Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 02.07.2024PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Wednesday, February 7, 2024 Formal Meeting – 6:00 PM Emma Harvat Hall Iowa City City Hall 410 E. Washington Street Agenda: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda Rezoning Items 4. Case No. REZ24-0002 Location: 1916 Waterfront Dr, 429 Southgate Ave, 430 Southgate Ave, 436-438 Southgate Ave, and 501 Southgate Ave A City-initiated application for a rezoning of approximately 4.5 acres of land from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone. 5. Consideration of meeting minutes: January 17, 2024 6. Election of Officers 7. Planning and 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 arussett@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings Formal: February 21 / March 6 / March 20 Informal: Scheduled as needed. STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ24-0002 Prepared by: Parker Walsh, Associate Planner Date: February 7, 2024 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant City of Iowa City 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 Owners: Shelter House PO Box 3146 Iowa City, IA 52244 Community & Family Resources 211 Avenue M West Fort Dodge, IA 50501 Youth Homes, Inc. 1916 Waterfront Drive Iowa City, IA 52240 Requested Action: City initiated rezoning of approximately 4.5 acres of land from Intensive Commercial Zone (CI-1) to Community Commercial Zone (CC-2) Purpose: To align existing uses with compatible zones following the recent City Zoning Code amendment Location: 1916 Waterfront Drive, 429 Southgate Avenue, 430 Southgate Avenue, 436-438 Southgate Avenue, and 501 Southgate Avenue Location Map: Size: 4.5 acres 2 Existing Land Use and Zoning: Intensive Commercial Zone (CI-1) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Community Commercial Zone (CC-2) South: High Density Single Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12) East: Intensive Commercial Zone (CI-1) West: Intensive Commercial Zone (CI-1) Comprehensive Plan: General Commercial and Intensive Commercial District Plan: South District Plan: Commercial Neighborhood Open Space District: S1 Public Meeting Notification: Properties within 500’ of the subject property received notification of the Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting. Rezoning signs were posted on the properties on 1/17/24. File Date: January 4, 2024 45 Day Limitation Period: February 18, 2024 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On November 6, 2023, Iowa City City Council adopted multiple amendments to the text of the Zoning Code (Ordinance 23-4914) to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage housing affordability. The amendments also included several provisions to address potential fair housing issues. Changes included: 1. Treating assisted group living uses more consistently with multi-family uses; and 2. Reclassifying community service – long term housing as a residential use. These two changes created some non-conformities for existing uses, specifically by reclassifying existing community service-long term housing as multi-family and no longer allowing assisted group living uses in Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zones. The purpose of this city-initiated rezoning application is to rezone several properties near the intersection of Waterfront Drive and Southgate Avenue currently zoned CI-1 to Community Commercial (CC-2) to better align their zoning with their existing uses following these recent zoning code changes. No changes to existing uses are proposed as part of this application. Staff met with all property owners. All property owners have expressed their support for the rezoning in writing (Attachment 4). A Good Neighbor Meeting was held on January 30, 2024, which was attended by staff and two others from the community. The summary of this meeting is available in Attachment 4. 3 ANALYSIS: The subject properties are all part of the Braverman Center Lot 2 of Block 1 and Blocks 5, 6, and 7 subdivision. They were zoned Intensive Commercial (CI-1) on December 20, 1983 as part of the comprehensive rezoning of the City with the adoption of the 1983 zoning code update. The surrounding properties were also zoned CI-1 as part of this comprehensive rezoning. Prior to that, the subject properties were zoned Light Industrial (M1). This area has gradually changed over the past 40 years. Commercial uses along the highway began to spread further south as additional residential development continued to occur in the South District. In 1994 (Ord. 94-3653), the HyVee property to the north was rezoned to Community Commercial (CC-2). The nonprofit uses currently occupying the subject properties began establishing themselves in the area in the late 1990s through the mid-2000s. In addition, CC-2 zoning continued to expand, especially in 2006 when CC-2 zoning extended down Boyrum Street (Ord. 06-4211 and Ord. 06-4223), S. Gilbert Street (Ord. 06-4224), and along Stevens Drive (Ord. 06-4240). In 2018, the County purchased and rezoned land to the west to establish the GuideLink Center, which offers urgent mental health and substance use services. While there are still many uses consistent with the CI-1 zoning designation nearby, further expansion of the CC-2 zone to the subject properties makes sense given the existing land uses. At the same time, the meaning of CI-1 zoning designation has also changed over time. When it was first adopted in 1983, multi-family, group care facilities (now called assisted group living), and transitional housing uses were allowed by special exception in the CI-1 zone. However, in 2005, the zoning changed such that multi-family uses were no longer allowed; however assisted group living and community service – shelter uses continued to be allowed in the CI-1 zone. Community service – long term housing was added as an institutional use category in 2016, which was also allowed by special exception in CI-1 zones. Overtime the CI-1 zone has gone from an all- encompassing commercial zone to being focused more towards intensive commercial development. Due to residential uses being removed over the years, and the primary intent of the CI-1 zone changing, staff felt it was necessary to remove the remaining residential uses from the zone as they were incompatible. The 2023 zoning code text amendments related to housing addressed potential fair housing issues by aligning assisted group living and community service – long term housing with other residential uses. This led to the removal of assisted group living and community service – long term housing as an allowable use in the CI-1 zone because other residential uses were also prohibited. The 2023 zoning code text amendments also simplified the process by which assisted group living is allowed in CC-2 through by removing the need for a special exception. The City is initiating this rezoning because the zoning code text amendments adopted on November 6, 2023, no longer allow other uses similar to residential uses in CI-1 zones, which resulted in the creation of several legal nonconforming uses on the subject properties. It is important to correct this issue as nonconforming uses are not allowed to be enlarged or altered in such a way that would be considered an expansion of a nonconforming use. This may limit or prohibit any future development under the existing uses. Current Zoning: The subject properties are currently zoned Intensive Commercial (CI-1). The purpose of CI-1 is to provide areas for those 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. The types of retail trade in this zone are limited in order to provide opportunities for more land intensive commercial operations and also to prevent conflicts between retail and industrial truck traffic. Special attention must be directed toward buffering the negative aspects of allowed uses from 4 adjacent residential zones. With the 2023 zoning code text amendment, no residential uses are allowed in a CI-1 zone. This change is intended to remove residential uses from a zone that typically utilizes more intense uses that are not compatible with residential. Proposed Zoning: The request is to rezone the subject properties from the existing CI-1 to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone. The purpose of CC-2 is to provide for major business districts to serve a significant segment of the total community population. In addition to a variety of retail goods and services, these centers may typically feature a number of large traffic generators requiring access from major thoroughfares. While these centers are usually characterized by indoor operations, uses may have limited outdoor activities; provided, that outdoor operations are screened or buffered to remain compatible with surrounding uses. The CC-2 zone would make the existing assisted living uses conforming, allowing for potential expansions and other site renovations. Without the rezoning, the existing properties would continue as legal nonconformities, but be unable to expand until rezoned. The CC-2 zone would also be continuous with CC-2 zoned property to the north. Table 1 below outlines a comparison of the uses allowed in the existing CI-1 zone and the proposed CC-2 zone. Table 1: Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones Uses Categories Community Commercial Intensive Commercial Residential – Assisted Group Living PR - Residential – Group Household PR - Residential – Multi-Family PR/S - Adult Business - PR Animal Related Commercial – General PR PR Animal Related Commercial – Intensive - PR Building Trade Uses PR P Commercial Recreation – Indoor P P