west of Slothower is currently used for agriculture. The Weber Subarea
Plan Map designates this area as "future urban development." However, until sewer
service is extended in that direction and one or more lift stations constructed, there
will not be any significant urban development. Before reaching the twenty-year
horizon of this plan, some residential uses, or intensive commercial, may develop
along the west side of Slothower Road and begin moving toward the future Highway
965 extension. However, the expectation is that development will not and should
not “leapfrog” without street and trail connections bridging the gap between 965 and
Slothower Road. When development becomes imminent a more detailed plan will
need to be developed for this area. When development does occur, it will be
important to buffer residential uses from the Iowa City Landfill and Highway 965.
Southwest District Plan
10/8/02 40
Open Space
As this subarea continues to develop
additional public open space will be
needed. Recent improvements to
Hunters Run Park increased the
amount of active park space in the
area. This park may be extended to
the west when the northern part of
Wild Prairie Estates is subdivided. As
mentioned, the County Poor Farm
property contains land that is suitable
for public open space and connecting
trail corridors. The County should plan
for public open space needs as it
contemplates future uses for the
property.
Hunters Run Park
The City plans to use a small parcel of land near the southwest corner of the County
Poor Farm property for a water reservoir. Most of the ground will remain open and
could be used for a small neighborhood park. Additional parkland could be added to
this property as Country Club Estates continues to develop.
Southwest District Plan
10/8/02 41
Appendix A
Southwest District Plan Map Designations
Large Lot/Rural Residential
Suitable for large lot single family development in areas
not suited for more intensive development due to
natural limitations, i.e. soil, slope, unavailability of sewer
and water utilities.
Development Density: approximately 1 dwelling
unit/acre
Single-Family/Duplex Residential
Intended primarily for single family and duplex
residential development. Lower density zoning
designations are suitable for areas with sensitive
environmental features, topographical constraints, or
limited street access. Higher densities are more
appropriate for areas with good access to all city
services and facilities.
Development Density: 2-12 dwelling units/acre
Narrow Lot/Townhouse Residential
Suitable for medium to high density single family
residential development, including zero lot line
development, duplexes, townhouses, and narrow lot
detached single family housing.
Development Density: 6-12 dwelling units/acre
Low-Density Multi-Family Residential
Intended for low -density multi-family housing. Suitable
for areas with good access to all city services and
facilities. Higher density zoning designations may not
be suitable for areas with topographical constraints or
limited street access.
Development Density: 8 -15 dwelling units/acre
Medium- to High-Density Multi-Family Residential
Intended for medium- to high-density multi-family
housing. Suitable for areas with good access to all city
services and facilities. Higher density zoning
designations may not be suitable for areas with
topographical constraints or limited street access.
Development Density: 16-44 dwelling units/acre
Future Urban Development
Areas within the growth limit that are not yet served by
City services and may not experience substantial
development within the lifetime of this district plan. As
development becomes imminent in these areas, the
City will develop more detailed land use and street
layout concepts to supplement the current plan.
Public/Private Open Space
Indicates existing open space that is important for the
protection of sensitive natural features and/or to provide
for recreational opportunities and protect the aesthetic
values of the community. An open space designation
on private land may indicate that an area is largely
unsuitable for development due to environmental or
topographical constraints. While these areas are best
reserved or acquired for private or public open space,
development may occur on privately held land if a
proposal meets the underlying zoning requirements and
the requirements of the Iowa City Sensitive Areas
Ordinance.
Vegetative Noise and Sight Buffer
Useful public facilities, such as limited-access highways
or landfills, can produce undesirable side-effects. In
these areas a substantial vegetative buffer should be
maintained or established to separate residential
development from these uses. Alternatively, where
appropriate, nonresidential uses can be used to buffer
residential areas from highways, landfills, and other
such uses.
Public Services/Institutional
Areas intended for civic, cultural, or historical
institutions; public schools; and places of assembly or
worship. Iowa City does not have a zone that
designates institutional uses as the primary, preferred
land use. However, there are a number of zones where
these uses are permitted or provisional uses.
Development proposals are subject to the requirements
of the underlying zoning designation. Land that is
owned by a public entity is typically zoned Public (P).
Neighborhood Commercial
Areas intended for retail sales and personal service
uses that meet the day-to-day needs of a fully
developed residential neighborhood. A grocery store or
grocery store/drug store combination is preferred as the
primary tenant in a Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1)
zone. Specific site development standards will apply in
these areas to ensure that commercial development is
pedestrian-friendly and compatible with surrounding
residential development.
Office Commercial
Areas intended for office uses and compatible
businesses. In some cases these areas may serve as a
buffer between residential areas and more intensive
commercial or industrial uses.
General Commercial
Areas intended to provide the opportunity for a large
variety of commercial uses that serve a major segment
of the community.
Mixed Use
Areas intended for development that combines
commercial and residential uses. An area may be
primarily commercial in nature or may be primarily
residential depending on the location and the
surrounding neighborhood. Commercial uses will
typically be located on the ground floor with housing
above. Development is intended to be pedestrian-
oriented with buildings close to and oriented to the
sidewalk.
Appendix A
Southwest District Plan Map Designations
Intensive Commercial
Areas intended for those sales and service functions
and businesses whose operations are typically
characterized by outdoor display and storage of
merchandise, by repair businesses, quasi-industrial
uses, and for sales of large equipment or motor
vehicles, or by activities or operations conducted in
buildings or structure not completely enclosed. Retail
uses are restricted in order to provide opportunities for
more land-intensive or quasi-industrial commercial
operations and also to prevent conflicts between retail
and industrial truck traffic. Special attention must be
directed toward buffering the negative aspects of
allowed uses from any adjacent lower intensity
commercial areas or residential areas.
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2021 – 7:00 PM
FORMAL MEETING
THE CENTER – ASSEMBLY ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Mike Hensch, Maria Padron, Mark Signs, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Phoebe Martin, Mark Nolte
STAFF PRESENT: Ray Heitner, Sara Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Jon Marner, Josh Entler, John Bergstrom, Eric Freedman, Jim Larimore, Sherri Slothower Bergstrom, Cindy Seyfer, Brenda Scott, Tim Slothower, Duane Kruse, Jim Seyfer, Alex Hachtman, Joleah Shaw, Chris Arch
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
By a vote of 3-2 (Townsend and Padron dissenting) the Commission recommends approval of CPA21-0002, a proposed amendment to change the following for around 80 acres of property located south of IWV and west of Slothower:
• The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation from Rural Residential, Open Space, and Residential at 2-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre to Intensive Commercial; and
• The Southwest District Plan future land use map designation from Single-Family/Duplex Residential and Future Urban Development to Intensive Commercial, and to change the text of the District Plan to what was included in the agenda packet.
Note: After the meeting it was determined that the motion to approve the comprehensive plan amendment did not pass because a minimum of 4 votes is required.
By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends approval of ANN21-0003, a voluntary annexation of approximately 70.39 acres of property located south of IWV Road and west of Slothower Road.
By a vote of 4-1 (Padron dissenting) the Commission recommends approval of REZ21-0006, a rezoning of approximately 53.36 acres from County Agricultural (A) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1), 9 acres from Rural Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1), and 17.03 acres from County Agricultural (A) to Interim Development Commercial (ID-C) subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall: a. Plat all the property herein rezoned to follow the zoning boundaries. b. Submit a landscape plan, which shall be approved by the City Forester, to ensure that, when developed, the subject property is designed in a manner that emphasizes green components within its location along an arterial and as an entryway into the City. c. Owner shall contribute 25% of the cost of upgrading Slothower Road, south of the proposed access, to collector street standards, adjacent to the subject property. 2. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the property fronting Slothower Road:
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 2 of 36
a. Installation of landscaping to the S3 standard, as detailed in section 14-5F-6C of City Code, along the subject property’s Slothower Road frontage. If said certificate of occupancy is issued during a poor planting season, by May 31 following issuance of the certificate of occupancy. b. Improvement of Slothower Road to the southern end of the proposed access off Slothower Road. c. Installation of landscaping to the S3 standard along the property line and IWV Road. 3. At the time the final plat is approved, Owner shall dedicate additional right-of-way along the Slothower Road frontage in an amount and location approved by the City Engineer. 4. Parking, loading areas, and outdoor storage shall either not be located between the front facade of the principal structure and the front yard right-of-way line or shall be screened to the S3 standard along the IWV Road frontage.
By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends approval of CPA21-0001, a proposed amendment to the South District Plan to facilitate development that follows form-based principles in the South District of Iowa City.
By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends recommend a Zoning Code Amendment to adopt form-based standards for new development as identified in the South District Plan.
By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends setting a public hearing on October 7, 2021 on a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan on an update to the Fringe Area Policy Agreement between Johnson County and the City of Iowa City.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS:
CASE NO. CPA21-0002: Location: SW corner of Slothower Road and IWV Road
A public hearing on amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the Southwest District Plan and Comprehensive Plan future land use map designations, and related plan text, from residential, open space, and future development to intensive commercial.
Lehmann began a presentation on the staff report noting this item is proposing to amend the Southwest District Plan and the Comprehensive Plan future land use maps from their current
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 3 of 36
designations to intensive commercial south of IWV Road and west of Slothower Road. This application was submitted by MMS Consultants on behalf of the owner. Lehmann noted it was submitted with two additional applications as well, so in addition to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment there is an annexation (ANN21-0003) which would annex 70 acres into the City and a rezoning (REZ21-0006) to rezone this land from its current designations of Rural Residential within the City and Agriculture in the County to Intensive Commercial and Interim Development Commercial. Currently the land is used for agriculture and it's part of the Southwest District Plan which was adopted in 2002. The subject properties are within the Weber Subarea of the Plan, one of four subareas in this Southwest District Plan, and in the future land use it is shown primarily as future urban development but then there's also some single-family duplex residential along Slothower to the east side and a Vegetative Noise and Site Buffer to the west. The Plan notes some limited residential development may occur west of Slothower Road, but that due to sanitary sewer limitations, extensive development wasn't expected at that time, or in the near future. The Plan also states that residential uses should be buffered from the landfill and the proposed US 965 alignment and that a more detailed plan will be needed when development eventually occurs.
Lehmann showed a map of the subject parcel noting it's south of IWV Road which turns into Melrose Avenue and west of Slothower Road. It's approximately 80 acres and it's all agricultural. US 218 is further to the east, but directly east is the Johnson County Historic Poor Farm. Again, the property is currently zoned County Agricultural, it's got some Rural Agricultural to the north, County Agricultural for the rest of it, and then to the east are some public uses where there's the Poor Farm and some other uses such as the Johnson County facilities buildings and the National Guard Center. Lehmann showed a picture of the topography of the area and noted some hills.
Lehmann noted the proposed amendment has two components, one for the Southwest District Plan and one for the Comprehensive Plan and those would be to modify the future land use map so that it's reflected in both of them. He added there's also some text changes to the Southwest District Plan that generalizes the timeframe for the US 965 extension and then discusses intensive commercial uses that may be appropriate along Melrose should the proposed amendment be adopted. The proposed amendment would change the land use designation to intensive commercial but that doesn't mean the entire site would be intensive commercial, there are sensitive features on site that have to be accommodated, but the entire parcel would be shown on the future land use map as intensive commercial and the future land use map on the Comprehensive Plan would reflect that same change should it be amended.
The role of the Commission tonight is to decide if the two general criteria that are used to determine if a Comprehensive Plan Amendment should be made (found at 14-8D-3D) and that is that the circumstances have changed, or additional information or factors have come to light such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest. Second, the proposed amendment will be compatible with other policies or provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, including any District Plans or other Amendments thereto.
