HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-11-30 ResolutionItem Number: 7.a.
November 30, 2021
Motion to accep t the prop osed F Y23 budget for th e Iowa City Down town
District, as approved by the Iowa City Downtown District Advisory Board .
Prepared B y:Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed By:Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:N/A
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:Budget
Minutes from 11/23/21 Advisory B oard meeting
Executive S ummary:
The operating agreement between the City of I owa City and the I owa City Downtown District
(I C D D) stipulates the process for City approval and incorporation of the district’s annual budget.
I n accordance with the Operating A greement, the I C D D A dvisory Board held a public meeting
November 23 and approved the F Y23 P roposed B udget f or submission to the City f or review. I
have found it to be in compliance with the terms of the original petition, enabling ordinance and
operating agreement.
Background / Analysis:
I t should be noted that budget contains the I C D D ’s projections f or property tax income. However,
the district has communicated that they intend to collect the maximum amount generated by the
authorized S S MI D levy. T herefore, if property tax income exceeds the I C D D budget projections,
staff will proceed in transf erring the full amount entitled through the enabling ordinance and
operating agreement.
I t would be appropriate f or the City C ouncil to consider a motion formally accepting the F Y23
I C D D budget, and directing staff to incorporate the corresponding figures into the City’s budget.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Budget
I C D D F Y23 Budget P ublic Meeting Minutes, Nov. 23, 2021
Item Number: 7.b.
November 30, 2021
Resol u tion auth orizing the procu remen t of In su rance Ag ent Broker Services
for th e City of Iowa City.
Prepared B y:Melissa Miller Revenue & Risk Manager
Reviewed By:Dennis B ockenstedt, F inance Director
Melissa Miller, Revenue & Risk Manager
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Eric Goers, City Attorney
F iscal I mpact:F unds for this purchase are available in Account #10310630-432060
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:Resolution
Agreement
Executive S ummary:
On A ugust 25, 2021, a Request for P roposal: #22-64, I nsurance A gent B roker S ervices was
posted to the City of I owa City website. P roposals were due by 2:30 p.m., S eptember 16,
2021. Proposals were distributed to an Evaluation C ommittee. The Evaluation Committee
individually reviewed each proposal and its compliance with the specifications. B ased on a
thorough review of the proposals, interviews and ref erence checks, the evaluation committee
chose TrueNorth to receive the award.
Background / Analysis:
T he selected B roker will provide a f ull range of services, including, placing the City’s insurance
coverages, assisting C ity staff with insurance and risk management related issues and providing
complete, detailed, written insurance coverage recommendations, and other duties as determined
by the City of I owa City.
T he selected B roker will be expected to maintain adequate staff, maintain and retain records,
maintain all required licenses, keep current on the changes in insurance and other applicable laws,
meet with the City personnel and be f ully prepared to address the C ity’s interests and needs in
terms of insurance products and services.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
I nsurance B roker Resolution
Agreement
Prepared by: Melissa Miller, Revenue & Risk Manager, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA
52240 (319) 356-5065
Resolution No. 21-289
Resolution authorizing the procurement of Insurance Agent Broker
Services for the City of Iowa City
Whereas, a Request for Proposal was released to solicit the procurement of Insurance Agent
Broker Services; and
Whereas, three responsive proposals were received for these services; and
Whereas, the evaluation committee has selected TrueNorth; and
Whereas, the city's purchasing policy requires City Council to approve purchases for Professional
and consultant services over$60,000; and
Whereas, the City expects to expend approximately $225,000.00 for the procurement of
Insurance Broker Services; and
Whereas, funds for this purchase are available in the budget under account #10310630-432060;
and
Whereas, approval of this purchase is in the public interest.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
1. The proposed procurement as described is approved.
2. The City Manager is authorized to sign the agreement with the vendor and take whatever
steps are necessary to effectuate future purchases including any amendments or renewals of
said agreement.
Passed and approved this 30th day of November , 20 21 .
-121i
",r
Approv y
l J / •
y
ATTEST: k l l �� ' r l - G
City Clerk City Attor y s Office- 11/24/21
Resolution No. 21-289
Page 2
It was move by Weiner and seconded by Salih the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
X Bergus
X Mims
X Salih
X Taylor
X Teague
X Thomas
Weiner
X -
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _ 30th day of November, 2021, by and
between the City of Iowa City, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the City and
TrueNorth Companies, L.C., of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, hereinafter referred to as the Consultant.
Whereas, the City of Iowa City would like to enter into an agreement with TrueNorth Companies
L.C. for Insurance Agent Broker Services based on the result of the City's Request for Proposal
process.
NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto that ttie City does now
contract with the Consultant to provide services as set forth in the documents incorporated herein.
The following documents are incorporated herein in their entirety. These documents dictate the
terms of this Agreement. In the event of conflict between the documents, the earlier-listed
document shall prevail (e.g. #1 takes precedence over#2).
1. Request for Proposal: RFP#22-64, Insurance Agent Broker Services for the City of Iowa
City.
2. TrueNorth Iowa City Annual Fee BFO 11.08.21, E. Broker Service Fee and Payment of
Premiums.
3. City of Iowa City Response to Request for Proposal RFP#22-64, September 23, 2021.
For the City For TrueNorth Companies L.C.
By � By. •
Title: C. 4-17. Title: /t tikeLe. t- .r e-i-.c.
Dete: 7.7 // / ? ( _ Date: Al A V&rw(zat- .2021
Approved by:
City Attorney's Office
(1/`/
Date
rg a.
per, CITY OF IOWA CITY
,421,1/hitt%
itesolqii MEMORANDUM
Late Handouts Distributed
Date: November 29, 2021
To: Mayor and Council
ll- - 21
From: Geoff Fruin, City Manager (Date)
Re: Reprecincting Maps
The November 30th City Council meeting includes a motion to set a public hearing for December
14, 2021 to establish new local voting precincts and City Council districts. State law requires
that this task be completed by January 3, 2022, which is sixty days after the new State districts
were signed into law by Governor Reynolds.
Staff has worked with staff at Johnson County to develop a voting precinct and City Council
district map for consideration. Given state law requirements for a public hearing and only one
scheduled City Council meeting between now and January 3, 2022 the Council has two options
for fulfilling this legal obligation. Due to the later than typical approval of the State districts, many
cities in Iowa intend to pass all three necessary votes during the same City Council meeting that
the public hearing is scheduled (December 14th for Iowa City). The City Attorney's Office has
confirmed the legality of collapsing all three readings into one meeting, should that be the wish
of Council. As an alternative, staff can work with the City Council to establish a new special
formal meeting between December 14th and December 31s' to finalize approval through a
collapse of the second and third readings.
Staff recommends proceeding with all three votes on December 14th. Should the City Council
prefer to schedule a special meeting for final consideration after December 14th, it would be
appropriate to let us know so that we can begin to check schedules accordingly.
Item Number: 8.b.
November 30, 2021
Resol u tion settin g a public hearin g on December 14, 2021 on p roject manual
and estimate of cost for the con struction of the Benton Street Rehab ilitation
Proj ect, d irectin g City Cl erk to publish notice of said h earing, an d directing
the City Engin eer to p l ace said p roject manual on file for p u b l ic inspection.
Prepared B y:J ason Reichart, Sr. Civil Engineer
Reviewed By:J ason Havel, City E ngineer
Ron K noche, P ublic Works Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:$3,200,000 available in the B enton S treet Rehabilitation P roject account
#S 3947
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:L ocation Map
Resolution
Executive S ummary:
T he B enton S treet Rehabilitation P roject includes a crack-and-seat of the existing pavement with a
Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA ) overlay, painting of on-street bike lanes, A D A sidewalk improvements, and
traffic and pedestrian signal improvements at the Benton and Sunset intersection.
Background / Analysis:
T he project corridor extends approximately 6,550 f eet along Benton Street, from Mormon Trek
Boulevard to 150 feet east of B enton Drive. T he existing pavement is a 33-foot wide Portland
Cement Concrete (P C C) roadway with approximately two 13-f oot wide travel lanes (one in each
direction) and 3-foot painted shoulders. W ith the crack-and-seat and overlay project, the existing
curb lines will remain and the overall width of the street will stay the same. However, the roadway
will be restriped to include two 11-foot travel lanes (one in each direction) and 5-foot on-street bike
lanes.
T he C ity has completed a diamond grinding project within this section of B enton S treet to try and
address rideability issues. However, the existing pavement is in poor condition, with joint
deterioration becoming an increasing issue f or much of the corridor. Sidewalk facilities exist along
both sides of B enton S treet, including curb ramps at most intersections. However, many of the
curb ramps do not meet current A D A requirements.
T he MP O J C programmed $1,316,000.00 in S T B G f unding f or the B enton Street Rehabilitation
Project in the F Y2021-2024 Transportation I mprovement Program (T I P). Council accepted this
funding in F ebruary 2021.
Project T imeline:
Set P ublic Hearing – November 30, 2021
Hold P ublic Hearing / A pprove P lans and Specifications – December 14, 2021
I owa D O T Bid L etting – J anuary 19, 2022
Award Date – F ebruary 1, 2022
Construction Start – S pring 2022
F inal Completion – Fall 2022
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
L ocation Map
Resolution
Exhibit A
g,b
Prepared by:Jason Reichart,Engineering Division,410 E.Washington St.,Iowa City,IA 52240,(319)356-5416
Resolution No. 21-290
Resolution setting a public hearing on December 14, 2021 on
project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the
Benton Street Rehabilitation Project, directing City Clerk to
publish notice of said hearing, and directing the City Engineer to
place said project manual on file for public inspection.
Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Benton Street Rehabilitation Project account
#S3947.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
1. A public hearing on the project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the
above-mentioned project is to be held on the 14th day of December 2021, at 6:00 p.m. in
the Assembly Room at The Center, 28 S Linn Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is
cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk.
2. If City Council does not meet in person due to the health and safety concerns from
COVID-19, the council meeting will be an electronic meeting using the Zoom Meetings.
For information on how to participate in the electronic meeting, see
www.icgov.org/councildocs or telephone the City Clerk at (319) 356-5043.
3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish notice of the public hearing for
the above-named project in a newspaper published at least once weekly and having a
general circulation in the City, not less than four (4) nor more than twenty (20) days before
said hearing.
4. A copy of the project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the above-named
project is hereby ordered placed on file by the City Engineer in the office of the City Clerk
for public inspection.
Passed and approved this 30th day of November , 2021
Mayor
Approved by
Attest:
City lerk City Attorne s Ice
(Sara Greenwood-Hektoen - 11/23/21)
Resolution No. 21-290
Page 2
It was moved by Weiner and seconded by Salih the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
X Bergus
X Mims
X Salih
X Taylor
X Teague
X Thomas
X Weiner
Item Number: 8.c.
November 30, 2021
Resol u tion settin g a public hearin g on December 14, 2021 on p roject manual
and estimate of cost for the con struction of the F irst Aven u e and Scott
Bou l evard Intersection Improvements Project, directing City Clerk to p u b l ish
n otice of said hearin g , and d irectin g th e City En g ineer to place said proj ect
manual on file for p u b l ic inspection.
Prepared B y:J ason Reichart, Sr. Civil Engineer
Reviewed By:J ason Havel, City E ngineer
Ron K noche, P ublic Works Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:$1,700,000 available in the First Ave/S cott B lvd I ntersection I mprovements
account # S 3944
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:L ocation Map
Resolution
Executive S ummary:
T his project includes reconstruction of the F irst Avenue and S cott Boulevard intersection and
converting the existing four way stop into a single lane roundabout. C onstruction will also include
new storm sewer and water main, A D A sidewalk improvements, street lighting, and restoration.
Background / Analysis:
T he First Avenue and S cott B oulevard intersection currently includes four-way stop control that
experiences significant queuing during peak hours resulting in increased travel times, delays, and
emissions. I n 2015, the C ity utilized a consultant to investigate the f easibility of constructing a
roundabout at this intersection. T his consultant determined a standard modern roundabout would
handle projected traffic demands, improve vehicle saf ety, reduce emissions and provide better
speed control.
As part of the design process, an I ntersection Control E valuation (I C E ) was completed in 2019 to
analyze and compare the potential perf ormance and benefits of a 4-way stop controlled
intersection, traffic signal-controlled intersection, and a roundabout. The project team also met with
A C T representatives to discuss the results of the I C E . Ultimately, a roundabout was selected as
the preferred alternative.
Project T imeline:
Set P ublic Hearing – November 30, 2021
Hold P ublic Hearing / A pprove P lans and Specifications – December 14, 2021
Bid L etting – J anuary 11, 2022
Award Date – J anuary 18, 2022
Construction Start – S pring 2022
F inal Completion – Fall 2022
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
L ocation Map
Resolution
Exhibit A
Prepared by:Jason Reichert,Engineering Division,410 E.Washington St.,Iowa City,IA 52240,(319)356-5416
Resolution No. 21-291
Resolution setting a public hearing on December 14, 2021 on
project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the
First Avenue and Scott Boulevard Intersection Improvements
Project, directing City Clerk to publish notice of said hearing, and
directing the City Engineer to place said project manual on file
for public inspection.
Whereas, funds for this project are available in the First Ave/Scott Blvd Intersection Improvements
account# S3944.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
1. A public hearing on the project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the
above-mentioned project is to be held on the 14th day of December 2021, at 6:00 p.m. in
the Assembly Room at The Center, 28 S Linn Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is
cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk.
2. If City Council does not meet in person due to the health and safety concerns from
COVID-19, the council meeting will be an electronic meeting using the Zoom Meetings.
For information on how to participate in the electronic meeting, see
www.icgov.org/councildocs or telephone the City Clerk at(319) 356-5043.
3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish notice of the public hearing for
the above-named project in a newspaper published at least once weekly and having a
general circulation in the City, not less than four (4) nor more than twenty (20) days before
said hearing.
4. A copy of the project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the above-named
project is hereby ordered placed on file by the City Engineer in the office of the City Clerk
for public inspection.
Passed and approved this 30th day of November , 2021
M yor
Approved by
Attest: —e° ''� i l f ('
City Clerk ') City Att ney's Office
J (Sara Greenwood-Hektoen – 11/23/21)
Resolution No. 21-291
Page 2
It was moved by Weiner and seconded by Salih the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
X Bergus
x Mims
X Salih
X Taylor
X Teague
X Thomas
X Weiner
Item Number: 8.d.
November 30, 2021
Resol u tion settin g a public hearin g on December 14, 2021 on p roject manual
and estimate of cost for the con struction of the W il l ow Creek Streamb ank
Stabil ization Improvements Project, directing City Clerk to p u b l ish n otice of
said hearin g , and d irectin g th e City En g ineer to place said proj ect man u al on
fil e for public in sp ection .
Prepared B y:J ason Reichart, Sr. Civil Engineer
Reviewed By:J ason Havel, City E ngineer
Ron K noche, P ublic Works Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:$170,000 available in the B enton S treet Rehabilitation P roject account
#S 3947
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:L ocation Map
Resolution
Executive S ummary:
T his project includes stabilization work along W illow C reek in W illow Creek P ark to address
erosion issues and potential safety hazards. Construction also includes rock riffle grade control
and rip-rap streambank armoring.
Background / Analysis:
Recent storm events have accelerated streambank erosion along a portion of W illow Creek
flowing through W illow Creek Park near Keswick Drive. I f left unchecked, this erosion will
undermine the sidewalk on the south side of B enton S treet, creating a public safety hazard and an
increased risk of damage to public infrastructure.
Project T imeline:
Set P ublic Hearing – November 30, 2021
Hold P ublic Hearing / A pprove P lans and Specifications – December 14, 2021
Bid L etting – J anuary 6, 2022
Award Date – J anuary 18, 2022
Construction Start – S pring 2022
F inal Completion – Fall 2022
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
L ocation Map
Resolution
10+0010+5011+00
11+50
12+00 12+5013+00WESTGATE CIRCLE
LEONARD CIRCLE
BENTON STREET
BENTON STREETKESWICK DRIVETEG DRIVESPENCER DRIVEWESTGATE STREETKATHLIN DRIVE
WILLOW CREEK PARK
PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS
B.O.P.
STA: 10+43.98
E.O.P.
STA: 12+79.61
R:\191037-000\06-Drawings\06 - Plans\Channel Re-Alignment\A.02.dwg 5/5/2021 2:00 PM
making lives better.
CHECKED BY
ENGINEER SHEET NO.
FIELD BOOK NO.
DRAWN BY REVISIONS NOTICE:
McClure Engineering Company waives any and all responsibility and liability for problems which arise from failure to follow these Plans,
Specifications, and the engineering intent they convey, or for problems which arise from failure to obtain and/or follow the engineers
guidance with respect to any errors, omissions, inconsistencies, ambiguities, or conflicts which are alleged.
COPYRIGHT:
Copyright and property rights in these documents are expressly reserved by McClure Engineering Company. No reproductions, changes,
or copies in any manner shall be made without obtaining prior written consent from McClure Engineering Company.
1740 Lininger Lane
North Liberty, Iowa 52317
319-626-9090
fax 319-626-9095-JSS
BAVBRB
.
.
.
.
MAY 2021
MEC JOB #191037
IOWA CITY, IOWA
IMPROVEMENTS - 2021
STREAMBANK STABILIZATION
WILLOW CREEK PARK
OVERALL PROJECT LAYOUT A.02
20 400
GRAPHIC SCALE
80
NORTH
r
Prepared by:Jason Reichart,Engineering Division,410 E.Washington St.,Iowa City,IA 52240,(319)356-5416
Resolution No. 21-292
Resolution setting a public hearing on December 14, 2021 on
project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the
Willow Creek Streambank Stabilization Improvements Project,
directing City Clerk to publish notice of said hearing, and
directing the City Engineer to place said project manual on file
for public inspection.
Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Benton Street Rehabilitation Project account
#S3947.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
1. A public hearing on the project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the
above-mentioned project is to be held on the 14th day of December 2021, at 6:00 p.m. in
the Assembly Room at The Center, 28 S Linn Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is
cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk.
2. If City Council does not meet in person due to the health and safety concerns from
COVID-19, the council meeting will be an electronic meeting using the Zoom Meetings.
For information on how to participate in the electronic meeting, see
www.icgov.org/councildocs or telephone the City Clerk at (319) 356-5043.
3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish notice of the public hearing for
the above-named project in a newspaper published at least once weekly and having a
general circulation in the City, not less than four (4) nor more than twenty (20) days before
said hearing.
4. A copy of the project manual and estimate of cost for the construction of the above-named
project is hereby ordered placed on file by the City Engineer in the office of the City Clerk
for public inspection.
Passed and approved this 30th day of November , 2021
M
Approved by
Attest: �� "\..:{ AIL( -
City Clerk City Attor y's ffice
(Sara Greenwood-Hektoen - 11/23/21)
Resolution No. 21-292
Page 2
It was moved by Weiner and seconded by Salih the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
X Bergus
X Mims
X Salih
X Taylor
X Teague
X Thomas
X Weiner
Item Number: 9.a.
November 30, 2021
Establish ment of (1) on-street d isab l ed p arkin g space adjacent to 51 Reg al
Lane
Prepared B y:Emily Bothell; S r. A ssociate Transportation P lanner
Reviewed By:Kent Ralston; Transportation Planner
Tracy Hightshoe; Neighborhood and Development S ervices Director
F iscal I mpact:No impact.
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:
Executive S ummary:
As directed by Title 9, C hapter 1, Section 3B of the C ity C ode, this is to advise the City Council of
the following action:
Pursuant to S ection 9-1-3A (14); I nstall (1) on-street disabled parking space on the west side of
Regal L ane, adjacent to 51 Regal L ane.
Background / Analysis:
T his action is being taken to provide an on-street parking space for a resident at 51 Regal L ane
who has a disability.
Item Number: 11.a.
