HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-10-19 Bd Comm minutesItem Number: 5.a.
October 19, 2021
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Ad Hoc Truth & Reconciliation Commission: August 19
Item Number: 5.b.
October 19, 2021
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Ad Hoc Truth & Reconciliation Commission: S eptember 2
Item Number: 5.c.
October 19, 2021
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Ad Hoc Truth & Reconciliation Commission: S eptember 16
Item Number: 5.d.
October 19, 2021
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Ad Hoc Truth & Reconciliation Commission: S eptember 30
Item Number: 5.e.
October 19, 2021
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Climate A ction Commission: S eptember 13
Item Number: 5.f.
October 19, 2021
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Community P olice Review Board: September 20
Item Number: 5.g.
October 19, 2021
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Park & Recreation Commission: S eptember 8
IOWA CITY PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION APPROVED
MINUTES SEPTEMBER 8, 2021
ROBERT A. LEE RECREATION CENTER – MTG ROOM B
Members Present: Stephen Bird, Alex Hachtman, Chris Odinet, Boniface Penandjo Lemoupa, Ben
Russell, April Schmidt, Melissa Serenda, Angie Smith, Brianna Wills
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Tyler Baird, Brad Barker, Juli Seydell Johnson
Others Present: None
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Bird called the meeting to order at 5 p.m.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action):
None
OTHER FORMAL ACTION:
Moved by Odinet, seconded by Russell, to approve the June 9, 2021 minutes and August 11, 2021
minutes as written. Motion passed 9-0.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None
CIP BUDGET PRESENTATION – JULI SEYDELL JOHNSON:
Seydell Johnson presented an update of the Iowa City Park Master Plan & Accessibility Audit, a copy of
which was included in the Parks & Recreation meeting packet. She explained that this plan focused on the
departments outdoor spaces and included accessibility and maintenance needs of those facilities. This
plan has served as a guide for upgrades and improvements to outdoor facilities for the past six years and
for future years as well. The next step was to engage the public through neighborhood meetings. Guiding
principles were developed and the Neighborhood Open Space plan was reviewed. A prioritized list was
then created that included future park projects. She shared that the strategy of the Parks Master Plan
included the areas of access, play, restoration, education, sustainability and to measure the benefits for the
community.
Seydell Johnson noted that since the completion of the Master Plan in September of 2017, there have been
as many as twenty parks that have been updated. She stated that 83% of Iowa City residents live within
ten minutes of a park. She then explained in detail the projects that have been completed and the projects
that are scheduled for improvements over the next five years. Seydell Johnson reviewed these details
district by district which included a list of completed projects, planned projects, playground upgrades,
master plan deficiencies and opportunities.
The Commission reviewed each district as shown in a PowerPoint presentation that is included in the
archived September 8, 2021 Parks and Recreation Commission agenda packet.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
September 8, 2021
Page 2 of 7
At this point Seydell Johnson turned over the presentation to Baird. Baird explained that staff has put
together a priority list of playgrounds and which of them need attention the soonest. That list is as
follows:
Kiwanis Park – 2023 CIP: It was determined that Kiwanis Park needs to be at the top of the list for
improvements. Baird explained that this is a very well-loved playground but has several issues including
badly deteriorating wood throughout the structure. He shared that there have been many changes made to
the playground over the years to increase accessibility, however, there is still much needed improvement
in this area. Also noted were areas of erosion, broken pieces, need for new paint, etc. The neighborhood
has expressed their desire to keep it a natural playscape structure.
Happy Hollow-2023 CIP: Staff found there to be major cracks starting to form on one of the slides and
other deficiencies. Moved this playground up the list.
College Green-2025 CIP: This is one of the oldest remaining playgrounds. Baird shared that it is in okay
shape but needs updated aesthetically. He added that the kids love this playground and that it is very well
used year-round.
Hunters Run-2024 CIP: This is the only west district park. The older part of the playground is starting to
fade. The newer part of the playground shows deterioration around the joints and has some ADA access
needs.
Reno Street: This playground has accessibility needs. The climbing wall parts have been replaced over
the years. While is passes safety regulations, it is still in need of updating.
North Market Square: This playground is heavily used by students from the school next door. Due to its
heavier use, it will be moved up the list.
Brookland Park: As this playground is tucked into a hill, it needs accessibility improvements. Some of the
slides are showing wear. This playground is heavily used. There is a daycare across the street from the
park who use this playground frequently. This has been moved up on the list as well.
Benton Hill Park-2025 CIP: This playground is showing some age but is in okay shape. The treehouse
feature is showing the most age with wood deterioration. The bare wooden sculpture that includes seating
has a good amount of deterioration. Remaining wooden artwork will be removed due to the state of
deterioration that has occurred.
Oak Grove Park: This is an older playground, however, does not get as much use as others. It is in pretty
good shape. Staff expects to get to this playground in a few years and believes by that time there will be a
greater need for replacement.
Harlocke Hill Park: This playground gets very little use likely due to its location behind Hawks Ridge
Apartments. When the time comes to discuss replacement, staff may come to the Commission for a
recommendation whether to replace or eliminate.
Calder Park: This is one of the City’s newest playgrounds. It does, however, need some accessibility
fixes. There is a plan to add a firepit soon. Staff has received a request from the neighborhood to add
electricity. It would cost approximately $10,000 so will not add it at this time. However, it may be added
to the ADA upgrade project later.
Terry Trueblood Recreation Area: The playground here is in good shape.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
September 8, 2021
Page 3 of 7
Emma J. Harvat Park: The City gained ownership of this space approximately two years ago. ADA
improvements are needed.
Kickers #1 & #2: Both playgrounds are in good shape. Staff will discuss in the future whether it makes
sense to have two playgrounds at this location.
Seydell Johnson asked commission for comments and a motion on the playground priority list that Baird
presented.
Moved by Wills, seconded by Odinet, to approve the playground priority list as presented.
Approved 9-0.
Seydell Johnson reviewed other projects with Commission that are not currently in the CIP plans.
1. Completion of Highway 6 trail from Broadway to Fairmeadows. (2025)
2. Splash pad improvements. (2023). Staff recently discovered during a meeting with a Vortex
representative, that the City has the option of trading out some of the features and replace with
new that will much improve water usage.
3. New Park Development (2024 & 2025)
4. City Park Shelter & Restrooms (2024 & 2025)
5. Hickory Hill Park, Conklin entrance (2025): Will replace the park shelter near this entrance.
6. Terrell Mill skateboard park and pump track (2025).
7. Mercer Park ballfield improvements (2023 & 2024)
8. Event facility improvements. Seydell Johnson noted that the festival stage in City Park needs
some improvements. This has not yet been budgeted.
9. Off road bike trail development (2022): This will be developed on the land that the City received
from the Elks near Terrell Mill Park.
10. Willow Creek trail replacement (2023)
Other projects not currently in the CIP plan include the following:
1. Lower City Park Master Plan
2. Eastside Sports Complex Master Plan
3. Sand Lake Dredging
Wills asked if there are some grant or REAP funds available for water management. Seydell
Johnson said that there are some smaller grants available but nothing to the degree needed.
4. Riverside Festival Stage Improvements: Seydell Johnson noted that due to very little use in 2020,
deterioration occurred faster than anyone had noticed.
5. City Park Tennis Courts
6. Trail bridges throughout the system. Seydell Johnson said that several bridges are deteriorating,
and some will need replaced next year. She pointed out that the bridge is closed at Court Hill to
repair ground beneath and around the bridge. The bridge itself is fine.
7. Iowa River Power Dam Bridge
8. Scott Park – Parking lot improvements
9. Montgomery-Butler House in Waterworks Prairie Park. More discussion on this item noted
below.
Seydell Johnson asked for input from Commission regarding this property. She noted that the Historic
Preservation Commission has some interest in restoring the house. It is not on the national registry of
historic places. The home has been breached many times over the years. The roof was replaced eight or
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
September 8, 2021
Page 4 of 7
nine years ago to make it weather tight and to help preserve the house. There has been discussion of
possibly moving the trail head to the area of the house. However, Seydell Johnson noted that it does not
provide a good access point with the parking lot a good distance away. A description of the home is found
in the 2008 Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan and is as follows:
“The house site was acquired by the City in 1995 as part of the property acquisition
for the new municipal water treatment facility. During the environmental review
process for the treatment facility project, the stone house was identified as a historic
site that met the criteria for listing in the National Register. Stabilization measures
to preserve the building were completed as part of an agreement between the City,
the State Historical Society of Iowa, Corps of Engineers, and the National Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation. The City set aside 4.28 acres within the future
Waterworks Park, including the stone house, to be developed as a cultural resource.
The house was “mothballed” in 1998 and a formal nomination for t he property to
the National Register was prepared through the HPC in 2001 but not finalized. A
feasibility study to evaluate reuse options for the Montgomery-Butler House was
completed in 2001. A community planning workshop was facilitated by a consultant
and attended by representatives of bicycle, open-space, historic preservation, and
civic organizations as well as City staff. Of the options evaluated, the concept of
reusing the Montgomery-Butler House as a historic site and interpretive center was
determined to be the most feasible. Since submittal of the study, measures to further
stabilize and monitor the property have continued. A paved bicycle access to the site
from the park has been completed. No interpretative measures have been completed
and a non-municipal sponsor or leader has not been identified.”
Odinet asked why the City has not torn down the Butler House. Seydell Johnson because of
interest and questions from the Historic Preservation Commission. Wills asked if the City could sell the
house or parcel it off. Seydell Johnson said that wouldn’t be possible in its current condition.
Smith asked for more details about what the Historic Preservation Commission says about the house.
Seydell Johnson explained they have discussed ideas of restoring the house and open it up to a nonprofit
group or that it could serve as a concession area for the trail. Odinet said he thought these ideas seem
unreasonable. Seydell Johnson suggested that perhaps parts of the house could be preserved and
incorporated into a park shelter either on the site or nearby.
Odinet asked if the parks budget paid for the new roof. Seydell Johnson was not sure. He then asked what
the historical significance is of the home. Seydell Johnson will provide additional information at a future
meeting.
Serenda said on one hand she would hate to see it destroyed as it tells a story. She suggested perhaps
adding a sign near the trail directing people to the house. Bird suggested that interpretive signage be
placed near the parking lot. Wills asked if Historic Preservation could reevaluate and see if any updates
make economical or practical sense.
Seydell Johnson asked if there were any larger projects that Commission would like to see updated.
Commission members were asked to send their requests/ideas to Seydell Johnson.
Wills asked if parks staff has found that certain structures hold up better as this can help in determining
which companies staff prefers to make purchases from. Seydell Johnson said that staff is working
towards that and working to have same items used which helps when maintenance needs come up. She
noted that the department currently uses four playground companies when ordering new structures.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
September 8, 2021
Page 5 of 7
PRAIRIE PLANTINGS – TYLER BAIRD
Baird explained that prairie plantings are announced ahead of time and that the information is put on the
department’s website, social media pages and is also announced through media releases. These are all
done in a timely manner to leave time for the public to respond. Currently the parks that have existing
“no-mow” areas and will transition to all prairie in the future are Peninsula Park, Terry Trueblood
Recreation Area and Kickers Soccer Park. Staff have started the process of replacing prairie areas at Terry
Trueblood Recreation Area. Some of the current prairie at that location includes some unhealthy prairie
species. Prairie areas near the Scott Park shelter are in good shape and he hopes to improve on those in
the future. Baird noted that there was a cross country course added to Kickers Soccer Park and they have
reverted to brown grass. Staff would like to improve this which would help to improve the ecosystem and
provide more benefits to this space. He went on to say that there are some undesirable and invasive scrub
trees at the Peninsula Park. Staff would like to improve this with prairie plantings as well.
Moved by Hachtman, seconded by Odinet, to approve the prairie planting schedule as presented by
Tyler Baird, Parks & Forestry Superintendent. Passed 9-0.
REPORT ON ITEMS FROM CITY STAFF
Parks & Recreation Director – Juli Seydell Johnson: Seydell Johnson had no additional information
to share.
Recreation Division Superintendent – Brad Barker:
Root Four Trees: Barker announced that the second year of the Root for Trees program will begin on
September 15. Residents of Iowa City can fill out an application to purchase a tree at one of the
participating business (Earl May and Iowa City Landscaping) and receive a voucher for 50% savings up
to $125 or a 90% discount for those who are income eligible. More information is available at
icgov.org/root4trees.
Wills asked if the Root for Trees Program is available to businesses as well. Barker confirmed businesses
are eligible for this program.
Pool Update: Barker announced that the Mercer Aquatic Center will be shutdown beginning September
28 for the installation of a new dehumidification system. The plan is to reopen in mid-November. Staff
has been working with Coralville Pools to host practices and meets for City High during the closure.
Recreation Master Plan: Barker noted that there are four consultants working on the plan who have
various areas of expertise. The consultants have toured some of the athletic and building facilities. An
important part of this process is the community engagement. To date the consultant has met with steering
committees that were made up of City representatives, Parks Commission and five well-connected
organizations throughout the community. A list of focus groups has been created which include
businesses, disability advocate groups, and social service groups. In addition, the consultant is working on
a site called Social Pinpoint, a digital engagement tool. This is where community members can access the
survey and list out their needs. Staff understands that not everyone has access to the internet. Therefore,
staff will be available at upcoming department events to allow for in-person engagement.
Parks Division Superintendent – Tyler Baird:
Grant Updates: Baird said that a REAP Grant application went in last week requesting $200,000 for
Ryerson’s Woods restoration. Baird also announced that the department received a $5,000 grant from the
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
September 8, 2021
Page 6 of 7
DNR for Derecho recovery. These funds will allow for the purchase and planting of 42 trees in Wetherby
Park. The area Rotary Clubs have applied for a $10,000 grant which will allow for the planting 100 trees
on October 23 at Kiwanis, Willow Creek and Villa Parks. With these and three other parks, staff will have
planted trees in all quadrants of the city.