Lehmann noted all of this is laid out in the staff report, but he will try to summarize and make it as clear as possible. Starting with the first criteria, looking at circumstances that have changed such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest. First looking at what was happening at the time these Plans were adopted, prior to 1990 the area was undeveloped, there are a few homes on Rohret Road and some public uses, primarily the County Poor Farm on Melrose, but
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 4 of 36
other than that there wasn't much development. By the time the Southwest District Plan was adopted in 2002 housing was continuing to develop west and north of Rohret Road and at that time the Comprehensive Plan was from 1997. That Plan was the first to actually extend the growth area of the City from approximately Slothower to the proposed future alignment of US 965. That Plan was also the first to consider the future use of the site and the future land use map showed it as interim development or rural residential. Lehmann noted there was also a policy that was included in that Comprehensive Plan and in the Southwest District Plan that talks about discouraging commercial uses at the Melrose and 218 interchange and instead it encouraged focusing commercial and industrial development at the Highway 1/218 interchange due to concerns that both areas would not be able to support full development so staff wanted to concentrate it at that south interchange. That policy was first adopted in the 1983 Comprehensive Plan so that policy has been in place since 218 was built. The 1983 Plan also talks about maintaining public uses directly west of the Melrose interchange, and this policy while it is not explicitly discussed in the current Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in 2013, it is reflected in the future land use map showing the site as rural residential which is similar to the interim development / rural residential that was used in 1997 and is also included in the 2006 Fringe Area Agreement, which is a part of that Comprehensive Plan. Regarding development over time, predominantly south of Melrose, there's some early residential subdivisions that started occurring along Rohret Road and then some additional residential development that crosses 218 and even more once Camp Cardinal Boulevard was constructed in 2007. In 2016 and 2020 three Comprehensive Plan Amendments were made that started introducing some commercial uses into the area, specifically office commercial, and some medium density residential and general commercial uses in relatively small pockets. To the west of the interchange, there are public land uses, the Iowa National Guard Readiness Center, the Joint Emergency Communication Center and the Johnson County SEATS facility. Also housing development has continued west of US 218 and north of Rohret Road. Therefore, staff believes that it's in the public interest to explore future uses for this area as the site has basically been in a holding pattern since the 1997 Comprehensive Plan and the 2002 Southwest District Plan, partially because it was assumed that infrastructure would not be available and that would prevent urban development. However, the applications show that the property can be serviced, so it makes sense to define what future urban uses might look like in this area.
Another change in circumstance since the time this Plan was adopted has been rapid growth and population redistribution in the Iowa City metro over the last 30 years. Since 1990 Iowa City has grown by about 25% but other metros have grown by about three times their population, especially North Liberty and Coralville, so with that, Iowa City has decreased as a proportion of the metro population and the center of population has shifted northwest, which makes the US 218 corridor increasingly important. Growth is expected to continue so uses must grow to accommodate demand as well.
The application is asking to change the future land use of this area to intensive commercial. Lehmann explained intensive commercial has a broad range of uses that are allowed but it's generally sales and service businesses, often characterized by outdoor uses such as large-scale repair or sales or unenclosed operations. It includes some limited retail trade as well. With intensive commercial uses, there is a need to buffer residential uses because it allows some higher intensity commercial and light industrial uses. With regards to intensive commercial uses across the City, it appears that the current vacant land does not meet the needs of all uses within the City. Currently around 400 acres of intensive commercial is in the City and about 13% of that land is vacant. Most of the vacant 45 acres is expected to develop into small parcels with
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 5 of 36
individual businesses occupying those spaces. Lehmann added some other zones allow similar uses, there are commercials zones that are similar and industrial zones. There is quite a bit of vacant general industrial land as well, but that is primarily positioned to attract railroad users, whereas this site has access to the interstate so that was a factor in staff’s recommendation. Lehmann also noted this all started with MidAmerican Energy trying to locate a site and after looking around the City, they found none that met their needs and so they began looking at other areas that might be suitable for that type of use. Lehmann added that this is change is brought about by the application and is not a City-led process and staff is looking at what are the uses generally that might be appropriate. Throughout the City there are three general areas that might accommodate some of these uses, one is around the airport to the southwest, that's one of the larger areas that allows light industrial uses. There's the industrial area that runs along the railroad to the southeast and then on I-80 and Dodge Street to the north that is a commercial area. All those areas have different challenges and benefits. The area to the north would require rezoning and an annexation, the current industrial park doesn't have good highway access, and the area near the airport primarily has smaller parcels. The area they're looking at now is relatively small compared to these other general light industrial areas. In addition, staff looks at future need for Iowa City. Based on MPO projections, Iowa City is expected to grow to approximately 94,000 people by 2040 so that is a growth of about 26%. Assuming demand increases at about the same rate, that shows a need for about 500 acres of intensive commercial and based on what's been planned for in the City currently, there will be around 442 acres of intensive commercial so that leaves a 58-acre gap. Lehmann noted it's actually a larger gap than that because a lot of intensive commercial areas that are going to be annexed into the City are already occupied either by intensive commercial uses or by other unrelated uses. Lehmann noted there is also changing demand over time, and so, whether staff uses the same growth rate as population, it's not the exact amount that is needed, it’s a ballpark for what's an appropriate amount of intensive commercial uses. Staff anticipates demand is going to remain relatively stable, unlike other uses related to commercial where there is a decline in brick and mortar stores with a shift to online retail. The reason staff believes it's going to remain relatively stable is because these sorts of uses often meet some of the demands that would have been met by brick and mortar stores otherwise, especially logistics, transportation, warehousing and those sorts of uses. Staff also believes that MidAmerican Energy would occupy a portion of the site. So based on that projected demand and based on the site and its access to the interstate, staff believes that the amendment is in the public interest and that circumstances have changed over time. Lehmann reiterated areas where staff is expecting additions of intensive commercial are primarily by the interstate interchange and then on south Riverside Drive, but when looking at vacant parcels, that is just the area southwest of the airport, some small parcels near the US 218 interchange, some small parcels north of the airport and some small parcels on Scott Boulevard. Again, generally there's not many large areas for this type of development within this zone.
Lehmann stated the second criterion staff uses to judge Comprehensive Plan Amendments is tied to if it's compatible with the policies and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan or District Plans and this proposal does align with many of the policies in the Southwest District Plan, especially for the Weber subarea. This area was slated for future development until infrastructure was available, it maintains the transportation vision for the area which includes US 965 along the west border, Slothower to the east, and Melrose to the north, it allows for contiguous development from Slothower to US 965 and provides the transition from the landfill and US 965 to intensive commercial and then to agriculture/residential uses. Additional buffering for those uses can be accommodated through rezoning. It also aligns with other goals or objectives in the Comprehensive Plan as well such as identifying appropriate locations for
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 6 of 36
commercial development, the needs of the future population, identifying land for industrial uses with ready access to rail and highways and also targeting industrial business sectors that align with Iowa City’s economic strengths, i.e., renewable energy or energy in general, finance manufacturing and focusing growth in the City’s growth area. Lehmann stated this area is within Iowa City's fringe Growth Area C.
Lehmann stated there are also policies affiliated with the Comprehensive Plan, looking at commercial, industrial development south and southwest at the airport or along intersections of paved roads to be annexed prior to development. This application is at paved intersections and has applied for annexation. Lehmann also noted the Commission will be asked later to set a public hearing for the Fringe Area Agreement, which they have to update because it is expiring, but this policy also aligns with what staff is proposing for the future fringe area as well.
That being said, Lehmann noted there are some differences in policies that are in the Comprehensive and Southwest District Plans. Intensive commercial somewhat diverges from the policy mentioned against commercial encroachment near Melrose and 218. However the area near the interchange will continue to remain as a public use, and it does meet other goals that are tied to identifying appropriate locations for commercial and industrial development so staff believes that the spirit of the policy is met. There's also another policy about encouraging new businesses in existing commercial areas but in this case the existing commercial areas don't seem to accommodate all users within the City that would like to locate here. Lehmann reiterated this was initially considered because of MidAmerican Energy was looking for a site and was not able to find one, and there is a need for future new intensive commercial uses based on population growth within the City.
Lehmann stated there's some other policies he wanted to mention that could be accommodated through the sensitive areas and site development processes, especially related to strip commercial development, discouraging walking and biking and then also sensitive areas, a lot of those can be covered either through conditions on rezoning or by the zoning standards generally which helps those policies be met.
So, based on these findings staff believes that the proposed amendment is compatible with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan but that implementation would require annexation and rezoning which the Commission will also consider this evening and those should include conditions to ensure that the goals of the Comprehensive Plan are met.
Lehmann stated staff also received public comments for this item and all were forwarded to the Commission in advance of this meeting. The applicant held a good neighbor meeting, four neighbors attended and there was discussion along a range of items that included the potentially wide range of uses for the proposed zone, about buffers from residences and sensitive features on the site, and also concern over property values for residential properties that are nearby. In terms of written correspondence, there were four that were opposed, one due to potential traffic and lighting impacts of the proposed use, one with concerns about the shift from rural residential to commercial and that being a relatively large change in policy and that might encourage future commercial development which might have negative impacts, one tied to concerns regarding long term policy in a large area near residences and impacts on residential uses and requested that the City slow down to better understand the impacts, and then one that noted the area being rural residential with a diversity of housing types is one of the reasons they bought their home
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 7 of 36
and noted the amendment process was not transparent and did not have enough outreach.
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approved CPA21-0002, a proposed amendment to change the following for around 80 acres of property located south of IWV and west of Slothower:
• The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation from Rural Residential, Open Space, and Residential at 2-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre to Intensive Commercial; and
• The Southwest District Plan future land use map designation from Single-Family/Duplex Residential and Future Urban Development to Intensive Commercial, and to change the text of the District Plan to what was included in the agenda packet.
In terms of next steps, the goal is to determine if the proposed plan amendment should be recommended for approval by city council, which would run concurrently with the annexation and rezoning. In terms of Council making the final decisions, they would consider the Comprehensive Plan Amendment on November 16, that would be a single meeting, and then there'd be three meetings on the rezoning, so two additional meetings potentially ending December 21.
Hensch asked if the Comprehensive Plan for this area was last updated in 2002 so almost 20 years ago. Lehmann replied for the District Plan yes. Hensch asked what some of the current uses of the land are to the east and to the north of this area. Lehmann stated directly east is the County Poor Farm property that is currently used for agriculture, but also used for events, to the northeast there is the facilities building for Johnson County, so outdoor storage of buses and some maintenance facilities, also the National Guard Readiness Center is over there, but directly north is agricultural.
Hensch noted also present on the Johnson County Poor Farm are the Joint Emergency Communications Center and the Chatham Oaks residential care facility which is housing for the long term chronically mentally ill. Hensch asked what the distance from the landfill these 79 acres is. Heitner replied it's about half a mile to three quarters of a mile to the southwest depending on where they’re measuring.
Hensch asked if the roadway through here from 218 to just past the landfill is all being currently improved. Lehmann confirmed it is.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Jon Marner (MMS Consultants) is representing the applicant First he thanked staff as they have been working together on this project for close to six months and staff did a great job with the report and putting the packet together with a lot of useful information. Marner wanted to highlight one specific item, the comprehensive planning and zoning amendments that are being sought are to provide an opportunity for businesses that require close access to not only arterial roadways but also the interstate system. There are no finalized agreements at this time for any end users. Staff alluded to MidAmerican as a possible end user and is somebody that would fit this classification, but that’s not finalized at this time. Marner stated they feel that this use will be beneficial as there is a growing need or a future need based on the growth in this area for this type of use in the Iowa City community. Given the way the growth has moved towards the north and west and with the recent improvements to the IWV this is a natural location, they feel, to
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 8 of 36
provide those uses. This location has arterial road access both on IWV right now and the future Highway 965 location that's planned to go along the east side of landfill at the western edge of this property. And of course, the property is in very close proximity to the interstate system.