November 30, 2021
Resol u tion to amend the South west District Pl an and
IC2030 Compreh ensive Pl an to al l ow in ten sive commercial an d op en sp ace
l and u ses for th e p roperty south of IW V Road S W an d west of Slothower
Road . (C PA21-0002)
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
P&Z S taff Report P acket 10-21-21
Additional Correspondence
P&Z Minutes 10-21-21
Resolution
Date: October 21, 2021
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner
Re: CPA21-0002 – IWV/Slothower Comprehensive Plan Amendment Resubmission
BACKGROUND:
On September 16, 2021, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on a
requested amendment 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 for approximately 79.4 acres located south of IWV Road
SW and west of Slothower Road. Staff recommended approval based on rationale detailed in the
staff report dated September 2, 2021 (Attachment 2). The motion to approve the comprehensive
plan amendment failed by a vote of 3-2 (Padron and Townsend against) because a minimum of
4 votes is required to recommend approval.
The applicant, MMS Consultants, applying on behalf of Matt Adam and IWV Holdings, LLC, has
submitted a revised comprehensive plan amendment (Attachment 1) for consideration.
ANALYSIS:
The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan serves as a land-use planning guide by illustrating and
describing the location and configuration of appropriate land uses thro ughout the City, providing
notification to the public regarding intended uses of land; and illustrating the long -range growth
area limit for the City. Applicants may request an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan
with City Council approval after a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Applicants for a comprehensive plan amendment must provide evidence that the request meets
the following two approval criteria in Section 14-8D-3D:
1. Circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors have come to light
such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest.
2. The proposed amendment will be compatible with other policies or provisions of the
comprehensive plan, including any district plans or other amendments thereto.
The revised submittal contains the following changes from the original submittal:
1. The addition of an approximately 340- to 350-foot Vegetative Noise and Sight Buffer along
the southern property line in the Southwest District Future Land Use Map.
2. The addition of approximately 340 to 350 feet of Public/Private Open Space along the
southern property line in the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map.
The purpose of the new vegetative buffer is to reduce the potential undesirable side-effects of the
proposed use, such as noise or unwelcome views, from future adjacent development. These new
future land use categories typically correspond to open space areas that are free of structures.
While this can indicate parkland or natural areas, in this case, it will likely be used to preserve
sensitive features and to provide for stormwater management. This is consistent with how these
future land use designations are used in other areas of the City.
October 21, 2021
Page 2
Figure 1 below shows the original submittal reviewed by the Commission on September 16.
Figure 2 below shows the revised submittal, which will be presented at the public hearing on
October 21. In Figure 2, Tracts 1-3 would become Intensive Commercial while Tracts 4-6 would
become Vegetative Noise and Sight Buffer / Public/Private Open Space.
Figure 1: Original Comprehensive Plan Amendment Map
Figure 2: Revised Comprehensive Plan Amendment Map
October 21, 2021
Page 3
The proposed revision clarifies which areas of the subject properties are intended for intensive
commercial development and which are intended for an open space buffer. Proposed changes to
the Southwest District Plan text also continue to apply. As such, the revised amendment does not
affect staff’s analysis detailed in the September 2 staff report (Attachment 2). However, staff has
updated the staff report packet with current exhibits and added a description of intensive
commercial land uses in Appendix A of the district plan for additional clarification. Overall, staff
still finds that the approval criteria are met by the applicant’s revision to the proposed
comprehensive plan amendment.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
In addition to public comments attached to the updated staff report packet, 9 members of the
public expressed concerns with the proposed plan amendment at the public meeting. Their
comments, and the discussion, are included in the September 16 Planning & Zoning Commission
meeting minutes (Attachment 3).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve CPA21-0002, a proposed
amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan future land use map to Intensive Commercial
and Public/Private Open Space and to change the Southwest District Plan text and future land
use map to Intensive Commercial and Vegetative Noise/Sight Buffer for approximately 79 acres
of property located south of IWV Road SW and west of Slothower Road.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Revised Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Materials
2.September 2, 2021 Staff Report Packet [Updated October 1, 2021]
3.September 16, 2021 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Approved by: __________________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
(319) 351-8282
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
www.mmsconsultants.net
1917 S. GILBERT ST.
09-27-2021 REVISED LAND USE PER CLIENT -JDM
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
05-20-2021
KJB
RLW
RRN
IOWA CITY
10355-010 1
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN EXHIBIT
1
1"=200'
IWV ROAD SW / F46
SLOTHOWER ROADHURT ROAD SWALBERT AND
FAY'S FIRST
ADDITION
KAUBLE'S
SUBDIVISION NW 14 - NE 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NE14SECTION 13-T79N-R7
W
SE 14 - NW14SECTION 13-T79N-R7
WNE 14 - NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNW 14 - NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNE 14 - NE 14SECTION 14-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7
WSE 14 - SE 14SECTION 11-T79N-R7WSW 14 - SW 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SW 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7
W
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0
1"=200'
20 50 100 150 200
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXHIBIT
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
PORTIONS OF THE NORTH ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7
WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN
PLAT PREPARED BY:
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
1917 S. GILBERT STREET
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
OWNER/APPLICANT:
IWV HOLDINGS LLC
2916 HIGHWAY 1 NE
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
LOCATION MAP - NOT TO SCALE
SITE LOCATION
PORTIONS OF THE NORTH
ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 13,
TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7
WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN
TRACT 1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL 2-8 DU/A
PROPOSED LAND USE: INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL
PROPOSED LAND USE: INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL
TRACT 2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: RURAL RESIDENTIAL
PROPOSED LAND USE: INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: FUTURE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSED LAND USE: INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL
TRACT 3
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: PUBLIC/PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
PROPOSED LAND USE: INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: VEGETATIVE NOISE AND SIGHT BUFFER
PROPOSED LAND USE: INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL
TRACT 1TRACT 4TRACT 2TRACT 5TRACT 6TRACT 3TRACT 4
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL 2-8 DU/A
PROPOSED LAND USE: PUBLIC/PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL
PROPOSED LAND USE: VEGETATIVE NOISE AND SIGHT BUFFER
TRACT 5
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: RURAL RESIDENTIAL
PROPOSED LAND USE: PUBLIC/PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: FUTURE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSED LAND USE: VEGETATIVE NOISE AND SIGHT BUFFER
TRACT 6 (NO CHANGE REQUESTED)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: PUBLIC/PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
PROPOSED LAND USE: PUBLIC/PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: VEGETATIVE NOISE AND SIGHT BUFFER
PROPOSED LAND USE: VEGETATIVE NOISE AND SIGHT BUFFER
1
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: CPA21-0002 IWV & Slothower
Parcel(s): 1113202001, 1113201001,
1113226003
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Contact Person:
Property Owner(s):
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner
Date: September 2, 2021
[Attachments 5, 7, and 8 Updated October 1, 2021]
Matt Adam
IWV Holdings, LLC
madam@spmblaw.com
Lacey Stutzman
MMS Consultants
1917 S. Gilbert Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-351-8282
l.sexton@mmsconsultants.net
IWV Holdings, LLC
2916 Highway 1 NE
Iowa City, IA 52240
To change the Southwest District and Comprehensive
Plan future land use map designations, and related
plan text, from residential, open space, and future
development to intensive commercial
To allow intensive commercial development
South of IWV Road SW, West of Slothower Road
Location Map:
Size: 79.4 acres
2
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Agricultural & Residential; Rural Residential (RR-1)
in Iowa City & Agricultural (A) in Johnson County
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Agricultural; Rural Residential (RR-1) &
Residential - ¼ Acre Lot Minimum (R)
East: Agricultural & Institutional; Neighborhood
Public (P-1)
South: Agricultural; Rural Residential (RR-1) &
Agricultural (A)
West: Agricultural; Agricultural (A)
Comprehensive Plan: Residential 2-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre, Rural
Residential, & Public/Private Open Space
Southwest District Plan: Single-Family/Duplex Residential, Future Urban
Development, & Vegetative Noise and Sight Buffer
File Date: May 27, 2021
BACKGROUND:
IWV Holding, LLC owns approximately 79.4 acres of property located south of IWV Road SW
(Melrose Avenue in City limits) and west of Slothower Road. The owner is working with MMS
Consultants to prepare three applications to allow for intensive commercial development. This
specific application (CPA21-0002) proposes to amend the Southwest District Plan, part of the
Comprehensive Plan, by changing the future land use map designation of the subject properties
to intensive commercial. This includes some changes to the text of the Southwest District Plan as
well. Attachments 7 and 8 illustrate the proposed changes to the plans, and Attachment 6 includes
the applicant statement describing the rationale behind the request, along with other application
materials.
The Southwest District Plan, adopted in 2002, includes the subject properties in the growth limit
of the Weber Subarea. The future land use scenario indicates the properties are primarily
appropriate for Future Urban Development, with Single-Family/Duplex Residential shown along
Slothower Road to the east and a Vegetative Noise and Sight Buffer to the west near the proposed
alignment of US Highway 965, which will run south from the Hurt Road alignment and along the
eastern edge of the Iowa City Landfill (see Attachment 3). The plan describes that limited
residential development may occur west of Slothower in the Future Urban Development area, but
that limitations on sanitary sewer service prevent any significant urban development. It also notes
the importance of buffering residential uses from the landfill and the proposed location of US-965
when development eventually occurs and that a more detailed plan will be needed at that time.
The other concurrently submitted applications include an annexation (ANN21-0003), which would
annex 70.4 acres into City limits, and a zoning map amendment (REZ21-0006) which would
rezone the full 79.4 acres from Rural Residential (RR-1) in Iowa City and Agricultural (A) in
Johnson County to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) and Interim Development Commercial (ID-C).
The Comprehensive Plan Amendment must be approved for changes to the zoning map to be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant held a Good Neighbor Meeting on July 28, 2021. Four neighbors attended.
Attachment 5 provides the summary report of the meeting provided by the applicant.
3
ANALYSIS:
The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan serves as a land-use planning guide by illustrating and
describing the location and configuration of appropriate land uses throughout the City, providing
notification to the public regarding intended uses of land; and illustrating the long-range growth
area limit for the City. Applicants may request an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan
with City Council approval after a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Applicants for a comprehensive plan amendment must provide evidence that the request meets
the approval criteria in Section 14-8D-3D. The comments of the applicant are found in the
attachments. Staff comments on the criteria are as follows.
14-8D-3D Approval Criteria: Applications for a comprehensive plan amendment must
include evidence that the following approval criteria are met:
1.Circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors have come
to light such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest.
The subject properties are in the Weber Subarea of the Southwest District Plan. Before
1990, the area west of US-218 and north of Rohret Road was relatively undeveloped, with
a few houses fronting on Rohret Road and public uses along Melrose/IWV, primarily at
the County Historic Poor Farm. By the time the District Plan was adopted in 2002, housing
was developing west and north of Rohret Road and south of the Poor Farm. The District
Plan’s future land use map primarily shows the subject properties as Future Urban
Development, with Single-Family/Duplex Residential along Slothower Road and a
Vegetative Noise and Sight Buffer to the west. Currently, the land is used for agriculture.
When the District Plan was adopted, Iowa City’s Comprehensive Plan was from 1997. The
1997 Plan was the first to extend the City’s western growth boundary from near Slothower
Road to the proposed future alignment of US-965 (see Attachment 3). Consequently, it
was the first time the City considered the future use of the subject properties, with the
future land use map showing them as interim development/rural residential, a placeholder
category that applied to future residential, commercial, and industrial development. Both
the District and 1997 Comprehensive Plans included a policy to protect the Melrose
Avenue and US-218 interchange from commercial encroachment, instead encouraging
such development at the Highway 1 and US-218 interchange. This policy was first
incorporated into the 1983 Comprehensive Plan, adopted around the time of the
construction of US-218, because of concerns that the City could not support commercial
development at both interchanges. Instead, planning documents maintained public uses
directly west of the Melrose interchange. The City’s current Comprehensive Plan, adopted
in 2013, no longer explicitly discusses this policy. However, it is reflected in the future land
use map, which shows most of the subject properties as rural residential, and in the 2006
Fringe Area Agreement, which is a component of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Since adopting the Southwest District Plan, development west of US-218, and around the
Melrose interchange, has continued. Land east of the interchange developed with more
intense uses following Camp Cardinal Boulevard’s construction in 2007, facilitated in part
by three comprehensive plan amendments. These increased the intensity of uses
northeast of Camp Cardinal Boulevard by introducing Office Commercial (CPA16-00001),
Residential 8-16 Dwelling Units per Acre (CPA16-00003), and General Commercial
(CPA20-0001) future land uses. West of the interchange, public uses intensified, including
the addition of the Iowa National Guard Readiness Center, the Joint Emergency
4
Communications Center, and the Johnson County SEATS facility. Housing development
has also continued north of Rohret Road and east of Slothower Road right-of-way.
Recent development in the area constitutes a change in circumstances near the subject
properties such that it is in the public interest to explore future uses for the site. The subject
properties have been in a holding pattern since they were first considered in Iowa City
planning documents. This was largely because sewer service was not expected to be
available until a lift station could be constructed, which prevented any significant urban
development. However, the application shows that the north side of the properties could
be serviced, which could accommodate some larger users, such as MidAmerican Energy.
Additionally, Iowa City and its neighboring metropolitan cities have seen rapid growth and
a redistribution of population over the past 30 years (Figure 1). Iowa City has added more
than 15,000 new residents, an increase of more than 25 percent. However, the other
metropolitan cities (Coralville, North Liberty, Tiffin, and University Heights) have tripled in
size. This change from 1990 to 2020 is primarily due to residential growth in North Liberty
(+17,553 residents) and Coralville (+11,971 residents), though Tiffin has experienced
recent growth as well (+4,052 residents). With these changes, Iowa City’s population has
decreased as a proportion of the metro, and the center of population has shifted to the
northwest. This makes the US-218 corridor increasingly important.
Figure 1: Population Change from 1990-2020
1990 2000 2010 2020 Change
(#)
Change
(%)
Iowa City 59,735 62,220 67,862 74,828 +15,093 +25%
Other Metro Cities 14,775 22,452 35,279 48,537 +33,762 +229%
Remainder of County 21,609 26,334 27,741 29,489 +7,880 +36%
Johnson County 96,119 111,006 130,882 152,854 +56,735 +59%
Iowa City as Percent
of Metro Cities
80.2% 73.5% 65.8% 60.7%
Source: 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020 Census Data
The proposed amendment changes the future land use of the subject properties to
intensive commercial. The Zoning Code, which helps implement City plans, describes the
Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone as providing areas for sales and service functions and
businesses whose operations are typically characterized by outdoor display and storage
of merchandise, by repair and sales of large equipment or motor vehicles, by outdoor
commercial amusement and recreational activities, or by activities or operations
conducted in buildings or structures not completely enclosed. Types of retail trade are
limited to provide opportunities for more land intensive commercial operations and to
prevent conflicts between retail and industrial truck traffic. It notes that adjacent residential
zones must be buffered from the potential negative aspects of allowed uses, which include
a variety of commercial, light industrial, and limited institutional and residential uses.
The City and metro are expected to continue growing, and commercial and industrial areas
must grow to accommodate increasing demand. The City currently has around 1,239
acres of commercial and 838 acres of industrial zoning, 398 acres of which is zoned
specifically for intensive commercial uses (Figure 2). Most land zoned Intensive
Commercial (CI-1) is occupied, but approximately 51 acres (13%) is vacant land, located
on scattered parcels along Scott Boulevard and south of the Highway 1 north and east of
the airport and at its interchange with US-218 (Attachment 4). While this land does not
5
have buildings, only 45 acres are expected to develop; the rest is used by adjacent
owners. Of developable parcels zoned Intensive Commercial (CI-1), most are less than 2
acres. Other vacant parcels in the City are zoned to accommodate similar land uses, such
as industrial zones, but while there is a relative abundance of vacant land zoned industrial
(217.5 acres), it is primarily in the City’s southeast industrial park which is well-positioned
to attract railroad users but does not have good highway access. As such, the supply of
vacant land in the City currently does not meet all of the needs of users in the City,
including MidAmerican Energy.
Figure 2: Acres Zoned for Industrial and Commercial Land Uses
Land Uses Current Zoning
(Acres)
Current Vacant
(Acres)
Current
Vacancy Rate
General Commercial 322.84 20.04 6%
Highway Commercial 64.22 8.99 14%
Intensive Commercial 397.96 51.23 13%
Industrial 837.74 217.50 26%
Other Commercial 453.63 131.43 29%
Total Commercial/Industrial 2,076.39 429.19 21%
Source: Johnson County parcel information, obtained August 2021
By 2040, the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County estimates Iowa City
will grow to a population of 94,093 (+25.7%). Assuming demand for Intensive Commercial
(CI-1) zoning increases at the same rate, the City should anticipate a need for about 500
acres (397.96 x 125.7%) of CI-1 zoning by 2040. Based on the future land use map, the
City currently plans for an additional 44 net acres of intensive commercial, or a total of
about 442 acres (Figure 3). This leaves a gap in demand of 58 acres, and more than that
will be needed because over 60 acres of expected additions are already occupied, plus
additional land is likely needed to accommodate sensitive features and right-of-way. While
this is based on the current development pattern which is changing (for example, online
retail is supplanting brick-and-mortar stores), staff anticipates that demand for intensive
commercial and light industrial uses will remain relatively stable as warehousing and
transportation uses will fulfill needs associated with logistics and online purchasing. Staff
also anticipates that MidAmerican Energy will utilize a portion of the subject property.
Figure 3: Expected Change in Acres Zoned for Industrial and Commercial Land Uses
Land Uses Current
Zoning
(Acres)
Expected
Additions*
(Acres)
Expected
Losses**
(Acres)
Net
Change
(Acres)
Land Use
Potential
(Acres)
General Commercial 322.84 +10.70 -40.81 -30.11 292.73
Highway Commercial 64.22 +0.00 -0.00 +0.00 64.22
Intensive Commercial 397.96 +107.91 -63.43 +44.48 442.44
Industrial 837.74 +300.79 -14.07 +286.72 1,124.46
Other Commercial 453.63 +613.07 -0.24 +612.83 1,066.46
Total Commercial/Industrial 2,076.39 +1,032.47 -118.55 +913.92 2,990.31
*Expected additions: Land shown as a use on the future land use map which is not currently
zoned for that use (primarily in the City’s growth areas).
**Expected losses: Land currently zoned for a use that is not expected to be developed as that
use based on the future land use map (primarily Riverfront Crossings and publicly owned land).
Source: Johnson County parcel information, obtained August 2021, IC2030 Comprehensive Plan
6
Development and planning in the area constitutes a change in circumstances. Based on
projected long-term demand and the characteristics of the site, including access to US-
218 and intensive commercial uses being appropriate as a buffer against future landfill
expansion and US-965 extension, staff believes that the proposed amendment is in the
public interest.
2.The proposed amendment will be compatible with other policies or provisions of
the comprehensive plan, including any district plans or other amendments thereto.
The Weber Subarea of the Southwest District Plan has several policies relevant to the
proposed amendment relating to transportation, infrastructure, and land use.
With regards to transportation, the subject properties will be bounded by three major
streets to the west, east, and north. To the west, along the City’s growth limit, the City
plans to extend US-965 south as an arterial to connect with Rohret Road and eventually
Highway 1. As development occurs, the City needs to secure adequate right-of-way and
compatible land uses near the Iowa City Landfill. To the east, a north-south collector street
is expected between Melrose Avenue and Rohret Road, primarily along the Slothower
Road right-of-way. To the north, Melrose Avenue needs to be improved to City standards
beyond current City limits. This is currently planned for 2021 in the City’s Capital
Improvement Program.