Tree Advisory Committee: Baird noted that the next Tree Advisory Committee Meeting would be held on
Friday, September 10. The group will be welcoming new partners from the University, the county, and
the school district. He hopes to have some numbers to report to the committee from the first year of the
Root for Trees Program as well. Bird asked if when discussing the overall urban canopy and ongoing
projects at Hickory Hill, will they be done when staff has time or is there need for more funding. Baird
reported that staff does some of this and Friends of Hickory Hill have contracted out some of the work.
Serenda asked if there is some attrition as trees are planted, noting that some don’t look so great. Baird
said that some in the Mackinaw Village area will need replaced, however, most of them planted this
spring are doing well. He further explained that there will always be some loss.
CHAIRS REPORT:
Baird commended the Recreation staff member that takes care of the departments Social Media, saying that
it looks great.
COMMISSION TIME/SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
Hachtman shared that he is really enjoying all the park improvements praising staff for their work.
Serenda asked how long the trail near Napoleon Park will be closed. Seydell Johnson explained that is has
been closed due to the stormwater structure below the bridge and that the bridge itself is fine. She said it
may be closed into late October due to the delay in parts being manufactured. She also noted that
unfortunately staff cannot provide access around the area as there is no safe way to do so.
ADJOURNMENT:
Moved by Hachtman, seconded by Wills to adjourn the meeting at 6:16 p.m. Passed 9-0.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
September 8, 2021
Page 7 of 7
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting LQ = No meeting due to lack of quorum
* = Not a member now
NAME
TERM
EXPIRES 10/14/20 11/18/20 12/09/20 1/13/21 2/10/21 03/10/21 04/14/21 5/12/21 06/09/21 07/14/21 08/11/21 9/8/21 Steve Bird 12/31/21 LQ X NM X X X X X X NM X X
Alex
Hachtman
12/31/24 LQ X NM X X X X X X NM O/E X
Christopher
Odinet
12/31/24 * * * X X X X X O/E NM X X
Boniface
Penandjo
Lemoupa
12/31/23 LQ X NM X O O O O O/E NM X X
Ben Russell 12/31/21 LQ X NM X X X X X X NM X X
April
Schmidt
12/31/22 * * * * * * * * X NM X X
Melissa
Serenda
12/31/23 LQ X NM X X X X X X NM X X
Angie Smith 12/31/21 LQ X NM X X X X X O/E NM X X
Jamie
Venzon
12/31/20 LQ X NM * * * * * * * * *
Brianna
Wills
12/31/22 LQ X NM X X X X X X NM X X
Blake Winter 12/31/22 LQ * * * * * * * * * * *
Item Number: 5.h.
October 19, 2021
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Planning & Z oning Commission: S eptember 16
MINUTES FINAL
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2021 – 7:00 PM
FORMAL MEETING
THE CENTER – ASSEMBLY ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Mike Hensch, Maria Padron, Mark Signs, Billie
Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Phoebe Martin, Mark Nolte
STAFF PRESENT: Ray Heitner, Sara Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Jon Marner, Josh Entler, John Bergstrom, Eric Freedman, Jim
Larimore, Sherri Slothower Bergstrom, Cindy Seyfer, Brenda Scott,
Tim Slothower, Duane Kruse, Jim Seyfer, Alex Hachtman, Joleah
Shaw, Chris Arch
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
By a vote of 3-2 (Townsend and Padron dissenting) the Commission recommends approval of
CPA21-0002, a proposed amendment to change the following for around 80 acres of property
located south of IWV and west of Slothower:
• The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation from Rural Residential, Open
Space, and Residential at 2-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre to Intensive Commercial; and
• The Southwest District Plan future land use map designation from Single-Family/Duplex
Residential and Future Urban Development to Intensive Commercial, and to change the text
of the District Plan to what was included in the agenda packet.
Note: After the meeting it was determined that the motion to approve the comprehensive plan
amendment did not pass because a minimum of 4 votes is required.
By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends approval of ANN21-0003, a voluntary annexation
of approximately 70.39 acres of property located south of IWV Road and west of Slothower
Road.
By a vote of 4-1 (Padron dissenting) the Commission recommends approval of REZ21-0006, a
rezoning of approximately 53.36 acres from County Agricultural (A) to Intensive Commercial (CI -
1), 9 acres from Rural Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1), and 17.03 acres from
County Agricultural (A) to Interim Development Commercial (ID-C) subject to the following
conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall:
a. Plat all the property herein rezoned to follow the zoning boundaries.
b. Submit a landscape plan, which shall be approved by the City Forester, to ensure
that, when developed, the subject property is designed in a manner that
emphasizes green components within its location along an arterial and as an
entryway into the City.
c. Owner shall contribute 25% of the cost of upgrading Slothower Road, south of the
proposed access, to collector street standards, adjacent to the subject property.
2. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the property fronting Slothower Road:
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 2 of 36
a. Installation of landscaping to the S3 standard, as detailed in section 14-5F-6C of
City Code, along the subject property’s Slothower Road frontage. If said certificate
of occupancy is issued during a poor planting season, by May 31 following
issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
b. Improvement of Slothower Road to the southern end of the proposed access off
Slothower Road.
c. Installation of landscaping to the S3 standard along the property line and IWV
Road.
3. At the time the final plat is approved, Owner shall dedicate additional right-of-way along
the Slothower Road frontage in an amount and location approved by the City Engineer.
4. Parking, loading areas, and outdoor storage shall either not be located between the front
facade of the principal structure and the front yard right-of-way line or shall be screened
to the S3 standard along the IWV Road frontage.
By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends approval of CPA21-0001, a proposed amendment
to the South District Plan to facilitate development that follows form-based principles in the South
District of Iowa City.
By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends recommend a Zoning Code Amendment to adopt
form-based standards for new development as identified in the South District Plan.
By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends setting a public hearing on October 7, 2021 on a
proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan on an update to the Fringe Area Policy
Agreement between Johnson County and the City of Iowa City.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS:
CASE NO. CPA21-0002:
Location: SW corner of Slothower Road and IWV Road
A public hearing on amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the Southwest
District Plan and Comprehensive Plan future land use map designations, and related
plan text, from residential, open space, and future development to intensive
commercial.
Lehmann began a presentation on the staff report noting this item is proposing to amend the
Southwest District Plan and the Comprehensive Plan future land use maps from their current
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 3 of 36
designations to intensive commercial south of IWV Road and west of Slothower Road. This
application was submitted by MMS Consultants on behalf of the owner. Lehmann noted it was
submitted with two additional applications as well, so in addition to the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment there is an annexation (ANN21-0003) which would annex 70 acres into the City and
a rezoning (REZ21-0006) to rezone this land from its current designations of Rural Residential
within the City and Agriculture in the County to Intensive Commercial and Interim Development
Commercial. Currently the land is used for agriculture and it's part of the Southwest District Plan
which was adopted in 2002. The subject properties are within the Weber Subarea of the Plan,
one of four subareas in this Southwest District Plan, and in the future land use it is shown
primarily as future urban development but then there's also some single-family duplex residential
along Slothower to the east side and a Vegetative Noise and Site Buffer to the west. The Plan
notes some limited residential development may occur west of Slothower Road, but that due to
sanitary sewer limitations, extensive development wasn't expected at that time, or in the near
future. The Plan also states that residential uses should be buffered from the landfill and the
proposed US 965 alignment and that a more detailed plan will be needed when development
eventually occurs.
Lehmann showed a map of the subject parcel noting it's south of IWV Road which turns into
Melrose Avenue and west of Slothower Road. It's approximately 80 acres and it's all agricultural.
US 218 is further to the east, but directly east is the Johnson County Historic Poor Farm. Again,
the property is currently zoned County Agricultural, it's got some Rural Agricultural to the north,
County Agricultural for the rest of it, and then to the east are some public uses where there's the
Poor Farm and some other uses such as the Johnson County facilities buildings and the National
Guard Center. Lehmann showed a picture of the topography of the area and noted some hills.
Lehmann noted the proposed amendment has two components, one for the Southwest District
Plan and one for the Comprehensive Plan and those would be to modify the future land use map
so that it's reflected in both of them. He added there's also some text changes to the Southwest
District Plan that generalizes the timeframe for the US 965 extension and then discusses
intensive commercial uses that may be appropriate along Melrose should the proposed
amendment be adopted. The proposed amendment would change the land use designation to
intensive commercial but that doesn't mean the entire site would be intensive commercial, there
are sensitive features on site that have to be accommodated, but the entire parcel would be
shown on the future land use map as intensive commercial and the future land use map on the
Comprehensive Plan would reflect that same change should it be amended.
The role of the Commission tonight is to decide if the two general criteria that are used to
determine if a Comprehensive Plan Amendment should be made (found at 14-8D-3D) and that is
that the circumstances have changed, or additional information or factors have come to light
such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest. Second, the proposed amendment
will be compatible with other policies or provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, including any
District Plans or other Amendments thereto.
Lehmann noted all of this is laid out in the staff report, but he will try to summar ize and make it as
clear as possible. Starting with the first criteria, looking at circumstances that have changed
such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest. First looking at what was happening
at the time these Plans were adopted, prior to 1990 the area was undeveloped, there are a few
homes on Rohret Road and some public uses, primarily the County Poor Farm on Melrose, but
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 4 of 36
other than that there wasn't much development. By the time the Southwest District Plan was
adopted in 2002 housing was continuing to develop west and north of Rohret Road and at that
time the Comprehensive Plan was from 1997. That Plan was the first to actually extend the
growth area of the City from approximately Slothower to the proposed future alignment of US
965. That Plan was also the first to consider the future use of the site and the future land use
map showed it as interim development or rural residential. Lehmann noted there was also a
policy that was included in that Comprehensive Plan and in the Southwest District Plan that talks
about discouraging commercial uses at the Melrose and 218 interchange and instead it
encouraged focusing commercial and industrial development at the Highway 1/218 interchange
due to concerns that both areas would not be able to support full development so staff wanted to
concentrate it at that south interchange. That policy was first adopted in the 1983
Comprehensive Plan so that policy has been in place since 218 was built. The 1983 Plan also
talks about maintaining public uses directly west of the Melrose interchange, and this policy while
it is not explicitly discussed in the current Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in 2013, it is
reflected in the future land use map showing the site as rural residential which is similar to the
interim development / rural residential that was used in 1997 and is also included in the 2006
Fringe Area Agreement, which is a part of that Comprehensive Plan. Regarding development
over time, predominantly south of Melrose, there's some early residential subdivisions that
started occurring along Rohret Road and then some additional residential development that
crosses 218 and even more once Camp Cardinal Boulevard was constructed in 2007. In 2016
and 2020 three Comprehensive Plan Amendments were made that started introducing some
commercial uses into the area, specifically office commercial, and some medium density
residential and general commercial uses in relatively small pockets. To the west of the
interchange, there are public land uses, the Iowa National Guard Readiness Center, the Joint
Emergency Communication Center and the Johnson County SEATS facility. Also housing
development has continued west of US 218 and north of Rohret Road. Therefore, staff believes
that it's in the public interest to explore future uses for this area as the site has basically been in
a holding pattern since the 1997 Comprehensive Plan and the 2002 Southwest District Plan,
partially because it was assumed that infrastructure would not be available and that would
prevent urban development. However, the applications show that the property can be serviced,
so it makes sense to define what future urban uses might look like in this area.
Another change in circumstance since the time this Plan was adopted has been rapid growth and
population redistribution in the Iowa City metro over the last 30 years. Since 1990 Iowa City has
grown by about 25% but other metros have grown by about three times their population,
especially North Liberty and Coralville, so with that, Iowa City has decreased as a proportion of
the metro population and the center of population has shifted northwest, which makes the US
218 corridor increasingly important. Growth is expected to continue so uses must grow to
accommodate demand as well.
The application is asking to change the future land use of this area to intensive commercial.
Lehmann explained intensive commercial has a broad range of uses that are allowed but it's
generally sales and service businesses, often characterized by outdoor uses such as large-scale
repair or sales or unenclosed operations. It includes some limited retail trade as well. With
intensive commercial uses, there is a need to buffer residential uses because it allows some
higher intensity commercial and light industrial uses. With regards to intensive commercial uses
across the City, it appears that the current vacant land does not meet the needs of all uses within
the City. Currently around 400 acres of intensive commercial is in the City and about 13% of that
land is vacant. Most of the vacant 45 acres is expected to develop into small parcels with
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 5 of 36
individual businesses occupying those spaces. Lehmann added some other zones allow similar
uses, there are commercials zones that are similar and industrial zones. There is quite a bit of
vacant general industrial land as well, but that is primarily positioned to attract railroad users,
whereas this site has access to the interstate so that was a factor in staff’s recommendation.
