HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-12-03 OrdinanceItem Number: 9.a.
�r
1P -
CITY OE IOWA CITY
www.iogov.org
December 3, 2019
Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 1.15 acres of land located at
the northeast corner of S. Gilbert Street and Highland Ave, from Intensive
Commercial (CI -1) zone to Riverfront Crossings - South Gilbert (RFC -SG)
zone. (REZ19-11)
/_1iETS:ILTA 121ZIII & I
Description
Staff Report
Additional Correspondence
P&Z Minutes
Ordinance
CZA
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ19-11
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Jesi Lile
Date: November 7, 2019
Britni Andreassen
Kum & Go LLC
1459 Grand Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50309
(515) 547-6083
Britni.andreassen@kumandgo.com
Contact Person: Keith Weggen
Civil Design Advantage
3405 SE Crossroads Drive, Suite G
Grimes, IA 50111
(515) 369-4400
keithw@cda-eng.com
Owners: Kum & Go LLC
1459 Grand Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50309
(515) 547-6083
Mcdonough Structures
340 Highland Avenue
Iowa City, IA 52240
(515)512-6491
Kam Properties, LLC
3309 Highway 1 SW
Iowa City, IA 50240
GKLZ, LLC
325 E. 3rd St.
Iowa City, IA 50240
Requested Action: Rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone
to Riverfront Crossings — South Gilbert (RFC -SG)
zone
Purpose: To accommodate a convenience store with fuel
sales
Location: 1310 South Gilbert Street and 348 Highland Ave
Location Map:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
Comprehensive Plan:
District Plan:
Neighborhood Open Space District:
Public Meeting Notification:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
K
Approximately 1.15 acres
Commercial, Intensive Commercial (CI -1)
North: CI -1 — Intensive Commercial
(Commercial)
South: CC -2 — Community Commercial
(Commercial)
East: CI -1 — Intensive Commercial
(Commercial)
West: RFC -SG — Riverfront Crossings — South
Gilbert (Commercial & Residential)
Mixed -Use
Central District & Riverfront Crossings Master
Plan
C5
Property owners located within 300' of the
project site received notification of the Planning
and Zoning Commission public meeting.
Rezoning signs were also posted on the site.
October 1, 2019
November 15, 2019
The applicant, Kum & Go, LLC, has requested a rezoning of two properties located at 1310 S.
Gilbert St. and 348 Highland Ave. Both are currently zoned Intensive Commercial (CI -1) and
the applicant is requesting a rezoning to Riverfront Crossings -South Gilbert. Kum & Go
3
currently owns the property at 1310 S. Gilbert St. and has a purchase agreement in place
with the property owners of 348 Highland Ave.
The subject property is located within the Riverfront Crossings Form Based Code District, an
area within Iowa City that has been targeted for redevelopment. Kum & Go has been
redeveloping many of their sites throughout the Iowa City area, the two most recent at
Benton St. & Riverside Dr. and Muscatine Ave. & 1St Ave. The applicant is proposing to
redevelop the subject site to expand the floor area of the convenience store, add two
additional gas pumps, and provide additional parking. This use is considered a Quick Vehicle
Servicing use, which is allowed by special exception in the Riverfront Crossings -South
Gilbert zone.
The current Kum & Go located on this property was built in 1991. The layout of the existing
site is not conducive to good traffic flow due to the canopy location over the store as well as
the layout of the parking lot. The parking lot has four access points on-site, two of them from
S. Gilbert St., one from Highland Ave., and one from E. 3rd St. The commercial condos located
at 348 Highland Ave. were built in 1955, and have been used for storage and construction
businesses.
The applicant held a Good Neighbor Meeting on October 23, 2019 and submitted a summary
(Attachment 4). Seven local business owners attended the meeting where the applicant
displayed their proposed site plan and elevations, described their project, and answered
questions about the proposed redevelopment. Neighbors were concerned with access to
their properties during construction and the proposed timeline. The applicant was able to
convey that the site will be entirely self-contained during the construction process and would
not disturb access to surrounding businesses. All attendees expressed excitement about the
redevelopment.
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning:
Both properties are currently zoned Intensive Commercial (CI -1), which allows for outdoor
display and merchandise, repair and sale of motor vehicles, outdoor commercial and
recreation activities, retail, eating establishments, office uses, and quick vehicle service
uses provisionally.
Proposed Zoning:
The applicant is requesting to rezone both properties to Riverfront Crossings — South
Gilbert (RFC -SG). The intent of this zone is to facilitate high-intensity mixed use
development, with active ground floors. The principal uses allowed are generally the same
as the Central Business Support (CB -5) zone, and include commercial recreational uses,
eating establishments, office uses, a variety of retail, and quick vehicle service uses through
a special exception. Upon approval of rezoning, the applicant must apply for a special
exception.
The Riverfront Crossings Form Based Code requires businesses to be oriented toward the
front of the lot with street -facing entries. This provides a more comfortable environment for
pedestrians and offers buffering from vehicular traffic. Parking must be located behind
buildings and screened from view. Specific building standards apply, and will be
administered through a staff design review process. These include streetscape
m
improvements, landscaping, fagade composition, etc.
Rezoning Review Criteria:
Staff uses the following two criteria in the review of rezonings:
1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan;
2. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan:
The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan has designated this area for Mixed
Use Development. The Mixed Use land use designation includes a variety of retail, office,
and residential uses. The Comprehensive plan also supports urban infill and
redevelopment in certain areas of the City, including in the Riverfront Crossings District.
The Riverfront Crossings Master Plan calls for a pedestrian scale development in this area
along S. Gilbert St., with buildings to the front of the street and parking to the rear. It also
calls for a retail/convenience store in this area to serve local residential and commercial
uses. The Master Plan envisions this area to be redeveloped and shows a building placed
in the front corner of the lot with parking in the rear.
Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood Character:
The proposed convenience store and gas station, designed according to the Riverfront
Crossings Form Based Code, will be an improvement to the current subject property in
regard to traffic circulation and safety, pedestrian friendliness, and landscaping. The
surrounding neighborhood has been redeveloping in recent years with the addition of
new mixed-use residential buildings across the street as well as a brewery and the
Riverfront Crossings Park. The proposed rezoning will allow for improved convenience
retail in the neighborhood to serve local residents, business owners, and customers while
being brought up to Riverfront Crossings standards.
Traffic Implications and Access:
The intersection of S. Gilbert St. and Highway 6 just to the southwest of the subject
property had an average daily traffic count of 15,600 vehicles per day in 2018, according
to the DOT. There are four access point to the current Kum & Go; two on S. Gilbert St.
and one on each Highland Ave. and 3rd St. This is considered non -conforming, as the
Municipal Code allows only three access points on corner lots. The aerial photo below
illustrates the existing condition of the site and number of access points for both
properties.
1
5
3
244
. HIG HLANO AVE--
To bring this site into compliance, the applicant must close all but three access points.
The current access points off S. Gilbert St. create congestion and safety issues due to
their proximity to nearby intersections and the amount of traffic this street experiences
daily. Additionally, Highland Ave. experiences a significant amount of traffic as it is one of
the few through east/west streets that cross the CRANDIC railroad. To help mitigate these
issues, staff is proposing a condition that the applicant must close all access points onto
S. Gilbert St. and reduce the number of access points to one on Highland Ave.
Currently, the right-of-way along S. Gilbert St. is not adequate to create the pedestrian
environment envisioned in the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. In order to create a
wider landscaped buffer between traffic on S. Gilbert St. and the public sidewalk, staff is
proposing a condition that the applicant dedicate additional right-of-way along S. Gilbert
St., 3rd St., and Highland Ave. as shown in Attachment 5. The applicant must also
reconstruct the sidewalk that currently exists around the property on S. Gilbert Street,
Highland Ave, and 3rd Street.
Storm Water Management:
Staff anticipates that the existing stormwater infrastructure will be able to accommodate
runoff from the proposed redevelopment. At the site plan stage staff will analyze whether
the re -development of the site requires additional stormwater protections.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation of approval of the rezoning from the Planning & Zoning
M
Commission, a public hearing will be scheduled for consideration of the application by City
Council. Upon approval by City Council, the applicant must apply for a special exception to
allow for a quick vehicle servicing use in the Riverfront Crossings South Gilbert District.
Redevelopment of this site will also require compliance with the Riverfront Crossings Form -
Based Code, which requires review by the staff form -based code design review committee,
in addition to site plan review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff Recommends approval of REZ19-11, a proposal to rezone approximately 1.15 acres of
property located at 1310 S. Gilbert St. and 348 Highland Ave. from Intensive Commercial (CI -
1) to Riverfront Crossings — South Gilbert Subdistrict (RFC -SG), subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant must close all access points along S. Gilbert St. and will reduce the
number of access points along Highland Ave. to one.
2. The applicant must dedicate additional right-of-way to the City along Gilbert St. based
on the dimensions shown in Attachment 5.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Concept Plan
4. Good Neighbor Summary
5. Right -of -Way Dedication
Approved by:
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator,
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
9
7-1
1
N w a ME 2ND_ST • �_ r ❑
z
.,i»I�..J
J.
ms's77
_ Cj
F
Gywgy6F
tr
P coo
44P ca
An application submitted by Britni
Andreassen on behalf of Kum & Go,Z� ;� 41'
STEVENS DR _r_F- r��,�;s ,,.3_' -�
LLC for the rezoning of approximately — �j " r, "fi *fog ,o •. +�
1.15 acres of property located at 1310
m
S Gilbert St and 348 Highland Ave from
i' _ t
Intensive Commerical (CI -1) to Riverfront-
Crossings - South Gilbert (RFC-SG).6L "4 dMIL
,xr;;.d •°# ', r-� r
I— i
.Z.F.®4
CITY OF IOWA CITY
co
J�
0
r�
I
I ,
�IILlow— — —
_ _- -- — --
�
� cn
I rl 1
i
I
I
II
— Bi III
OE—
GI -- , 0— G VIII — — — -----------------
I rN _
*—y� �— —
1� I
1
1 cf) I \
r
—s ---L
\y
III#" I j
I IJ
� II III I i I
ull
0
VIII I
I � I
I I
� Illlnll VIII I '
I �IIII III I
. II . Ill, lllllllllllll � I
IIIIIIIIVIIIIIIIINIVIomuVIllVlpplluu ml IIL
II
Illllll� I
IIIII�II.,, I I I
ll��lll�pl I S I I I I
1111111 I p I' I
Ir n
c
Ilolllll SII I
I aluull I
SNI I•� I l /I,Ir
w�l1111I •' ' I w
law ' i I(i ry
w
•IIS"' �,1„�II �� � I i �� I m
0
• .L�",..II I I � �
III. I
I
II \
I
I � s
I \
\I
NOWrTj
� \�
0
��. E 3RD STREET --
Ilk, �
S — s— — sem,
--\—s---s----s---�s ---s--
I
—s----s---- � �I— —X11111 �s--.— U
I
1 1 00
IIll�IIIt
--s--s----s---—
rs% -- —s— — s HIGHLAND AVENUE —s— — — —s—\ s —s — —s-
v--- — — — — — —-
- —0 —
c-
0 — — — OE— — OE— E - — -
KUM & GO #3504
1310 S GILBERT STREET
IOWA CITY., IOWA
CIVIL DESIGN ADVANTAGE
OCTOBER 2019
N
0
m
oT
0
m
m
0
M
0
m
I Im I'
0
m
m
- r..ew
M�Iwll,l� IIII I,
llllnl� IIII
cul
El
C '0�
=V004
CIVIL DESIGN ADVANTAGE
From:
Keith Weaaen
To:
Jessica Lile
Cc:
Britni Andreassen; Siobhan Harman - Kum & Go (Siobhan.Harmancaokumandgo.com)
Subject:
Kum & Go 3504 - Good Neighbor Meeting Summary
Date:
Friday, November 1, 2019 12:16:49 PM
r
Jesi,
Kum & Go hosted a Good Neighbor Meeting at Big Grove Brewer on Wednesday, October 23, 2019.
Seven people attended the meeting. No opposition was expressed, as those in attendance are
excited to see the site refreshed and that healthier food options will be available.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need anything else.
Keith Weggen, ASLA I project manager
CIVIL DESIGN ADVANTAGE LLC
3405 SE Crossroads Drive, Suite G Grimes, IA 50111
o 515.369.4400 f 515.369.4410 c 515.313.5445
KeithWaCDA-eng.com www.CDA-eng.com
`,A Please consider the environment before printing this email.
This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed.
This communication may contain information which is proprietary, privileged or confidential.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and
delete all copies of the message.
SOUTH GILBERT CENTER, LLC
% W. M. Bywater
621 South Summit Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
November 1, 2019 u
Jesi Lile
City of Iowa City
Dept. of Neighborhood &
Development Services
RE: S. Gilbert Kum & Go
REZ 19-11
Your letter of October 30
Dear Jesi,
I represent the ownership of 1204 and 1210 S. Gilbert Street. I
want to go on record as favoring the above application for
rezoning. I attended their informational meeting on October 23�d and
believe their development plans would be beneficial to all
concerned.
As you may have heard, I am very sensitive to the parking
situation in the area as are my neighbors Quincy Square (north of
our property) and the Rental Center (south side). I believe the Kum
& Go would not further compound the problem we currently deal with
when the Big Grove Brewery has a special event, something they are
makina an effort to deal with after numerous meetings with the
undersigned. One evening recently, one of our tenants had three
cars belonging to Big Grove customers towed from our lot.
Thank you for giving our thoughts your attention. Don't
hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance (337-
4663).
Bill Bywater
CC: Quincy, Rental Center, City Manager
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 5 of 31
Resolution 18-211.
2. The dedication of 17 feet of additional public right-of-way along American Legion
Road to be dedicated to the City at the time of final platting.
3. Conveyance of a temporary construction easement to the City along the north side
of American Legion Road.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Baker asked about the next steps and what was meant by "non -consenting parties". Russett
noted that is not applicable in this case, it is only required if there are any non -consenting
landowners that don't want to be annexed. In this case all of the parties are consenting.
Parsons feels this application makes sense for the overall development along American Legion
road. Signs agreed.
Baker went on record to say he feels it will end up being higher density than what is discussed
here, but that can be reviewed at the next stage of rezoning.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
CASE NO. REZ19-11:
Applicant: Kum & Go LLC
Location: Northeast corner of S. Gilbert Street and Highland Avenue
An application submitted by Kum & Go LLC for a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to
Riverfront Crossings — South Gilbert (RFC -SG) for approximately 1. 15 acres of land located at
the northeast corner of S. Gilbert Street and Highland Avenue.
Lile began the staff report showing an aerial map of the subject property, to the south is Highway
6. The subject property is currently zoned Intensive Commercial (CI -1) and across Gilbert Street
to the west is zoned Riverfront Crossings -South Gilbert District.
The property at 1310 South Gilbert Street is owned by Kum & Go and they have a purchase
agreement with the owners of 348 Highland Avenue. The proposed redevelopment would
expand the floor area of the convenience store, add two additional gas pumps and provide for
additional parking.
The applicant held a Good Neighbor Meeting on October 23, 2019 where seven local business
owners attended. Neighbors were concerned with access to their properties during construction
and the proposed timeline. The applicant was able to convey that the site will be entirely self-
contained during the construction process and would not disturb access to surrounding
businesses. All attendees expressed excitement about the redevelopment.
Currently the subject property contains a Kum & Go to the west that was built in 1991, as well as
commercial condos to the east that were built in 1955. The current site is not conducive to good
traffic flow due to the location of the canopy on both sides of the store as well as the many
access points, specifically the two on South Gilbert Street. Lile showed the development
concept submitted by the applicant, the new convenience store will front along South Gilbert
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 6 of 31
Street, with both of those access points closed and six fuel pumps behind the store as well as
additional parking and landscaping.
Lile noted this area is part of the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan — South District which calls for
a high-intensity of mixed-use development with active ground floors. The uses allowed in this
subdistrict include commercial, recreational, eating establishment, office, retail and quick vehicle
service uses through the special exception process. Upon approval of a rezoning the applicant
must apply for a special exception to go through the Board of Adjustment.
The Riverfront Crossings Form Based Code requires businesses to be oriented toward the front
of the lot with street -facing entries. This provides a more comfortable environment for
pedestrians and offers buffering from vehicular traffic.
Staff uses the following two criteria in the review of rezonings:
1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan;
2. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character.
The subject property is part of the Central District Commercial Redevelopment Area which calls
for redevelopment of commercial uses. To the right is the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan area
which calls for pedestrian scale development with buildings to the front of the street and parking
to the rear. It also calls for a retail/convenience store in this area to serve local residential and
commercial uses. The Master Plan envisions this area to be redeveloped and shows a building
placed in the front corner of the lot with parking in the rear.
As for compatibility with the existing neighborhood, across the street there are properties zoned
Riverfront Crossings — South Gilbert and this rezoning would allow for an improvement to the
current subject property in regard to traffic circulation and safety, pedestrian friendliness, and
landscaping. The proposed rezoning will allow for improved convenience retail in the
neighborhood to serve local residents, business owners, and customers while being brought up
to Riverfront Crossings standards.
Lile noted this is a high traffic area with the intersection of South Gilbert Street and Highway 6,
there is an average daily traffic count of 15,600 vehicles per day in 2018. The four access points
on the current Kum & Go site are not conducive to safety. There are two access points on South
Gilbert Street and one each on Highland Avenue and 3rd Street. This is considered non-
conforming, as the Municipal Code allows only three access points on corner lots. To bring this
site into compliance, the applicant must close all but three access points. The current access
points off South Gilbert Street create congestion and safety issues due to their proximity to
nearby intersections and the amount of traffic this street experiences daily. To help mitigate
these issues, staff is proposing a condition that the applicant must close all access points onto
South Gilbert Street and reduce the number of access points to one on Highland Avenue.
Staff is also proposing a condition that the applicant dedicate additional right-of-way to the City
along South Gilbert Street. Currently the right-of-way along South Gilbert Street is not sufficient
to create a pedestrian friendly environment envisioned in the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan.
This additional right-of-way area would help to create a landscape area and a wider public
sidewalk. It should also be noted the applicant must reconstruct the sidewalks that currently
exist around the property on South Gilbert Street, Highland Avenue, and 3rd Street.
Lile stated the existing stormwater infrastructure should be able to accommodate the runoff from
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 7 of 31
this development but it will be analyzed and confirmed during the site plan stage.
The role of the Commission is to determine whether the rezoning complies with the
Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the existing neighborhood character.
Lile noted there was some late correspondence handed out today from a neighboring property
owner who was in support of the proposed rezoning and development and did mention parking
issues in the area but did not think this proposed redevelopment would further compound that
issue.
Regarding next steps, pending the Commission's recommendation City Council will set a public
hearing for this rezoning and upon City Council approval the applicant must apply for a special
exception. Lile noted that any redevelopment on this site must be reviewed by the staff form -
based code design review committee and also go though site plan review process.
Staff recommends approval of REZ19-11, a proposal to rezone approximately 1. 15 acres of
property located at 1310 S. Gilbert St. and 348 Highland Ave. from Intensive Commercial (CI -to
Riverfront Crossings — South Gilbert Subdistrict (RFC -SG), subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant must close all access points along S. Gilbert St. and will reduce the number of
access points along Highland Ave. to one.
2. The applicant must dedicate additional right-of-way to the City along Gilbert St. based on the
dimensions shown in Attachment 5 of the staff report.
Hensch began by acknowledging the applicant for holding a good neighbor meeting.
Hensch shared his surprise that the average daily vehicle count for that road was only in the
15,000 range, he drives that road daily and it sure seems like a higher number than that. He
asked if there would be any access points along 3rd Street. Lile stated the applicant is allowed
three access points and staff has made a condition to allow one on Highland Avenue and none
on South Gilbert Street so that will allow the applicant to have two access points on 3rd Street.
Hensch observed a lot of impervious surface on this site so in the redevelopment he hopes there
will be an increase in pervious area and be able to decrease the stormwater management
issues.
Martin asked if the additional parking was a requirement of the City or just something the
applicant wants to do. Lile stated it is just what the applicant is proposing, they currently meet
the minimum parking requirements for Riverfront Crossings.
Baker asked after this goes to Council it will then go to the Board of Adjustment and they will
have the final say in the elevations and how this building fronts on Gilbert Street. Will the
building actually front on Gilbert Street or front to the parking in the back. Lile said it will be
pedestrian oriented and front on Gilbert Street, it will be comparable to the Kum & Go on
Muscatine Avenue and 1St Avenue and the one on Riverside Drive and Benton Street. Baker
said that is then a fake fagade of a front with a door to get into the store. Lile confirmed that is
the proposed plan.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 8 of 31
Nicole Neal West (3405 SE Crossroads Drive, Grimes, IA) is from Civil Design Advantage
representing Kum & Go and came forward to answer any questions.
Martin asked why they need the additional parking.
Siobhan Harman (1459 Grand Ave., Des Moines, IA) is the site development manager for Kum &
Go and stated with the volume they have in the larger square footage stores, this one will be
5600 square feet, they need additional parking with customers coming and going. They have
made a big push to move to the inside of the store, they are pushing more fresh food, made-to-
order food, sandwiches, fresh pizza, fruits and vegetables. There is just more volume in these
new stores with food sales.
Martin asked if in Iowa City those parking spaces will get utilized on a regular basis. Harman
confirmed they do get utilized.
Dyer asked if there would be a pedestrian entrance on Gilbert Street. Neal West replied there
would be a pedestrian access off of Gilbert Street. Dyer said that would be different from the
stores on Benton Street and on 1St Avenue where there are blank walls. Neal West confirmed it
would be different from those stores.
Baker feels this is a wonderful project except for one thing, he filed a complaint against their
store at 1 st Avenue and Muscatine because of noise, the electronic music coming out of the
canopies. He asked if that was a standard Kum & Go practice. Neal West confirmed it is. Baker
asked what the advantage to that is in marketing. Harman said it is to keep the customers happy
and upbeat when out at the pumps. Harman did add when there have been complaints about
the noise in neighborhoods they respond to those requests. Baker believes it is one of the worst
abuses of commerce to impose noise on the public. He will vote in favor of this application but
hopes somewhere down the line someone rethinks that policy.
Paul Esker is a student who wanted to echo what Baker said as he lives across the street from
the Kum & Go at Benton Street and Riverside Drive. Additionally he doesn't feel the parking is
fully utilized either, there are a lot of empty spots.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommends approval of REZ19-11, a proposal to rezone approximately
1.15 acres of property located at 1310 S. Gilbert St. and 348 Highland Ave. from Intensive
Commercial (CI -to Riverfront Crossings — South Gilbert Subdistrict (RFC -SG), subject to
the following conditions:
3. The applicant must close all access points along S. Gilbert St. and will reduce the
number of access points along Highland Ave. to one.
4. The applicant must dedicate additional right-of-way to the City along Gilbert St.
based on the dimensions shown in Attachment 5 of the staff report.
Parsons second the motion.
Hensch is in favor of this application and is happy to see the start of improvements to the east
side of Gilbert Street. He acknowledged it is a difficult area because of the traffic and by closing
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 9 of 31
off the access from Gilbert Street his concerns are largely resolved
Parson agreed it will be a huge improvement.
Signs agreed as well that it is nice to see improvements like this on Gilbert Street. He also noted
he goes to the Kum & Go on Riverside Drive and Benton Street a lot and their parking lot is
pretty full most of the times he is there.
Martin is excited about the improved walkability of this area, she loves the Riverfront Crossings
overlay, she is still hesitant on the need for additional parking for that particular business
because as Hensch mentioned impervious surfaces and that is something to think about. She
wants everyone to think about the big picture and that they are moving forward thoughtfully.
Noise, pollution, light pollution are a very big deal and the business owners need to take that to
heart as there is more and more residential in that area and need to be thoughtful of that moving
forward.
Baker asked when this goes before the Board of Adjustment do they have the right to impose a
condition of approval to prohibit the use of exterior amplified music. Russett does not believe so,
the Board of Adjustment is tasked with reviewing the proposed project based on the criteria that
are in the Code. Hekteon would like to review the specific criteria before commenting and can let
Baker know.
Signs wondered if Kum & Go has experienced with permeable pavement. Hensch agreed and
hoped as Kum & Go design this site they are mindful to create as much pervious surface as
possible.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
CASE NO. REZ19-12:
Applicant: Pugh Hagan Prahm PLC
Location: Lehman Avenue and Soccer Park Road
An application submitted by Pugh Hagan Prahm PLC for a rezoning from Interim Development -
Multi -Family (ID -RM) and Rural Residential (RR -1) to Low Density Multi- Family (RM -12) for
approximately 42.01 acres of land located south of Lehman Avenue and east of Soccer Park
Road.
Russet began the staff report showing the project site, it is located south of Lehman Avenue and
east of Soccer Park Road. It's surrounded by Interim Development zones and the Sycamore
Greenway to the east. In 1994 this area was voluntary annexed as part of 422 -acre Sycamore
Farms annexation, and upon annexation the majority area was rezone to ID -RM and a small
portion around three and a half acres was rezone to RR -1 with the conservation easement. In
2015, the landowners submitted a rezoning application to RM -20, which is a medium density
multifamily zone and the Commission and the City Council voted to deny the application. The
property owners sued the City and the courts ruled that the owners were not entitled to any
particular zoning classification. The applicants have submitted a rezoning application now to RM -
12 which allows for high density single family and low-density multifamily development. The zone
is intended to provide a diverse variety of housing options such as detached and attached single
STAFF PRESENTATION TO FOLLOW:
1 r I
C04;qui h
CITY OF lOVVA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa S2240-1826
(319) 356-5000
(3I9) 356-5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
Item 9.a.: Rezoning S. Gilbert Street and
Highland Avenue
REZ19-11
An ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 1.15 acres of land
located at the northeast corner of South Gilbert Street and Highland
Avenue, from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone to Riverfront Crossings -
South Gilbert Subdistrict (RFC -SG) zone. (First Consideration)
Background Information
Proposed rezoning to Rive rfront Crossings — South Gilbert Subdistrict
Own property at 1310 S. Gilbert St. and have a purchase agreement
with owners of 348 Highland Ave.
Proposed redevelopment will expand floor area of convenience store,
add two additional gas pumps, and provide additional parking.
Held a Good Neighbor Meeting October 23rd
;1 Y
r , �
0
• % --F7
�1
�e p
� o .F
l
I e
I
s
m
Ar
KUM & GO #3504
1310 S GILBERT STREET
IOWA CITY, IOWA
CIVIL DESIGN ADVANTAGE
OCTOBER 2019
UI
_ooa
7 r-
Regulating Plan
South Gilbert Subdistrict
High-intensity, mixed use development with
active ground floors
Uses allowed include: commercial recreational,
eating establishment, office, retail, and quick
vehicle servicing through the special exception
process
Riverfront Crossings requires businesses to be
oriented toward the front of the lot with
street -facing entries
Review Criteria
Rezoning criteria:
• Compliance with the comprehensive plan
• Compatibility with the existing neighborhood
Compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan
Central District: Commercial
Redevelopment
VVS; M
Riverfront Crossings Master Plan
. Waw-4'i+w 1
Properties zoned Rive rfront Crossings —South
Gilbert to the west
Improvement to current subject property
Traffic circulation and safety
Pedestrian friendliness
Landscaping
Improved convenience retail in the
neighborhood
1A.
I
Tra fi c
Implications
and Access
Intersection of S. Gilbert
St. and Highway 6 had an
average daily traffic count
of 15,600 vehicles in
0MV
Four access points to
current Kum & Go
Two on S. Gilbert St, one
on Highland Ave, and
one on V St.
Non -conforming
Traffic
Implications
and Access
S. Gilbert St access creates
congestion and safety issues
Staff has proposed a condition that
the applicant must close all access
points along S. Gilbert St and
reduce the number of access
points along Highland Ave to one
Pedestrian
Environment
Staff has proposed a condition
that the applicant must dedicate
additional right-of-way to the City
along S. Gilbert Street based on
the dimensions shown
Rezoning from CI -1 to RFC-SG-P&Z
Recommendation to City Council (November
2019)
Special Exception for Quick Vehicle Services
in RFC -SG -Board of Adjustment (Pending)
Riverfront Crossings Form Based Code Design
Review & Site Plan Review -Staff
Planning &Zoning Commission
Recommendation
The Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval of REZ19-11,
a proposal to rezone approximately 1.15 acres of property located at
1310 S. Gilbert St and 348 Highland Ave. from Intensive Commercial (CI -
1) to Riverfront Crossings— South Gilbert Subdistrict (RFC -SG), subject
to the following conditions:
1. The applicant must close all access points along S. Gilbert St. and will
reduce the number of access points along Highland Ave. to one.
2. The applicant must dedicate additional right-of-way to the City along S.
Gilbert St. based on the dimensions shown in Attachment 5 of the Staff
Report.