With regards to land use and other infrastructure, The Weber Subarea future land use
map designates most of the land west of Slothower Road as Future Urban Development
until sewer service is extended and lift stations are constructed where required. Water
service will be expanded as part of the Melrose/IWV project in 2021. The Plan allows for
some residential uses along the west side of Slothower Road, but it discourages “leapfrog”
development without street and trail connections between the proposed US-965 alignment
and Slothower Road. It notes that as development becomes imminent, a more detailed
plan will be needed for areas of future development. The District Plan also discourages
commercial uses around the Melrose and US-218 interchange, noting that there are
nearby commercial areas, including the Highway 1/US-218 interchange, Walden Square,
and future commercial areas south of Rohret Road. It also discusses the importance of
buffering residential uses from the Iowa City Landfill and future US-965.
The proposed amendment generally follows the existing policy direction of City planning
documents. Amending the future land use map permits the accommodation of
transportation policies discussed in the Southwest District Plan through the rezoning and
subdivision processes. Similarly, the application shows that infrastructure needs can be
met while allowing for continuous, contiguous development from Slothower to US-965.
The proposed use is also more compatible with the nearby landfill than residential uses,
which would require buffering, and is an appropriate use near two major streets. While
some buffering is required between intensive commercial and residential uses, those can
be accommodated through the site development standards and rezoning process.
Furthermore, the proposed amendment meets several goals and strategies from the
Comprehensive Plan regarding commercial and industrial development. Specifically:
•Use the District Plans to identify appropriate commercial nodes and zone accordingly
to focus commercial development to meet the needs of present and future population.
7
•Identify, zone, and preserve land for industrial uses in areas with ready access to rail
and highways.
•Target industrial and business sectors that align with Iowa City’s economic strengths,
including biotechnology, healthcare, advanced manufacturing, information technology,
education services, and renewable energy.
•Focus growth within the Iowa City urban growth area by using the City’s extra-territorial
review powers to discourage sprawl and preserve prime farmland.
While goals generally align, some differences between the proposed amendment and
plans must be reconciled. Allowing intensive commercial development along Melrose
somewhat diverges from policy preventing commercial encroachment near the US-218
and Melrose interchange. However, the area nearest the interchange will remain
dedicated to public uses, and the proposed uses are consistent with goals related to
identifying appropriate areas for commercial and industrial development. Another potential
discrepancy is the goal of encouraging new business development in existing core or
neighborhood commercial areas. While this is important, existing commercial areas do not
appear to be able to accommodate all users looking to locate in Iowa City. The amendment
was initially considered because MidAmerican Energy has been unable to find an
appropriate site for a new facility. As such, there appears to be a need for new intensive
commercial areas to meet the needs of Iowa City’s future population.
Other goals of the Comprehensive Plan also need to be met through the rezoning process
for the subject properties. They include the following:
•Discourage linear strip commercial development that discourages walking and biking
and does not contribute to the development of compact, urban neighborhoods.
•Guide development away from sensitive environmental areas, such as floodplains,
wetlands, woodlands, steep slopes, flood hazard areas, and streams.
These will be achieved through the City’s Sensitive Areas Ordinance and conditions on
rezonings, where necessary. Based on information submitted by the applicant, there
appears to be approximately 1.13 acres of wooded wetlands, 1.46 acres of emergent
wetlands, and 2.36 acres of sensitive woodlands and groves of trees on the subject
properties. Sensitive features, required buffers, and potential stormwater detention areas
will limit the acreage on the subject properties that may be developed.
Finally, the proposed amendment meets policies adopted in other documents of the City.
The Fringe Area Agreement shows this land as being within Iowa City’s Growth Area C. It
encourages commercial and industrial development south and southwest of the Iowa City
Municipal Airport, and in interchanges of paved roads, to be annexed prior to
development. However, it discourages such development in all other areas of Fringe Area
C. The subject properties will be at paved intersections, and an application for annexation
has been submitted with the proposed amendment. The City is currently in the process of
updating the Fringe Area Agreement with Johnson County. The new agreement will state
that development should follow the policy direction of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
For the reasons above, staff finds that the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment
(Attachments 7 and 8) is compatible with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan.
However, implementing this proposed amendment requires annexing the property and
amending the zoning map, which should include conditions ensuring the goals of the
8
Comprehensive Plan are met (to be considered under ANN21-0003 and REZ21-0006
respectively).
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Staff received one written comment opposing the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment
due to potential traffic and lighting impacts. The comment can be found in Attachment 5.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve CPA21-0002, a proposed
amendment to change the following, as shown in Attachments 7 and 8, for approximately 79.4
acres of property located south of IWV Road SW and west of Slothower Road:
•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.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Location Map
2.Zoning Map
3.Proposed Iowa Highway 965 Extension & Fringe Area Maps
4.Map of Current and Expected Intensive Commercial Land Use
5.Correspondence and Good Neighbor Meeting Materials [Updated October 1, 2021]
6.Applicant Submittal
7.Proposed Changes to the Weber Subarea of the Southwest District Plan [Updated
October 1, 2021]
8.Proposed Changes to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map [Updated
October 1, 2021]
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
MELROSE AVE218S B T O M E L R O S E A V E
W ILDCAT LN
C AR LSBADPLTEMPE CTL A K E S H ORE DRMELROSE AVESLOTHOWERRDSANTAFEDRSLOTHOWERRDSWTEMPE PLHIGHWAY 218HURT RD SWSLOTHOWER RDIWV RD SWANN21-0003, CPA21-0002 & REZ21-0006IWV and Slothower Rd.µ0 0.15 0.30.075 MilesPrepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: June 2021Three applications submitted by MMS Consultants, on behalf of IWV Holdings, LLC,for the Annexation of 70.4 acres of property located south of IWV Rd. and west of Slothower Rd.the rezoning of 79.4 acres from County Agricultural (A) and Rural Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) and Interim Development - Commercial (ID-C)and a comprehensive plan amendment changing the future land use fromPublic/Private Open Space, and Rural Residential to Intensive Commercial.
IWV RD SWCARLS B A DPLTEMPE CTMELROSE AVESLOTHOWERRDFLAGSTAFFDRDURANGOPLSANTAFEDRWILDCATLNMELROSE AVESLOTHOWERRDSWHIGHWAY218 TEMPEPLHURT RD SW2 1 8 S B T OMELROSE A V E
SLOTHOWER RDP1/RM12RS5P2P1RR1Johnson County PD & SANN21-0003, CPA21-0002 & REZ21-0006IWV and Slothower Rd.µ0 0.15 0.30.075 MilesPrepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: June 2021Three applications submitted by MMS Consultants, on behalf of IWV Holdings, LLC,for the Annexation of 70.4 acres of property located south of IWV Rd. and west of Slothower Rd.the rezoning of 79.4 acres from County Agricultural (A) and Rural Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) and Interim Development - Commercial (ID-C)and a comprehensive plan amendment changing the future land use fromPublic/Private Open Space, and Rural Residential to Intensive Commercial.
55
IOWA 1U
S 21
8
US 6
MU S C AT I N E AV E
MELROSE AVE
S
GI
L
B
E
R
T
S
T
S
A
ND
R
DROCHESTER AVE
OLD HIGHWAY 218DODGE STE BURLINGTON ST GOVERNOR STOAK CREST HILL RD SES RI
VERSI
DE DRMORMON TREK BLVDUS 6
Legend
Zoned CI-1; N o Expected Change
Not Zoned CI-1; Expected A dditions*
Zoned CI-1; E xpected Losses**
Vacant; Expected to Develop
Vacant; Not Expected to Develop
Major Roads
Intensive Commercial Land UseCurrent and Expected
Prepared by: Kirk Leh mann , Associate Planne rDate: August 25, 2 021Source: Johnson County Parcel Data
*Expected Additions: La nd shown as inte nsive commercial on the future land use map which is not currently zoned Intensive Co mmercial (CI-1).
**Expe cted Losses: Land currently zon ed Intensive Commercial (CI-1) that is not expected to be de ve loped as in tensivecommercial based on the future land u se map.0 0.5 10.25 Miles
¯
From:Pamela
To:Raymond Heitner
Date:Wednesday, August 18, 2021 7:32:08 PM
I am against the rezoning of Slothower Rd. I feel like it will lead to loud traffic and distracting
lighting to our neighborhood.
Pamela Miller-DeKeyser
1630 Lake Shore Drive
Iowa City, IA 52246
Sent from the all new AOL app for Android
From:DEANAGHOLSON
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Rezoning at Melrose and Slothower
Date:Monday, September 13, 2021 4:00:16 PM
Mr. Heitner,
I am emailing you in regard to the recent proposal of rezoning in the area of Melrose and Slothower. We have lived
in Iowa City for twenty years this year. We built our home on the southwest side of town near Weber school and
have loved our neighborhood and location. We have paid close attention to the area to our north (Poor Farm) and
west (farmland) and were happy with the cities comprehensive plan for this area over time.
We are very concerned that the recent rezoning proposal is to go from rural/residential to commercial in this area.
We are aware that rezoning happens (it obviously had to in order for our neighborhood to be developed) but to leap
from rural to commercial seems like quite a drastic change. Once a commercial property area is developed, it seems
likely that it could very well continue to develop in that manner which could effect us in the future.
I am unsure if we will be able to attend the P&Z meeting this week but would request that you log our concerns in
with any others you may have gotten regarding this rezoning. We would like to see the city take a step back and
reassess the situation and come up with a revised comprehensive plan to share with the southwest citizens before
forging ahead at this time.
Thanks for your time!
Deana Gholson
1332 Phoenix Drive
IC IA
This email is from an external source.
From:John Bergstrom
To:Raymond Heitner
Cc:Sherri Bergstrom
Subject:Case CPA21-0002 SW corner of Slothower Road and IWV Road
Date:Monday, September 13, 2021 6:28:15 PM
As representatives of Slothower Farm we are expressing our objections to the dramatic change in
the Comprehensive Plan to allow for Intensive commercial development on land that has long been
anticipated to be residential. This change to the IWV Holding parcel is being brought about to allow
for the development of a Mid American Energy service complex that the City evidently feels that
they have no where else to place it. This is certainly a change to a relatively small parcel that will
affect the future of many existing and future residents. We would like to see the following
addressed or answered:
1. The staff report (as well as the MMS report) refer to the significant changes that have taken
place. Frankly, the changes in the immediate area west of the interchange are not new.
What is new is the significant residential growth to the area abutting the County Farm. The
proposed changes will affect the existing neighborhoods, existing residents and the future
development of the Johnson County Poor Farm.
2. There seems to be concern about the landfill needing a buffer. The proposed 965 extension
will provide a natural separation. MMS has come to its own stated conclusion that the best
buffer is commercial development. Seems a little self serving.
3. Why is a longstanding planning instrument being drastically altered to accommodate a 40
acre development (initially) that will affect a large overlay area. If the Comprehensive Plan is
to be altered like this, it should be much more encompassing, studied and thought out. Not
as a reaction to a single user.
4. The City feels it needs more intensive commercial land? Fine, don’t put it on or next to areas
long slated for residential. Or, if you can’t accommodate certain uses, is there any harm
letting them gravitate to a neighboring community that can?
5. There are complementary non-residential uses that are compatible with neighborhoods that
don’t infringe on residents. The uses allowed under the proposed zoning (including Mid
American Energy) are not compatible.
6. The goal of the existing Comprehensive Plan is to encourage commercial and industrial
development south and southwest of the Iowa City Municipal Airport. Now you appear to
conveniently be changing the Fringe Area Agreement just to accommodate a single user.
7. How does Johnson County feel about this as it relates to the Poor Farm? Intensive
commercial uses would not be complementary to the proposed development schemes we
have seen for the farm.
Please reconsider this change to the Comprehensive Plan and the subsequent zoning changes that
would result. The City needs to slow down and better understand the ramifications of this action.
John and Sherri Bergstrom
From:James Larimore
To:Raymond Heitner
Cc:Jim Larimore
Subject:Opposition to proposed amendment to Comprehensive Plan
Date:Wednesday, September 15, 2021 3:43:33 PM
Dear Mr. Heitner,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of land near the
intersection of Melrose and Slothower in Iowa City.
My family and I live on Wildcat Lane in the Southwest District, and our house is one of those
with a direct line of site to the proposed location of Intensive Commercial development. We
purchased our house seven years ago in large measure because of the assurances provided in
the City's Comprehensive Plan for the Southwest District, which explicitly discouraged "the
establishment of commercial uses around the Melrose Avenue-Highway 218 interchange" and
envisioned that future development of this area should preserve the rural character of the
district, provide a diversity of housing types, and potentially include the creation of a regional
park that could be connected to a planned water reservoir, the Willow Creek trail and other
parks in the Southwest District.
I am certain that others who have purchased homes in this area, at the combined cost of tens of
millions of dollars of personal investment, also took into account the rural and residential
nature of the district when they decided to move into the Southwestern District.
The proposed rezoning will irretrievably damage the rural and residential character of the
Southwest District and creates a risk that the proposed Intensive Commercial development
will eventually cascade further down Slothower Road, impacting home values and quality of
life, as well as introducing unwanted vehicular traffic seeking a faster path to Highway 218.
Furthermore, in stark contrast to the transparent and inclusive process that informed the
current proposal takes a piecemeal rather than comprehensive approach, and with extremely
limited effort at outreach, information dissemination, and community engagement on the part
of the Planning and Zoning office. I am concerned that precipitous action on the part of the
Planning and Zoning Commission puts at risk the public trust which was earned by
the Commission's predecessors, who facilitated direct community engagement in the creation
of the current Comprehensive Plan. Trust is hard to earn and easy to squander, and I urge the
Commission not to trade away public trust and confidence in the expedient pursuit of a
problem for which there are likely alternative solutions.
I look forward to participating in the Commission's hearing on September 16th.
Sincerely,
Jim Larimore
Wildcat Lane
Iowa City
August 5, 2021
City of Iowa City
Planning and Community Development
Attn: Ray Heitner
410 E Washington
Iowa City, IA 52240
RE: IWV Annexation, Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment
In response to the letter provided on July 30, 2021 we offer the following comments on behalf
of the developer.
CPA21-0002 Comments:
1. Because a comprehensive plan amendment is required, this application requires
two meetings at the Planning & Zoning Commission; one to set the public
hearing, and then the public hearing.
We acknowledge this comment.
2. In discussing the area slated for “future urban development” on the subject
properties, the Southwest District Plan notes that “When development becomes
imminent a more detailed plan will need to be developed for this area.” Please
discuss what detailed planning has gone into determining the proposed use for
the area.
The District Plan references the ‘future urban development’ in the final
paragraph of the section titled Land Use for the Weber Subarea. It mentions
the importance of providing a buffer for residential uses from the Iowa City
Landfill and the intended Highway 965 extension along the western most
boundary. Commercial uses are the best option to provide the buffer in our
opinion. This will allow for ease of access to Highway 965 for those
commercial uses as well.
3. Staff anticipates that the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council will
have questions on potential end users and uses of the subject property. Please be
prepared to make this information public prior to the public hearing date for the
comprehensive plan amendment.
We acknowledge this comment. The applicant will take this into consideration
prior to the meetings.
ANN21-0003/REZ21-0006 Comments:
Urban Planning:
1. The rezoning will analyze all potential CI-1 uses and describe any potential
impacts those uses might have on surrounding development. Some examples of
July 8, 2021
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Re: IWV Road SW Rezoning, Annexation and Comprehensive Plan Amendment
On behalf of IWV Holdings LLC we are submitting a request for an Annexation and
Rezoning in conjunction with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The described land
consists of 79.39 acres in total, the proposal includes 70.39 acres to be annexed into the
City of Iowa City with 9.0 acres currently located within the city limits. The area is
shown as a future growth area. Scheduled improvements to IWV Road will provide
necessary arterial access, with additional access provided via Slothower Road. Public
water will be available to the site, and public sewer can be extended to serve the site as
required.
Circumstances for this site have changed since the current plan was adopted. As
mentioned above, there are scheduled improvements to IWV Road, and the city has
expressed a plan to revisit the comprehensive plan for this region in the near term.
These factors, in addition to the plans by the county for the Johnson County Poor Farm,
meet the approval criteria for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. We are proposing a
change of the land use from a mix of Public/Private Open Space, Rural Residential and
2-8 DU/A to Intensive Commercial. We feel this amendment is appropriate given the
access from the property to an arterial road which provides a direct route to Interstate
I-380. The proximity to the Iowa City Landfill and a number of other commercially
zoned properties along IWV Road SW shows a consistent pattern of compatibility with
surrounding development in this area, and is generally compatible with the policies and
provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.
At this time Intensive Commercial (CI-1) is being requested for the East portion of the
property and Interim Development Commercial (ID-C) is being requested for the West
portion of the property. The ID-C zoning will allow for managed growth of future
development and for the current use of the land to continue until a plan to provide city
services can be established. This zoning also allows for a review of the stream corridor
and the associated sensitive areas located in the West portion when a permanent
zoning classification application is submitted. Development of the West portion, and
any potential impacts to the sensitive areas, can be more appropriately reviewed when
city services are able to be provided.
If you have questions or require any additional information, please contact us
accordingly.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Marner.
MMS Consultants, Inc.
10355-010L2.DOCX
(319) 351-8282
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
www.mmsconsultants.net
1917 S. GILBERT ST.
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
05-20-2021
KJB
RLW
RRN
IOWA CITY
10355-010 1
PROJAC
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN EXHIBIT
1
1"=200'
IWV ROAD SW / F46
SLOTHOWER ROADHURT ROAD SWALBERT AND
FAY'S FIRST
ADDITION
KAUBLE'S
SUBDIVISION NW 14 - NE 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NE14SECTION 13-T79N-R7
W
SE 14 - NW14SECTION 13-T79N-R7
WNE 14 - NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNW 14 - NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNE 14 - NE 14SECTION 14-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7
WSE 14 - SE 14SECTION 11-T79N-R7WSW 14 - SW 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SW 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7
W
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0
1"=200'
20 50 100 150 200
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXHIBIT
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
PORTIONS OF THE NORTH ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7
WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN
PLAT PREPARED BY:
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
1917 S. GILBERT STREET
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
OWNER/APPLICANT:
IWV HOLDINGS LLC
2916 HIGHWAY 1 NE
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
LOCATION MAP - NOT TO SCALE
SITE LOCATION
PORTIONS OF THE NORTH
ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 13,
TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7
WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIANCURRENT LAND USE: 2-8 DU/APROPOSED LAND USE: INTENSIVE COMMERCIALCUR
R
E
NT L
A
N
D
U
S
E:
R
U
R
AL
R
E
SI
D
E
NTI
AL
PRO
P
O
S
E
D L
A
N
D
U
S
E: I
NT
E
N
SI
V
E
C
O
M
M
E
R
CI
AL
CURRENT LAND USE: PUBLIC / PRIVATE OPEN SPACEPROPOSED LAND USE: INTENSIVE COMMERCIALS89°06'50"W
N89°06'50"E
300.04'
N89°06'50"E 2333.41'S00°00'59"W1305.56'S88°45'34"W
300.07'
S88°45'34"W
414.99'
S00°06'26"E
3.41'
S89°03'31"W1921.53'N00°08'52"E1315.30'G:\10355\10355-010\10355-010N-COMP.dwg, 7/8/2021 6:03:22 PM
DESCRIPTION - REZONING PARCEL NO. 1
THE EAST 300 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13,
TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7 WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA.
SAID REZONING PARCEL NO. 1 CONTAINS 9.0 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
DESCRIPTION - REZONING PARCEL NO. 2
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH,
RANGE 7 WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA.
EXCEPTING THE EAST 300 FEET THEREFROM
SAID REZONING PARCEL NO. 2 CONTAINS 30.7 ACRES, MORE OR LESS
DESCRIPTION - REZONING PARCEL NO. 3
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH,
RANGE 7 WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. SAID REZONING PARCEL
NO. 3 CONTAINS 39.7 ACRES, MORE OR LESS
WEBER SUBAREA
Farm along Rohret Road
The Weber Subarea is located south of
Melrose Avenue and Highway 218, north of
Rohret Road, extending to the City’s growth
limits half a mile west of Slothower Road.