Marner noted regarding a few other items staff mentioned were comments, questions and concerns from the good neighbor meeting and also received written comments, they understand there was a concern about the proximity of this type of use to future residential development in the area. The southern edge of this property has a stream corridor that runs close to parallel to the property line and there's a lot of sensitive features, wetlands, some wooded areas, forest, as well as the stream corridor that runs north/south along the very west edge of the of the property. Those features, combined with a detention basin that they have currently planned for the property, account for approximately a third of the property and that is well above the required buffer for this zoning code for intensive commercial from residential. They are taking advantage of the natural features that are already in place and then extending them by providing the detention that's required as part of the City's ordinance and utilizing that area to help provide an additional buffer for any potential future residential development. Marner affirmed they did listen to those concerns, as part of that meeting, as the original detention basin they had planned did not extend all the way over to Slothower Road but they did extend it over all the way to Slothower Road so it provides a full buffer all the way along the south edge of the property.
A couple other items Marner wanted to address were the changes to the area. There's a lot of growth in this area and some of the uses have changed since 2002 when the Plan was adopted such as the Joint Emergency Communication Center and the County's current plans as they have changed the Poor Farm for that area since then.
One last item Marner wanted to address was the traffic flow on Slothower. Currently Slothower terminates just south of Wild Cat Lane to the south, there is no connection all the way through to Rohret Road, and it was an expressed concern in the Comprehensive Plan that it might be used as a cut through as it develops to the south. There is an opportunity either through design of traffic control features or rerouting that location to design that Slothower connection as it moves south towards Rohret to discourage the cut through the Comprehensive Plan alludes to at this time. Marner noted though all the anticipated traffic flow for this type of use will be to the interstate as those uses desire close and easy access to the interstate. They would typically utilize that entrance and would not go to the south, any potential flow to the south would likely occur due to residential development that continues as it grows to the south.
Hensch stated it's a 79.4 acre site and about a third of the site will not be available for development because of the sensitive areas and detention basin which is about 26 acres so that the buffer area will all be to the south, or will that be distributed throughout the property. Marner stated they submitted a plan that would do a much better job of depicting the area, but it is wetlands and primarily a small stream corridor that runs north/south at the very western edge of the property. The zoning parcel that's described runs along the stream corridor on the western edge towards the western quarter of the property. The buffer he is referring to with the detention basin and natural features are extended further east to try to get as close to Slothower as possible. There's additional detention in the southwest corner next to that stream corridor and then the sensitive features that are located centrally right in the middle of the site along the south boundary is a combination of the stream corridor and wetlands.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 9 of 36
Hensch also asked about the extension of 965, he doesn’t recall the Iowa Department Transportation Commission having funded that project. Marner confirmed it's not, everything that they've alluded to is based on the City's Comprehensive Plan and long term.
Hensch wondered on something like that how wide would the right-of-way typically be. Marner stated typically an arterial is at least 80 feet, oftentimes it will range up to 100, he knows there was discussion mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan of utilizing that particular right-of-way to provide some additional green space or to do a little bit of different design there to try to provide some extra screening from the landfill.
Craig noted they spoke of the County’s plans for the Poor Farm and some of the correspondence had said something about the County's plans for the Poor Farm and they all know plans change, but what are the County's plans for the Poor Farm. Marner stated he hasn’t seen an updated plan lately, his reference to it was primarily the change when the County moved forward with their plan to develop the Poor Farm in some manner, as opposed to the previous plan that was in place whenever the Comprehensive Plan was written. The Comprehensive Plan alludes to some of that ground potentially becoming public or private development and park area, he doesn’t know if that's necessarily in their current plan. Marner added, and staff will probably touch on this during the rezoning application, one of the conditions suggested is a CZA to require S3 screening, so a higher level of screening, along Slothower to help with some of the visibility and to help buffer on the east side any potential users of the Johnson County Poor Farm. Lehmann noted he can touch a bit on that plan too as they recently updated their plan. The Johnson County Poor Farm site shows the area as continued agricultural and if they have residential uses it would be adjacent to the existing residential uses to the southeast of the property. Craig confirmed she hasn’t followed it closely but it was her understanding that the nature of the Poor Farm, while some of the individual uses may change, will still be pretty agriculture looking.
Signs asked if they had any idea of the amount of this parcel or property that MidAmerican is interested in using. Marner replied it would depend on their total use, with the stream corridor and the unusable land in the buffer area, the maximum available land would be around 40 acres. Marner reiterated they’ve had a preliminary conversation at this point as far as their interest goes but this application and request is being developed in this manner and the requested zoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment regardless of any user’s pursuance of the property. It fits the need for the area and an opportunity to provide it in a good location for any type of user.
Townsend asked if at this point only MidAmerica has given an interest in this area. Marner can't speak directly to that as he is not part of the development team on the ownership side. He believes there's a chance that other parties are interested and MidAmerican Energy is just the one staff was aware of.
Josh Entler (IWV Holdings) added they are committed to dedicating that vegetative buffer to make sure there's no structures and what that equates to is the south 20 acres would be reserved as vegetative buffer and the other six acres comes from that stream corridor going north and south on the western third of the parcel, so it'll be about a 20 acre reservation. Entler noted it is about seven times the required minimum buffer from commercial to residential so they're doing as much as they can to acknowledge that they heard some feedback at the good neighbor meeting and want to be committed to providing an adequate buffer on the property to make sure that should the landowners to the south want to do residential in the future they have
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 10 of 36
a fair opportunity to do so.
Padron asked for clarification on the size of the buffer. Entler explained it would be 350 feet going along the north and south and then it would stretch the entire width of the 70-acre parcel, so it equates to 20 acres of reservation.
Entler also wanted to thank staff for spending lots of time and research kind exploring a variety of different options, they’ve come to similar conclusions and the point he wanted to hit on is commercial users are looking for larger contiguous tracts of land, not just little 5 and 10 acre parcels but looking for opportunities that could be 10 or 20 acre parcels that are close access to interstate 218 and the I-80/380 corridor as it is becoming a growing attractive location to have some intensive commercial uses.
John Bergstrom (Slothower Farms) represents the family who owned the hundred plus acres directly south of the subject property. His involvement is he’s married to Sherri Slothower and her brother Tim is here tonight also and they've been monitoring things in this area for a while and have come to the conclusion they would like to object to this development. They just don't understand why blow-up years and years of planning and Comprehensive Plan zoning for a single 40-acre user because this development is going to be the first step of dictating what happens in a large overlay area. This area has always been anticipated to be residential and now all of a sudden as he reads the staff report, everything planned to accommodate a 40 acre user, MidAmerica. Bergstrom can appreciate the fact that they are having trouble finding a site, but why take an area here that affects large neighborhoods, it will affect whatever happens at the County Farm and it just doesn't make any sense. In reading the report, and his comments are in the packet but he would like to address that the changes that are in place at that intersection. Right now, the changes on the east side of the interchange really doesn't have much to do on the west side. That is a natural separation and the general area there south of Melrose hasn't changed much at all. Bergstrom talked to staff back in February and he went back through the notes and the things that jumped out was it's going to be residential and also there was a note that there is no commercial interest. Well, evidently there is by one user and it's intensive commercial, it's not a good neighbor for residential and why blow up this entire area. They were talking earlier about defining what an urban user is, well intensive commercial is very urban and it's not a compatible neighbor for residential. There was concerned about the buffer, 965 will be a natural buffer and he’s talked to residential developers, and they have concerns with the landfill so they think it actually provides a natural ending point for a neighborhood. Iowa City appears to be concerned about not having enough intensive commercial in the future, as he looked at the map shown tonight, there's plenty of land near other commercial areas and intensive commercial areas that could be land to develop. The current Fringe Area Agreement says that this type of development in the future should be south and west of the airport well this is certainly not south and west of the airport. Bergstrom can understand maybe some zoning changes but not this abrupt of one, if this corner was going to be neighborhood commercial or something like that it's complimentary to the residents that live in Country Club Estates and hopefully on the land that the Slothower family owns and the land to the south. Bergstrom would just ask to slow this thing down, this is a knee jerk reaction to a single user and it's a user that should not be on this corner.
Eric Freedman (4401 Tempe Place) began by stating he agrees with Bergstrom and they just heard there's over 100 families in their community and several hundred more in the area surrounding Weber school and none of them really heard about this until they got an email from
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 11 of 36
one person who happened to hear from Bergstrom and the board of their housing organization hasn't even had a chance to talk about it yet, this is too fast to allow a democratic process to occur. Another point is there actually is a plan for the Poor Farm and they need to know what is happening on that site before they make any decisions about what's happening across the street. His understanding is that there's trails being created there, people are going to be able to take walks and there's forested areas. He also believes there's going to be some housing for low income families and some other community farm sites on that site. Freedman stated it doesn't sound like the staff have a clear idea of what's happening there, and he thinks they need to get a better sense of what's happening there before they build across the street. Freedman also stated what the community that he lives in needs is neighborhood commercial as there's very few supermarkets or restaurants or anything close to them. They need a road that connects right to Melrose west of the highway so they can get to places north instead of having to weave all the way around to the east side of the highway through all the backstreets. Those things seem to be much higher priority than to make one exception for one company that wants to build there. Freedman would like to see a better picture of the whole area, is this going to be the only heavy commercial site or is there going to be more to the south or is it going to expand to the north, what's going to happen. He thinks they need to think about this in a broader more long-term light as opposed to this one organization that wants to build one thing in one place. They need to slow down and have a more democratic conversation among all the hundreds of families that are living there now.
Jim Larimore (1143 Wildcat Lane) stated from his front yard they have a clear line of sight to the proposed building site and what he wanted to share tonight is that when his family decided seven years ago that they would make their home in that neighborhood they carefully reviewed the Comprehensive Plan and read through every word in the Southwest District Plan. They felt that it was a very thorough, very well thought through plan, and it gave them a lot of confidence for what the future of their neighborhood would be. His opinion is that the current proposal, in spite of the language that was used rather artfully in some of the reports, is not consistent with the Southwest District Plan, in fact the proposal reverses key parts of the Plan such as avoiding commercial development at the Melrose/218 interchange and preserving the rural and residential character of the area in question. Larimore takes issue with the idea that his neighbors and he should consider intensive commercial development as a buffer to protect their neighborhood when the documents from the City's Planning and Zoning Department included proposed requirements that would buffer them from the impact of the proposed intensive commercial development. If they need to be buffered from the proposed buffer, he doesn’t find it reasonable to consider that intensive commercial development actually acts as a buffer. Larimore seconds the call that the process should be slowed down, they should not act on a Comprehensive Plan in a piecemeal way, if the Comprehensive Plan is going to be revisited then do it in an open, inclusive process. The same type of process that was used about 20 years ago to develop the current Plan. Larimore reiterated his request the Commission don't rush a judgment and don't take a piecemeal approach to a Comprehensive Plan.
Sherri Slothower Bergstrom (Slothower Farms) is one of the co-owners with her family of the Slothower Farm area that butts right up to the property that they're talking about here today. She wants to echo what everybody has said, this has happened really quick, they are the next-door neighbors and had no idea anything like this was being considered. The City talked about the good neighbor meeting and that there were four people there, well, the reason there were four people there is because no one was notified. There wasn't a sign what up on the property, they had to ask about that and then they were told that legally the City is only required to notify people
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 12 of 36
within a 300-foot area of the property so none of the wonderful people that are here from the Country Club Estates area were notified and the people that live in their farmhouse currently were not notified. Bergstrom also noted they got a distinct impression that there's been a lot of conversations going on between the City and the developer, as the developer said, for nearly six months. Nobody knew anything, no one was notified about anything, and they felt like it was done before it even came to the neighbors. Bergstrom asked the Commission to think for one minute about what this means to the people that live in the beautiful neighborhood in the Country Club Estates neighborhood which is right across the road from her farmhouse. They are going to be looking at large lighting, tall fences, maybe even with security fencing, big trucks, lots of them, and it will be very disruptive. Bergstrom can't think of a buffer they could come up with no matter how long it stretches that is going to help them from the pollution, the light pollution, and the noise. This will change to the character of their neighborhood.