STAFF PRESENTATION CONCLUDED
� r
rrM as � h
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Strect
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
(3 19) 356-5000
(3 19) 356-5009 FAX
www. icgov. o rg
Prepared by: Jest Ule, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240: 319-356-5230 (REZ19-11) q. OL-,
Ordinance No.
An ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 1.15 acres of
land located at the northeast corner of S. Gilbert Street and
Highland Avenue, from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to Riverfront
Crossings — South Gilbert (RFC -SG). (REZ19-11)
Whereas, the applicant, Kum & Go, LLC, has requested a rezoning of property located at the northeast
corner of S. Gilbert Street and Highland Avenue, from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to Riverfront Crossings —
South Gilbert (RFC -SG); and
Whereas, the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan has designated this area for Riverfront Crossings —
South Gilbert subdistrict; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed rezoning and determined
that it complies with the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan provided that it meets conditions regarding closing
access points along S. Gilbert Street and reducing the number of access points along Highland Avenue to
one, as well as the dedication of additional right-of-way; and
Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2019) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable
conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public
needs caused by the requested change; and
Whereas, areas of public need will be met by the acceptance of this ordinance, including traffic
calming, vehicle safety, and creating a more pedestrian friendly environment; and
Whereas, the owners and applicant have agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance with
the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate
development in this area of the city.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa:
Section I Approval. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated
herein, property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning designation to Riverfront
Crossings — South Gilbert (RFC -SG)
The west 115 feet of out lot 1 in cook, Sargent and Downey's addition to Iowa city, Iowa,
according to the plat thereof recorded in book 16, page 84, deed records of Johnson county,
Iowa, excepting therefrom the south 30 feet thereof and further excepting the following tract:
beginning at the northwest corner of said out lot 1, thence east 5 feet along the south line of
third street; thence south parallel to the west line of said out lot 1, 115.38 feet; thence southerly
in a straight line to a point 13 feet east of the west line of said out lot 1 and 16 feet north of the
north line of Highland avenue; thence southeasterly on a straight line between said point and a
point on the north line of highland drive 25 feet east of the west line of out lot 1 to a point 6.59
feet northwesterly along said line from the point on the north line of highland avenue 25 feet
easterly from the west line of out lot 1; thence southeasterly 28.96 feet in a straight line to a
point on the north line of highland avenue 49.29 feet east of the west line of out lot 1; thence
west 49.29 feet along the north line of Highland avenue; thence north 182 feet along the west
line of out lot 1 to the point of beginning.
Section II. Zoning Map. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map
of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication
of the ordinance as approved by law.
Section III. Conditional Zoning Agreement The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to sign, and the
City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s) and the City, following
passage and approval of this Ordinance.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
Section IV Certification And Recording Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is
hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance, and record the same in the Office of the
County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage, approval and
publication of this ordinance, as provided by law.
Section V. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section VI. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid
or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section,
provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section VII. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of 20 .
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved by/
City Attorneys Office 11(up �1 ,0I
Prepared by: Jesi Life, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5230 (REZ19-11)
Conditional Zoning Agreement
This agreement is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter "City"), and Kum & Go, LLC, McDonough Structures Inc., Kam Properties, LLC, and
GKLZ, LLC (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Owners"), and Kum & Go, LLC (hereinafter
"Applicant").
Whereas, Owners are the collective legal title holders of approximately 1.15 acres of
property located at the northeast corner of S. Gilbert Street and Highland Avenue.
Whereas, the Owners and applicant have requested a rezoning of said property from
Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to Riverfront Crossings —South Gilbert (RFC -SG); and
Whereas, this rezoning creates public needs related to vehicle and pedestrian safety
and improvements of S. Gilbert Street; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with reasonable
conditions regarding satisfaction of these public needs through the provision of additional right-
of-way on S. Gilbert Street, access closures along S. Gilbert Street and the limitation of one
access point on Highland Ave. the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan;
and
Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2019) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in
order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
Whereas, the Owners and Applicant agree to develop this property in accordance with
the terms and conditions of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as
follows:
Kum & Go, LLC, McDonough Structures Inc., Kam Properties, LLC, and GKLZ, LLC are
the collective legal title holders of the property legally described as:
The west 115 feet of out lot 1 in cook, Sargent and Downey's addition to Iowa city, Iowa,
according to the plat thereof recorded in book 16, page 84, deed records of Johnson
county, Iowa, excepting therefrom the south 30 feet thereof and further excepting the
following tract: beginning at the northwest comer of said out lot 1, thence east 5 feet
along the south line of third street; thence south parallel to the west line of said out lot 1,
115.38 feet; thence southerly in a straight line to a point 13 feet east of the west line of
said out lot 1 and 16 feet north of the north line of Highland avenue; thence
southeasterly on a straight line between said point and a point on the north line of
highland drive 25 feet east of the west line of out lot 1 to a point 6.59 feet northwesterly
along said line from the point on the north line of highland avenue 25 feet easterly from
the west line of out lot 1; thence southeasterly 28.96 feet in a straight line to a point on
the north line of highland avenue 49.29 feet east of the west line of out lot 1; thence west
49.29 feet along the north line of Highland avenue; thence north 182 feet along the west
line of out lot 1 to the point of beginning.
2. The Owners and Applicant acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure conformance to
the principles of the Comprehensive Plan and the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan.
Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2019) provides that the City of
Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and
above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested
change.
3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owners and Applicant agree
that development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the
Zoning Code, as well as the following conditions:
a. Upon redevelopment, there shall be no vehicular access to South Gilbert Street
and only one vehicular access point to Highland Avenue, the exact location of
which will be determined at the time of site plan review.
b. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owners shall dedicate to the City, with no
compensation to the Owners, right-of-way along S. Gilbert Street, Highland Ave,
and E. 31 Street as generally shown on Exhibit A attached hereto, the exact area
of which will be determined upon review and approval of a site plan for any portion
of the above described property. The form of dedication shall be a warranty deed.
4. The Owners and Applicant, and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein
are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2019), and
that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning
change.
5. The Owners and Applicant and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property
is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the
terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
6. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be
a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force
and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the
City of Iowa City.
The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind
all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties.
7. The Owners and Applicant acknowledge that nothing in this Conditional Zoning
Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owners or Applicant from complying with all
other applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
8. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by
reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and
publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County
Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense.
Dated this day of 20—.
City of Iowa City
Jim Throgmorton, Mayor
Attest:
Kum & Go, LLC
McDonough Structures Inc
Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk By:
Kam Properties, LLC
GKLZ, LLC
Approved by:
City Attorney's Office
Dated this
City of Iowa City
day of , 20_
Jim Throgmorton, Mayor
Attest:
Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk
Approved by:
City Attorney's Office
0
McDonough Structures Inc
By:
Kam Properties, LLC
0
GKLZ, LLC
0
Dated this day of , 20_.
City of Iowa City
Jim Throgmorton, Mayor
Attest:
Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk
Approved by:
City Attorney's Office
Kum & Go, LLC
By:
McDonoujah Structures Inc
By:
Kam Properties, LLC
an
GKLZ, LLC
in
Dated this day of , 20_
City of Iowa City
Jim Throgmorton, Mayor
Attest:
Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk
Approved by:
City Attorney's Office
Kum & Go, LLC
0
McDonough Structures Inc
Kam Properties, LLC
BY
GKLZ, LLC
By:
Dated this day of , 20_
City of Iowa City
Jim Throgmorton, Mayor
Attest:
Kum & Go, LLC
Q1
McDonough Structures Inc
Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk By:
Approved by:
City Attorney's Office
3
Kam Properties, LLC
By:
City Of Iowa City Acknowledgement:
State of Iowa )
) ss:
Johnson County )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 20_ by Jim
Throgmorton and Kellie Fruehling as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
4
Kum & Go, LLC Acknowledgement:
State of r o W A
County of r.�.e
This record was acknowledged before me on N� u J 1.2- , 2019 by
L,tvr•'% (Name(s)ofindividual(s)as ss.+..... �.rrG Dti�c�-w+••��"
(type of authority, such as officer or trustee) of Kum & Go, LLC. Or
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal) 1 ROBERT R FIEBIC III
Wy ENOW
Title (and Rank) WI 14.2020
My commission expires: '4 I t J. I C' .0
McDonough Structures Inc. Acknowledgement
State of .?iwci
County o
This record was acknowledged before me onAa)• c;o? 2019 by
S°,4 (Name(s) of individual(s) as
(type of authority, such as officer or trustee) of Z
h Structur In
—Notary Public in and for o owa
4p��•C c SHAWN R CONLEY
(Stamp or Seal) o co� Plumber 792462
z r
a + MY Commission Expires
Title (and Rank) °w' ibb a
My commission expires:
Kam Properties, LLC Acknowledgement:
State of — &—
County of ; )SNS A k
This record was acknowledged before me on (11 2Z ( `l 2019 by
e 0 iSTI vie I Fo o KeA\ (Name(s) of individ al(s) s �1(.Ft i � d MFMBc a ��°`?NhGc2
(type of authority, such as officer or trustee) of Kam Properties, LLC.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
e < , NOELLE M PANS01 (Stamp or Seal)
. Commis" NWW 782M
MFebruCo°rna m E* Title (and Rank)
My commission expires: Z 20
GKLZ, LLC Acknowledgement:
State of fowk
County of joHNsoN
This record was acknowledged before me on November 25 2019 by
-TAsa as 7iniel and Grez Kat tenheuser (Name(s) of individual(s) as
Members (type of authprity, such as officer or trustee) of GKLZ, LLC.
Notary Publi" analfor the State
(Stamp or Seal)
%�LL�tiTitle (and Rank)
KEMI
er 727C•3�FxPirw2-I ,5I DZ C—
My commission expires:
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by _
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Cole
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Throgmorton
First Consideration 12/03/2019
Voteforpassage: AYES: Mims, Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas,
Throgmorton, Cole. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published
that the
twl!- i
_L W wI
Item Number: 9.b.
�r
P_
CITY OE IOWA CITY
www.iogov.org
December 3, 2019
Ordinance rezoning approximately 42.01 acres of land located south of
Lehman Avenue and east of Soccer Park Road from Interim Development
Multi -Family (ID -RM) and Rural Residential (RR -1) to Low Density Multi -
Family (RM -12). (REZ19-12)
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
PZ Staff Report w Attachments
Additional Correspondence
P&Z Minutes
Ordinance
12/3 Correspondence- Indefinite deferral request
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ19-12
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Contact:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Location Map:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner
Date: November 7, 2019
Pugh Hagen Prahm PLC
Michael J. Pugh
425 E. Oakdale Blvd, Suite 201
Coralville, IA 52241
(319) 351-2028
mpugh@pughhagan.com
Rezoning from ID -RM and RR -1 to RM -12
Development of multifamily dwellings
South of Lehman Avenue and East of
Soccer Park Road
42.01 acres
Agricultural - ID -RM 38.49 acres and RR1
3.52 acres
North: Open space (Sycamore Greenway)
- P1
South: Wastewater treatment plant - P1
East: Open space (Sycamore Greenway) —
P1
West: Agricultural - ID -RS
K
Comprehensive Plan:
File Date:
South District Plan
October 14, 2019
45 Day Limitation Period: November 28, 2019
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In 1994, the property owner applied to have this property voluntarily annexed as part of the 422 -
acre Sycamore Farms annexation. At that time, the owner requested that the subject property be
zoned Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM -12). The request was later amended to seek RM -
20 zoning for this property. Given the lack of essential City services, the City determined that the
requested zoning designation was premature, and that as the surrounding areas developed and
City services including arterial street access provided, the merits of the requested multifamily zoning
designation could be re-examined. Staff also raised the concern about zoning such a large area for
multifamily development.
Upon annexation, the bulk of the subject property (38.49 acres) was zoned Interim Development —
Multifamily Residential (ID -RM); and 3.52 acres was zoned Rural Residential (RR -1) and subject to
a conservation easement prohibiting development due to the presence of wetlands. The rezoning
was subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement containing provisions mostly to address the
environmentally sensitive features on the property, as well as a requirement to dedicate land for
a school, provide pedestrian access, and provide infrastructure improvements.
In September 2015, the current landowners submitted a rezoning application, asking for the parcel
to be rezoned to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -20). A rezoning to RM -20 would
allow for the development of 675 three-bedroom or 1,000 one- and two-bedroom apartments to be
built. The Statement in Support of the 2015 Application was nearly identical to the one submitted in
support of this application. Both state that the 1994 CZA requires Council to approve an RM zoning
designation.
The Commission and the City Council unanimously voted to deny the application after due process
was given. The property owners, Sycamore, L.L.C. and Lake Calvin Properties, L.L.C., then sued
the City, alleging, in part, that the 1994 CZA guaranteed them RM -20 zoning. In ruling in favor of
the City, the District Court stated:
The Court agrees with the City Council of Iowa City's determination that the CZA does
not guarantee any particular rezoning decision. While the developers may have inferred
that such a promise exists, it does not. The Court recognizes that the language would
tend to support the conclusion that the land would most likely be rezoned at some point.
However, the Court has thoroughly reviewed the CZA and determined that there is no
provision contained anywhere in the CZA that guarantees that the land will be rezoned
to RM -20. Furthermore, there is certainly no provision that guarantees that any particular
type of rezoning will take place at any particular point in time.
(emphasis added.)
The applicant appealed that decision. In affirming the District Court ruling in the City's favor, the
Appellate Court agreed that "nothing in the CZA establishes the City agreed to a future rezoning
to any specific zone at any specific time." (emphasis added.) It ruled that "any agreement binding
a future council to rezone land a specific way would be void."
3
This property is located within the South District of Iowa City. As with all rezoning requests, the
current application should be considered based on the Comprehensive Plan including the South
District Plan, Future Land Use Map, compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods, adequacy of
infrastructure and services to accommodate the uses and intensity of development allowed by
the requested zoning.
ANALYSIS:
Current zoning: The property is currently zoned ID -RM and RR -1. The purpose of an Interim
Development (ID) zone is to provide for areas of managed growth in which agricultural and other
nonurban uses of land may continue until such time as the City is able to provide City services
and urban development can occur. This is the default zoning to which all undeveloped areas
should be classified until City services are provided. Upon provision of City services, the City or
the property owner may initiate rezoning to zones consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as
amended. The principle uses allowed in the ID zone are plant related agricultural. Farm dwellings
are allowed if they are associated with an agricultural use. The minimum lot size of the ID zone is
10 acres.
Although the ID -RM designation indicates the possible future consideration for multifamily zoning,
it is not a guarantee of such zoning, as recognized by the Appellate Court in Sycamore v. City.
Any rezoning decision must be made in the context of the current Comprehensive Plan, Zoning
Code, policies and land use map in effect at the time a rezoning application is made, as well as
the development character of the surrounding neighborhood and the adequacy of infrastructure
and services to serve the proposed density.
Proposed zoning: The purpose of the Low Density Multi -Family Residential zone (RM -12) is to
provide for the development of high density, single-family housing and low density, multi -family
housing. This zone is intended to provide a diverse variety of housing options in neighborhoods
throughout the city, including detached and attached single-family dwellings, duplexes, and multi-
family dwellings. Careful attention to site and building design is important to ensure that the
various housing types in any one location are compatible with one another.
The RM -12 zone requires a minimum of 2,725 square feet per dwelling unit. Based on these
requirements up to 670 dwelling units could be developed on this property if it were zoned RM -
12. If public streets are platted to serve the development, the actual density would be less than
the maximum stated, but even assuming that 45% of the property is devoted to public streets,
over 369 dwelling units could be constructed under the proposed RM -12 designation.
Comprehensive Plan: The property is governed by the Comprehensive Plan, including the South
District Plan. As elements of the Comprehensive Plan, district plans are intended to promote
patterns of land use, urban design, infrastructure and services that encourage and contribute to
the livability and sustainability of Iowa City and its neighborhoods. These plans are advisory
documents for directing and managing change over time and serve as a guide for decision-
making, public deliberation and investment (public and private).
The South District Plan, adopted in 2015, outlines the general intended land uses for this area on
the land use map. Figure 1 is an excerpt from the South District Plan land use map. The area of
the proposed rezoning is generally identified with the white dashed line. The map identifies the
majority of this area as being appropriate for Low -Medium Density Single -Family Residential (pale
yellow). A smaller portion, immediately south of Lehman Avenue, is envisioned for Low -Medium
Density Mixed Residential (mustard yellow).
C!
Figure 1. Excerpt from the South District Plan Land Use Map
#1 WW
The Low -Medium Density Single -Family Residential land use designation is intended primarily for
detached single-family housing at a density of 2-8 dwelling units per acre. However, duplexes are
allowed on corner lots and attached housing may be located along arterial streets or adjacent to
permanent open space. The Low -Medium Density Mixed Residential and is intended for medium -
to high- density single-family residential development, including small lot detached single-family
units, zero lot line development, duplexes, and townhomes. Low-density multi -family residential
may be considered if buildings are designed in a manner that is compatible in scale and design
to the lower scale residential dwellings in the neighborhood (e.g. triplexes and 4- or 6-plexes).
The density range envisioned for this designation is 8-13 dwelling units per acre. Compatible
zoning designations would include a mix of single-family zones. A small area of low density multi-
family may be considered adjacent to Lehman Avenue if assurances were made that the
development would not result in large-scale multi -family dwellings that are not compatible with
lower -scale housing types.
The proposed RM -12 designation does not comply with the South District Plan. It creates a large
concentration of multifamily development and places multifamily development in areas without
adequate infrastructure and access to goods, services and transit. The RM -12 zone, which allows
for larger -scale multi -family dwellings, does not comply with the land use plan showing
predominately single-family development with some opportunities for duplexes and attached
single-family, as well as smaller -scale multi -family adjacent to Lehman Avenue.
Nor does the application comply with the Iowa City 2030 Comprehensive Plan policy promoting
compact and contiguous development: "Encourage compact, efficient development that is
contiguous and connected to existing neighborhoods to reduce the cost of extending
infrastructure and services..." (IC2030: Comprehensive Plan Update - page 23). Similar goals
and polices are also repeated on page 27 of the Plan: "Encourage a diversity of housing options
in all neighborhoods. Concentrate new development in areas contiguous to existing
neighborhoods where it is most cost effective to extend infrastructure and services."
Adequacy of Infrastructure and Services: The proposed RM -12 zone is in an area that has
experienced limited development due to lack of adequate infrastructure. The closest transit stop
is at the intersection of Sycamore and Burns Avenue approximately 1.5 miles to the north of the
property. Given the current street pattern in this area it would be very difficult for the City to extend
bus service to the area. The limited street network would also make access for police and fire
protection less than ideal.
Sycamore Street, recently upgraded to arterial street standards, terminates approximately 1,500
feet to the west of the property. Although a portion of Lehman Avenue was reconstructed as part
of the Sycamore Street project, it is not built to City standards. It is built as a chip seal surface to
the intersection with Soccer Park Road. The remaining 400 feet of Lehman Road between Soccer
5
Park Road and this property has a gravel surface. As with the 2015 application, the applicant has
indicated a willingness to enter into a Conditional Zoning Agreement requiring improvement of
Lehman Avenue, but would expect contributions toward these road costs from the adjacent
property owner and from the City. Other than a special assessment, a difficult process the City
has not undertaken in many years, the City does not have a mechanism to require the adjacent
owner to contribute to the cost of improving Lehman Avenue. The City's contribution would have
to come from the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for which there are competing projects.
The CIP currently does not include improvement of Lehman Avenue.
In staff's view there does not appear to be a compelling reason for the City to reallocate funds
from other planned infrastructure improvements to encourage development on the far outskirts of
the city, while there are intervening properties that could be more efficiently developed in terms
of infrastructure costs, maintenance and provision of City services.
Summary: Zoning decisions must be made in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan after
giving consideration to such factors as efficient urban development patterns, controlling
congestion of streets, and matters of public health, safety and welfare. Public policy dictates that
this police power be freely exercised by the City Council in order to respond to changes in the
community's needs and concerns. As ruled by the Appellate Court, no previous agreement limits
Council's consideration of this application.
The subject property is not in an area designated in the applicable comprehensive plans for
extensive multifamily development. Further this area is not adequately served by infrastructure or
City services, and therefore the requested zoning does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
The portion of the property that is zoned RR -1 is subject to a conservation easement that prohibits
its development.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be
scheduled for consideration of the application by the City Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that an application submitted by Pugh Hagen Prahm PLC for a rezoning from
Interim Development Multifamily (ID -RM) zone for 38.49 acres and Rural Residential (RR1) zone
for 3.52 acres to Low Density Multifamily (RM -12) zone for property located south of Lehman
Avenue, east of Soccer Park Road be denied.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Aerial Map
3. Applicant's statement in support of rezoning
4. South District Future Land Use Map
Approved by: 1
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator,
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF REZONING
Sycamore, L.L.C. and Lake Calvin Properties, L.L.C. (the "Property Owners") acquired the
properties which are the subject of this Rezoning Application in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
The properties were part of a 420 acre tract of land that was annexed into the City of Iowa City's
limits and jurisdiction on September 15, 1994.
The properties' annexation was the subject of lengthy negotiations between the Property
Owners and the City of Iowa City (the "City"), beginning in early 1992. The City desired to annex
the properties so that the newly constructed Wastewater Treatment Plant would be contiguous to
City limits; the annexation allowed the City to link that Plant's facilities to the City's corporate limits.
While the Property Owners initially opposed the annexation, through those negotiations, the City
and the Property Owners were able to reach a mutual agreement regarding the properties'
annexation as well as their future development.
Annexation of the properties was made possible through a series of bargained -for
considerations given between the parties. The City required the property owners to: (i) delineate
certain wetlands known as the "Snyder Creek Bottoms" and restrict those areas from
development; (ii) dedicate to the public a Conservation Easement protecting approximately 200
acres of the original tract from further development; and (iii) enter into a Conditional Zoning
Agreement for the development of the remaining property of the original tract. In return, the
Property Owners insisted that: (i) the City designate the properties with a RM -20 Multi -family
zoning designation; and (ii) the City give proper consideration for the Snyder Cree` Bottoms
wetlands. The City zoned the properties as ID -RM, Interim Development Mulbif o lily sidenti'al.
It classified the properties under the Interim Development designation because at"the'time of the
annexation, the properties were not served by adequate infrastructure and `40,rvice -namely a
suitable road. The City also gave the properties multi -family residential zor�i6g,•staW with -,the
understanding that the "ID" moniker would be removed once an adequate road`:construc4ted
to access the Properties. ;
The properties are now ripe for development under the City's Low Density Uulti-Family
Residential Zone (RM -12). Adequate infrastructure and services to the properties, including an
access road, is now feasible given the development of Sycamore Avenue and the construction of
Alexander Elementary School. The properties will be served by a street network that has improved
substantially since 1994. The Owners would be willing to enter into a Conditional Zoning
Agreement requiring the improvement of Lehman Road as a condition precedent to development
of the properties, but would expect equitable contribution for these road costs from adjoining
property owners and the City. Additionally, the properties are located adjacent to Pleasant Valley
Golf Course, the Iowa City Kickers Soccer Park, the protected wetlands area, and less than three
miles from the commercial corridor of Highway 6, providing them with ideal access to commercial
amenities, and City services and facilities. This zoning designation will provide this area with a
broader range of housing types, including "Missing Middle" housing, that is consistent with the
City's goal of providing affordable housing.
{00297010}
53
South District Plan Map
52
South District Plan Map Designations
Low to Medium Density Residential: Multi -Family
2-8 dwelling units/acre 12-24 dwelling units/acre
Intended primarily for detached single-family
housing. Duplexes are allowed on corner lots in
all single-family zones. In some areas attached
housing may be located along arterial streets or
adjacent to permanent open space. The resi-
dential density for a property should reflect the
nature of the site and take into account sensi-
tive environmental features, topographical con-
straints, street connectivity, and compatibility
with historical development patterns.
Low to Medium Mixed Residential:
8-13 dwelling units/acre
Intended for medium- to high- density single-
family residential development, including small
lot detached single-family units, zero lot line
development, duplexes, and townhouses. Suita-
ble for sites where a single loaded street is de-
sirable to provide visibility and access to public
open space, or where clustering is desirable to
protect sensitive environmental features. Low-
density multi -family residential may also be
considered if buildings are designed in a man-
ner that is compatible in scale and design to the
lower scale residential dwellings in the neigh-
borhood (e.g. triplexes and 4- or 6-plexes).
Higher density housing should be located at the
edges of neighborhoods, principally in areas
with good street connectivity, access to open
space or parks, trails, and transit.
Properties developed prior to 2015 may have
been established at higher densities, particular-
ly in neighborhoods close to Highway 6. The
"New Neighborhoods" section of the plan (page
18) includes language describing the density,
location, and design quality that will be part of
any rezoning to allow multi -family housing.
Higher -density zoning designations may not be
suitable for areas with topographical con-
straints or limited street connectivity or access.
Preferred locations for new multi -family devel-
opments are along main travel corridors or in-
tersections, especially near permanent open
space or adjacent to commercial development.
Commercial
Areas intended to provide the opportunity for a
large variety of commercial uses, particularly
retail commercial uses, which serve a major
segment of the community.
Mixed -Use
An area intended for development that com-
bines commercial and residential uses. Individu-
al buildings may be mixed-use or single -use.
Development is intended to be pedestrian -
oriented, with buildings oriented to the street
with sidewalks, street trees and other pedestri-
an amenities. Buildings with residential uses
should be designed to ensure a comfortable
and functional environment for urban living in
close proximity to commercial uses. The mix of
uses requires special consideration of building
and site design.
Public Institutional
Property that is publicly owned and used for a
public purpose, including public schools, and
City, County, State, and Federal offices or facili-
ties. If the property is proposed to be sold to a
private entity for a non-public use, then the
land should be rezoned to be compatible with
the surrounding neighborhood.
Public Parks/Open Space
Indicates existing or potential public open space
intended for the protection of sensitive natural
features, stormwater management, and/or to
provide for passive, active, recreational, or oth-
er public open space needs, and/or to protect
the aesthetic values of the community.*
Private Open Space
Indicates existing or potential open space on
private land that is important for the protection
of sensitive natural features and/or provides for
stormwater management, and/or for private,
shared passive or recreational opportunities for
adjacent properties, and/or to protect the aes-
thetic values of the community.*
*A public or private open space designation on land that is
not currently designated as open space may indicate that
an area is largely unsuitable for development due to envi-
ronmental or topographical constraints or may indicate
that an opportunity to acquire needed open space is pos-
sible if current land uses are discontinued. While these
areas are best reserved or acquired for open space, devel-
opment may occur on privately held land if a proposal
meets the underlying zoning requirements and the re-
quirements of the Iowa City Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
Anne Russett
From: ALEDA FEUERBACH <aleda@pleasantvalleyic.com>
Sent: Monday, November 4, 2019 9:49 AM
To: Anne Russett
Subject: REZ19-12 discussion for November 7, 2019
RISS{ ..
Good Morning Anne,
We own the property to the west of the proposed rezoning request.
I have read staff's comments on this proposal and would like to add our thoughts at this point.
We see development south of Iowa City as a real possibility, with the elementary school, Trueblood Park, Pleasant Valley
Golf Course and new homes to the north on Gilbert Street all nearby.
We would be concerned about continued water drainage from land to the proposed redevelopment land. We have
seen, with the existing development in the area ... and concrete that comes with it ... more and more issues with excess
water flowing to our creeks and lakes in the golf course, causing flooding and unplayable conditions on the golf course.
Our adjacent farm ground is higher than the proposed REZ19-12 ground ... and therefore we need to make sure that
water has a place to go without creating more flooding than we currently have on our property. Can we assume that
water from the east side of our farm ground will continue to flow into this discussed ground and into the city's
watershed area, so that we will not receive any more on the west side of our ground, or on the golf course property?
With development comes people, which is great ... but that can also mean more police and fire protection. Our golf
course is in the county, what kind of care and protection will be part of this development for us and our grounds?
We have a farm fence, in place, I wonder if that will be enough with the lure of a "park" close by to potential new
neighbors?
Just some concerns that we feel need to be considered as development approaches for us and you.
I would attend the meeting on the 7th, but we are out of town.
Thanks for keeping us in the loop.
Aleda
Aleda Kroeze Feuerbach
Pleasant Valley Golf Course and Properties
4390 Sand Road SE -- PO Box 3113
Iowa City, Iowa 52244
319-337-3119
Web site: wwwpleasantvalleyic.com
Anne Russett
From: Melissa Serenda <msserenda@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2019 1:34 PM
To: Anne Russett
Subject: Comments for REZ19-12 P&Z Commission meeting
A
Hi Anne --below are comments I'd like to submit for tomorrow's Planning & Zoning Commission meeting regarding the
rezoning request near the Sycamore Greenway, I will be unable to attend but I hope to provide input from an area
resident on the proposed changes.