Before the 1980s this area was relatively
undeveloped, with a few houses fronting onto
Rohret Road. Through the 1980's and 90's
housing developed westward on the north
side of Rohret Road and south of the County
Poor Farm property. Roughly two-thirds of
the land area is undeveloped. Some patches
of woodland and native prairie exist, but most
of it is under cultivation. The area contains
three public/institutional uses: Irving B. Weber Elementary School, the Korean
Methodist Church, and Chatham Oaks, a residential care facility located on the
County Poor Farm property. There are no commercial uses in the subarea.
Transportation
In the future next 20 to twenty-five years, the City plans to extend Highway 965
southward along the current western growth limit to connect with Rohret Road via
the eastern edge of the Iowa City Landfill. It will eventually reach Highway 1 and
serve as a far west side arterial. As development approaches this area, the City
needs to secure adequate road right-of-way and sufficient buffer width against the
Iowa City Landfill. As an entryway corridor into Iowa City, Highway 965 should
incorporate boulevard design standards with a well-landscaped median and
generous landscaping along both sides, wide sidewalks and bicycle lanes. This
could serve as additional buffer against the landfill.
In the more immediate future a north-south collector street will be required between
Melrose Avenue and Rohret Road, part of it configured using the Slothower Road
right-of-way. Care must be taken to keep the eventual route somewhat circuitous
between Melrose and Rohret to diminish its desirability as a cut-through route for
non-local traffic. In addition, access routes to the southern portion of the County Poor
Farm should be incorporated into the local street layouts in future phases of both
Wild Prairie Estates and Country Club Estates.
Willow Creek Trail will eventually cross Highway 218 via tunnel and connect Hunters
Run Park to the wider community trail system. A trail link across the County Poor
Farm property to Melrose Avenue will connect this regional trail to the arterial street
system in the far western part of the Southwest District. If a regional stormwater lake
is constructed in the Rohret South Subarea, it will be important to construct a trail
connection between Hunters Run Park and the public open space surrounding this
new lake.
Southwest District Plan
10/8/02 38
As westward development creates the need, both Rohret Road and Melrose Avenue
will be improved to City standards beyond the point of the current corporate limits.
Public Services and Facilities
Before much of the area between Slothower and the landfill can be developed, a
sanitary sewer lift station will have to be constructed. Northern portions of Country
Club Estates can build out without further sewer improvements, but the southern two-
thirds adjacent to Rohret Road drains to the southwest. This portion cannot be
developed until a temporary lift station is built that connects to the landfill’s lift station
or a proposed permanent lift station is built south of Rohret Road on the western
edge of the Rohret South Subarea.
Land Use
Several areas of particular interest stand out in the Weber subarea with regard to
land use: the build-out of Country Club Estates and Wild Prairie Estates; the
development of the area west of Slothower Road; and future use of the County Poor
Farm property.
Johnson County Poor Farm
Future use of the County Poor Farm
property generated considerable discussion
and a wide variety of suggestions during
Citizen Planning workshops. The following
considerations should be used as a guide to
future development of this property:
•The following important elements should
be preserved and protected from the
encroachment of development: the
historic poor farm buildings and
cemetery; Chatham Oaks residential
care facility; and any environmentally sensitive areas.
•Approximately 90 acres of the property are wooded, brushy, or contain prairie
remnants. These areas would be suitable for use as a regional park that could be
connected via the Willow Creek trail to other parks and destinations in the
Southwest District.
•The southwest portion of the property contains approximately fifty acres of
relatively flat ground that is currently row-cropped. This area would be suitable for
residential development. Any new subdivisions in this location should be
connected to the street network developed in the Southwest Estates and Wild
Prairie Estates subdivisions located directly south of the County Farm property.
•If any development occurs on the county property adjacent to Highway 218, a
buffer should be maintained.
•Future use of the county property located north of Melrose Avenue should be
considered carefully with regard to potential impacts on the poor farm property.
Southwest District Plan
10/8/02 39
Wild Prairie Estates will soon reach its northern boundary. Access to and through the
Poor Farm is a desirable option in the future and for now a street stub northward up
to the Willow Creek-Hunters Run Trail extension will be necessary. North of that and
adjacent to Highway 218’s right-of-way, a noise and sight buffer should be
established between residential areas and the highway.
The Comprehensive Plan discourages the establishment of commercial uses around
the Melrose Avenue-Highway 218 interchange. This policy generally should be
maintained because there are several adequate commercial services in the vicinity
to serve this area. The Highway 1-Highway 218 interchange further south provides
community and highway commercial services. In addition, Walden Square in the
Willow Creek Subarea provides neighborhood commercial services, and a future
neighborhood commercial area is proposed in the Rohret South Subarea. However, intensive commercial uses may be appropriate along Melrose Avenue further
from the interchange due to proximity to major thoroughfares and to serve as
a buffer for residential uses from the potential future expansion of the landfill
and Highway 965.
The remaining portion of the Country Club
Estates property is primarily suitable for
low-density single-family development. If
well-designed, the portion of the property
adjacent to Rohret Road may be suitable
for clusters of medium-density residential
uses, such as townhouses or
condominiums. A transition between
existing Rural Residential-zoned (RR-1)
portions of Southwest Estates and future
low-density single-family residential
development to the west may be
accomplished by platting larger RS-5-
zoned lots backing onto the existing rural
residential lots of Southwest Estates.
A New Subdivision in the Weber Subarea
The land west of Slothower is currently used for agriculture. The Weber Subarea
Plan Map designates this area as "future urban development." However, until sewer
service is extended in that direction and one or more lift stations constructed, there
will not be any significant urban development. Before reaching the twenty-year
horizon of this plan, some residential uses, or intensive commercial, may develop
along the west side of Slothower Road and begin moving toward the future Highway
965 extension. However, the expectation is that development will not and should
not “leapfrog” without street and trail connections bridging the gap between 965 and
Slothower Road. When development becomes imminent a more detailed plan will
need to be developed for this area. When development does occur, it will be
important to buffer residential uses from the Iowa City Landfill and Highway 965.
Southwest District Plan
10/8/02 40
Open Space
As this subarea continues to develop
additional public open space will be
needed. Recent improvements to
Hunters Run Park increased the
amount of active park space in the
area. This park may be extended to
the west when the northern part of
Wild Prairie Estates is subdivided. As
mentioned, the County Poor Farm
property contains land that is suitable
for public open space and connecting
trail corridors. The County should plan
for public open space needs as it
contemplates future uses for the
property.
Hunters Run Park
The City plans to use a small parcel of land near the southwest corner of the County
Poor Farm property for a water reservoir. Most of the ground will remain open and
could be used for a small neighborhood park. Additional parkland could be added to
this property as Country Club Estates continues to develop.
Southwest District Plan
10/8/02 41
Appendix A
Southwest District Plan Map Designations
Large Lot/Rural Residential
Suitable for large lot single family development in areas
not suited for more intensive development due to
natural limitations, i.e. soil, slope, unavailability of sewer
and water utilities.
Development Density: approximately 1 dwelling
unit/acre
Single-Family/Duplex Residential
Intended primarily for single family and duplex
residential development. Lower density zoning
designations are suitable for areas with sensitive
environmental features, topographical constraints, or
limited street access. Higher densities are more
appropriate for areas with good access to all city
services and facilities.
Development Density: 2-12 dwelling units/acre
Narrow Lot/Townhouse Residential
Suitable for medium to high density single family
residential development, including zero lot line
development, duplexes, townhouses, and narrow lot
detached single family housing.
Development Density: 6-12 dwelling units/acre
Low-Density Multi-Family Residential
Intended for low -density multi-family housing. Suitable
for areas with good access to all city services and
facilities. Higher density zoning designations may not
be suitable for areas with topographical constraints or
limited street access.
Development Density: 8 -15 dwelling units/acre
Medium- to High-Density Multi-Family Residential
Intended for medium- to high-density multi-family
housing. Suitable for areas with good access to all city
services and facilities. Higher density zoning
designations may not be suitable for areas with
topographical constraints or limited street access.
Development Density: 16-44 dwelling units/acre
Future Urban Development
Areas within the growth limit that are not yet served by
City services and may not experience substantial
development within the lifetime of this district plan. As
development becomes imminent in these areas, the
City will develop more detailed land use and street
layout concepts to supplement the current plan.
Public/Private Open Space
Indicates existing open space that is important for the
protection of sensitive natural features and/or to provide
for recreational opportunities and protect the aesthetic
values of the community. An open space designation
on private land may indicate that an area is largely
unsuitable for development due to environmental or
topographical constraints. While these areas are best
reserved or acquired for private or public open space,
development may occur on privately held land if a
proposal meets the underlying zoning requirements and
the requirements of the Iowa City Sensitive Areas
Ordinance.
Vegetative Noise and Sight Buffer
Useful public facilities, such as limited-access highways
or landfills, can produce undesirable side-effects. In
these areas a substantial vegetative buffer should be
maintained or established to separate residential
development from these uses. Alternatively, where
appropriate, nonresidential uses can be used to buffer
residential areas from highways, landfills, and other
such uses.
Public Services/Institutional
Areas intended for civic, cultural, or historical
institutions; public schools; and places of assembly or
worship. Iowa City does not have a zone that
designates institutional uses as the primary, preferred
land use. However, there are a number of zones where
these uses are permitted or provisional uses.
Development proposals are subject to the requirements
of the underlying zoning designation. Land that is
owned by a public entity is typically zoned Public (P).
Neighborhood Commercial
Areas intended for retail sales and personal service
uses that meet the day-to-day needs of a fully
developed residential neighborhood. A grocery store or
grocery store/drug store combination is preferred as the
primary tenant in a Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1)
zone. Specific site development standards will apply in
these areas to ensure that commercial development is
pedestrian-friendly and compatible with surrounding
residential development.
Office Commercial
Areas intended for office uses and compatible
businesses. In some cases these areas may serve as a
buffer between residential areas and more intensive
commercial or industrial uses.
General Commercial
Areas intended to provide the opportunity for a large
variety of commercial uses that serve a major segment
of the community.
Mixed Use
Areas intended for development that combines
commercial and residential uses. An area may be
primarily commercial in nature or may be primarily
residential depending on the location and the
surrounding neighborhood. Commercial uses will
typically be located on the ground floor with housing
above. Development is intended to be pedestrian-
oriented with buildings close to and oriented to the
sidewalk.
Appendix A
Southwest District Plan Map Designations
Intensive Commercial
Areas intended for those sales and service functions
and businesses whose operations are typically
characterized by outdoor display and storage of
merchandise, by repair businesses, quasi-industrial
uses, and for sales of large equipment or motor
vehicles, or by activities or operations conducted in
buildings or structure not completely enclosed. Retail
uses are restricted in order to provide opportunities for
more land-intensive or quasi-industrial commercial
operations and also to prevent conflicts between retail
and industrial truck traffic. Special attention must be
directed toward buffering the negative aspects of
allowed uses from any adjacent lower intensity
commercial areas or residential areas.
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.
From:John Bergstrom
To:Raymond Heitner
Cc:Sherri Bergstrom; Seyfer, James W
Subject:IWV/Slothower Road
Date:Monday, October 18, 2021 1:07:26 PM
Ray, as we discussed, we continue to object to the change in the comprehensive plan and the
rezoning at the corner of IWV and Slothower Road. It has been made clear that this change is being
made to accommodate MidAmerican Energy with little thought as to how it affects a much greater
area.
That said, I believe there is a solution that everyone can live with. Move the MidAmerican facility to
the 40 acres that IWV partners also owns on the north side of IWV Road. The comprehensive plan
and zoning would remain in place on the south side of IWV. On the north side, the facility would be
more consistent with the properties immediately to the east.
While I cannot speak for the neighborhood to the south of the county farm, I am led to believe this
is a solution they might consider to be palatable.
Please consider this alternative with your staff.
John Bergstrom
Sent from Mail for Windows
MINUTES FINAL
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 21, 2021 – 7:00 PM
FORMAL MEETING
THE CENTER – ASSEMBLY ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Mike Hensch, Mark Nolte, Mark Signs, Billie
Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Phoebe Martin, Maria Padron
STAFF PRESENT: Ray Heitner, Sara Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: John Marner, Josh Entler, John Bergstrom, Sherri Slothower
Bergstrom, Cathy Tholen, Jim Seyfer
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends approval of the proposed amendment to change
the Comprehensive Plan future land use map to Intensive Commercial and Public/Private Open
Space and to change the Southwest District Plan text and future land use map to Intensive
Commercial and Vegetative Noise/Sight Buffer for approximately 79 acres of property located
south of IWV Road SW and west of Slothower Road.
By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ21-0006, a rezoning of
approximately 53.36 acres from County Agricultural (A) to Intensive Commercial (Cl-1), 9 acres
from Rural Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (Cl-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 any building permit, Owner shall plat the property herein rezoned to
follow the zoning boundaries.
a. Said plat shall show a buffer easement area generally 350' wide consistent with
the comprehensive plan map. This easement area shall be governed by an
easement agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. This easement
area shall be planted according to a landscape plan approved by the City Forester
at such times as required by the subdivider's agreement.
b. Said plat shall include the dedication of right-of-way along the Slothower Road
frontage in a size and location approved by the City Engineer to allow Slothower
Road to be improved to City urban design standards.
2. Pursuant to Iowa City Code Title 15, Owner shall, contemporaneous with the final plat
approval, execute a subdivider's agreement addressing, among other things, the
following conditions:
a. Owner shall contribute 25% of the cost of upgrading Slothower Road, south of any
future access, to collector street standards, adjacent to the subject property.
b. Owner shall install landscaping to the S3 standard along the Slothower Road and
IWV Road frontages shall include in addition to the S3 standard, a mix of
deciduous and evergreen trees as approved by the City Forester.
c. Improve Slothower Road to the southern end of any future access off Slothower
Road.
3. For all lots fronting IWV Road and Slothower Road, loading areas, and outdoor storage
shall not be located between the front facade of the principal structure and the public
right-of-way line.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 2 of 18
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 a proposed amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan future land use
map to Intensive Commercial and Public/Private Open Space and to change the Southwest
District Plan text and future land use map to Intensive Commercial and Vegetative Noise/Sight
Buffer for approximately 79 acres of property located south of IWV Road SW and west of
Slothower Road.
Lehmann stated the area of this application is south of IWV Road and west of Slothower Road in
the county. Regarding background, there are three applications that are part of this, one is a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow intensive commercial, second is an annexation that
would annex about 70 acres into the City and finally there's a rezoning for all of that land to a mix
of intensive commercial and interim development commercial. This particular case was recently
heard by this Commission on September 16, 2021, and at that time staff had recommended all
three items in their motions to approve. That passed for the annexation and rezoning because
the annexation was unanimous, and the rezoning was four to one however the motion to approve
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment actually failed because it does require a vote four
affirmative votes and therefore the vote of three to two made it failed. Therefore, tonight the
applicant has submitted a revised Comprehensive Plan Amendment to review tonight.
Additionally, as part of this staff is also recommending new conditions as part of the rezoning and
that will be covered in the next agenda item.
Lehmann noted the area is about 80 acres and is all currently zoned agricultural and there is also
the landfill to the southwest. The zoning generally matches the current land uses, it's zoned for
agriculture with some limited rural residential zoning where it's within the City, the area to the
east is zoned public and then there's some county rural zoning to the north. Also to the east is
the County Poor Farm property and then to the northeast there are some other public uses.
The revised Comprehensive Plan Amendment is generally similar to what was presented last
time where it modifies the future land use map with intensive commercial, there is still the
generalized the timeframe for the US 965 extension, and it discusses that intensive commercial
uses may be appropriate along Melrose. Lehmann explained the big difference is that along the
south property line there's about a 350-foot vegetative noise and site buffer that would be
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 3 of 18
incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. It is noted as public and
private open space in the Southwest District Plan and would now be called that in the
Comprehensive Plan as well. Lehmann reiterated it is again along the south property line for a
width of 350 feet. He showed an image of the current Southwest District Plan Map that is
adopted, noting the subject property in the northwest corner of the Weber subarea and it's mostly
tailored for future urban development. He also pointed out along the west property line of this
property is the proposed future 965 extension that would be coming down from the north and go
along the east edge of the landfill all the way down to Highway 1. In the previous application
seen in September it was all shown as intensive commercial development for that subject
property and the revised submittal would still keep most of it as intensive commercial, but it
would include that 350-foot strip of vegetative noise and site buffer creating a more formal
buffering along the south property line. Again, that also gets carried through into the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment future land use map as well.
The role of the Commission is to determine if the Comprehensive Plan amendment meets the
approval criteria that are in the zoning code at 14-8D-3D and those two criteria are that
circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors have come to light, such as
the proposed amendments in the public interest and two, the proposed amendment will be
compatible with other policies or provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, including any district
plans or other amendments thereto. The information provided to the Commission in the agenda
packet included staff’s previous analysis that was done for the September 16 meeting and that
analysis continues to apply since generally this noise and site buffer just clarifies where that
intensive commercial would go. Tonight, Lehmann will give the Commission a brief summary of
staff's rationale for those two factors but also rely on the on that previous presentation and
information that is included in the packet.
Lehmann noted for the first factor, as to circumstances having changed and or additional
information or factors have come to light such that is in the public interest, he explained the
Southwest District Plan was initially adopted in 2002 and there have been several changes that
have occurred since that time including new residential development that has occurred north of
Rohret Road and some higher intensity commercial and public uses that have occurred to the
east, things like the public dispatch center, the County bus area, and the Johnson County Poor
Farm. Additionally, there has been some introduction of commercial uses that occurred on the
east side of the US 218 Interchange and that has happened through three different
Comprehensive Plan Amendments that have increased the intensity around that interchange on
the east side. Lehmann did acknowledge that the 2002 Plan did have a policy that discouraged
commercial uses at the Melrose/ US 218 Interchange and that policy was initially adopted in the
1983 Comprehensive Plan and has been carried forward since that time. That policy was
adopted in 1983 due to concern that such development couldn't be supported at both that
interchange and the interchange with Highway 1 to the south. In addition to that, the metro has
also experienced rapid population growth since then, especially to the northwest, in Coralville,
Tiffin and North Liberty so that has made the US 218 corridor increasingly important, and staff
believes that does warrant a reevaluation of some of these policies. Also based on some of
these things, staff does believe that the revised amendment is in the public interest. Staff also
found when looking at other similar land that allows intensive commercial uses, especially vacant
land, it doesn't seem to be meeting the needs of users within the city. Most of those intensive
commercial uses are generally smaller parcels or they're already developed, and they don't often
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 4 of 18
work for larger users of intensive commercial, especially with that proximity to a highway. In
addition, with expected growth staff expects an increased demand for additional intensive
commercial uses. Staff did project the use and there is a potential gap in the future and staff
does believe that this site especially makes sense for that given it's good access to the highway.
Again, staff does believe that it's in the public interest and that things have changed quite a bit
since 2002 and especially since 1983 when that policy was initially adopted.
As far as the other criteria, is it compatible with other policies or provisions of the Comprehensive
Plan, including amendments. Generally, it does align with the current policy direction of the City.
Within the Southwest District Plan it provides for contiguous development, it has infrastructure
access, which is one of the reasons that development had not occurred in the past, and it does
have proximity to major streets, especially the upgraded IWV Road, the future US 965 extension,
and the proximity to US 218, as well as the potential future expansion of the landfill. As far as
other policies the Comprehensive Plan, this Comprehensive Plan Amendment would allow
targeted nonresidential development that would help meet future needs, and it would be within
the growth area and have that ready highway access, which is deemed as an appropriate area
for these types of uses. It also complies with the fringe area agreement, which allows
nonresidential developments in the interchanges to pave roads, if it's annexed prior to
development. In this case, it would be annexed and rezoned as part of these joint applications.
