Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-03-2025 Planning & Zoning Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Wednesday, December 3, 2025 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 4. Election of Chair Subdivision Items 5. Case No. SUB25-0005 Location: 1257 and 1527 Slothower Rd An application for a combined preliminary and final plat for Iowa Meadows, a 18.20-acre subdivision to create two residential lots to accommodate two existing single-family homes and three outlots for future development. 6. Meeting Minutes: November 19, 2025 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(a)iowa-city.orq. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Upcoming Planning &Zoning Commission Meetings Formal: December 17 / January 7 /January 21 Informal: Scheduled as needed. STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Item: SUB25-0005 Iowa Meadows Planner Date: December 3, 2025 GENERAL INFORMATION: Owner/Applicant: Delbert E Weber Revocable Trust Mary M Weber Revocable Trust del bertmaryweber(a)yahoo.com 319-361-1288 Contact Person: Lacey Stutzman MMS Consultants Istutzman(a-)mms-us.com Requested Action: Approval of a combined preliminary and final plat Purpose: Approval of Iowa Meadows, a subdivision to create two lots to accommodate two existing single-family homes &three outlots for future development. Location: South of Melrose Avenue & West of Slothower Rd (1257 & 1527 Slothower Rd) Location Map: r { it Ph 4 {5 yylddc$� r Count, o d. 01 Size: 18.20 Acres 2 Existing Land Use and Zoning: Agriculture, Single family homes, Rural Residential (RR-1) zone Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Agriculture, RR-1 South: Agriculture, Unincorporated Johnson County East: Vacant, Single-Family Residential (P-1, RS-5) West: Agriculture, Unincorporated Johnson County Comprehensive Plan: Conservation Design District Plan: Southwest District Plan Neighborhood Open Space District: Southwest 2 Public Meeting Notification: Property owners and residents located with 500' of the project site received notification of the Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting. Subdivision signs were also posted on the site. File Date: Application was submitted on 10/29/2025 and determined to be complete. 45 Day Limitation Period: December 13, 2025 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The properties at 1257 and 1527 Slothower Rd were annexed into the City in the late 1960s/ early 1970s. The land is zoned Rural Residential. Although there are two existing single-family homes on the properties, most of the land remains agricultural. The proposed subdivision would allow the sale of the land with the homes separate from the land that remains agricultural. ANALYSIS: Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Future Land Use Map of the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for residential development at a density of 2-8 du/ac. The Southwest District Plan identifies as this appropriate for Future Urban Development. However, urban development is not feasible until City water and sewer are provided in the area and Slothower Rd is improved to City standards. The plan notes that before the land west of Slothower can be developed a sanitary sewer lift station will need to be constructed. Given that the proposed subdivision is to create lots for the existing single-family homes and will not result in any additional development, staff finds that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Subdivision Design: The combined preliminary and final plat contains two residential lots, which contain existing single-family homes. It also contains three outlots for future development. Prior to any development occurring on the outlots another subdivision would be required. Access to the existing homes is provided from Slothower Rd, which is an unimproved collector street. Additional development in this area will require the improvement of Slothower Rd and extension of other city utilities. 3 Neighborhood Open Space: Since the proposed subdivision will not result in any new residential development the neighborhood open space ordinance does not apply. Specifically, the formula used to determine neighborhood open space is based on the number of new units proposed. In this case it is zero. Storm Water Management: Stormwater management is not required as part of this subdivision since there is no development proposed. Infrastructure Fees: There is no proposed development and no connections to City water proposed. However, if and when the property owners would like to connect the existing single- family homes to City water they will be required to pay a water main extension fee at the rate of $555.60 per acre. In addition, since Slothower Rd does not meet City standards, payment of a fee contributing to the improvement of it will be required for the proposed lots per 15-3-2(K)(1)(b). The fee will be required prior to the City issuing a building permit for either lot. NEXT STEPS: Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the combined preliminary and final plat will be considered for approval by the City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SUB25-0005, an application submitted by Delbert E Weber Revocable Trust & Mary M Weber Revocable Trust for a combined preliminary and final plat of Iowa Meadows, an 18.20-acre subdivision to create two residential lots to accommodate two existing single-family homes and three outlots for future development. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Combined Preliminary and Final Plat Approved by: Tracy Hightshoe, Director Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ATTACHMENT 1 Location Map CUT CITY OF IOWA CITY 1 1 1 1 1 •�. •� 1 _ E r ad €_ t ' r `�+ FIa95ta Dr Q�' d_ F �Uck Creek Dr , o - �, Tempe ' PhoenixDr-- �a!'edo Dr Laredo Wildcats �fnt_ - > c r�' Foxana Dr t 1 rr.!Y Club11Tit�ll D 'Gallup r jr + / ' -El so Dr 1 41, .�� °'¢e Tucson PI '14. ►A.�W PhoenixPl ° j '' 1y Sea°na Luke Dr �. lip a KesslerDr,SW (D An application requesting approval of a combined preliminary and final plat �t Ct SW for a 18.20-acre subdivision of land to create two outlots for future development, and two residential lots to accommodate two existing single- J '; family homes. :. C< ATTACHMENT 2 Zoning Map CITY OF I©WA CITY 1 0.05 0.1 0.2 Miles Prepared Olivia Ziegler Date Prepared: • • 2025 a O F - +, G� n r U � i Fla9sta wmwlv— Dr Duck Creek D s.• o �� a r 67) /c, iz-4 SantaTempe PI Q ��. Cra �ta�go ss � �n :.