I am writing regarding REZ19-12, the request for rezoning a parcel in south Iowa City from ID -RM and RR -1 to RM -12 for
the purpose of developing multifamily dwellings. As a resident of the South District and someone who spends a
significant amount of time on the Greenway trail, I wanted to take this opportunity to describe what the area means to
me and others in the neighborhood.
The Sycamore Greenway trail and the Sycamore Bottoms/wetlands near the area of proposed rezoning are treasures for
local residents and wildlife. In addition to providing a transportation option from the neighborhoods around Grant
Wood Elementary to Kickers Soccer Park, the trail is also an amazing opportunity for recreation by families and
individuals walking, running and biking while enjoying watching the summer meadowlarks singing or hearing the
raucous calls of the resident family of sandhill cranes who have made their home near the wetlands for many years.
Children stop to visit with snakes basking on the trail or turtles crossing the pavement. Lucky visitors may crest the hill
near the existing apartments and see a trumpeter swan idling in one of the ponds. The wetlands are a "birding hotspot"
where people can see a wide variety of birds passing through during migration, and the native prairie plants growing in
the retention cells along the trail offer beautiful displays throughout the seasons as well as food and homes for an array
of our native bees and insects.
All that is to say --this area is a wonderful resource for residents of the South District. I would ask that any plans for
rezoning and development in this sensitive area take into account the importance of the existing habitat and the fact
that once that habitat is replaced with houses or apartments --it is gone forever.
I understand that development of these few remaining open spaces is inevitable. But any development must be required
to respect the existing habitat and provide adequate buffers to preserve the visual appeal of the trail as well as
minimizing the impact on local wildlife. I don't believe that a rezoning to allow multifamily dwellings adjacent to the
wetlands area would be in accord with these values.
Thank you for your attention to the South District, and for helping us grow in a sustainable way that allows us to
preserve the natural areas that make our neighborhood so special.
Melissa Serenda
Iowa City, IA
- mss
A few of my favorite things:
Sycamore Greenway Friends
Bur Oak Land Trust
Iowa Master Naturalists
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 9 of 31
off the access from Gilbert Street his concerns are largely resolved
Parson agreed it will be a huge improvement.
Signs agreed as well that it is nice to see improvements like this on Gilbert Street. He also noted
he goes to the Kum & Go on Riverside Drive and Benton Street a lot and their parking lot is
pretty full most of the times he is there.
Martin is excited about the improved walkability of this area, she loves the Riverfront Crossings
overlay, she is still hesitant on the need for additional parking for that particular business
because as Hensch mentioned impervious surfaces and that is something to think about. She
wants everyone to think about the big picture and that they are moving forward thoughtfully.
Noise, pollution, light pollution are a very big deal and the business owners need to take that to
heart as there is more and more residential in that area and need to be thoughtful of that moving
forward.
Baker asked when this goes before the Board of Adjustment do they have the right to impose a
condition of approval to prohibit the use of exterior amplified music. Russett does not believe so,
the Board of Adjustment is tasked with reviewing the proposed project based on the criteria that
are in the Code. Hekteon would like to review the specific criteria before commenting and can let
Baker know.
Signs wondered if Kum & Go has experienced with permeable pavement. Hensch agreed and
hoped as Kum & Go design this site they are mindful to create as much pervious surface as
possible.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
CASE NO. REZ19-12:
Applicant: Pugh Hagan Prahm PLC
Location: Lehman Avenue and Soccer Park Road
An application submitted by Pugh Hagan Prahm PLC for a rezoning from Interim Development -
Multi -Family (ID -RM) and Rural Residential (RR -1) to Low Density Multi- Family (RM -12) for
approximately 42.01 acres of land located south of Lehman Avenue and east of Soccer Park
Road.
Russet began the staff report showing the project site, it is located south of Lehman Avenue and
east of Soccer Park Road. It's surrounded by Interim Development zones and the Sycamore
Greenway to the east. In 1994 this area was voluntary annexed as part of 422 -acre Sycamore
Farms annexation, and upon annexation the majority area was rezone to ID -RM and a small
portion around three and a half acres was rezone to RR -1 with the conservation easement. In
2015, the landowners submitted a rezoning application to RM -20, which is a medium density
multifamily zone and the Commission and the City Council voted to deny the application. The
property owners sued the City and the courts ruled that the owners were not entitled to any
particular zoning classification. The applicants have submitted a rezoning application now to RM -
12 which allows for high density single family and low-density multifamily development. The zone
is intended to provide a diverse variety of housing options such as detached and attached single
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 10 of 31
family, duplexes and multi family. Careful attention to site and building design is important in this
zone to ensure compatibility of variety of housing types, and based on the maximum density
allowed in the zoning district the project site could potentially get 670 dwelling units at a
maximum on the project site.
Russett stated in terms of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, this is within the South
District. This area is designated low medium density single family residential on the southern
portion of the site. On the northern part of the site its designated low medium density mixed
residential. The compatible zoning designation to these land use designations would include a
mix of single-family zones and some multifamily near Lehman Avenue if assurances were made
that the development would not result in larger scale multifamily buildings that are not compatible
with lower scale housing types. Russett stated the low medium density single family residential
land use designation allows the density of between two and eight dwelling units per acre. It's
intended primarily for single family development. However duplexes on corner lots would be
allowed and attached housing would be considered if it's located along an arterial or adjacent to
permanent open space. The low medium density mixed residential land use designation allows a
density between 8 and 13 dwelling units per acre. This land use designation is intended for small
lot detached single family zero -lot lines, duplexes and townhome development. Low density
multifamily may be considered if designed to be compatible with lower scale residential buildings.
Russett stated the proposed zoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The RM -12
zone allows for larger scale multifamily buildings which is not envisioned by the South District
Plan land use map. Furthermore, the Plan includes policies that encourage compact and
contiguous development and the proposed rezoning would create a large concentration of
multifamily without access to goods, services and transit.
In terms of infrastructure and services the closest transit stop is approximately one and a half
miles to the north. In addition, Lehman Avenue is not built to City standards. The portion of
Lehman Avenue between Sycamore Street and Soccer Park Road is chip seal, and east of
Soccer Park Road it's gravel.
Russett stated the role of the Commission is to determine whether this rezoning complies with
the Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with existing neighborhood character.
Regarding next steps, after the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation this
will be forwarded to City Council for a public hearing.
Staff does recommend that the application submitted by Pugh Hagan Prahm PLC for rezoning
from ID -M and RR -1. to low density multifamily RM -12 be denied.
Parsons asked if staff has received anything regarding concept plans or a vision for what would
be built on the site. Russett replied no.
Martin asked who owns the property directly to the west. Russett is unsure who the property
owner is.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 11 of 31
Hensch noted the nearest bus stop this proposed area is closer to the school. Russett said it is
further north than that within the neighborhood to the north. Hensch asked where the nearest
commercial area where somebody could buy a loaf of bread or get a cup of coffee. Russett said
it would be up by Gilbert Street and Highway 6.
Signs asked Russett to recap the two land use designations that are suggested in the
Comprehensive Plan and what they would allow for sure. Russett stated the first land use
designation is low medium density single family which envisions primarily single-family
development at a density of two to eight dwelling units per acre, but also would consider
duplexes on corner lots and attached housing if it's located along in arterial or adjacent to
permanent open space. The low medium density mixed residential land use designation to the
northern end of the project site envisions a density range of between 8 and 13 dwelling units per
acre, which would be small lot single families zero -lot lines, duplexes, townhomes and potentially
low density multifamily if it's compatible with lower scale housing types.
Hensch asked if on the capital improvement plan for the City is there anything in the next five
years for the improvement of Lehman Avenue. Russett replied no. Hensch noted then if the
applicant wasn't prepared to shoulder that cost and the City would have to pay that cost and it's
not in the plan. Russett confirmed that is correct and typically the City requires the developer to
make and pay for the improvements.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Steve Gordon (4078 Buckingham Lane) is representing the owner of the property noted to
understand this application its best to review when it all started back in 1994, to understand the
annexation, the scope of that annexation, why the ID -RM zoning is significant, and why at that
time it was chosen both by the City and the landowner. The City needed this ground in order to
build the treatment plant down in the area contiguous to city limits so at the time the annexation
was important to both parties, and negotiations were done and commitments were made by both
sides. The owners committed to put almost half of the of the land, the 420 acres that was
annexed in, into a conservation easement to preserve natural areas resources and habitat.
Because of that it was crucial that the rest of the property be zoned properly to make sure that
the entire project was feasible and sustainable. The owners also committed to dedicate 15 acres
for a potential school site if needed, maintain and enhance certain wetlands that are in the area,
restrict farming on certain ground in the area, dedicate land for arterial streets, install
infrastructure as needed to ensure connectivity through their development and future
developments in the area. Gordon stated the owners have met those commitments that were
made back then and continue to do so to this day. The City on their side committed to certain
zoning for each parcel and that was part again of a larger vision for the feasibility of the project.
This parcel as indicated was zoned ID -RM, ID -RS was available at the time, R-1 was available at
the time, but that zoning was not selected by either parties as it was agreed to and decided that
the land to be zoned ID -RM and the City committed to that for a reason and the owners
committed to that for a reason.
Gordon noted this is not a 40 acre site sitting in a vacuum, as mentioned, it's part of an integral
part of a 420 acre development and land that was annexed into the City with over 200 acres put
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 12 of 31
into green space, open space, conservation easement, natural habitat for all to enjoy. The
remaining land was carefully rezoned as part of that bigger project. The RM zoning on this piece
of ground is so integral in fact that the owners actually pulled the annexation when there was
issues about not being able to get this piece of ground zoned multifamily RM, but again, because
it was important to both sides negotiations were done and the determination was to zone it a ID -
RM. At that time infrastructure was not in the area so the ID -RM designation was done and the
annexation went through.
Gordon noted several things in the staff report to be discussed including the Comprehensive
Plan, development character of the surrounding neighborhood and the adequacy of infrastructure
services to serve the proposed density. The South District Plan contains a future land map that
shows zoning use that is different than what the parties negotiated during the annexation years
ago. If the owners had known at the time that they and the City could negotiate in good faith a
CZA and a RM zone only to have the City be able to negate that through a comprehensive plan
process they would not move forward with the annexation process. They needed the multifamily
zoning to have the density to offset the over 200 acres that they agreed to not develop and put
into a conservation easement. In addition, Gordon cannot think of another instance where the
City had an ID -RM zoning has been reduced to a lower density than multifamily when the ID
designation was dropped. With respect to the compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods,
Gordon feels the property is an ideal location for higher density development. Directly to the
north is a multifamily development, directly to the east is 200 acres of permanent open space,
walking trails and nature areas, directly to the south is a public amenity along with a park, and to
the west there's a new elementary school and another large city park. Additionally the area is
less than two miles from the main commercial corridor in Iowa City. In fact, this rezoning is
entirely compatible with the surrounding neighborhood as it is simply part of the overall
Saddlebrook development. When viewed in that context, it makes sense, Saddlebrook includes
apartments, condominiums, townhomes, mixed use buildings, single family homes and duplexes.
Currently there are nearly 150 undeveloped platted lots for single family homes that they are
continuing to develop and work on as well as nearly 50 additional acres that is not platted but is
zoned RS -8 for single family. Gordon stated it is entirely possible to rezone this land to
multifamily as was intended and not disrupt a future land use map with mostly single-family
development. The bulk of what remains to be developed in Saddlebrook will be developed as
single-family homes, therefore, if the City truly wants to encourage diversity of housing options
rezoning this property as multifamily would be appropriate.
Gordon notes staff references that this development would be built without adequate
infrastructure, access to goods and services, and transit. Sycamore Street has been improved
and extended to the intersection adjacent to Lehman Avenue. Water and sewer are located
adjacent to the property. Existing infrastructure here is hardly difficult as the City could assess
part of the cost of improving Lehman Road to the owners and the applicants absorb some itself
as is typical with this type of infrastructure and assess private landowners along the improves
portions and when they choose to rezone and develop their property, assess them again.
Gordon noted this happens all the time and is standard practice. In addition, improving Lehman
Road would benefit the City as there would be improved access to the to the soccer park and for
the many families that use that park and City staff that use that area. Gordon commented it is
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 13 of 31
interesting that the City feels the infrastructure is sufficient for access to the soccer park with its
many families each year using that, but not sufficient for residential development in this area.
The staff report also claims that it would be difficult to extend bus service to the area. Given that
service is not in every neighborhood in the City this should not be a disqualifying statement. The
report also states the limited street network would make access for police and fire protection less
than ideal. Gordon noted it is unclear how that would be the case given the ability of those
vehicles to access Alexander Elementary without any issue and with improvements from
Sycamore to Lehman to the property there should be no issue with this whatsoever. The staff
report also references that the application doesn't comply with compact and contiguous
development. Again, there's nothing more compact than multifamily development. In addition,
this is continuous contiguous development as it is part of the entire Saddlebrook development
and is adjacent to the protected open space and existing multifamily housing. The staff report
refers to a desire to encourage a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods and again,
given that most of the remaining development within Saddlebrook is single family development
allowing multifamily here actually meets that goal quite well. Staff mentions that the property is
on the far outskirts of the City, Gordon contents it is their feeling it is no farther in the outskirts
then several recently approved projects on Herbert Hoover Highway or Taft Avenue. Clearly it is
not uncommon for the City to approve developments that leapfrog other undeveloped ground
and are on chip and seal roads. Gordon reiterated the bottom line is that this request is to
remove the interim zoning designation, any issues with development and access to the property
would be solved during the planning and site plan stages of the process.
Finally, Gordon wanted to address is affordable housing. A few nights ago the City had an
election and every candidate running made affordable housing a very important issue.
Additionally every one of the current Council members also made affordable housing a priority
when they ran and they continue to make it so as they sit on the council today. Gordon noted
countless staff hours, 10s of thousands of dollars have been spent on consultants and millions of
dollars have been put towards creating and maintaining affordable housing in this area and that
is that is very commendable and has made a huge difference in this city. However, public dollars
used to subsidize housing can only go so far. Giving the private sector the tools it needs to fill
that gap and create housing that is affordable is the only long term sustainable economic
solution. Every consultant that has been hired to look at housing challenges in Iowa City has said
that one of the major roadblocks is lack of higher density zoned land. Higher density in the
Riverfront Crossing District and in the City core are not the only areas where higher density can
and should exist. There are certain people that do not want to live in these areas and want to live
elsewhere and need this type of housing. Another frequent conversation is with respect to the
missing middle housing. Gordon notes they have been building missing middle housing since
before it was in style. The missing middle includes duplexes, townhomes, courtyard apartments
and multiplexes, and there are all those types of housings inside Saddlebrook. Gordon stated
they aren't asking to build single family homes or mid -rise buildings on this property, which are
the types of housing that are outside of the definition of missing middle. As he mentioned, they
had many lots platted and acres available for more single family, they want to build affordable
missing middle housing, they want to add to the property tax base of the City and they want to
continue the vision they had for Saddlebrook development since the time it was annexed into the
City.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 14 of 31
Gordon notes the staff reports seems to infer 369 units could be possible on this property after
set asides for infrastructure and whatnot. Gordon invites everyone to drive through Saddlebrook.
The density in the developed areas of Saddlebrook is the same as the density that they are
proposing for this piece of ground. He would like to know why the Saddlebrook development
density there would be inappropriate for this piece of ground. In Saddlebrook they have over 500
homes and each of them meets the definition of affordable housing, whether they are rentals or
owner occupied, every home is affordable to working families in this community. One can buy a
house in that neighborhood for as little as $100,000 or rent a three-bedroom home for $1100. If
workforce housing that is affordable to working families is truly a priority then Gordon believes
everyone should work together to create more of it in the community. The vision of Saddlebrook
started 25 years ago with this 400 plus acre annexation into the City. The City had certain needs
and made certain commitments to meet their needs. Gordon reiterated they had certain zoning
and density needs to meet reasonable investment goals and to be able to realize this vision and
bring needed housing to this community. They have stayed true to the commitments they made
and have met their obligations to date. They are asking the City to allow them to continue to
provide valuable housing resources to the working families of Iowa City.
Hensch stated he does support the affordable housing, he asked if they would be offering below
market rate rentals or purchases there or is everything going to be market rate. Gordon replied
what he perceives market rate is that it's not a subsidized project with some sort of program and
it's built by the private sector and then rented or sold. The price that it's rented or sold for will
depend on what's built in the in the market at that time. Obviously, the more density there is in a
certain location, that tends to lead to pricing that is below the average for the area or affordable
to those making at or less in the area median income. Gordon noted as an example within the
Saddlebrook development it is clean, nice quality development but because there's a little more
density there, the rents can and are lower and the prices can be and are lower and thus fall
within the definition of affordable looking at the area median income. So with the zoning they are
requesting, it would be conceivable that the variety of product that would be built over a large
number of years would tend to be probably under the average of other property in the City
because of the potentially higher density that that would be allowed.
Hensch mentioned the road improvement, he's been on the Commission for five years and is
trying to think of a time when they would have relied on a special assessment on adjacent
property owners and can't come up with one. He asked if there was any reason the developer
wouldn't just pay the cost of the improvements. Gordon doesn't believe it's really a special
assessment. For example they just developed a property called Sycamore Trails and one of the
costs they had was an assessment for the cost of Sycamore Street down to the corner.
Sycamore Street was improved before the land along there was developed. One of their costs
was a per acre cost for that road and then the road was built, funded by the City and reimbursed
as development came into that area and accessed that road. Gordon noted future development
is going to use that road and would pay for it. He believes it done that quite regularly. He noted
the earlier application tonight regarding American Legion Road, if that road is improved before
that application earlier tonight comes in with a development plan they won't be asked to pay for it
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 15 of 31
at that point, but when they come in with their development plan they'll be a fee to access
American Legion Road.
Martin asked why the applicant wants to develop that swath right there, they are talking about
Saddlebrook having more single-family homes that need to be developed over to the east and
further north, so why the leap -frog development. Gordon replied this is the southernmost piece
of their property and they do not own the property to the west, that's owned by the Kruse family.
He stated they have single family ground up to the north quite a ways and then between this
property and that property is all the open space, the 200 acres that has been set aside and
cannot be developed. Therefore this property is contiguous with where they've already
developed in Saddlebrook, there is just the 200 acres of open space in between.
Martin asked about the overall project and how it helps the missing middle? Gordon stated
Saddlebrook is off Heinz Road, he would consider that missing middle and a higher density area
that's all been developed, they are done developing there. Now they are starting to develop to
the west, and that will be all single-family homes, some has been developed and there is also
some bare ground there that zoned RS -8, so that's all single family zoned, and not zoned for
missing middle or higher density. Then to the south is the 200 acres set aside as the
conservation area, then Sycamore apartments which are already there, developed as another
multifamily zone, that's all developed out, there's no more land there. Therefore this application is
the next piece, the southernmost end of the property.
Signs asked if he is correct that this is also close to the southernmost boundary of the City of
Iowa City. Gordon confirmed the southernmost boundary the City of Iowa City is the soccer park
and the treatment plant which is right south of this property. Signs stated then no one is going to
be going any farther south with residential construction. Gordon said not at this point, if the City
expanded to the south there would be the park and the treatment plan in between this property
and any development to the south. He added to the east cannot be develop because it's the
conservation easement and to the north is already developed. There's a piece of ground to the
west owned by the Kruse family, and then is the school and the Lehman property which will be
developed as that area grows. Signs asked if he is correct that west of the Kruse property is the
Pleasant Valley golf course. Gordon confirmed that was correct but that's not in the City limits,
the City limits ends at the Kruse property.
Baker stated Gordon is not asserting that the City owes you this zoning. Gordon responded that
they feel it was negotiated in good faith at the time the ID designation was put on it because at
the time, 25 years ago, there was nothing down there, no road, no sewer. Actually, this
annexation allowed the sewer plant to be built to bring the sewer to that area. Their
understanding at that time and those negotiations was that the RM was the zoning they had and
the ID was a placeholder until infrastructures were place. Baker thought those issues were
settled in court. Gordon stated what they feel is the right thing to do and what was negotiated in
fairness versus the court thing might be two different answers. Baker noted they are asserting
tonight is that the factors justify this rezoning regardless of any history. Gordon stated there are
a lot of current factors that they feel is an appropriate piece of ground for the zoning they are
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 16 of 31
requesting. He acknowledged there is also a lot of history in the development as a whole that
would show that this is the appropriate zoning for this piece of ground as an entire development.
Baker had one other small observation, he agrees Gordon is absolutely right about the emphasis
on bus accessibility, he also feels staff is putting too much weight on that as a factor. It is his
experience with transportation issues that once a demand develops, they will find a way to
access that. That being said, Baker asked if there is any other process other than a straight
rezoning which would involve negotiation between the City and the property owners to achieve
the same goal with concessions and contributions by the developer and concessions by the City
such as some sort of planned overlay to resolve some of these issues.
Russett replied it would still be a rezoning process. Staff has conveyed to the applicant they are
willing to work with them on trying to get to a point where staff's comfortable with recommending
approval and the applicant is comfortable with the concept. As of now, they haven't gotten to
that point.
Hekteon pointed out that this Comprehensive Plan was in the process of being approved at the
time the last zoning application was made. At the time the last zoning application was made, staff
pointed out that the application for RM -20 was not consistent with the existing Comprehensive
Plan nor this Comprehensive Plan so these same arguments were being made at the time that
this current Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Hekteon added despite the arguments that were
being made by the owners this is the plan that P&Z and Council did approve.
Signs asked if the current Comprehensive Plan in place when the annexation of this property
occurred. Hekteon replied no and stated the first South District Comprehensive Plan was
adopted after the annexation occurred, so it's been adopted and then amended since 1994.
Gordon added he believes the first Comprehensive Plan in this area was done in 1997, which
was a few years after the annexation, and at that time the Comprehensive Plan was not
compatible or didn't match the ID -RM zoning in this area. He doesn't believe that whether they
were not aware or what the reasoning was there was not any discussion or talk by the owners
that it might be an issue, the owners felt the RM designation meant something. Then in the last
round, in 2015, Gordon recognized the issue and the challenge that it might produce and they
did come to the public hearings and reiterate their thought that this was not right and it should be
a different color in the in the Comprehensive Plan because of the ID -RM zoning and of course,
did not prevail in those arguments and then proceeded with our last rezoning.
Mike Pugh (425 E. Oakdale Blvd) spoke on behalf of the property owner. He acknowledged hey
have been before this Commission both on previous rezoning applications and before the
Commission on participating in the South District Plan for about four or five years and if nothing
else they are persistent. Pugh would like the Commission to consider the interplay between the
intended future zoning that the ID -RM zoning reflects and the South District Plan map that is
inconsistent with that zoning. The question he would like for the Commission to consider is how
important the South District Plan is, specifically the future land use map that is included with that
plan, and the colors on the map and determine whether or not those colors on the map should
take precedent over the future use as reflected in the ID -RM zoning designation. The part of the
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 17 of 31
City Code that talks about interim development zoning states that the interim development zone
is established to provide for areas of managed growth in which agricultural and other non -urban
uses of land may continue until such time as the City is able to provide city services and urban
development can occur. The interim development zone is the default zoning district to which all
undeveloped areas should be classified until city services are provided. Pugh noted in this case
it's taken several years but they believe they are at the point now where the services can be
provided to the property and the ID designation can be dropped. There is water and sewer
adjacent to the property, there's a new school near it, the property is adjacent to City owned
utility and recreational facilities, it's adjacent to a trail system and considerable open space.
Sycamore Street has been improved to a location very near the property in the intervening road
could easily be improved. Pugh added to Mr. Gordon's comment, he has been involved in
several subdivisions around Iowa City and Windsor West came in, was subdivided, and the
developer had to contribute a future cost to American Legion Road. The applicant that was here
tonight when they did that project on the corner of American Legion and Scott had to contribute
for future costs of American Legion Road. When Arlington Development did the project around
St. Pat's, they had to contribute to a cost of Lower West Branch Road which actually had already
been constructed. So it happens quite frequently and they see Lehman Avenue being improved
could be done the same way that when property comes in and gets developed, the associated
property owners and the adjacent property owners contribute toward that road. In addition, the
other section of the interim development code under the zoning designations provide for several
different designations of interim development. Those include interim development single family
residential, IR -S, interim development multifamily residential, ID -RM, which is what the
application property is zoned, interim development commercial, ID -C, interim development
industrial, ID -I, and interim development research park, ID -RP. Pugh stated the key language
they feel in the Code then goes on to say to reflect the intended future use of the property
according to the Comprehensive Plan as amended. ID -RS zoning was available back when this
property was annexed and both the City and the developers did not choose this particular zone
for this property. Pugh said it is very clear to him that as a result of the annexation process, both
the City and the developers intended for this property to be developed as multifamily someday,
and we believe that day is now. The primary basis in the staff report for the staff
recommendation for denial is that the application is inconsistent with a future land use map
contained in the South District Plan. That map is included in the Commission's staff report, it's a
colored map. Russett send Pugh a letter soon after they submitted the application commenting
on the application and the primary reason, the only reason given, is that it wasn't consistent with
the colored map. Pugh reiterated at one time he participated back in 2015 in the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan and stood before this Commission and made arguments that the map as it
was colored at that point was inconsistent with the zoning on the property and what they believed
to be their agreement with the City made back in 1994. Pugh stated they were told at the time
that the map is just a map, it is just a guideline, that the colors don't really mean much other than
it's a general guideline to how those properties could be developed and that the Commission and
the City Council did not have the resources or the information to develop the map and essentially
rezone all of the property in that District to those specific zoning designations that are reflected
on the map. Pugh believes that was a true statement, that the zoning map and the colors on the
map are just a mere guideline, just suggested zoning for the area. Therefore, they believe the
selection of ID -RM here was intentional, the parties did not choose it at random, they chose it
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 18 of 31
because it allowed the owners to set aside land for conservation but not lose the density they
needed to make the project economical and allow the City to protect wetlands and other areas
for conservation. Yet despite having negotiated for multifamily on this property, the primary
reason given for an unfavorable recommendation is that the future land use scenario map shows
the properties future land use is mostly low medium density single-family residential and low
medium density mixed residential. Pugh noted the owners had spent years negotiating the
annexation to obtain the ID -RM zoning designation, the RM portion of that designation reflects
the intended future use of the property. They believe the intended use of the property as
reflected by that zoning designation takes precedence over a map in the South District Plan.
Pugh reiterated the bottom line is that the request and the application is basically just to remove
the ID designation from the zoning. At RM -12 it's not going to have 600 and some units in it
when you include easements and streets and everything else, he stated it is more likely going to
be in the 300 to 350 units range. Again this development provides a variety of housing stock,
which is really the intention of the RM -12 zone.
In response to Mr. Bakers question to Mr. Gordon and to Russett about getting together and
talking about some sort of concept that would meet the needs of both the City and the property
owner, they went through that process about four or five years ago and got some initial feedback
from City staff at the time that they would be supportive for around 400 new units on the
property. Therefore, Mr. Gordon and his team went to work with some engineers on some
concepts with some higher density multifamily housing right adjacent to the wetlands area, some
townhomes right along Lehman Boulevard and single family and duplexes butted up against the
Kruse property with some open space down by the sewer treatment plan. When that concept
was submitted they received a straight denial, no give and take, no nothing, it looked very much
like the staff report today. Pugh acknowledged the property owners are always open to
discussion, but to be honest, they've been through that process and don't want to waste their
time doing it again. Pugh thinks the form -based code has a possibility of passing, the developers
around the area have analyzed it to see if it's even going to provide for affordable housing and
noted there are concepts for missing middle type housing that are actually fairly expensive on a
square foot basis. It provides for a variety of housing stock but it's not necessarily affordable
housing. Pugh would argue that this property owner is the largest provider of affordable housing
in Iowa City, as in the Saddlebrook development which is a fantastic development, and they
should be allowed to develop this property as what they agreed to do back in 1994 when it was
annexed in.
Baker asked for some clarification on the statement that five years ago they were led to believe
by staff at that time that approximately 400 units would be a reasonable target. Pugh confirmed
that was correct, and they submitted a concept plan and were told no. Baker noted Russett was
not on staff five years ago, he wasn't on the Commission, most of the current members weren't
on the Commission.
Signs stated he was in the audience at the 2015 meeting. Dyer, Martin, Hensch and Parsons
were on the Commission at that time.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 19 of 31
Baker noted every once in a while the Commission gets told "we were told A but B happened" so
he is trying to learn if that did indeed happen.
Hekteon noted there was an application for an RM -20 rezoning made in 2015 that was denied,
since that and the litigation that was appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court, there has
been no application for any other rezoning or concept plan consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan since it was re -adopted, amended in 2015. She noted any of this kind of conversation
would have been had prior to the last zoning application and prior to this Comprehensive Plan
being approved.