Cindy Seyfer (36 Tempe Court) stated she doesn’t have a lot to add other than saying that she agrees with what her neighbors have said and many of them chose to live there for the specific reason that they had the rural residential mix. Her husband and she have the pleasure of looking out their back yard onto the Poor Farm and seeing the sunsets from their deck and seeing the dark night skies from their deck. She understands the need for public use and what might be in the public interest, but she also thinks there is a balance and to her this is not going to be the right balance for the interest of the public and the people if they move from rural residential to intensive commercial. That's just leaping too far, too fast, and she agrees with Sherri Bergstrom in terms of the ability for them to be part of the good neighbor process. There's a few of them here tonight, but there would have been even more that would have come out had they had an opportunity early on to be part of good neighbor discussions. Seyfer would like to encourage the Commission, as others have said, to slow down, involve the rest of the community, and to look closely and honestly at what the plan is for the future. One of the things they all appreciate about Iowa City is the concepts and ideals of transparency and inclusivity and they've not found that yet here but do appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight. They just want to be more involved in the process.
Brenda Scott (1783 Lake Shore Drive) lives in the Country Club Estates and echoes what everyone has said here. If anyone has ever driven out there late at night, go to the end of one of these roads that they're talking about and see how dark it is. The biggest lights are coming from the landfill and adding a ton of lights in an industrial area going to completely change the neighborhood. Another thing to consider is as a parent of a West High student that's a young driver that has to head south and goes through Shannon Drive currently, she knows there's been talk of doing another road like Slothower was before Southwest Estates was built, but she has heard that they have that route through Lake Shore Drive potentially, which is where she lives, and that road has a ton of traffic, high speed traffic, so having additional traffic also go to Lake Shore to get to this area would be bad especially if they are talking about giant trucks going through a neighborhood filled with kids. Also, because the traffic to the east of this location would be going by West High it will cause issues. The main road to get to West High for everyone down there is Shannon Drive turning right to go to West High or turning left to get to Northwest Junior High. In the mornings that street is backed up so much and trying to add large industrial trucks into that is going to cause even more congestion and a dangerous situation for immature drivers. Scott acknowledged she doesn’t really understand when they say MidAmerican is going to be built there, what that means, is it a hub for their trucks or is it one of those giant energy plant type things. She would appreciate an answer that too. But overall, just the amount of traffic, the light, and changing the neighborhood is all happening way too fast.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 13 of 36
Tim Slothower (Slothower Farms) stated their family moved out to that area back in the early 70s and so they lived out there at a time when that road actually went through from Melrose to Rohret Road. About halfway down it turned into a mud road. Slothower also stated unfortunately there's a lot of traffic that uses that road, because if anyone wants to go south and then west the best place to go that direction is south on Slothower Road, from the interstate there is not a direct route to head south and west. So, when they moved out there, the road was through and they had constant traffic coming up and down that road from Secondary Roads. They had 30-40 dump trucks a day going up and down that road, and at that time it was a gravel road and it's not that much better now than it was back then. Slothower did have two questions, one is there going to be access from this new development to Slothower Road or will all the access be from Melrose and IWV. The other question he has is how much traffic would be going down a road if it does get connected to the subdivision. Again, he has lived on that road for 30 years and seen a lot of changes out there as far as traffic and that kind of thing and he hates to see it go back to that direction, it’s a nice quiet neighborhood and it should stay that way.
Duane Kruse (965 Slothower Road) is one of the two residents that live on Slothower Road and agrees with what everybody has stated, it's beautiful out there at nighttime, it's dark with a great view of the stars and wonderful sunsets. He’s grown to love the land and got the distinct privilege of buying the family farmstead and three acres. They too were under the impression that when they purchased this land in the future, at some point in time, it would be developed to residential. He and his wife Kathy are opposed to this and think it should be very highly considered to jump in lightly on this. It is not wise for a lot of different reasons, one, as everybody stated, to put in heavy industrial is going to bring big lights and big fences. To his understanding MidAmerican Energy would have a storage facility, which they have one now to the south and it’s not very neat and orderly nor very attractive. Kruse spoke with the developer back there they have they have a large buffer strip which is very positive, but it changes everything, it changes the environment, it floods the area with lights, as the Iowa City landfill has done. The historic farm has also started to put up heavy lights that flood the area. Kruse stated if they had a magic wand they would just turn it all into a forest with ponds and maybe a park for the public to enjoy, but never industrial. Again, he stated he had his wife Kathy are most definitely opposed, the 49 pheasants that were in their front yard all winter long are opposed, their two dogs are opposed, their three cats are opposed. They love that land; he grew up on a farm and to see something in this magnitude really needs to be considered and take a pause and ask do they really need to change things to this nature. Kruse asked if this was in your backyard, would you want it there. Wind turbines are the most efficient use and are out in the ocean because east coast communities say no, they can't put them in their backyards because they have political power. Maybe the City needs to consider what's the real purpose here, why change something to this nature, because is that a wise move. Kruse doesn’t know that answer, but he does know this much from having the privilege of living out there for five years or so now, he has grown to love this property for a lot of different reasons, so he urges the Commission to reconsider this.
Jim Seyfer (36 Tempe Court) had just a couple of points. Number one he is pretty astounded that there isn't more understanding or knowledge of what the County Poor Farms plans are so that is another reason to slow down. Secondly, he doesn’t have a master's in urban planning, but he thinks a principle of urban planning is to group and place and approve the proper activities in the right zones. As he looks at the maps and they're off in the west corner as a one-off proposal which would need to be rezoned. It doesn't belong there and intensive commercial just flies in the face of what he thinks urban planning should be all about. He just wants to echo his support
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 14 of 36
for everyone else who has spoken before him.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend approval of CPA21-0002, a proposed amendment to change
the following for around 80 acres of property located south of IWV and west of Slothower:
• The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation from Rural Residential,
Open Space, and Residential at 2-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre to Intensive Commercial;
and
• The Southwest District Plan future land use map designation from Single-
Family/Duplex Residential and Future Urban Development to Intensive Commercial,
and to change the text of the District Plan to what was included in the agenda packet.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Hensch noted the discussion now is relative exclusively to the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and the question before the Commission as set forth by the rules of Iowa City is looking at the approval criteria for the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to this area and there's two different items in this. His personal opinion is that the City has shown that these two items that have existed, that is, the circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors have come to light, such as the proposed amendment is in the public interest. Hensch noted that is always the Commission’s purpose here, what are they looking at and what is best for the City of Iowa City, the entire city. The second area is what is proposed will be compatible with other policies and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, including any district plans or amendments thereto. He believes both those circumstances and both those things are true so he’ll be supporting this application.
Signs agrees and thinks Hensch made a good point that this piece is just around the Comprehensive Plan change and that there are other opportunities to put criteria in if anyone feels the need to as they go through the annexation and rezoning. He has struggled with this a little bit, but does think that the area has changed, and the intent of some of the future plans such as bringing 965 down on the west side and making it a major thoroughfare does enhance that or indicate that there's going to be even more change in the future. Having driven on IWV road many times there's a lot of dump trucks that go up and down that road so he certainly wouldn’t call it a quiet residential neighborhood. He is impressed with the buffering that's naturally created and the retention basin. As he looks forward to potentially the rezoning he probably would be inclined to encourage a lot of buffering on the property as a whole, but he feels like the growth of the residential area is coming from the south, he doesn’t foresee a big developer come out on IWV road north of the landfill or next to the County property there. He thinks the development that has occurred out there west of the interstate has started a pattern and started a trend of use that is not inappropriate, certainly it can be subject to other people's visions, but it seems to be a logical place to continue on with some of that commercial, industrial use and continue to focus development to the south for residential and they know that there's a large residential proposal south of Rohret Road and if he had to guess that's where the residential growth is going to be in Iowa City in the coming years. He just doesn’t see residential really happening along IWV road and so he is inclined to think that the change in the Comprehensive Plan based on the changes in circumstances and the community needs warrants approval, and he will be supporting this.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 15 of 36
Townsend stated she is torn because of the intensive commercial in what was supposed to be a residential area, so she is still pondering that even though it has changed and it's going to continue to change, especially with the new development off of Rohret Road.
Craig stated she is supportive of the of the change, staff makes the case for the changes that have happened and occurred and agrees that when you drive down Melrose and IWV it is not a residential neighborhood.
Hensch stated in the immediate area it's pretty hard to see this as residential with the National Guard Armory, the SEATS and Secondary Roads campus, the Joint Emergency Communications Center, Chatham Oaks residential care facility, it’s just not a residential character of that neighborhood.
Signs agrees with Townsend and thinks there needs to be a lot of buffering but is impressed with the buffering that is currently proposed and won't have any problem suggesting maximum buffering when they get to some of the other phases as property develops, but he does think that's key, but there is quite a bit already there 300 feet is a lot of butter, that's a football field.
Padron stated she will not be supporting this; she is concerned with the sensitive areas around the intensive commercial. Commercial is not a kind of buffer. Also, the Poor Farm has been used lately to for festival and family activities and this is too close to the Poor Farm and if that's the intention, or the plan, of how to use the Poor Farm, then there are too many concerns for her. Padron also didn’t like that there weren't enough neighbors at the good neighbor meeting, there should have been more people there.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 3-2 (Townsend and Padron dissenting).
CASE NO. ANN21-0003 & REZ21-0006: Location: SW corner of Slothower Road and IWV Road
a. An application for an annexation of approximately 70.39 acres of land currently in unincorporated Johnson County.
b. An application for a rezoning from County Agricultural (A) to Intensive Commercial CI-1) for approximately 53.36 acres, Interim Development Commercial ( ID-C) for approximately 17.03 acres, and approximately 9 acres of land from Rural Residential RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1).
Heitner stated the presentation is going to have a lot of similarity between this agenda item and the previous agenda item so he would try to not be duplicative in the interest of time. He began with an aerial view of subject property and an overview of the existing zoning noting County Agriculture, Rural Residential and County Residential. Heitner noted the majority of the 70 acres of subject property is located in the growth area of the Fringe Area Agreement, there is a little strip, around 9 acres, to the east that is already in the City limits. That nine-acre strip along with about 53 acres of the proposed annexation would seek CI-1 (Intensive Commercial) zoning and the remaining balance to the west would seek ID-C (Interim Development Commercial) zoning for about 17 acres.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 16 of 36
Heitner explained this agenda item is focusing on the actual annexation application and the rezoning associated with that annexation as the property is annex into the City. He also wanted to comment on a couple things from just the general background stance, there's been discussion about the lack of attendance at the good neighbor meeting. Those notices were sent out pursuant to the City's current requirement of a 300-foot notification radius. Heitner attended that meeting, and they made a concerted effort in notification, they sent out notifications to residents within the Country Club Estates Fourth and Fifth Additions as well which is outside of the 300-foot notification window. Staff did so because they understood that there is a potential for a larger impact for area, since it is a larger agricultural property. They also held a consult on the annexation on July 29th with two Union Township trustees and they also voiced concerns mostly about the potential loss of farmland and tax revenue to the township.
Heitner showed an overview of the existing Southwest District Plan and Weber subarea, as Lehmann mentioned the majority of this area was slated for future urban development for single family duplex residential and then also a Vegetative and Noise and Sight Buffer to the west near the landfill.
For the annexation component of this, voluntary annexations are reviewed under three different criteria, first, that the area under consideration falls within the adopted long range planning boundary, second that development in the area proposed annexation will fulfill and identify need without imposing an undue burden on the City, and third, that control of the development is in the City's best interest. Heitner stated on that first point with the area under consideration falling within the adapted long range planning boundary, the portion of the subject property that isn't already in the City limits is all entirely within the City’s growth area in fringe area C and it’s anticipated that anything within that growth area will eventually or could eventually be annexed into the City. Number two, that development in the area proposed for annexation will fulfill an identified need without imposing an undue burden on the City. The applicant has demonstrated that sanitary sewer service is possible to the eastern properties that are seeking the intensive commercial CI-1 zoning. There are capital improvements underway on IWV road with the intent of bringing the road to urban arterial standards. That will include an urban overlay of that segment of the road roughly between the Poor Farm and Hebl Avenue to the landfill as well as installation of a water line throughout that segment of road with the expectation that waterline and section of the road will be utilized for those infrastructure improvements. Heitner noted there is a great deal of highway adjacency lot size and also arterial proximity that makes this subject property pretty appealing for future commercial development. Also, with regards to the Comprehensive Plan the subject properties are contiguous the City limits there by satisfying that goal for annexation. The last point, control the development is in the City's best interest, as previously mentioned this property is within the City's growth area and is appropriate for properties seeking annexation upon development to seek adequate City services, this is especially true for commercial and industrial oriented uses that may develop within the growth area. It is a long-standing policy that the City tries to direct those uses within the City limits if possible.