Lehmann stated there are two policies that need to be reconciled somewhat, one is the policy
mentioned about discouraging commercial uses at Melrose and US 218. Again, staff does
believe that circumstances have changed, but that public uses generally will still be immediately
by the interchange, the subject properties are appropriate for the proposed use, and then the
other policy is encouraging new businesses in existing commercial areas. Again, as previously
mentioned, the existing commercial areas don't seem to meet all user’s needs, so some
additional areas are needed to meet future needs and that's why staff believes this is an
appropriate change. Lehmann noted there are some other Plan goals as well that would be
accommodated through rezoning and through the development standards like discouraging strict
commercial and protecting sensitive areas. In the case of this revised amendment that would
also include some sort of buffer strip to the south as included in the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. Generally, staff does believe that the revised amendment does continue to meet
this standard as well.
Lehmann noted there was significant public comment included in the packet, there was a good
neighbor meeting on July 28, attended by four attendees, there was correspondence from four
folks who are against it. Additionally, at the hearing on the September 16 there were nine
attendees who spoke against it. Staff did receive a new correspondence and that was also
provided to the Commission in advance of this meeting. The new correspondence was from
John Bergstrom, who objects due to concerns about the impact on the larger area and also
suggests that intensive commercial, specifically the MidAmerican Energy would be better suited
for the north side of IWV instead.
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve CPA21-0002, a proposed
amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan future land use map to Intensive Commercial
and Public/Private Open Space and to change the Southwest District Plan text and future land
use map to Intensive Commercial and Vegetative Noise/Sight Buffer for approximately 79 acres
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 5 of 18
of property located south of IWV Road SW and west of Slothower Road.
Next steps is for the Commission to determine if the amendment should be recommended to City
Council, the actual application itself, if it were approved or denied, would still run concurrently
with the annexation and rezoning as well. The next Council meeting would be November 16 and
that would be the public hearing. The zoning code text amendment would follow with a public
hearing and two additional meetings. Of course, those are subject to change but that would be
about the estimated timeline.
Hensch asked about the vegetative noise and sight buffer, he was trying to visualize how big a
350-foot-wide area would be. Lehmann said it is 350-feet wide which is about the size of a
football field.
Signs asked about the future land use map noting it shows a buffer, public private open space
running along future Highway 965 and then cutting across east/west on the south edge of this
property. So is this 300 feet in addition to that previous amount that was originally shown.
Lehmann explained there was a vegetative buffer along the west property line in the September
proposal but was not included in the older comp plan.
Nolte asked if the Highway 965 expansion is a hypothetical or is it on the radar to be budgeted
soon. Lehmann said it is not in any budget soon nor is it in the long-range transportation plan,
but it is in long-term planning.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Jon Marner (MMS Consultants) is representing the applicant and noted staff did a great job of
summarizing the changes to the application. He noted there was quite a bit of discussion at the
last meeting so they walked away from that meeting, met with the developer, had some
discussions with City staff and felt it was appropriate to resubmit the application with the changes
that had been presented. While they talked about the 350-foot buffer at the last meeting, there
was nothing formally in place so with this application submission they put something formerly in
place that removes that 350 feet from the intense commercial land use and places that in that
vegetative noise buffer or open space. The other thing he'd add is the 350 feet is approximately
the length of a football field, and when they take that 350 feet across the length of the property it
totals approximately 21.18 acres. So of the 79.39 acres that are being annexed and developed
and rezoned as part of this application, that constitutes 26% of the property. It's a significant
amount of the property that's been set aside as preserved for that open space and buffer from
the properties to the south.
Hensch asked Marner to describe the buffer area and what the land looks like in there, will they
add any vegetation or what are the plans for that area. Marner noted more information will be
forthcoming in the zoning application, but there’s a portion right in the middle of the property that
has two detention basins, one to the west and one to the east, there is then the stream corridor
that runs along the western edge of the property. So to answer the question, the buffer area
would be comprised primarily of sensitive features with the stream corridor, there's some
wetlands and a little bit of a stream corridor in between the detention basins. The detention
basins are required for stormwater as per City ordinances for stormwater for the property so and
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 6 of 18
that detention basin on the east extends over to the right-of-way of Slothower Road.
Signs asked if the proposal involves planting any additional trees or anything in that area.
Marner replied it’s not part of this application, but he believes that was one of the conditions of
the zoning agreement that there would be some landscaping to an S3 standard. Heitner
confirmed they would discuss that more in the next agenda item, but they are recommending S3
screening along that south side. Signs asked what S3 screening involves. Heitner explained it is
the most intense screening standard that the City has, it involves a five to six foot continuous
hedge of either shrubs or evergreens or trees, and there's an ability to mix and match with a
masonry wall or a berm. It's the most intense screening standard and typically utilized when
transitioning a commercial or industrial use to residential use.
Nolte asked about the correspondence received stating MidAmerican admitted looking at
locating their project on the north side of the road. Marner stated he would let the representative
or the developer speak to that.
Marner noted one of the other concerns that was expressed was the impact on the Poor Farm
across the road. They reviewed that Poor Farm, the most recent concept, as part of this change
and while there is some potential housing development suggested as part of that master plan, it's
located in the very southwest corner of that property, it actually lies south and east of the corner
of this property. It's approximately 600 to 1000 feet away from the north line of this buffer that
would be established as part of this land use.
Josh Entler (IWV Holdings) is representing the applicant and developer. He would first address
the prior question and stated MidAmerican has looked at this site has asked about this site but in
response to some of the comments from last meeting, this is not a MidAmerican development,
they would like to have MidAmerican there, it'd be a great use, but they are just excited about
this development for intensive commercial users, just on the face of that potential zoning, on that
comp plan amendment, as well as the annexation. They do not have any users specified at this
moment, it could be a prospect, but nobody's guaranteed. They've heard a variety of cavilings in
the neighborhood, as well as some national users and national realtors that see this area is a
great fit for intensive commercial with quick access to the highway, particularly with CDL drivers
that may be coming off the highway left in and then right out, they’re slowing down in traffic and
then pulling out in a single lane instead of crossing traffic. There's a lot of folks that like this side
of the street, they like the quick access and don't have to go through any residential
neighborhoods to get right on the interstate to I-80 and I-380. They see it as a very high potential
site and not just MidAmerican as a potential user. The other thing Entler wanted to address
publicly, and wanted to clarify, this is not an industrial type use, it is intensive commercial.
John Bergstrom (Slothower Farms) is a member of the Slothower family and spoke his piece last
time but wanted to be clear, the only reason they're discussing this tonight is because
MidAmerican Energy is looking for a site and the City of Iowa City steered them this way. He
stated it was very clear on that from discussions with City people and one of the partners. He
admitted there may be a shortage of intense commercial space around the City but there's also
plenty of other areas that this could go that doesn't impact a lot of other residents and future
residents. This is just not a good place and again, this is all about MidAmerican Energy. This is
an 80-acre piece and MidAmerican Energy needs about 40 acres. Changing the Comprehensive
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 7 of 18
Plan is a big deal in a community and in a discussion earlier and he asked about looking at a
broader approach to the Comprehensive Planning, but it was very clear and his interpretation
was the City is only looking at this piece and nothing beyond it and that just doesn't make sense.
This affects a lot of people, it affects a lot of land and he would just ask that they slow this down
a little bit. If they’re going to change the Comprehensive Plan there's a number of landowners
including them who would like to know how it's going to affect their peace. It's a big deal to
change a Comprehensive Plan and they’re doing it for one user, it just doesn't make sense.
Bergstrom did propose in his email that IWV Partners owns 40 acres directly across on the other
side of IWV Road that it looks like it would be developable. He can't speak for the neighbors but
the one discussion he did have with them they said that might make sense, because then when
they turn off IWV and it's residential, it's good continuity. His last comment is on the Johnson
County Poor Farm, nobody's real sure what's going to happen there but if they let this
workstation go in, it's going to have a big impact. Again he asks that they please slow this thing
down a little bit and if they’re going to change the plan, let's change the plan, but do it in a much
broader manner.
Sherri Slothower Bergstrom (Slothower Farms) is John's Bergstrom’s wife, and they own the
property directly to the south of the land in this application. They have 120 acres there so this is
going to have a huge impact on their land, its value and its use. Bergstrom stated there is the old
adage, you can't fight City Hall, but she would like to be proved wrong about that. She listened to
the Commission talk last time about their responsibility as volunteers to do the best thing for Iowa
City. Well, to her Iowa City is the neighborhoods and the people and the essence of community
and what's changed since 2002 is over 100 families have built homes, and a pool and a
clubhouse, an overall beautiful area right adjacent to the land in this application. One of her
objections to the slideshow that was shown last time is there was not one picture, not one slide,
of that neighborhood. It was very slanted to the armory, the Johnson County garage and the
things that are right there on the corner. There was no overall picture to show what it actually is
like there. Bergstrom doesn’t know how many of them have driven out there to actually look at
this but there's a lot of beautiful homes out there and a lot of brand-new homes being built right
on IWV Road, right behind the landfill. Also in this area is a beautiful new winery. As her
husband noted, this has happened really quickly, it wasn’t until they got a letter for the good
neighbor meeting that they heard of this. This is affecting a lot of people and the Bergstrom’s had
to personally contact other neighbors because they weren't even notified. This has happened
suspiciously and it's going to affect a huge area and a lot of people, a lot of families that have not
been pictured in the presentations. She agrees with her husband and wonders why they are
rushing to change a Comprehensive Plan that is going to affect a huge area of the City. There
are other places in Iowa City to accommodate MidAmerican Energy. She asks that the
Commission just take their time and look at this and make sure it's the right thing for an area that
hosts hundreds of families living in beautiful homes.
Cathy Tholen (965 Slothower Road) states they live in the closest home to this parcel, they live
in the Slothower old farmstead which they bought from them. She has not been notified by any
member of the City, or anyone, in regards to this rezoning. Sherri Slothower called Tholen on
the telephone to notify them of the rezoning to the property out there. No one from the City has
contacted her and she received no letter. The City did put up a sign, they put it on the Johnson
County Poor Farmland behind dirt because the IWV Road is being revamped and widened. She
feels that probably has something to do with this push for intensive commercial use. The
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 8 of 18
property was bought in the early part of this year and probably was already discussed with the
City of Iowa City about the reasoning and why it was bought, it was bought for this specific
process. Whether it's MidAmerican Energy, or whether it's some other nationally acclaimed
business that's going to move into the neighborhood, don't think for a moment that Pandora's
Box isn't going to be opened up here. They will be commercial businesses on both sides of that
road all the way out to the landfill. And if by chance in the future 965 does go through, it will be
there too. So intensive commercial will be in her backyard. There's going to be a tremendous
amount of lighting, there's going to be noise, there's going to be cement, there's going to be
traffic. They’ve widened the road and given them the infrastructure that they need for this
commercial property. The City has given a lot of money to Grow Johnson County which is by the
Poor Farm, which is right next to Chatham Oaks, which by the way is a residence, people live
there. Melrose Ridge apartments is a residence with people living there. Tholen acknowledge the
buffer that they're planning on putting in is great but what about along Slothower Road. Is there
a buffer that reaches into the Poor Farm, or down the road, which is a dead end but there's all
kinds of communities there. There's Country Club Estates, Galloway Hills, Walnut Ridge, the new
Camp Cardinal, housing developments on Rohret Road, and all the way to Mormon Trek is all
housing. This plan may be MidAmerican Energy, or Amazon warehouse, commercial buildings,
or whatever but there will be light, there'll be cement, there'll be noise, and they probably are
going to have to widen the IWV Road for all of the people that are going to be in and out of there.
Right now in the mornings at the interstate exchange there is a tremendous amount of traffic
coming into town to work. There's a tremendous amount of traffic that comes down the IWV
Road that goes into work at the University Hospital and to put intensive commercial there,
whether it’s big trucks or whatever, there's going to be a lot of traffic. They are going to take a
rural community in with the Poor Farm right there, they're going to be using that Grow Johnson
County for educational purposes, they're going to use it for family things, talks about putting trails
in there, open space and prairie, and then right next to that will now be big lights and cement and
whole bunch of buildings.
Jim Seyfer (36 Tempe Court) wanted to strongly concur with what John and Sherri Bergstrom
have said about slowing down this process and looking at the area as a whole, before making an
irreversible change to the neighborhood. Many of them live on the north edge of the residential
development right now, they look north at night and the sky along the IWV Road where the
Johnson County facility and the National Guard facility are located has a lot of light streamed up
into the sky and that would be increased by this development. So again, he just want to echo his
support for what has been said already and encourage a no vote by the Commission.
Hensch closed he public hearing.
Nolte moved to recommend approval of CPA21-0002, a proposed amendment to change
the Comprehensive Plan future land use map to Intensive Commercial and Public/Private
Open Space and to change the Southwest District Plan text and future land use map to
Intensive Commercial and Vegetative Noise/Sight Buffer for approximately 79 acres of
property located south of IWV Road SW and west of Slothower Road.
Craig seconded the motion.
Hensch asked if it is still 300 feet or is it 500 feet for notifying neighbors. Lehmann confirmed
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 9 of 18
that everyone that lives within 300 feet of the subject property is receives notification.
Hensch questioned if there a City standard about downcast lighting for development within the
City of Iowa City. Lehmann confirmed there is, there are standards related to the form of lighting
and then standards related to overall light output.
Nolte noted the National Guard facility in the County so that would be not subject to the City's
light ordinance. Russett stated the National Guard is not subject to Iowa City standards, the
Secondary Roads/Seats facility and the Historic Poor Farm would have to comply with downcast
lighting standards as the County is subject to the City’s zoning regulations within the fringe area
but not state or federal government, or the university.
Signs stated he came in here thinking that he might be changing his vote from last time based on
one of the comments in the correspondence but is now back to where he was before. The one
thing that does bother him, and this is something he read in correspondence, is this concept of
spot rezoning and spot redevelopment and changing Comprehensive Plans. This feels like
exactly that and he has spoken against that before. Now, having said that, several people this
evening talked about looking at the area as a whole so he’s been poking around the aerial map
and there's some natural barriers here. There are some stream beds, there's some valleys,
there's a landfill of nearly 80 acres away from the last street to the east and the topography of
the ground to the north of the landfill which is also on the other side of the stream bed is pretty
steep, and pretty severe. And the same with the County Poor Farm, there's a pretty substantial
ravine and that is the reason for the proposed housing in the very southwest corner of that
property is because there's some natural barriers there. When he looks at the area as a whole,
he sees kind of a circle where realistically, residential is not going to grow beyond and it should
be some other type of zoning. As for development on IWV Road, any that continues much to the
north will run into Coralville but heading south there's lots of room for residential and his personal
opinion is that most of the residential growth will go south of Rohret Road. He feels comfortable
with this.
Hensch noted just on the issue of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments, this Commission
probably amends the Comprehensive Plan two or three times a year, it's not like this is a one off.
Craig agrees, this is something that happens fairly frequently because the Comprehensive Plan
is 20 years old. She has no problem with looking at this parcel and saying times have changed in
20 years.
Signs agrees, but to that point, the Council interpreted a 20-year-old Comprehensive Plan and
neighborhood plan very literally in a recent rezoning decision. He had asked this group is there
any direction that they need to be taking or any observations they need to be making by their
actions. At some point they’ve talked about a proposal or a recommendation to Council to
increase the speed of comprehensive plan and neighborhood plan updates, because 20 years is
a generation and additional changes are probably going to happen along that road.
Townsend noted her concern before was in the 100 feet that they were going to use for buffering
but 300 feet is almost a football field so it seems that would be enough and there shouldn't be
any problem with the Poor Farm and places around it.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 10 of 18
Hensch can speak pretty intelligently on the Poor Farm since he’s responsible for it, there's a 10-
year master plan and the possibility for affordable housing won't even occur until year seven.
They’re on year three and there's been no further discussion, there's been no consultants
retained, there's been no development, no money has been spent on that.
Signs asked if they could include an amendment to increase some tree planting along the south
and the east borders, the S3 six-foot hedge is nice for when one is driving by but from a
landscape perspective it really doesn't do a whole lot. Hensch noted that can be done in the
rezoning, this is just a comprehensive plan. He noted last time they added the condition of S3
landscaping on the northern edge as well.
Craig wanted to add she has gone out and driven the neighborhood's, she has a friend who lives
in the neighborhood behind Weber School and she feels it is her responsibility as a member of
the Commission to see the lay of the land. She had not had time to do it before the other
meeting, but she did do it before this meeting. Her opinion is the same as it was in the initial
meeting, there is development happening along IWV Road and this is compatible with what is
there. She agrees with the person who said what is going to happen after this is more
commercial development along IWV Road and she thinks from a City perspective and thinking
about what's best for the City, they are spending money on upgrading the roads so it can handle
all the traffic that is goes to the landfill and they are creating an infrastructure that costs all the
taxpayers a lot of money and it makes it possible for some of this development to happen and
will bring tax dollars back into the City. She is supportive of this project.
Signs does have one more cynical observation as he was perusing the aerial map, there are two
radio tower installations on the Slothower farm and it seems like that would affect a view of a
neighborhood too.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
CASE NO. REZ21-0006:
Location: SW corner of Slothower Road and IWV Road
An application for a rezoning from County Agricultural (A) to Intensive Commercial (Cl-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
(Cl-1).
Heitner noted there's some crossover with this presentation and what was just went over so he’ll
try his best to not be too duplicative. For the rezoning component, Heitner showed an aerial of
the subject property, and a look at the existing zoning which showed County agricultural zoning
and the narrow nine-acre sliver of City rural residential on the east. Most of the property which is
zoned County Agricultural is in Fringe Area C inside the growth area, and the nine-acre strip on
the far east is within Iowa City limits. Heitner next showed the proposed rezoning noting it has
not changed since it was last discussed here. There are the two parcels to the east going to
Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann,Associate Planner,410 E.Washington St, Iowa City, IA;319-356-5230
RESOLUTION NO. 21-293
Resolution to amend the Southwest District Plan and 102030
Comprehensive Plan to allow intensive commercial and open space land
uses for the property south of IWV Road SW and west of Slothower Road.
(CPA21-0002)
Whereas, the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan serves as a land-use planning guide by
illustrating and describing the location and configuration of appropriate land uses throughout the
City, providing notification to the public regarding intended uses of land; and illustrating the long-
range growth area limit for the City; and
Whereas, IWV Holdings, LLC has requested that the future land use designation for the
properties located south of IWV Road SW and west of Slothower Road be changed from Residential
2-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre, Rural Residential, and Public/Private Open Space to Intensive
Commercial and Public/Private Open Space in the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan, as shown in
Appendix 1; and
Whereas, IWV Holdings, LLC has requested that the text be amended and the future land
use designation for the same properties be changed from Future Urban Development, Single-
Family/Duplex Residential, and Vegetative Noise and Sight Buffer to Intensive Commercial and
Vegetative Noise and Sight Buffer in the Iowa City Southwest District Plan, a component of the
IC2030 Comprehensive Plan, as shown in Appendix 2; and
Whereas, if circumstances change and/or additional information or factors come to light, a
change to the Comprehensive Plan may be in the public interest; and
Whereas, circumstances have changed since the Southwest District Plan was adopted in
2002, including recent development near the subject properties, population growth in the Iowa
City metropolitan area, the availability of sanitary sewer service, and demand for additional areas
to accommodate intensive commercial uses; and
Whereas, the proposed amendments are compatible with other policies and provisions of
the Comprehensive Plan, including the transportation policies in the Southwest District Plan,
providing for continuous, contiguous development at the edge of the City, planning for defined,
intensive commercial nodes with ready access to highways, and providing an appropriate transition
from properties near the Iowa City Landfill and planned U.S. Highway 965 extension to adjacent
future land uses; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this amendment at their meeting
on October 21, 2021 and determined that circumstances changed to the extent that an amendment
to the comprehensive plan is warranted and the proposed amendment is compatible with other
policies or provisions of the comprehensive plan.