Pugh contested that is not entirely accurate, it wasn't a formal application, they had their
rezoning application turned down by P&Z, they then held the application from going to Council
and met with staff and got some preliminary positive feedback. They didn't actually run the
application before Council for several months while they went through this process of working on
a rough concept plan that the engineers put together, and then informally presented it to staff
and receive feedback they were not supportive of that with no real feedback of what they would
support. It was then at that point they put the application before Council, so it wasn't a formal
rezoning application, it was informal discussions with city staff.
Cordell Braverman (4325 Nursery Ln SE) is a neighbor of this proposed project to the south, he
is the county but his land does surround the water treatment plant and the soccer park. He owns
240 acres down there which he farms. From his perspective on this proposal, the densitys
involved seem fairly seem reasonable to him. Outside of the 200 acres Mr. Gordon was
referencing within the City that has been given to a conservation easement, to the east is a
neighbor, an elderly farmer who's retired and rents the ground out, but with his low land and
another 80 acre piece directly to the east in a permanent wetland easement, all of that ground is
kind of wet and will probably never have any significant density development on it. In a
topography sense the ground that the applicant is trying to get the zoning on and the one next to
it is higher ground and then there are the soccer fields and it keeps coming down and there will
be a lot of open ground the south of this for forever. Therefore if anyone is worried about over
densifying that Southern part it really could be a density transfer because it's going to be open
forever, there's not much one can do with much of that land. Overall Braverman feels this was a
reasonable proposal for the densities involved and less then what was originally proposed. So as
a neighbor it doesn't concern him.
Ousainou Keita stated he has been a resident of Iowa City for about 15 years and noted a little
bit of affordable housing was mentioned in the Saddlebrook group development. Keita bought his
first house in that development and lived there for the past 14 years. He is one of the owners of
the manufactured home in the development and now on the west side of him it is all developed,
when he moved in there it was all farmland. Keita stated last Sunday they did a dedication of a
couple of houses that were built by Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity. They were built for two
members of his community, the Muslim community. These are families who will never dream of
owning a home if not for this opportunity. So as a benefactor and as he has seen it continue to
benefit people who are getting affordable housing, the Saddlebrook development has really
contributed to affordable housing and he believes they will continue to do so.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 20 of 31
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend approval of REZ19-12 an application submitted by Pugh
Hagan Prahm PLC for a rezoning from Interim Development -Multi -Family (ID -RM) and
Rural Residential (RR -1) to Low Density Multi- Family (RM -12) for approximately 42.01
acres of land located south of Lehman Avenue and east of Soccer Park Road.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Hensch reminded everyone that motions must be made in the affirmative, therefore the motion is
for approval.
Signs noted the applicants are clients of his occasionally in the real estate world, he is one of
many realtors they use to sell their various properties. He was also in the audience and spoke to
the Commission and the City Council, the last time this came before the Commission and the
City Council. Signs believes since his comments are public records he doesn't see a need to
recuse himself.
Hekteon asked if Signs can be unbiased in his consideration of this application? Signs stated his
opinions have not changed. Hekteon asked if Signs is biased when considering this application?
Signs confirmed he is not, it falls very much with his entire wheelhouse around affordable
housing and and he lives on the south side and has been involved with the South Side
Development plan.
Townsend asked about the statement of support for rezoning, the 1994 document, she is having
a problem understanding what was agreed to or why what came out of it is now not happening.
What is the reason for denying that? Russett replied the reason for denying the request for
rezoning in 2015 was very similar to the recommendation before the Commission tonight that it
was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Townsend stated then the Comprehensive
Plan annulled the agreement. Hekteon explained there was no agreement in 1994, that's what
the court said, there was no agreement for any future land use designation. Any consideration of
a zoning application has to be made in the context of the Comprehensive Plan that exists on the
day that decision is made. The zoning power is a police power that needs to be made after you
give consideration to public health, safety and welfare, and so that kind of decision can't be
contracted away. The Council in 1994 couldn't bind the Council in 2019 to make a certain zoning
decision because circumstances change, public needs change, situations change. It is against
public policy to bind a future Council to a specific zoning decision. The courts recognize that and
reviewed the record that the property owners presented and that the City presented and they
said they see nothing in this record that guaranteed any zoning designation. Regardless of the
fact that this is ID -RM that doesn't guarantee an RM designation, it doesn't guarantee any
designation at any particular point in time because of those factors she just described.
Therefore, despite what the applicant continues to argue the courts have very clearly disagreed
with their arguments that they've made here tonight and that they made back in 2015.
Townsend stated although in good faith the applicant had the 2000 plus acres that they
negotiated at that time. Hekteon stated what they negotiated for was an ID -RM designation, it
was not for RM -12. That's what the courts have concluded.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 21 of 31
Signs asked if there could have been a CZA written at the time in 1994, included a designation of
a zoning for future use. Hekteon said it could not, it would be a contract zoning situation that
would be binding a future Council to do this. She reiterated no one can take away Councils
authority to adopt comprehensive plans and respond to community needs in the in the zoning
context.
Hensch noted he likes the future land use map, he feels it is more than just colors on a map, it is
a direction of where the people of Iowa City want to development to occur because it's
developed with the input of all the citizens of Iowa City. He understands the previous
communication errors, but feels the history is not relevant now because the court has decided.
Lastly he noted it's unfortunate that a middle ground can't be negotiated and reached between
City staff and the developers because he's very pro -development for this area and wants to see
it happen. He just thinks the density is wrong for this area and agrees with the City staff
recommendations.
Parsons stated with this application there is a lack of concept and vision on what is going to go
here. He noted a lot can be done with Rm-12 that probably wouldn't go well for this area so he is
not comfortable with supporting this.
Signs stated again this situation is consistent with so many things he champions as a resident of
South Side and advocate for affordable housing. He won't go into the history with the exception
of saying the landowner agreed to a voluntary annexation and agreed to dedicate 200 acres into
a conservation zone and to think that there was no expectation that there would need to be
adjustment made to make up for the loss of development on that 240 acres five years ago and
today seems a little bit of a stretch. Signs noted this is a piece of ground that sits next to a
swamp, next to a sewage treatment plant, surrounded by land as the one neighbor indicated,
there's probably not going to be a whole lot more going on beyond this point. The idea that
somebody wants to build a $400,000 house next to a swamp and a sewer plant doesn't make
sense to him as a realtor looking at the market, looking at what people in $400,000 houses
expect of their neighborhood. The applicant mentions the diversity of housing, the affordability of
housing, the South Side Plan. When the South Side Plan was being revised he spoke to the fact
that plan doesn't have much diversity in it at all, is very vastly made up of single family homes. If
the City for years has had a plan of wanting to diversify areas of town, wanting to spread the
affordability around, and yet we prepared a plan that didn't do that.
Signs next discussed the whole plan and the guidelines. As he has said many times before, he
sees a comprehensive plan as a vision, not as a bible. And many times, this Commission and the
City Council have made decisions that didn't follow the Comprehensive Plan exactly because
things change. He noted the Comprehensive Plan is reaching the 10 years, that's a lot of time in
the history of Iowa City, and in the priorities of affordable housing, of missing middle, of a lot of
things that we are doing today that we probably maybe didn't even comprehend 10 years ago.
The IC -2013 plan is what he is discussing. However, when the South District Plan was
developed there were many public hearings held, Signs attended all but one of them because
the one he didn't attend he wasn't invited to because staff knew that his comments weren't
consistent with what they were proposing. He was purposely not invited to that meeting and that
has been confirmed to him by a staff member. Signs stated there were a lot of things that were
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 22 of 31
talked about that didn't end up in the South District Plan, so again to see that as a bible, an
immutable document that can't be finessed is a fallacy.
Signs state this is a piece of land surrounded by nothing that's going to be developed in the
future. It's not like it's going anywhere, it is landlocked, nothing will be developed around it with
the exception of the piece on the other side is Soccer Park Road, which he thinks should be the
zone the same way. Signs stated this is a piece of land that is perfect. The other thing to look at
is the conservation zone and today it is often the case where one gets density transfers due to
conservation zones. That's is what the applicant did in 1994, they gave up 200 some acres of
land to preserve it, in exchange to believe that the other land would be zoned dense enough to
make up for the cost of that 240 acres being donated. That is now part of City policy,
conservation zoning and density transfer. As a resident of South Side, Signs feels this is one of
the few areas where the potential for affordable housing development is ever going to happen.
It's not going to happen out on East Court Street, it's not going to happen over by Camp Cardinal
Road, it's not going to happen up on the north side because they've turned it down before. This
is one of the few areas in town that has the ability and potential of ever being developed as
affordable with more affordable housing, and yet we're saying no, we were saying we want single
family houses there. In 2015 it was said they wanted $300,000 and $400,000 house there, but
that's not going to happen. Signs lives on the south side and he knows that some of the newer
construction that he has sold down that area hasn't passed the appraisals because the appraiser
doesn't see the value of that side of town.
Signs noted regarding infrastructure he likes the applicant's idea of treating it like a tap -on -fee
because that's really what it is. To extend public services, which are almost there now, you have
a developer who's willing to bear the initial cost of doing that, with the idea that they get
reimbursed by the other folks who will benefit from it. Back in 2015 the comment was made that
we don't do that in the city of Iowa City and yet someone at that point pointed out that that's
exactly what happened with the Peninsula development, the infrastructure was ran to that area
and the future development paid for it.
Hekteon noted the comment was the City doesn't do special assessments and that is an
accurate statement. Additionally, in this case the extension of Lehman is not in our capital
improvements plan and that is where the City starts collecting the tap -on -fee, although that is not
exactly how we describe it. Signs noted developers offered to do that. Hekteon explained what
they were describing tonight was that the City would front the costs and the developer would
contribute their 12.5% which is the standard contribution for arterial streets but it's not in City
plans right now. Signs noted he doesn't think the applicant has fully developed their plans right
now, they're looking at this as the first step to allowing them to get there.
Signs also noted regarding the use of this area that is in yellow on the map, there is basically a
driveway to a soccer park going right to the middle, so again he goes back to compatibility with
expensive single-family homes and that doesn't jive to him.
Martin stated she cannot speak to the history of the past conversations or the court cases, we
know what you've told us, she was not there. First she wants to say she absolutely appreciates
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 23 of 31
the amount of work Steve Gordon in particular has done in Saddlebrook, she thinks that that has
been such an amazing neighborhood. That being said, there's a very large separation between
that area and this area so she is having difficulty seeing it as one. As she is looking at this, as a
lay person, she sees there's room for and there are apartments there already but feels like it's
important for a gradual transition from conservation area to residents. When we talk about
diversity of housing, there's already apartments there. Are the only options it's either high
density or million dollar homes, she thinks it could be lower density and more gradual going
towards the soccer park. When she hears a project surrounded by the things that won't be
developed, she visualizes this as it doesn't need to be this beacon of a whole bunch of high
density that is surrounded by all of this gorgeous land. She is looking for a gentle transition from
conservation to residents. She agrees a development here will be lovely at some point and can
see a lot of different housing but its low density because there already is a higher density nearby.
She is having a hard time wrapping her head around this island of land being overpopulated just
for that bottom dollar.
Signs noted this secluded pocket of land is much like the Peninsula, which is very highly dense,
and became even more so than it was originally planned. The Peninsula development was over
time zoned to allow for higher density because they needed that to make it economical.
Hekteon noted the Peninsula has a very specific zoning code adopted just for it so it was very
prescriptive, that is not the case in this particular application.
Baker stated he is really ambivalent about this because he doesn't think the City or the applicant
have made their case. If he were approaching this without any history his biggest concern would
be this is 40 something acres and he doesn't see what they're planning here. If he had a sense
of what the developer was actually going to do it would be better. He doesn't really have a
problem with the density, he has a problem with the sort of opaqueness of this this application
right now. Baker asked if the City even does CZAs anymore. If so then a conditional zoning
agreement with the density like this would require the developer and the City to reach some sort
of accommodation, he does not want to vote for just a simple blanket rezoning. He does believe
the developer has a more compelling case for doing something down there then the City has for
not letting it happen.
Signs stated that the last time the applicant was before the Commission they did have those
concept plans and probably spend a lot of money creating them and walked away empty
handed. He acknowledged they have certainly sent developers back many times to come back
with new plans. Baker stated he just doesn't see any plan here, he just sees a request for a
rezoning to let us go plan. Baker noted he will vote against a motion for approval of the rezoning
at this time.
Dyer stated she sees this as an island in the middle of some pleasant land but removed from
almost everything that one would need to conduct daily life and being on an unimproved road. A
long way from any services and putting affordable or low-income housing in this area would
seem to be the kind of housing where many people wouldn't have cars and no bus lines. The
other concern is being by a sewer treatment plant, the idea of the only thing that's warranted to
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 24 of 31
go there is low income housing. She noted we've done that in this country for years and years
and years, put people in the middle of tank farms and toxic waste dumps and all kinds of other
things and that is what this looks like to her.
A vote was taken and the motion failed 2-5 (Signs and Townsend in the affirmative; Dyer,
Baker, Martin, Parsons and Hensch in the negative).
CASE NO. CZ19-02:
Applicant: Charles Ockenfels
Location: 4653 Indian Lookout Rd SE
An application submitted by Charles Ockenfels for a rezoning of approximately 2.43 acres of
property located in unincorporated Johnson County from County Agriculture to County
Residential (R).
Russett stated this is a proposed rezoning within the fringe area, in unincorporated Johnson
County. She showed an aerial of the project site, it's on Indian Lookout Road SE, just east of
Highway 218. It is in Area C of the Fringe Area which is outside of the City growth boundary.
The area is currently zoned agriculture it is surrounded by some existing residential single-family
homes to the west. The proposed rezoning is from County Agricultural (A) to County Residential
(R), and if approved the applicant intends to build a single-family home on the subject property.
Russett noted in September of 2019 the County amended its future land use map in this area to
change the land use designation from agriculture to residential and at that time City staff
provided an advisory position on that plan amendment in support of the amendment. The Fringe
Area Agreement is a component of the City's Comprehensive Plan and applies to areas outside
of our jurisdiction and provides guidance regarding land development within those two miles
outside of the Iowa City corporate limits. The proposed rezoning is located in Fringe Area C
outside the City's growth area in the land use policy direction in the Fringe Area Agreement for
that area is to maintain it to be rural and agricultural land uses, but this policy is in conflict with
the County's updated future land use map.
Although the Fringe Area Agreement does not support residential zoning staff is recommending
approval for the following reasons. First is that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the
County's future land use map. There are also several large lot residences that can be found to
the west of the subject property. It's on a paved road that is suited to accommodate residential
development and repeated subdivision or over development of this subject property is unlikely
due to the woodlands and steep slopes as well as the County Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
Finally, staff is working with the County planning staff to update the Fringe Area Agreement to
address the conflicts that currently exists between the Fringe Area policy and the County's future
land use map. Hekteon noted in that work, staff would support a change consistent with this
application.
Russett stated the role of the Commission is to provide a recommendation to City Council. This
decision is ultimately the Board of Supervisors. Following the Commission's recommendation
this will go to City Council and City Council will provide a recommendation to the Johnson
County Planning Commission.
Deferred Indefinitely
Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; (REZ19-12)
ORDINANCE NO.
An ordinance rezoning approximately 42.01 acres of land located
south of Lehman Avenue and east of Soccer Park Road from Interim
Development Multi -family (ID -RM) and Rural Residential (RR -1) to Low
Density Multi -Family (RM -12). (REZ19-12)
Whereas, the applicant, Pugh Hagan Frahm PLC, has requested a rezoning of property
located south of Lehman Avenue, east of Soccer Park Road, from Interim Development —
Multifamily Residential (ID -RM) and Rural Residential (RR -1) zone, to Low Density Multifamily
(RM -12) zone; and
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan, including the South District Plan, identifies the majority of
this area as being appropriate for Low -Medium Density Single -Family Residential and a smaller
portion, immediately south of Lehman Avenue, as appropriate for Low -Medium Density Mixed
Residential; and
Whereas, the Low -Medium Density Single -Family Residential land use category is intended
primarily for detached single-family housing at a density of 2-8 dwelling units per acre and
considers duplexes along corner lots and attached housing located along arterial streets or
adjacent to permanent open space; and
Whereas, the Low -Medium Density Mixed Residential land use category is intended for
medium- to high- density single-family residential development, including small lot detached
single-family units, zero lot line development, duplexes, and townhomes at a density of 8-13
dwelling units per acre and considers low-density multi -family residential if buildings are
designed in a manner compatible in scale and design to the lower scale residential dwellings in
the neighborhood (e.g. triplexes and 4- or 6-plexes); and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has found the rezoning request to be
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan due to the proposed large acreage of multifamily
development that would allow larger -scale, multi -family buildings; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended denial of the requested
rezoning; and
Whereas, the applicant has requested that the rezoning be considered by the City Council.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa:
SECTION I APPROVAL. Property described below is hereby reclassified from its current
zoning designation to RM -12:
A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF A
PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
qIV
Ordinance No.
Page 2
Beginning at the Southeast Corner of Section 26, Township 79 North, Range 6 West, of
the Fifth Principal Meridian, Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa; Thence S88023'54"W,
along the South Line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section
26, a distance of 765.64 feet; Thence N24°36'43"E, 220.66 feet, to the Southwest Corner
of Parcel 10G, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Book 2771, at Page 223 of
the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence Northeasterly, 684.72 feet
along a 1400.00 foot radius curve, concave Northwesterly, whose 677.91 foot chord bears
N80047'12"E. to a Point on the East Line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast
Quarter of said Section 26; Thence S00°51'02"E, along said East Line, 287.78 feet, to the
Point of Beginning. Said Rezoning Parcel contains 3.52 Acres (153,410 square feet), and
is subject to easements and restrictions of record.
AND
A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER AND
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26,
TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN,
IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Beginning at the Southwest Corner of Auditor's Parcel 2003 131, in accordance with the
Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 46 at Page 244 of the Records of the Johnson County
Recorder's Office; Thence N00056'37"W, along the West Line of said Auditor's Parcel
2003 131, and the West Line of Auditor's Parcel 2003 129, in accordance with the Plat
thereof Recorded in Plat Book 46 at Page 245 of the Records of the Johnson County
Recorder's Office, 2054.62 feet, to the Northwest Corner of said Auditor's Parcel 2003
129; Thence Southeasterly, 656.11 feet along the North Line of said Auditor's Parcel 2003
129 on a 1275.00 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, whose 648.89 foot chord
bears S83°45'05"E, to the Northeast Corner thereof; Thence Southeasterly, 739.14 feet
along the East Line of said Auditor's Parcel 2003 129 on a 1943.27 foot radius curve,
concave Northeasterly, whose 734.69 foot chord bears S33°19'34"E, to the Southeast
Corner thereof and the Northeast Corner of Auditor's Parcel 2003 131; Thence
S21°33'37E, along the East Line of said Auditor's Parcel 2003 131, a distance of 110.05
feet, to the Southwest Corner of Parcel 8C, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded
in Book 2771 at Page 248 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office;
Thence N87°33'36"E, along the South Line of said Parcel 8C, 69.62 feet, to the Southeast
Corner thereof, and the Northwest Corner of Parcel 10G, in accordance with the Plat
thereof Recorded in Book 2771, at Page 223 of the Records of the Johnson County
Recorder's Office; Thence S24036'43"W, along the West Line of said Parcel 10G, and the
Southwesterly Projection thereof, 1380.50 feet, to its intersection with the South Line of
the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 79 North, Range
6 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian; Thence S88°23'54"W, along said South Line and
the South Line of said Auditor's Parcel 2003 131, a distance of 550.12 feet, to the Point of
Beginning. Said Rezoning Parcel contains 38.49 Acres (1,676,721 square feet), and is
subject to easements and restrictions of record.
SECTION II. Zoning Map. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change
the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final
passage, approval and publication of this ordinance by law.
SECTION III. Certification and Recording. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the
same in the Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon
the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law.
Ordinance No.
Page 3
SECTION IV. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions
of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION V. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged
to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as
a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VI. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of 20
Mayor
City Clerk
Approved by
City Attorney's Office
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Abby Dean <ADean@pughhagan.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, November 26, 2019 4:20 PM
To:
Anne Russett; Sgordon@ammanagement.net; jmiller@ammanagement.net;
JMoscufo@asicentral.com; SBrig ht@asicentral.com; Eleanor M. Dilkes; Kellie Fruehling;
Rockne Cole; Susan Mims; Mazahir Salih; Pauline Taylor; Bruce Teague; John Thomas;
Jim Throgmorton
Cc:
Michael Pugh; David Bright; DeLisa Baker
Subject:
Correspondence from Michael Pugh
Attachments:
Ltr to Staff re. Tabling Rezoning Application - Signed (00304749xD5E75).PDF
AK
Attached please find correspondence from Michael Pugh.
Thank you,
Abby E. Dean, Legal Assistant to Jeremy B. P. Hagan, David J. Bright, and Jaime C. Watts
Pugh Hagan Prahm PLC — Attorneys and Counselors
425 E. Oakdale Blvd., Suite 201, Coralville, IA 52241-1755
office: (319) 351-2028 f fax: (319) 351-1102 1 VCEmail I PughHa an.com
Notice: Since email messages sent between you and Pugh Hagan Prahm PLC and its employees are transmitted over the Internet, Pugh Hagan
Prahm PLC cannot assure that such messages are secure. You should be careful in transmitting information to Pugh Hagan Prahm PLC that you
consider confidential. If you are uncomfortable with such risks, you may decide not to use e-mail to communicate with Pugh Hagan Prahm PLC. This
message is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2515, is intended only for the use of the person to whom
it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and subject to the attorney-client privilege. It should also not be forwarded to
anyone else. If you received this message and are not the addressee, you have received this message in error. Please notify the person sending the
message and destroy your copy. Thank you.
Pugh_
Prahm,
ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS
November 26, 2019
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Anne Russett, Senior Planner
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
RE: Lake Calvin Properties Rezoning Application — REZ19-12
Dear Ms. Russett:
425 E. OAKDALE BOULEVARD
SUITE 201
CORALVILLE, IOWA 52241
PHONE 319-351-2028
FAX 319-351-1102
PUGHHAGAN.COM
MPUGH@PUGHHAGAN.COM
On November 19, 2019, the Iowa City City Council set a public hearing date of December 3,
2019 for the above referenced Rezoning Application. As you will recall from our discussion
of this Application during the Planning and Zoning Commission's meeting of November 7,
2019, Commissioners Larry Baker and Phoebe Martin both inquired if the applicant and City
staff had discussed possible development alternatives. As you are aware, we previously did
so a few years ago, but this was prior to your arrival.
Our clients have directed us to do so in the hope that we and the City can reach a mutually
satisfying result for the rezoning and development of the property subject to the Application.
Accordingly, Sycamore, L.L.C. and Lake Calvin Properties, L.L.C. respectfully request that
this Application be deferred for an indefinite period from December 3, 2019, so that we may
meet and discuss possible alternatives.
I would appreciate it if you would confirm this requested deferral. Thank you for your
continued willingness to meet with us to discuss development concepts for the property.
Should you have any questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact
me.
MJP/dab
{00304509}
Very truly yours,
PUGH HAGAN P PLC
r
Michael J. Pug
PUGH HAGAN PRAHM PLC
November 26, 2019
Page 2
cc: Sycamore, L.L.C. (via e-mail only)
Lake Calvin Properties, L.L.C. (via e-mail only)
Ms. Eleanor Dilkes (via e-mail only)
Ms. Kellie Fruehling
Members, Iowa City City Council (Rockne Cole, Susan Mims, Mazahir Salih, Pauline
Taylor, Bruce Teague, John Thomas, Jim Throgrnorton)
100304509)
Item Number: 9.c.
CITY OIF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
December 3, 2019
Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning related to utility -scale, ground -
mounted solar energy systems. (ZCA19-05)
Iji ETa:I M I M TI&V
Description
PZ Staff Report
P&Z minutes
ordinance
dj
ANA=
CITY OF IOWA CITY
UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 7, 2019
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner
Re: Amendment to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code Related to Utility -Scale Ground -
Mounted Solar Energy Systems in Public Zones (ZCA19-05)
Background on Proposed Amendments
The City and MidAmerican Energy are exploring options for locating ground -mounted photovoltaic solar
energy panels on City property located near the City Water Treatment Plant. The City Zoning
Ordinance does not currently contain any regulatory information regarding larger -scale solar energy
systems. Absent of a comprehensive solar ordinance, these uses are currently considered basic
utilities, and are permitted as a provisional use or special exception in industrial and commercial zones.
As the water treatment plant property is located in a Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone, a modification to
the zoning code is necessary to permit this use. To avoid negative impacts that might arise with
allowing all basic utilities to locate in Public zones, staff is proposing an amendment to the current
zoning ordinance that would create a new use for utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems.
This new use would be allowed in the zones that are shown in Table 1.0.
Table 1.0 — Utility -Scale Ground -Mounted Solar Use Mechanism by Zone
Background on Utility -Scale Solar Energy Systems
Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems are comprised of photovoltaic solar panels that
convert solar energy into electricity. This electricity is typically collected and distributed by a utility
company, which then uses the electricity to power a network of uses both on and off the solar energy
system site. The solar panels are usually mounted to the ground, and range in height between 10 and
15 feet.' Since utility -scale solar energy systems are used to power a larger, off-site, network of
properties, these systems can occupy vast tracts of land for one or more generations (typically between
1 American Planning Association. "Planning for Utility -Scale Solar Energy Facilities". September 2019.
Public
Industrial
Commercial
Research Park
Interim
Zones
Zones
Zones
Zones
Development
Zones
Provisional
P-1, P-2
ID -1, 1-1, 1-2
Use
Special
All Zones, ID -C
RDP, ORP,
ID -C, ID -RP
Exception
Background on Utility -Scale Solar Energy Systems
Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems are comprised of photovoltaic solar panels that
convert solar energy into electricity. This electricity is typically collected and distributed by a utility
company, which then uses the electricity to power a network of uses both on and off the solar energy
system site. The solar panels are usually mounted to the ground, and range in height between 10 and
15 feet.' Since utility -scale solar energy systems are used to power a larger, off-site, network of
properties, these systems can occupy vast tracts of land for one or more generations (typically between
1 American Planning Association. "Planning for Utility -Scale Solar Energy Facilities". September 2019.
November 1, 2019
Page 2
30 and 40 years)2. Attachment #1 shows a few photo examples of typical utility -scale ground -mounted
solar energy systems.
Solar photovoltaics are the fastest-growing energy source in the world due to the decreasing cost per
kilowatt-hour (60% since 2010), according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Utility -scale solar
installations are the most cost-effective solar photovoltaic option 3. Transitioning from coal plants to
solar decreases carbon dioxide emissions and eliminates sulfur, nitrous oxides, and mercury
emissions. The resulting growing demand for solar energy from companies and governments alike
have accelerated the energy industry's efforts to bring facilities online as quickly as possible.4 By
collaborating with MidAmerica Energy, the City is looking to address high priority energy efficiency
actions from the 2018 Climate Action Plan.
Current Regulations
City Code currently views utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems as a basic utility use.
These systems are currently allowed as a provisional use in ID -1, 1-1, and 1-2 zones and via special
exception in commercial and research park zones. Table 2.0 shows the conditions under which utility -
scale ground -mounted solar are currently allowed.
Table 2.0 — Current Specific Approval Criteria for Basic Utilities Not Enclosed within a Building
Zones:
Use Mechanism
Specific Approval Criteria:
•
ID -1
• Provisional
•
Located 200' from residential
•
I-1
zones.
•
1-2
•
Screened from public ROW.
•
City may require the use be
enclosed by a fence.
•
All Commercial Zones
• Special
•
Screened from public view and
•
RDP
Exception
any adjacent residential.
•
ORP
•
Evidence of compatibility with
•
ID -C
surrounding uses and structures.
•
ID -RP
•
Additional design elements may
be required.
•
Plus, special exception approval
criteria for basic utility uses.
•
P-1
• Not allowed
•
N/A
•
P-2
2 httDs://www.urbanaridsolar.com/solar-enerav-faa-14-freauentiv-asked-auestions-about-utilitv-scale-
solar/
3 Hawken, Paul. 2017. "Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming."
New York: Penguin Books.
4 American Planning Association. "Planning for Utility -Scale Solar Energy Facilities". September 2019.
November 1, 2019
Page 3
Solar uses in residential zones of the city are currently regulated as an accessory use to principal
structures. The proposed text amendment would not change how roof -mounted or non -utility -scale
solar uses are regulated as an accessory structure.
Proposed Code Amendments
The proposed code amendments are threefold. They include, crafting a definition for utility -scale
ground -mounted solar energy systems (amending 14-9A-1), allowing utility -scale ground -mounted solar
energy systems as a provisional use in Public zones (amending 14 -2F -2C), and outlining additional
use -specific approval criteria (amending 14-413-41D). Furthermore, the proposed text amendments will
still allow utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems as a provisional use in Industrial zones,
and via special exception in Commercial and Research Park zones. However, with the proposed
amendments, utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy system uses in these zones will also be
subject to the additional approval criteria. Facilities that choose to locate in zones that require a special
exception will need to also adhere to the special exception approval criteria required of basic utilities. In
addition, facilities that locate in Public zones are subject to additional agreements with public land
owners and may have additional requirements. Table 3.0 summarizes staff's proposed changes.