Lehmann also noted this all started with MidAmerican Energy trying to locate a site and after
looking around the City, they found none that met their needs and so they began looking at other
areas that might be suitable for that type of use. Lehmann added that this is change is brought
about by the application and is not a City-led process and staff is looking at what are the uses
generally that might be appropriate. Throughout the City there are three general areas that
might accommodate some of these uses, one is around the airport to the southwest, that's one of
the larger areas that allows light industrial uses. There's the industrial area that runs along the
railroad to the southeast and then on I-80 and Dodge Street to the north that is a commercial
area. All those areas have different challenges and benefits. The area to the north would require
rezoning and an annexation, the current industrial park doesn't have good highway access, and
the area near the airport primarily has smaller parcels. The area they're looking at now is
relatively small compared to these other general light industrial areas. In addition, staff looks at
future need for Iowa City. Based on MPO projections, Iowa City is expected to grow to
approximately 94,000 people by 2040 so that is a growth of about 26%. Assuming demand
increases at about the same rate, that shows a need for about 500 acres of intensive commercial
and based on what's been planned for in the City currently, there will be around 442 acres of
intensive commercial so that leaves a 58-acre gap. Lehmann noted it's actually a larger gap than
that because a lot of intensive commercial areas that are going to be annexed into the City are
already occupied either by intensive commercial uses or by other unrelated uses. Lehmann
noted there is also changing demand over time, and so, whether staff uses the same growth rate
as population, it's not the exact amount that is needed, it’s a ballpark for what's an appropriate
amount of intensive commercial uses. Staff anticipates demand is going to remain relatively
stable, unlike other uses related to commercial where there is a decline in brick and mortar
stores with a shift to online retail. The reason staff believes it's going to remain relatively stable is
because these sorts of uses often meet some of the demands that would have been met by brick
and mortar stores otherwise, especially logistics, transportation, warehousing and those sorts of
uses. Staff also believes that MidAmerican Energy would occupy a portion of the site. So based
on that projected demand and based on the site and its access to the interstate, staff believes
that the amendment is in the public interest and that circumstances have changed over time.
Lehmann reiterated areas where staff is expecting additions of intensive commercial are
primarily by the interstate interchange and then on south Riverside Drive, but when looking at
vacant parcels, that is just the area southwest of the airport, some small parcels near the US 218
interchange, some small parcels north of the airport and some small parcels on Scott Boulevard.
Again, generally there's not many large areas for this type of development within this zone.
Lehmann stated the second criterion staff uses to judge Comprehensive Plan Amendments is
tied to if it's compatible with the policies and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan or District
Plans and this proposal does align with many of the policies in the Southwest District Plan,
especially for the Weber subarea. This area was slated for future development until
infrastructure was available, it maintains the transportation vision for the area which includes US
965 along the west border, Slothower to the east, and Melrose to the north, it allows for
contiguous development from Slothower to US 965 and provides the transition from the landfill
and US 965 to intensive commercial and then to agriculture/residential uses. Additional buffering
for those uses can be accommodated through rezoning. It also aligns with other goals or
objectives in the Comprehensive Plan as well such as identifying appropriate locations for
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 6 of 36
commercial development, the needs of the future population, identifying land for industrial uses
with ready access to rail and highways and also targeting industrial business sectors that align
with Iowa City’s economic strengths, i.e., renewable energy or energy in general, finance
manufacturing and focusing growth in the City’s growth area. Lehmann stated this area is within
Iowa City's fringe Growth Area C.
Lehmann stated there are also policies affiliated with the Comprehensive Plan, looking at
commercial, industrial development south and southwest at the airport or along intersections of
paved roads to be annexed prior to development. This application is at paved intersections and
has applied for annexation. Lehmann also noted the Commission will be asked later to set a
public hearing for the Fringe Area Agreement, which they have to update because it is expiring,
but this policy also aligns with what staff is proposing for the future fringe area as well.
That being said, Lehmann noted there are some differences in policies that are in the
Comprehensive and Southwest District Plans. Intensive commercial somewhat diverges from
the policy mentioned against commercial encroachment near Melrose and 218. However the
area near the interchange will continue to remain as a public use, and it does meet other goals
that are tied to identifying appropriate locations for commercial and industrial development so
staff believes that the spirit of the policy is met. There's also another policy about encouraging
new businesses in existing commercial areas but in this case the existing commercial areas don't
seem to accommodate all users within the City that would like to locate here. Lehmann
reiterated this was initially considered because of MidAmerican Energy was looking for a site and
was not able to find one, and there is a need for future new intensive commercial uses based on
population growth within the City.
Lehmann stated there's some other policies he wanted to mention that could be accommodated
through the sensitive areas and site development processes, especially related to strip
commercial development, discouraging walking and biking and then also sensitive areas, a lot of
those can be covered either through conditions on rezoning or by the zoning standards generally
which helps those policies be met.
So, based on these findings staff believes that the proposed amendment is compatible with the
policies in the Comprehensive Plan but that implementation would require annexation and
rezoning which the Commission will also consider this evening and those should include
conditions to ensure that the goals of the Comprehensive Plan are met.
Lehmann stated staff also received public comments for this item and all were forwarded to the
Commission in advance of this meeting. The applicant held a good neighbor meeting, four
neighbors attended and there was discussion along a range of items that included the potentially
wide range of uses for the proposed zone, about buffers from residences and sensitive features
on the site, and also concern over property values for residential properties that are nearby. In
terms of written correspondence, there were four that were opposed, one due to potential traffic
and lighting impacts of the proposed use, one with concerns about the shift from rural residential
to commercial and that being a relatively large change in policy and that might encourage future
commercial development which might have negative impacts, one tied to concerns regarding
long term policy in a large area near residences and impacts on residential uses and requested
that the City slow down to better understand the impacts, and then one that noted the area being
rural residential with a diversity of housing types is one of the reasons they bought their home
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 7 of 36
and noted the amendment process was not transparent and did not have enough outreach.
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approved CPA21-0002, a proposed
amendment to change the following for around 80 acres of property located south of IWV and
west of Slothower:
• The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation from Rural Residential, Open
Space, and Residential at 2-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre to Intensive Commercial; and
• The Southwest District Plan future land use map designation from Single-Family/Duplex
Residential and Future Urban Development to Intensive Commercial, and to change the text
of the District Plan to what was included in the agenda packet.
In terms of next steps, the goal is to determine if the proposed plan amendment should be
recommended for approval by city council, which would run concurrently with the annexation and
rezoning. In terms of Council making the final decisions, they would consider the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment on November 16, that would be a single meeting, and then
there'd be three meetings on the rezoning, so two additional meetings potentially ending
December 21.
Hensch asked if the Comprehensive Plan for this area was last updated in 2002 so almost 20
years ago. Lehmann replied for the District Plan yes. Hensch asked what some of the current
uses of the land are to the east and to the north of this area. Lehmann stated directly east is the
County Poor Farm property that is currently used for agriculture, but also used for events, to the
northeast there is the facilities building for Johnson County, so outdoor storage of buses and
some maintenance facilities, also the National Guard Readiness Center is over there, but directly
north is agricultural.
Hensch noted also present on the Johnson County Poor Farm are the Joint Emergency
Communications Center and the Chatham Oaks residential care facility which is housing for the
long term chronically mentally ill. Hensch asked what the distance from the landfill these 79
acres is. Heitner replied it's about half a mile to three quarters of a mile to the southwest
depending on where they’re measuring.
Hensch asked if the roadway through here from 218 to just past the landfill is all being currently
improved. Lehmann confirmed it is.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Jon Marner (MMS Consultants) is representing the applicant First he thanked staff as they have
been working together on this project for close to six months and staff did a great job with the
report and putting the packet together with a lot of useful information. Marner wanted to highlight
one specific item, the comprehensive planning and zoning amendments that are being sought
are to provide an opportunity for businesses that require close access to not only arterial
roadways but also the interstate system. There are no finalized agreements at this time for any
end users. Staff alluded to MidAmerican as a possible end user and is somebody that would fit
this classification, but that’s not finalized at this time. Marner stated they feel that this use will be
beneficial as there is a growing need or a future need based on the growth in this area for this
type of use in the Iowa City community. Given the way the growth has moved towards the north
and west and with the recent improvements to the IWV this is a natural location, they feel, to
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 8 of 36
provide those uses. This location has arterial road access both on IWV right now and the future
Highway 965 location that's planned to go along the east side of landfill at the western edge of
this property. And of course, the property is in very close proximity to the interstate system.
Marner noted regarding a few other items staff mentioned were comments, questions and
concerns from the good neighbor meeting and also received written comments, they understand
there was a concern about the proximity of this type of use to future residential development in
the area. The southern edge of this property has a stream corridor that runs close to parallel to
the property line and there's a lot of sensitive features, wetlands, some wooded areas, forest, as
well as the stream corridor that runs north/south along the very west edge of the of the property.
Those features, combined with a detention basin that they have currently planned for the
property, account for approximately a third of the property and that is well above the required
buffer for this zoning code for intensive commercial from residential. They are taking advantage
of the natural features that are already in place and then extending them by providing the
detention that's required as part of the City's ordinance and utilizing that area to help provide an
additional buffer for any potential future residential development. Marner affirmed they did listen
to those concerns, as part of that meeting, as the original detention basin they had planned did
not extend all the way over to Slothower Road but they did extend it over all the way to
Slothower Road so it provides a full buffer all the way along the south edge of the property.
A couple other items Marner wanted to address were the changes to the area. There's a lot of
growth in this area and some of the uses have changed since 2002 when the Plan was adopted
such as the Joint Emergency Communication Center and the County's current plans as they
have changed the Poor Farm for that area since then.
One last item Marner wanted to address was the traffic flow on Slothower. Currently Slothower
terminates just south of Wild Cat Lane to the south, there is no connection all the way through to
Rohret Road, and it was an expressed concern in the Comprehensive Plan that it might be used
as a cut through as it develops to the south. There is an opportunity either through design of
traffic control features or rerouting that location to design that Slothower connection as it moves
south towards Rohret to discourage the cut through the Comprehensive Plan alludes to at this
time. Marner noted though all the anticipated traffic flow for this type of use will be to the
interstate as those uses desire close and easy access to the interstate. They would typically
utilize that entrance and would not go to the south, any potential flow to the south would likely
occur due to residential development that continues as it grows to the south.
Hensch stated it's a 79.4 acre site and about a third of the site will not be available for
development because of the sensitive areas and detention basin which is about 26 acres so that
the buffer area will all be to the south, or will that be distributed throughout the property. Marner
stated they submitted a plan that would do a much better job of depicting the area, but it is
wetlands and primarily a small stream corridor that runs north/south at the very western edge of
the property. The zoning parcel that's described runs along the stream corridor on the western
edge towards the western quarter of the property. The buffer he is referring to with the detention
basin and natural features are extended further east to try to get as close to Slothower as
possible. There's additional detention in the southwest corner next to that stream corridor and
then the sensitive features that are located centrally right in the middle of the site along the south
boundary is a combination of the stream corridor and wetlands.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 9 of 36
Hensch also asked about the extension of 965, he doesn’t recall the Iowa Department
Transportation Commission having funded that project. Marner confirmed it's not, everything that
they've alluded to is based on the City's Comprehensive Plan and long term.
Hensch wondered on something like that how wide would the right-of-way typically be. Marner
stated typically an arterial is at least 80 feet, oftentimes it will range up to 100, he knows there
was discussion mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan of utilizing that particular right-of-way to
provide some additional green space or to do a little bit of different design there to try to provide
some extra screening from the landfill.
Craig noted they spoke of the County’s plans for the Poor Farm and some of the correspondence
had said something about the County's plans for the Poor Farm and they all know plans change,
but what are the County's plans for the Poor Farm. Marner stated he hasn’t seen an updated
plan lately, his reference to it was primarily the change when the County moved forward with
their plan to develop the Poor Farm in some manner, as opposed to the previous plan that was in
place whenever the Comprehensive Plan was written. The Comprehensive Plan alludes to some
of that ground potentially becoming public or private development and park area, he doesn’t
know if that's necessarily in their current plan. Marner added, and staff will probably touch on
this during the rezoning application, one of the conditions suggested is a CZA to require S3
screening, so a higher level of screening, along Slothower to help with some of the visibility and
to help buffer on the east side any potential users of the Johnson County Poor Farm. Lehmann
noted he can touch a bit on that plan too as they recently updated their plan. The Johnson
County Poor Farm site shows the area as continued agricultural and if they have residential uses
it would be adjacent to the existing residential uses to the southeast of the property. Craig
confirmed she hasn’t followed it closely but it was her understanding that the nature of the Poor
Farm, while some of the individual uses may change, will still be pretty agriculture looking.
Signs asked if they had any idea of the amount of this parcel or property that MidAmerican is
interested in using. Marner replied it would depend on their total use, with the stream corridor
and the unusable land in the buffer area, the maximum available land would be around 40 acres.
Marner reiterated they’ve had a preliminary conversation at this point as far as their interest goes
but this application and request is being developed in this manner and the requested zoning and
Comprehensive Plan Amendment regardless of any user’s pursuance of the property. It fits the
need for the area and an opportunity to provide it in a good location for any type of user.
Townsend asked if at this point only MidAmerica has given an interest in this area. Marner can't
speak directly to that as he is not part of the development team on the ownership side. He
believes there's a chance that other parties are interested and MidAmerican Energy is just the
one staff was aware of.
Josh Entler (IWV Holdings) added they are committed to dedicating that vegetative buffer to
make sure there's no structures and what that equates to is the south 20 acres would be
reserved as vegetative buffer and the other six acres comes from that stream corridor going
north and south on the western third of the parcel, so it'll be about a 20 acre reservation. Entler
noted it is about seven times the required minimum buffer from commercial to residential so
they're doing as much as they can to acknowledge that they heard some feedback at the good
neighbor meeting and want to be committed to providing an adequate buffer on the property to
make sure that should the landowners to the south want to do residential in the future they have
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 10 of 36
a fair opportunity to do so.
Padron asked for clarification on the size of the buffer. Entler explained it would be 350 feet
going along the north and south and then it would stretch the entire width of the 70-acre parcel,
so it equates to 20 acres of reservation.
Entler also wanted to thank staff for spending lots of time and research kind exploring a variety of
different options, they’ve come to similar conclusions and the point he wanted to hit on is
commercial users are looking for larger contiguous tracts of land, not just little 5 and 10 acre
parcels but looking for opportunities that could be 10 or 20 acre parcels that are close access to
interstate 218 and the I-80/380 corridor as it is becoming a growing attractive location to have
some intensive commercial uses.