Heitner showed an overview of the zoning noting the eastern parcels will have intensive commercial zoning with the western parcel seeking interim development commercial. As an overview of a CI-1 zone, it is a zone with a lot of depth to it and the purpose of the zone is to
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 17 of 36
provide areas for sales and service functions, businesses whose operations are typically characterized by outdoor displays and storage of merchandise, repair, and sales of large equipment or motor vehicles or commercial amusement recreational activities. It's an extensive zone and there's a lot of discussion within the zoning ordinance about how to buffer some of those uses from adjacent residential zones. Heitner acknowledged there's been a lot of talk about MidAmerican being a potential end user here, certainly a possibility, but when staff is assessing a rezoning like this, they have to analyze the potential for any kind of use that might be permitted within that zone. There are three different ways they look at uses in zones, they have uses that are permitted by right, meaning that if they follow all of the other items and steps within the zoning or subdivision ordinance they are permitted without any further scrutiny, there's provisional uses which require a few more steps and criteria to satisfy and then there's uses permitted by special exception which require even more criteria to satisfy and they have to obtain that special exception through the Board of Adjustment, an entirely different review body.
Heitner showed a quick overview of some of the uses that are permitted through each mechanism. By right, they can have building trade, commercial recreational, eating establishments, office, retail, industrial service, self-service storage warehouse, and freight movement. Provisional uses, which again require a bit more criteria to satisfy are adult businesses, animal related commercial, some general manufacturing, and basic utility. Finally are the uses as permitted by special exception which deserve a bit more analysis and scrutiny, are things like heavy manufacturing, basic utilities that maybe are outside, detention facilities, and utility scale solar.
The IDC zone to the far west is intended to provide areas for managed growth, it's a default zoning district that's often applied to undeveloped areas until City services can be provided, as is the case with this portion of the subject property. For the rezoning component Heitner explained there's two criteria that need to be satisfied, consistency with Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with the existing neighborhood character. With respect to consistency with Comprehensive Plan, a lot of that is tied to the previous agenda item and whether intensive commercial designation within the Comprehensive Plan is passed. What is existing right now is classified as future urban development. Heitner wanted to touch on the attractiveness of the site for a couple reasons, the highway adjacency and future arterial road access. As mentioned earlier, there are improvements ongoing right now to IWV Road to make that up to arterial urban design standards. Also discussed already tonight was the potential for the extension of 965 that would be on the west side of the subject property, closer to the interim zone area, and then in the Comprehensive Plan there are plans for making Slothower Road a collector street which is a step down from an arterial assuming less traffic than an arterial but still more volume than a local neighborhood street.
With respect to compatibility with the existing neighborhood character Heitner wanted to highlight topography of the area, with the lighter industrial uses to the northeast of the subject property, the Poor Farm directly east, agricultural residential to the north and the Country Club Estates residential of the southeast. Staff does acknowledge there's definitely concerns with potentially having a zone with the breath of uses that an intensive commercial zone presents and being as sensitive as possible to existing neighbors and adjacent properties so there are a few conditions in that respect that staff would recommend for rezoning. Staff is recommending a S3 high screen landscape buffer along the properties on Slothower Road frontage. S3 is the most intense screening within the code and consists of six-foot-tall dense shrub and/or tree buffer with potential to incorporate berming with that buffer or a masonry wall. They are also recommending
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 18 of 36
a condition that any parking along the IWV Road frontage be screened to the S3 standard and that any loading areas and outdoor storage be located behind the principal structure. In addition, there's also some built in criteria for buffering that's for more intense uses that might fall under this zone, the code already prescribes in terms of buffering for uses such as manufacturing, which is limited concrete mix plants, would require at least the 500 foot buffer from any residential zone. General manufacturing has a size limitation of about 15,000 square feet and there's certain protocols for what production could take place out of that general manufacturing. Detention facilities must be at least 1000 feet from any residential zone and communication transmission facility towers have to be set back at least the distance equal to the height of the tower from any residential zone.
Heitner next discussed the environmental sensitive areas, the applicant did submit sensitive areas plan as part of the review of the annexation and rezoning. It was already discussed about the natural buffering that will take place on the south side of the subject property spanning the entire width of the property and again that's largely because of a combination of planned detention, also the stream corridor on the south end of the property, as well as a wetland a little bit under an acre in size on the south of the property and associated 100-foot buffer around that wetland. So there will be natural buffering on the south side of subject property that effectively prohibits any urban development from taking place within that area.
Regarding traffic and access to the site, right now the most recent vehicle count that they have for IWV Road is approximately 2000 vehicles per day which is well below the arterial size capacity of about 17,000 vehicles per day. Staff is looking to finalize access to the site upon site plan review, however, there is a City Code policy on limiting access to arterial roads, and it is the City's preference to have that primary access point off Slothower Road, and there's a few conditions related to that access. One, that the applicant would be obligated to improve Slothower Road to the southern end of that proposed access and then contributes 25% toward the cost of upgrading the remaining portion of Slothower Road along the rest of the frontage. Staff is also requesting a dedication of approximately 13 feet of additional right-of-way along the Slothower Road frontage.
Heitner noted the public comments received regarding concerns with the annexation were largely similar to the concerns related to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment about the wide range of uses in the proposed zone, concerns about buffers and impacts to sensitive features, detrimental property valuation to adjacent residences, concerns about negative externalities from the use of traffic, lighting impacts, the large shift from a rural residential character to an intensive commercial or lighter industrial character and then potential implications for the larger area.
With respect to the annexation policy, the role of the Commission tonight is to determine that the following are satisfied conditions by the Comprehensive Plans annexation policy, one that the area falls within the adopted long range planning boundary; two, that the development area proposed for annexation will fulfill an identified need without imposing undue burden on the City; and three, that control of the development is the City's best interest.
With respect to next steps, after recommendation from this Commission the following will occur:
• City Council would set a public hearing for both the annexation and rezoning.
• Prior to the public hearing, utility companies and non-consenting parties will be sent the annexation application via certified mail.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 19 of 36
• City Council will consider the comprehensive plan amendment (CPA21-0002), annexation ANN21-0003), and rezoning (REZ21-0006).
• The application for annexation will be sent to the State Development Board for consideration and approval.
Staff recommends approval of ANN21-0003, a voluntary annexation of approximately 70.39 acres of property located south of IWV Road and west of Slothower Road.
Staff also recommends approval of REZ21-0006, a rezoning of approximately 53.36 acres from County Agricultural (A) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1), 9 acres from Rural Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1), and 17.03 acres from County Agricultural (A) to Interim Development Commercial (ID-C) subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall: a. Plat all the property herein rezoned to follow the zoning boundaries. b. Submit a landscape plan, which shall be approved by the City Forester, to ensure that, when developed, the subject property is designed in a manner that emphasizes green components within its location along an arterial and as an entryway into the City. c. Owner shall contribute 25% of the cost of upgrading Slothower Road, south of the proposed access, to collector street standards, adjacent to the subject property. 2. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the property fronting Slothower Road: a. Installation of landscaping to the S3 standard, as detailed in section 14-5F-6C of City Code, along the subject property’s Slothower Road frontage. If said certificate of occupancy is issued during a poor planting season, by May 31 following issuance of the certificate of occupancy. b. Improvement of Slothower Road to the southern end of the proposed access off Slothower Road. 3. At the time the final plat is approved, Owner shall dedicate additional right-of-way along the Slothower Road frontage in an amount and location approved by the City Engineer. 4. Parking, loading areas, and outdoor storage shall either not be located between the front facade of the principal structure and the front yard right-of-way line or shall be screened to the S3 standard along the IWV Road frontage.
Hensch had three questions, one about uses as permitted by right, provisionally and by special exception. For the special exceptions, is it correct that those would have to go before the Board of Adjustment to get approval and there'd be no administrative course of action, because some of those uses sound pretty intensive. Heitner confirmed that was correct anything requiring a special exception will require Board approval. Hensch acknowledged a couple of the public speakers intermixed industrial zoning with intensive commercial zoning and they're not talking about any industrial zoning tonight, the heaviest zoning is intensive commercial. Again Heitner confirmed that was correct.
Hensch noted that Slothower Road is currently a county level B road, so that means that there's zero maintenance going on and it's essentially non-traversable at this point by a regular motor vehicle. Heitner confirmed it's a level B road so the County provides no maintenance for the entire length of that road.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 20 of 36
Hensch’s last question is under the additional conditions in staff’s recommendation, the recommendation was that there should be S3 screening standards applied for landscaping along the length of Slothower Road and he was curious why that wasn't extend to the length of the IWV Road since that is an entry area to Iowa City. Hensch noted the Commission has always paid particular importance to green entry ways into the City so was there any consideration given to have S3 standards for that length IWV Road and if not that's something he’d be interested in adding. Heitner stated there was consideration given to it and if it's the Commission's desire to create a new condition that would require that S3 screening on the IWV Road frontage staff would be supportive of that. Their focus with respect to IWV Road was just making sure that any parking within that front yard area off IWV Road be screened but again would be totally supportive of extending that screening throughout the entire IWV Road frontage. Hensch is not only concerned aesthetically but also quite certain the engineering staff would recommend limitation of access on IWV Road from the main property so if they’re not going to have driveways anyway why not have this look as aesthetically pleasing as possible. Heitner agreed and stated it also goes to further satisfy the Comprehensive Plan goal about having aesthetically pleasing beautified entries into the City.
Signs stated he did appreciate the review of the various uses this by right, provisional and by special exception, that did answer some of his questions. He would definitely be supportive of extending the S3 screening standard the entire length of the IWV Road on the side of that property. Signs noted one of the things that they seem to be bumping up against a lot lately, in the last year of applications that came before the Commission, is there's a common theme of not wanting change and not wanting growth. For those folks here tonight to speak against growth, if they stick around a little bit longer, they're going to hear the folks that are going to speak against growth on the south side. The Commission talked with all the folks on the northeast side of town a couple times in the last two years about the fact that they didn't want their natural areas to grow, and it really got him thinking and begging the question of where is the City going to grow if nobody wants to grow. In the paper last week it stated the official census estimate for Iowa City shows that the growth was less than expected, while the growth in the neighboring communities was way more than expected. And to be honest, there's a reason for that and it is because they want to grow and the Iowa City community, at least part of the community, doesn't want to grow. The Commission is seeing this trend and it's starting to concern him and as stated earlier their role is to look at the good of the community as a whole. He is not opposed to change, they've seen change happen on the IWV corridor and her anticipates that the demand for that's going to continue regardless of any decision made tonight. He personally thinks that if he had to choose between that and 230 some acres south of Rohret Road this makes the most sense to put in some type of a heavier use of zoning so there are some of those types of businesses and industries on that side of town and it's really the only place that seems logical for him. He likes the staff’s conditions and totally support those, he would also support extending the screening on IWV Road and is inclined to support this. He is definitely inclined to support the annexation and is comforted by the chart that showed the uses of the zoning allowed so he is more inclined now to support the zoning.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Jon Marner (MMS Consultants) stated they would also support the extension to the S3 screening along IWV Road. The other thing he wanted to add is just to reiterate again that this zoning amendment is being sought not just for one user, there's an opportunity for multiple other businesses, whether they've expressed interest at this point or not, this is a great location to
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 21 of 36
provide quick access to the arterial road and immediate access to Highway 218 and the interstate system and as staff pointed out there's not a lot of those types of properties in the area. Other areas are located away from the highway or from the interstate or the area on the east part of town is located near railways and are different uses or smaller parcels. A lot of the people that are interested in this type of property for this type of uses are searching for something more in the neighborhood of 10 to 15 acres or a little larger and those properties simply don't exist in the Iowa City area at this time, so this is a great location.