Table 3.0 — Proposed Specific Approval Criteria for Utility -Scale Ground -Mounted Solar Energy
Systems
Zones:
Use Mechanism
Specific Approval Criteria:
•
ID -1
• Provisional
•
Located at least 200' from any
•
I-1
residential zone.
•
1-2
•
Screened from public view and
view of any residential zone.
Exemptions from the S3 screening
standard can be made for
systems located in Public zones
that are used in part for
educational purposes.
•
Setback at least 20' from all
property lines, or minimum
setback requirement for base
zone.
•
Enclosed by 6' — 8' fence..
Additional height for (3) horizontal
strands of barbed wire fencing
may be added.
•
15' max height.
•
Full cutoff compliant lighting.
•
Nonreflective surfaces required.
•
All Commercial Zones
Special
•
Located at least 200' from any
•
RDP
Exception
residential zone.
•
ORP
•
Screened from public view and
•
ID -RP
view of any residential zone.
November 1, 2019
Page 4
The specific approval criteria outlined in Table 3.0 and listed in the amendment to 14-413-41D in the
attached draft text amendment (See Attachment #2) are generally compiled from the American
Planning Association model ordinance and several municipal ordinances pertaining to utility -scale solar
regulation.
Exemptions from the S3 screening
standard can be made for
systems located in Public zones
that are used in part for
educational purposes.
• Setback at least 20' from all
property lines, or minimum
setback requirement for base
zone.
• Enclosed by 6' — 8' fence.
Additional height for (3) horizontal
strands of barbed wire fencing
may be added.
• 15' max height.
• Full cutoff compliant lighting.
• Nonreflective surfaces required.
• Plus, special exception approval
criteria for basic utility uses.
• P-1
Provisional
• Located at least 200' from any
• P-2
residential zone.
• Screened from public view and
view of any residential zone.
Exemptions from the S3 screening
standard can be made for
systems located in Public zones
that are used in part for
educational purposes.
• Setback at least 20' from all
property lines,or minimum setback
requirement for base zone.
• Enclosed by 6' — 8' fence.
Additional height for (3) horizontal
strands of barbed wire fencing
may be added.
• 15' max height.
• Full cutoff compliant lighting.
• Nonreflective surfaces required.
The specific approval criteria outlined in Table 3.0 and listed in the amendment to 14-413-41D in the
attached draft text amendment (See Attachment #2) are generally compiled from the American
Planning Association model ordinance and several municipal ordinances pertaining to utility -scale solar
regulation.
November 1, 2019
Page 5
Staff is recommending a 200' separation distance between any utility -scale ground -mounted solar
energy system facility and any residential zone. This recommendation is a carry-over provision from the
basic utilities section of the current city code. Without these proposed code amendments, any utility -
scale solar energy system would be required to abide by this 200' setback distance from residential
zones as a basic utility. Since the physical characteristics of a utility -scale solar facility resembles those
of a basic utility, staff feels that this separation requirement also makes sense as we attempt to create a
new land use for utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems.
In addition to the residential zone separation requirement, staff is recommending a minimum setback
distance of 20' from all property lines, or the setback distance that is normally applied in the underlying
base zone, whichever is greater. The proposed setback language is consistent with language staff
reviewed in model solar ordinances.
Each model solar ordinance staff reviewed contained criteria requiring some sort of security fencing
around the ground -mounted solar arrays that are used in utility -scale solar energy systems. An industry
standard for security fencing typically involves a 6'-8' high fence, topped with 2-3 strands of barbed
wire. Most solar companies are willing to provide these security measures to help protect their
equipment. At this time, staff is recommending that a 6'-8' high fence be provided for the safety of the
public, and to help protect the facility. Staff is looking to allow up to three strands of barbed wire on top
of security fencing. Barbed wire strands will not be counted toward fencing height requirements. Model
ordinances also gave a range in height of 10'-15' for utility -scale solar facilities5. Staff is choosing to
cap the maximum height for utility -scale solar energy systems facilities at 15'.
Additional approval criteria are proposed to limit any light pollution and glare that might be caused by a
solar array field. These criteria were borrowed from the American Planning Association's model
ordinance for utility -scale solar energy facilities.6 With respect to omitted glare, solar arrays are
designed to absorb as much solar energy as possible, therefore negative impacts from omitted glare
are less likely.' However, staff will continue to monitor the recommended additional approval criteria
regarding light and glare to see if additional measures will be necessary in the future.
Rationale for Text Amendments
Staff recommends amending the City Code to allow for utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy
systems in Public zones as an entry into possibly expanding the City's solar energy policies. These
amendments will not have any effect on how smaller scale, residential and accessory solar facilities are
permitted, as these facilities will continue to be permitted as accessory structures to the principal use
and structure. As utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems are vast in size (generally more
than 1 -acre of land), they typically constitute the primary use on a parcel. Therefore, the City cannot
use the same codification it uses for smaller scale, accessory solar.
5 American Planning Association. "Planning for Utility -Scale Solar Energy Facilities". September 2019.
6 American Planning Association. "Planning for Utility -Scale Solar Energy Facilities". September 2019.
https://www.energV.gov/eere/solar/downloads/solar-pv-and-g lare-factsheet.
November 1, 2019
Page 6
Staff believes that the proposed text amendments will create opportunities for public entities to consider
incorporating solar facilities into their property to help offset traditional energy use and aide in the City's
efforts to meet greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
Comments from MidAmerican
Staff provided the draft text amendment to MidAmerican for their review and comment. MidAmerican's
comments are provided in Attachment #3. Staff incorporated some, but not all of MidAmerican's
suggested edits. Specifically, staff did not incorporate the following suggested edits (highlighted):
Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems must be screened from pubk view and view of any
adjacent residential zones to at least the S3 standard. A utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy
system may be exempt from S3 screening requirements if the system is located in a Public zone and is
used in part for educational purposes.
To the extent any required screening does not minimize glare, the exterior surfaces of utility -scale
ground -mounted solar energy system panels shall have a finish to minimize glare and solar arrays shall
be designed and installed to minimize glare, without materially reducing energy production of the
system, to a degree that no after image would impact vehicular traffic and any adjacent building.
Next Steps
Pending recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council must
hold a public hearing to consider the proposed text amendments.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the proposed text amendments
to include utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems as an allowable provisional use in Interim
Development Industrial (ID -1), General Industrial (1-1), Heavy Industrial (1-2), Neighborhood Public (P-
1), and Institutional Public (P-2) zones, and via special exception in all Commercial zones as well as
Interim Development Research Park (ID -RP), Research Development Park (RDP), and Office
Research Park (ORP) zones.
Attachments:
1. Photo Examples of Utility -Scale Solar Energy Systems and Solar Arrays
2. Draft Text Amendment
3. Draft Text Amendment with MidAmerican Comments
Approved by:
Danielle Sitzman, AICP
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
I 111 F I � k �4 I•~ _ l � � � �,-
y�i , � , I, 3 � , - •rte f { r/ f _ � R � � . ... _ • - - - - � � •
i. -I;�k' � . •tie ..,,, �_ �' —` _ ' �
i
.w• X11 � : � t' I'+ , 'y • a:' �, } l i R I � f
id
rp
{ I
IN
4.
r
_`J I
z'
_ 1_. -� - _ - - _
F Age
pp,
pp -imp,
I
ro
r.0•.+ I w
-mmao
DRAFT Text Amendments – Utility -Scale Ground -Mounted Solar Energy Systems –
Attachment #2
Amend Table 2C-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones, as follows:
Table 2C-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones
CO- CN- CH- Cl- CC- CB- CB- CB -
Use Categories Subgroups 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 5 10 MU
— -F-F-F-F-F-F-F
Institutional and
civic uses:
Utility-scale��
ground -mounted
solar energy
systems S S S S S S S S
Amend Table 213-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Industrial and Research Zones, as follows:
Table 2D-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Industrial and Research Zones
Use Categories Subgroups 1-1 1-2 1 RDP ORP
Institutional and
civic uses:
Utility -scale
ground -mounted
solar energy
systems PR PR S S
Amend Table 2E-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Interim Development Zones, as follows:
Table 2E-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Interim Development Zones
Use Categories Subgroups ID- ID- ID- ID- ID -
RS RM C I RP
Institutional and
civic uses:
Utility -scale S PR S
ground -mounted
solar energy
systems
Amend 14 -2F -2C, Provisional Uses, as follows:
1. Privately -owned communication transmission facilities. (Ord. 09-4358, 10-20-2009)
2. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy system.
Amend 14 -4A -6A, Basic Utility Uses, as follows:
1. Characteristics: "Basic utilities" are infrastructure services that need to be located in or near the
area where the service is provided. Basic utility uses generally do not have a large number of
employees at the site. Services may be publicly or privately provided.
2. Examples: Utility substation facilities, such as electric substations, gas regulator stations,
telecommunications switching and relay facilities; water and sewer lift stations, water towers,
and reservoirs.
3. Accessory Uses: Parking; control, monitoring, data or transmission equipment.
4. Exceptions:
a. Services where employees or the general public are generally present are classified as
community service or office uses.
b. Utility offices where employees or customers are generally present are classified as office
uses.
c. Bus barns are classified as warehouse and freight movement.
d. Communications towers, including radio, television, and wireless communications
infrastructure, are classified as communication transmission facilities.
e. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energv systems are not considered a basic utility use.
Amend 14-413-41D, Institutional and Civic Uses, as follows:
18. Utilitv-Scale Ground -Mounted Solar Enerav Svstems:
a. Any utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems may not be located closer than 200'
from anv residential zone.
b. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems must be screened from public view and
from view of any adjacent residential zones to at least the S3 standard. A utility -scale ground -
mounted solar energv system may be exempt from S3 screening requirements if the system is
located in a Public zone and is used in part for educational purposes.
c. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems may not be closer than 20' from all
Property lines, or according to the minimum setback requirements in the underlying base zone,
whichever is greater.
d. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems shall be enclosed by security fencing.
Fencing must be between 6' and 8' in height. Up to three (3) individual horizontal strands of
barbed wire may be placed atop the fence. Barbed wire strands will not be included in the
overall fence height measurement.
e. The maximum height of utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems shall be no
greater than 15'.
f. Any on-site lighting provided for the operational phase of the utility -scale ground -mounted
solar energy system shall be equipped with full cutoff fixtures, shielded away from adjacent
properties, and positioned downward to minimize light spillage onto adjacent properties.
g. Exterior surfaces of utility -scale ground -mounted solar energv system panels shall have a
nonreflective finish to minimize glare and solar arrays shall be designed and installed to
minimize glare to a degree that no after image would occur towards vehicular traffic and any
adjacent building.
h. Any utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy system that intends to locate in a commercial
(CO -1, CN -1, CH -1, CI -1, CC -2, CB -2, CB -5, CB -10), research (RDP), office park (ORP), or
interim development zone (ID -C, ID -RP,) must also satisfy the approval criteria for a special
exception for a basic utilitv set forth in Section 14 -4B -4D-1 b-(2).
Amend 14-9A-1, Definitions, as follows:
Solar Energy System: A device, array of devices, or structural design feature, the purpose of
which is to provide for generation of electricity, the collection, storage and distribution of solar
energy
Utility -Scale Ground -Mounted Solar Energy System: A solar energy system that is structurally
mounted on the ground and is not roof mounted, and the system's footprint is at least 1 acre in
size. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems may be used for both on-site and off-
site consumption of energy.
DRAFT Text Amendments – Utility -Scale Ground -Mounted Solar Energy Systems –
Attachment #3
Amend Table 2C-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones, as follows:
Table 2C-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones
CO- CN- CH- Cl- CC- CB- CB- CB -
Use Categories Subgroups 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 5 10 MU
— -F-F-F-F-F-F-F
Institutional and
civic uses:
Utility-scale��
ground -mounted
solar energy
systems S S S S S S S S
Amend Table 213-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Industrial and Research Zones, as follows:
Table 2D-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Industrial and Research Zones
Use Categories Subgroups 1-1 1-2 1 RDP ORP
Institutional and
civic uses:
Utility -scale
ground -mounted
solar energy
systems PR PR S S
Amend Table 2E-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Interim Development Zones, as follows:
Table 2E-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Interim Development Zones
Use Categories Subgroups ID- ID- ID- ID- ID -
RS RM C I RP
Institutional and
civic uses:
Utility -scale S PR S
ground -mounted
solar energy
systems
Amend 14 -2F -2C, Provisional Uses, as follows:
1. Privately -owned communication transmission facilities. (Ord. 09-4358, 10-20-2009)
2. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energv system.
Amend 14 -4A -6A, Basic Utility Uses, as follows:
1. Characteristics: "Basic utilities" are infrastructure services that need to be located in or near the
area where the service is provided. Basic utility uses generally do not have a large number of
employees at the site. Services may be publicly or privately provided.
2. Examples: Utility substation facilities, such as electric substations, gas regulator stations,
telecommunications switching and relay facilities; water and sewer lift stations, water towers,
and reservoirs.
3. Accessory Uses: Parking; control, monitoring, data or transmission equipment.
4. Exceptions:
a. Services where employees or the general public are generally present are classified as
community service or office uses.
b. Utility offices where employees or customers are generally present are classified as office
uses.
c. Bus barns are classified as warehouse and freight movement.
d. Communications towers, including radio, television, and wireless communications
infrastructure, are classified as communication transmission facilities.
e. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energv systems are not considered a basic utility use.
Amend 14-413-41D, Institutional and Civic Uses, as follows:
18. Utilitv-Scale Ground -Mounted Solar Enerav Svstems:
a. Any utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems may not be located closer than 200'
from anv residential zone.
b. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems must be screened fr^m publ;^ view and
from view of any adjacent residential zones to at least the S3 standard. A utility -scale ground -
mounted solar energv system may be exempt from S3 screening requirements if the system is
located in a Public zone and is used in Dart for educational purposes.
c. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energv systems may not be closer than 20' from all
Property lines, or according to the minimum setback requirements in the underlying base zone,
whichever is greater.
d. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems shall be enclosed by security fencing.
Fencing must be between 6' and 8' in height. Up to three (3) individual horizontal strands of
barbed wire may be placed atop the fence. Barbed wire strands will not be included in the
overall fence height measurement.
e. The maximum height of utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems shall be no
greater than 15'.
f. Any on-site lighting provided for the operational phase of the utility -scale ground -mounted
solar energy system shall be equipped with full cutoff fixtures, shielded away from adjacent
properties, and positioned downward to minimize light spillage onto adjacent properties.
g. To the extent any required screening does not minimize glare, €the exterior surfaces of utility -
scale ground -mounted solar energy system panels shall have a ReRreflentmye finish to minimize
glare and solar arrays shall be designed and installed to 4m -it -minimize glare, without materially
reducing energy production of the system, to a degree that no after image would GGGw
tewa-Fdsimpact vehicular traffic and any adjacent building.
h. Any utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy system that intends to locate in a commercial
(CO -1, CN -1, CH -1, CI -1, CC -2, CB -2, CB -5, CB -10), research (RDP), office park (ORP), or
interim development zone (ID -C, ID -RP,) must also satisfy the approval criteria for a special
exception for a basic utilitv set forth in Section 14 -4B -4D-1 b-(2).
Amend 14-9A-1, Definitions, as follows:
Solar Energy System: A device, array of devices, or structural design feature, the purpose of
which is to provide for generation of electricity, the collection, storage and distribution of solar
energy for crane heatORQ daylight fer interier lmght;RQer �� Ater heating
Utility -Scale Ground -Mounted Solar Energy System: A solar energy system that is structurally
mounted on the ground and is not roof mounted, and is--a-rt4east the system's footprint is at least
1 acre in size. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems may be used for both on-site
and off-site consumption of energy.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 26 of 31
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Gina Landau (MMS Consultants) stated the proposal is to build one single family home on this
lot. She will address the outlot that was discussed for preservation, she understands the desire
for that but can confirm that people who move to the county and want to build homes in the
county want to keep those trees, they move there because they like the trees. They like the
ravines, they like all of that. So, that fact as well as the fact that the County's Sensitive Areas
Ordinance ties them really tightly to everything. In the County right now they are only allowed to
clear 25% trees to build a home but that is about to go to 15% with the Unified Development
Ordinance that is planned to be approved in December or January. So there's really not a reason
to worry about preservation because the Sensitive Areas Ordinance in the County already
handled that. Landau addressed Mr. Baker's comment about the Fringe Area Agreement. She
believes that the one with Iowa City has been expired since 2006. Hekteon stated there is a valid
Fringe Area Agreement in place right now, it is an automatic renewal. Landau understands it
automatically renews but it hasn't been updated with two of the current County updates. Russett
acknowledged it has been a long time since it's been updated, they are working on updating it
right now and recognize it's out of date.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Parsons moved to recommend approval of CZ19-02 an application submitted by Charles
Ockenfels for a rezoning of approximately 2.43 acres of property located in
unincorporated Johnson County from County Agriculture (A) to County Residential (R)
with encouragement that the rest of the property be preserved.
Signs seconded the motion.
No discussion so Hensch called the question.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1 (Baker dissenting).
CASE NO. ZCA19-05:
Discussion of Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to utility -scale,
ground -mounted solar energy systems.
Russett gave some background noting the City and MidAmerican energy are currently exploring
options for installing a solar facility near the water plant. Currently the Zoning Code doesn't have
a comprehensive solar ordinance. How the City regulates solar right now is to consider large
scale solar as a basic utility use, and basic utility uses are allowed in industrial and commercial
zones, they are not allowed in public zones. The proposed amendment is to create a new use
for utility scale ground mounted solar energy systems to add some additional approval criteria for
those uses, and to allow those uses as a provisional use in public zones. The City allows basic
utilities as a provisional use in the industrial zones via special exception and the commercial
zones and they are not allowed in our public zones. Staff is proposing is to continue to allow just
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 27 of 31
utility scale solar uses as a provisional use in industrial zones and via special exception in the
commercial zones, and then add utility scale solar as a provisional use in public zones.
Staff is also proposing some specific approval criteria for these utility scale uses. Some of these
were carried over from the approval criteria the City requires for basic utility uses. Additional
criteria were added based on the review of other jurisdictions solar ordinances. In terms of the
criteria, staff is proposing that the solar and energy facility would be located at least 200 feet
from any residential zone, it is screamed from public view and view of any residential zone, and
they are proposing an exemption from this screening requirement if the solar facility has some
educational purpose and it's located in a public zone. Staff anticipates that some public entities
will want to have some sort of educational component to future solar facilities, this could include
signage and explanation of the benefits of solar energy. In those instances it's important to
actually see the solar facility and not screen it. Staff is also recommending a setback of at least
20 feet from all property lines or the minimum setback that would be required in the bass zone if
it's larger than 20 feet. They are recommending a criteria that the solar facility would be
enclosed by a six to eight foot fence and are allowing additional height for barbed wire fencing.
Staff is recommending the solar facility height be maxed out at 15 feet and that any lighting be
full cutoff compliant lighting and that the solar panels use non -reflective surfaces to minimize
glare.
Regarding the solar facilities that would require a special exception process, all of those
provisional use criteria would be carried forward to the zones where special exception would be
required but then there would be some additional requirements that the Board of Adjustment
would have to review. The two additional criteria are that they use is be compatible with
surrounding structures and that the Board of Adjustment could consider additional design
elements for uses in highly visible areas. Russett noted these two criteria are carried forward
from the current code.
Staff are also proposing two definitions, one for a solar energy system, and then a definition for
utility scale ground mounted solar energy system. The important note here is they are
recommending the utility scale ground mounted start at a facility that's at least one acre in size.
The rationale for our text amendments is they feel this is kind of the first start and entry into the
City possibly expanding the solar provisions in the solar regulations, and in the future may
consider adopting a more comprehensive ordinance. These amendments also will not affect how
smaller scale accessory solar facilities are permitted on residential or commercial uses and it will
also create opportunities for public entities to consider solar on site. Finally it will help to achieve
the City's climate action goals.
After the Planning Commission's recommendation this will go to City Council for public hearing
and consideration of the amendments.
Staff is recommending approval of the text amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code
related to utility -scale, ground -mounted solar energy systems.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 28 of 31
Hensch asked if this regulation is only for PV fields that are one acre or more and they have to
be ground mounted units. Russett confirmed that was correct. Hensch asked if one is created in
an area zoned P1 or P2 does that have to go before the Board of Adjustment. Russett stated
they are recommending it be a provisional use so it would not have to go to the Board of
Adjustment in the P zones.
Martin asked if the screening requirement is also only for these large spaces. Russett confirmed
that was correct, for one acre or more areas.
Hensch comment the one thing he finds a little disturbing is the three strands of barbed wire the
top like it's a government secret or something, he can't really see how this is much of an
attractive nuisance. If you have a six-foot fence or eight -foot fence it seems cosmetically to look
bad and he doesn't agree with that.
Signs agreed and asked what is the rationale for screening from public view? Russett stated it is
a provision that they carried forward from the current regulations for basic utilities. The concern
was that especially if it's close to residential or public right-of-way people might not like to look at
these and think they're not aesthetically pleasing. They are talking about S3 screening.
Baker asked what full cutoff compliant lighting is. Russett said another way to refer to it is as
dark skies compliant so all the light shines down and it avoids spillage.
Signs asked about S3 screening. Hensch explained it's all the perimeter bushes and plants,
there is S1, S2 and S3 with S3 being the highest level. Russett added the S3 is between five and
six feet of screening height.
Signs wondered if there was any mention of any thought about roof mounted systems. For
example in the east side industrial park there's literally acres of roof out there, would this prohibit
that. Hensch asked if there was a regulation with the utilities that only a certain percentage of a
building power can be contributed by PV so that would prevent that from happening. Signs asks
because he knows there are communities across the country where public utilities lease rooftops
to put on large solar arrays to contribute to the to the net worth.
Hekteon stated this will not change how those are regulated. This is amendment is allowing
ground mounted large-scale solar arrays in the public zone and also establishing more criteria for
its use in other zones. It is not changing roof mounted regulations at this time.
Russett wonders if the question is if the roof mounted facility is more than an acre, and if you
have a building that has a roof that is that large, would that be still accessory or not? Hensch
noted an acre rooftop is like 60 feet by 660 feet and it's going to be tough to find a building to
accomplish that. Russett said that is something to be considered for the future.
Townsend stated she is pleased to see some things happening with conserving energy now.
She asked how these regulations differ from the wind energy that we're seeing going up around
Iowa. Russett replied from a zoning standpoint some of the concerns related to wind are
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 29 of 31
different than the concerns related to solar. Some people really don't like seeing the windmills
and there's some concern about the visual impact of them, there's concerns about birds and if
they're in a migratory bird path. Townsend added with all the talk about climate change, Iowa
City would be a nice place to be in the forefront so why hide it.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Adam Jablaski (MidAmerican Energy) is from the office in Urbandale, Iowa. He appreciates the
City putting this together, they do think it's a very workable ordinance and addresses some of the
City's residents' concerns. He wanted to add one comment, in the 18G section it says no after
image, after images are when you stare at a light and close your eyes you see the after image of
that light. So he recommends the City either say minimize the after image or completely remove
it because of the glare. The glare can cause any after image and the glare minimization is
already addressed in here, saying no to anything is a high standard to hit.
Hensch asked about the question about solar panels on rooftops of commercial or industrial.
Jablaski stated he is not a system planning expert for a MidAmerica but can follow up.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Parsons moved to recommend approval of ZCA 19-05, Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of
the Iowa City Code related to utility- scale, ground -mounted solar energy systems with the
note about changing the draft code language regarding glare.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Dyer asked if this is installed at the Treatment Plant will it interfere with the walking trails.
Russett said it might temporarily during the construction phase but most of them will still be open
even during construction.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 17, 2019
Parsons moved to approve the meeting minutes of October 17, 2019.
Signs seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett noted on Monday the City Council adopted the rezoning ordinance and conditional
zoning agreement for the rezoning on East Prentiss Street for the Capstone Collegiate
Communities rezoning.
STAFF PRESENTATION TO FOLLOW:
1 r I
C04;qui h
CITY OF lOVVA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa S2240-1826
(319) 356-5000
(3I9) 356-5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
Item 9.c.: Zoning code amendment related to
utility -scale, ground -mounted solar energy
systems.
ZCA19-05
An ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning Code of the City of Iowa City
related to utility -scale, ground -mounted solar energy systems. (First
Consideration)
Background on Proposed
Amendments
City and MiclAmerican
Energy are exploring
options for installing
solar on City owned
property near the water
plant.
Zoning code does not
include regulations for
solar.
Background -Current Code
Large scale solar is
currently
considered a basic
utility use.
v L_�
Allowed in
industrial and
commercial zones.
r
J
Not allowed in
public zones.
J
Current Regulations:
Zones that Allow Utility -Scale Solar
N-1
Legend
-
Special Exception
CB2; C85 CB1 D, CC2, CHI;
CII, CN1, CO2, ID -C ID -RP,
DRP, RDP RFC -CX, RFC -0,
RFC -SD, RFC -SG, RFCWR
-
Provisional
11, 12, ID -1
Not Allowed
D 0 375 075
15 Miles
■
mom!.
r
7^R•
W -P
ffim.anr
15.
�Eron `P
Y■a fhr
roti
10
it
RMIM
t
f �
-Lj2
CITY OF iOVVA CITY
Prepared by: Jade Pederso
Date Prepared: Dec 201
Creates a new use for
utility -scale ground -
mounted solar energy
syste m s.
Adds additional approval
criteria.
Allows use in Public zones.
Proposed Definitions
Solar Energy System: A device, array of devices, or structural design
feature, the purpose of which is to provide for generation of electricity,
the collection, storage and distribution of solar energy.
Utility -Scale Ground -Mounted Solar Energy System: A solar energy
system that is structurally mounted on the ground (not roof mounted)
with a system footprint is at least 1 acre in size. Utility -scale ground -
mounted solar energy may be used either on or off-site.
Current Regulations:
Zones that Allow Utility -Scale Solar
N-1
Legend
-
Special Exception
CB2; C85 CB1 D, CC2, CHI;
CII, CN1, CO2, ID -C ID -RP,
DRP, RDP RFC -CX, RFC -0,
RFC -SD, RFC -SG, RFCWR
-
Provisional
11, 12, ID -1
Not Allowed
D 0 375 075
15 Miles
■
mom!.
r
7^R•
W -P
ffim.anr
15.
�Eron `P
Y■a fhr
roti
10
it
RMIM
t
f �
-Lj2
CITY OF iOVVA CITY
Prepared by: Jade Pederso
Date Prepared: Dec 201
Proposed Regulations:
Zones that Allow Utility -Sc lar;
Parcels > 1 acre Only
Legend
- Special Exception
C92, CB5 C31 D, CC2, CH1,
CI1. CN1, CO2, ID -C 10 -RP,
DRP, RDP RFC -CX, RFC -O,
RFC -SD, RFC -SG, RFC -WR
- Provisional
11, 12, ID -1, P1, P2
Not Allowed
0 0.375 0.75 '1.5 Miles
to L
L -
A
r ,
�r®"_MW
CITY 6F IOWA CITY
Prepared by. Jade Pederson
Date Prepared: Dec 2019
Current Regulations
Basic Utility Uses
Provisional
Special Exception
Not allowed
Proposed Regulations
Utility -Scale Solar Uses
Zone
Muse Mechanism
• Provisional
• Special Exception
• NEW: Provisional
❑ Located at least 200' from any residential zone.
❑ Screened from public view and view of any
residential zone.
Exemption for systems located in Public zones used in
part for educational purposes.
❑ Setback at least 20' from all property lines, or
minimum setback requirement for base zone.
F1 Enclosed by 6'— 8' fence. Additional height for
security fencing may be added.
❑ 15' max height of equipment.
❑ Full cutoff compliant nighttime lighting -to avoid
light pollution.
❑ Minimally reflective surfaces to minimize glare
during daytime.
Benefits
Pilot project expanding the City's solar energy
policies. City may consider adopting a full
ordinance on solar regulation in the future.
IOWA CITY
City, as land owner, may negotiate additional CLIMATE
criteria in purchase/lease agreements. ACTION
!A
Amendments will not effect how smaller scale, TODAY
accessory solar facilities are permitted.
Create opportunities for other public entities Geming o more Inutile. equitoNe d rc ienf fom"m
to consider solar.
Help to achieve the City's climate action goals.
Zoning Code Text Change-P&Z
recommendation to City Council (November
2019)
Planning &Zoning Commission
Recommendation
The Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval of text
amendments to Title 14 to allow for the provision of utility -scale,
ground -mounted solar energy systems.