Commercial Recreation – Outdoor S P Drinking Establishments PR PR Eating Establishments P P Office - General P P Office – Medical/Dental P P Quick Vehicle Servicing PR/S PR/S Retail – Alcohol Sales P P Retail – Delayed Deposit PR - Retail – Hospitality P P Outdoor Storage and Display PR P Retail – Personal Service P P Retail – Repair P P Retail – Sales P P Surface Passenger Service P P Vehicle Repair S PR Industrial Service - P General Manufacturing PR PR Heavy Manufacturing - S Technical/Light Manufacturing PR PR 5 Property Analysis: Staff prepared an analysis of the properties to summarize existing nonconforming uses and detail what would change due to the proposed rezoning. The proposed rezoning would better align the zoning with the existing land uses and compatible development. The subject properties may continue to use the sites as currently established, regardless of the nonconforming use. However, according to 14-4E-5 of the City Code, any future redevelopment, expansions, or alterations of the subject properties may be prohibited if they are considered expansions of the nonconforming use. The purpose of the analysis is to determine if the CC-2 zone is a compatible alternative that would not create additional nonconforming use issues that would limit any future development of the existing properties. Any future development activity on the subject properties would require a site plan, which may uncover additional Code compliance concerns that would need to be satisfied as part of the site plan review process. A nonconforming analysis of the properties is below. Figure 1: Location and Land Use Map Self Service Storage S P Warehouse & Freight Movement - P Wholesale Sales - P Basic Utility PR/S PR/S Community Service – Shelter S S General Community Service P S Daycare PR PR General Education S - Specialized Education P S Parks and Open Space PR - Religious/Private Group Assembly P P Utility Scale Ground Mounted Solar S S Communication Transmission Facility PR/S PR/S P = Permitted, PR = Provisional, S = Special Exception, - Not Allowed 6 1916 Waterfront Dr: Four Oaks • A special exception was granted in order to establish and expand a group care facility use (now called assisted group living) to allow 24 roomers. Today, the property is no longer used for assisted group living. It is primarily a general community service use with medical offices. • If the property were to remain zoned CI-1 a special exception would be required to expand the general community service use and assisted group living would not be allowed. Both uses are allowed provisionally in the proposed CC-2 zone. 430 Southgate Ave: Community & Family Resources • The current uses for the property include assisted group living which received a special exception in 1985 and general office. While assisted group living is no longer allowed in CI-1 zones, both uses are allowed in CC-2. • The property received a parking reduction through a special exception in 2000 that required 84 spaces between this property and 436-438 Southgate Ave; together, these parcels constitute a single tract. 436 - 438 Southgate Ave: Community & Family Resources • The current uses for the property include multi-family and ground floor office. Multi-family has not been allowed in CI-1 zones since at least 2005. This is currently an established legal nonconforming use in CI-1. • In the CC-2 zone multi-family uses above the ground floor are allowed provisionally. Because this constitutes a tract with 430 Southgate Ave, the multi-family uses meet current dwelling unit density standards. 429 Southgate Ave: Shelter House • In 2004 the property owner received a special exception to establish a community service – shelter use for up to 70 temporary residents. This use requires a special exception in both CI-1 and CC-2 zones. This use was legally established and could continue to operate under the existing special exception. 501 Southgate Ave: Shelter House • In 2020, this property received a special exception to establish a community service – long term housing use, but the 2023 zoning code text amendment eliminated it as a use type. • The use is now classified as multi-family with accessory supportive services. The multi- family use is not allowed in the CI-1 zone, but it is allowed in CC-2 zones either provisionally or by special exception. • The property currently has 36 one-bedroom units, which is more than the maximum density allowed in CC-2 zones. As such, the proposed rezoning would bring the site into greater compliance with the zoning code, though it would still be considered a nonconforming use due to density. However, its current use may continue to operate as a legal nonconforming use. • Due to the reclassification in use to multi-family, the parking ratio has changed, which leads to a nonconforming situation. The property currently has 30 spaces instead of 36 spaces as would be required under its new land use category. However, all units are affordable, which would no longer require parking under the 2023 zoning code text amendments if the owner entered into an affordable housing agreement. Although this is not required of the owner, it is an option that could bring the parking into compliance with current standards. Regardless, the use can continue to operate as -is. Rezoning Review Criteria: Staff uses the following two criteria in the review of rezoning: 1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan; 7 2. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject properties as suitable for General Commercial and Intensive Commercial land uses. The Comprehensive Plan also states that “in addition to the District Plans, the neighborhood design principles should be considered when interpreting the land use map”. The Comprehensive Plan goes on to state, “use the District Plans to identify appropriate commercial nodes and zone accordingly to focus commercial development to meet the needs of the present and future population”. The neighborhood design principle Buffer Residential Development from Incompatible Uses emphasizes the importance of providing sufficient buffers to assure the long-term livability of neighborhoods. Although many of the allowed uses in CC-2 are similar to those in CI-1, many of the more intensive uses are provisional with approval criteria such as higher intensity screening to maintain a buffer. The land use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan includes a strategy to, “Plan for appropriate transitions between residential neighborhoods and higher intensity commercial to ensure the long-term health of neighborhood”. Currently, the properties south of Southgate Ave abut existing residential to the south. The South District Plan Future Land Use Map designates the subject properties as Commercial to provide the opportunity for a large variety of uses that serve a major segment of the community. Similar to the IC2030 plan, the South District Plan emphasizes the importance of the neighborhood design principles, specifically, to buffer residential development from incompatible uses to help ensure the long-term livability of neighborhoods. Goal 4 of the South District Plan Commercial Area – Goals and Objectives states “ensuring that commercial areas and uses contribute to the long term vitality and appeal of adjacent neighborhoods”. The objectives to achieve this goal go on to state “Explore the potential for mixed use, residential, or institutional uses. Any proposed rezoning of this area should be scrutinized to ensure that new development contributes to the overall health of the surrounding neighborhood, including nearby residential uses”. Although no new development is planned with this rezoning, the existing residential uses in the area are noted in the Plan as desirable to promote a long term healthy neighborhood. The CC-2 zone would allow these residential uses, while also removing the ability to develop some incompatible uses allowed in CI-1. CC-2 also puts a greater emphasis on buffering incompatible uses through increased screening and setback standards, which will further contribute to the overall health and neighborhood compatibility of existing and future development in the area. Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood Character: The rezoning would bring the existing land uses more in conformance with the zoning code, while also allowing for future redevelopment to uses that more closely fit with the Comprehensive Plan’s vision. Rezoning to CC-2 is more compatible with the existing residential Figure 2: Location and Use Map 8 uses to the south. The existing land uses also provide the transition envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the land uses transition from high density single family manufactured housing park, to multi-family and assisted group living uses, to community service and medical office, and finally into the HyVee commercial area to the north. See Figure 1. Directly to the east of the subject properties is Plumb Supply Company, a plumbing supply store with outdoor storage. Directly to the west, across Waterfront Dr., is Ruiz Auto Repair and Fiddlehead Gardens, both with outdoor storage. The outdoor storage uses are generally less compatible with the existing residential uses. However, if these properties redevelop in the future, additional screening may be required to buffer the residential uses, as well as screening of the outdoor storage areas from adjacent properties. A rezoning of the subject properties to CC-2 would ensure that the existing properties are conforming, while also allowing future commercial redevelopment that would remain compatible with the surrounding CI-1 uses. SUMMARY: In summary, Staff initiated and supports the rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Community Commercial (CC-2). Rezoning to CC-2 would restore the existing uses to conforming use status. Additionally, given the existing development in the area, the rezoning to CC-2 would create a more compatible neighborhood envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan as the zone emphasizes buffers between incompatible uses, while also removing the ability to develop some incompatible uses allowed in CI-1. NEXT STEPS: Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be scheduled for consideration by the City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ24-0002, a rezoning of approximately 4.5 acres of properties located at 429 Southgate Ave, 430 Southgate Ave, 436-438 Southgate Ave, 501 Southgate Ave, and 1916 Waterfront Dr. from Intensive Commercial Zone (CI-1) to Community Commercial Zone (CC-2). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Applicant Statement 4. Good Neighbor Meeting Summary 5. Property Owner Statements Approved by: _________________________________________________ Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services 9 ATTACHMENT 1 Location Map 10 ATTACHMENT 2 Zoning Map 11 ATTACHMENT 3 Applicant Statement January 31, 2024 Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 RE: City-Initiated Rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Community Commercial (CC-2) To the Planning and Zoning Commission: On November 6, 2023, Iowa City City Council adopted multiple amendments to the text of the Zoning Code (Ordinance 23-4914) to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage housing affordability. The amendments also included several provisions to address potential fair housing issues. Changes included: 1. Treating assisted group living uses more consistently with multi-family uses; and 2. Reclassifying community service – long term housing as a residential use. These two changes created some non-conformities for existing uses, including properties newly classified as multi-family and properties with assisted group living uses in Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zones. The purpose of this City-initiated rezoning application is to better align the zoning of several properties near the intersection of Waterfront Drive and Southgate Avenue with their existing uses following these changes. The application would rezone them from CI-1 to Community Commercial (CC-2). The subject properties were identified based on an analysis of properties zoned CI-1 throughout the City. If you have any questions regarding this application, please do not hesitate to reach out. Regards, Kirk Lehmann, AICP Associate Planner Neighborhood and Development Services City of Iowa City 12 ATTACHMENT 4 Good Neighbor Meeting Summary Summary Report for Good Neighbor Meeting Project Name: ___________________________Project Location: _________________________ Meeting Date and Time: ________________________________________________________ Meeting Location: _____________________________________________________________ Names of Applicant Representatives attending: ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Names of City Staff Representatives attending: _______________________________________ Number of Neighbors Attending: ________ Sign-In Attached? Yes ______ No ______ General Comments received regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary)- _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ Concerns expressed regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary) - _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ Will there be any changes made to the proposal based on this input? If so, describe: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Staff Representative Comments ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 13 ATTACHMENT 5 Property Owner Statements 1 Kirk Lehmann From:Marty Stoll <MLS@shuttleworthlaw.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 10, 2024 9:56 AM To:Kirk Lehmann; Mary Beth O'Neill Cc:Anne Russett; Parker Walsh Subject:RE: CI-1 to CC-2 Meeting Follow Up ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Thank you for forwarding this information, Kirk. Four Oaks is supportive of the rezoning in order to allow for future use of the property for group living purposes, even if such residential use is on a short-term or temporary basis. Thank you, Marty Marty L. Stoll Attorney and Senior Member SHUTTLEWORTH & INGERSOLL, P.L.C. Street: 115 3RD Street SE, Suite 500 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401 Mailing: P.O. Box 2107 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52406-2107 Phone: 319-365-9461 Fax: 319-365-8443 Email: MLS@Shuttleworthlaw.com Web Site: www.shuttleworthlaw.com LinkedIn Confidentiality Notice: Since email messages sent between you and Shuttleworth & Ingersoll P.L.C and its employees are transmitted over the Internet, Shuttleworth & Ingersoll P.L.C. cannot assure that such messages are secure. You should be careful in transmitting information to Shuttleworth & Ingersoll P.L.C. that you consider confidential. If you are uncomfortable with such risks, you may decide not to use email to communicate with Shuttleworth & Ingersoll P.L.C. This message is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 USC Section 2510-2515, is intended only for the use of the person to whom it is addressed and may contain information 1 Kirk Lehmann From:Crissy Canganelli <crissy@shelterhouseiowa.org> Sent:Tuesday, January 16, 2024 2:01 PM To:Kirk Lehmann Cc:Anne Russett; Parker Walsh Subject:RE: REZ24-0002: Rezoning Mailings, Signs, and Timeline ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Hello Kirk, Thank you for the timeline details and I apologize for failing to respond to your original email on this subject. Please accept this as written assurance of Shelter House’s support for the City of Iowa City to rezone the properties located at 429 and 501 Southgate from CI-1 to CC-2. Thank you, From: Kirk Lehmann <KLehmann@iowa-city.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 1:17 PM To: Crissy Canganelli <crissy@shelterhouseiowa.org> Cc: Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.org>; Parker Walsh <PWalsh@iowa-city.org> Subject: [External] REZ24-0002: Rezoning Mailings, Signs, and Timeline Hello Crissy, This message is to inform you that mailings will go out and signs will be posted at your properties tomorrow. You will receive a copy of the letter in the mail, but I’ve also attached it for your convenience. The timeline for public meetings is as follows: 1. Good Neighbor Meeting: A Good Neighbor Meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 30, 2024, at 5:30 p.m. at Dream City, 611 Southgate Avenue in Iowa City. This meeting will provide an opportunity for the public to learn about the requested rezoning and provide informal feedback regarding this proposal. City staff will lead the meeting. A representative of your agency may attend but is not required. MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 17, 2024 – 6:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Maria Padron, Scott Quellhorst, Billie Townsend, Chad Wade MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Melanie Comer, Sara Hektoen, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Wade Warme, Joe Townsend, Austin Korns, Anne Marie Kraus, Tracy Daby, Mary Helen Kennerly, Dan Schweer, Jane Driscoll, Jesse Ewald RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ23-0010, a proposal to rezone approximately 6.8 acres of property located at 1810, 1816, and 1828 Lower Muscatine Road from Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone to General Industrial (I-1) zone. CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. REZONING ITEMS: CASE NO. REZ23-0010 Location: 1810, 1816, and 1828 Lower Muscatine Road An application for a rezoning of approximately 6.1 acres of property from Neighborhood Public (P-1) to General Industrial (I-1). Comer began the staff report showing the location map for the subject properties noting these properties are bordered on the west by Lower Muscatine Road and to the south by Mall Drive. The subject properties are currently zoned Neighborhood Public and are surrounded by General Industrial uses to the north and the south. To the north the industrial use is owned by Mid- American and to the south the industrial use is owned by Procter & Gamble. To the east and west are primarily low to medium density single family zones, and further to the south are commercial uses. For some background context, in 2002 Iowa City initiated a rezoning for the property located at 1828 Lower Muscatine Road to the Neighborhood Public zone for Kirkwood Community College to expand their campus. However, circumstances have changed and Kirkwood no longer operates within this facility, putting it up for sale. Procter & Gamble intends to close on this site this year, pending the approval of this rezoning which would allow for an extension of the existing Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 2024 Page 2 of 15 Procter & Gamble facility to the south. These properties are currently zoned Neighborhood Public (P-1) which is intended to provide reference to public ownership and use of land. Some examples of uses allowed within the zone are parks, schools, police and fire stations and other civic buildings. Since this is a public zone if these properties are purchased by private entity, the area must be rezoned to comply with the intended use. Comer stated the proposed zoning of these properties as General Industrial (I-1) which was created to provide