> t ! aredo Laredo Phoenix Dr. Dr -- - Ct c Wildcal,. untrY Club Dr 1 xana Di .A 99 1 . Gallup PI RS5 « n+Cf Va/ a -El Pas r_ il r �y ' oD �,�� /ey Y. e o n 'T c s � u - o,, r- 't'4 ,phoenix PI f z ohrel,Ra ; - - -. -•.. r,F_ _,. _ `��_ _ _ ��, � � °. �- Vie,, :i ` Luke Dr ' rl + Kessler Dr,SW y A z° 411&i co _ An application requesting approval of a combined preliminary and final plat - r.sW , for a 18.20-acre subdivision of land to create two outlots for future r �` development, and two residential lots to accommodate two existing single- family homes. y ATTACHMENT 3 Combined Preliminary & Final Plat LOCATION: SUBDIVIDER: A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE DELBERT E WEBER&MARY M WEBER SOUTHWEST QUARTER,AND A PORTION OF THE 17752 25TH STREET SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF MECHANICSVILLE,IOWA 52307 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT SECTION 13,TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH,RANGE 7 WEST,OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN,IOWA CITY,JOHNSON SUBDIVIDER'S ATTORNEY: IOWA MEADOWS COUNTY,IOWA. ROBERT N.DOWNER SHUTTLEWORTH&INGERSOLL LAND SURVEYOR: 235 6TH STREET SE IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA CEDAR RAPIDS,IOWA 52401 RICHARD R.NOWOTNY P.L.S. MMS CONSULTANTS INC. 1917 SOUTH GILBERT STREET PROPRIETOR OR OWNER: IOWA CITY,IOWA,52240 DELBERT E WEBER&MARY M WEBER PHONE: 319-351-8282 REVOCABLE TRUST DATE OF SURVEY: 17752 25TH STREET MECHANICSVILLE,IOWA 52307 FOR COUNTY RECORDER'S USE 07-30-2025 POINT OFBEGINNING CENTER LOCATION MAP OF WEST 1/4 CORNER I SECTION 13-T79N-R7W NOT TO SCALE OF OF THE FIFTH P.M. SECTION 13-T79N-R7W FOUND 5/8"REBAR±3"DEEP OF THE FIFTH P.M. _ ___ W/YELLOW PLASTIC CAP 13287 I01ya ci. FOUND 5/8"REBAR W/OUT CAP �-- J BOOK 42,PAGE 256 Union MP- --------BOOK 42 AT PAGE 262 r I I 2339.53' N89 00'10"E - N89°00'10"E 300.05' — — — — ------------- X X� �-�X \ 247.04' 53.01' \ r------_--_-, SW HE13797 ________ _ ----------- ------------- SE NW 13-7- - SE HE 13-79-7 --- --------- Tr EXI6-FINO 2-0.0 FOOT WIDE BURIED GABLE ASEMENT— I i �I I II I I \ \ r. U i300rC k90 AT PAGE 260 1 I I I I 1 \\ \ Q I . I I \ \ O>60 -NfLOT A �m D I D D ------� ondA—k v ��II AWrOo n S PARCELS 20020�31 ----_----- ,�r ���� �E�g 2.57 AC I o NW SW 13-79-7 SW 13-79-7 +f 1 74 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN F r.• » 111,774 UTr S F E cc)) PLAT BOOK A5 AT PACtiE 53 OF TI IE RECORDS OF THE r "RESERVED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT" J JaINSON GO�INTY RECORDER'S GFFIGE i � IOWA ME SOWS �' i 15.00' FOUll I1rIJ IJ Ln1DD���S R uTlurY I r- /// EASEMENT mo I 1 I �'�� Iti IN ACCORDANCE WITH TFIE M-AT THEREOF RECORDED IN _ PLAT f5OOr' 57 AT PAGE 285 OF THE RECORDS OF Th1E SW 13-79- S 79.7 E E i3.79+ 5 SW SW 13-79-7 o JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. 1 I I I I wa. Union T N NW NW 24-79-7 HE NW 24-79-7 \ ,f` 2 -7 7 N HE 4-79.7 1 247.00' N89°58'57"W \ \ x EXST o \ U 1 DWELLING 00� I 1.00 AC -----_ --- -_ 43,443 SF w / NW 2479-7_ ' SE NW 24-79-7 1 X i�`Y` X _ _x / P / x 247.00' N89°58'57"W x OXO 780 ADDITIONAL 1 I x O T ROW _>� I 3.01' D D I� C�OUNIrRy CLUB EVAr 2 FOFrH A1B1WDO ] STANDARD LEGEND AND NOTES \ 4, - CONGRESSIONAL CORNER, FOUND � I r i� r r i N ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT T EREOF RECORDED IN PLAT 13000 58 AT PAGE 1� OF TIIE RECORDS OF THE JOHN60N COUNTY RECORDER'e OFFICE. • - PROPERTY CORNER(S), FOUND (as noted) CD r r O - PROPERTY CORNERS SET r ' (5/8" Iron Pin w/ orange, plastic LS Cap embossed with "MMS" ) v r ® - CUT "X" (R) - RECORDED DIMENSIONS (M) - MEASURED DIMENSIONS r r - PROPERTY &/or BOUNDARY LINES 40.00I EXISTING ROW r' r' r' r' — — - CONGRESSIONAL SECTION LINES \� i r' i' r' r ------------- - RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES - EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES o - CENTER LINES - EXISTING CENTER LINES LOT LINES, INTERNAL LOT LINES, PLATTED OR BY DEED PROPOSED EASEMENT LINES / I ' r' r' /Z ----------------- - EXISTING EASEMENT LINES r r r O U LOT B $r - BENCHMARK ' i i r' rr rr' (c',�5_ -EXIST- -PROP- �� o , 4.79 AC / I I r r r' r' O\I,/ - POWER POLE POWER POLE W/DROP O 208,701 SF / / I r rr rr 0 - POWER POLE W/TRANS - POWER POLE W/LIGHT - GUY POLE r w / r' ,i i' # # - LIGHT POLE - SANITARY MANHOLE "RE�ERVED FOR F TURE DEVELOPMENT" - �o - FIRE HYDRANT V� OO V��� IJ CLUB D MATE - WATER VALVE /O ® - DRAINAGE MANHOLE f� 13 - CURB INLET X - EXISTING SANITARY SEWER o I�,x N ACCORDANCE wlrrl T e PLAT meReOF REGGfzDED IN ((— - PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PLAT 30r, a3 AT PACE 28A of me RECORDS cF me - EXISTING STORM SEWER JonN50N COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE- PROPOSED STORM SEWER WATER LINES 1�i Q --rt-- ----- W _ ELECTRICAL LINES I I T - TELEPHONE LINES „ G GAS LINES I I � _ _ I - CONTOUR LINES (1' INTERVAL) - PROPOSED GROUND 1 ,x - EXISTING TREE LINE - EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE & SHRUB Ix I - EXISTING EVERGREEN TREES & SHRUBS III I L THE ACTUAL SIZE AND LOCATION OF ALL PROPOSED FACILITIES ' \\ SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, WHICH 15.00' I ' I \ / UTILITY 'X1 \ \ ' ARE TO BE PREPARED AND SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE EASEMENT I I ` \\ /' \\ APPROVAL OF THIS DOCUMENT. I II \ \ \ , I I 247.00, N89°58'57"W Ix 2 I�; COD�]r�Y C LU o DESCRIPTION - IOWA MEADOWS 1.00 2 S I Q 1 43,472SF m \ IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT �OOYC 58 AT PAGE BEGINNING at the Center of Section 13, Township 79 North, Range 7 West, of the Fifth X X 21 OF THE RECORDS OF ThE JOIINSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. �� o EXST 1m� - ,J Principal Meridian, Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa; Thence S00°01'03"W, along the East DWELLING Q `\ ' ' Line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 13, a distance of 2642.65 feet, to the South ° 40.00' WIDE 1 o = \ /' D ACCESS AND o I Quarter Corner of said Section 13F Thence S88°59'35"W along the South Line of said EASEM UTILITY ENT x _ M I�; O O Southwest Quarter, 300.05 feet; Thence N00°01'03"E, along a line parallel with and 300.00 feet normally distant Westerly from the East Line of said Southwest Quarter, 2642.70 feet, to 247.00' N89°58'S7"W \ \\ i' ' " _ , , � �_, \ \ a Point on the North Line of said Southwest Quarter; Thence N89°00 10 E, along said North �� - _�_ 0 1 `> \�' Line, 300.05 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Iowa Meadows contains 18.20 Acres, �z2 1 �, 214:' o I / <\ and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. d 770 EXST OUTBUILDING LOT A CONTAINS 3.22 ACRES, AND IS TO BE \ I I x ` /' <\ \ I hereby certify that this land surveying document was prepared and DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF IOWA CITY FOR 1 r \� \ the related survey work was performed by me or under my direct PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR SLOTHOWER ROAD. 760 ' personal supervision and that I a ly licensed Professional Land i r , \\\g810Nq�������iii Surveyor under the laws of th t of Iowa. pFE �9'O Notes on this plat are not intended to I 20— y RICHARD RICHARD R. NOW T Y create any vested private interest in I =W= R. _m= P.L.S. N . s any stated use restriction or covenant m \� i 750� X J NOWOTNY `a\ I i c n e r n wal d s e ber 31, 20—. or create any third party beneficiaries I / I i�sis to any noted use restriction or o covenant. z /l°IW lAima�o��wowvvvO` ge r s eets covered by this seal: ICI I I 740 I C) NOTE: \ _ O _-4� I I ALL BEARINGS ARE BASED ON IOWA STATE PLANE --- I�� �� CL� o C ��A��� ���G3D ADD���Ol SEAL COORDINATES (SOUTH ZONE), LIBRARY CALIBRATION I i USING THE IOWA REAL TIME NETWORK (RTN), THE DISTANCES SHOWN ON THE PLAT ARE GROUND I IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 54 AT PAGE III OF DISTANCES AND NOT GRID DISTANCES. 1 � � I THE RECORDS OF TILE JOIINSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. I 1 OUTLOT-0 - 0' I Signed before me this day of 20_— . _ - - -5.63A� AREA SUMMARY TABLE _ J 245,353 SF 1 , 0 \II - 1\4 - 1\4 AREA AREA IN ROW I vl Notary Public, in and for the State of Iowa. I I I ' NE - SW 9.10 ACRES 1.61 ACRES SE - SW 9.10 ACRES 1.61 ACRES "RESERVED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT" TOTAL 18.20 ACRES 3.22 ACRES �—1 iD \\ ' /' \\\ PLAT/PLAN APPROVED ---- by the City of Iowa City kN id I \\ - --- I� City Clerk Date: / UTILITY MEV AIDE ESIrArEs UTILITY EASEMENTS, AS SHOWN HEREON, MAY OR MAY NOT, EASEMENT O / INCLUDE SANITARY SEWER LINES, AND/OR STORM SEWER LINES, PHASE O AND/OR WATER LINES; SEE CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR DETAILS. L \ UTILITY EASEMENTS, AS SHOWN HEREON, ARE ADEQUATE FOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH TF E PLA�THEREOF , THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE FACILITIES REQUIR- RECORDED IN PLAT �OOrC 61 AT PAGE 3�3 OF THE\ ED BY THE FOLLOWING AGENCIES: REGORPS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER"5 MIDAMERICAN ENERGY CO. Date: SOUTHWEST CORNER I / OF SECTION 13 T79NR P.M.W \ _ I I \ / \OF THE FIFTH . . -�� I I I \\ � \\ FOUND REBAR±12"DEEP 77 ' �i 11 msu Sm EVATC-3 PHASE WIGLUMEN Date: ORANGE PLASTIC LS CAP 17774 I i � I BOOK 52,PAGE 342 1 247.04' S3.01 — T / ri — — \ — _ �� , MEDIACOM Date: N88°59'35"E - 300.05' S88°59'35"W IN AGGORPANGE WITH T1E PLAT THEREOF REGORDEP IN PLA �OGYC 6k AT 2333.39' PAGE I7tl OF THE RECORDS OF TILE JOhNSGN COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE SOUTH 1 4 CO NER \ IMON Date: SECTION 1FIFTH T79 -R7N,i I I I I I _,-� _-- \ ��' OF THE PIM. I I L___-- FOUND SCM±10"DEEP BOOK 36,PAGE 157 1 \ ,) METRONET Date: LL_L------- v s v m o —L— — o 0 0 o m o � TI� � �e o m 0 ID O z a Dm NNNN C o ,� n DZD D �r � Ca, � o '0v -D 'U x _ O D O 0 _ Inmmm (D O o v� �� m rz M � � x o 3 � � m z U) C z� D DD n � 0 3 D � c� D Z r =r 0 T! r n �� � ZiZ51 c0i - v r' m p Z C o m z g ' Z C < < m < � c coOF m n z 0 o N Cn � � � , � Cn m -m< z m N Z N � crncncrncrn ao cn c) O m m (� U) cn cn cn CD w o can C�/3 C/3 C/3 C/) q ; cn MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2025 -6:OOPM — FORMAL MEETING E M MA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Kaleb Beining, James Davies, Maggie Elliott, Steve Miller, Scott Quellhorst, Billie Townsend, Chad Wade MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Alex Bright, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: CALL TO ORDER: Quellhorst called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. DISCUSSION REGARDING EX-PARTE COMMUNICATION, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND REZONING CONSIDERATIONS: Bright stated staff would be going through a couple of topics from the bylaws and the law that governs Planning and Zoning Commission meetings. The first topic of discussion is going to be prohibited and restricted contacts, conflicts of interests, and then the second topic will be ex- parte communications. Bright noted conflicts of interest are notoriously difficult to define, broadly speaking officers of governmental entities, which includes members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, are required to avoid them, and it can be helpful to focus on the basic purpose of the requirement, which is to avoid public officials needing to decide between their public duty and their private interests. One of the ways they can do this, particularly when talking about conflicts that are more of a gray area, is to ask oneself if they can be fair and impartial on an item that they're being asked to vote on. It's a broad concept that's often very fact specific, and they do often at the City Attorney's office issue informal opinions, address issues over email or by a more formal memo if somebody comes to them, whether from Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council or a different board or commission. While the City really appreciates the service that people provide, they also acknowledge that there are a lot of personal and professional ties in the community and want to be able to parse them on a very case by case basis, to see if a recusal is truly going to be necessary. The basis for this requirement is founded in number of different areas of the Iowa Code and each relates to different types of conflicts of interest. Iowa Code Sec. 362.5 addresses interest in public contracts and contracts with the City and there's a good bit of case law and attorney general opinions on that. It is also part of the bylaws so that is another one of the reasons why they would encourage Commissioner's to reach out to the City Attorney's office if they think they might be engaged in or facing a conflict of interest because each of the sections include a number of exceptions and a number of additional requirements. Bright next reviewed the examples that were in the agenda packet memo noting these are very much a non-exclusive list, but some things that come up very frequently, both in the case law and that they see at the City. Examples of conflicts of interest would include if a Commission member has a direct or indirect financial interest