STAFF PRESENTATION CONCLUDED
� r
rrM as � h
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Strect
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
(3 19) 356-5000
(3 19) 356-5009 FAX
www. icgov. o rg
Prepared by: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-3565238
Ordinance No.
Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning, related to utility -scale, ground -
mounted solar energy systems. (ZCA19-05)
Whereas, in September 2018 the City adopted a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan that
outlines various strategies and actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and
Whereas, one of the actions identified in the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan is initiating
community solar projects; and
Whereas, the current City Code lacks a comprehensive solar ordinance; and
Whereas, the proposed ordinance would clarify the regulation of solar facilities by including a
definition for utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems; and
Whereas, the proposed ordinance allows utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems
in Public and Industrial zones as a provisional use, provided that additional use -specific criteria
are met; and
Whereas, the proposed ordinance allows utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems
in Commercial, Research, and Interim Development Commercial, Interim -Development Research
Park zones via special exception, provided that additional use -specific criteria are met, as well as
additional special exception approval criteria; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a meeting on November 7, 2019 and
recommend approval of the aforementioned zoning code amendments; and
Whereas, it is in the City's best interest to adopt this ordinance.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
Section 1. Title 14 of the Iowa City Code is hereby amended by adding the underlined language
to the sections shown below:
Table 2C-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones:
CO• CN-
rCH- Cl
I-
CB-
Cate ones Sub rou s 1 1
9 groups
[CC-
2Use
1 1
� f
-1-1-177-1
[CB�-CB-
2 10 MU
� ��
---
Institutional and
�
�
�
civic uses:
Utility -scale
Utility -scale
ground -mounted
solar energv
ground -mounted
FFS
Fa
Fa
Fa
FaF�i
s sv temsF
Fa
Fa
Fa
solar energy
systems
Table 213-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Industrial and Research Zones:
Use Categories I Subgroups 11-1 11-2 1 RDP I ORP I
Institutional and
civic uses:
Utility -scale
ground -mounted
solar energv
systems
PR I PR I S I S
Table 2E-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Interim Development Zones:
Use Categories Subgroups ID- ID- ID- ID- ID -
RS RM C I RP
Institutional and
F -17-
civic uses:
Utility -scale
ground -mounted
solar energv
FFS
Fj�RS
s sv temsF
i
14-217-2C, Provisional Uses:
1. Privately owned communication transmission facilities. (Ord. 09-4358,10-20-2009)
2. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energv system.
14 -4A -6A-4, Exceptions:
e. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energv systems are not considered a basic utility use.
14 -4B -4D, Institutional and Civic Uses:
18. Utilitv-Scale Ground -Mounted Solar Enerav Svstems
a. Any utility -scale -ground-mounted solar energv systems may not be located closer than
200' from any residential zone.
b. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energV systems must be screened from public view
and from view of any adjacent residential zones to at least the S3 standard. A utility -scale
ground -mounted solar energv system may be exempt from S3 screening requirements if the
system is located in a Public zone and is used in part for educational purposes.
c. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energv systems may not be closer than 20' from all
property lines, or according to the minimum setback requirements in the underlying base
zone, whichever is greater.
d._ Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energv systems shall be enclosed by security fencing.
Fencing must be between 6' and 8' in height. Up to three (3) individual horizontal strands of
barbed wire may be placed atop the fence. Barbed wire strands will not be included in the
overall fence height measurement.
e. The maximum height of utility -scale ground -mounted solar energV systems shall be no
greater than 15'.
f. Any on-site lighting provided for the operational phase of the utility -scale ground -mounted
solar ener-gv system shall be equipped with full cutoff fixtures, shielded away from adjacent
properties, and positioned downward to minimize light spillage onto adiacent properties.
Q. Exterior surfaces of utility -scale ground -mounted solar enemy system panels shall have a
nonreflective finish to minimize glare and solar arrays shall be designed and installed to
minimize glare towards vehicular traffic and any adjacent building.
h. Any utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy system that intends to locate in a
commercial (CO -1, CN -1, CH -1, CIA. CC -2, CB -2, CB -5, CB -10), research (RDP), office
park (ORP), or interim development zone (ID -C, ID -RP,) must also satisfy the approval
criteria for a special exception for a basic utility set forth in Section 14-413 4DA b-(2).
14-9A-1, Definitions:
Solar Energy System: A device, array of devices, or structural design feature, the purpose of
which is to provide for generation of electricity, the collection, storage and distribution of
solar energy.
Utility -Scale Ground -Mounted Solar Energy System: A solar enemy system that is
structurally mounted on the ground and is not roof mounted, and the system's footprint is at
least 1 acre in size. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems may be used for
both on-site and off-site consumption of energv.
Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a
whole or any section, provision or part thereof no adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval,
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of
Mayor
2019.
Approved by
Attest: E,.� k ✓�1 ern �' �(/jW k7 av,_
City Clerk Ci y Attorney's Office j tl24,110
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by _
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Cole
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Throgmorton
that the
First Consideration 12/03/2019
Voteforpassage: AYES: Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton,
Cole, Mims. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration
Vote for passage:
Date published
Item Number: 9.d.
�r
P -
"m J IM%
CITY OE IOWA CITY
www.iogov.org
December 3, 2019
Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning Code of the Iowa City code related to
the Riverfront Crossings affordable housing requirements. (ZCA19-02)
(Second Consideration)
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
PZ Staff Report w Attachments
PZ Minutes
Ordinance
CITY OF IOWA CITY
CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM
UNESCO CITY OF LITERATl1RE
Date: October 17, 2019
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner
Re: Amendment to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code Related to the Riverfront
Crossings Affordable Housing Requirements (ZCA19-02)
Background
In 2016, the City amended the Riverfront Crossings code to include an affordable housing
requirement that requires development containing 10 or more dwelling units on land zoned
Riverfront Crossings to provide affordable housing dwelling units in an amount equal to or
greater than 10% of the total number of dwelling units. The units must be affordable for a term
of no less than 10 years. Developers have the option to provide these affordable units on-site,
off-site, pay a fee in -lieu of providing the dwelling units, or contributing land. The code also
defines affordable rental housing and income eligible households. After implementing the
affordable housing requirement for the past few years, staff has identified the following issues
with these definitions:
1. The definition of affordable rental housing excludes housing that has received Low
Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) through the Iowa Finance Authority. Currently,
these units do not meet the definition of affordable rental housing.
2. The definition of income eligible households does not cap non -retirement assets.
Without a cap a household with substantial assets, but a low annual income could
qualify for an affordable housing unit.
Proposed Code Amendment
Staff is proposing to amend the definitions of affordable rental housing and income eligible
households in 14-2G-8, as follows:
AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING: Housing that is rented for no more than the HUD
fair market rent for the Iowa City, Iowa, HUD metro FMR area, as adjusted annually, and
rented to an income eligible household or housing that has received Low Income
Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) through the Iowa Finance Authority and meets the LIHTC
rent limits for Johnson County, as adjusted annually, and rented to an income eligible
household.
INCOME ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD: A household is an income eligible household for
purposes of purchasing an owner occupied affordable housing dwelling unit if that
household has an annual income equal to or less than one hundred ten percent (110%)
of the area median income (AMI) for Iowa City, as adjusted annually. A household is an
income eligible household for leasing affordable rental housing if that household has an
annual income equal to or less than sixty percent (60%) of the AMI for Iowa City, as
October 9, 2019
Page 2
adjusted annually. Households with greater than one hundred thousand dollars
($100,000) in non -retirement assets are not eligible for affordable housing units.
These amendments will ensure that projects that receive Low -Income Housing Tax Credits will
count toward a project's affordable housing obligation, and that households most in need of
affordable housing will receive that housing.
Next Steps
Pending recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City
Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the following proposed
text amendments to 14-2G-8, regarding the Riverfront Crossings affordable housing
requirements.
Attachments:
1. Draft Text Amendment
Approved by:
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
14-2G-8: AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT:
B. Definitions: For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply to these terms:
AFFORDABLE HOUSING: The collective reference to 'owner occupied affordable housing" and/or
"affordable rental housing", as those terms are defined herein.
AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING: Housing that is rented for no more than the HUD fair market rent
for the Iowa City, Iowa, HUD metro FMR area, as adjusted annually, and rented to an income eligible
household or housing that has received Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) through the Iowa
Finance Authority and meets the LIHTC rent limits for Johnson County, as adjusted annually, and
rented to an income eligible household. -
INCOME ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD: A household is an income eligible household for purposes of
purchasing an owner occupied affordable housing dwelling unit if that household has an annual
income equal to or less than one hundred ten percent (110%) of the area median income (AMI) for
Iowa City, as adjusted annually. A household is an income eligible household for leasing affordable
rental housing if that household has an annual income equal to or less than sixty percent (60%) of the
AMI for Iowa City, as adjusted annually. Households with greater than one hundred thousand dollars
($100,000) in non -retirement assets are not eligible for affordable housing units.
OWNER OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Housing that is sold at a price no greater than the
most current published housing and urban development (HUD) homeownership sale price limit for
existing and new homes to an income eligible household.
C. General Requirements:
Affordable Housing Requirement: Except for developments providing affordable housing pursuant to
a development agreement with the city executed prior to June 6, 2016, and except for developments
exclusively providing elder apartment housing, any development containing ten (10) or more
dwelling units on land zoned a riverfront crossings zoning designation is required to provide
affordable housing dwelling units in an amount equal to or greater than ten percent (10%) of the
total number of dwelling units. Should ten percent (10%) of the total number of dwelling units result
in a fractional number, this fraction shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number for any fraction
over fifty percent (50%) to establish the required number of affordable housing dwelling units. Any
exempt elder apartment housing developments shall be subject to periodic inspection to ensure
compliance with the zoning code regulations of this title of such use.
2. Methods Of Achieving Affordability: The affordable housing requirement may be satisfied through
the provision of one or more of the following methods:
a. On site owner occupied affordable housing;
b. On site affordable rental housing;
c. A fee in lieu contribution to an affordable housing fund;
d. Off site affordable housing; and/or
e. Contribution of land.
If the owner desires to utilize methods in subsection C2d or C2e of this section, the owner must
establish that methods in subsections C2a, C2b, and C2c of this section cannot feasibly be
satisfied, as reasonably determined by the city.
Affordable Housing Agreement: Upon rezoning to a riverfront crossings zoning designation, the
property owner shall enter into an affordable housing agreement with the city establishing which
method or methods it will utilize. This agreement must be executed prior to the close of the public
hearing on the rezoning ordinance. Upon application for a building permit to construct any
development for which affordable housing is required, the property owner shall enter into an
agreement with the city detailing how it will satisfy the obligations of this code, which shall include
details of the programming and development requirements if applicable. The city manager is hereby
given the authority to execute such an agreement, which shall be recorded in the records of the
Johnson County, Iowa recorder's office at owner's expense.
4. Term Of Affordability: The affordable housing dwelling units shall remain so for no less than ten (10)
years from the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the dwelling unit and recording of the
deed restriction described below.
5. Occupancy: No affordable housing dwelling unit shall be occupied by anyone other than an income
eligible household. Households that wish to purchase or rent affordable housing dwelling units shall
be subject to verification of their eligibility in accordance with the applicable income verification
provisions set forth below and as set forth in administrative rules adopted to accomplish the
purposes of this section.
Deed Restriction: A deed restriction documenting the affordable housing requirements, selected
method of achieving affordability, term, applicable resale restrictions, and applicable occupancy and
rental restrictions shall be placed upon the owner occupied affordable housing dwelling unit or, in
the case of the affordable rental housing, shall be placed upon the land being developed
contemporaneously with the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. This deed restriction shall be
recorded with the Johnson County, Iowa recorder and referenced in any deed conveying title of any
such unit or land during the term of affordability. This deed restriction shall automatically upon the
expiration of the term of affordability. The city manager is hereby authorized to issue any release of
this deed restriction, as may be necessary and appropriate, in a form approved by the city attorney.
7. Parking: Affordable housing dwelling units shall be exempt from providing the parking spaces
otherwise required by the zoning code.
D. Owner Occupied Affordable Housing: Owner occupied affordable housing must satisfy the general
requirements set forth in subsection C of this section and the following requirements:
1. Development Requirements:
a. Dwelling Unit Types: The affordable housing dwelling units shall be comprised of the same mix
of dwelling unit types in proportion to the market rate dwelling units within the development.
b. Dwelling Unit Size And Quality: The affordable housing dwelling unit size shall be at least eighty
percent (80%) of the floor area for the market rate dwelling units of the same type, and shall be
of similar quality, or as approved by the city manager or designee.
c. Location: The affordable housing dwelling units shall be distributed throughout the development
to achieve integration and avoid concentration or segregation of the affordable housing dwelling
units, unless a different distribution will result in the provision of additional affordable housing
dwelling units than that which is required by this code, as approved by the city manager or
designee.
d. Timing Of Construction: The affordable housing dwelling units shall be constructed and issued a
certificate of occupancy concurrently with or prior to the market rate dwelling units in the
development.
2. Program Requirements:
a. Occupancy: An affordable housing dwelling unit shall, at all times during the term of affordability,
be occupied by an income eligible household as the household's primary residence.
b. Income Verification: The annual household income shall be determined according to the HUD
part 5, section 8 regulations on annual income codified in 24 CFR 5.609, as amended, and
verified by the city prior to close of the sale.
c. Rental Restriction: An owner occupied affordable housing unit may not be rented, except an
owner may rent or lease a bedroom in the unit.
d. Sale Restrictions: In addition to the deed restrictions required above, all required owner
occupied affordable housing dwelling units shall be subject to the following sale restrictions
during the term of affordability, compliance with which shall be verified by the city manager, or
designee, prior to closing on the sale.
(1) Approved Purchasers: A seller of an affordable dwelling unit must sell the unit only to an
income eligible household.
(2) Sale Price: The sale price of any affordable housing dwelling unit shall not exceed the
purchase price paid by the original income eligible household purchaser or the HUD
homeownership sale price limit, whichever is greater, with the following exceptions:
(A) Closing Costs: Customary closing costs and costs of sale.
(B) Real Estate Commissions: Costs of real estate commissions paid by the seller to a
licensed real estate agent.
(C) Permanent Capital Improvements: Reasonable value added to the dwelling unit due to
permanent capital improvements installed within the unit by the seller pursuant to a properly
issued building permit.
(D) Special Fees: The seller of an affordable dwelling unit shall not levy or charge any
additional fees or any finder's fee nor demand any other monetary consideration other than
provided in this chapter.
E. Affordable Rental Housing: Affordable rental housing must satisfy the general requirements set forth in
subsection C of this section and the following requirements:
1. Development Requirements:
a. Affordable rental units shall be provided in accordance with the development requirements for
owner occupied affordable housing set forth in subsection D1 of this section.
b. If a tenant initially deemed an income eligible household for purposes of occupying an affordable
housing dwelling unit pursuant to this chapter, but is subsequently deemed no longer income
eligible upon annual examination of household income, that tenant's unit shall not be considered
an affordable housing dwelling unit and the rent can be adjusted to market rate. To maintain
compliance with the affordable housing requirement, the next available rental unit in the project of
comparable size or larger must be rented to an income eligible household. To that end, the
affordable rental units need not be specifically designated in a fixed location, but may be floating
throughout the development.
2. Program Requirements:
a. Rental Rate: The monthly rental rate shall be either:
L nNo more than the fair market rents as published by HUD for the Iowa City, Iowa, HUD metro
FMR area, as adjusted annually; or
(2)- No more than the LIHTC rent limits for Johnson County, as adjusted annually, for projects
that have been awarded LIHTC through the Iowa Finance Authority.
b. Occupancy: Affordable rental units must be rented to income eligible households.
c. Income Verification: The landlord shall annually verify to the city that the affordable rental housing
units are occupied by income eligible households. Prior to the commencement of a lease, the
landlord shall determine a potential tenant's annual household income according to the HUD part
5, section 8, regulations on annual income codified in 24 CFR 5.609, as amended. Upon
extension or renewal of a lease, the landlord may determine a tenant's annual household income
based upon federal income tax returns for all adults in the household.
d. Owner Verification Of Compliance: The owner must annually verify to the city that it is in
compliance with these program requirements, and provide any documentation as deemed
necessary by the city to determine compliance, which may include examination of the documents
used to verify tenant income. Any violation of this requirement may result in immediate
suspension of any rental permit issued for the applicable unit.
Fee In Lieu Contribution: In lieu of providing affordable housing dwelling units, an owner may
contribute a fee to a riverfront crossings district affordable housing fund to be established by the city.
The contribution per dwelling unit shall be determined biennially by resolution of the city council
based upon a formula that analyzes the difference between renting a market rate unit for the term of
affordability and renting a dwelling unit affordable to an income qualified household. The fund shall be
utilized solely for affordable housing purposes, which may include administration costs, in the
riverfront crossings district.
G. Transfer Of Affordable Dwelling Units Off Site: Upon the owner establishing that the affordable housing
requirements cannot be satisfied on site, as reasonably determined by the city, it may be satisfied by
designating off site existing or newly constructed dwelling units in the riverfront crossings district as
affordable housing dwelling units. Any transferred affordable housing units shall in no way waive or
reduce any obligation to provide affordable housing units within the development to which the
obligation is transferred. In addition to satisfying the general requirements set forth in subsection C of
this section, these units must satisfy the following requirements:
1. Development Requirements:
a. Provision Of Units: Off site affordable dwelling units, whether they are owner occupied or rental
units, shall be provided in accordance with the development requirements for owner occupied
affordable housing set forth in subsection D1 of this section. The city reserves the right to deny a
request to transfer affordable housing units to a particular development if it would result in an
undue concentration of affordable housing units within that development.
b. Timing: Where the affordable housing requirement is to be met through the provision of newly
constructed dwelling units, such units shall be constructed and pass final inspection no later than
the date the occupancy permit is issued for the development creating the need for the affordable
housing, unless otherwise agreed upon by the city manager, or designee. Where the affordable
housing requirement is to be met through the provision of existing off site dwelling units, they shall
be established as affordable housing dwelling units prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for
the development creating the need for the affordable housing. The marketing of the affordable
housing dwelling units should occur no later than one year after the first market rate dwelling unit in
the site that generated the requirement passes final inspection, unless otherwise agreed upon by
the city manager. The affordable housing agreement pursuant to subsection C3 of this section
shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit for the development creating the need for
the affordable housing.
2. Programming Requirements:
a. Where the off site affordable dwelling units are to be owner occupied affordable housing, those
units shall comply with the programming requirements for owner occupied affordable housing set
forth in subsection D2 of this section.
b. Where the off site affordable dwelling units are to be affordable rental housing, they shall comply
with the programming requirements for affordable rental housing set forth in subsection E2 of this
section.
H. Land Dedication: Upon the owner establishing that the affordable housing requirements cannot be
satisfied on site, as reasonably determined by the city, it may be satisfied by the dedication of land to
the city of Iowa City or an entity designated by the city of Iowa City for construction of affordable
dwelling units in accordance with the provisions of this section, upon consideration of the following
factors:
1. Location: The land shall be located in the riverfront crossings district, in an area appropriate for
residential redevelopment, as determined by the city;
2. Number Of Affordable Units: The total dwelling units possible on the land shall be equal to or greater
than the number of required affordable housing dwelling units;
3. Dwelling Type: The land shall allow for the provision of affordable units of equivalent type (single-
family, multi -family, townhome, etc.), floor area, and number of bedrooms to that which would have
been otherwise required;
4. Land Value: The value of land to be dedicated shall be determined, at the cost of the developer, by
an independent appraiser, who shall be selected from a list of certified appraisers provided by the
city, or by such alternative means of valuation to which a developer and the city agree; and
5. Right To Refuse: The city reserves the right to refuse dedication of land in satisfaction of the
affordable housing requirement if it determines, in its sole discretion, that such a dedication is not in
the best interests of the public for any reason, including a determination that the city is not likely to
construct or administer an affordable housing development project in a timely manner due to the
unavailability of funds or other resources. Additionally, where the value of the land proposed to be
dedicated is less than the value of the fee in lieu contribution established in accordance with the
provisions above, the city reserves the right to require an owner to contribute a fee making up this
difference in values.
I. Administrative Rules: The city manager or designee is hereby authorized to establish administrative
rules deemed necessary not inconsistent with any ordinance adopted by the city council in order to
assure that the purposes of this section are accomplished. A copy of the rules shall be on file with the
city clerk and available on the city website. (Ord. 16-4668, 7-5-2016, eff. 8-1-2016)
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 17, 2019
Page 7 of 11
CASE NO. ZCA19-02:
Discussion of Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to the Riverfront
Crossings affordable housing requirements.
Russett began with background, in 2016 the City amended the Riverfront Crossings Code to
include an affordable housing requirement. This applies to any residential projects that include
10 or more dwelling units. The affordable units must equal at least 10% of the total number of
units in the project and those units must be affordable for a term of 10 years. The developer has
some options on how that affordable housing is provided, it can be provided on site, off site, a
fee in lieu could be paid or land contribution could be made. This requirement has been
implemented for the past three years and staff has identified some issues with the existing
ordinance. The first is that the definition of affordable rental housing excludes housing that has
received Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) from the Iowa Finance Authority. The second
issue is that the definition of income eligible households does not cap non -retirement assets.
Staff is proposing a couple changes mainly to the definitions of that Code. The first is to amend
the definition of affordable rental housing to include housing that has received Low Income
Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and it's rented to income eligible households so those units could
be counted toward the affordable housing requirement. The second amendment is to amend the
definition of income eligible household and clearly state that households with greater than
$100,000 in non -retirement assets are not eligible for affordable housing units. Non -retirement
assets would include liquid assets such as a checking account, savings account, money market
account, any property that they could sell, but it would not include any retirement savings.
Next steps: Pending recommendation from the Commission this will go to City Council for a
public hearing.
Staff is recommending approval of the proposed text amendment related to the affordable
housing requirements and the Riverfront Crossings Code.
Dyer asked what it means that it does not include housing that received low income tax credits,
are the criteria for low income tax credits different from what is considered affordable housing.
Russett explain there are a couple different standards, one is HOME HUD fair market rents for
determining the rent limits and those are different than the rental limits and requirements of the
LIHTC program. They are both affordable housing programs, but the standards are a little
different. Dyer asked if this would increase or decrease the availability of affordable housing.
Russett noted the low income housing tax credit is an incentive in the State that a lot of
affordable housing developers use to leverage additional funds to get more housing, more
affordable housing units in the City. Russett is unsure if it would be more or less, but it would
clarify that there was a low income housing tax credit project Riverfront Crossings, those units
could be considered part of that affordable housing requirement whereas now they aren't.
Parsons asked what the process is to verify someone's non-cash or income assets. Russett
explained there is housing staff that request information on income, and that needs to be verified,
they do it annually, and they work with either a property management group or whoever's renting
those units. She noted there was a situation recently where someone was applying for an
affordable housing unit and they had non -retirement assets, properties in various parts of the
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 17, 2019
Page 8 of 11
country, but their income was low enough that they qualified. That situation was flagged and staff
realized maybe they need to reconsider who would be eligible for these units.
Hensch asked for a project that's funded with LIHTC monies, does that entire project have to
follow those low income guidelines for the entire project. Russett acknowledged that yes, they
need to follow the terms of the program. So, for example, the Riverfront Crossings Code requires
a 10 year term for the affordable units and the LI HTC programs requires 30 years so they would
be subject to that 30 year requirement.
Townsend asked where the 10 year limit come from because is 10 years really a long enough
period of time for someone who really needs affordable housing? Russett said that time period
was developed back in 2016 when the Code was amended and they determined at that time at
least 10% of the units need to be affordable for a 10 year term. Townsend questioned if it really
effective and solving the problem if after 10 years the units are no longer affordable. She also
asked if a developer pays a fee -in -lieu of low income affordable housing where that money goes
and who determines how that money spent. Russett explained it goes to the City and housing
staff keep track of the money that comes in and it needs to be spent in Riverfront Crossings for
affordable housing. It goes into an affordable housing fund. Townsend asked with the
contribution of land for affordable housing, who pays for the housing if housing is built on that
land? Russett said they have not had anyone take advantage of that option yet so they haven't
really seen that play out yet she would need to look to see how it is clarified in the Code.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Mike Oliveira (330 North Gilbert Street) came forward to state he just got done reading a new
book about the whole issue of inclusion. He is worried when the City says they are going to limit
somebody that has savings of $100,000. This is because there are some people out there of a
different race, maybe not white, but maybe Hispanic, Chinese, different cultures that have
different saving patterns, but are economically depressed, that would qualify for this. Even
though they have over $100,000 in savings, just because of their extended families, a lot live with
them. Either additional parents didn't show kids. Oliveira noted there are a lot of Hispanics and
South Americans dealing with Homeland Security and these families are saving to put money
away because of that and they may reach that threshold and be disqualified. Oliveira feels the
threshold needs to be raised not just an arbitrary number that staff may have come up with. He
would like to see some data on the table, where staff arrived at the $100,000 amount, was it from
other cities, because he knows from living in Chicago for 22 years some of those programs are
not that low on the criteria for some of the subsidized housing on asset based.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Parsons moved for the Commission to approve ZCA19-02, amendments to Title 14,
Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to the Riverfront Crossings affordable housing
requirements.
Signs seconded the motion.
Signs clarified the 10 year piece came from lengthy conference committee of city staff,
homebuilders and developers. There was a lot of give and take to try to get to the point of
having this inclusionary housing period. The 10 years was part of that give and take. He agrees
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 17, 2019
Page 9 of 11
with Townsend that it's not long enough by any stretch of the word, but that's a different issue
than what they've got to deal with tonight.
Hensch asked given Sign's intimate knowledge of his whole involvement in that process, does he
think the overlooking of the Iowa Finance Authority financing was just an oversight. Signs
confirmed absolutely. He added they are seeing more of the LITHC being used now than back
then, but because of because of the emphasis on affordable housing currently statewide and
nationwide it's certainly a tool that we want to encourage the use of.
Townsend is not in favor, the developers are not giving us anything, they are getting more height
to their buildings, which means they can build more units, which means they are going to get
more money.
Signs noted however the LITHC requirement is 30 years of affordability, not just 10 year.
Dyer has thought for some time the developers have so many outs here that that it doesn't seem
like affordable housing is likely to get built in Riverfront Crossings very often. The idea was for
affordable housing there because it is close in to downtown and ideal for working people. She
also wonders if, because of the really serious need for affordable housing now, if the resistance
would be less now than there was a few years ago and they could expand on the 10 years. All
over the country there's a shortage of affordable housing now, but at the time this was adopted
the City was seeming to be so bold and intrusive on developers. Now it seems like everybody
knows there's a shortage of affordable housing but that wasn't so evident at the time.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1 (Townsend dissenting).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 3, 2019
Parsons moved to approve the meeting minutes of October 3, 2019.
Townsend seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett noted they had the Iowa APA conference last week in Iowa City and it was very well
attended. There were over 200 registrants and then an additional 50 plus speakers with some
great sessions.
Baker asked for an update on Council deliberations for the project down on South Gilbert and
Prentis streets. Russett said that has not been approved yet, at the meeting on Tuesday they
voted on the second reading of the regulating plan amendment and the first reading of the
rezoning and those were both the recommended for approval 7-0. But they still have to have a
third reading on the regulating plan amendment and the second and third reading on the
rezoning ordinance.
ADJOURNMENT:
q,A
Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 (ZCA10,02)
ORDINANCE NO. 19-4813
Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City code related to the
Riverfront Crossings affordable housing requirements (ZCA19-02)
Whereas, the City of Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan has a vision that Iowa City is a
community of neighborhoods with safe, attractive, and affordable housing options to serve
residents throughout their lifetimes; and
Whereas, in 2016, the City adopted the Riverfront Crossing Form -Based Code and later
that year amended it to include an affordable housing requirement; and
Whereas, staff has implemented the Riverfront Crossings affordable housing requirement
for three years and has determined that amendments are necessary to improve the
effectiveness of the requirement; and
Whereas, the proposed amendment revises the definition of affordable rental housing to
include projects that receive Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) through the Iowa
Finance Authority; and
Whereas, the proposed amendment revises the definition of income eligible households
to clarify that households with greater than $100,000 in assets, excluding retirement assets,
are not income eligible households; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a meeting on October 17, 2019 and
recommended approval of the aforementioned zoning code amendment; and
Whereas, it is in the City's best interest to adopt this ordinance.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa that:
Section 1. The following portions of Section 14-2G-8 of the Iowa City Code is hereby amended
by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text:
B. Definitions
AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING: Housing that is rented for no more than the HUD fair
market rent for the Iowa City, Iowa, HUD metro FMR area, as adjusted annually, and rented
to an income eligible household, or housing that has received Low Income Housing Tax
Credits (LIHTC) through the Iowa Finance Authority and rented for no more than the LIHTC
rent limits for Johnson County as adjusted annually, and rented to an income eligible
household.