John Bergstrom (Slothower Farms) represents the family who owned the hundred plus acres
directly south of the subject property. His involvement is he’s married to Sherri Slothower and
her brother Tim is here tonight also and they've been monitoring things in this area for a while
and have come to the conclusion they would like to object to this development. They just don't
understand why blow-up years and years of planning and Comprehensive Plan zoning for a
single 40-acre user because this development is going to be the first step of dictating what
happens in a large overlay area. This area has always been anticipated to be residential and
now all of a sudden as he reads the staff report, everything planned to accommodate a 40 acre
user, MidAmerica. Bergstrom can appreciate the fact that they are having trouble finding a site,
but why take an area here that affects large neighborhoods, it will affect whatever happens at the
County Farm and it just doesn't make any sense. In reading the report, and his comments are in
the packet but he would like to address that the changes that are in place at that intersection.
Right now, the changes on the east side of the interchange really doesn't have much to do on
the west side. That is a natural separation and the general area there south of Melrose hasn't
changed much at all. Bergstrom talked to staff back in February and he went back through the
notes and the things that jumped out was it's going to be residential and also there was a note
that there is no commercial interest. Well, evidently there is by one user and it's intensive
commercial, it's not a good neighbor for residential and why blow up this entire area. They were
talking earlier about defining what an urban user is, well intensive commercial is very urban and
it's not a compatible neighbor for residential. There was concerned about the buffer, 965 will be
a natural buffer and he’s talked to residential developers, and they have concerns with the landfill
so they think it actually provides a natural ending point for a neighborhood. Iowa City appears to
be concerned about not having enough intensive commercial in the future, as he looked at the
map shown tonight, there's plenty of land near other commercial areas and intensive commercial
areas that could be land to develop. The current Fringe Area Agreement says that this type of
development in the future should be south and west of the airport well this is certainly not south
and west of the airport. Bergstrom can understand maybe some zoning changes but not this
abrupt of one, if this corner was going to be neighborhood commercial or something like that it's
complimentary to the residents that live in Country Club Estates and hopefully on the land that
the Slothower family owns and the land to the south. Bergstrom would just ask to slow this thing
down, this is a knee jerk reaction to a single user and it's a user that should not be on this corner.
Eric Freedman (4401 Tempe Place) began by stating he agrees with Bergstrom and they just
heard there's over 100 families in their community and several hundred more in the area
surrounding Weber school and none of them really heard about this until they got an email from
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 11 of 36
one person who happened to hear from Bergstrom and the board of their housing organization
hasn't even had a chance to talk about it yet, this is too fast to allow a democratic process to
occur. Another point is there actually is a plan for the Poor Farm and they need to know what is
happening on that site before they make any decisions about what's happening across the
street. His understanding is that there's trails being created there, people are going to be able to
take walks and there's forested areas. He also believes there's going to be some housing for low
income families and some other community farm sites on that site. Freedman stated it doesn't
sound like the staff have a clear idea of what's happening there, and he thinks they need to get a
better sense of what's happening there before they build across the street. Freedman also
stated what the community that he lives in needs is neighborhood commercial as there's very few
supermarkets or restaurants or anything close to them. They need a road that connects right to
Melrose west of the highway so they can get to places north instead of having to weave all the
way around to the east side of the highway through all the backstreets. Those things seem to be
much higher priority than to make one exception for one company that wants to build there.
Freedman would like to see a better picture of the whole area, is this going to be the only heavy
commercial site or is there going to be more to the south or is it going to expand to the north,
what's going to happen. He thinks they need to think about this in a broader more long-term light
as opposed to this one organization that wants to build one thing in one place. They need to slow
down and have a more democratic conversation among all the hundreds of families that are
living there now.
Jim Larimore (1143 Wildcat Lane) stated from his front yard they have a clear line of sight to the
proposed building site and what he wanted to share tonight is that when his family decided seven
years ago that they would make their home in that neighborhood they carefully reviewed the
Comprehensive Plan and read through every word in the Southwest District Plan. They felt that it
was a very thorough, very well thought through plan, and it gave them a lot of confidence for
what the future of their neighborhood would be. His opinion is that the current proposal, in spite
of the language that was used rather artfully in some of the reports, is not consistent with the
Southwest District Plan, in fact the proposal reverses key parts of the Plan such as avoiding
commercial development at the Melrose/218 interchange and preserving the rural and residential
character of the area in question. Larimore takes issue with the idea that his neighbors and he
should consider intensive commercial development as a buffer to protect their neighborhood
when the documents from the City's Planning and Zoning Department included proposed
requirements that would buffer them from the impact of the proposed intensive commercial
development. If they need to be buffered from the proposed buffer, he doesn’t find it reasonable
to consider that intensive commercial development actually acts as a buffer. Larimore seconds
the call that the process should be slowed down, they should not act on a Comprehensive Plan
in a piecemeal way, if the Comprehensive Plan is going to be revisited then do it in an open,
inclusive process. The same type of process that was used about 20 years ago to develop the
current Plan. Larimore reiterated his request the Commission don't rush a judgment and don't
take a piecemeal approach to a Comprehensive Plan.
Sherri Slothower Bergstrom (Slothower Farms) is one of the co-owners with her family of the
Slothower Farm area that butts right up to the property that they're talking about here today. She
wants to echo what everybody has said, this has happened really quick, they are the next-door
neighbors and had no idea anything like this was being considered. The City talked about the
good neighbor meeting and that there were four people there, well, the reason there were four
people there is because no one was notified. There wasn't a sign what up on the property, they
had to ask about that and then they were told that legally the City is only required to notify people
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 12 of 36
within a 300-foot area of the property so none of the wonderful people that are here from the
Country Club Estates area were notified and the people that live in their farmhouse currently
were not notified. Bergstrom also noted they got a distinct impression that there's been a lot of
conversations going on between the City and the developer, as the developer said, for nearly six
months. Nobody knew anything, no one was notified about anything, and they felt like it was
done before it even came to the neighbors. Bergstrom asked the Commission to think for one
minute about what this means to the people that live in the beautiful neighborhood in the Country
Club Estates neighborhood which is right across the road from her farmhouse. They are going to
be looking at large lighting, tall fences, maybe even with security fencing, big trucks, lots of them,
and it will be very disruptive. Bergstrom can't think of a buffer they could come up with no matter
how long it stretches that is going to help them from the pollution, the light pollution, and the
noise. This will change to the character of their neighborhood.
Cindy Seyfer (36 Tempe Court) stated she doesn’t have a lot to add other than saying that she
agrees with what her neighbors have said and many of them chose to live there for the specific
reason that they had the rural residential mix. Her husband and she have the pleasure of looking
out their back yard onto the Poor Farm and seeing the sunsets from their deck and seeing the
dark night skies from their deck. She understands the need for public use and what might be in
the public interest, but she also thinks there is a balance and to her this is not going to be the
right balance for the interest of the public and the people if they move from rural residential to
intensive commercial. That's just leaping too far, too fast, and she agrees with Sherri Bergstrom
in terms of the ability for them to be part of the good neighbor process. There's a few of them
here tonight, but there would have been even more that would have come out had they had an
opportunity early on to be part of good neighbor discussions. Seyfer would like to encourage the
Commission, as others have said, to slow down, involve the rest of the community, and to look
closely and honestly at what the plan is for the future. One of the things they all appreciate about
Iowa City is the concepts and ideals of transparency and inclusivity and they've not found that
yet here but do appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight. They just want to be more involved
in the process.
Brenda Scott (1783 Lake Shore Drive) lives in the Country Club Estates and echoes what
everyone has said here. If anyone has ever driven out there late at night, go to the end of one of
these roads that they're talking about and see how dark it is. The biggest lights are coming from
the landfill and adding a ton of lights in an industrial area going to completely change the
neighborhood. Another thing to consider is as a parent of a West High student that's a young
driver that has to head south and goes through Shannon Drive currently, she knows there's been
talk of doing another road like Slothower was before Southwest Estates was built, but she has
heard that they have that route through Lake Shore Drive potentially, which is where she lives,
and that road has a ton of traffic, high speed traffic, so having additional traffic also go to Lake
Shore to get to this area would be bad especially if they are talking about giant trucks going
through a neighborhood filled with kids. Also, because the traffic to the east of this location
would be going by West High it will cause issues. The main road to get to West High for
everyone down there is Shannon Drive turning right to go to West High or turning left to get to
Northwest Junior High. In the mornings that street is backed up so much and trying to add large
industrial trucks into that is going to cause even more congestion and a dangerous situation for
immature drivers. Scott acknowledged she doesn’t really understand when they say
MidAmerican is going to be built there, what that means, is it a hub for their trucks or is it one of
those giant energy plant type things. She would appreciate an answer that too. But overall, just
the amount of traffic, the light, and changing the neighborhood is all happening way too fast.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 13 of 36
Tim Slothower (Slothower Farms) stated their family moved out to that area back in the early 70s
and so they lived out there at a time when that road actually went through from Melrose to
Rohret Road. About halfway down it turned into a mud road. Slothower also stated
unfortunately there's a lot of traffic that uses that road, because if anyone wants to go south and
then west the best place to go that direction is south on Slothower Road, from the interstate
there is not a direct route to head south and west. So, when they moved out there, the road was
through and they had constant traffic coming up and down that road from Secondary Roads.
They had 30-40 dump trucks a day going up and down that road, and at that time it was a gravel
road and it's not that much better now than it was back then. Slothower did have two questions,
one is there going to be access from this new development to Slothower Road or will all the
access be from Melrose and IWV. The other question he has is how much traffic would be going
down a road if it does get connected to the subdivision. Again, he has lived on that road for 30
years and seen a lot of changes out there as far as traffic and that kind of thing and he hates to
see it go back to that direction, it’s a nice quiet neighborhood and it should stay that way.
Duane Kruse (965 Slothower Road) is one of the two residents that live on Slothower Road and
agrees with what everybody has stated, it's beautiful out there at nighttime, it's dark with a great
view of the stars and wonderful sunsets. He’s grown to love the land and got the distinct privilege
of buying the family farmstead and three acres. They too were under the impression that when
they purchased this land in the future, at some point in time, it would be developed to residential.
He and his wife Kathy are opposed to this and think it should be very highly considered to jump
in lightly on this. It is not wise for a lot of different reasons, one, as everybody stated, to put in
heavy industrial is going to bring big lights and big fences. To his understanding MidAmerican
Energy would have a storage facility, which they have one now to the south and it’s not very neat
and orderly nor very attractive. Kruse spoke with the developer back there they have they have
a large buffer strip which is very positive, but it changes everything, it changes the environment,
it floods the area with lights, as the Iowa City landfill has done. The historic farm has also started
to put up heavy lights that flood the area. Kruse stated if they had a magic wand they would just
turn it all into a forest with ponds and maybe a park for the public to enjoy, but never industrial.
Again, he stated he had his wife Kathy are most definitely opposed, the 49 pheasants that were
in their front yard all winter long are opposed, their two dogs are opposed, their three cats are
opposed. They love that land; he grew up on a farm and to see something in this magnitude
really needs to be considered and take a pause and ask do they really need to change things to
this nature. Kruse asked if this was in your backyard, would you want it there. Wind turbines
are the most efficient use and are out in the ocean because east coast communities say no, they
can't put them in their backyards because they have political power. Maybe the City needs to
consider what's the real purpose here, why change something to this nature, because is that a
wise move. Kruse doesn’t know that answer, but he does know this much from having the
privilege of living out there for five years or so now, he has grown to love this property for a lot of
different reasons, so he urges the Commission to reconsider this.
Jim Seyfer (36 Tempe Court) had just a couple of points. Number one he is pretty astounded
that there isn't more understanding or knowledge of what the County Poor Farms plans are so
that is another reason to slow down. Secondly, he doesn’t have a master's in urban planning, but
he thinks a principle of urban planning is to group and place and approve the proper activities in
the right zones. As he looks at the maps and they're off in the west corner as a one-off proposal
which would need to be rezoned. It doesn't belong there and intensive commercial just flies in
the face of what he thinks urban planning should be all about. He just wants to echo his support
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 14 of 36
for everyone else who has spoken before him.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend approval of CPA21-0002, a proposed amendment to change
the following for around 80 acres of property located south of IWV and west of Slothower:
• The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation from Rural Residential,
Open Space, and Residential at 2-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre to Intensive Commercial;
and
• The Southwest District Plan future land use map designation from Single-
Family/Duplex Residential and Future Urban Development to Intensive Commercial,
and to change the text of the District Plan to what was included in the agenda packet.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Hensch noted the discussion now is relative exclusively to the amendment of the Comprehensive
Plan and the question before the Commission as set forth by the rules of Iowa City is looking at
the approval criteria for the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to this area and there's two
different items in this. His personal opinion is that the City has shown that these two items that
have existed, that is, the circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors
have come to light, such as the proposed amendment is in the public interest. Hensch noted that
is always the Commission’s purpose here, what are they looking at and what is best for the City
of Iowa City, the entire city. The second area is what is proposed will be compatible with other
policies and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, including any district plans or amendments
thereto. He believes both those circumstances and both those things are true so he’ll be
supporting this application.