in the outcome of a rezoning ordinance, which Planning and Zoning Commission November 19, 2025 Page 2 of 11 could be an interest in receiving future work on a development project, or an existing business relationship with an applicant. Another case could be a Commission member advocating for a vote based on their personal ties to a friend or family member who stands to gain financially from that vote. Another situation would be if a Commission member demonstrates professional or personal interests that could influence their vote on an application before the commission that could include seeking out additional information about a project or expressing an opinion on the application to others by attending developer meetings or other publicly hosted meetings. Bright noted one of the things that they think about with conflicts of interest is not just the legal component, but also the impression that's given to the public, and they'd like to avoid when at all possible, giving the impression of there being a dynamic where Commission members, Council members, or any City officers, are speaking with members of the business community who might have a pending application. Another situation is a Commission member who is an employee of a firm who receives a public contract other than by competitive bid, that would be a conflict. Iowa Code Sec. 362.5 gets very specific so that is why they would encourage coming to the City Attorney's office. Lastly, if a member serves on the board of a nonprofit applying for a rezoning and votes on that rezoning, that would be a conflict of interest, requiring the member to recuse themself from that vote. Bright reiterated if a conflict does exist, or if a Commission member may have a conflict, the State Codes requires that the appropriate course of action is to declare it and decline to vote. The specifics in the bylaws on that process is to state the reason for the conflict, leave the panel before the discussion begins, not participate in the discussion and not return to the panel until after the vote. Again, if anyone is uncertain as to whether this procedure is going to be necessary, please reach out to the City Attorney's office as they don't want anyone to feel the need to recuse themself if it's not actually necessary. Bright then moved onto ex-parte communications explaining this type of communication could be a conflict, but isn't always, so it is subject to a less stringent approach. An ex-parte communication is a discussion of an agenda item outside of a public meeting with an interested party. She explained this is not necessarily a conflict of interest and emphasize disclosure of the discussion. The basic purpose of this requirement is to ensure that Commission members gain access to all information on the basis of which they'll make their recommendation during the course of the public meeting, which is the same public meeting where members of the public get access to that same information at the same time. Bright noted the legal basis for this is a little different, it's a lot more case law and it gets into the parsing between what bodies are considered quasi-judicial and what functions are considered quasi-judicial as opposed to legislative. That matters because quasi-judicial functions or bodies are subject to due process requirements, which are more stringent requirements for what needs to occur at those proceedings. And then legislative bodies like City Council are subject to less stringent requirements. In Iowa case law there hasn't been any decisions saying one way or the other whether planning and zoning commissions count, they aren't entirely one or the other, they engage in both quasi-judicial and legislative functions. Because of that, they rely on the bylaws, which just maintains a general disclosure requirement for ex-parte communications, regardless of parsing between the type of item that might be under consideration by the Commission. Bright shared some examples such as if an applicant calls a Commission member to advocate for the why a rezoning would be a good idea or if a neighbor to a property under consideration runs into a Commission member at HyVee and says that they think the rezoning is a bad idea. Bright noted this one is a little more complicated, because it is an example of what could be both an ex-parte communication and a conflict depending on the specifics going on. However, if a Planning and Zoning Commission November 19, 2025 Page 3 of 11 Commission member were to attend a good neighbor meeting or a meeting hosted by a developer to learn more information about a project for which a rezoning application has been submitted, prior to the presentation of that item at a public hearing, that could be just ex-parte, or if the Commission member has a financial or business interest in the project, which was the reason for seeking out that additional information, that would then be a conflict as well. Bright stated the steps would be to reveal the contact prior to the presentation of the staff report, at the public hearing, naming the other party and sharing specifics of the contact, if it's an email or another form of writing to share copies, if it's verbal to give a synopsis and again if there are any questions reach out to the City Attorney's office or to staff. The next section Bright discussed was relating to rezoning applications. When evaluating an application for a rezoning Commission members are instructed to consider two criteria, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with the existing neighborhood. This comes from the both the City ordinance and the State statute that gives power to the planning and zoning commissions. She noted some of the reasons that this is important, and why they want to emphasize it is that the question at hand is really what the application is for, what the rezoning is, what rezoning is being asked. It's not an opportunity to achieve a general policy goal, to express a personal preference about a neighborhood amenity, express dissatisfaction with the present zoning code requirements and what changes could be better, any objections to the identity of the applicant, all of that should not be factors going into the decision on which the vote is going to be made. Bright emphasized their role is to look at the very specific application in front of them with reference to those two criteria and then to form a recommendation around that specific question. Given that the categories are broad the Commission is encouraged to look at the Comprehensive Plan, there