INCOME ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD: Except as set forth herein Aa household is an income
eligible household for purposes of purchasing an owner occupied affordable housing dwelling
unit if that household has an annual income equal to or less than one hundred ten percent
(110%) of the area median income (AMI) for Iowa City, as adjusted annually. Except as set
forth herein, Aa household is an income eligible household for leasing affordable rental
housing if that household has an annual income equal to or less than sixty percent (60%) of
the AMI for Iowa City, as adjusted annually. Households with greater than one hundred
thousand dollars ($100,000) in assets excluding Retirement Assets are not income eligible
Ordinance No. 19-4813
Page 2
households.
E. Affordable Rental Housing: Affordable rental housing must satisfy the general requirements
set forth in subsection C of this section and the following requirements:
2. Program Requirements:
a. Rental Rate: The monthly rental rate shall be either:
(1) no more than the fair market rents as -published by HUD for the Iowa City, Iowa,
HUD metro FMR area, as adjusted annually; or
Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged
to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance
as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof no adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval,
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this 3rd day of December
Ma or
Attest:
City Clerk
2019.
��Appreved bYnF'!a"'.,.`41rs/9i�lSe�
Attorney's Office. cr
Ordinance No. 19-4813
Page 3
It was moved by Mims and seconded by Thomas that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS:
x
First Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Cole, Mims.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
ABSENT:
Cole
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Throgmorton
11/19/2019
AYES: Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton,
NAYS: None. ABSENT: none.
Date published 12/12/2019
Moved by Mims, seconded by Taylor, that the rule requiring ordinances
to be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings
prior to the meeting at which it is to be finally passed be suspended,
the second consideration and vote be waived and the ordinance be voted
upon for final passage at this time.
AYES: Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton, Cole, Mims, Salih.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Item Number: 9.e.
�r
1P -
CITY OE IOWA CITY
www.iogov.org
December 3, 2019
Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City code related to single-
family site development standards. (ZCA19-04) (Second Consideration)
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
PZ Staff Report w Attachments
PZ Minutes
Additional Correspondence
Ordinance
CITY OF IOWA CITY
UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 17, 2019
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner
Re: Amendment to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code Related to Single -Family Site
Development Standards (ZCA19-04)
Background
In 2018, the City amended its municipal code in response to State legislation that restricted the City
from enforcing any regulations that limited the occupancy of rental property based on familial
relationships. One of the code changes adopted in response to this legislation was a rental permit cap
that restricted rental permits to 30% in certain neighborhoods for single-family and duplexes. Earlier this
year, the State legislature passed another bill that prohibited cities from adopting rental permit caps.
Due to concerns related to the City's inability to regulate rental permit caps and the potential impacts to
preserving neighborhood stability, the City Council adopted a ten-month rental permit moratorium in
May 2019. The moratorium was adopted to give the City time to study and address how best to mitigate
the consequences of this legislation.
Table 1 outlines a timeline of the State bills and associated City code amendments.
TABLE 1. Timeline
April, 2017
State legislature passes a bill prohibiting cities from enforcing any
regulations that limits occupancy of rental property based on the existence
of familial relationships
April, 2018
City adopts neighborhood stabilization ordinance that made many changes
to the zoning code, including, but not limited to:
• Updated rear setback requirements to discourage inappropriate
expansions in certain zones
• Limited the number of bedrooms in attached single-family and
duplexes to 4
• Updated the private open space requirements
City moves to annual inspections for many rental properties and increases
nuisance and property maintenance enforcement.
City adopts an ordinance that capped rental permits at 30% in certain
neighborhoods for single-family and duplexes
April, 2019
State legislature passes a bill prohibiting cities from adopting or enforcing
rental permit caps
October 9, 2019
Page 2
May, 2019 City adopts a ten-month rental permit cap moratorium until March 7, 2020
on the issuance of new rental permits for single-family and duplex units in
areas that exceed the 30% rental cap
Ensuring that city neighborhoods include a variety of housing choices and options for all residents has
been a challenge, particularly in the core of the community, which is dominated by student housing.
With the changes in State law, which limit local control, the City is once again exploring options to
ensure City codes promote safe, healthy, and stable residential neighborhoods.
While adopting the moratorium back in May of 2019, the City Council articulated the following goals for
any new regulations:
1. Ensure single-family detached structures and duplexes provide healthy and safe living
environments for all occupants.
2. Maintain neighborhood characteristics and housing options suitable for attracting a diverse
demographic in the city's older single-family neighborhoods.
3. Prevent the overburdening of city infrastructure and operational resources.
Since the adoption of the moratorium, city staff has twice met with representatives of the Greater Iowa
City Landlord Association and the Iowa City Area Association of Realtors. Staff also met with
representatives of the Neighborhood Council and heard input from that group on the current state of
their respective neighborhoods.
Proposed Code Amendment
Without the ability to regulate occupancy or enforce rental permit caps, City staff spent the past few
months exploring other ways to address concerns related to neighborhood stabilization. Due to the
comprehensive nature of the April 2018 zoning code amendments and the additional resources for
nuisance and property maintenance enforcement, staff is only proposing one change to the zoning
code related to paving in front of single-family homes and duplexes.
The zoning code currently allows parking in front setback areas with certain restrictions. Table 2
outlines the current and proposed regulations.
TABLE 2. Current v. Proposed Regulations regarding Parking and Paving in the Front Setback Area for
Single-family and Duplex Uses
Current
Proposed
Parking spaces allowed in front setback area, as
Parking spaces allowed in front setback area, as
long as it leads directly to a parking space and at
long as it leads directly to a parking space and at
least 50% of the front setback area remains open
least 50% of the front setback area remains open
space.
space.
NEW: Additional paved areas shall be separated
by at least 9 feet of open space area from
conforming parking spaces or aisles.
October 9, 2019
Page 3
Currently, the code allows additional paving for patio and seating areas, basketball courts, grilling
areas, and other uses to be contiguous with conforming parking spaces within the front setback area.
The proposed code amendment would no longer allow additional paving to be contiguous with
conforming parking spaces. The 9 -foot separation distance between the parking spaces and the
additional paving will reduce the instances where the additional paved area is used as parking. Staff
selected 9 -feet for the separation distance — the minimum width of a parking space — to discourage
parking within the open space area.
Figure 1 is an example of additional paving installed by a property owner to provide tenants with a grill
and seating area. Instead, the space is used for parking. These are the types of improvements that
would no longer be permissible under the proposed text amendment.
FIGURE 1.
,,n�i
Y F�
Staff believes the additional restriction on front -yard paving will help address the second and third goals
that the City Council endorsed in May of 2019.
In addition to the zoning code amendment, staff will be proposing an amendment to Title 17, Chapter 5:
Housing Code to require all rental units to test for radon and mitigate, if necessary. This amendment
targets the first goal of the City Council and also dovetails with the City's ongoing healthy homes
initiative and protects renters from a known health hazard that is prevalent in our community.
Next Steps
Pending recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council will
hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment. The City Council will also consider the proposed
amendment to the Housing Code, which does not require Planning and Zoning Commission review.
October 9, 2019
Page 4
Pending adoption of the zoning and housing code amendments, the City Council will also consider
lifting the rental permit moratorium. Staff hopes that the City Council can remove the moratorium earlier
than expected, perhaps by January 1, 2020.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the following proposed text
amendment to 14 -2A -6C to restrict additional paving in the front setback area of single-family and
duplex uses.
Attachments:
1. Draft Text Amendment
Approved by: :�I)
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
DRAFT Text Amendment
14-2A-6: SINGLE-FAMILY SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
C. Garage, Driveway And Parking Location Standards:
1. For single-family uses and two-family uses, a required parking space may be located behind
another parking space on a regularly constructed aisle, provided the spaces are not stacked
more than two (2) spaces deep, counting the space within a garage. (See figure 2A.4
below.) Figure 2A.4 - Stacked Parking Spaces
2. Parking for single-family uses and two-family uses may be designed to allow cars to exit by
backing into a street, except if street access is restricted or alley access is required.
3. Parking is not permitted in the front principal dwelling setback, except in the following
situations:
a. For single-family uses, one of the required parking space(s) may be provided in the front
principal dwelling setback on a regularly constructed aisle that leads directly to a parking
space that is not located in the front principal dwelling setback, provided not less than fifty
percent (50%) of the front principal dwelling setback area remains open space, free of
impervious surface. Additional paved areas shall be separated by at least 9 feet of open
space area, free of impervious surface from conforming parking spaces or aisles.
I
I
II
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
s�tbackl
2. Parking for single-family uses and two-family uses may be designed to allow cars to exit by
backing into a street, except if street access is restricted or alley access is required.
3. Parking is not permitted in the front principal dwelling setback, except in the following
situations:
a. For single-family uses, one of the required parking space(s) may be provided in the front
principal dwelling setback on a regularly constructed aisle that leads directly to a parking
space that is not located in the front principal dwelling setback, provided not less than fifty
percent (50%) of the front principal dwelling setback area remains open space, free of
impervious surface. Additional paved areas shall be separated by at least 9 feet of open
space area, free of impervious surface from conforming parking spaces or aisles.
b. For two-family uses and group households, two (2) of the required parking spaces may be
provided in the front principal dwelling setback on a regularly constructed aisle that leads
directly to a parking space that is not located in the front principal dwelling setback,
provided not less than fifty percent (50%) of the front principal dwelling setback area
remains open space, free of impervious surface. Additional paved areas shall be separated
by at least 9 feet of open space area, free of impervious surface from conforming parking
spaces or aisles.
c. For single-family uses, two-family uses, and group households, up to three (3) nonrequired
parking spaces may be provided in the front principal dwelling setback, provided any such
space is located on a regularly constructed aisle that leads directly to a parking space that
is not located in the front principal dwelling setback, and provided that not less than fifty
percent (50%) of the front principal dwelling setback area remains open space, free of
buildings and impervious surfaces. (See figure 2A.5 of this section.) Additional paved areas
shall be separated by at least 9 feet of open space area, free of impervious surface from
conforming parking spaces or aisles.
Figure 2A.5 - Nonrequired Parking Within The Front Setback Area
4, r�5j r�lh
(Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005)
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 17, 2019
Page 2of11
along the north side of American Legion Road. Due to an internal staff miscommunication this
condition was not included in the staff report, however this afternoon staff informed the applicant
that it intends to include the temporary construction easement as a condition of this rezoning.
Upon hearing this news, the applicant requested a deferral of the application to allow for
additional time to study the proposed temporary construction easement.
Parsons moved to defer ANN19-01 and REZ19-01 per the applicant's request. Townsend
seconded the motion.
Signs asked for staff to also be prepared to talk about the plans for American Legion Road at the
next meeting.
A vote was taken and the he motion passed 7-0.
CASE NO. ZCA19-04:
Discussion of Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to single- family site
development standards.
Russett stated the background on this proposed amendment is the City wants to have
neighborhoods that provide a variety of housing choices and options for all residents and this can
be challenging in the core of the community which is dominated by student housing. So the
proposed text amendment is in response to a recent state legislation that limits local control of
city's zoning and regulations related to neighborhood stabilization efforts. Russett showed a
slide of the timeline of what has transpired over the past few years. In April 2017, the state
legislature passed a bill prohibiting cities from enforcing any regulations that limit occupancy of
rental property based on existence of familial status. In response to that legislation, in April 2018,
the City adopted a neighborhood stabilization ordinance that made many changes to the Zoning
Code. The changes included updating the rear setback requirements to discourage
inappropriate additions in backyards, limiting the number of bedrooms in attached single family
and duplexes to four and updating the private open space requirements for onsite open space.
The City also moved to annual inspections for rental properties and increased nuisance and
property maintenance enforcement. Lastly, the City adopted an ordinance that capped rental
permits at 30% in certain neighborhoods for single family and duplexes. Then in April 2019, the
state legislature passed a bill prohibiting cities from adopting or enforcing rental permit caps so
therefore in May 2019 in response to that state legislation the City adopted a 10 month rental
permit cap moratorium until March 2020 on the issuance of new rental permits for single family
and duplex units in areas that exceed that 30% rental cap.
Russett noted the City adopted this moratorium in May with the following goals of new
regulations in mind. One, to ensure single family detached structures and duplexes provide
healthy and safe living environments; two, maintain neighborhood characteristics and housing
options suitable for a diverse demographic in the City, particularly in older single family
neighborhoods; and three, prevent the overburdening of City infrastructure and operational
resources. Without the ability to regulate occupancy or enforce the rental permit cap staff has
spent the last few months exploring other options and other ways to address concerns related to
neighborhood stabilization. Due to the comprehensive nature of the 2018 Zoning Code
Amendments, as well as the additional resources that have been put forth for nuisance
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 17, 2019
Page 3 of 11
abatement and property maintenance enforcement, staff is only proposing one change towards
Zoning Code at this time and it's related to single family site development standards and
specifically, front yard paving and front yard setback for single family homes and duplexes.
Russett showed a table with a summary of the current regulations and the proposed regulations.
Currently, parking spaces are allowed in the front setback area as long as it leads directly to a
parking space and at least 50% of the front setback area remains open space. Staff is proposing
to keep the regulation moving forward but add an additional requirement that states that any
additional paved areas must be separated by at least nine feet of open space from any of
conforming parking spaces or aisles. Russett showed a picture of an example of what the City
would like to avoid, a conforming parking space to the garage and the conforming space in front
of that garage with another space. This particular property owner requested some additional
paving to the left of that parking isle in that driveway for a grilling area, but they're using it for
parking and that's the type of improvements to avoid. Of course the City wants property owners
to be able to improve their site and to provide a patio and grilling areas and the like, but it
shouldn't be used for parking. Russett showed other slides of properties that are examples of
what they are trying to avoid. What staff is proposing some additional paving is allowed within
that front setback area but it must be separated by at least nine feet of impervious surface from
any of the conforming parking spaces. Additionally 50% of that front setbacks area must remain
as open space. City staff has done some outreach on this proposed amendment and meetings
have been held with the Greater Iowa City Landlord Association, the Iowa City Area Association
of Realtors as well as the Neighborhood Council and no major issues have been raised with the
proposed amendments.
Russett noted in terms of next steps after the Planning and Zoning Commission's
recommendation this will go to City Council for a public hearing and consideration of the
amendment.
Staff is recommending approval of the proposed text amendment related to additional paving in
the front setback area of single family homes and duplexes.
Hensch stated he's always heard and presumed it's illegal to park in Iowa City in a front yard if
it's on grass. Russett confirmed that was correct. Hensch asked how the actual dimensions were
determined. He noted he does not like front parking at all and thinks it destroys the character of
the neighborhood. Russett said staff was proposing nine feet as open space area between the
conforming parking space and any in any additional paving based on current parking space
dimensions. Currently, the standard parking space is nine feet by 18 feet and what they want to
do is have it separation distance enough that discourages parking across the open space area
so they settled on nine feet.
Baker assumed anything that already exists, like the example in the staff report, is grandfathered
in and is not going to be affected. Russett confirmed that as long as it's a legal use and properly
permitted. However in the example in the staff report, the additional paving allowed in that
location was not permitted for parking so they cannot park there. Baker noted then the solution
staff is proposing looks like they are just adding a driveway that has access to the street.
Russett said it would be to the sidewalk so there would be no drive. Baker asked if somebody
just wanted to put in concrete in their front yard and extend it to the sidewalk, how wide could
that extension be. Russett stated the requirement is that no more than 50% of that front setback
area can be paved, 50% has to be open space, so as long as they met that requirement they
could add concrete to their front yard.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 17, 2019
Page 4 of 11
Baker stated he is having a hard time seeing how this amendment is going to change behavior,
other than parking there's no other advantage to the homeowner adding a concrete slab in their
front yard. Russett stated the City stillswant to allow people to make those improvements if they
need a patio space, it just can't be adjacent to the driveway and people park on it.
Martin noted there's so much that's already done, and when looking at the timeline of what's
been going on with rental permits, how did the City come up with this solution as it doesn't
correlate. Russett acknowledged they struggled with thinking about additional amendments that
could be made to address the recent state legislation. The one thing they heard from the
enforcement staff is that they're seeing additional paving in the community like additional paving
adjacent to the driveway. While that is currently allowed, the paving can be there for a patio, it
cannot be used for parking. However it is being used for parking and it's hard for enforcement
staff to actually catch them in the act. It will be much easier for them to enforce this new
standard, which states that there needs to be a separation distance. If this amendment gets
adopted and someone paves right adjacent to their conforming drive aisle they automatically are
in violation of the Zoning Code. Enforcement staff doesn't need to keep following up and driving
past the property hoping they catch them in a violation.
Martin asked if there's been a rental house and now a single family is going to buy it and they've
got two kids that are teenagers and are also driving. In the beginning statement a diverse
demographic of people living in these neighborhoods was the reason for these change and that
includes families too. Normal families may need additional parking because a modern family
does not usually live on one car, parking then is an issue. Russett appreciated Martin's point
about larger families who do need more parking, but currently, even if it was a larger family, they
couldn't put additional parking next to their drive right now.
Baker feels this is still going to be an enforcement problem, people can say they are going to
build a patio space but then use it for parking. Russett stated it is the City's enforcement staff
who have to deal with these issues every day and with this amendment adding the additional
separation requirement, it would be easy for our enforcement staff to go out and see there's no
separation between the conforming drive and the additional paving, therefore it's a violation.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Mike Oliveira (330 North Gilbert Street) stated one of the things this regulation creates is a
problem for lots with the garage that sticks out in front of a house, as it appears on a typical Iowa
City house. They have had an additional drive added to the side of the drive to a single or two
garage to accommodate additional vehicles for the owner of the house or their teenage kids.
Oliveira shared some examples he printed out from very high end homes listed at over a million
dollars and worked his way down. This may be a knee jerk reaction to this situation where it
would hurt other people down the road and Oliveira being a potential developer of a lot of infill
lots sees this as a potential problem. He feels this amendment, the way it got worded needs
some work. Oliveira showed an example at 925 Meadowlark Drive, it's listed for $1,190,000 and
it's an example of a house with their garage and additional sidewalk. For another house he saw
listed it had a swimming pool or deck a violation, even though it was separated by a driveway by
a fence, but it did not appear to have a nine foot separation. Oliveira feels the City's requirement
of least 50% the front setback area must be open area accomplishes that purpose. The example
slides would be grandfathered as legal conforming developments, so he feels the only purpose
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 17, 2019
Page 5 of 11
of this ordinance change is to affect future development or alterations to a house. He showed
more examples and reiterated the City needs to take more consideration on this
recommendation.
Martin noted that looking at the Meadowlark property, would that be a problem in the future.
Russett noted it would be helpful if Mr. Oliveira could point out on each of these examples what
he thinks is would be an issue. Oliveira said he did add a narrative underneath base on the
ordinance and what the problem is noting there are many different styles of houses in the
community.
Russett doesn't see any issues with the 925 Meadowlark Drive example. Oliveira pointed out it
would be the extension to the drive left of the garage, adding space there. If someone had a
house like that, and had five kids, teenagers, they would want an extra place to park their cars
and not tie up all the garages under that current ordinance, the way it's written one couldn't do
that. Russett stated they actually could, what he is showing here would still be allowed under the
proposed ordinance, it is a drive that is adjacent to a conforming parking space. There is a three
stall garage and therefore they could have three cars behind those conforming garages.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Parsons moved the Commission recommend approval of ZCA-1904, Amendments to Title
14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to single- family site development standards.
Signs seconded the motion.
Baker asked if a lot of these extensions are being built under these circumstances. Russett
replied she doesn't know the exact number, but it is has come up as an issue from the
enforcement staff. Baker noted if this ordinance is passed, the existing ones are still going to
have the same problem. Also if people are asking for patio spaces in their front yard, moving
that patio space to the center of the yard is the logical consequence of the ordinance. Russett
stated it would depend on the size of the lot and the location of the lot. This ordinance will
prohibit in the future someone using a new patio as an extension of the existing driveway. The
patio can be adjacent to the driveway, it just can't be in the front setback area.
Hensch confirmed this doesn't affect any existing structures unless it's currently being used
improperly. Additionally it doesn't take away anybody's ability to put an impervious surface in
their front area for fire pit, a picnic area, etc., as long as it isn't used as parking and 50% of the
area is still open. Russett confirmed that was correct. Hensch noted the key issue is to make
sure it's not a faint to create a parking space. If there is the nine foot separation, then it clearly is
not a parking space and has to be used for whatever other purpose it is. He noted he has
several friends who live on Johnson Street and it is just a cluster of cars in people's yards. It is a
big problem with them regarding the quality of life. This ordinance is not going to solve all the
problems because it doesn't address the issue of current structures that have the pavement
there, but at least it can stop it from spreading.
Baker asked for one small clarification. Under the current regulations if somebody wanted to add
a paved recreational area in the setback, they could do with no separation. With the new
ordinance they can still add a paved recreation area in the setback, they just need a nine foot
separation from any other pavement. Hensch confirmed a homeowner can do whatever they
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 17, 2019
Page 6 of 11
want with their property such as a picnic area in the front or a grilling area. He acknowledged
this may not solve a whole lot of problems, but it's at least a step.
Dyer stated the particular example in the staff report is in violation now. Russett confirmed the
use of it as parking is a violation of the Zoning Code. The concrete isn't a violation, but the way
they're using it is. So if an enforcer comes along and sees cars parked there they can issue a
citation.
Martin feels then the goal is to put more cars on the street, which she acknowledges is a
negative way to look at it but as a bicyclist and as someone who lives near downtown she would
want more cars off of the street. Regardless, she cannot understand how this verbiage can help
rental codes and make a difference in parking.
Russett clarified the proposed ordinance isn't changing how they currently allow and where they
allow parking.
Signs agreed he doesn't like concrete in front yards either and feels putting a nine foot grass
strip between it and some other concrete isn't going to stop any illegal parking. If there is an
enforcement issue now, there will still be an enforcement issue later.
Townsend asked if this would also apply to those that sell their cars and boats on their front
yards. Russett stated that is a whole other issue.
Hensch is not sure this will solve much of a problem because it doesn't do anything to fix existing
structures, but it does clarify things for the future. It doesn't limit the options with the homeowner
and it makes things easier to distinguish violations both for the homeowner and for the code
enforcement officer. Hensch added they need to minimize the amount of concrete overall
because of the whole storm water and the drainage issues. So even though he doesn't think this
will solve much he will vote in favor of this.
Dyer does see it as a problem if someone wants to put a sidewalk right next to the driveway as in
some of the illustrations that Mr. Oliveira brought forth. If someone added a garage and wanted
a sidewalk from the garage to go beside that towards the front of the house to the front door that
would seem to be a violation of this proposal and she doesn't see the problem with having a
sidewalk.
Russett agrees with that and stated they could clarify the Code language to state that it doesn't
apply to sidewalks, that additional paving wouldn't apply to sidewalks or any access to the to the
home.
Hensch asked if they should amend the motion or is that just a note staff will take to City Council.
Russett would like to discuss it further with staff.
Parsons moved to amend the motion to exclude add ons that are strictly for sidewalk use
and access to the dwelling and staff will work out the details.
Signs concurred and seconded the amendment to the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-3 (Baker, Martin, Signs dissenting).
r4 �� Pvtold� k 0(WA-q,
911 S Van Buren St
Iowa City. IA 52240 • Single Family • Active
3 bedroom home listed for $190,000. These proposed changes would reduce the legal parking in this
driveway from two cars stacked to one car. The sidewalk to the front door is also a paved area not
separated by at least 9 feet from the drive aisle.
3922 Grindstone Dr.
Iowa Cfty. to 52240 • Single Family • Active
Listed for $333,900.
The garage extends in front of the front side of the house. Therefore, under the proposed new
ordinance 14-2A-6(Q3)(c) no parking spaces would be allowed in the aisle (driveway) leading to the
garage parking spaces. Further, the sidewalk that starts at the driveway (aisle) and extends to the left
around the two -car garage connecting to the front door is not separated by at least 9 feet from the
driveway (aisle).
3005 Parkview Ave
Iowa Cjiy. IA 52240 • Single Family • Active
Sa:.
�b��9,/y7� ' i+ .r 1-. `t1-. � Y ry � �ti� rY r,.• cr .4 • x.: `r t rPy � ri r` ' F ' �`- i -=3vs'
•�.Ywr•� �-t�< �T"�r �.�` 'b" ~ rrf i u• `"j yar i.• y •-,. J,f y.. �cw ai0 �Ar►
it • �..,r v :��, ik.7 ! y r... �i �. ! b�y�_ 1C � f a 2,
a�.a� ' �..�.{7'S'"-::.�'..�-.'_� r.. _. i'�.ii.' :� .-s:4• .c. -c _� sfi�'%` _-: L.:_�Y+ t�,• _' - ,
This 4 bedroom split level house is listed for $174,900. This proposed ordinance would make parking to
the left of the portion of the aisle that leads directly into the one car parking garage illegal for either
required or non -required parking stalls. However at least 50% of the front yard setback remains open
space. The walkway to the front door is also a paved area not separated by at least 9 feet from the
driveway.
2235 Russell Drive n
Iowa City. IA 52240 • single Family • AUive
Save
4 bedroom house listed for $197,000.
These proposed rules would make use of the driveway paved to the right of the aisle to the parking
garage for parking illegal, as well as making the walkway to the front door illegal. The addition of this
parking area is a typical solution for additional cars once teenagers reach driving age or in this case even
if the two adults both work, so that each can get out without blocking the other driver. For this property
clearly more than 50% of the front set back area remains open space.
3758 EEgin Dr
Iowa City, IA 52245 • Singte Fatuity • Pending
SavE
This 4 bedroom, 4 bath home is listed for $306,900.
The garage extends in front of the front side of the house. Therefore, under the proposed new
ordinance 14-2A-6(Q3)(a) and (c) no parking spaces would be allowed in the aisle (driveway) leading to
the garage parking spaces. Further, the sidewalk that starts at the driveway (aisle) and extends to the
right around the two -car garage connecting to the front door is not separated by at least 9 feet from the
driveway (aisle).
925 Meadowlark Dr
Iowa City. IA 132746 • `Migie Fa mly • Active
Listed for $1,190,000.
This would appear to violate the proposed new ordinance 14-2A-6(C)(3)(c) in that the garage appears to
extend in front of the front building face of the house. Thus, no parking spaces would be allowed in the
aisle (driveway) leading to the garage parking spaces. Further, the sidewalk that starts at the driveway
(aisle) and extends to the left around the garage and the sidewalk that extends from the driveway (aisle)
to the front door both are not separated by at least 9 feet from the driveway (aisle). It is quite possible
that a 6 -bedroom, 6 bath house, such as this, could be occupied by persons with more than 3 cars.
863 Kennedy Pkwy
Iowa City. IA 52244 • Single Family • Active
0
Save
This house is listed for $509,900.
The garage extends in front of the front side of the house. Therefore, under the proposed new
ordinance 14-2A-6(Q3)(c) no parking spaces would be allowed in the aisle (driveway) leading to the
garage parking spaces. Further, the sidewalk that starts at the driveway (aisle) and extends to the right
around the three -car garage connecting to the front door is not separated by at least 9 feet from the
driveway (aisle).
2918 Orchard View Ln Ne n
Iowa City, IA 52240 • Single Family - Pending
Pendlmg PRICE REDUCED
Listed for $899,900.
This would appear to violate the proposed new ordinance 14-2A-6(Q3)(c) in that the garage appears to
extend in front of the front building face of the house. Further, there is no space in the driveway that
would be directly behind the parking spaces in any of the garages given the orientation of these garages.
Thus, no parking spaces would be allowed in the aisle (driveway) leading to the garage parking spaces.
Further, the sidewalk that starts at the driveway (aisle) and extends to the left around the three -car
garage connecting to the front door and the paved area on the street side of the two car both are not
separated by at least 9 feet from the driveway (aisle).
q,ev
Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 (ZCA19-04)
ORDINANCE NO.
Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City code related to
single-family site development standards (ZCA19-04)
Whereas, in April 2018, the City adopted a neighborhood stabilization ordinance
(Ordinance No. 18-4744) and an ordinance (Ordinance No. 17-4769) that capped rental
permits at 30% in certain neighborhoods for single-family and duplex uses; and
Whereas, in April 2019, the State legislature adopted a law (SF 447) that prohibited
municipalities from adopting or enforcing rental permit caps; and
Whereas, in May 2019, the City adopted a 10 -month rental permit cap moratorium
(Ordinance No. 19-4793) on the issuance of new rental permits for single-family and duplex
units in areas that exceed the 30% rental cap in order to allow time to explore how best to
mitigate the consequences of the State legislation; and
Whereas, the City explored alternative strategies to ensure older homes and duplexes
provide healthy and safe living environments for all occupants; maintain neighborhood
characteristics and housing options suitable for attracting a diverse demographic in our older
single-family neighborhoods; and prevent the over -burdening of city infrastructure and
operational resources; and
Whereas, the zoning code allows parking spaces within the front setback area as long as
it leads directly to a parking space and at least 50% of the front setback area remains open
space; and
Whereas, one alternative strategy identified for single-family homes and duplexes was to
require an unpaved separation between conforming parking spaces and additional paved
areas to ensure these additional paved areas are not used for parking;
Whereas, the proposed amendment to single-family residential zone site development
standards requires that any additional paved area (e.g. patio seating areas, basketball courts,
grilling areas) within the front setback area must be separated by at least 9 -feet from any
conforming parking spaces or aisles, with the exception of walkways that provide access to a
dwelling unit; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a meeting on October 17, 2019 and
recommended approval of the aforementioned zoning code amendment; and
Whereas, it is in the City's best interest to adopt this ordinance.