Now, Therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
1. It is in the public interest to amend the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Southwest
District Plan as shown in the attached Appendices 1 and 2, to respond to changes in
circumstances in the City.
2. The amendments attached in Appendices 1 and 2 are compatible with other policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Resolution No. 21-293
Page 2
3. The amended future land use map of the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan and the future land
use map and text of the Southwest District Plan, as illustrated and described in Appendices
1 and 2 are hereby approved.
Passed and approved this 30th day of November , 2021.
Mayor 2-41S/A--9"
C
Attest: 1.),4_. '
City Clerk 7 City Att ney's Office
(Sara Greenwood Hektoen- 11/10/21)
Resolution No. 21-293
Page 3
It was moved by Thomas and seconded by Bergus the
Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
g Bergus
g Mims
g Salih
x Taylor
g Teague
g Thomas
x Weiner
Appendix 1
WEBER SUBAREA
Farm along Rohret Road
The Weber Subarea is located south of
Melrose Avenue and Highway 218, north of
Rohret Road, extending to the City’s growth
limits half a mile west of Slothower Road.
Before the 1980s this area was relatively
undeveloped, with a few houses fronting onto
Rohret Road. Through the 1980's and 90's
housing developed westward on the north
side of Rohret Road and south of the County
Poor Farm property. Roughly two-thirds of
the land area is undeveloped. Some patches
of woodland and native prairie exist, but most
of it is under cultivation. The area contains
three public/institutional uses: Irving B. Weber Elementary School, the Korean
Methodist Church, and Chatham Oaks, a residential care facility located on the
County Poor Farm property. There are no commercial uses in the subarea.
Transportation
In the future next 20 to twenty-five years, the City plans to extend Highway 965
southward along the current western growth limit to connect with Rohret Road via
the eastern edge of the Iowa City Landfill. It will eventually reach Highway 1 and
serve as a far west side arterial. As development approaches this area, the City
needs to secure adequate road right-of-way and sufficient buffer width against the
Iowa City Landfill. As an entryway corridor into Iowa City, Highway 965 should
incorporate boulevard design standards with a well-landscaped median and
generous landscaping along both sides, wide sidewalks and bicycle lanes. This
could serve as additional buffer against the landfill.
In the more immediate future a north-south collector street will be required between
Melrose Avenue and Rohret Road, part of it configured using the Slothower Road
right-of-way. Care must be taken to keep the eventual route somewhat circuitous
between Melrose and Rohret to diminish its desirability as a cut-through route for
non-local traffic. In addition, access routes to the southern portion of the County Poor
Farm should be incorporated into the local street layouts in future phases of both
Wild Prairie Estates and Country Club Estates.
Willow Creek Trail will eventually cross Highway 218 via tunnel and connect Hunters
Run Park to the wider community trail system. A trail link across the County Poor
Farm property to Melrose Avenue will connect this regional trail to the arterial street
system in the far western part of the Southwest District. If a regional stormwater lake
is constructed in the Rohret South Subarea, it will be important to construct a trail
connection between Hunters Run Park and the public open space surrounding this
new lake.
Southwest District Plan
10/8/02 38
Appendix 2
As westward development creates the need, both Rohret Road and Melrose Avenue
will be improved to City standards beyond the point of the current corporate limits.
Public Services and Facilities
Before much of the area between Slothower and the landfill can be developed, a
sanitary sewer lift station will have to be constructed. Northern portions of Country
Club Estates can build out without further sewer improvements, but the southern two-
thirds adjacent to Rohret Road drains to the southwest. This portion cannot be
developed until a temporary lift station is built that connects to the landfill’s lift station
or a proposed permanent lift station is built south of Rohret Road on the western
edge of the Rohret South Subarea.
Land Use
Several areas of particular interest stand out in the Weber subarea with regard to
land use: the build-out of Country Club Estates and Wild Prairie Estates; the
development of the area west of Slothower Road; and future use of the County Poor
Farm property.
Johnson County Poor Farm
Future use of the County Poor Farm
property generated considerable discussion
and a wide variety of suggestions during
Citizen Planning workshops. The following
considerations should be used as a guide to
future development of this property:
•The following important elements should
be preserved and protected from the
encroachment of development: the
historic poor farm buildings and
cemetery; Chatham Oaks residential
care facility; and any environmentally sensitive areas.
•Approximately 90 acres of the property are wooded, brushy, or contain prairie
remnants. These areas would be suitable for use as a regional park that could be
connected via the Willow Creek trail to other parks and destinations in the
Southwest District.
•The southwest portion of the property contains approximately fifty acres of
relatively flat ground that is currently row-cropped. This area would be suitable for
residential development. Any new subdivisions in this location should be
connected to the street network developed in the Southwest Estates and Wild
Prairie Estates subdivisions located directly south of the County Farm property.
•If any development occurs on the county property adjacent to Highway 218, a
buffer should be maintained.
•Future use of the county property located north of Melrose Avenue should be
considered carefully with regard to potential impacts on the poor farm property.
Southwest District Plan
10/8/02 39
Wild Prairie Estates will soon reach its northern boundary. Access to and through the
Poor Farm is a desirable option in the future and for now a street stub northward up
to the Willow Creek-Hunters Run Trail extension will be necessary. North of that and
adjacent to Highway 218’s right-of-way, a noise and sight buffer should be
established between residential areas and the highway.
The Comprehensive Plan discourages the establishment of commercial uses around
the Melrose Avenue-Highway 218 interchange. This policy generally should be
maintained because there are several adequate commercial services in the vicinity
to serve this area. The Highway 1-Highway 218 interchange further south provides
community and highway commercial services. In addition, Walden Square in the
Willow Creek Subarea provides neighborhood commercial services, and a future
neighborhood commercial area is proposed in the Rohret South Subarea. However, intensive commercial uses may be appropriate along Melrose Avenue further
from the interchange due to proximity to major thoroughfares and to serve as
a buffer for residential uses from the potential future expansion of the landfill
and Highway 965.
The remaining portion of the Country Club
Estates property is primarily suitable for
low-density single-family development. If
well-designed, the portion of the property
adjacent to Rohret Road may be suitable
for clusters of medium-density residential
uses, such as townhouses or
condominiums. A transition between
existing Rural Residential-zoned (RR-1)
portions of Southwest Estates and future
low-density single-family residential
development to the west may be
accomplished by platting larger RS-5-
zoned lots backing onto the existing rural
residential lots of Southwest Estates.
A New Subdivision in the Weber Subarea
The land west of Slothower is currently used for agriculture. The Weber Subarea
Plan Map designates this area as "future urban development." However, until sewer
service is extended in that direction and one or more lift stations constructed, there
will not be any significant urban development. Before reaching the twenty-year
horizon of this plan, some residential uses, or intensive commercial, may develop
along the west side of Slothower Road and begin moving toward the future Highway
965 extension. However, the expectation is that development will not and should
not “leapfrog” without street and trail connections bridging the gap between 965 and
Slothower Road. When development becomes imminent a more detailed plan will
need to be developed for this area. When development does occur, it will be
important to buffer residential uses from the Iowa City Landfill and Highway 965.
Southwest District Plan
10/8/02 40
Open Space
As this subarea continues to develop
additional public open space will be
needed. Recent improvements to
Hunters Run Park increased the
amount of active park space in the
area. This park may be extended to
the west when the northern part of
Wild Prairie Estates is subdivided. As
mentioned, the County Poor Farm
property contains land that is suitable
for public open space and connecting
trail corridors. The County should plan
for public open space needs as it
contemplates future uses for the
property.
Hunters Run Park
The City plans to use a small parcel of land near the southwest corner of the County
Poor Farm property for a water reservoir. Most of the ground will remain open and
could be used for a small neighborhood park. Additional parkland could be added to
this property as Country Club Estates continues to develop.
Southwest District Plan
10/8/02 41
Appendix A
Southwest District Plan Map Designations
Large Lot/Rural Residential
Suitable for large lot single family development in areas
not suited for more intensive development due to
natural limitations, i.e. soil, slope, unavailability of sewer
and water utilities.
Development Density: approximately 1 dwelling
unit/acre
Single-Family/Duplex Residential
Intended primarily for single family and duplex
residential development. Lower density zoning
designations are suitable for areas with sensitive
environmental features, topographical constraints, or
limited street access. Higher densities are more
appropriate for areas with good access to all city
services and facilities.
Development Density: 2-12 dwelling units/acre
Narrow Lot/Townhouse Residential
Suitable for medium to high density single family
residential development, including zero lot line
development, duplexes, townhouses, and narrow lot
detached single family housing.
Development Density: 6-12 dwelling units/acre
Low-Density Multi-Family Residential
Intended for low -density multi-family housing. Suitable
for areas with good access to all city services and
facilities. Higher density zoning designations may not
be suitable for areas with topographical constraints or
limited street access.
Development Density: 8 -15 dwelling units/acre
Medium- to High-Density Multi-Family Residential
Intended for medium- to high-density multi-family
housing. Suitable for areas with good access to all city
services and facilities. Higher density zoning
designations may not be suitable for areas with
topographical constraints or limited street access.
Development Density: 16-44 dwelling units/acre
Future Urban Development
Areas within the growth limit that are not yet served by
City services and may not experience substantial
development within the lifetime of this district plan. As
development becomes imminent in these areas, the
City will develop more detailed land use and street
layout concepts to supplement the current plan.
Public/Private Open Space
Indicates existing open space that is important for the
protection of sensitive natural features and/or to provide
for recreational opportunities and protect the aesthetic
values of the community. An open space designation
on private land may indicate that an area is largely
unsuitable for development due to environmental or
topographical constraints. While these areas are best
reserved or acquired for private or public open space,
development may occur on privately held land if a
proposal meets the underlying zoning requirements and
the requirements of the Iowa City Sensitive Areas
Ordinance.
Vegetative Noise and Sight Buffer
Useful public facilities, such as limited-access highways
or landfills, can produce undesirable side-effects. In
these areas a substantial vegetative buffer should be
maintained or established to separate residential
development from these uses. Alternatively, where
appropriate, nonresidential uses can be used to buffer
residential areas from highways, landfills, and other
such uses.
Public Services/Institutional
Areas intended for civic, cultural, or historical
institutions; public schools; and places of assembly or
worship. Iowa City does not have a zone that
designates institutional uses as the primary, preferred
land use. However, there are a number of zones where
these uses are permitted or provisional uses.
Development proposals are subject to the requirements
of the underlying zoning designation. Land that is
owned by a public entity is typically zoned Public (P).
Neighborhood Commercial
Areas intended for retail sales and personal service
uses that meet the day-to-day needs of a fully
developed residential neighborhood. A grocery store or
grocery store/drug store combination is preferred as the
primary tenant in a Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1)
zone. Specific site development standards will apply in
these areas to ensure that commercial development is
pedestrian-friendly and compatible with surrounding
residential development.
Office Commercial
Areas intended for office uses and compatible
businesses. In some cases these areas may serve as a
buffer between residential areas and more intensive
commercial or industrial uses.
General Commercial
Areas intended to provide the opportunity for a large
variety of commercial uses that serve a major segment
of the community.
Mixed Use
Areas intended for development that combines
commercial and residential uses. An area may be
primarily commercial in nature or may be primarily
residential depending on the location and the
surrounding neighborhood. Commercial uses will
typically be located on the ground floor with housing
above. Development is intended to be pedestrian-
oriented with buildings close to and oriented to the
sidewalk.
Appendix A
Southwest District Plan Map Designations
Intensive Commercial
Areas intended for those sales and service functions
and businesses whose operations are typically
characterized by outdoor display and storage of
merchandise, by repair businesses, quasi-industrial
uses, and for sales of large equipment or motor
vehicles, or by activities or operations conducted in
buildings or structure not completely enclosed. Retail
uses are restricted in order to provide opportunities for
more land-intensive or quasi-industrial commercial
operations and also to prevent conflicts between retail
and industrial truck traffic. Special attention must be
directed toward buffering the negative aspects of
allowed uses from any adjacent lower intensity
commercial areas or residential areas.
Item Number: 11.b.
November 30, 2021
Resol u tion to an n ex ap p roximatel y 70.39 acres of lan d located west of th e
intersection of IW V Road S W and Slothower Road. (AN N21-0003)
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Planning and Z oning Commission A nnexation Staff Report
L ocation Map
Aerial Photograph
F ringe A rea Map
Annexation E xhibit
Applicant Statement
Annexation L egal Description
Good Neighbor Meeting Summary
P&Z Minutes
Correspondence
Correspondence from J ohnson County B O S
Resolution
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: ANN21-0003/REZ21-0006
Prepared by: Ray Heitner, Associate
Planner
Date: September 16, 2021
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
MMS Consultants
1917 S. Gilbert St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-351-8282
l.sexton@mmsconsultants.net
Contact Person: Jon Marner
MMS Consultants
1917 S. Gilbert St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-351-8282
j.marner@mmsconsultants.net
Owner: Matt Adam
IWV Holdings, LLC.
319-248-6316
madam@spmblaw.com
Requested Action: Annexation & Rezoning
Purpose:
Annexation of 70.39 acres of land currently
in unincorporated Johnson County and
rezoning it from County Agricultural (A) zone
to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone and
Interim Development – Commercial (ID-C)
zone. Rezoning of 9 acres of Rural
Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial
(CI-1) zone.
Location:
South of IWV Road and west of Slothower
Road.
Location Map:
2
Size: Annexation and rezoning - 70.39 acres;
Rezoning within the City limits – 9 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Farmland, Rural Residential (RR-1) and
County Agricultural (A)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: (Farmland) County Residential
R and Rural Residential RR-1
South: (Farmland, Rural Residential)
County Agricultural A and Rural
Residential RR-1
East: (Johnson County Poor Farm)
Neighborhood Public P-1
West: (Farmland) County Agricultural
A
Comprehensive Plan:
Intensive Commercial1
District Plan:
Southwest District Plan - Single-
Family/Duplex Residential, Future Urban
Development, & Vegetative Noise and
Sight Buffer
Neighborhood Open Space District:
SW5 – Only for the 9 acres currently in the
City limits.
Public Meeting Notification: Property owners located within 300’ of the
project site and residents of the Country
Club Estates Fourth and Fifth Addition
Subdivisions received notification of the
Planning and Zoning Commission public
meeting. Rezoning signs were also posted
on the site.
File Date: May 27, 2021
45 Day Limitation Period: NA
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The owner is requesting annexation and rezoning of 70.39 acres of property located south of IWV
Road and west of Slothower Road. The owner has requested that the property be rezoned from
County Agricultural (A) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) for approximately 53.36 acres, and to Interim
Development Commercial (ID-C) for approximately 17.03 acres. In addition, the owner has
requested a rezoning of approximately 9 acres of land currently located within the City limits from
Rural Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1).
1 Pending approval of the associated Comprehensive Plan amendment to Intensive Commercial
land use, per case number CPA21-0002.
3
The 70.39 acres of land that is currently located outside of the city limits is adjacent to Iowa City’s
current boundary and within Fringe Area C, inside the City’s growth area of the Johnson
County/Iowa City Fringe Area Agreement. The Southwest District Plan shows this area with a future
land use designation of Rural Residential for the majority of this land, with a narrow strip of
private/public open space to the west, bordering the City’s landfill. The Southwest District Plan
shows the portion of the subject properties that is currently within the City limits as
Residential at 2-8 dwelling units per acre. The owner has also applied for a comprehensive plan
amendment with the subject annexation and rezoning applications. If approved, the comprehensive
plan amendment would change the future land use designations to Intensive Commercial.
The owner has used the Good Neighbor Policy and held a Good Neighbor Meeting on July 28,
2021. Four neighbors attended. Attachment #11 provides the summary report of the meeting
provided by the applicant. Staff has received one email expressing opposition to the annexation
and rezoning, which is attached as correspondence. In addition, staff received several emails and
phone calls asking questions about the annexation and rezoning.
Pursuant to state code requirements for voluntary annexations, City staff held a consult with two
Union Township Trustees on Thursday, July 29, 2021 to discuss the proposed annexation
application. Trustees expressed concern about the loss of productive farmland and Township tax
revenue losses.
ANALYSIS:
Annexation: The Comprehensive Plan has established a growth policy to guide decisions
regarding annexations. The annexation policy states that annexations are to occur primarily through
voluntary petitions filed by the property owners. Further, voluntary annexation requests are to be
reviewed under the following three criteria. The Comprehensive Plan states that voluntary
annexation requests should be viewed positively when the following conditions exist.
1. The area under consideration falls within the adopted long-range planning boundary.
A growth area is illustrated in the Comprehensive Plan and on the City’s Zoning Map. The subject
property is located within the City’s long-range growth boundary.
2. Development in the area proposed for annexation will fulfill an identified need without imposing
an undue burden on the City.
The Southwest District Plan identifies the subject area as being appropriate for annexation and
development upon provision of sanitary sewer service. A sanitary sewer main line can be extended
to the west from its current endpoint near the Johnson County Poor Farm property, along the south
side of IWV Road. The extension could service the properties that would be rezoned to Intensive
Commercial (CI-1) zoning. The property seeking Interim Development Commercial zoning to the
west will likely need a lift station for future sanitary sewer service to be provided. Since there are no
plans to sewer this property right now, an interim zone is appropriate.
The City’s 2021 Capital Improvement Plan has budgeted over $5,000,000 for improvements to
Melrose Avenue between Highway 218 and Hebl Avenue. These improvements will bring this
stretch of roadway into compliance with the City’s Urban Design Standards. As a part of these
improvements, the City will also be extending its water main west to the City landfill site, allowing
any future development between Highway 218 and the landfill to tap into the water main.
Development in this area will engender suitable development to utilize these improvements, while
providing the City with needed land for Intensive Commercial use.
Staff’s analysis for the associated comprehensive plan amendment (CPA21-0002) revealed that
4
approximately 13% of the City’s Intensive Commercial zoned land is vacant. Furthermore, what
land is available for Industrial use tends to be clustered in the southeast section of the City, in the
City’s Industrial Park and south of the Highway 1 at the US-218 interchange and north and east of
the airport. While these are suitable locations for some industrial or intensive commercial uses,
these properties may not have the desired degree of highway access that other Intensive
Commercial or Industrial users may require. In addition, many of these vacant parcels are less than
2 acres in size.
Lastly, the Comprehensive Plan encourages growth that is contiguous and connected to existing
neighborhoods to reduce the costs of providing infrastructure and City services. The subject
properties are bordered by the city limits on the east side. Therefore, the subject property is
contiguous to current development and meets the goal of contiguous growth.
3. Control of the development is in the City’s best interest.
The property is within the City’s designated Growth Area. It is appropriate that the proposed property
be located within the City so that future development may be served by Fire, Police, water, and
sanitary sewer service. Annexation will allow the City to provide these services and control zoning
so that development of the subject area is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan.
For the reasons stated above, staff finds that the proposed annexation complies with the annexation
policy.
Current Zoning: The western properties are currently zoned County Agricultural (A), while the
eastern property already within the city limits is zoned Rural Residential (RR-1). The County (A)
zone is intended to provide land for all types of agricultural production. The zone allows for a wide
range of agriculturally oriented uses, as well single-family dwellings and manufactured homes. The
City’s RR-1 zone is intended to provide a rural residential character for areas in the city that are not
projected to have the utilities necessary for urban development in the foreseeable future or for areas
that have sensitive environmental features that preclude development at urban densities.
Proposed Zoning: The request is to rezone the eastern two properties as Intensive Commercial
(CI-1) zone, and Interim Commercial zone (ID-C) for the far western property. This request is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan amendment application filed contemporaneously with this
application, which staff supports for the reasons set forth in the associated staff report. Because the
requested rezoning boundaries do not follow existing property lines, however, a plat is necessary
to establish property lines consistent therewith.