are a number of land use goals in there that can be informative about what does it really mean to consider whether it aligns with the Comprehensive Plan and less focusing on the question at hand under the application. Quellhorst asked about permissible considerations as one thing that comes up pretty frequently are details of a particular site plan, so there is the rezoning petition itself, but then often there is some underlying plan to build a building so is it permissible for the Commission to be thinking about like the design and appearance of that building, or should they just be thinking about the appropriate use for that property, and whatever RS-5 or RS-12 or a particular zone is appropriate for that plot. Bright stated that is when they really want to cabin that to the appropriateness of the zoning designation, the reality is they don't know what will go on after that particular project and the specifics of the esthetics or the site plan construction doesn't go to the zoning question. Quellhorst asked if they were looking at a rezoning petition related to an apartment building they would be trying to ask whether that plot of land is appropriate, in general, for an apartment building, not whether a particular building is designed a certain way or that they like esthetics. Bright confirmed that was correct. Davies noted the general policy goals says that's an inappropriate consideration but the Comprehensive Plan is inherently general policy goals so how are they to establish consistency with the Comprehensive Plan without talking about general policy goals. There are really no specifics in the Comprehensive Plan other than the land use map. Bright agreed that is a good question and stated she could have phrased that a little better regarding situations like affordable housing or open space. Many have opinions about what a neighborhood should look like, or what Planning and Zoning Commission November 19, 2025 Page 4 of 11 they want to see in the communities, and so when they think about a policy goal that may be about promoting affordable housing, but that doesn't tie in specifically to a need created by the application at hand it is not an appropriate consideration for whether or not the rezoning should go through. What she was speaking to in terms of policy goals were the policy goals contained within the Comprehensive Plan which would still be appropriate to consider and the review of the land use goals in the Comprehensive Plan would be encouraged. Davies stated he is still confused as to what they're allowed to ask at this point, it seems very broad to just not talk about specifics of the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the City recommendations usually focus on a sentence or two within the Comprehensive Plan, in terms of their recommendations and generally disregard other sections and therefore the Commission should not ask or question other sections of the Comprehensive Plan. Russett stated regarding affordable housing and open space, to be a bit more specific, if a proposed rezoning is going to be a market rate, multifamily residential, the Commission can just not support it because it doesn't include affordable housing. That would not be an appropriate consideration and something they should not incorporate into their vote. Regarding Chair Quellhorst's question about the design, if they don't think an applicant is providing enough open space then the question becomes is this multifamily zone an appropriate zoning designation based on all the policies in the Comprehensive Plan, but just saying they don't support the rezoning because they think an applicant should be dedicating more open space would not be necessarily an appropriate consideration. Davies noted even though the Comprehensive Plan continually references open space and connection to parks and other things, it's so prevalent in the Comprehensive Plan. Russett explained they have neighborhood open space requirements and on site open space requirements so if the issue is those specific standards that should be discussed outside the rezoning as perhaps an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, but not by a particular project. Davies asked if a proposed rezoning classification allows for very minimal open space and the Commission thinks that might be problematic in that neighborhood, say the way the particular project is oriented doesn't allow enough space on the plot, is that a distinction. Bright stated it's less saying the Comprehensive Plan contains these values and maybe this project doesn't exactly adhere to all of the goals there, but more tailored to the specifics of that application and the way that it shows up under that specific zoning designation or that specific site plan. So yes, those are things that it might make sense to consider, but they want to try to focus on the actual rezoning rather than like the particular project. Miller stated he is just trying to picture a scenario where it is appropriate to challenge a particular proposal based on a general policy goal in the Comprehensive Plan. For example, say there's a project that is asking for an exception to the what's the standard in the whatever zone it is already in, like through a OPD or something, and if that exception they're asking for is in conflict with stated goals in the Comprehensive Plan would it be appropriate to voice that and note if they didn't have that exception, they would be able to comply with the rest of the base underlying zoning. Bright agreed that would an appropriate topic for discussion to raise. Townsend asked about affordable housing, it is not something they should mention that when they start talking about rezoning, but looking at the big units out on Riverside and Myrtle, where Planning and Zoning Commission November 19, 2025 Page 5 of 11 they tore down all of those affordable units and built this huge unit now that has no affordable units in it, would it not have been appropriate for the Commission to question why there weren't any units that were affordable in that complex. Russett noted that project did require affordable units because it's in the Riverfront Crossings District so they had to meet the affordable housing requirements and either provide them on site or pay a fee in lieu. Townsend stated they all know that Iowa City needs more affordable units and the way the new Comprehensive Plan is set up they talk about mixed use land so does that mean some of that should be affordable when it's zoned. Russett stated they are still working on