John Bergstrom (Slothower Farms) want to state they are not anti-growth, they just don't like the abrupt change in the land plan and doesn’t think he was hearing anti-growth. This area has always been deemed to be residential and he thinks it should continue as residential. As far as north of Melrose frankly this development would probably fit better north of Melrose, but as they turn onto Slothower Road that should be residential or neighborhood commercial because then to the south is residential and the County Farm will have a residential component to it. Again, this is just a big change, and as they change an instrument like the Comprehensive Plan it should be much more encompassing than just accommodating MidAmerican Energy because it's very clear from all the staff comments that is what this is all about.
Hensch stated just so everybody knows they have not materials that state what the potential users of these properties and they strictly look at the application and what the application says.
Eric Freedman (4401 Tempe Place) wanted to acknowledge he heard a couple of the Commissioners say this is not a residential area, west on Melrose, but that's not the concern, the concern is the views from the south, and what this impacts to the south. On the map it is shown that a ton of people live right across the Poor Farm, it's a clear line of sight. If the Poor Farm is going to be a community resource with trails and some housing and community farming, then right next to it will be a row of trees or shrubs like six feet high and he has no idea what it's going to look like so it'd be nice to at least see something that would show them what it's going to look like when this is built to the west of the Poor Farm. There is concern among people who live in this vibrant neighborhood of what the impact would be. He doesn’t think any of them are opposed to annexing more land and creating space for things that are useful to the City, but they don't understand why it was chosen to be here without looking at other options. Why not north of Melrose, what's the long-term plan, is this going to be one little tiny piece, or is there going to be expansion for other intensive commercial, is there a plan for that they haven't seen. He’d like to know more, in order to be able to make a clear decision and he doesn’t know how they can make a decision on this, given what they've heard so far. For example, something along the east side of that space that was more compatible and useful to the people living there. Nobody wants to live next to a dump so if there's going to be stuff farther west that is fine, but he thinks people are concerned about along Slothower Road is directly next to where people live.
Jim Larimore (1143 Wildcat Lane) is one of the families that looks across that field at the proposed site. Since one of the Commissioners made some comments that are interpreted as being directed at those who are here in attendance, he thinks it's interesting sometimes that they can hear the same words and or be exposed to the same words and hear such dramatically different things. Larimore has not heard a single one of his neighbors express a concern about growth. Some of them came to Iowa City and contributed to the growth of the population, so he doesn’t think that anyone is anti-growth. From what he’s heard so far, they do have some concerns about what is planned, or what is potentially going to be for some of them within a very
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 22 of 36
long stone's throw of their neighborhood and the thing that he would point out and where he heard some things tonight that are worrisome was actually in the documentation that was posted online and there is a reference in some of the material that suggests the plan for the County and the Poor Farm. They're actually considering putting some residential units there which would be very close to the proposed site and that creates a much more immediate conflict between the kinds of uses for these properties. The thing he is very concerned about, because there were also comments that none of us has a crystal ball, they really don't know what will go there and there's no confirmed plan for MidAmerica Energy to use the site, but there is beyond the rights that can be exercised to build on that site subject only to provisional review. What was referenced as an adult video stores or strip clubs that's what the Code says so by opening up the door for intensive commercial use on this property, not very far from one of Iowa City's high schools and not very far from residential neighborhoods are possibilities that no one really want in their backyards.
Cindy Seyfer (36 Tempe Court) wanted to follow up with that comment they’re not concerned if it's MidAmerican or who it is that builds there, they are looking at what's in the best interest for Iowa City and the public. She thinks it's really dangerous to annex and start to allow that land to be used in a way that they don't have a plan for. They don't know what the future will hold for that land, but what they do know is what is near it. The Commissioners indicated it isn't residential, but she would assume that the residents of Walnut Ridge and Galway Hills would beg to differ, because they would find themselves pretty close to that area. Her neighborhood would find themselves close to that area and again that's where she thinks they need to be looking at tiers, rather than jumping straight from residential to intense commercial. Once it is intense commercial all of those options exist in terms of what could go on that land, and it makes it really hard to feel comfortable with what the future might hold. She also wanted to echo none of them are against the growth, they wanted residential growth or at the very least maybe some neighborhood commercial growth, they just don't think an appropriate use is intense commercial.
Sherri Slothower Bergstrom (Slothower Farms) feels like the panel here maybe doesn't have a good understanding of that area. They have been talking a lot about IWV Road but the people that are here and the big impact that they are missing is what's going to happen south of there. There's a big strip of land there and this small piece of land that they're addressing tonight is going to set the tone for what happens in that whole area, and it really concerns her and bothers her a lot that the people on the panel are not really understanding that. Maybe the Commissioners are not real familiar with the area, but IWV Road is probably not what they should be thinking about here, there is going to be impact in the future from this decision on a large area of agricultural land and on a lot of people. Look at that neighborhood there and look at what's going to happen in the future on that agricultural land and what they are deciding here for a very small plot is going to impact that greatly.
Duane Kruse (965 Slothower Road) and as Bergstrom just pointed out the decision that's being imposed on the Commission tonight does impact a lot of people and it's a very large decision. When one drives up and down IWV you see commercial, but you get past that and there's a lot of land there that is going to be impacted by this decision if this area goes to heavy industrial. He is also not opposed to growth, they all want to grow, they all want to be successful, but he also thinks if they make this decision in favor of the heavy industrial, they're opening pandora's box and can't close it once it's opened.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 23 of 36
Townsend corrected that it's not heavy industrial zoning.
Kruse accepted that but stated he is opposed to this, his wife Kathy is opposed, their two dogs are opposed, their three cats are opposed and 49 pheasants in their front yard last winter are opposed.
Hensch asked the applicant what's the CSR (corn suitability rating) for this land. Marner replied he did not know off the top of his head. Hensch noted several people mentioned the agricultural lands and he presumes it's around 50-60. He assumes it would be the same as the Poor Farm and the Poor Farm CSR is low, it's around 50.
Freedman had a quick question as there was a mention in the conditions for the plan that the resident would pay 25% of the improvements to Slothower Road to the south of the site. What is the vision and is that going to extend all the way down to Rohret Road or that would connect up the Lake Shore.
Hensch reminded him this is not a question/answer opportunity, it's an opportunity for the public to address the Commission and share information. He could certainly ask staff after the meeting.
Freedman stated then if the idea was that collector road is going to feed on to Lake Shore and not go all the way down to Rohret Road it would be tremendously opposed by many, many people in the community because then lots of traffic would be going right through a street where there's tons of kids. So if there's thinking here about creating a collector road they have to be very careful and do an analysis of where that collector is going to go, he thinks it should go to Rohret Road.
Marner stated the CSR is 72, he was able to look it up on the internet. Hensch noted just so people know it's a scale of zero to 100 and the closer to 100 is prime agricultural land and as it goes down its lesser value and that determines how it sells frankly.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Townsend moved to recommend approval of ANN21-0003, a voluntary annexation of
approximately 70.39 acres of property located south of IWV Road and west of Slothower
Road.
Signs seconded the motion.
Hensch stated here they are talking about the annexation of approximately 70.39 acres and they need to analyze three criteria that's in the annexation policy. Number one, the area under consideration falls within the adopted long range planning boundary; number two, development in the area proposed for annexation will fulfill an identified need without imposing undue burden on the City, so talking about city services such as utilities and other services; and number three, the control of the development is in the City's best interest and really that's what the Commission is always to look at, what's best for the City.
Hensch started he completely empathizes with everybody in this room, he lives on the south side of Iowa City and there's been a lot of zoning actions have been taken adjacent to his property
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 24 of 36
that he did not agree with and did not like but that's just the way it is. Other people make these decisions, sometimes in our favor and sometimes not. He looks at this critically, he has been doing this for seven years now, and so on these annexations he thinks it's usually pretty straightforward by reviewing the three criteria. Again, they are not talking about rezoning, it has nothing to do with the conversation right now, this is about annexation. He thinks all three of these criteria clearly been met.
Signs agrees, he is very much supportive if the property owner wants to bring their property into the into the City and add value to the City.
Hensch thanked Signs for bringing that up. The City's annexation policy is it's only voluntary annexation so the owner of this property wishes to be annexed into Iowa City.
Signs agrees and states he personally thinks they need to look pretty favorably upon it, as long as it's not going to create some detriment to City services or resources.
Townsend, Craig and Padron all agreed.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
Motion by Signs to recommend approval of REZ21-0006, a rezoning of approximately
53.36 acres from County Agricultural (A) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1), 9 acres from
Rural Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1), and 17.03 acres from County
Agricultural (A) to Interim Development Commercial (ID-C) subject to the following
conditions:
5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall:
a. Plat all the property herein rezoned to follow the zoning boundaries.
b. Submit a landscape plan, which shall be approved by the City Forester, to
ensure that, when developed, the subject property is designed in a manner
that emphasizes green components within its location along an arterial and
as an entryway into the City.
c. Owner shall contribute 25% of the cost of upgrading Slothower Road, south
of the proposed access, to collector street standards, adjacent to the
subject property.
6. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the property fronting Slothower
Road:
a. Installation of landscaping to the S3 standard, as detailed in section 14-5F-
6C of City Code, along the subject property’s Slothower Road frontage. If
said certificate of occupancy is issued during a poor planting season, by
May 31 following issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
b. Improvement of Slothower Road to the southern end of the proposed
access off Slothower Road.
c. Installation of landscaping to the S3 standard along the property line and
IWV Road.
7. At the time the final plat is approved, Owner shall dedicate additional right-of-way
along the Slothower Road frontage in an amount and location approved by the City
Engineer.
8. Parking, loading areas, and outdoor storage shall either not be located between the
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 25 of 36
front facade of the principal structure and the front yard right-of-way line or shall
be screened to the S3 standard along the IWV Road frontage.
The motion was seconded by Craig.
Hensch stated this is the hardest part and he presumes no one in the audience will like what he has to say but they have to look at what's best for the entire city of Iowa City, not for particular areas. He has heard every word they said, he listened carefully, and he understands exactly why they feel the way they do but the Commission’s job is to make decisions that's best for the entire city of Iowa City. He personally thinks Mr. Signs comments were correct that there seems to be a real strong, and he’s not accusing anybody in here of this, of anti-development in Iowa City because the Commission has gone through some really rough public hearings for development on east side by Hickory Hills and on the south side with the new zoning standards. Somebody's got to pay property taxes, land has to be developed for the people that want to live here, people keep moving here and they have to live somewhere, they have to work somewhere, so the Commission has to make really hard decisions that are pretty thankless. At the end of the day, he has to look at is a Comprehensive Plan being complied with, are the district plans and the subdistrict plans being complied with, in general, because this is subjective when talking about comprehensive plans and district plans and then in a particularity are the development ordinances being followed. That’s the Commission’s role and he views it pretty literal and has to take out his personal feelings on a lot of things. Hensch acknowledged there's some subjectivity but mostly their job is are the rules being followed and is the intention of the plans being followed and the answer for him in this case is yes. He acknowledged he wouldn't like it if he was a neighbor, he does disagree with them that the residential area is farther to the south, and he is thrilled to have a developer voluntarily without coercion have one third of their property be a buffer. Hensch stated this is a onetime thing for the neighbors, but this is a regular every meeting for Commission and this is a great deal and he will support this without reservation
Craig stated she also supports the rezoning, she would not support it if it came further south, but she thinks it's in keeping with what is going to be there when 965 comes down between the landfill and this property. They weren't going to be building residential houses to the west because like someone already said residential houses don't want to back up to the landfill, well residential houses don't want to live on 965 either, so there's going to be something happening there that is not residential, and this creates the beginning of that buffer that they are going to want to your residential neighborhoods. If this was that full strip of land they were asking for, she would not approve it, but she thinks the corner up there by Melrose is in keeping with the uses on Melrose, so she is very supportive of it.