Signs agrees and thinks Hensch made a good point that this piece is just around the
Comprehensive Plan change and that there are other opportunities to put criteria in if anyone
feels the need to as they go through the annexation and rezoning. He has struggled with this a
little bit, but does think that the area has changed, and the intent of some of the future plans such
as bringing 965 down on the west side and making it a major thoroughfare does enhance that or
indicate that there's going to be even more change in the future. Having driven on IWV road
many times there's a lot of dump trucks that go up and down that road so he certainly wouldn’t
call it a quiet residential neighborhood. He is impressed with the buffering that's naturally
created and the retention basin. As he looks forward to potentially the rezoning he probably
would be inclined to encourage a lot of buffering on the property as a whole, but he feels like the
growth of the residential area is coming from the south, he doesn’t foresee a big developer come
out on IWV road north of the landfill or next to the County property there. He thinks the
development that has occurred out there west of the interstate has started a pattern and started
a trend of use that is not inappropriate, certainly it can be subject to other people's visions, but it
seems to be a logical place to continue on with some of that commercial, industrial use and
continue to focus development to the south for residential and they know that there's a large
residential proposal south of Rohret Road and if he had to guess that's where the residential
growth is going to be in Iowa City in the coming years. He just doesn’t see residential really
happening along IWV road and so he is inclined to think that the change in the Comprehensive
Plan based on the changes in circumstances and the community needs warrants approval, and
he will be supporting this.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 15 of 36
Townsend stated she is torn because of the intensive commercial in what was supposed to be a
residential area, so she is still pondering that even though it has changed and it's going to
continue to change, especially with the new development off of Rohret Road.
Craig stated she is supportive of the of the change, staff makes the case for the changes that
have happened and occurred and agrees that when you drive down Melrose and IWV it is not a
residential neighborhood.
Hensch stated in the immediate area it's pretty hard to see this as residential with the National
Guard Armory, the SEATS and Secondary Roads campus, the Joint Emergency
Communications Center, Chatham Oaks residential care facility, it’s just not a residential
character of that neighborhood.
Signs agrees with Townsend and thinks there needs to be a lot of buffering but is impressed with
the buffering that is currently proposed and won't have any problem suggesting maximum
buffering when they get to some of the other phases as property develops, but he does think
that's key, but there is quite a bit already there 300 feet is a lot of butter, that's a football field.
Padron stated she will not be supporting this; she is concerned with the sensitive areas around
the intensive commercial. Commercial is not a kind of buffer. Also, the Poor Farm has been used
lately to for festival and family activities and this is too close to the Poor Farm and if that's the
intention, or the plan, of how to use the Poor Farm, then there are too many concerns for her.
Padron also didn’t like that there weren't enough neighbors at the good neighbor meeting, there
should have been more people there.
A vote was taken and the motion failed 3-2 (Townsend and Padron dissenting).
CASE NO. ANN21-0003 & REZ21-0006:
Location: SW corner of Slothower Road and IWV Road
a. An application for an annexation of approximately 70.39 acres of land currently in
unincorporated Johnson County.
b. An application for a rezoning from County Agricultural (A) to Intensive Commercial
CI-1) for approximately 53.36 acres, Interim Development Commercial ( ID-C) for
approximately 17.03 acres, and approximately 9 acres of land from Rural Residential
RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1).
Heitner stated the presentation is going to have a lot of similarity between this agenda item and
the previous agenda item so he would try to not be duplicative in the interest of time. He began
with an aerial view of subject property and an overview of the existing zoning noting County
Agriculture, Rural Residential and County Residential. Heitner noted the majority of the 70 acres
of subject property is located in the growth area of the Fringe Area Agreement, there is a little
strip, around 9 acres, to the east that is already in the City limits. That nine-acre strip along with
about 53 acres of the proposed annexation would seek CI-1 (Intensive Commercial) zoning and
the remaining balance to the west would seek ID-C (Interim Development Commercial) zoning
for about 17 acres.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 16 of 36
Heitner explained this agenda item is focusing on the actual annexation application and the
rezoning associated with that annexation as the property is annex into the City. He also wanted
to comment on a couple things from just the general background stance, there's been discussion
about the lack of attendance at the good neighbor meeting. Those notices were sent out
pursuant to the City's current requirement of a 300-foot notification radius. Heitner attended that
meeting, and they made a concerted effort in notification, they sent out notifications to residents
within the Country Club Estates Fourth and Fifth Additions as well which is outside of the 300-
foot notification window. Staff did so because they understood that there is a potential for a larger
impact for area, since it is a larger agricultural property. They also held a consult on the
annexation on July 29th with two Union Township trustees and they also voiced concerns mostly
about the potential loss of farmland and tax revenue to the township.
Heitner showed an overview of the existing Southwest District Plan and Weber subarea, as
Lehmann mentioned the majority of this area was slated for future urban development for single
family duplex residential and then also a Vegetative and Noise and Sight Buffer to the west near
the landfill.
For the annexation component of this, voluntary annexations are reviewed under three different
criteria, first, that the area under consideration falls within the adopted long range planning
boundary, second that development in the area proposed annexation will fulfill and identify need
without imposing an undue burden on the City, and third, that control of the development is in the
City's best interest. Heitner stated on that first point with the area under consideration falling
within the adapted long range planning boundary, the portion of the subject property that isn't
already in the City limits is all entirely within the City’s growth area in fringe area C and it’s
anticipated that anything within that growth area will eventually or could eventually be annexed
into the City. Number two, that development in the area proposed for annexation will fulfill an
identified need without imposing an undue burden on the City. The applicant has demonstrated
that sanitary sewer service is possible to the eastern properties that are seeking the intensive
commercial CI-1 zoning. There are capital improvements underway on IWV road with the intent
of bringing the road to urban arterial standards. That will include an urban overlay of that
segment of the road roughly between the Poor Farm and Hebl Avenue to the landfill as well as
installation of a water line throughout that segment of road with the expectation that waterline
and section of the road will be utilized for those infrastructure improvements. Heitner noted there
is a great deal of highway adjacency lot size and also arterial proximity that makes this subject
property pretty appealing for future commercial development. Also, with regards to the
Comprehensive Plan the subject properties are contiguous the City limits there by satisfying that
goal for annexation. The last point, control the development is in the City's best interest, as
previously mentioned this property is within the City's growth area and is appropriate for
properties seeking annexation upon development to seek adequate City services, this is
especially true for commercial and industrial oriented uses that may develop within the growth
area. It is a long-standing policy that the City tries to direct those uses within the City limits if
possible.
Heitner showed an overview of the zoning noting the eastern parcels will have intensive
commercial zoning with the western parcel seeking interim development commercial. As an
overview of a CI-1 zone, it is a zone with a lot of depth to it and the purpose of the zone is to
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 17 of 36
provide areas for sales and service functions, businesses whose operations are typically
characterized by outdoor displays and storage of merchandise, repair, and sales of large
equipment or motor vehicles or commercial amusement recreational activities. It's an extensive
zone and there's a lot of discussion within the zoning ordinance about how to buffer some of
those uses from adjacent residential zones. Heitner acknowledged there's been a lot of talk
about MidAmerican being a potential end user here, certainly a possibility, but when staff is
assessing a rezoning like this, they have to analyze the potential for any kind of use that might
be permitted within that zone. There are three different ways they look at uses in zones, they
have uses that are permitted by right, meaning that if they follow all of the other items and steps
within the zoning or subdivision ordinance they are permitted without any further scrutiny, there's
provisional uses which require a few more steps and criteria to satisfy and then there's uses
permitted by special exception which require even more criteria to satisfy and they have to obtain
that special exception through the Board of Adjustment, an entirely different review body.
Heitner showed a quick overview of some of the uses that are permitted through each
mechanism. By right, they can have building trade, commercial recreational, eating
establishments, office, retail, industrial service, self-service storage warehouse, and freight
movement. Provisional uses, which again require a bit more criteria to satisfy are adult
businesses, animal related commercial, some general manufacturing, and basic utility. Finally
are the uses as permitted by special exception which deserve a bit more analysis and scrutiny,
are things like heavy manufacturing, basic utilities that maybe are outside, detention facilities,
and utility scale solar.
The IDC zone to the far west is intended to provide areas for managed growth, it's a default
zoning district that's often applied to undeveloped areas until City services can be provided, as is
the case with this portion of the subject property. For the rezoning component Heitner explained
there's two criteria that need to be satisfied, consistency with Comprehensive Plan and
compatibility with the existing neighborhood character. With respect to consistency with
Comprehensive Plan, a lot of that is tied to the previous agenda item and whether intensive
commercial designation within the Comprehensive Plan is passed. What is existing right now is
classified as future urban development. Heitner wanted to touch on the attractiveness of the site
for a couple reasons, the highway adjacency and future arterial road access. As mentioned
earlier, there are improvements ongoing right now to IWV Road to make that up to arterial urban
design standards. Also discussed already tonight was the potential for the extension of 965 that
would be on the west side of the subject property, closer to the interim zone area, and then in the
Comprehensive Plan there are plans for making Slothower Road a collector street which is a
step down from an arterial assuming less traffic than an arterial but still more volume than a local
neighborhood street.
With respect to compatibility with the existing neighborhood character Heitner wanted to highlight
topography of the area, with the lighter industrial uses to the northeast of the subject property,
the Poor Farm directly east, agricultural residential to the north and the Country Club Estates
residential of the southeast. Staff does acknowledge there's definitely concerns with potentially
having a zone with the breath of uses that an intensive commercial zone presents and being as
sensitive as possible to existing neighbors and adjacent properties so there are a few conditions
in that respect that staff would recommend for rezoning. Staff is recommending a S3 high
screen landscape buffer along the properties on Slothower Road frontage. S3 is the most
intense screening within the code and consists of six-foot-tall dense shrub and/or tree buffer with
potential to incorporate berming with that buffer or a masonry wall. They are also recommending
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 18 of 36
a condition that any parking along the IWV Road frontage be screened to the S3 standard and
that any loading areas and outdoor storage be located behind the principal structure. In addition,
there's also some built in criteria for buffering that's for more intense uses that might fall under
this zone, the code already prescribes in terms of buffering for uses such as manufacturing,
which is limited concrete mix plants, would require at least the 500 foot buffer from any
residential zone. General manufacturing has a size limitation of about 15,000 square feet and
there's certain protocols for what production could take place out of that general manufacturing.
Detention facilities must be at least 1000 feet from any residential zone and communication
transmission facility towers have to be set back at least the distance equal to the height of the
tower from any residential zone.
Heitner next discussed the environmental sensitive areas, the applicant did submit sensitive
areas plan as part of the review of the annexation and rezoning. It was already discussed about
the natural buffering that will take place on the south side of the subject property spanning the
entire width of the property and again that's largely because of a combination of planned
detention, also the stream corridor on the south end of the property, as well as a wetland a little
bit under an acre in size on the south of the property and associated 100-foot buffer around that
wetland. So there will be natural buffering on the south side of subject property that effectively
prohibits any urban development from taking place within that area.
Regarding traffic and access to the site, right now the most recent vehicle count that they have
for IWV Road is approximately 2000 vehicles per day which is well below the arterial size
capacity of about 17,000 vehicles per day. Staff is looking to finalize access to the site upon site
plan review, however, there is a City Code policy on limiting access to arterial roads, and it is the
City's preference to have that primary access point off Slothower Road, and there's a few
conditions related to that access. One, that the applicant would be obligated to improve
Slothower Road to the southern end of that proposed access and then contributes 25% toward
the cost of upgrading the remaining portion of Slothower Road along the rest of the frontage.
Staff is also requesting a dedication of approximately 13 feet of additional right -of-way along the
Slothower Road frontage.
Heitner noted the public comments received regarding concerns with the annexation were largely
similar to the concerns related to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment about the wide range of
uses in the proposed zone, concerns about buffers and impacts to sensitive features, detrimental
property valuation to adjacent residences, concerns about negative externalities from the use of
traffic, lighting impacts, the large shift from a rural residential character to an intensive
commercial or lighter industrial character and then potential implications for the larger area.
With respect to the annexation policy, the role of the Commission tonight is to determine that the
following are satisfied conditions by the Comprehensive Plans annexation policy, one that the
area falls within the adopted long range planning boundary; two, that the development area
proposed for annexation will fulfill an identified need without imposing undue burden on the City;
and three, that control of the development is the City's best interest.
With respect to next steps, after recommendation from this Commission the following will occur:
• City Council would set a public hearing for both the annexation and rezoning.
• Prior to the public hearing, utility companies and non-consenting parties will be sent the
annexation application via certified mail.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 19 of 36
• City Council will consider the comprehensive plan amendment (CPA21-0002), annexation
ANN21-0003), and rezoning (REZ21-0006).
• The application for annexation will be sent to the State Development Board for consideration
and approval.
Staff recommends approval of ANN21-0003, a voluntary annexation of approximately 70.39
acres of property located south of IWV Road and west of Slothower Road.
Staff also recommends approval of REZ21-0006, a rezoning of approximately 53.36 acres from
County Agricultural (A) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1), 9 acres from Rural Residential (RR-1) to
Intensive Commercial (CI-1), and 17.03 acres from County Agricultural (A) to Interim
Development Commercial (ID-C) subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall:
a. Plat all the property herein rezoned to follow the zoning boundaries.
b. Submit a landscape plan, which shall be approved by the City Forester, to ensure
that, when developed, the subject property is designed in a manner that emphasizes
green components within its location along an arterial and as an entryway into the
City.
c. Owner shall contribute 25% of the cost of upgrading Slothower Road, south of the
proposed access, to collector street standards, adjacent to the subject property.
2. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the property fronting Slothower Road:
a. Installation of landscaping to the S3 standard, as detailed in section 14-5F-6C of City
Code, along the subject property’s Slothower Road frontage. If said certificate of
occupancy is issued during a poor planting season, by May 31 following issuance of
the certificate of occupancy.
b. Improvement of Slothower Road to the southern end of the proposed access off
Slothower Road.
3. At the time the final plat is approved, Owner shall dedicate additional right-of-way along the
Slothower Road frontage in an amount and location approved by the City Engineer.