the Comprehensive Plan update, but mixed use generally means a mix of land uses, so residential/ commercial, but it has nothing to do with market rate or not market rate housing. Townsend asked then it is not this Commission's concern to have housing that is affordable in this area, how are they to address that or are they not concerned about it. Russett stated the City has affordable housing requirements and existing policies regarding housing affordability. They have an affordable housing annexation policy which requires affordable units or a fee in lieu and something similar in the Riverfront Crossings district. What Bright is talking about is if the Commission is considering a rezoning, the question really is more about is a multifamily zone appropriate in that area and not is it market rate or is it income restricted. Bright clarified it is not a blanket statement that they should never be discussing affordable housing it's just they need to be mindful about whether it's tied directly to the rezoning, but they need to be mindful about not using any rezoning application as an opportunity to advocate any general policy goal when it is not connected to the specifics of that rezoning application. Bright moved on to the conditions of a rezoning and stated these are tied a little bit to the considerations when reviewing a rezoning application, the standard from Iowa code section 414.5 states that Commission members may recommend conditions to Council as part of a rezoning if the conditions are reasonable and imposed to satisfy public needs which are directly caused by the requested change. So what is an appropriate or an inappropriate condition, Bright noted this is an area where federal law is changing very quickly and very much cabining what municipalities are able to do in terms of imposing conditions. Therefore, they want to be particularly cautious about making sure they're confident that they're tying the condition to the public need and indicating that the public need is directly caused by the requested change. Elliott noted some examples of conditions tying to public need are usually screening, it can be for more of a community screening or for a private individual screening, are both are okay. Bright says it's okay because if a project is bringing in more lighting that wasn't there before and now there's a single family home that's going to have 24/7 lighting, if the conditions raise the screening, they'll be blocking that. Quellhorst stated another example is if they have one plot that's relatively low density that will change to a medium or high density, then it might make sense to require like screening to visually separate that from like a RS-5 zone, but if the rezoning was just from one density to another zone of equivalent density, then that wouldn't be a reasonable justification to require that additional screening. Bright next discussed a fee contributing to a general fund for a particular City initiative, she explained that's something where there's case law limiting that ability to do that, any addition of Planning and Zoning Commission November 19, 2025 Page 6 of 11 public amenities not linked to a need created by a rezoning is inappropriate, for example, why they might think wouldn't it be nice to have a playground or open space park, that's not a condition that they can impose. And getting back to the affordable housing point, if the need is directly caused by the request to change, absolutely, that is a conversation to be had, whether that condition can be opposed, and it has been in the past. Davies asked Bright to define a need created by the rezoning. He noted they recently had the case with a school that was previously zoned for public use and it was rezoned to private use and some of the questions brought up were about public access to open space and other amenities. So is that not a need created by that rezoning. What defines a need created by a rezoning. Bright acknowledged that is something that courts have been increasingly restrictive on, there's one case that went up to the Supreme Court where they were looking at a development that got rid of a bike trail so that they weren't able to have the same connection and it was argued that they need to bring this back because they got rid of this public space and they need to have the public space. The Supreme Court found that it didn't rise to that level. Bright noted there are a lot of very specific definitions that depend on the type of rezoning, the type of condition, in case law, and in the case of something like a public space no longer being public they wouldn't see that as directly causing public harm. Something a little bit more targeted such as in the screening example, that might shift public amenities towards private amenities. Davies noted in specifics of the case law it's just interesting to note how many specific references of trails and trail connections, and the importance in maintaining those in all developments exist in the Comprehensive Plan so it seems like, in a lot of ways, it's in conflict, case law versus the Comprehensive Plan, so just trying to reconcile those and understand what they're trying to advocate for or ask about in terms of a rezoning. Commissioners are obviously not well versed in case law but are familiar with the Comprehensive Plan. Bright stated that this is all case law coming out in 2024 and 2025 and a lot of changes that are tied to larger political shifts so the Comprehensive Plan and some of the ways these priorities have been articulated are changing a little bit and what they're trying to do is make sure that they are catching up enough that they don't find themselves following pattern and practice and then stumbling into a situation that didn't used to be a problem, but is now more restrictive and could be one. Quellhorst is also trying to understand when a rezoning could give rise to a public need. Would an example be an area that's currently RS-5 and it will be rezoned to increase density to a medium or high density area is that circumstance where it would be reasonable to require a sidewalk because they anticipate a lot more foot traffic. Bright replied that would be reasonable. Quellhorst noted but maybe it wouldn't be reasonable to try to impose a sidewalk or a trail as a condition if they were keeping density the same or moving from high density to low density. Bright explained it is reasonable when changing the density to make a little bit more of an argument about meeting the transit needs, pedestrian needs, but if just the