the opportunity for the development of most types of industrial firms and industrial and research zone site development standards apply in the zone. The maximum allowable height is 45 feet, and the minimum setbacks are 20 feet from the front facade and zero feet from the rear and sides. Some examples of uses allowed in the zone are building trade, which could be contractor shops, industrial service could be machine shops, towing yards, machinery repairs shops, technical/light manufacturing could be firms manufacturing electrical components, optical instruments or lenses. General manufacturing is provisional in the zone and could be manufacturing of chemicals or food products but excludes any heavy manufacturing uses like meatpacking or sawmills or paper mills. Heavy manufacturing uses are only allowed by special exception, which are limited to concrete batch plants in this site. Warehouse and freight moving examples could be wholesale distribution centers, railroad switching yards, warehouses used by retail stores or vehicle fleet storage. Waste related uses are limited to recycling process facilities, and some general community service uses could be libraries, museums or neighborhood centers. In reviewing rezoning the City uses two criteria. One is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the second is compatibility with the existing neighborhood. Comer first reviewed this requests consistency with the IC 2030 Comprehensive Plan and showed the Future Land Use Map and the rezoning area. The Future Land Use Map in this area is set to be used for public/semipublic use. However, there exists goals and policies that would support the rezoning of this area to General Industrial. In the Economic Development section of the IC 2030 Plan there's a goal to increase and diversify the property tax base by encouraging the retention and expansion of existing businesses. By rezoning this area to industrial Procter & Gamble would be able to expand their existing facility to the east. Similar to the IC 2030 Comprehensive Plan the Southeast District Plan Future Land Use Map shows this area as Public Institutional, and there's an objective in the Plan to enhance this as commercial development opportunity for Kirkwood Community College. Again, circumstances have changed since this Plan’s adoption in 2011 and as Kirkwood no longer operates within this facility a different zoning designation would be more compatible with adjacent uses. Within the Industrial and Employment Areas section of the Southeast District Plan it expresses this District as an ideal place to expand Iowa City's industrial base due to its ideal landscape of level and well drained land. One goal within this Plan is to preserve and expand the industrial tax base. An objective to accomplish this goal is to protect designated industrial areas from incompatible uses such as residential dwellings and retail and consumer services that would be incompatible with the existing industrial uses to the north and south. A second goal within this Plan is to minimize conflicts between industrial areas by developing a better buffer between the residential areas to the north of the Iowa Interstate Railroad and industrial uses to the south. Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 2024 Page 3 of 15 Next, regarding compatibility with the existing neighborhood Comer stated to the east and west are primarily low to medium density single family homes. However, these zones are separated from the existing industrial uses and proposal site by a major thoroughfare to the west, Lower Muscatine Road, and a railroad to the east. As mentioned before land to the north and south of the site is zoned General Industrial, so rezoning the site to General Industrial would allow Proctor & Gamble to expand the existing facility to the south, making the proposed use consistent with both adjacent properties to the north and south. At this site there are two current entrances for access and street design. The first entrance is to the north at the intersection of Sycamore Street and Lower Muscatine Road, and to the south there is an entrance to the property at 1828 Lower Muscatine Road into the existing parking lot. As for correspondence, staff has received 11 emails thus far and most of the correspondence is raising concerns about this proposed rezoning related to issues such as air quality and pollution, noise pollution and unpleasant scents. All correspondence was provided to the Commissioners. Staff recommends approval of REZ23-0010, a proposal to rezone approximately 6.8 acres of property located at 1810, 1816, and 1828 Lower Muscatine Road from Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone to General Industrial (I-1) zone. Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be scheduled for consideration by City Council. The anticipated timeline would be Council would consider setting a public hearing on February 6 for February 20 when Council hold the public hearing and first consideration. Hensch asked for clarification as he noticed that in the agenda it is listed as 6.1 acres versus 6.8 acres in the attachments and in the presentation. Russett stated that was a typo, it is 6.8 acres. Elliott asked how long ago this area was originally commercial because a lot of times commercial is on the outside or away from the residential so likely originally this was zoned commercial a long time ago. Russett replied most of the area has been zoned industrial since the 1960s, the subject property was zoned CC-2 prior to 2002 when it was rezoned a Neighborhood Public. Hensch opened the public hearing. Wade Warme (Shive-Hattery) is representing Procter & Gamble and Joe Townsend is here representing Proctor & Gamble. Hensch asked if it was correct that as of right now there are no plans for the property. Warme confirmed it is just to acquire it since it's adjacent to the existing property. Joe Townsend (Site Engineering Leader, Procter & Gamble) stated they’re just looking to purchase the property with the potential to do a further expansion of the oral care operation within Iowa City. They don't currently have existing plans on what they want to do with that property, but they'd like to have the opportunity to potentially expand. Procter & Gamble has been a member of the community since 1956. During that time, they strive to be a good, responsible neighbor in the community. Procter & Gamble's current oral care operation in that area produces manual toothbrushes and power toothbrushes. They continue to strive to be a Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 2024 Page 4 of 15 good steward of the environment and the community, they have initiatives at facilities that are zero manufacturing waste to landfill and are also in process of achieving zero greenhouse gas emissions from their plants. Furthermore, they maintain their air operating permits and stormwater permits. Most recently, they've had some audits from the DNR as well as inspections in 2018 and 2021 in which they've had zero notice of findings or zero violations that have been identified. They intend to continue to strive to meet those initiatives and be a good steward within the community. Hensch asked if currently there's no plans for that property and they just want to control the property. Townsend confirmed that is correct. Hensch noted they’ve received multiple correspondence and it sounds like some people have gotten the idea that there's chemicals going to be produced there, is there any basis for that or do they know where that data is from. Townsend replied there's no chemicals that would be produced there. If they were to expand the oral care operation and be primarily making oral care toothbrushes or power toothbrushes that is not a chemical manufacturing process, it’s an injection molding process. Hensch asked for confirmation that they are in compliance with DNR, EPA, air release wastes regulations, etc. and there's been no findings. Townsend confirmed their most recent audits in 2018 and 2021 produced no concerns. They also do internal audits and compliance audits to make sure that they adhere to and maintain all the legal requirements that they have for Procter & Gamble as well as the community. Wade asked if the operation out in the old Menards location is the same process of oral care manufacturing. Townsend stated for the most part it's the same, the Menards facility on the opposite side of town is a power oral care toothbrush manufacturing facility. It's a very similar process where they're injection molding parts to assemble components to make toothbrushes. Austin Korns (Senior Director of Economic Development, Greater Iowa City Inc.) which is the economic development organization for the Iowa City area. The Greater Iowa City Inc. is fully supportive of the proposed rezoning of the former Iowa City Kirkwood campus to make way for the purchase and additional space for Procter & Gamble. Procter & Gamble is a cornerstone of the local economy and provides a significant employment base for individuals across the entire region. While the departure of Kirkwood is a loss for the area, Procter & Gamble’s potential acquisition provides a great opportunity for the entire community and make sense for the location situated directly adjacent to the current Procter & Gamble facility and between two other industrial sites. A purchase like this one represents the type of business retention effort needed to ensure Procter & Gamble can continue their work for years to come. Procter & Gamble is not only an economic driver for the region, but an incredible community development partner. The Greater Iowa City Inc. are eager to continue