The purpose of the Interim Development (ID) zone is to provide for areas of managed growth in
which agricultural and other nonurban uses of land may continue until such time as the City is able
to provide services and urban development can occur. The ID zone is the default zoning district to
which all undeveloped areas should be classified until City services are provided. Upon provision
of City services, a rezoning to zones consistent with the Comprehensive Plan may be considered.
The western property, shown in purple in Figure #1, does not have an immediate solution for
sanitary sewer service. Therefore, an ID zone is appropriate.
5
Figure 1 – Western ID-C Parcel
The purpose of the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone is to provide areas for those sales and service
functions and businesses whose operations are typically characterized by outdoor display and
storage of merchandise, by repair and sales of large equipment or motor vehicles, by outdoor
commercial amusement and recreational activities or by activities or operations conducted in
buildings or structures not completely enclosed. The types of retail trade in this zone are limited in
order to provide opportunities for more land intensive commercial operations and to prevent conflicts
between retail and industrial truck traffic. City Code specifies that special attention must be directed
toward buffering the negative aspects of allowed uses from adjacent residential zones.
The uses in Table 1 are permitted by right in a CI-1 zone.
Table 1 – Uses Permitted by Right in a CI-1 Zone
Use: Examples:
Building Trade Uses Electrical, plumbing, heating, and air
conditioning contractors, etc.
Commercial Recreational Uses Outdoor: Campgrounds; commercial tennis
and swimming facilities; drive-in theaters;
outdoor skating rinks; golf driving ranges;
outdoor miniature golf facilities; etc.
Indoor: Physical fitness centers; health clubs;
gyms; bowling alleys; indoor skating rinks; etc.
Eating Establishments Restaurants; cafes; cafeterias; coffee shops;
etc.
Office Uses Professional offices, such as lawyers,
accountants, engineers, architects, and real
estate agents; financial businesses, such as
mortgage lenders, government offices; etc.
Retail Sales Sales Oriented: Stores selling, leasing, or
renting consumer, home, and business goods.
Personal Service Oriented: Retail banking
establishments, laundromats, catering
services, dry cleaners, tailors, shoe repair, etc.
Repair Oriented: Repair of consumer goods,
such as electronics, bicycles, office
equipment; appliances.
6
Hospitality Oriented: Hotels; motels;
convention centers; guesthouses; and
commercial meeting halls/event facilities.
Outdoor Storage and Display Oriented:
Lumberyards; sales or leasing of consumer
vehicles, including passenger vehicles, light
and medium trucks, etc.
Alcohol Sales Oriented: Liquor stores; wine
shops; grocery stores; convenience stores;
etc.
Delayed Deposit Service Uses: Payday
lenders and any other similar use that meets
the definition of "delayed deposit service use",
as defined in chapter 9, article A of Title 14 of
the City Code.
Industrial Service Uses Facilities, yards, and preassembly yards for
construction contractors; welding shops;
machines shops; tool repair; electric motor
repair; repair of scientific or professional
instruments; repair of heavy machinery; towing
and vehicle storage; servicing and repair of
medium and heavy trucks; etc.
Self-Service Storage Uses Miniwarehouses; ministorage facilities.
Warehouse and Freight Movement Uses Separate warehouses used by retail stores
such as furniture and appliance stores;
household moving and general freight storage;
cold storage plants, including frozen food
lockers; major wholesale distribution centers;
truck and air freight terminals; etc.
Wholesale Sales Uses Wholesale sales and rental of heavy trucks,
machinery, equipment, building materials,
special trade tools, welding supplies, machine
parts, etc.
In addition to the uses that are permitted by right, several uses are permitted provisionally.
Provisional uses must abide by additional requirements, which are detailed in section 14-4B-4 of
the City Code. Attachment #12 provides a more detailed analysis of the additional criteria that is
required for each provisional use. The uses in Table 2 are permitted as provisional uses in a CI-1
zone.
Table 2 – Provisional Uses in a CI-1 Zone
Use: Examples:
Adult Business Uses Adult bookstores; adult video stores; nightclubs
featuring nude dancing.
Animal Related Commercial Uses General: Veterinary clinics; animal grooming
establishments; pet crematoriums; animal
daycare; indoor animal recreation.
Intensive: Kennels; stables.
Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses Full serve and miniserve gas stations;
unattended card key service stations; car
washes.
Vehicle Repair Uses Vehicle repair shops; auto body shops;
transmission and muffler shops; etc.
General Manufacturing Manufacturing, compounding, assembling or
7
treatment of most articles, materials, or
merchandise.
Basic Utility Uses Utility substation facilities; water and sewer lift
stations, water towers, and reservoirs.
Community Service – Long-term Housing Long term housing for persons with a disability
operated by a public or nonprofit agency.
Daycare Uses Childcare centers; adult daycare; preschools
and latchkey programs not accessory to an
educational facility use.
Communication Transmission Facility Uses Broadcast towers and antennas; wireless
communication towers and antennas; etc.
Furthermore, several uses in the CI-1 zoning designation are permitted by special exception. Uses
permitted by special exception must be approved by the City’s Board of Adjustment. Like provisional
uses, uses requiring special exception must meet additional criteria. Attachment #12 provides a
more detailed analysis of the additional criteria that is required for each use that is permitted by
special exception in the CI-1 zone. The uses in Table 3 are permitted by special exception in a CI-
1 zone.
Table 3 – Uses Permitted by Special Exception in a CI-1 Zone
Use: Examples:
Assisted Group Living Group care facilities, including nursing and
convalescent homes; assisted living facilities.
Heavy Manufacturing Concrete batch/mix plants; asphalt mixing
plants; meatpacking plants; sawmills and
planning mills; etc.
Basic Utility Uses Utility substation facilities; water and sewer lift
stations, water towers, and reservoirs.
Community Service – Long Term Housing Long term housing for persons with a disability
operated by a public or nonprofit agency.
Community Service - Shelter Transient housing operated by a public or
nonprofit agency.
General Community Service Libraries; museums; transit centers; park and
ride facilities; senior centers; community
centers; neighborhood centers; youth club
facilities; etc.
Detention Facilities Prisons; jails; probation centers; juvenile
detention homes; halfway houses.
Education Facilities (Specialized) Music schools, dramatic schools, dance
studios, martial arts studios, etc.
Utility-Scale Ground-Mounted Solar Energy
Systems
A solar energy system that is structurally
mounted on the ground and is not roof
mounted, and the system’s footprint is at least
1 acre in size.
Communication Transmission Facility Uses Broadcast towers and antennas; wireless
communication towers and antennas; etc.
Rezoning Review Criteria:
Staff uses the following two criteria in the review of rezonings:
1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan;
2. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character.
8
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The current Southwest District Plan future land use
map designates this area as appropriate for rural residential uses and private/public open space.
The owner has requested, and staff supports, an amendment to this plan to show this area as
appropriate for Intensive Commercial. The plan amendment would also change the Southwest
District Plan’s future land use map from Single-Family/Duplex Residential for the 9 acres within
the city limits, and as Future Urban Development for the remaining acres located outside of the
city limits to Intensive Commercial. That amendment is being contemporaneously considered by
the Commission and the reasons for Staff’s recommendation are described in detail in that staff
report. Assuming that the amendment is approved, this application would be consistent therewith.
The Comprehensive Plan identifies several goals and strategies regarding commercial and
industrial development. Specifically:
• Use the District Plans to identify appropriate commercial nodes and zone accordingly
to focus commercial development to meet the needs of present and future population.
• Identify, zone, and preserve land for industrial uses in areas with ready access to rail
and highways.
• Target industrial and business sectors that align with Iowa City’s economic strengths,
including biotechnology, healthcare, advanced manufacturing, information technology,
education services, and renewable energy.
• Focus growth within the Iowa City urban growth area by using the City’s extra-territorial
review powers to discourage sprawl and preserve prime farmland.
The Weber Subarea of the Southwest District Plan’s Future Land Use Map designates the subject
properties as appropriate for future urban development until sewer service is extended and lift
stations are constructed where required. The subject properties will eventually be bordered by
arterial streets along the north (Melrose Ave./IWV Rd.) and west (Hwy. 965 extension) sides, with
eventual improvements to Slothower Road creating a major collector street along the east side.
The subject properties also fall within a ½-mile to 1-mile distance of the Melrose Ave./Hwy. 218
interchange. The enhanced road network and highway adjacency make this land desirable for
future commercial or industrial development.
While the City’s comprehensive plan amendment analysis showed that there is a supply
(approximately 51 acres) of vacant Intensive Commercial land within the current city limits, the
suitability and location of much of that land may be inadequate, based on highway proximity and
land area constraints The analysis also forecasted a potential growing need for future Intensive
Commercial lands, given the region’s increasing population and the ever-increasing demand for
warehousing and logistics-oriented space. While the proposed annexation and rezoning would
likely result in the removal of productive farmland, it is in the City and County’s interest to ensure
that this development takes place within the City’s growth area, so as to not create “leapfrog style”
development that cannot be adequately served by City services.
Figure #2 below shows an outline of the City’s current Growth Area within the Fringe Area. The
subject properties that are outside of the City limits are highlighted within the Growth Area, in
Fringe Area C. Land that is located within the City’s Growth Area is anticipated to be annexed into
the City and further developed.
9
Figure #2 – Growth Area Map
Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood Character: The subject properties are adjacent to
undeveloped farmland to the north, south, and west. A mixture of farmland, streams, and
woodlands can be found throughout these properties. The properties to the south and west
contain County Agricultural (A) zoning, while the properties to the north contain a split of County
Residential (R) and City Rural Residential (RR-1) zoning.
The Johnson County Poor Farm is immediately east of the subject property. The Poor Farm
currently contains farmland (approximately 400’ x 1,270’) for the entire stretch of adjacent
property, across from Slothower Road. The County has expressed a desire to develop the
southwest portion of the Poor Farm property with future residential dwellings, but it is not believed
that this portion of the property will be directly across from this application’s subject properties.
Still, to soften the transition from an Intensive Commercial land use to an agricultural/residentia l
use to the east, staff is proposing a condition that the developer provide an S3 landscape buffer
along the entire Slothower Road frontage. In addition, staff is proposing a condition that the
developer submit a landscape plan, which shall be approved by the City Forester, prior to
issuance of any building permits for the subject properties.
The current land use composition changes outside of the immediately adjacent properties. About
650’ southwest of the southwestern extent of the subject properties begins the northern portion
of the Iowa City landfill. While the areas abutting the landfill are currently still agricultural in nature,
prudent planning would dictate that as the area between the landfill and Highway 218 continues
to develop, uses should be scaled in intensity from the landfill, a geographically large area with
several negative externalities (noise, odors, etc.) to the existing residences that can be found east
of Slothower Road. The Weber Subarea Plan briefly touches upon the need to buffer residential
uses from the landfill. Based on projected long-term demand and the characteristics of the subject
10
properties, including access to US-218 and intensive commercial uses being appropriate as a
buffer against future landfill expansion and US-965 extension, the subject properties will likely be
desired for future commercial or intensive commercial development.
Furthermore, land located northwest of the Melrose Avenue/Highway 218 interchange is already
zoned Public and contains lighter industrial and institutional uses in a County Public Works facility
and an Iowa Armory Board facility. These public zones that contain more intense uses are directly
adjacent to farmland and residential zoning (City and County), giving the corridor a light industrial
aesthetic.
The City’s Commercial Site Development Standards provide some initial restrictions pertaining to
the screening of parking and loading areas. Parking and loading areas must be set back at least
10' from any front and street-side lot lines. However, any loading area, parking spaces or aisles
located within 50' of a residential zone boundary must be set back at least 20' from the front or
street-side lot line. The Standards go on to specify that all areas of the site that are not used for
buildings, parking, vehicular and pedestrian use areas, sidewalk cafes and plazas must be
landscaped with trees and/or plant materials. A landscaping plan must be submitted for site plan
review. Furthermore, surface parking areas, loading areas, and drives must be screened from
view of abutting properties to at least the S2 standard. Additional screening is required for
properties that abut properties zoned residential. Parking areas, loading areas, and drives must
be screened from view of any abutting property zoned residential to at least the S3 standard. Staff
is proposing a condition to require an S3 High Screen, along the property’s eastern frontage.
While outdoor storage and display oriented retail is a permitted use in a CI-1 zone, the
Commercial Site Development Standards do regulate where these uses can locate, and how they
are screened from public view. The Standards detail that outdoor storage of materials in the CH-
1 and CI-1 zones is permitted, provided it is concealed from public view to the extent possible. If
it is not feasible to conceal the storage areas behind buildings, the storage areas must be set
back at least 20' from any public right of way, including public trails and open space, and screened
from view to at least the S3 standard. With respect to views into the subject properties from the
south, the Standards elaborate that any outdoor display area located along a side or rear lot line
that does not abut a public right of way must be set back at least 10' from said lot line and screened
from view of abutting properties to at least the S2 standard. If the display area is adjacent to a
residential zone boundary, it must be screened to the S3 standard.
Although the zoning code includes regulations that further regulate parking areas, loading zones,
and outdoor storage to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses, staff proposes a condition
of the rezoning that 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 be
screened to the S3 standard along the IWV Road frontage. Staff is recommending this condition
for the following reasons. Shielding these uses from the IWV Road right-of-way will help
implement the Comprehensive Plan’s goal of emphasizing green components in all street
improvement projects, especially along arterial roads and entryways into the City. This portion of
IWV Road is both an arterial road and an entryway into the City from the west. The
Comprehensive Plan also encourages the preservation and enhancement of entryways into the
City. Implementing the requested screening along the IWV Road right-of-way will enhance the
aesthetics of the entryway into the city.
In addition to the baseline standards in the Commercial Site Development Standards, Attachment
#12 provides more detail on the additional criteria that applies to Provisional Uses in a CI-1 zone.
In general, the additional criteria require additional setbacks from certain other uses (residential,
religious, educational facility, etc.) as well as techniques to screen these CI-1 uses from adjacent
lower intensity uses. Hours of operation may also be restricted for certain uses, such as vehicle
repair uses. Certain General Manufacturing uses, such as chemical product manufacturing,
11
milling, motor vehicle manufacturing, and the processing of rubber and plastics are also prohibited
in the CI-1 zone.
Attachment #12 also provides more detail on the additional criteria that would be reviewed for any
uses seeking a special exception from the Board of Adjustment. As is the case with additional
criteria for provisional uses, the special exception criteria add more specific restrictions on use
setbacks, screening, and outright restriction of certain uses. An example of this is Heavy
Manufacturing, which is limited to concrete mixing plants that require a 500’ buffer from any
residential zone.
The existing use specific criteria and special exception process provides additional regulation that
are aimed are reducing conflicts with neighbors. While the combined acreage of the subject
properties is over 79 acres, much of the land to the south will not be able to be fully developed
since there are existing sensitive areas and logical places for stormwater detention. This creates
a generous buffer of at least 1,700’ from the nearest existing residential use to the southeast and
any potential CI-1 use. In addition, required improvements to Slothower Road, upon subsequent
development, to collector street standards will create a 66’ wide right-of-way, which should create
a clear physical distinction between the potential Intensive Commercial use on the subject
properties and the rural and residential uses to the east and southeast. Lastly, as described
previously, the IWV/Melrose corridor does already have some existing uses of higher intensity to
the east, with the Iowa City landfill located further west. A high landscape screen along the
property’s east side and the additional regulations applicable to more intense CI-1 uses will help
ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood character.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The subject properties contain several sensitive areas, as
shown on the Sensitive Areas Plan (Attachment #6). The sensitive areas plan meets the woodland
retention requirements and wetland buffer requirements and is not requesting any buffer
reductions. Because there are no impacts to these areas or requested buffer reductions, the
sensitive areas are reviewed under a Level 1 Sensitive Areas Review. This level of review is not
considered a type of planned development.
The southern ¼ of the properties that are seeking Intensive Commercial zoning (CI-1) contains a
blue line stream and a 50’ stream corridor buffer. The area also contains .37 acres of wooded
wetlands and .95 acres of emergent wetlands. The southern wetland (Wetland “A” from the
Wetland Delineation Report, Attachment #7) is bordered by a 100’ wetland buffer. Due to the
location of sensitive areas within the southern portion of these properties, future development in
this southern ¼ will not be allowed, thereby creating a natural buffer from development to the
south.
An additional wetland (Wetland “B” from the Wetland Delineation Report, Attachment #7) is found
on the westernmost property. This wetland contains .75 acres of wooded wetlands and .5 acres
of emergent wetlands. This wetland also contains a 100’ buffer. A stream bisects this property;
however, it is not regulated under Iowa City’s sensitive areas ordinance due to its lack of an
ordinary high watermark.
The westernmost property also contains 2.02 acres of sensitive woodlands, along with a 50’
woodland buffer. A small area of steep slopes can be found adjacent to both Wetland “A” and
Wetland “B”.
According to the Office of the State Archaeologist, the subject properties are not on record as
ever having been subject to professional archaeological investigation. Examination of available
data suggests the area to be a low to moderate probability location for preservation of significant
archaeological resources. No archaeological investigations are deemed warranted. If in the
course of ground-disturbing development activities unanticipated discovery of apparent
12
archaeological materials occurs, then construction activities must cease within 50 feet of the
discovery and staff from the State Historic Preservation Office and Office of the State
Archaeologist must be notified and allowed to evaluate and consult.
Traffic Implications: As of 2018, Iowa DOT traffic counts showed an average daily trip count of
approximately 2,000 vehicles per day on IWV Road in the vicinity of the subject properties. There
are no recent counts for vehicles on Slothower Road, but any counts for Slothower are assumed
to be insignificant, given the road’s rural character. At 2,000 vehicles per day, this stretch of IWV
Road is well below the arterial capacity of approximately 17,000 vehicles per day for a two-lane
roadway.
Access and Street Design: There is an existing driveway cutout along the south side of IWV
Road where the potential end user can obtain access from IWV Road. The City’s Access
Management Standards discourages direct access to arterial roads when possible. Should the
property to the west develop later, an additional access onto IWV Road will be required, unless a
cross access easement to a singular access of IWV Road becomes feasible. Access to the site
will be determined during site plan review. The attached grading plans shows two separate
conceptual access points off IWV Road to the eastern property. These access points are
conceptual and not supported by staff.
Access to a future development at the southwest corner of IWV Road and Slothower Road will
likely require an access point off Slothower Road as well. This is the City’s preferred point of
primary access to the overall site. The applicant will be responsible for any improvements needed
to the southern end of the future Slothower Road access point. Furthermore, since Slothower
Road is planned to be a future collector street, the applicant will be responsible for 25% of the
cost of upgrading the remaining portion of Slothower Road (south of the previously described
required improvements) for the entire section of Slothower Road that is adjacent to the subject
property. In addition, staff will be recommending a condition that the applicant dedicate the
necessary amount of land needed for a 66’ wide right-of-way along the Slothower Road frontage.
Stormwater Management: On the applicant’s Site Grading and Erosion Control and Sensitive
Areas Plan, stormwater management for the eastern two properties (intended to be developed as
one property) is shown as provided via three separate on-site detention basins. One smaller basin
is shown in the northeast section of the subject properties, while the other two basins would be
situated in the southern ¼ of the subject properties, closer to the southern property boundary.
Stormwater calculations will be reviewed more thoroughly once the properties are replatted to
conform to the proposed zoning boundary lines.
Infrastructure Fees: In addition to the previously described roadway improvements, the developer
will be required to pay a water main extension fee of $503.57 per acre before public improvements
are constructed. The subject properties will not be required to pay sanitary sewer tap-on fees.
NEXT STEPS:
After recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission the following will occur:
• City Council will need to 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.
• 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.