topography of the area is changing, that might be too broad. Davies is concerned about the second one, the fee contributing to a general fund, what would restrict the City from like requiring affordable housing or doing the fee in lieu for affordable housing. Bright stated that particular ordinance is safe under the case law, there's just other situations in which if they are trying to create a general fund for parks that were not at all tied to Planning and Zoning Commission November 19, 2025 Page 7 of 11 the district and they were just imposing conditions on any applicant to contribute to that, that would be a situation where that was found to be unrelated to a direct need. Quellhorst asked if there are other instances where there's been a condition imposed, as part of rezoning, and a court found that there wasn't a reasonable justification for the condition. Bright noted there have been a lot that happened, both in California and South Carolina, on beaches with attempts to allow an easement for the public because somebody is seeking the opportunity to build at a higher density along a stretch of beach, and that was something that courts said was not directly caused by the request to change, even though it seems like it is because this greater density was decreasing public access to the beach, but that they still couldn't require that easement as a condition because the development did not actually change access to the beach. It was just visibility of the beach, but the public still could have the same access, so it can get as finely parsed as that. Davies noted there's conditions, and there's potential language that the Commission can recommend modifications, which doesn't come up very often, but they seem somewhat related to conditions. Is there any specifics about what they could suggest for modification, rather than condition, like if it made it potentially more compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. Bright stated that is something they need to be less cautious about because what they are saying is the recommendation to Council is not to approve without condition XYZ, whereas a modification, as a body Planning and Zoning Commission, is making these recommendations so it's a lot more tied into just the process to make that recommended modification. Davies stated he is asking about if the Comprehensive Plan mentions connections to existing parks and things like that, can the Commission suggest modifications that are pretty minimal to a development that make it more compatible with the neighborhood surrounding it, or with the Comprehensive Plan. He noted it seems like planning and zoning is a good opportunity to interject those modifications, rather than letting it go too far in the process, modifying it takes it back to step one, and it takes several weeks to months to get through other steps. Russett asked if Davies was asking about a rezoning like a planned development overlay rezoning that has a site plan associated with it, or a subdivision because some rezonings come to them with no specific development proposal. Davies confirmed it would mostly come up in OPD or with some other specific plan attached to it. Bright reiterated the umbrella intent is to evaluate the application at hand and not to make recommendations to the applicant about how they could improve, that's outside the purview of what what's being asked to do. Davies noted they are still being asked to evaluate whether it's compatible to the Comprehensive Plan and compatibility just inherently comes with various degrees of compatibility. A plan could be compatible with a sentence or two but largely ignoring other aspects of the Comprehensive Plans so that's a struggle. Quellhorst noted the big issue is really like whether the zoning is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan so if an area is proposed to be rezoned to a classification that would allow for high density housing, then the question is whether high density housing in that particular area is consistent with all of the objectives advanced by the Comprehensive Plan and that would be things like adequate open space and good transportation and trails and so forth. But the question would be focused on that zoning change, not if the project itself advances those objectives in the Planning and Zoning Commission November 19, 2025 Page 8 of 11 Comprehensive Plan. Bright confirmed they are to focus on the zoning change, not the project, and then also ensuring that the comments are tied to the Comprehensive Plan. Quellhorst noted for example they might look at something and say the Comprehensive Plan prioritizes adequate open space neighborhoods and what is being proposed for a rezoning would result in high density housing, and maybe that wouldn't allow sufficient open space in the neighborhood. But in contrast, what they wouldn't want to do is look at that site plan and say they think that high density housing is appropriate here, but the way that this is drawn does not have sufficient open space. Bright reiterated the takeaways from each of these, going back to the conflict of interest, members should recuse themselves from discussion and voting on an item where they have one. If someone is not sure if they have a conflict of interest, please reach out and staff is happy to talk through the specifics. In terms of ex-parte communications, those should be disclosed prior to the presentation of the staff report, when assessing a rezoning application focusing on the application at hand, and when recommending conditions, ensuring that they comply with the statutory criteria, and in particular the creation of a direct need. Again, if there are ever any questions, contact the City Attorney's office or staff to talk it through. Wade asked if these are constraints for the Planning and Zoning Commission, but then when it goes to City Council are they are not bound by the same considerations. Bright confirmed the guidance is a little different because City Council is an exclusively legislative body and so the standards to which they are held are a little bit different. It is pretty similar in terms of conflicts of interest and ex-parte communications, but a lot of the particulars of the way this Commission is being asked to treat applications and conditions imposed have to do with the way the legal status that this Commission has, as opposed to City Council. Townsend asked aren't they supposed to be kind of a screening committee on zoning, shouldn't the hard questions be asked here so they have the answers