4. Parking, loading areas, and outdoor storage shall either not be located between the front
facade of the principal structure and the front yard right-of-way line or shall be screened to
the S3 standard along the IWV Road frontage.
Hensch had three questions, one about uses as permitted by right, provisionally and by special
exception. For the special exceptions, is it correct that those would have to go before the Board
of Adjustment to get approval and there'd be no administrative course of action, because some
of those uses sound pretty intensive. Heitner confirmed that was correct anything requiring a
special exception will require Board approval. Hensch acknowledged a couple of the public
speakers intermixed industrial zoning with intensive commercial zoning and they're not talking
about any industrial zoning tonight, the heaviest zoning is intensive commercial. Again Heitner
confirmed that was correct.
Hensch noted that Slothower Road is currently a county level B road, so that means that there's
zero maintenance going on and it's essentially non-traversable at this point by a regular motor
vehicle. Heitner confirmed it's a level B road so the County provides no maintenance for the
entire length of that road.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 20 of 36
Hensch’s last question is under the additional conditions in staff’s recommendation, the
recommendation was that there should be S3 screening standards applied for landscaping along
the length of Slothower Road and he was curious why that wasn't extend to the length of the IWV
Road since that is an entry area to Iowa City. Hensch noted the Commission has always paid
particular importance to green entry ways into the City so was there any consideration given to
have S3 standards for that length IWV Road and if not that's something he’d be interested in
adding. Heitner stated there was consideration given to it and if it's the Commission's desire to
create a new condition that would require that S3 screening on the IWV Road frontage staff
would be supportive of that. Their focus with respect to IWV Road was just making sure that any
parking within that front yard area off IWV Road be screened but again would be totally
supportive of extending that screening throughout the entire IWV Road frontage. Hensch is not
only concerned aesthetically but also quite certain the engineering staff would recommend
limitation of access on IWV Road from the main property so if they’re not going to have
driveways anyway why not have this look as aesthetically pleasing as possible. Heitner agreed
and stated it also goes to further satisfy the Comprehensive Plan goal about having aesthetically
pleasing beautified entries into the City.
Signs stated he did appreciate the review of the various uses this by right, provisional and by
special exception, that did answer some of his questions. He would definitely be supportive of
extending the S3 screening standard the entire length of the IWV Road on the side of that
property. Signs noted one of the things that they seem to be bumping up against a lot lately, in
the last year of applications that came before the Commission, is there's a common theme of not
wanting change and not wanting growth. For those folks here tonight to speak against growth, if
they stick around a little bit longer, they're going to hear the folks that are going to speak against
growth on the south side. The Commission talked with all the folks on the northeast side of town
a couple times in the last two years about the fact that they didn't want their natural areas to
grow, and it really got him thinking and begging the question of where is the City going to grow if
nobody wants to grow. In the paper last week it stated the official census estimate for Iowa City
shows that the growth was less than expected, while the growth in the neighboring communities
was way more than expected. And to be honest, there's a reason for that and it is because they
want to grow and the Iowa City community, at least part of the community, doesn't want to grow.
The Commission is seeing this trend and it's starting to concern him and as stated earlier their
role is to look at the good of the community as a whole. He is not opposed to change, they've
seen change happen on the IWV corridor and her anticipates that the demand for that's going to
continue regardless of any decision made tonight. He personally thinks that if he had to choose
between that and 230 some acres south of Rohret Road this makes the most sense to put in
some type of a heavier use of zoning so there are some of those types of businesses and
industries on that side of town and it's really the only place that seems logical for him. He likes
the staff’s conditions and totally support those, he would also support extending the screening on
IWV Road and is inclined to support this. He is definitely inclined to support the annexation and
is comforted by the chart that showed the uses of the zoning allowed so he is more inclined now
to support the zoning.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Jon Marner (MMS Consultants) stated they would also support the extension to the S3 screening
along IWV Road. The other thing he wanted to add is just to reiterate again that this zoning
amendment is being sought not just for one user, there's an opportunity for multiple other
businesses, whether they've expressed interest at this point or not, this is a great location to
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 21 of 36
provide quick access to the arterial road and immediate access to Highway 218 and the
interstate system and as staff pointed out there's not a lot of those types of properties in the
area. Other areas are located away from the highway or from the interstate or the area on the
east part of town is located near railways and are different uses or smaller parcels. A lot of the
people that are interested in this type of property for this type of uses are searching for
something more in the neighborhood of 10 to 15 acres or a little larger and those properties
simply don't exist in the Iowa City area at this time, so this is a great location.
John Bergstrom (Slothower Farms) want to state they are not anti-growth, they just don't like the
abrupt change in the land plan and doesn’t think he was hearing anti-growth. This area has
always been deemed to be residential and he thinks it should continue as residential. As far as
north of Melrose frankly this development would probably fit better north of Melrose, but as they
turn onto Slothower Road that should be residential or neighborhood commercial because then
to the south is residential and the County Farm will have a residential component to it. Again,
this is just a big change, and as they change an instrument like the Comprehensive Plan it
should be much more encompassing than just accommodating MidAmerican Energy because it's
very clear from all the staff comments that is what this is all about.
Hensch stated just so everybody knows they have not materials that state what the potential
users of these properties and they strictly look at the application and what the application says.
Eric Freedman (4401 Tempe Place) wanted to acknowledge he heard a couple of the
Commissioners say this is not a residential area, west on Melrose, but that's not the concern, the
concern is the views from the south, and what this impacts to the south. On the map it is shown
that a ton of people live right across the Poor Farm, it's a clear line of sight. If the Poor Farm is
going to be a community resource with trails and some housing and community farming, then
right next to it will be a row of trees or shrubs like six feet high and he has no idea what it's going
to look like so it'd be nice to at least see something that would show them what it's going to look
like when this is built to the west of the Poor Farm. There is concern among people who live in
this vibrant neighborhood of what the impact would be. He doesn’t think any of them are
opposed to annexing more land and creating space for things that are useful to the City, but they
don't understand why it was chosen to be here without looking at other options. Why not north of
Melrose, what's the long-term plan, is this going to be one little tiny piece, or is there going to be
expansion for other intensive commercial, is there a plan for that they haven't seen. He’d like to
know more, in order to be able to make a clear decision and he doesn’t know how they can make
a decision on this, given what they've heard so far. For example, something along the east side
of that space that was more compatible and useful to the people living there. Nobody wants to
live next to a dump so if there's going to be stuff farther west that is fine, but he thinks people are
concerned about along Slothower Road is directly next to where people live.
Jim Larimore (1143 Wildcat Lane) is one of the families that looks across that field at the
proposed site. Since one of the Commissioners made some comments that are interpreted as
being directed at those who are here in attendance, he thinks it's interesting sometimes that they
can hear the same words and or be exposed to the same words and hear such dramatically
different things. Larimore has not heard a single one of his neighbors express a concern about
growth. Some of them came to Iowa City and contributed to the growth of the population, so he
doesn’t think that anyone is anti-growth. From what he’s heard so far, they do have some
concerns about what is planned, or what is potentially going to be for some of them within a very
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 22 of 36
long stone's throw of their neighborhood and the thing that he would point out and where he
heard some things tonight that are worrisome was actually in the documentation that was posted
online and there is a reference in some of the material that suggests the plan for the County and
the Poor Farm. They're actually considering putting some residential units there which would be
very close to the proposed site and that creates a much more immediate conflict between the
kinds of uses for these properties. The thing he is very concerned about, because there were
also comments that none of us has a crystal ball, they really don't know what will go there and
there's no confirmed plan for MidAmerica Energy to use the site, but there is beyond the rights
that can be exercised to build on that site subject only to provisional review. What was
referenced as an adult video stores or strip clubs that's what the Code says so by opening up the
door for intensive commercial use on this property, not very far from one of Iowa City's high
schools and not very far from residential neighborhoods are possibilities that no one really want
in their backyards.
Cindy Seyfer (36 Tempe Court) wanted to follow up with that comment they’re not concerned if
it's MidAmerican or who it is that builds there, they are looking at what's in the best interest for
Iowa City and the public. She thinks it's really dangerous to annex and start to allow that land to
be used in a way that they don't have a plan for. They don't know what the future will hold for
that land, but what they do know is what is near it. The Commissioners indicated it isn't
residential, but she would assume that the residents of Walnut Ridge and Galway Hills would
beg to differ, because they would find themselves pretty close to that area. Her neighborhood
would find themselves close to that area and again that's where she thinks they need to be
looking at tiers, rather than jumping straight from residential to intense commercial. Once it is
intense commercial all of those options exist in terms of what could go on that land, and it makes
it really hard to feel comfortable with what the future might hold. She also wanted to echo none
of them are against the growth, they wanted residential growth or at the very least maybe some
neighborhood commercial growth, they just don't think an appropriate use is intense commercial.
Sherri Slothower Bergstrom (Slothower Farms) feels like the panel here maybe doesn't have a
good understanding of that area. They have been talking a lot about IWV Road but the people
that are here and the big impact that they are missing is what's going to happen south of there.
There's a big strip of land there and this small piece of land that they're addressing tonight is
going to set the tone for what happens in that whole area, and it really concerns her and bothers
her a lot that the people on the panel are not really understanding that. Maybe the
Commissioners are not real familiar with the area, but IWV Road is probably not what they
should be thinking about here, there is going to be impact in the future from this decision on a
large area of agricultural land and on a lot of people. Look at that neighborhood there and look at
what's going to happen in the future on that agricultural land and what they are deciding here for
a very small plot is going to impact that greatly.
Duane Kruse (965 Slothower Road) and as Bergstrom just pointed out the decision that's being
imposed on the Commission tonight does impact a lot of people and it's a very large decision.
When one drives up and down IWV you see commercial, but you get past that and there's a lot
of land there that is going to be impacted by this decision if this area goes to heavy industrial.
He is also not opposed to growth, they all want to grow, they all want to be successful, but he
also thinks if they make this decision in favor of the heavy industrial, they're opening pandora's
box and can't close it once it's opened.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 23 of 36
Craig corrected that it's not heavy industrial zoning.
Kruse accepted that but stated he is opposed to this, his wife Kathy is opposed, their two dogs
are opposed, their three cats are opposed and 49 pheasants in their front yard last winter are
opposed.
Hensch asked the applicant what's the CSR (corn suitability rating) for this land. Marner replied
he did not know off the top of his head. Hensch noted several people mentioned the agricultural
lands and he presumes it's around 50-60. He assumes it would be the same as the Poor Farm
and the Poor Farm CSR is low, it's around 50.
Freedman had a quick question as there was a mention in the conditions for the plan that the
resident would pay 25% of the improvements to Slothower Road to the south of the site. What is
the vision and is that going to extend all the way down to Rohret Road or that would connect up
the Lake Shore.
Hensch reminded him this is not a question/answer opportunity, it's an opportunity for the public
to address the Commission and share information. He could certainly ask staff after the meeting.
Freedman stated then if the idea was that collector road is going to feed on to Lake Shore and
not go all the way down to Rohret Road it would be tremendously opposed by many, many
people in the community because then lots of traffic would be going right through a street where
there's tons of kids. So if there's thinking here about creating a collector road they have to be
very careful and do an analysis of where that collector is going to go, he thinks it should go to
Rohret Road.
Marner stated the CSR is 72, he was able to look it up on the internet. Hensch noted just so
people know it's a scale of zero to 100 and the closer to 100 is prime agricultural land and as it
goes down its lesser value and that determines how it sells frankly.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Townsend moved to recommend approval of ANN21-0003, a voluntary annexation of
approximately 70.39 acres of property located south of IWV Road and west of Slothower
Road.
Signs seconded the motion.
Hensch stated here they are talking about the annexation of approximately 70.39 acres and they
need to analyze three criteria that's in the annexation policy. Number one, the area under
consideration falls within the adopted long range planning boundary; number two, development
in the area proposed for annexation will fulfill an identified need without imposing undue burden
on the City, so talking about city services such as utilities and other services; and number three,
the control of the development is in the City's best interest and really that's what the Commission
is always to look at, what's best for the City.
Hensch started he completely empathizes with everybody in this room, he lives on the south side
of Iowa City and there's been a lot of zoning actions have been taken adjacent to his property
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 24 of 36
that he did not agree with and did not like but that's just the way it is. Other people make these
decisions, sometimes in our favor and sometimes not. He looks at this critically, he has been
doing this for seven years now, and so on these annexations he thinks it's usually pretty
straightforward by reviewing the three criteria. Again, they are not talking about rezoning, it has
nothing to do with the conversation right now, this is about annexation. He thinks all three of
these criteria clearly been met.
Signs agrees, he is very much supportive if the property owner wants to bring their property into
the into the City and add value to the City.
Hensch thanked Signs for bringing that up. The City's annexation policy is it's only voluntary
annexation so the owner of this property wishes to be annexed into Iowa City.
Signs agrees and states he personally thinks they need to look pretty favorably upon it, as long
as it's not going to create some detriment to City services or resources.
Townsend, Craig and Padron all agreed.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
Motion by Signs to recommend approval of REZ21-0006, a rezoning of approximately
53.36 acres from County Agricultural (A) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1), 9 acres from
Rural Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1), and 17.03 acres from County
Agricultural (A) to Interim Development Commercial (ID-C) subject to the following
conditions:
5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall:
a. Plat all the property herein rezoned to follow the zoning boundaries.
b. Submit a landscape plan, which shall be approved by the City Forester, to
ensure that, when developed, the subject property is designed in a manner
that emphasizes green components within its location along an arterial and
as an entryway into the City.
c. Owner shall contribute 25% of the cost of upgrading Slothower Road, south
of the proposed access, to collector street standards, adjacent to the
subject property.
6. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the property fronting Slothower
Road:
a. Installation of landscaping to the S3 standard, as detailed in section 14-5F-
6C of City Code, along the subject property’s Slothower Road frontage. If
said certificate of occupancy is issued during a poor planting season, by
May 31 following issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
b. Improvement of Slothower Road to the southern end of the proposed
access off Slothower Road.
c. Installation of landscaping to the S3 standard along the property line and
IWV Road.
7. At the time the final plat is approved, Owner shall dedicate additional right-of-way
along the Slothower Road frontage in an amount and location approved by the City
Engineer.
8. Parking, loading areas, and outdoor storage shall either not be located between the
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 25 of 36
front facade of the principal structure and the front yard right-of-way line or shall
be screened to the S3 standard along the IWV Road frontage.
The motion was seconded by Craig.
Hensch stated this is the hardest part and he presumes no one in the audience will like what he
has to say but they have to look at what's best for the entire city of Iowa City, not for particular
areas. He has heard every word they said, he listened carefully, and he understands exactly
why they feel the way they do but the Commission’s job is to make decisions that's best for the
entire city of Iowa City. He personally thinks Mr. Signs comments were correct that there seems
to be a real strong, and he’s not accusing anybody in here of this, of anti-development in Iowa
City because the Commission has gone through some really rough public hearings for
development on east side by Hickory Hills and on the south side with the new zoning standards.
Somebody's got to pay property taxes, land has to be developed for the people that want to live
here, people keep moving here and they have to live somewhere, they have to work somewhere,
so the Commission has to make really hard decisions that are pretty thankless. At the end of the
day, he has to look at is a Comprehensive Plan being complied with, are the district plans and
the subdistrict plans being complied with, in general, because this is subjective when talking
about comprehensive plans and district plans and then in a particularity are the development
ordinances being followed. That’s the Commission’s role and he views it pretty literal and has to
take out his personal feelings on a lot of things. Hensch acknowledged there's some subjectivity
but mostly their job is are the rules being followed and is the intention of the plans being followed
and the answer for him in this case is yes. He acknowledged he wouldn't like it if he was a
neighbor, he does disagree with them that the residential area is farther to the south, and he is
thrilled to have a developer voluntarily without coercion have one third of their property be a
buffer. Hensch stated this is a onetime thing for the neighbors, but this is a regular every
meeting for Commission and this is a great deal and he will support this without reservation
Craig stated she also supports the rezoning, she would not support it if it came further south, but
she thinks it's in keeping with what is going to be there when 965 comes down between the
landfill and this property. They weren't going to be building residential houses to the west
because like someone already said residential houses don't want to back up to the landfill, well
residential houses don't want to live on 965 either, so there's going to be something happening
there that is not residential, and this creates the beginning of that buffer that they are going to
want to your residential neighborhoods. If this was that full strip of land they were asking for, she
would not approve it, but she thinks the corner up there by Melrose is in keeping with the uses on
Melrose, so she is very supportive of it.
Padron is still opposed to the change; she still thinks the Poor Farm is too close. For example,
the bike library is organizing rides to different farms in town, so people can ride their bike and go
to other farms and the Poor Farm has been participating in that. She received notifications to go
there and spend the day there with other nonprofit organizations doing family events as well, so
she thinks it is too close to the Poor Farm. She is also concerned with all the uses that were
listed; some are not very family friendly. Padron acknowledged Craig said if it were the whole
strip she would not approve but Padron feels approving this corner might be a beginning for
developers to keep asking for changes on the whole strip. She is very in favor of City growth but
doesn’t think this is the right way to grow the City and is concerned. This particular area is not
the right place for it.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 26 of 36
Townsend noted at this point they're not voting on any specific proposal, right now they're just
voting on rezoning the land and she doesn’t have a problem.
Hensch agreed, they never really know what it's going to end up somewhere when they rezone
it, they rezone land and do not rezone for particular use that's going to happen eventually in the
future.
Signs appreciates that comment and would agree and is not making any decision based on the
idea that MidAmerican Energy as maybe the tenant there. He supports this type of growth along
IWV in whatever it might be. There were couple of references to some of the provisional uses
there he can assure them if something like an adult bookstore came before the Board of
Adjustment, he is sure there would be a tremendous neighborhood input in that session, and he
is pretty sure it wouldn't get past. He also reiterated it is really important to note this is not
industrial, this is intensive commercial and he is in support of the rezoning.
A vote was taken and the motion passes 4-1 (Padron dissenting).
CASE NO. CPA21-0001:
A public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the South District Plan
to facilitate development that follows form-based principles.
Russett began with a brief summary of what's in the staff report, the City has been working with
Opticos on this since 2019 and they’ve met with several stakeholders over the past two years to
get input on the plan. A few things she wanted to highlight since the Commission last saw this is
staff has made some changes to the Comprehensive Plan and some of those changes were also
incorporated into the proposed zoning code. The vast majority of the changes are non-
substantive changes, formatting issues and typos, but there were also a few things staff found
that they wanted to clarify in the code so they made those changes. One thing is they did
change the Comprehensive Plan future land use map based on recent input from a landowner
south of Wetherby Park and that will be discussed later in the presentation.
Lehmann stated for CPA21-0001, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is really a couple
changes to the context, the goals and objectives, new land use descriptions, and a new future
land use map. Lehmann showed an image of the new future land use map that takes a form-
based approach to land use. As far as context and background, there's some information about
the form-based code process and some added some information about history including planning
and of the area and development that's happened since the Plan was initially adopted in 2015,
as well as some generalizing language, based on the proposed new future land use map.
Lehmann noted it also talks about form-based zoning and form-based codes and how those
work, which is instead of organizing zones by uses, zones are organized by what they look like
and trying to tailor the character to the form of the area. He explained that is a difference and it
clarifies how that would occur in the South District. As part of that staff also is proposing three
new goals and objectives that discuss exactly what form-based zoning looks like in the South
District and how those would support other goals that are also within the Plan and broader goals
of the City as well, including a diversity of housing types, promoting walkability and use of
alternative modes of transportation, and including new neighborhood commercial areas.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 27 of 36
Lehmann showed the current zoning map from the 2015 Plan and noted it generally follows use
standards that are more similar to the current zoning code. The first piece of the proposed future
land use map is taking areas that are undeveloped and making them subject to form-based
standards rather than the traditional use-based standards. The proposal also includes a couple
new land use maps, one which looks at future form-based land uses and is more detailed
showing streets, which land use maps generally don't. Lehmann also pointed out what those
areas are based on the T3 transect, which is, suburban, and the T4 transect, which is the
general urban transact. This is part of a spectrum of transects from T1, the least intensive to T6,
which is the most intensive downtown uses. For the South District, staff is only looking at T3
suburban and T4 general urban land uses and the way those have been organized in this future
land use map is, T3 has two sub classes, T3 neighborhood edge which is primarily along existing
development, and T3 neighborhood general which is in the center of neighborhoods. For the T4
urban districts, those are primarily along principal streets such as McCollister and Sycamore and
then also along commercial modes, such as parks, such as single loaded streets and those sorts
of areas. For the T4 zones, T4 neighborhood small includes mostly small apartment uses, T4
neighborhood medium is more intensive uses, up to three and a half stories tall, and T4 Main
Street is only at the corner of Sycamore and McCollister which would be the most intense use
and allow more commercial uses. There's also a thoroughfare map that's incorporated in this
Plan that talks about what different streets should look like and primary streets and local streets.
The role of the Commission is to look at the proposal Comprehensive Plan Amendment and see
if it meets the approval criteria at 14-8D-3D, which is that circumstances have changed and/or
additional information has come to light such that the proposed amendment is in the public
interest and two, the proposed amendment will be compatible with the policies and provisions of
the Comprehensive Plan and the amendments thereto.
Lehmann explained with regard to circumstances having changed, what's happened since 2015
when the previous plan was adopted is development has continued with some new residential
subdivisions, Alexander Elementary was constructed and McCollister Boulevard was completed
up to Sycamore Street. That being said, about half of this study area is still undeveloped and
some is within City limits, and some is outside of City limits. There are a variety of land uses,
including agricultural, single and multifamily residential, and also civic and public uses and plenty
of open space. Development in the area has generally coincided with that 2015 Plan vision. As
far as changes then, what they've seen since that Plan was adopted was progress towards a
plan objective to consider form-based codes to help ensure a true mix of housing at a compatible
scale. Since that time, a feasibility study was conducted in 2017 which looked at form-based
zoning in the South District and a discussion on a need to build that into the existing Plan. The
future land use scenario that is currently in existence does not align with form-based standards, it
aligns with use-based standards and distinguishes between residential uses in a way that limits
mixing of types and that has limited opportunities for neighborhood commercial. Therefore, this
process constitutes a change in circumstances that makes the changes in the revised future land
use map in the public interest. It also coincides with some other changes that have happened in
City policy over time mostly related to climate and equity. With regards to climate, in 2018 Iowa
City adopted a Climate Action and Adaptation plan to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by
2050 and generally conventional low-density zoning creates higher greenhouse gas emissions
because it makes it harder to travel by anything other than a car which reinforces an auto
oriented pattern of development, traffic congestion and higher parking minimums. Form -based
planning helps by creating compact neighborhoods that are more easily traveled by other modes
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 28 of 36
of transportation. With regards to equity, Resolution 20-159 was an effort on the part of the City
to promote equity within the City and conventional zoning can indirectly support racial or class
segregation. Some initial land use planning tools were used for that purpose explicitly until that
was made illegal and lead to what are called exclusionary practices including single family only
zones and large minimum lot sizes. In Iowa City around 81% of residential land is zoned for
single family residential and over half of that is low density so form-based planning helps address
that by trying to diversify housing choices and mitigate that barrier to affordable housing and the
diversity of housing options.
As far as being compatible with other policies and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, the
Comprehensive Plan future land use map currently shows residential land uses anywhere from
two to eight dwelling units per acre with some 8 -16 dwelling units per acre and some
commercial uses, but really it's the goals that it ties into, which is ensuring that there's a mix of
housing types within each neighborhood, encouraging pedestrian oriented development,
planning for commercial development and define commercial nodes, supporting open space,
protecting sensitive features, ensuring that parks are available and open spaces available to the
public, etc. The South District Plan’s existing future land use map corresponds more with use-
based zoning classifications and form-based zoning classifications incorporate a true mix of
housing at a compatible scale, including missing middle housing, which are small multifamily
units, usually from three to six but generally house scale in size. This amendment really refines
the categories to reflect that range of housing types that's desirable. Some other goals, including
again protecting environmental sensitive features, small scale neighborhood commercial, mixed
uses, making walkable neighborhoods etc., would get added in as part of this proposed
amendment to clarify how form-based codes help meet some of these goals and the City
Council’s strategic plan, climate action and adaptation plan, and the black lives matter and
systemic racism resolution that was previously mentioned.
The current future land use map shows most of the area as the 2-8 dwelling units per acre, low
density residential, it continues that trend of less of a mix of housing types, there are some
denser uses along major residential streets and also a mixed use area at Sycamore and
McCollister. The proposed future land use map will follow similar principles to development, the
differences are it adds in some additional commercial nodes, it adds in some additional density
and a greater variety of housing types, but it generally aligns with the text of the code.
Regarding public comment, Lehmann wanted to mention briefly the Sandhill Estates HOA letter
that was shared with the Commission and it talks about a lack of transition between the existing
neighborhood along McCollister Court and new development, it requests a T3 land use before
transitioning to T4 land uses, specifically at the corner of Gilbert and McCollister, it talks about
impact on education and access to emergency services and concerns with infrastructure of
public services. Staff also had comments and discussions at the South District Neighborhood
Associations Leadership Group and they noted that they would like to see more indoor
recreational space. Staff also had conversations with Steve Gordon and Aleda Feuerbach that
requested to move remove their property south of Lehman Avenue from the planning area.
Russett added they had additional comments that echoed concerns of the Sandhill Estates HOA.
There were several comments at the last public hearing on August 19, 13 members of the public
testified and many express concerns related to the land use map and particular lack of
transitions with existing single family neighborhoods. Since the last meeting, staff has received
one new piece of public input related to the land use map and also received an email from
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 29 of 36
SouthGate that supports the Plan and the Code. They like the efforts towards addressing issues
of equity, inclusion, climate change, and social interaction that can be achieved through the Plan
and the Code. One main change Russett wanted to highlight is staff received a request from a
landowner to change a portion of the future land use map just south of Wetherby Park and they
provided engineered plans to staff showing the proposed street network, different housing types
and locations of wetlands. Staff is supportive of this change; it maintains the transition from
existing single-family neighborhoods and allows some additional housing types closer to the
park. Any development in that area still needs to be consistent with the City’s sensitive areas
ordinance and the plans they've showed indicate the wetland is actually smaller than it's currently
shown on the future land use map. Based on staff review of this change with the current rezoning
criteria that they are proposing, staff determined that this change could have happened actually
at the rezoning but felt it was more transparent to make the change now to the land use map.
Staff recommends approval of CPA21-0001, a proposed amendment to the South District Plan to
facilitate development that follows form-based principles in the South District of Iowa City.