working with Procter & Gamble and residents of the surrounding community to maximize how this development could benefit the area and bolster the community. Anne Marie Kraus stated she lives on the southeast side of Iowa City and is asking that they do not approve the rezoning of the Kirkwood property. She just heard that there are no current plans to produce chemical products the way they do out on East Highway 6, but once the facility is rezoned for General Industrial that doesn't exclude opening the door to the manufacture of chemical products. Even if they're producing plastic products, like toothbrushes or whatever, all of those things emit strong, noxious, dangerous odors. The essential question is are they willing Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 2024 Page 5 of 15 to trade citizen’s property values for Procter & Gamble's profits. On the east side and the southeast side of Iowa City they are already experienced with the noxious odors from the Procter & Gamble plant out on Highway 6, the fumes reach a two-mile range as residents have told her. Now Procter & Gamble could be emitting more intensely concentrated odors at close range and the site is surrounded on all sides by neighborhoods. When the southeast side gets a reputation for bad odors, who will want to buy a home in the area. Kraus asked that they consider that if they approve this plan, the property values in the area could plummet and with lower property values the City will have a reduced tax base, hence less income for the City. Further, are they willing to trade citizen’s health for Procter & Gamble’s corporate profits. Even if they claim that the odors emanating for the chemical manufacturing are not toxic there are studies such as scientific articles in SpringerLink listing toxic or carcinogenic substances contained in scented items such as laundry products. The CDC says that environmental odors make asthma worse. Even if they refute all those studies, chemical sensitivity is a real medical diagnosis. The chemical fumes from the Procter & Gamble plant out on Highway 6 give her migraines, nausea, dizziness, and sometimes worse. Even if they dismiss chemical sensitivity as irrelevant, the noxious fumes will devastate the livability of these sweet modest neighborhoods. The CDC recommends that people stay indoors to avoid health damage from environmental odors or leave the area. What kind of options are those for those residential victims of chemicals in the air. Kraus also wants to know why that the IC 2030 Comprehensive Plan says that the Southeast District is an ideal place to expand Iowa City's industrial base. Why always the southeast side, because that's where the powers place nearly all the buildings that are not wanted in other parts of town. Why don't they rezone an area where the homes cost upwards of $500,000, it's always their neighborhood, the southeast side which is filled with neighborhoods of modest means and struggling incomes. It's easy for the City to turn their backs on southeast side because they don't have the power and influence that other areas of town can wield. Kraus will trust that the Commissioners value the concept of the quality of life. It's something that they are fortunate to have in Iowa City, so please don't endanger their property values, their health and their quality of life by rezoning to General Industrial. Tracy Daby (1911 H Street) has lived on H Street, which is right behind Kirkwood Community College, for going on 25 years and has a background in science and healthcare, she worked in a genetic research lab so she understands the smell of chemicals and how to identify them and the toxicity that goes along with it. She is here because her family and she had trouble breathing the air last year. Everybody in southeast Iowa City can confirm that there's this pervasive smell of hog farms and Head & Shoulders. Last year, they had a lot of wildfires burning from Canada but the last two years have been particularly bad because they've had strong odors of acetone in the air, very concentrated, to the point where they open up their back door and couldn't breathe. So she had to close up the house and stay inside. She is a gardener so that's a big deal for her. She closed all the windows and the door and turned on the AC in June. She didn't need to for the temperature but the acetone odor was definitely toxic. She’s kicking himself for not reporting it to the EPA at the time but was feeling like it wouldn't do any good and she didn't know there was a way to report it. She thought she had to only report it to the State level and she knows that the State regulators are having difficulty keeping up with everything, especially with the new findings on toxic emissions. Daby stated acetone is what they normally think of as nail polish remover, it’s extremely toxic, if even breathed or inhaled for one hour. The period of time last summer when she experienced the worst of it was like June and July, like maybe mid-June to mid-July. She had headaches, her family had headaches, they had breathing difficulties, and irritability and fatigue also, which she just found out today, after doing some more research on the CDC, are Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 2024 Page 6 of 15 common side effects. One hour of inhalation can cause this ill health in people, that's just one hour, they were experiencing it for several weeks. It kind of up ebbed and flowed in severity. Daby acknowledged she has not seen any data to prove that it came specifically from that Oral B plant, however she did do her own walking around the neighborhood to try to isolate it, because it was so bad, and on the lesser days when she couldn't be outside, she found that it was much worse when she was walking up Mall Drive, as she passed the Ace Hardware there she could smell it coming out from that Oral B parking lot or stacks. Daby hopes the Commission has had a chance to read the findings that she submitted. She wanted them to know when she got the letter, which was just a week ago, she hadn't had much time to do this she wanted to know if there was any correlation between what's been recorded by the EPA and what she experienced. She did find two studies, two published research papers. They're kind of hard to navigate on the EPA website so on the back of each diagram one and two she put the links and how to follow the links to get to where she found this information so that the Commissioners can find it themselves. What they say is both Procter & Gamble facilities on the southeast side have been cited as having air pollution and air toxic releases. They can go to the website and look up all the details but she just wanted to say that there is proof that there is pollution coming from those places. The second thing she found that was even more important which is the diagram 2, daily air quality values from 2019 to 2024. She printed them out. The areas in green are good air quality index, areas in yellow are moderate for air quality and orange is unhealthy for sensitive groups like children, or elderly or disabled and red is unhealthy. Mary Helen Kennerly (1017 4th Avenue) which is just around the corner from Ms. Daby. She shares with Ms. Kraus a lot of concerns about what happens when they leave residential zoning and go to industrial, she doesn’t see them coming back from that and she thinks they should treat that with a lot of caution. Kennerly thinks it's really telling in terms of the caution that should be treated with Procter & Gamble’s representatives or the applicants representatives. Their first line of defense is they don't intend to do anything with the property and promise they just want to acquire it and just have it. But of course, the reality of that new zoning regulation, whether it's them or someone else down the road, is that anything could happen. Anything could happen and they have to sort of trust the regulatory agencies and they're sort of decreasing strength in the state that nothing bad will happen to this community, to the community that this guy lives in, and a lot of the rest of them live in. So she just wants to convey how cautious she thinks they should be going forward and considering a change like this. It's a really big one. Dan Schweer (1140 Spruce Street) is not going to try to add to any of that but since they won't say what they want to do, at a minimum they want some kind of conditional rezoning so that they are not manufacturing in that space directly across the street, close to a residential neighborhood. Now there is a barrier, if they let them rezone and without restriction manufacture, then they're that much closer across the street. Much closer to the residences and that is his concern. Going back to the fairness, they started in 1956, that was preexisting before a lot of us were there. He didn't complain when he grew up, the trains were there first and they can't complain about that in his book. All he is asking is if they’re going to approve it, make it conditional. They can have a parking lot there if they want but manufacturing that's too close to residential. Jane Driscoll (1409 Spruce Street) has lived in that neighborhood about a block and a half from where the Kirkwood currently is, the property in question, for about 45 years of her life and she would echo the need for conditional zoning if this moves forward. There's noise pollution, light Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 2024 Page 7 of 15 pollution, there is excess traffic that needs to be looked at. The bus route is right there and has bus stops. If they have the risk of future semi traffic or other large vehicles arriving, coming