Now, therefore, be in ordinance by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
Section 1. Section 14 -2A -6C(3) "Single -Family Development Standards", "Garage,
Drieway and Parking Location Standards" of the Iowa City Code is hereby amended by
adding the following underlined language:
3. Parking is not permitted in the front principal dwelling setback, except in the following
situations:
a. For single-family uses, one of the required parking space(s) may be provided in the front
principal dwelling setback on a regularly constructed aisle that leads directly to a parking
space that is not located in the front principal dwelling setback, provided not less than fifty
percent (50%) of the front principal dwelling setback area remains open space, free of
impervious surface. With the exception of pedestrian oaths that nrnvlriA ACCACC t„ n
feet of open space area free of impervious surface
b. For two-family uses and group households, two (2) of the required parking spaces may be
provided in the front principal dwelling setback on a regularly constructed aisle that leads
directly to a parking space that is not located in the front principal dwelling setback, provided
not less than fifty percent (50%) of the front principal dwelling setback area remains open
space, free of impervious surface. With the exception of pedestrian paths that provide access
aisles by at least 9 feet of open space area free of impervious surface
c. For single-family uses, two-family uses, and group households, up to three (3) nonrequired
parking spaces may be provided in the front principal dwelling setback, provided any such
space is located on a regularly constructed aisle that leads directly to a parking space that
is not located in the front principal dwelling setback, and provided that not less than fifty
percent (50%) of the front principal dwelling setback area remains open space, free of
buildings and impervious surfaces. (See figure 2A.5 of this section.) With the exception of
impervious surface
Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged
to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance
as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof no adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval,
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of
Mayor
2019.
Attest: App ved by
njalr m i✓inn 17M� G c._
City Clerk -City Attorney's Office
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Cole
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Throgmorton
First Consideration 11/19/2019
Vote for passage: AYES: Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton, Cole,
Mims, Salih. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 12/03/2019
Vote for passage: AYES: Thomas, Throgmorton, Cole, Mims, Salih,
Taylor, Teague. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Date published
Item Number: 10.
AL CITY OF IOWA CITY
=�c�-
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
December 3, 2019
Ordinance amending Title 17, entitled "Building and Housing," Chapter 5,
entitled "Housing Code," to require radon testing and mitigation in single-
family and duplex rental units. (Second Consideration)
Prepared By: Tracy Hightshoe, NDS Director
Reviewed By: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Fiscal Impact: No Impact
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments: Ordinance
Executive Summary:
In response to the state legislature prohibiting municipalities from adopting or enforcing any
regulation or restriction related to occupancy of residential rental property that is based on familial
or nonfamilial relationships, the City adopted multiple housing and zoning code changes to
mitigate the destabilizing effects of the legislation. One of the larger code changes was the
implementation of a rental permit cap for single family and duplex properties in university impacted
neighborhoods.
On April 23, 2019 the state legislature prohibited municipalities from enforcing or adopting rental
permit caps. Without the ability to regulate based on familial status or a rental cap in university
impacted neighborhoods, the City established a moratorium on single family and duplex rental
permits in university neighborhoods that had exceeded the 30% rental cap until March 7, 2020.
The moratorium provides an opportunity for the City to study alternate strategies to address three
Council goals: 1) Ensure single family detached structures and duplexes provide healthy and safe
living environments for all occupants; 2) Maintain neighborhood characteristics and housing
options suitable for attracting a diverse demographic in our older single-family neighborhoods; and
3) Prevent the overburdening of city infrastructure and operational resources.
Background /Analysis:
In response to the City's goal to ensure singe family detached structures and duplexes provide
healthy and safe living environments for all occupants, staff recommends the adoption of a radon
ordinance for all detached single family and duplex properties. There are approximately 2,700
single family and duplex properties in Iowa City.
Radon is the number #1 cause of lung cancer among non-smokers. It is a naturally occurring
radioactive gas produced from the decay of radium in the soil. It is odorless and tasteless.
Radon typically moves up through cracks and other openings in the foundation. The home then
traps the radon inside, where it can lead to increased levels of radon.
All 99 counties of I owa are in Zone 1, also known as the "red zone" for radon levels - meaning
people in these counties have the highest potential for radon in their homes. The average indoor
radon concentration in Iowa is more than six times the national average. In the Fall 2019 Blue
Cross Blue Shield newsletter, they estimate that 400 deaths per year in Iowa are caused by
radon -induced lung cancer, approximately the same number who die in traffic accidents each year.
When an owner -occupied home is listed for sale, it is a common requirement to have the home
tested for radon. If that test equals or exceeds the 4 pCi/L level, the purchase is often contingent
upon the installation of a radon mitigation system. We see this requirement far less often in the
sale of rental properties.
I n order to address the health and safety of occupants, staff recommends that prior to issuance or
renewal of a rental permit for single family detached and duplex structures, that the unit must be
tested for radon. If the unit tests above the 4 pCi/L level, a radon mitigation system must be
installed and tested to ensure radon levels remain below this threshold. The radon mitigation
system, if required, must be maintained for continued rental permit renewals. For single family,
duplex and townhomes built after August 28, 2002, the code requires the installation of a passive
radon system at the time of new construction. This makes it less expensive for the owner to install
a full mechanical radon abatement system if the home tests high for radon.
Staff is recommending that the owner must test every eight years to verify compliance as radon
levels may fluctuate over time, especially if a new HVAC system is installed or significant
rehabilitation has taken place.
Staff will be present at the November 19 work session to discuss any questions.
EPA.gov/radon and Iowa Department of Transportation
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
OrdinancE
}o.
Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030
ORDINANCE NO.
Ordinance amending Title 17, entitled "Building and Housing," Chapter
5, entitled "Housing Code," to require radon testing and mitigation in
single-family and duplex rental units.
Whereas, in December 2017, the City adopted an ordinance (Ordinance No. 17-4769) that
capped rental permits at 30% in certain neighborhoods for single-family and duplex uses and in
April 2018, the City adopted a neighborhood stabilization ordinance (Ordinance No. 18-4744)
and;
Whereas, in April 2019, the State legislature adopted a law (SF 447) that prohibited
municipalities from adopting or enforcing rental permit caps; and
Whereas, in May 2019, the City adopted a 10 -month rental permit cap moratorium
(Ordinance No. 19-4793) on the issuance of new rental permits for single-family and duplex
units in areas that exceed the 30% rental cap in order to allow time to explore how best to
mitigate the consequences of the State legislation; and
Whereas, the City explored alternative strategies to ensure older homes and duplexes
provide healthy and safe living environments for all occupants; maintain neighborhood
characteristics and housing options suitable for attracting a diverse demographic in its older
single-family neighborhoods; and prevent the over -burdening of City infrastructure and
operational resources; and
Whereas, in response to the City's goal to ensure single-family and duplex rental units
provide healthy and safe living environments for all occupants, they should be tested for radon,
and if the test result is equal to or greater than 4 pCi/L, a radon mitigation system should be
installed; and
Whereas, it is in the City's best interest to adopt this ordinance.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa:
Section I. Amendments.
1. Title 17, entitled "Building and Housing," Chapter 5, entitled "Housing Code," Section 18,
entitled, "Minimum Structure Standards for All Rental Housing," is amended by adding the
following underlined text as new Subsection T:
4. If the test result is equal to or greater than 4 PicoCuries per liter (oCi/L). a radnn
permit or within 2 years of the expiration of the expired permit. The unit shall be tested
within 8 years of the date that the prior radon test was performed
7. The owner shall provide a copy of all radon test results to the City.
2. Title 17, entitled "Building and Housing," Chapter 5, entitled "Housing Code," Section 19,
entitled, "Responsibilities of Owners Relating to the Maintenance and Occupancy of Premises,"
Subsection N, entitled "Supplied Facilities," is amended by adding the following underlined text:
1. Every facility, utility and piece of equipment required by this code, including a radon mitigation
system, and/or present in the unit and/or designated for the exclusive use of the occupants of said
unit, at the time that either the rental agreement is signed or possession is given, shall function
safely and shall be maintained in proper working condition. Maintenance of facilities, utilities and
equipment not required by this code shall be the owner's responsibility unless stated to the
contrary in the rental agreement.
2. No supplied facility, including a radon mitigation system, shall be removed, shut off or
disconnected from any occupied dwelling unit or rooming unit except for such temporary
interruption(s) as may be necessary while actual repairs, replacements or alterations are being
made.
Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a
whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of 2019.
Mayor
City Clerk
City Attorney's Office
I(-rS'-fS
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded b
Ordinance as read t y —
be adopted, ed, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Cole
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Throgmorton
that the
First Consideration 11/19/2019
Vote for passage: AYES: Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton, Cole, :Mims,
Salih, Taylor. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Teague, Thomas.
Date published
12/03/2019
AYES: Throgmorton, Cole, Mims, Salih, Taylor,
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Item Number: 11.
1 CITY OF IOWA CITY
��.:. -dry
in � at
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
December 3, 2019
Ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 19-4793, a temporary moratorium on
new rental permits for single-family and duplex units. (First Consideration)
Prepared By: Susan Dulek, Ass't. City Attorney
Reviewed By: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Fiscal Impact: none
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments: Ordinance
Executive Summary:
Following a law passed last spring prohibiting the City from having a rental permit cap, Council
passed an ordinance issuing a temporary moratorium on new rental permits for single-family and
duplex units in certain neighborhoods to allow staff time to explore alternative strategies to mitigate
the impact of rental housing on such areas as neighborhood stability and affordable housing. The
moratorium automatically sunsets on March 1, 2020, and with the passage of the ordinances on
radon testing and single-family site development standards, the moratorium should be repealed
prior to its sunset.
Background /Analysis:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Ordinance
Deferred to 12/17/19
Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030
ORDINANCE NO.
Ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 19-4793, a temporary moratorium
on new rental permits for single-family and duplex units.
Whereas, Ordinance No. 19-4793 established a temporary moratorium on new rental
permits for single-family and duplex units in certain neighborhoods to allow staff time to study
options to enhance and stabilize neighborhoods in light of the passage of HF 134 that prohibited
the City from enforcing its rental permit cap;
Whereas, Ordinance No. 194793 will sunset on March 7, 2020;
Whereas, with the consideration of an ordinance to require radon testing and mitigation and
an ordinance related to single-family site development standards, Ordinance No. 194793
should be repealed prior to its sunset date; and
Whereas, it is in the City's best interest to adopt this ordinance.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa:
Section I. Amendments.
1. Ordinance No. 194793, codified at Title 17, Chapter 15, is repealed.
Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a
whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
2019.
r b
City Attorney's Office
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
A
r
RISK
To Iowa City City Council,
Kent Ackerson <kent_ackerson@msn.com>
Saturday, November 30, 2019 10:17 AM
Rockne Cole; Susan Mims; Mazahir Salih; Pauline Taylor, Bruce Teague; John Thomas;
Jim Throgmorton; Council; Sarah Clark
Moratorium Late Handouts Distributed
/:� - '-�-/C(
(Date)
Please vote no on the repeal of the moratorium on issuance of new rental permits.
We are 45 year residents of the Brown Street Historic District and want the character of our neighborhood to
withstand the pressures of development.
Kent & Kay Ackerson
617 Brown St
Kellie Fruehling
From: Susan Shullaw <smshullaw@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 1, 2019 1:04 PM
To: Rockne Cole; Susan Mims; Mazahir Salih; Pauline Taylor; Bruce Teague; John Thomas;
Jim Throgmorton; Council
Subject: Re: Agenda item #11, Dec. 3, 2019 Council Meeting
Late Handouts Distributed
ARID
To Members of the Iowa City Council: (Date)
As a resident of Iowa City's Northside Neighborhood, I am writing to request that you vote "no" on agenda item
#11, early removal of the rental permit moratorium, at your Council meeting on Tuesday, Dec. 3, 2019.
When the current moratorium was adopted in response to State Legislative action last year, the Council set the
following goals for any new regulations in the pursuit of safe, healthy and stable residential neighborhoods:
1. Ensure single-family detached structures and duplexes provide healthy and safe living environments for
all occupants
2. Maintain neighborhood characteristics and housing options suitable for attracting a diverse demographic
in the city's older single-family neighborhoods
3. Prevent the overburdening of city infrastructure and operational resources
City staff have recently introduced two ordinances (mandating radon testing/mitigation and a zoning code
change for parking) that only partially address the above goals. It is my understanding that staff do not plan to
introduce additional regulatory changes prior to lifting the rental permit cap moratorium, and that passage of
these new ordinances could speed up the moratorium repeal prior to the March 2020 sunset date.
Even with the addition of the two new ordinances noted above, I do not believer current zoning and
enforcement rules allow the City to meet its stated goals for our residential neighborhoods.
I am particularly concerned (as many citizens are) about the large amounts of high -amenity student housing
being built in Iowa City and Coralville. These new rental units can be costly, and may drive more students to
seek less expensive, no-frills alternatives close to campus, including apartments in former single family homes.
At the same time, as our older neighborhoods undergo a generational shift, more single family homes will be
coming on the market. It's already difficult for young families to outbid investment landlords with deep pockets,
and it could become harder as more of the single-family/duplex rental market is consolidated under a handful of
owners. We can't achieve a diverse demographic if most of the housing is snapped up by landlords who
traditionally rent to one demographic.
Our core neighborhoods have been struggling for nearly 50 years to maintain (or achieve) a demographic
balance. While progress has been made in recent years (Horace Mann renovation, park improvements,
UniverCity program), today we are at real risk of losing ground.
I encourage Council to vote no on agenda item #11 and keep the moratorium in place until its original sunset
date, if necessary. This will allow more time for City staff and Council to fully consider all regulatory options
for fulfilling the City's goals — including "maintaining neighborhood characteristics and housing options
suitable for attracting a diverse demographic in the city's older single-family neighborhoods."
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Susan Shullaw
718 North Johnson Street
Iowa City 52245
smshullaw(a, gmail. com
(319) 351-2606
it)I
Kellie Fruehling
From: Jackie B. <jackiehockett@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 1, 2019 5:32 PM Late Handouts Distributed
Subject: Vote NO on Agenda item #11
(Date)
FEISI�f
Dear Council:
Happy Thanksgiving! I am thankful for citizens who serve my community and work to create neighborhoods that are
balanced and thriving. Please vote no on agenda item #11. Neighborhoods like mine, the Northside, have worked so
hard to gain back footing establishing mixed use - which in our case includes owner occupied housing. By letting new
rental permits be issued, companies will begin scooping up housing and using it for rentals- serving just the small
percentage who can afford this scenario. We are a young family, with young children, and we are so proud of our home
and that we live in a mixed use neighborhood. The local citizens voted to support local schools- look at the amazing
renovations and efforts by our community to support Horace Mann and the local parks. Please continue to support a
healthy balance- which in our case I believe is still around 50% rentals. We love the diversity, we like having college
students in our neighborhood. Please vote no on this item.
Thank you for your time and efforts for our Iowa City,
Jackie Biger
-91l
Kellie Fruehling
From: Matthew Lage <mattlage@mchsi.com>
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 5:48 AM
To: Council
Cc: Rockne Cole; Susan Mims; Mazahir Salih; Pauline Taylor, Bruce Teague; John Thomas;
Jim Throgmorton
Subject: Rental moratorium Late Handouts Distributed
1A -,-,)- /9
ARIK (Date)
Just a note to express incredulity that the council is planning an early removal of the present rental permit
moratorium that sunsets in March. It is my understanding that there has been minor tinkering going on in
regard to radon and yard paving that will take effect once the moratorium has been lifted, but no new
regulations that will go into effect to put teeth into dealing with the property rental issue. Cedar Falls, our sister
college town, has such regulations in place that seem to have (successfully) eluded the state legislature's
efforts to overturn local control.
I expect more of city staff to follow the will of the council in this matter, and question why the moratorium is
being lifted before the March date. What is the reasoning behind this? Why is this vote being rushed without
advance notice to the public? Will Geoff Fruin be honest enough to supply an answer? Is there anyone on
council who will drum up the temerity to ask?
Will Rogers famously pointed out that everyone talks about the weather but nobody is willing to do anything
about it. Council members talk about affordable housing in a similar fashion. During your election campaigns
you have given pretty speeches and proclaimed the sanctity of affordable housing while slumlords are dealing
in speculation in our neighborhoods, driving up prices, placing single-family homes beyond the reach of
families and first-time buyers. You have been elected. What are you willing to do about this?
It is time to direct the city manager, the city attorney, and staff to present some concrete solutions to the rental
issue before March, rather than indulging in an act of cowardice by throwing in the towel in December. We
need a staff willing to pursue solutions rather than simply running out the clock. We need a council, having
been selected by the voters to deal with these issues, to step up to the plate. Do not settle for a staff that tells
you that the problems are insurmountable, that there are too many legal technicalities, that the issues are too
complex for you to understand, that we do not have enough time to reinvent this particular wheel. Do not listen
to a staff that merely says, "trust us." Ask the hard questions. Cedar Falls, apparently, has a better staff. Or a
better council, one willing to tell staff to find solutions instead of beginning the too -fast process of surrender.
Sincerely,
Matthew Lage
Kellie Fruehling
From: Diana H. <cwcrrr@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 9:14 AM
To: Rockne Cole; Susan Mims; Mazahir Salih; Pauline Taylor; Bruce Teague; john-
thomas@uiowa-city.org; Jim Throgmorton; Council Late Handouts Distributed
Subject: Rental permit moratorium
Ja - "a
(Date)
ARII
We urge you to vote no on the early removal of the rental permit moratorium, item #11 for the 3 December meeting.
We live on the Northside (Brown Street) in a neighborhood that is positively affected by ordinances that work to
preserve the mix of owner -occupied houses and rental units. lifting the rental permit moratorium before there has been
discussion with neighborhoods that are affected benefits landlords. Why would you advantage landlords over people
who live in their homes? Having public discussions about this issue is critical, and we are dismayed that there have been
more public discussions about culling deer than about preserving the character of neighborhoods like ours.
Thank you,
Diana Harris and John Brandon
523 Brown Street, IC
November 30, 2019
Dear City Council members,
FILE®
DEC 0 3 2019
City Clerk
Iowa City, Iowa
In the 199O's, our area was rezoned from RM -12 to RNS-12. We had seen the pressure
apartment houses put on core neighborhoods. We living in the neighborhood never felt
safe. When you make a long-term commitment in buying a house, you want to know what
you can expect, both in the make-up of the neighborhood as it stands and as it changes.
We are asking you, the City Council, to help us. Although we realize the structure at 938 E.
Jefferson will be built, we believe such structures have a de -stabilizing effect on ours and
other neighborhoods where they could be built.
Given Iowa City's rental history, we believe this can become the newest concept for
developers in the central neighborhoods. We have worked with the City in the past to guide
the changes that promote a positive addition while maintaining a vital and diverse
neighborhood.
Please help us in our commitment to our neighborhood.
�1 Qytti e r 1 CJ
2) 2zV S
CIIJ /4'0
9ll 4 r91�1-
5zzUE S
�7
A SIZE s
jt>%Atj C
lowA CrrYi IA SZZ�S
November 30, 2019
Dear City Council members,
In the 1990's, our area was rezoned from RM -12 to RNS-12. We had seen the pressure
apartment houses put on core neighborhoods. We living in the neighborhood never felt
safe. When you make a long-term commitment in buying a house, you want to know what
you can expect, both in the make-up of the neighborhood as it stands and as it changes.
We are asking you, the City Council, to help us. Although we realize the structure at 938 E.
Jefferson will be built, we believe such structures have a de -stabilizing effect on ours and
other neighborhoods where they could be built.
Given Iowa Citys rental history, we believe this can become the newest concept for
developers in the central neighborhoods. We have worked with the City in the past to guide
the changes that promote a positive addition while maintaining a vital and diverse
neighborhood.
Please help us in our commitment to our neighborhood.
® Al. (T� Iii-! ✓• &1 a /' S T
�. A: 1 c r
i� U
-io
28 ��. Gt>vtrviv/ ,
r• C -�� S iLt�
Ca V 15V h
FILED
DEC 0 3 2019
City Clerk
Iowa City, Iowa
-4uot"11"'Id s21111!S'P 40"N'A to )►v19
.p %A`q 92k iv1 dn1pt
PQnO4AA
txkowA r1
41n9 asn" 'Ct
pop:^:P9"s 401 11
u t %q osr c*A
3 ti p000w+ �snotj b
ti
C13
c aC� -4cj i.^q �sno� c`na11
-►1 �ne� a3�y rn-PA
4lrlp'P Mw� os n� •9
m ,.
�I1
< J � J
D
Z
m 15 NOSNJdd 3f 3
ti
n —
-
n
�LI 1
L I L1
It'll 11
J
rl1 i nl-!
1S L7NTIVI.1 1
•n d pin
7yeCry top�Pj�Sa� wr buw. ��, •Et
iAMOrp yaoi 05CVy '£
..►140q t,-aI
y 4act4 "a' A4PAa,45 lbw
.4i.„q r\"A'9oddoU*
8rat>b.� 7p 4nt d ast 7
r �9!
112V �
j HIH PIH a10 f9v' _.
m0 jr
rll
A Z
O
y y I.II
J yr I1�
ti
n � irlJ r
I
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Christina Welu-Reynolds <chriswelu@gmail.com>
Tuesday, December 3, 2019 4:23 PM
Rockne Cole; Susan Mims; Mazahir Salih; Pauline Taylor; Bruce Teague; John Thomas;
Jim Throgmorton; Council
Vote NO on agenda item #11
Late Handouts Distributed
) 2- /CI
RISK ��tel
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to ask that you vote 'No' on the early removal of the rental permit moratorium. Removing the moratorium
seems rushed and not in the best interest of our city's older neighborhoods. I ask that you stick with the current timeline
so all well -thought out options can be considered. Iowa City's goal of "maintaining neighborhood characteristics and
housing options suitable for attracting a diverse demographic in the city's older, single-family neighborhoods is at
stake.
Thank you for your consideration.
Chris Welu-Reynolds
Northside Resident
Kellie Fruehling
From: Jesse Singerman <jesse.singerman@mchsi.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 11:35 AM
To: Rockne Cole; Susan Mims; Mazahir Salih; Pauline Taylor; Bruce Teague; John Thomas;
Jim Throgmorton; Council
Subject: FW: Vote no on agenda item #11, early removal of the rental permit moratorium
December 3
Attachments: Sigma Epsilon dumpster facing Ronalds St. 9.5.19jpg
Late Handouts Distributed
Picture attached. (Date)
From: Jesse Singerman <iesse.singerman@mchsi.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 at 11:17 AM
To: <rockne-cole@iowa-city.org>, <susan-mims@iowa-city.org>, <mazahir-salih@iowa-city.org>, <pauline-tavlor@iowa-
city.org>, <bruce-teague@iowa-citV.org>, <iohn-thomas@iowa-city.org>, Jim Throgmorton <Jim-Throgmorton@iowa-
city.org>, Iowa City City Council <council@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Vote no on agenda item #11, early removal of the rental permit moratorium December 3
Hello Members of the Iowa City Council -
We are writing to urge you to vote NO on agenda item #11, early removal of the rental permit moratorium in tonight's
(December 3) City Council meeting.
We live at 219 Ronalds St. on the Northside. We love our house and our location and many things about the Northside, but we
do not love the congested street parking, the lack of attention to properties by absentee landlords and rental property
managers, and the constant struggle to maintain balance in the character of our neighborhood with a reasonable mix of family
home owners, rental properties and student apartments.
For example, the same houses fail to clear their walks after every snow fall, leading to ice buildup and unsafe walking
conditions during the winter for the rest of us. These houses are almost always student housing, where no one takes
responsibly for property maintenance without the direct intervention of the city. Why should we have to repeatedly ask for
clear walks from the same offenders? There isn't any learning from one year to another because the inhabitants change every
school year, and apparently the property owners don't care.
And even if we do try to get the City to enforce it's own ordinances on rental property owners, it can take literally months for
anything to happen. Sigma Epsilon had an overflowing dumpster on Ronalds St. (not the alley) for over 2 months this fall. It
was never emptied and they kept adding garbage to it. I've attached a picture- this is literally outside our front door. Even the
City couldn't get anything done about it for several months. It is fixed now, but I include it because these types of garbage
problems recur like clockwork every spring and fall with student rental properties, because the inhabitants turn over, and
generally have no motivation to worry about the problems they may cause their neighbors. After all they are only there for a
year or less. Not to mention the problem of loud, drunken parties on week -ends, which is not only disruptive, it is dangerous.
It is clear that the City Council has not done enough with current zoning and enforcement rules on the books to fulfill the
City's goal of "maintaining neighborhood characteristics and housing options suitable for attracting a diverse demographic in
the city's older single-family neighborhoods"? More needs to be done. Further time is necessary to ensure that all options are
given full consideration, which means keeping the moratorium in place until the original sunset date, and if necessary,
beyond that date. .
All of you were elected on promises to maintain and preserve the character, safety and stability of older Iowa City
neighborhoods. Please step up and make good on those promises. Vote "no" on agenda item #11, early removal of the rental
permit moratorium, at your meeting on Tuesday, Dec. 3rd, and then continue to protect reasonable mix of home ownership
and rental properties in our neighborhoods.
Thank you,
Jesse Singerman and Flora Cassiliano
219 Ronalds St.
Iowa City, IA 52245
Kellie Fruehling
From: Bruce Teague
Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 10:45 AM
To: Susan Shullaw
Cc: Rockne Cole; Susan Mims; Mazahir Salih; Pauline Taylor, John Thomas; Jim
Throgmorton; Council
Subject: Re: Agenda item #11, Dec. 3, 2019 Council Meeting
Hi Susan, thanks for sending your email. Will you please give me a call if you have a chance at 319-594-4363
Bruce Teague
Late Handouts Distributed
On Dec 1, 2019, at 1:04 PM, Susan Shullaw <smshullaw@gmail.com> wrote IA -3-19
( Date)
<119120114042401421.jpg>
To Members of the Iowa City Council:
As a resident of Iowa City's Northside Neighborhood, I am writing to request that you vote "no"
on agenda item #11, early removal of the rental permit moratorium, at your Council meeting on
Tuesday, Dec. 3, 2019.
When the current moratorium was adopted in response to State Legislative action last year, the
Council set the following goals for any new regulations in the pursuit of safe, healthy and stable
residential neighborhoods:
1. Ensure single-family detached structures and duplexes provide healthy and safe living
environments for all occupants
2. Maintain neighborhood characteristics and housing options suitable for attracting a
diverse demographic in the city's older single-family neighborhoods
3. Prevent the overburdening of city infrastructure and operational resources
City staff have recently introduced two ordinances (mandating radon testing/mitigation and
a zoning code change for parking) that only partially address the above goals. It is my
understanding that staff do not plan to introduce additional regulatory changes prior to lifting the
rental permit cap moratorium, and that passage of these new ordinances could speed up the
moratorium repeal prior to the March 2020 sunset date.
Even with the addition of the two new ordinances noted above, I do not believer current zoning
and enforcement rules allow the City to meet its stated goals for our residential neighborhoods.
I am particularly concerned (as many citizens are) about the large amounts of high -amenity
student housing being built in Iowa City and Coralville. These new rental units can be costly, and
may drive more students to seek less expensive, no-frills alternatives close to campus, including
apartments in former single family homes. At the same time, as our older neighborhoods undergo
a generational shift, more single family homes will be coming on the market. It's already difficult
for young families to outbid investment landlords with deep pockets, and it could become harder
as more of the single-family/duplex rental market is consolidated under a handful of owners. We
can't achieve a diverse demographic if most of the housing is snapped up by landlords who
traditionally rent to one demographic.
Our core neighborhoods have been struggling for nearly 50 years to maintain (or achieve) a
demographic balance. While progress has been made in recent years (Horace Mann renovation,
park improvements, UniverCity program), today we are at real risk of losing ground.
I encourage Council to vote no on agenda item #11 and keep the moratorium in place until its
original sunset date, if necessary. This will allow more time for City staff and Council to fully
consider all regulatory options for fulfilling the City's goals — including "maintaining
neighborhood characteristics and housing options suitable for attracting a diverse demographic in
the city's older single-family neighborhoods."
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Susan Shullaw
718 North Johnson Street
Iowa City 52245
smshullawna,arnail.com
(319)351-2606