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