to and from, in addition to extra employee traffic, that all needs to be looked at and considered in a conditional zoning that goes back to the app to protect the interests of the public, but also protect the safety of the public. Jesse Ewald (1031 Ginter Avenue) lives quite close to this rezoning and would like to echo the concerns and say that she also with the information that they have been given don't support moving forward with this rezoning. She is incredibly concerned that they don't have specific plans they can give. She is also very interested to know what the definition of provisional use for manufacturing and how that would play out if they do in the future have plans for any sort of chemical storage or manufacturing that would look something like what happens at their other facility. She mentioned the other facility, because like others that live in the neighborhood, she is often very aware of what smells like a synthetic fragrance that emanates from that location. She’d also like to remind everyone that just because the EPA or other regulatory agencies that are meant to protect us don't classify something as being particularly hazardous those bodies are oftentimes trying to catch up with the science and they move very slowly. She has a PhD in environmental engineering so both her field work and her research and her expertise has demonstrated time and time again, with a great list of chemicals that they are often not at the forefront of where the science is. So that fragrance specifically really causes concern for her. Like she said, she lives quite close to the facility like everyone else here and is really interested in staying in her home, she’d like to raise her family there. Therefore, it's just incredibly important that at the very least they have all of the specific information about what might occur at this facility. Even more than that, they should have the opportunity to really determine what goes on very close to their homes where all of them would like to remain and raise their families. Tracy Daby (1911 H Street) wanted to add in lieu of deciding against rezoning this, if they’re unable to do that tonight, she would ask that they have deferment and hold off on making the decision so they have time to absorb more of the scientific data. She only had a week to look at things and she found those two pretty strong articles. Also her next door neighbor didn't get their letter of announcement until last night so a lot of people are still unaware that this is going on. The last thing is that with how they think it meets the criteria for rezoning, she would just ask them to remember that the criteria they're talking about is only physical proximity and what everybody here so far has been talking about is what's in the air and air moves and so the proximity to consider and the mailing that needs to go out needs to be a much wider circle. Daby has a friend she met today downtown said he could smell the acetone last summer and he lives over by City High. Lastly, on the website for Neighborhood Development the mission statement is “we work to create community and find solutions that promote healthy neighborhoods and a vibrant business community.” Daby would ask that they remember the first part, please don't sacrifice healthy neighborhoods for business. Hensch closed the public hearing. Craig moved to recommend approval of REZ23-0010, a proposal to rezone approximately 6.8 acres of property located at 1810, 1816, and 1828 Lower Muscatine Road from Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone to General Industrial (I-1) zone. Quellhorst seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 2024 Page 8 of 15 Craig asked about the history of the air quality and what is the City's role in air quality. Russett stated the City really has no role, they don't regulate environmental pollutants like air pollution, it’s all done at the state and federal level. Craig stated when she first saw this application in her packet she thought well that makes sense. Here’s this fairly small piece of property and what could be the use between an electrical substation and a manufacturing plant. What else is going to go there if they don't do something that's compatible with those two things. So she thought it was a very good application and was highly supportive of it. As the comments have come in it does raise some concern but the concerns she’s hearing are based on air quality, which she doesn’t see as really material to what the issue is before them tonight and for that reason she is supporting this application. Quellhorst totally agrees with that. He empathizes with a lot of the concerns that have been raised here today and thinks they're serious and significant and deserve attention, but he also thinks that he is not an environmental engineer and has concerns about himself, or this Commission, trying to make very complex scientific decisions that they're not really qualified to make. Ultimately, the question before them is a pretty simple one, which is whether this particular slice property is suited for an industrial use and like Commissioner Craig said he thinks that it is, particularly given the surrounding character of the area with Mid-American on one side and Procter & Gamble on the other. So for that reason, he would support the rezoning. Hensch asked for a definition of what a provision single use is. Russett stated a provisional use is a use that's allowed in the zone but requires compliance with additional specific use criteria. For general manufacturing the criteria in the General Industrial zone is related to milling grains. So, if the proposed use deals with milling grain, then there's additional standards that need to be met, but only for that specific type of manufacturing. Hensch asked if it is correct to believe that there have been no site plans submitted with this application and there's no project associated for them to even discuss. Russett confirmed that was correct. Hensch noted to both sides of the subject property, those are currently zoned industrial. Russett confirmed that was correct. Hensch asked has any government entity come forward and said they would like to do something with the current P-1 zoning. Not that Russett is aware of. Padron stated she supports this application and would like to point out that the chart, diagram two that was presented, the days that are shown in red coincide with the days that they had the smoke from the fires so there's no way to link this data to Proctor & Gamble. They have to be careful with what is presented, sometimes it is curated to match a certain narrative. Townsend is in agreement with this proposal. Mainly because Proctor & Gamble is there already and the electric companies right there too so it's mostly industrial in that area, and even the mall is right across the street. It's not totally a residential area. Elliott stated first she looks at the two criteria that they are to make their decision on and is going to support it based on the criteria that they make their decision on. She appreciates the neighbors concern and feels for them, but doesn’t think it's their role, it's beyond their role tonight. Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 2024 Page 9 of 15 Wade doesn’t want to repeat a lot of things that have already been said. The one question he does have is regarding the setback. It has a 20-foot setback but 45-foot building height restrictions. Russett confirmed that is correct. Wade stated the 20-foot setback is a concern, it feels a little heavy on the neighborhood and is little bit inconsistent with the rest of the Oral B location. Wade stated his perspective is he does have a little concern with what they've expressed about the air quality and such but more about the zoning specific setback because Kirkwood feels pretty heavy on the street and it's like a 20-foot setback there and if they faced an industrial building that follows that same setback it would feel pretty heavy even though it has a major thoroughfare through there. But there is no site plan presented so they have nothing to discuss as far as potential development at that. Perhaps looking at the setback requirements for industrial zoning can be looked at in the future. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Russett gave a brief and introductory presentation on the Comprehensive Plan update. She noted this is the very beginning stages of the update to the Comprehensive Plan and will give some background on why staff is working on an update, a high-level overview of what a Comprehensive Plan is and discuss how it differs from zoning and subdivision regulations, and how the Comprehensive Plan is used in the land development process. And finally, she will share some of the outcomes that staff would like to achieve as part of the Comprehensive Plan update. Russett stated one of the reasons staff is moving forward with an update to the Comprehensive Plan is that it's an action identified in the City Council Strategic Plan. Within the impact area related to neighborhoods and housing there is a strategy to update the Comprehensive Plan to encourage compact neighborhoods and diverse housing types and land uses. There's also a specific action item to move forward with a Comprehensive Plan update between FY24 and FY28 and that action item notes that form-based principles, missing middle housing types, minimum density requirements and streamlined approval processes should all be evaluated as part of this effort. Moving on to what is the Comprehensive Plan and Iowa City’s Comprehensive Plan is the guiding document for growth and development within the City. It's non-regulatory but does help to inform decisions related to the built environment that this Commission looks at basically every single meeting. A Comprehensive Plan includes various components, it often includes vision statements, goals and policies related to multiple different policy topics, such as land use, economic development, and environment. It often includes a land use policy map, and an implementation section which lays out programs and projects that should be implemented to help achieve the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan is known as IC 2030 and it was adopted in 2013. It includes seven different elements and each element includes different goals and strategies for that particular policy area. The Plan also formalized the district planning framework which breaks the City into 10 different planning districts. The goal was to then adopt for each of these areas more specific Plans that would provide more specific policy direction for these different geographies. Russett showed the Future Land Use Map which is the map this Commission sees at every rezoning discussion. It identifies the general intended land Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 2024 Page 10 of 15 uses for all the properties within the City, things like residential, commercial, industrial. The Future Land Use Map is also non-regulatory, it’s a conceptual vision for what uses can be allowed and it should be used in concert with the neighborhood design principles of the Plan, as well as the various goals and policies of the Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is also made up of various components, there's the district plans like the Northeast District Plan and there's master plans like the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, the Historic Preservation Plan, the City/County Fringe Area Agreement, which provides policy direction for land located within unincorporated Johnson County, but within two miles of Iowa City corporate limits, and all of these plans and policy documents make up the City's Comprehensive Plan. So while the Comprehensive Plan provides the conceptual vision for growth and development, the zoning and subdivision regulations are the regulatory tools that can be used to implement the vision of the Plan. In terms of zoning, Iowa City has the zoning map and the text of the Code. This Commission looks at zoning maps and the Code as part of rezonings. There are text amendments to the Plan, such as the recent text amendment for the reduction in height for the RNS-12 zone. There is also the subdivision code which outlines provisions for the creation of a subdivision drawing or a plat. This Commission reviews preliminary plats and those drawings show the precise location of streets, lots, easements, and other elements that are important to the transfer of property. Unlike zoning regulations, which outline the standards for private property, subdivision regulations deal with the public realm, such as the width of the public right-of-way, the pavement width of the street, the sidewalk width, even the length of block in a subdivision. In terms of the land development process, the Comprehensive Plan is used in the review of legislative land use approvals. The sole purpose of this Commission is reviewing annexations, rezonings, and subdivisions. Most often rezoning seem to be the most common type of legislative approvals that require consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map provides a guide for what zoning classifications could be applied. However, Russett noted there is some flexibility as it is a non-regulatory plan and again, the map designations should be used with the goals and policies of the Plan. Russett next reviewed some of the outcomes that they'd like to achieve as part of this Comprehensive Plan update. The first is a new Plan that places equity, climate change and resiliency in housing at its core, and addresses existing disparities and prepares the City for the future. The Planning and Zoning Commission recently recommended approval of, and the City Council adopted, several zoning code amendments related to help improve housing choice and supply and these amendments were focused on increasing the supply of housing. Staff saw these amendments as incremental and conservative changes that were amendments that align with the existing policy direction of the Comprehensive Plan. A new vision is needed to further address ongoing housing issues and address some of the actions in the Council’s Strategic Plan such as missing middle housing, minimum density requirements and streamlined approvals. Second is a public process that uses varied methods of engagement to drive participation that is more reflective of the City's demographics and ensures underrepresented groups are actively engaged in the process. At this point, staff doesn’t know what that looks like and don't have details on what an engagement plan would be as part of the scope of work that they're working on and will include that in the request for proposals when trying to secure a consultant. One of the items in the scope of work is the preparation of an engagement plan that would lay out some Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 2024 Page 11 of 15 more details. They want this engagement plan to be flexible so if it's not working, and if they're not getting the people that they want to the table they can modify their approach. Third is updated analyses, regional housing needs assessment, evaluation of current land use policy, as well as other analyses that will allow them to better understand changing needs, trends and demographics. The regional housing needs assessment will provide a regional understanding of the number of housing units needed, as well as the types of housing that is needed, to meet existing and future demand. The assessment will look at specific populations such as the unhoused, immigrants, and persons with disabilities. They also want to evaluate the current land use policy which will allow them to compare what the Plan allows now and compare that to the needs that exist in the community based on the needs assessment in terms of housing, in terms of job growth. By comparing the existing land use policy with the housing and growth projections, they'll be able to identify the policy changes that need to be made. The fourth outcome is a clear connection between the Comprehensive Plan and the City's other planning documents. The City has a lot of Plans, they have the Capital Improvement Plan, Climate Action Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, Strategic Plan, and there are others. The Comprehensive Plan really functions as the overarching policy document and they want to be able to reference those other documents, and other visions and goals, and other Plans as needed and create a link between the Comprehensive Plan and those other documents. The fifth outcome is a new planning framework that identifies specific typologies unique enough to warrant further planning efforts. Examples include community nodes, centers, corridors, employment centers, and others. As mentioned earlier the current Comprehensive Plan includes 10 different districts and there's also the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Russett noted the Riverfront Crossings Plan actually covers three different planning districts and includes a portion of the Southwest Planning District, Central Planning District and a portion of the Downtown District. The goal with this planning district framework was that the City would adopt District Plans for all 10 planning areas but there is no planning document for the Northwest Planning District, the north corridor or a portion of the Downtown. Staff would like to see the existing planning framework reevaluated for several reasons. First, some areas aren't covered by adopted District Plans, second, some District Plans are old and no longer reflective of City goals, market conditions and best practices, and third, creating and regularly updating 10 District Plans is just not feasible which is why right now they have certain areas that don't have district plans and certain Plans that are decades old. Additionally, many of these areas are not unique enough to warrant different planning documents. Many of the policies contained within the current documents are policies expressed throughout all of the Plans, including the IC 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, at this point staff would recommend either reducing the number of planning districts or removing them entirely. Policies unique to certain planning districts could be incorporated into the overall Comprehensive Plan update and a new framework could be developed to identify the areas that are really in need of more specific planning efforts. Hensch asked about subdistrict plans as it seems like there are a lot of those too, is this going to address getting rid of or combining some of the subdistrict plans. Russett stated they don’t really have subdistrict plans, there are subareas, such as within Riverfront Crossings there's different kinds of subareas that correspond to specific zoning designations for areas such as South Downtown, Central Planning, or West Riverfront, and those are actual ordinances in the Zoning Code and not part of the Comprehensive Plan structure. Russett noted when they adopted the Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 2024 Page 12 of 15 form-based zone that applies those that same kind of nomenclature. Hensch stated it just seems too granular whereas if they could be more general, they wouldn't have those problems. Russett stated the sixth