Padron is still opposed to the change; she still thinks the Poor Farm is too close. For example, the bike library is organizing rides to different farms in town, so people can ride their bike and go to other farms and the Poor Farm has been participating in that. She received notifications to go there and spend the day there with other nonprofit organizations doing family events as well, so she thinks it is too close to the Poor Farm. She is also concerned with all the uses that were listed; some are not very family friendly. Padron acknowledged Craig said if it were the whole strip she would not approve but Padron feels approving this corner might be a beginning for developers to keep asking for changes on the whole strip. She is very in favor of City growth but doesn’t think this is the right way to grow the City and is concerned. This particular area is not the right place for it.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 26 of 36
Townsend noted at this point they're not voting on any specific proposal, right now they're just voting on rezoning the land and she doesn’t have a problem.
Hensch agreed, they never really know what it's going to end up somewhere when they rezone it, they rezone land and do not rezone for particular use that's going to happen eventually in the future.
Signs appreciates that comment and would agree and is not making any decision based on the idea that MidAmerican Energy as maybe the tenant there. He supports this type of growth along IWV in whatever it might be. There were couple of references to some of the provisional uses there he can assure them if something like an adult bookstore came before the Board of Adjustment, he is sure there would be a tremendous neighborhood input in that session, and he is pretty sure it wouldn't get past. He also reiterated it is really important to note this is not industrial, this is intensive commercial and he is in support of the rezoning.
A vote was taken and the motion passes 4-1 (Padron dissenting).
CASE NO. CPA21-0001: A public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the South District Plan to facilitate development that follows form-based principles.
Russett began with a brief summary of what's in the staff report, the City has been working with Opticos on this since 2019 and they’ve met with several stakeholders over the past two years to get input on the plan. A few things she wanted to highlight since the Commission last saw this is staff has made some changes to the Comprehensive Plan and some of those changes were also incorporated into the proposed zoning code. The vast majority of the changes are non-substantive changes, formatting issues and typos, but there were also a few things staff found that they wanted to clarify in the code so they made those changes. One thing is they did change the Comprehensive Plan future land use map based on recent input from a landowner south of Wetherby Park and that will be discussed later in the presentation.
Lehmann stated for CPA21-0001, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is really a couple changes to the context, the goals and objectives, new land use descriptions, and a new future land use map. Lehmann showed an image of the new future land use map that takes a form-based approach to land use. As far as context and background, there's some information about the form-based code process and some added some information about history including planning and of the area and development that's happened since the Plan was initially adopted in 2015, as well as some generalizing language, based on the proposed new future land use map. Lehmann noted it also talks about form-based zoning and form-based codes and how those work, which is instead of organizing zones by uses, zones are organized by what they look like and trying to tailor the character to the form of the area. He explained that is a difference and it clarifies how that would occur in the South District. As part of that staff also is proposing three new goals and objectives that discuss exactly what form-based zoning looks like in the South District and how those would support other goals that are also within the Plan and broader goals of the City as well, including a diversity of housing types, promoting walkability and use of alternative modes of transportation, and including new neighborhood commercial areas.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 27 of 36
Lehmann showed the current zoning map from the 2015 Plan and noted it generally follows use standards that are more similar to the current zoning code. The first piece of the proposed future land use map is taking areas that are undeveloped and making them subject to form-based standards rather than the traditional use-based standards. The proposal also includes a couple new land use maps, one which looks at future form-based land uses and is more detailed showing streets, which land use maps generally don't. Lehmann also pointed out what those areas are based on the T3 transect, which is, suburban, and the T4 transect, which is the general urban transact. This is part of a spectrum of transects from T1, the least intensive to T6, which is the most intensive downtown uses. For the South District, staff is only looking at T3 suburban and T4 general urban land uses and the way those have been organized in this future land use map is, T3 has two sub classes, T3 neighborhood edge which is primarily along existing development, and T3 neighborhood general which is in the center of neighborhoods. For the T4 urban districts, those are primarily along principal streets such as McCollister and Sycamore and then also along commercial modes, such as parks, such as single loaded streets and those sorts of areas. For the T4 zones, T4 neighborhood small includes mostly small apartment uses, T4 neighborhood medium is more intensive uses, up to three and a half stories tall, and T4 Main Street is only at the corner of Sycamore and McCollister which would be the most intense use and allow more commercial uses. There's also a thoroughfare map that's incorporated in this Plan that talks about what different streets should look like and primary streets and local streets.
The role of the Commission is to look at the proposal Comprehensive Plan Amendment and see if it meets the approval criteria at 14-8D-3D, which is that circumstances have changed and/or additional information has come to light such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest and two, the proposed amendment will be compatible with the policies and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and the amendments thereto.
Lehmann explained with regard to circumstances having changed, what's happened since 2015 when the previous plan was adopted is development has continued with some new residential subdivisions, Alexander Elementary was constructed and McCollister Boulevard was completed up to Sycamore Street. That being said, about half of this study area is still undeveloped and some is within City limits, and some is outside of City limits. There are a variety of land uses, including agricultural, single and multifamily residential, and also civic and public uses and plenty of open space. Development in the area has generally coincided with that 2015 Plan vision. As far as changes then, what they've seen since that Plan was adopted was progress towards a plan objective to consider form-based codes to help ensure a true mix of housing at a compatible scale. Since that time, a feasibility study was conducted in 2017 which looked at form-based zoning in the South District and a discussion on a need to build that into the existing Plan. The future land use scenario that is currently in existence does not align with form-based standards, it aligns with use-based standards and distinguishes between residential uses in a way that limits mixing of types and that has limited opportunities for neighborhood commercial. Therefore, this process constitutes a change in circumstances that makes the changes in the revised future land use map in the public interest. It also coincides with some other changes that have happened in City policy over time mostly related to climate and equity. With regards to climate, in 2018 Iowa City adopted a Climate Action and Adaptation plan to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2050 and generally conventional low-density zoning creates higher greenhouse gas emissions because it makes it harder to travel by anything other than a car which reinforces an auto oriented pattern of development, traffic congestion and higher parking minimums. Form-based planning helps by creating compact neighborhoods that are more easily traveled by other modes
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 28 of 36
of transportation. With regards to equity, Resolution 20-159 was an effort on the part of the City to promote equity within the City and conventional zoning can indirectly support racial or class segregation. Some initial land use planning tools were used for that purpose explicitly until that was made illegal and lead to what are called exclusionary practices including single family only zones and large minimum lot sizes. In Iowa City around 81% of residential land is zoned for single family residential and over half of that is low density so form-based planning helps address that by trying to diversify housing choices and mitigate that barrier to affordable housing and the diversity of housing options. As far as being compatible with other policies and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan future land use map currently shows residential land uses anywhere from two to eight dwelling units per acre with some 8 -16 dwelling units per acre and some commercial uses, but really it's the goals that it ties into, which is ensuring that there's a mix of housing types within each neighborhood, encouraging pedestrian oriented development, planning for commercial development and define commercial nodes, supporting open space, protecting sensitive features, ensuring that parks are available and open spaces available to the public, etc. The South District Plan’s existing future land use map corresponds more with use-based zoning classifications and form-based zoning classifications incorporate a true mix of housing at a compatible scale, including missing middle housing, which are small multifamily units, usually from three to six but generally house scale in size. This amendment really refines the categories to reflect that range of housing types that's desirable. Some other goals, including again protecting environmental sensitive features, small scale neighborhood commercial, mixed uses, making walkable neighborhoods etc., would get added in as part of this proposed amendment to clarify how form-based codes help meet some of these goals and the City Council’s strategic plan, climate action and adaptation plan, and the black lives matter and systemic racism resolution that was previously mentioned.
The current future land use map shows most of the area as the 2-8 dwelling units per acre, low density residential, it continues that trend of less of a mix of housing types, there are some denser uses along major residential streets and also a mixed use area at Sycamore and McCollister. The proposed future land use map will follow similar principles to development, the differences are it adds in some additional commercial nodes, it adds in some additional density and a greater variety of housing types, but it generally aligns with the text of the code.
Regarding public comment, Lehmann wanted to mention briefly the Sandhill Estates HOA letter that was shared with the Commission and it talks about a lack of transition between the existing neighborhood along McCollister Court and new development, it requests a T3 land use before transitioning to T4 land uses, specifically at the corner of Gilbert and McCollister, it talks about impact on education and access to emergency services and concerns with infrastructure of public services. Staff also had comments and discussions at the South District Neighborhood Associations Leadership Group and they noted that they would like to see more indoor recreational space. Staff also had conversations with Steve Gordon and Aleda Feuerbach that requested to move remove their property south of Lehman Avenue from the planning area.
Russett added they had additional comments that echoed concerns of the Sandhill Estates HOA. There were several comments at the last public hearing on August 19, 13 members of the public testified and many express concerns related to the land use map and particular lack of transitions with existing single family neighborhoods. Since the last meeting, staff has received one new piece of public input related to the land use map and also received an email from
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 29 of 36
SouthGate that supports the Plan and the Code. They like the efforts towards addressing issues of equity, inclusion, climate change, and social interaction that can be achieved through the Plan and the Code. One main change Russett wanted to highlight is staff received a request from a landowner to change a portion of the future land use map just south of Wetherby Park and they provided engineered plans to staff showing the proposed street network, different housing types and locations of wetlands. Staff is supportive of this change; it maintains the transition from existing single-family neighborhoods and allows some additional housing types closer to the park. Any development in that area still needs to be consistent with the City’s sensitive areas ordinance and the plans they've showed indicate the wetland is actually smaller than it's currently shown on the future land use map. Based on staff review of this change with the current rezoning criteria that they are proposing, staff determined that this change could have happened actually at the rezoning but felt it was more transparent to make the change now to the land use map.
Staff recommends approval of CPA21-0001, a proposed amendment to the South District Plan to facilitate development that follows form-based principles in the South District of Iowa City.
Padron asked about that the area that used to be T3 neighborhood edge, they are proposing to change to T3 neighborhood general is that the next land use category up. Russett replied yes, T3 neighborhood general allows a few different housing types with more flexibility, they’re still house scale buildings.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Alex Hachtman (843 McCollister Court) is the president of the Sandhill Estates Homeowners Association and appreciates the comments that were given last time, as well as ones that were noted today as well. He represents 126 homes in the neighborhood that are part of this proposed South District Plan north of McCollister Boulevard and members of their neighborhood care deeply about this issue and just wanted to reiterate the five concerns they compiled. First being a lack of transition to the existing neighborhood and the area immediately south of McCollister Court; two, the reduction in required parking; three, the design sites being administratively changed following an approval; four, the impact on education; and five the access to emergency services. The Planning and Zoning Commission spoke to many of these concerns when they last met, however, the number one concern that was brought forward was the lack of transition to the existing neighborhood and they don't feel it was adequately addressed during that last meeting. That area lacks an adequate housing transition in between the existing neighborhood and the proposed zoning in the South District Plan and they asked the Planning and Zoning Commission to amend the South District Plan to include more of a T3 neighborhood edge or T3 neighborhood general zoning in this area. They cared deeply about their neighborhood and city and respectfully request that they amend this transition T3 zone and doing so will be consistent with the transition that will have been behind much of the other area that was proposed in the South District Plan. Again, they implore the Commission to adjust this particular area of the South District Plan to be consistent with the rest of the proposed Plan.
Sign noted the Planning and Zoning Commission saw an application on that triangle-shaped land several years ago for a rezoning, and it seems to him it failed. Russett confirmed that is correct.