when it goes to City Council as a recommendation. If some of these things that they're talking about are not brought up at Planning and Zoning, even though they are not the ones that make the final decisions, they are the ones that make the recommendation to City Council, so it feels like with some of these restrictions the Commission is being restrained from asking even the simple questions. Bright stated they have to remember they are being asked X question, and they are allowed to consider A, B and C, as opposed to A, B, C, D, E and F. It is expected to have a very thorough discussion and a very thoughtful recommendation, it's just that within the power that is given legislatively to create the Planning and Zoning Commission and what they're being asked to do in terms of the process of how things move through this Commission onto Council there's some limitations. Townsend noted from past cases, as they may have agreed on a rezoning or a plan when the final project is complete it's nothing at all like what was proposed so how as a Commission can they make sure what is proposed, what the Commission agrees on and sends to City Council is what's going to be the final project. Quellhorst stated that is why one of the main reasons is to focus on the actual rezoning petition itself, because they don't really know what the final project is going to look like. They can present a particular project plan with a building of a certain appearance or oriented a certain way, but ultimately if a rezoning goes through, they're no longer constrained or beholden to a particular project plan. The City building code and other ordinances will guide the project. They only decide on zoning classification. Planning and Zoning Commission November 19, 2025 Page 9 of 11 Wade noted the example of Orchard Street, even when a building and project on it failed the project or developer got disconnected from it, the property owner resubmitted for rezoning, and that rezoning went through. So, there are situations where the details of a proposed project might not be the ultimate outcome. Another example is the Barkalow project development north of Happy Hallow Park, they talked a lot about the trail connectivity on that one and connection to Happy Hollow and tree removal and items such as that but because it really didn't gain additional access it was outside of the purview for the zoning moving forward. Or would that still be considered because of some of the other items related to the Comprehensive Plan. Russett noted for that particular project the process that staff had with the applicant discussed trail connections and there were a lot of concerns with potential routes, like routes to the west, to the to the bus routes and to the south to the park. There's also issues with topography, making it ADA accessible, and a route to the south would result in more tree removal, and staff had all of those conversations with the applicant and thought the best path forward was building a sidewalk and connecting it to the park. Staff explored all the options and worked with the applicant to look at those possibilities and ultimately determined what was feasible. Wade noted the Commission doesn't always have that background ahead of time and don't get into that level of details, as far as what's already been vetted out, so is that something they would just ask during staff questioning and then staff would share that. Russett stated yes, those are appropriate questions for staff. Davies stated it seems like just those conversations should happen in a public setting, rather than a private meeting between City staff and developers. Reasonability or viability is a tricky thing in making sure developments adhere to the Comprehensive Plan and it's important to ask those questions. Quellhorst reiterated the Commission is focusing on how the actual rezoning is impacting those Comprehensive Plan considerations. Is the zoning appropriate in a certain area, and then once that is decided they defer to the building code and other regulations to make sure that the criteria set on the Comprehensive Plan are protected and advanced. Bright confirmed that was correct. Miller stated there are frequently OPD overlays, and a lot of the things which do get into the specifics, so he is struggling with when it is appropriate to ask questions. Russett stated questions can be asked at the meeting in an effort to help them further understand what they should be considering when they make the vote, but if they're adding conditions, they really need to be thinking about the rezoning creating that direct public need that's causing the recommended condition. Quellhorst noted what Commissioner Townsend mentioned is really important because they can dig into a plan and ask questions and really like it and approve the rezoning, but then there's no guarantee that the project would actually take the shape and could be vastly different within the contours of the building code. Quellhorst to summarize, the question is the rezoning appropriate, not is the project itself appropriate. Bright confirmed that is correct. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: NOVEMBER 5, 2025: Planning and Zoning Commission November 19, 2025 Page 10 of 11 Wade moved to approve the meeting minutes from November 5, 2025. Davies seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett noted it is Chair Quellhorst's last night with the Commission, so he was presented with a certificate of appreciation for his service. The deadline for applications to the Commission is December 3, so there should be a new commissioner appointed at the December 9 City Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Townsend moved to adjourn, Elliott seconded and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2024-2025 9/18 11/20 12/4 2/19 3/5 5/7 6/4 6/18 7/2 7/16 8/6 8/27 913 10/15 11/5 11/19 BEINING, KALEB -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X O X X O O X X DAVIES, JAMES -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X X X X CRAIG, SUSAN X X X X X X X X -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- ---- -- -- ELLIOTT, MAGGIE X O/E X X X X X X X O/E X X O/E X O/E X HENSCH, MIKE X X X X O/E X X X ---- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MILLER, STEVE X X X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X X QUELLHORST, SCOTT X O/E X X X X X X X X X O/E X O/E X X TOWNSEND, BILLIE X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X WADE, CHAD X X 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