outcome is that they'd like an updated Future Land Use Map with land use designations that include descriptions of general intended land uses as well as physical characteristics of the envision built environment. There are a few reasons why staff want an updated Future Land Use Map and probably one of the most important reasons they need an updated Future Land Use Map is that they need to be able to accommodate anticipated growth and housing needs for the population. In addition, another issue they face with the district planning framework is that each District Plan has a Future Land Use Map, and they have different land use categories, different land use descriptions and there's no consistent naming convention for the various land use designations. So, with an update they’d like to create a consistent list of land use designations and associated descriptions. It would just provide clarity and consistency between the Plans. Lastly, an implementation program to identify specific actions that should be pursued to implement the vision of the Plan. At a minimum, Russett thinks one implementation action that would be included is an update to the Zoning Code, that is also included in the City Council Strategic Plan as something that they would like to see as well. In terms of next steps, Russett shared staff is currently working on drafting the scope of work and hope to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) later this winter or in the spring. They would take that contract to the City Council this summer and once they get a consultant on board, they can start work. They anticipate that the whole update process will take between a year and 18 months. Hensch completely agrees and strongly supports consolidating the 10 planning districts into some smaller number, he’s been on this Commission for nine years and some of the Plans are pretty hopelessly out of date so to either consolidate them or have the consultant update them is needed as it doesn't do any good to have Plans that are not current. Elliott asked if there is anything that they've talked about that they would want to make sure it thought of when Staff is doing this update. Craig noted yes, for example, they’ve talked about housing a lot but also about in the housing developments when there's property that is owned by the housing association how it's maintained, that is something that she thinks has come up multiple times. Hensch agreed frequently because they get areas planted, and then most of them die, and then nothing ever happens. And then for the water detention areas, they just turned into a morass of volunteer trees. He doesn’t want to add regulations, but it seems like if they at least had a requirement that they plant that into prairie to start with, then with prairie they don't have to do anything with it except maybe once every five years burn it or mow it or something. So why not just plan for the fact that they're not going to do anything with it and acknowledge the reality that these HOAs mostly don't want to maintain these areas and make it so they're more durable. Craig noted when they talk about equity and diversity in housing she gets caught up sometimes with the neighborhoods that develop in a certain way. They deal with older neighborhoods who Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 2024 Page 13 of 15 are trying to preserve their integrity and then also with brand new neighborhoods that are going to look like a traditional residential neighborhoods, and it's their land and they're developing it and they're saying this is what people want to buy and they're in the business to build houses and make money, but how do they inject some diversity of housing into these 50 or 60 acres that are being developed as residential housing instead of acres and acres of one type of housing. Russett stated there's ways to deal with that at the planning stage and that's something that staff definitely will be exploring. Hensch stated another issue they talk about all the time is screening, especially S3 screening, it seems like that needs to be a little more diverse because right now the only regulation is 50% conifers and they have to be five to seven or 10 feet, but they're all squished down to about three feet right now. He noted the other thing is, he thinks they're Tree City, USA, and it seems like they need to have more input from the city forester, especially in light of the emerald ash bore epidemic to make sure that they don't lose all their trees at once in the future. It also helps to have a cooler city when they put more emphasis on trees, or for maybe some other things, but also not to forget about pollinators. If they require plantings that have an environmental purpose such as that they're pollinators, 20 years from now people will be thankful that it happened. Russett stated as part of the engagement plan that the consultant is going to be preparing will include ways to include the Commission and Council in the process. Craig assumes there'll be focus groups and things that developers will say about what works for Iowa City and what doesn't. Russett confirmed they're going to have to be one of the stakeholder groups. Craig noted developers will do what is the easiest thing for them and that makes them the most money, just like Ford wants to build big trucks, because that's where they make the most money. So the City has to somehow incentivize not doing it just the way they've always done it. Russett stated staff was in Fort Collins, Colorado, last spring and got a tour, met planners and in their comprehensive plan they incorporate things like minimum density requirements and diversity mixes so that's a way to ensure that when they get larger subdivisions of like 50-60 acres, or even less than that, that there has to be a mix and there has to be minimum density requirements that are met. That's one example from another city. Townsend stated for the record when they talk about affordable housing, the formula that used needs to be looked at because a family four, $90,000 is not affordable. They state a group of housing is affordable, but they all know it's not so that formula needs to be looked at again. Wade stated one thing that came up recently for him is the historic overlay and trying to review the residential stability and the change in height. Having the historic overlay on top of it seemed like it kind of stacked on top of each other as far as trying to sift through understanding the Code requirements and such so hopefully this consolidation will cleanup that effort. Hensch agreed and stated the University Impact Area map has not been updated and it’s just not accurate anymore for the direct impact of the University on the housing stock. That should be included in what the consultant looks at and to come up with a good definition based on data for what the University Impact Zone is so that when they explain it to people, they actually have an Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 2024 Page 14 of 15 explanation to give to them. Craig stated she has always thought the University Impact Zone is the entire city, because if the students can't find places to live within walking distance of campus it affects everybody. Maybe they can rename it something else because the impact of the University student population affects the whole City. Hensch noted the impact of the students is the highest priced residential property in the state of Iowa is in Iowa City, that's the impact. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: DECEMBER 20, 2023: Elliott moved to approve the meeting minutes from December 20, 2023. Townsend seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett reported that items at the City Council's meeting last night approved were the height reduction in the RNS-12 zone to 27 feet for single family and duplex uses and the recent Oaknoll rezoning at 1201 West Benton Street was approved. Hensch reminded everybody that their next meeting they will be electing officers for the upcoming year so if anybody's interested in serving as an officer please make it known so that they can put in a nomination. He is on his ninth year of this Commission and has been chair for five or six and doesn’t want to be chair next year. He has taken on the role of chairman of the Iowa Donor Network Board of Directors for two years and it's really time consuming so if somebody would please come forward at the next meeting that they would like to be chair that would be appreciated. They also need a vice chair and secretary. He noted by the rules the Secretary is the person who's actually supposed to approve the agenda and present the minutes but they don't actually do that so they probably should get back to that. Hensch stated it is also in the bylaws that they vote for the officers at the first meeting in February, or the nearest meeting that's convenient after that. The new officers then take office immediately. ADJOURNMENT: Townsend moved to adjourn, Elliott seconded and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2023-2024 1/4 1/18 2/15 3/1 4/5 4/19 6/21 7/5 7/19 8/2 8/16 10/4 10/18 11/158 12/6 12/20 1/17 CRAIG, SUSAN X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X ELLIOTT, MAGGIE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X PADRON, MARIA X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X O/E X X QUELLHORST, SCOTT -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X X X SIGNS, MARK X X O/E O/E X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- TOWNSEND, BILLIE X O/E X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X WADE, CHAD X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member