Padron asked about that the area that used to be T3 neighborhood edge, they are proposing to
change to T3 neighborhood general is that the next land use category up. Russett replied yes,
T3 neighborhood general allows a few different housing types with more flexibility, they’re still
house scale buildings.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Alex Hachtman (843 McCollister Court) is the president of the Sandhill Estates Homeowners
Association and appreciates the comments that were given last time, as well as ones that were
noted today as well. He represents 126 homes in the neighborhood that are part of this
proposed South District Plan north of McCollister Boulevard and members of their neighborhood
care deeply about this issue and just wanted to reiterate the five concerns they compiled. First
being a lack of transition to the existing neighborhood and the area immediately south of
McCollister Court; two, the reduction in required parking; three, the design sites being
administratively changed following an approval; four, the impact on education; and five the
access to emergency services. The Planning and Zoning Commission spoke to many of these
concerns when they last met, however, the number one concern that was brought forward was
the lack of transition to the existing neighborhood and they don't feel it was adequately
addressed during that last meeting. That area lacks an adequate housing transition in between
the existing neighborhood and the proposed zoning in the South District Plan and they asked the
Planning and Zoning Commission to amend the South District Plan to include more of a T3
neighborhood edge or T3 neighborhood general zoning in this area. They cared deeply about
their neighborhood and city and respectfully request that they amend this transition T3 zone and
doing so will be consistent with the transition that will have been behind much of the other area
that was proposed in the South District Plan. Again, they implore the Commission to adjust this
particular area of the South District Plan to be consistent with the rest of the proposed Plan.
Sign noted the Planning and Zoning Commission saw an application on that triangle-shaped land
several years ago for a rezoning, and it seems to him it failed. Russett confirmed that is correct.
Joleah Shaw (785 McCollister Court) is part of the Board of Directors for the Sandhill Estates
Homeowners Association, so she is wearing two hats tonight, one being part of the Board of
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 30 of 36
Directors for the Homeowners Association and the other hat tonight is as an individual
homeowner as this lot in particular is directly behind where her home is. She has actually
outlined where her lot is and the back of her property line is going to be the closest to the T4
development that's being proposed. Just to reiterate T3 neighborhood edge, which was afforded
to most all of the existing development in the South District form-based plan was offered this T3
neighborhood edge all around those existing homes. The T3 neighborhood edge includes large
homes, duplex, side by side or cottage courts and what's being proposed 40 feet behind her
property line is T4 which could be small multiplex or a courtyard buildings or rows of townhomes.
There's absolutely no transition from her single family home to this large development in this very
small space. She referenced the Beacon Johnson County aerial views, her lot from front to back
is 137.65 feet and the image the City is showing is very deceiving because that green space
from top to bottom, from the back of her lot to the white space where that street is does not
portray as being 40 feet, it just simply doesn't when compared to her entire lot of 137.65 feet.
So, to put T4 development directly behind them and present a map with that very large green
space simply does not exist in the real realm of the situation. The other thing Shaw would like to
point out is not only is this street single family but it's a very quiet cul-de-sac and basically
nobody goes down that street unless they're lost or they know someone on that street that
they're visiting. So for them to go from that quiet neighborhood with a prairie in front of them and
then have a large development behind them just seems very extreme. The other thing is where
the green space is larger off to the right-hand side there is a ditch there and then there is the
walking trail, and then the next little corner of that triangle is an easement or a drainage so
there's nothing that's going to be developed there and it’s where the road comes in at the end of
the median on McCollister Boulevard is where the proposed road is to come up behind them.
She is very encouraged to hear that there are possibilities of change to this proposed plan and
even though it was mentioned already tonight that they are making these decisions on Iowa City
as a whole, again the individual homeowners are the ones here and they should look at their
interest as well.
Chris Arch (4298 Maureen Ter SE) is the Homeowners Association President for the Makada
Homeowners Association, which is at the end of Sycamore Street. They are technically not in
Iowa City and are technically Johnson County, they are about 30 to 35 properties, and he
represents about 80 people that live in that area. They are concerned with potential
development on the Lehman and the Soccer Park roads area. He acknowledged they’ve already
all heard enough arguments about environmental impact, animals and the like, but they live there
and they see that sort of thing and would hate to see that disappear to have a very small but
highly dense strip of land developed within less than 100 feet from his house. They also have
concerns similar to the Sandhills folks as in the master plan it talks about wanting more middle
housing and there doesn't appear to be much in that area, yet in their own HOA that comprises
about 40% of everybody that lives there. Also out his back door are 8 to 12 plexes so there's
already a lot of higher density so the missing middle housing already exists in that area. They
are also concerned due to the proximity of the water treatment plant that this is an area where
the DNR have stated there should not be or there should at least be extreme caution used in any
further development of property in that area. Finally, in the past their neighborhood association
has been negatively affected on three different occasions by things that have been done by the
City, the wetlands when they were first regraded about 14-15 years ago resulted in a lot of water
collection the backyards of their people, nobody from the City ever came to out to try to deal with
that. When Alexander Elementary school was put in right across the street it took about 30 to 40
acres out of corn production. They have their own sewer system and own lift station, they have a
lagoon and their own water system and when Alexander Elementary was being built, no one took
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 31 of 36
into account what that might do, and it flooded their lagoon system and they had to pay
thousands of dollars to deal with it. When the sidewalks around there were regraded no one
ever looked into the fact that redirected a lot of water flow so that several of their backyards flood
when it rains. Arch stated his shed gets full of water after every rain and he’s called the City
before to ask them to deal with that and no one has ever responded. Also, prior to Alexander
Elementary being built they had no crime of any significance in their association and within the
first year and half of the school being built, they had 80 break ins of cars and homes in their
neighborhood. So they would like the Commission to really consider what type of designation to
put there. They would all be very supportive of a T3 designation for anything going on in the
future near their area. Arch also wanted to thank the Commission for all they do, noting it is a
thankless job.
Joleah Shaw (785 McCollister Court) acknowledged that a couple of the Commissioners have
mentioned that they live in the South District, and Lehmann actually lives within their HOA, she
wanted to ask if their homes were afforded the courtesy of a neighborhood edge with this plan.
Another thing she wanted to reiterate was the density of this proposed plan. Again they're
talking about 900 acres and based on the figures that they’ve received it could be anywhere from
4000 to 8000 dwellings. Iowa City has a 2.5 person per dwelling average so they're looking at
anywhere from 10,000 on the low end to 20,000 people added to the population of Iowa City in
this small 900-acre area. In retrospect, North Liberty’s current population is 20,000 and Tiffin,
Solon, Lone Tree and University Heights combined it's about 10,000 so they're looking at adding
that many people in that small of an area. So, she strongly begs them to reconsider that triangle
of land to a T3 neighborhood edge and give them the same courtesy of that transition from their
single-family homes to these new developments like all the other existing ones have.
Hensch closed the public hearing
Padron moved to recommend approval of CPA21-0001, a proposed amendment to the
South District Plan to facilitate development that follows form-based principles in the
South District of Iowa City.
Craig seconded the motion.
Hensch noted it is their second look at a Comprehensive Plan amendment tonight and it’s the
same criteria that they used to evaluate the previous one. He has been heavily involved as
member of Planning and Zoning on this whole form-based code for the South District, since the
2017 feasibility report and was interviewed by Opticos and all that time he’s never wavered in his
belief that this is what's best for this area of town. He is a 100% supporter of affordable housing
and increasing the housing options and increasing density is the only way to increase volume
and to reduce prices and frankly this is the first opportunity they've had for people who have
been saying they advocate for affordable housing to place a vote to show whether that's a true
advocacy or just words. He truly advocates for affordable housing, and this has to be done. He
understands change is scary but believes this is best. He lives here, this applies to him, he has
undeveloped land behind him so this will apply to him just like everybody else. He is actually
enthusiastic about it and thinks people over the next decades will find how helpful this is and
they're going to end up, if this is comes to fruition, the South District really being a cool place
where people want to live.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 32 of 36
Padron agreed and also supports plan the way the City staff presented it, she thinks affordable
housing right now is one of her main concerns for the City and was reading in the news the other
day that there are towns in Colorado where the houses prices have gone up so high that no one
can afford to live there and then the coffee shops and all the restaurants cannot hire people,
because those are low paying jobs and people cannot live there so that’s a real concern why she
thinks they need affordable housing.
Craig wanted to discuss the triangle, which seems to be of concern to the McCollister folks and
she absolutely sees why so is the thought process that T4 belongs there because of Gilbert
Street. Russett confirmed that was part of it, it's also very similar to the current future land use
map which allows multifamily in this area. Staff did think it was important to provide a transition
though and that's why they're showing that strip of open space. Because McCollister and Gilbert
is the corner of two arterials, they feel T4 makes sense there, but they also feel that there needs
to be that transition with the open space. Russett also wanted to note, even though it's T4 they’re
still talking about house scale buildings, some of these buildings are going to have more units,
but they're still going to be house scale.
Craig noted it's interesting that in some of these lengthy difficult conversations they've had in the
last couple of months, this whole visual up and down. In Hickory Hill Park, it was all about they
were going to look up the hill and what were they going to see and in this instance, from the
geography they're going to be looking down the hill and what will they see and in the Slothower
Road it was across the field, so it’s hard to when you have f allen in love with the view of
something it's difficult when something comes and fills in that.
Signs discussed the green space strip there and can City staff make a commitment making sure
that what comes along in that area is going to have that additional green space, how can they
assure that happens. Russett stated it needs to be assured at the rezoning stage when they
change the zoning map and so what they could do to assure that there was a decent sized buffer
is to add a condition to the rezoning. That land is a trail now so the City is going to want that
maintained.
Hensch noted in this item they're approving a future land use map not doing the rezoning so not
everything is exactly to scale.
Signs noted it's interesting he was watching some videos the other night on Japanese
neighborhoods and they're all missing middle, there's like 57 zones in Tokyo and they're all
centered, they all start at a train station and radiate out from there with what we would consider
neighborhood commercial and then mixed use, then on to a mix of mixed use and single family
homes and the entire city is built up with that and some of the natural amenities were there and
they talk about that and it really was just cool to see that and that's one of the densest cities in
the world. But because of the idea of mixing uses it really ended up being cool. Signs also lives
in the South District right up the street and has been involved in this process since about 2017.
He went to the very first public sessions and has tried to go all since then. He is excited about
seeing where this goes and seeing what it what it does and agrees it's always scary and it's
always frustrating when you buy a place for a view and the view changes. However, like he
always says, unless you own the property you don't control the property and that’s the
unfortunate reality and the way it works. The other thing he wanted to point out to the
Commission is that his point was proven just a little bit ago when all the people who didn't care
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 33 of 36
about this rezoning, Comprehensive Plan change, and form-based code change left. This is
what he was talking about, it only matters if it's your neighborhood. They were talking about the
exact same changes here and all those people went home because they don't care because it’s
not about their neighborhood. Signs just wanted to point that out because it’s becoming more
and more disturbing to him as how do they plan for growth then.
Craig noted that is human nature, and she can be sympathetic to all these people, but at the
same time they need to look at the public good.
Townsend stated the bottom line this is their town, and they want to see it develop the way it
should be and they all know that there is very little affordable housing in Iowa City and
surrounding areas so anytime she can see anything looking halfway affordable she is glad.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
CASE NO. REZ21-0005:
Consideration of a Zoning Code Amendment to adopt form-based standards for new
development as identified in the South District Plan.
Russett noted at the August 19 Commission meeting staff gave a very comprehensive
presentation on this item so she just wanted to highlight a couple of changes that they made
since the last time. Again, the vast majority of these changes were non-substantive, typos,
formatting issues, and a couple clarification items. There is a building type diversity requirement
per block in the code and they clarified that requirement that it only applies to primary buildings
not accessory buildings. So a carriage house, for example, would not meet the diversity
requirement, they have to have a single family home or a duplex, for example. The other change
that they made is there's a requirement for the minimum number of units per building in the code
and they clarified that that only applies to residential uses because some of those building types
could house commercial uses and the minimum unit count does not apply to commercial, but it
would apply to residential.
Staff is recommending approval of REZ21-0005, which is the text amendment related to form-
based standards.
Russett noted the only additional public comment they received was the letter from Southgate
and in general the letter shows support for the amendment.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Hearing none, Hensch closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend a Zoning Code Amendment to adopt form-based standards
for new development as identified in the South District Plan.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Signs stated he is very sympathetic regarding the comments on the T4 but on the other side of
that block of land is South Gilbert Street and the corner of Gilbert and McCollister is obviously a
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 34 of 36
major intersection so that’s why he struggles with limiting that too much.
Hensch noted to clarify, there was a rezoning for that particular area of land that failed, it was for
much denser than what is planned for in this Comprehensive Plan. However, he acknowledged
he did support that, he was the only commissioner that supported it, but because he believes
diligently in affordable housing and believes they have to increase volume to give people the
supply.
Craig stated one thing she appreciates about this whole concept is it increases the density, but it
also offers lots of public area, not just the existing parks, but the walkways and the courtyards
and when there's not large or many private backyards with room for swing sets and jungle gyms
and trampolines, then the public space becomes so important in those areas, and people share
spaces.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
CASE NO. CPA21-0003:
A request to set a public hearing for October 7, 2021 on a proposed amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan on an update to the Fringe Area Policy Agreement between
Johnson County and the City of Iowa City.
Craig moved to hold a public hearing on October 7, 2021 on a proposed amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan on an update to the Fringe Area Policy Agreement between Johnson
County and the City of Iowa City. Padron seconded the motion. A vote was taken and
the motion passed 5-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: AUGUST 19, 2021:
Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of August 19, 2021.
Craig seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 2, 2021:
Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of September 2, 2021.
Craig seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett noted City Council approved the vacation along South Gilbert Street for the Gilbane
project.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 35 of 36
Signs noted downloading and saving the agenda packet documents requires allowing the popup
blockers.
ADJOURNMENT:
Townsend moved to adjourn.
Signs seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2021-2022
7/1 7/15 8/5 8/19 9/2 9/16
CRAIG, SUSAN X X O/E X X X
HENSCH, MIKE X X O/E X X X
MARTIN, PHOEBE X O/E O/E O/E X O
NOLTE, MARK X X X O/E X O/E
PADRON, MARIA X X X X X X
SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X
TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X X X X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member
Item Number: 5.i.
October 19, 2021
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Public A rt Advisory Committee: S eptember 2