Joleah Shaw (785 McCollister Court) is part of the Board of Directors for the Sandhill Estates Homeowners Association, so she is wearing two hats tonight, one being part of the Board of
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 30 of 36
Directors for the Homeowners Association and the other hat tonight is as an individual homeowner as this lot in particular is directly behind where her home is. She has actually outlined where her lot is and the back of her property line is going to be the closest to the T4 development that's being proposed. Just to reiterate T3 neighborhood edge, which was afforded to most all of the existing development in the South District form-based plan was offered this T3 neighborhood edge all around those existing homes. The T3 neighborhood edge includes large homes, duplex, side by side or cottage courts and what's being proposed 40 feet behind her property line is T4 which could be small multiplex or a courtyard buildings or rows of townhomes. There's absolutely no transition from her single family home to this large development in this very small space. She referenced the Beacon Johnson County aerial views, her lot from front to back is 137.65 feet and the image the City is showing is very deceiving because that green space from top to bottom, from the back of her lot to the white space where that street is does not portray as being 40 feet, it just simply doesn't when compared to her entire lot of 137.65 feet. So, to put T4 development directly behind them and present a map with that very large green space simply does not exist in the real realm of the situation. The other thing Shaw would like to point out is not only is this street single family but it's a very quiet cul-de-sac and basically nobody goes down that street unless they're lost or they know someone on that street that they're visiting. So for them to go from that quiet neighborhood with a prairie in front of them and then have a large development behind them just seems very extreme. The other thing is where the green space is larger off to the right-hand side there is a ditch there and then there is the walking trail, and then the next little corner of that triangle is an easement or a drainage so there's nothing that's going to be developed there and it’s where the road comes in at the end of the median on McCollister Boulevard is where the proposed road is to come up behind them. She is very encouraged to hear that there are possibilities of change to this proposed plan and even though it was mentioned already tonight that they are making these decisions on Iowa City as a whole, again the individual homeowners are the ones here and they should look at their interest as well.
Chris Arch (4298 Maureen Ter SE) is the Homeowners Association President for the Makada Homeowners Association, which is at the end of Sycamore Street. They are technically not in Iowa City and are technically Johnson County, they are about 30 to 35 properties, and he represents about 80 people that live in that area. They are concerned with potential development on the Lehman and the Soccer Park roads area. He acknowledged they’ve already all heard enough arguments about environmental impact, animals and the like, but they live there and they see that sort of thing and would hate to see that disappear to have a very small but highly dense strip of land developed within less than 100 feet from his house. They also have concerns similar to the Sandhills folks as in the master plan it talks about wanting more middle housing and there doesn't appear to be much in that area, yet in their own HOA that comprises about 40% of everybody that lives there. Also out his back door are 8 to 12 plexes so there's already a lot of higher density so the missing middle housing already exists in that area. They are also concerned due to the proximity of the water treatment plant that this is an area where the DNR have stated there should not be or there should at least be extreme caution used in any further development of property in that area. Finally, in the past their neighborhood association has been negatively affected on three different occasions by things that have been done by the City, the wetlands when they were first regraded about 14-15 years ago resulted in a lot of water collection the backyards of their people, nobody from the City ever came to out to try to deal with that. When Alexander Elementary school was put in right across the street it took about 30 to 40 acres out of corn production. They have their own sewer system and own lift station, they have a lagoon and their own water system and when Alexander Elementary was being built, no one took
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 31 of 36
into account what that might do, and it flooded their lagoon system and they had to pay thousands of dollars to deal with it. When the sidewalks around there were regraded no one ever looked into the fact that redirected a lot of water flow so that several of their backyards flood when it rains. Arch stated his shed gets full of water after every rain and he’s called the City before to ask them to deal with that and no one has ever responded. Also, prior to Alexander Elementary being built they had no crime of any significance in their association and within the first year and half of the school being built, they had 80 break ins of cars and homes in their neighborhood. So they would like the Commission to really consider what type of designation to put there. They would all be very supportive of a T3 designation for anything going on in the future near their area. Arch also wanted to thank the Commission for all they do, noting it is a thankless job.
Joleah Shaw (785 McCollister Court) acknowledged that a couple of the Commissioners have mentioned that they live in the South District, and Lehmann actually lives within their HOA, she wanted to ask if their homes were afforded the courtesy of a neighborhood edge with this plan. Another thing she wanted to reiterate was the density of this proposed plan. Again they're talking about 900 acres and based on the figures that they’ve received it could be anywhere from 4000 to 8000 dwellings. Iowa City has a 2.5 person per dwelling average so they're looking at anywhere from 10,000 on the low end to 20,000 people added to the population of Iowa City in this small 900-acre area. In retrospect, North Liberty’s current population is 20,000 and Tiffin, Solon, Lone Tree and University Heights combined it's about 10,000 so they're looking at adding that many people in that small of an area. So, she strongly begs them to reconsider that triangle of land to a T3 neighborhood edge and give them the same courtesy of that transition from their single-family homes to these new developments like all the other existing ones have.
Hensch closed the public hearing
Padron moved to recommend approval of CPA21-0001, a proposed amendment to the
South District Plan to facilitate development that follows form-based principles in the
South District of Iowa City.
Craig seconded the motion.
Hensch noted it is their second look at a Comprehensive Plan amendment tonight and it’s the same criteria that they used to evaluate the previous one. He has been heavily involved as member of Planning and Zoning on this whole form-based code for the South District, since the 2017 feasibility report and was interviewed by Opticos and all that time he’s never wavered in his belief that this is what's best for this area of town. He is a 100% supporter of affordable housing and increasing the housing options and increasing density is the only way to increase volume and to reduce prices and frankly this is the first opportunity they've had for people who have been saying they advocate for affordable housing to place a vote to show whether that's a true advocacy or just words. He truly advocates for affordable housing, and this has to be done. He understands change is scary but believes this is best. He lives here, this applies to him, he has undeveloped land behind him so this will apply to him just like everybody else. He is actually enthusiastic about it and thinks people over the next decades will find how helpful this is and they're going to end up, if this is comes to fruition, the South District really being a cool place where people want to live.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 32 of 36
Padron agreed and also supports plan the way the City staff presented it, she thinks affordable housing right now is one of her main concerns for the City and was reading in the news the other day that there are towns in Colorado where the houses prices have gone up so high that no one can afford to live there and then the coffee shops and all the restaurants cannot hire people, because those are low paying jobs and people cannot live there so that’s a real concern why she thinks they need affordable housing.
Craig wanted to discuss the triangle, which seems to be of concern to the McCollister folks and she absolutely sees why so is the thought process that T4 belongs there because of Gilbert Street. Russett confirmed that was part of it, it's also very similar to the current future land use map which allows multifamily in this area. Staff did think it was important to provide a transition though and that's why they're showing that strip of open space. Because McCollister and Gilbert is the corner of two arterials, they feel T4 makes sense there, but they also feel that there needs to be that transition with the open space. Russett also wanted to note, even though it's T4 they’re still talking about house scale buildings, some of these buildings are going to have more units, but they're still going to be house scale.
Craig noted it's interesting that in some of these lengthy difficult conversations they've had in the last couple of months, this whole visual up and down. In Hickory Hill Park, it was all about they were going to look up the hill and what were they going to see and in this instance, from the geography they're going to be looking down the hill and what will they see and in the Slothower Road it was across the field, so it’s hard to when you have fallen in love with the view of something it's difficult when something comes and fills in that.
Signs discussed the green space strip there and can City staff make a commitment making sure that what comes along in that area is going to have that additional green space, how can they assure that happens. Russett stated it needs to be assured at the rezoning stage when they change the zoning map and so what they could do to assure that there was a decent sized buffer is to add a condition to the rezoning. That land is a trail now so the City is going to want that maintained.
Hensch noted in this item they're approving a future land use map not doing the rezoning so not everything is exactly to scale.
Signs noted it's interesting he was watching some videos the other night on Japanese neighborhoods and they're all missing middle, there's like 57 zones in Tokyo and they're all centered, they all start at a train station and radiate out from there with what we would consider neighborhood commercial and then mixed use, then on to a mix of mixed use and single family homes and the entire city is built up with that and some of the natural amenities were there and they talk about that and it really was just cool to see that and that's one of the densest cities in the world. But because of the idea of mixing uses it really ended up being cool. Signs also lives in the South District right up the street and has been involved in this process since about 2017. He went to the very first public sessions and has tried to go all since then. He is excited about seeing where this goes and seeing what it what it does and agrees it's always scary and it's always frustrating when you buy a place for a view and the view changes. However, like he always says, unless you own the property you don't control the property and that’s the unfortunate reality and the way it works. The other thing he wanted to point out to the Commission is that his point was proven just a little bit ago when all the people who didn't care
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 33 of 36
about this rezoning, Comprehensive Plan change, and form-based code change left. This is what he was talking about, it only matters if it's your neighborhood. They were talking about the exact same changes here and all those people went home because they don't care because it’s not about their neighborhood. Signs just wanted to point that out because it’s becoming more and more disturbing to him as how do they plan for growth then.
Craig noted that is human nature, and she can be sympathetic to all these people, but at the same time they need to look at the public good.
Townsend stated the bottom line this is their town, and they want to see it develop the way it should be and they all know that there is very little affordable housing in Iowa City and surrounding areas so anytime she can see anything looking halfway affordable she is glad.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
CASE NO. REZ21-0005: Consideration of a Zoning Code Amendment to adopt form-based standards for new development as identified in the South District Plan.
Russett noted at the August 19 Commission meeting staff gave a very comprehensive presentation on this item so she just wanted to highlight a couple of changes that they made since the last time. Again, the vast majority of these changes were non-substantive, typos, formatting issues, and a couple clarification items. There is a building type diversity requirement per block in the code and they clarified that requirement that it only applies to primary buildings not accessory buildings. So a carriage house, for example, would not meet the diversity requirement, they have to have a single family home or a duplex, for example. The other change that they made is there's a requirement for the minimum number of units per building in the code and they clarified that that only applies to residential uses because some of those building types could house commercial uses and the minimum unit count does not apply to commercial, but it would apply to residential.
Staff is recommending approval of REZ21-0005, which is the text amendment related to form-based standards.
Russett noted the only additional public comment they received was the letter from Southgate and in general the letter shows support for the amendment.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Hearing none, Hensch closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend a Zoning Code Amendment to adopt form-based standards
for new development as identified in the South District Plan.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Signs stated he is very sympathetic regarding the comments on the T4 but on the other side of that block of land is South Gilbert Street and the corner of Gilbert and McCollister is obviously a
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 34 of 36
major intersection so that’s why he struggles with limiting that too much.
Hensch noted to clarify, there was a rezoning for that particular area of land that failed, it was for much denser than what is planned for in this Comprehensive Plan. However, he acknowledged he did support that, he was the only commissioner that supported it, but because he believes diligently in affordable housing and believes they have to increase volume to give people the supply.
Craig stated one thing she appreciates about this whole concept is it increases the density, but it also offers lots of public area, not just the existing parks, but the walkways and the courtyards and when there's not large or many private backyards with room for swing sets and jungle gyms and trampolines, then the public space becomes so important in those areas, and people share spaces.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
CASE NO. CPA21-0003: A request to set a public hearing for October 7, 2021 on a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan on an update to the Fringe Area Policy Agreement between Johnson County and the City of Iowa City.
Craig moved to hold a public hearing on October 7, 2021 on a proposed amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan on an update to the Fringe Area Policy Agreement between Johnson
County and the City of Iowa City. Padron seconded the motion. A vote was taken and
the motion passed 5-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: AUGUST 19, 2021:
Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of August 19, 2021. Craig seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 2, 2021:
Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of September 2, 2021. Craig seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett noted City Council approved the vacation along South Gilbert Street for the Gilbane project.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 35 of 36
Signs noted downloading and saving the agenda packet documents requires allowing the popup blockers.
ADJOURNMENT:
Townsend moved to adjourn. Signs seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2021-2022
7/1 7/15 8/5 8/19 9/2 9/16
CRAIG, SUSAN X X O/E X X X
HENSCH, MIKE X X O/E X X X
MARTIN, PHOEBE X O/E O/E O/E X O
NOLTE, MARK X X X O/E X O/E
PADRON, MARIA X X X X X X
SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X
TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X X X X
KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member