13
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
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; and
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.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Aerial Photograph
3. Fringe Area Map
4. Annexation Exhibit
5. Rezoning Exhibit
6. Site Grading and Erosion Control Plan and Sensitive Areas Plan
7. Wetland Delineation Report
8. Applicant Statement (July 8, 2021)
9. Annexation Legal Description
10. Rezoning Legal Description
11. Good Neighbor Meeting Summary
12. CI-1 Zone Permitted Uses Summary
13. Correspondence
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
IWV RD SWCARLS B A DPLTEMPE CTMELROSE AVESLOTHOWERRDFLAGSTAFFDRDURANGOPLSANTAFEDRWILDCATLNMELROSE AVESLOTHOWERRDSWHIGHWAY218 TEMPEPLHURT RD SW2 1 8 S B T OMELROSE A V E
SLOTHOWER RDP1/RM12RS5P2P1RR1Johnson County PD & SANN21-0003, CPA21-0002 & REZ21-0006IWV and Slothower Rd.µ0 0.15 0.30.075 MilesPrepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: June 2021Three applications submitted by MMS Consultants, on behalf of IWV Holdings, LLC,for the Annexation of 70.4 acres of property located south of IWV Rd. and west of Slothower Rd.the rezoning of 79.4 acres from County Agricultural (A) and Rural Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) and Interim Development - Commercial (ID-C)and a comprehensive plan amendment changing the future land use fromPublic/Private Open Space, and Rural Residential to Intensive Commercial.
MELROSE AVE218S B T O M E L R O S E A V E
W ILDCAT LN
C AR LSBADPLTEMPE CTL A K E S H ORE DRMELROSE AVESLOTHOWERRDSANTAFEDRSLOTHOWERRDSWTEMPE PLHIGHWAY 218HURT RD SWSLOTHOWER RDIWV RD SWANN21-0003, CPA21-0002 & REZ21-0006IWV and Slothower Rd.µ0 0.15 0.30.075 MilesPrepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: June 2021Three applications submitted by MMS Consultants, on behalf of IWV Holdings, LLC,for the Annexation of 70.4 acres of property located south of IWV Rd. and west of Slothower Rd.the rezoning of 79.4 acres from County Agricultural (A) and Rural Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) and Interim Development - Commercial (ID-C)and a comprehensive plan amendment changing the future land use fromPublic/Private Open Space, and Rural Residential to Intensive Commercial.
M E LROSE AVE
2
1
8
S
B
T
O
M
E
L
R
O
S
E
A
V
E
CARLSBADPLTEMPE CTLAKESHOREDRMELROSE AVE
SLOTHOWERRD
WILDCATLNDURANGOPLS A N T A F E D RSLOTHOWERRDSW
TEM P EPLHIGH
WAY 218
HURT RD SWSLOTHOWER RDIWV RD SW
Johnson County PD & S
ANN21-0003, CPA21-0002 & REZ21-0006IWV and Slothower Rd.µ
0 0.15 0.30.075 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: June 2021
An application submitted by MMS Consultants, on behalf of IWV Holdings, LLC,for the Annexation of 70.4 acres of property located south of IWV Rd. and west of Slothower Rd.the rezoning of 79.4 acres from County Agricultural (A) and Rural Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) and Interim Development - Commercial (ID-C)and a comprehensive plan amendment changing the future land use fromPublic/Private Open Space, and Rural Residential to Intensive Commercial.
(319) 351-8282
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
www.mmsconsultants.net
1917 S. GILBERT ST.
07-08-2021 PER GDM REVIEW - RLW
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
07-08-2021
KJB
RLW
GDM
IOWA CITY
10355-001 1
ANNEXATION EXHIBIT
1
1"=200'
ANNEXATION PARCEL
IWV ROAD SW / F46
SLOTHOWER ROADHURT ROAD SWALBERT AND
FAY'S FIRST
ADDITION
KAUBLE'S
SUBDIVISION NW 14 - NE 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NE14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSE 14 - NW14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNE 14 - NE 14SECTION 14-T79N-R7WSE 14 - NE 14SECTION 14-T79N-R7
W
SW 14 - NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SE 14SECTION 11-T79N-R7WSW 14 - SW 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SW 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7
W
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0
1"=200'
20 50 100 150 200
ANNEXATION EXHIBIT
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
A PORTION OF THE NORTH ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7
WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN
PLAT PREPARED BY:
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
1917 S. GILBERT STREET
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
OWNER/APPLICANT:
IWV HOLDINGS LLC
2916 HIGHWAY 1 NE
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
LOCATION MAP - NOT TO SCALE
ANNEXATION PARCEL
A PORTION OF THE NORTH
ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 13,
TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7
WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN
POINT OF COMMENCEMENT
DESCRIPTION - ANNEXATION PARCEL
A PORTION OF THE NORTH ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7 WEST,
OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Commencing at the North Quarter Corner of Section 13, Township 79
North, Range 7 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County,
Iowa; Thence S89°06'50"W, along the North Line of the North One-Half of
the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13, a distance of 300.04 feet, to the
Point of Beginning; Thence S00°00'59"W, along a line parallel with and
300.00 feet normally distant Westerly from the East Line of the North
One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13, a distance of
1307.41 feet, to its intersection with the North Line of Kauble's Subdivision,
in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 20 at Page 47 of
the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence
S88°45'34"W, along said North Line, 414.99 feet, to the Northwest Corner
thereof; Thence S00°06'26"E, along the West Line of said Kauble's
Subdivision, 3.41 feet, to its intersection with the South Line of the North
One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13; Thence
S89°03'31"W, along said South Line, 1921.53 feet, to the Southwest
Corner of said North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 13;
Thence N00°08'52"E, along the West Line of the North One-Half of the
Northwest Quarter of said Section 13, a distance of 1315.30 feet, to the
Northwest Corner of said Section 13; Thence N89°06'50"E, along the
North Line of the North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section
13, a distance of 2333.42 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Annexation
Parcel contains 70.39 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions
of record.N 1\2 - NW 1\4SECTION 13-T79N-R7W70.39 AC
POINT OF BEGINNING
G:\10355\10355-010\10355-010A.dwg, 8/24/2021 5:07:41 PM
July 8, 2021
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Re: IWV Road SW Rezoning, Annexation and Comprehensive Plan Amendment
On behalf of IWV Holdings LLC we are submitting a request for an Annexation and
Rezoning in conjunction with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The described land
consists of 79.39 acres in total, the proposal includes 70.39 acres to be annexed into the
City of Iowa City with 9.0 acres currently located within the city limits. The area is
shown as a future growth area. Scheduled improvements to IWV Road will provide
necessary arterial access, with additional access provided via Slothower Road. Public
water will be available to the site, and public sewer can be extended to serve the site as
required.
Circumstances for this site have changed since the current plan was adopted. As
mentioned above, there are scheduled improvements to IWV Road, and the city has
expressed a plan to revisit the comprehensive plan for this region in the near term.
These factors, in addition to the plans by the county for the Johnson County Poor Farm,
meet the approval criteria for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. We are proposing a
change of the land use from a mix of Public/Private Open Space, Rural Residential and
2-8 DU/A to Intensive Commercial. We feel this amendment is appropriate given the
access from the property to an arterial road which provides a direct route to Interstate
I-380. The proximity to the Iowa City Landfill and a number of other commercially
zoned properties along IWV Road SW shows a consistent pattern of compatibility with
surrounding development in this area, and is generally compatible with the policies and
provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.
At this time Intensive Commercial (CI-1) is being requested for the East portion of the
property and Interim Development Commercial (ID-C) is being requested for the West
portion of the property. The ID-C zoning will allow for managed growth of future
development and for the current use of the land to continue until a plan to provide city
services can be established. This zoning also allows for a review of the stream corridor
and the associated sensitive areas located in the West portion when a permanent
zoning classification application is submitted. Development of the West portion, and
any potential impacts to the sensitive areas, can be more appropriately reviewed when
city services are able to be provided.
If you have questions or require any additional information, please contact us
accordingly.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Marner.
MMS Consultants, Inc.
10355-010L2.DOCX
DESCRIPTION - ANNEXATION PARCEL
THE NORTH ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7
WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA.
EXCEPTING THE EAST 300 FEET THEREFROM
CONTAINING 70.4 ACRES, MORE OR LESS
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.
From:Pamela
To:Raymond Heitner
Date:Wednesday, August 18, 2021 7:32:08 PM
I am against the rezoning of Slothower Rd. I feel like it will lead to loud traffic and distracting
lighting to our neighborhood.
Pamela Miller-DeKeyser
1630 Lake Shore Drive
Iowa City, IA 52246
Sent from the all new AOL app for Android
From:DEANAGHOLSON
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Rezoning at Melrose and Slothower
Date:Monday, September 13, 2021 4:00:16 PM
Mr. Heitner,
I am emailing you in regard to the recent proposal of rezoning in the area of Melrose and Slothower. We have lived
in Iowa City for twenty years this year. We built our home on the southwest side of town near Weber school and
have loved our neighborhood and location. We have paid close attention to the area to our north (Poor Farm) and
west (farmland) and were happy with the cities comprehensive plan for this area over time.
We are very concerned that the recent rezoning proposal is to go from rural/residential to commercial in this area.
We are aware that rezoning happens (it obviously had to in order for our neighborhood to be developed) but to leap
from rural to commercial seems like quite a drastic change. Once a commercial property area is developed, it seems
likely that it could very well continue to develop in that manner which could effect us in the future.
I am unsure if we will be able to attend the P&Z meeting this week but would request that you log our concerns in
with any others you may have gotten regarding this rezoning. We would like to see the city take a step back and
reassess the situation and come up with a revised comprehensive plan to share with the southwest citizens before
forging ahead at this time.
Thanks for your time!
Deana Gholson
1332 Phoenix Drive
IC IA
This email is from an external source.
From:John Bergstrom
To:Raymond Heitner
Cc:Sherri Bergstrom
Subject:Case CPA21-0002 SW corner of Slothower Road and IWV Road
Date:Monday, September 13, 2021 6:28:15 PM
As representatives of Slothower Farm we are expressing our objections to the dramatic change in
the Comprehensive Plan to allow for Intensive commercial development on land that has long been
anticipated to be residential. This change to the IWV Holding parcel is being brought about to allow
for the development of a Mid American Energy service complex that the City evidently feels that
they have no where else to place it. This is certainly a change to a relatively small parcel that will
affect the future of many existing and future residents. We would like to see the following
addressed or answered:
1. The staff report (as well as the MMS report) refer to the significant changes that have taken
place. Frankly, the changes in the immediate area west of the interchange are not new.
What is new is the significant residential growth to the area abutting the County Farm. The
proposed changes will affect the existing neighborhoods, existing residents and the future
development of the Johnson County Poor Farm.
2. There seems to be concern about the landfill needing a buffer. The proposed 965 extension
will provide a natural separation. MMS has come to its own stated conclusion that the best
buffer is commercial development. Seems a little self serving.
3. Why is a longstanding planning instrument being drastically altered to accommodate a 40
acre development (initially) that will affect a large overlay area. If the Comprehensive Plan is
to be altered like this, it should be much more encompassing, studied and thought out. Not
as a reaction to a single user.
4. The City feels it needs more intensive commercial land? Fine, don’t put it on or next to areas
long slated for residential. Or, if you can’t accommodate certain uses, is there any harm
letting them gravitate to a neighboring community that can?
5. There are complementary non-residential uses that are compatible with neighborhoods that
don’t infringe on residents. The uses allowed under the proposed zoning (including Mid
American Energy) are not compatible.
6. The goal of the existing Comprehensive Plan is to encourage commercial and industrial
development south and southwest of the Iowa City Municipal Airport. Now you appear to
conveniently be changing the Fringe Area Agreement just to accommodate a single user.
7. How does Johnson County feel about this as it relates to the Poor Farm? Intensive
commercial uses would not be complementary to the proposed development schemes we
have seen for the farm.
Please reconsider this change to the Comprehensive Plan and the subsequent zoning changes that
would result. The City needs to slow down and better understand the ramifications of this action.
John and Sherri Bergstrom
From:James Larimore
To:Raymond Heitner
Cc:Jim Larimore
Subject:Opposition to proposed amendment to Comprehensive Plan
Date:Wednesday, September 15, 2021 3:43:33 PM
Dear Mr. Heitner,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of land near the
intersection of Melrose and Slothower in Iowa City.
My family and I live on Wildcat Lane in the Southwest District, and our house is one of those
with a direct line of site to the proposed location of Intensive Commercial development. We
purchased our house seven years ago in large measure because of the assurances provided in
the City's Comprehensive Plan for the Southwest District, which explicitly discouraged "the
establishment of commercial uses around the Melrose Avenue-Highway 218 interchange" and
envisioned that future development of this area should preserve the rural character of the
district, provide a diversity of housing types, and potentially include the creation of a regional
park that could be connected to a planned water reservoir, the Willow Creek trail and other
parks in the Southwest District.
I am certain that others who have purchased homes in this area, at the combined cost of tens of
millions of dollars of personal investment, also took into account the rural and residential
nature of the district when they decided to move into the Southwestern District.
The proposed rezoning will irretrievably damage the rural and residential character of the
Southwest District and creates a risk that the proposed Intensive Commercial development
will eventually cascade further down Slothower Road, impacting home values and quality of
life, as well as introducing unwanted vehicular traffic seeking a faster path to Highway 218.
Furthermore, in stark contrast to the transparent and inclusive process that informed the
current proposal takes a piecemeal rather than comprehensive approach, and with extremely
limited effort at outreach, information dissemination, and community engagement on the part
of the Planning and Zoning office. I am concerned that precipitous action on the part of the
Planning and Zoning Commission puts at risk the public trust which was earned by
the Commission's predecessors, who facilitated direct community engagement in the creation
of the current Comprehensive Plan. Trust is hard to earn and easy to squander, and I urge the
Commission not to trade away public trust and confidence in the expedient pursuit of a
problem for which there are likely alternative solutions.
I look forward to participating in the Commission's hearing on September 16th.
Sincerely,
Jim Larimore
Wildcat Lane
Iowa City
From:John Bergstrom
To:Raymond Heitner
Cc:Sherri Bergstrom; Seyfer, James W
Subject:IWV/Slothower Road
Date:Monday, October 18, 2021 1:07:26 PM
Ray, as we discussed, we continue to object to the change in the comprehensive plan and the
rezoning at the corner of IWV and Slothower Road. It has been made clear that this change is being
made to accommodate MidAmerican Energy with little thought as to how it affects a much greater
area.
That said, I believe there is a solution that everyone can live with. Move the MidAmerican facility to
the 40 acres that IWV partners also owns on the north side of IWV Road. The comprehensive plan
and zoning would remain in place on the south side of IWV. On the north side, the facility would be
more consistent with the properties immediately to the east.
While I cannot speak for the neighborhood to the south of the county farm, I am led to believe this
is a solution they might consider to be palatable.
Please consider this alternative with your staff.
John Bergstrom
Sent from Mail for Windows
Item Number: 12.
November 30, 2021
Resol u tion approvin g proj ect man u al and estimate of cost for the
constru ction of th e Access Con trol Upgrad e Proj ect, establish ing amou n t of
b id security to accompan y each b id, directing City Clerk to p ost notice to
b idders, and fixin g time an d place for receip t of bid s.
Prepared B y:Ethan Yoder, Civil Engineer
Reviewed By:J ason Havel, City E ngineer
Ron K noche, P ublic Works Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:T he estimated cost for this project is $155,000.00. Funds are available in the
Access Control Upgrade account #G4725.
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:Resolution
Executive S ummary:
T his project generally includes upgrades for door access control across three f acilities: the
Wastewater Treatment Plant, City Hall, and the Water Plant.
Background / Analysis:
T his project will install new, and upgrade existing, control access points in the Wastewater
Treatment P lant, City Hall, and the Water P lant.
Project T imeline:
Public Hearing / Approve Project Manual – November 30, 2021
Bid L etting – December 17, 2022
Award Date – J anuary 4, 2022
Construction Start – J anuary 2022
F inal Completion – S pring 2022
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Resolution
lam•
Prepared by:Ethan Yoder,Engineering Division,410 E.Washington St.,Iowa City,IA 52240,(319)356-5145
Resolution No. 21-295
Resolution approving project manual and estimate of cost for the
construction of the Access Control Upgrade Project, establishing
amount of bid security to accompany each bid, directing City
Clerk to post notice to bidders, and fixing time and place for
receipt of bids.
Whereas, notice of public hearing on the project manual and estimate of cost for the above-
named project was published as required by law, and the hearing thereon held; and
Whereas, the City Engineer or designee intends to post notice of the project on the website
owned and maintained by the City of Iowa City; and
Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Access Control Upgrade account#G4725.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa that:
1. The project manual and estimate of cost for the above-named project are hereby
approved.
2. The amount of bid security to accompany each bid for the construction of the above-
named project shall be in the amount of 10% (ten percent) of bid payable to Treasurer,
City of Iowa City, Iowa.
3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to post notice as required in Section 26.3,
not less than 13 days and not more than 45 days before the date of the bid letting, which
may be satisfied by timely posting notice on the Construction Update Network, operated
by the Master Builder of Iowa, and the Iowa League of Cities website.
4. Sealed bids for the above-named project are to be received by the City of Iowa City, Iowa,
at the Office of the City Clerk, at the City Hall, before 3:00 p.m. on the 16th day of
December 2021. At that time, the bids will be opened by the City Engineer or his designee,
and thereupon referred to the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, for action upon
said bids at its next regular meeting, to be held at the Assembly Room at The Center, 28 S
Linn Street, Iowa City, Iowa, at 6:00 p.m. on the 4th day of January 2022, or at a special
meeting called for that purpose. If City Hall is closed to the public due to the health and
safety concerns from COVID-19, sealed bids may still be delivered in person on Mondays
through Fridays 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. The person delivering the sealed bid may come to
the front lobby of City Hall, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, Iowa, and upon arrival
telephone the City Clerk at 319/356-5043.
5. If City Council does not meet in person due to the health and safety concerns from
COVID-19, the council meeting will be an electronic meeting using the Zoom Meetings.
For information on how to participate in the electronic meeting, see
www.icgov.org/councildocs or telephone the City Clerk at (319) 356-5043.
Resolution No. 21-295
Page 2
Passed and approved this 30th day of November , 2021.
Mayor
TS\Wl-t-k-/
Approved by
Attest: :``� ) . t\;t,<<L
p
City Clerk City Attorne s ice
(Sara Greenwood-Hektoen— 11/23/21)
It was moved by Thomas and seconded by Salih the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
x Bergus
x Mims
x Salih
x Taylor
x Teague
X Thomas
x Weiner
Item Number: 13.
November 30, 2021
Resol u tion approvin g th e p roject manual an d estimate of cost for th e
constru ction of th e Highway 1 Water Main Replacemen t Proj ect, establish ing
amou n t of bid secu rity to accomp any each bid , d irectin g City Cl erk to post
n otice to b idders, and fixin g time an d place for receip t of bid s.
Prepared B y:J oe Welter, S r. Civil E ngineer
Reviewed By:J ason Havel, City E ngineer
Ron K noche, P ublic Works Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:$460,000 available in the Hwy 1 (Hawk Ridge to Walmart) Water Main
Replacement - A ccount #W 3313
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:L ocation Map
Resolution
Executive S ummary:
T he project corridor is along the northside of Highway 1 between Westport Plaza (Walmart
Entrance) and Hawk R idge D rive. The project generally includes: approximately 1,600 feet of
water main, fittings, valves, hydrants, restoration of the multiuse trail pavement, and seeding.
Background / Analysis:
T he existing water main system (1990 vintage) has experienced many main breaks due to
corrosive soils. A s this main is a transmission main, breaks cause large pressure losses and
disruptions within the distribution system. R eplacement of this main with new materials will provide
reliability and resiliency.
T hroughout the project, trenchless installation methods will be used to minimize disturbances to
the multiuse trail, the highway ditches, and other surf ace features. Despite this, the project will
disturb portions of the right-of-way during construction, and these areas will be repaved or
hydroseeded following water main construction.
Watersmith E ngineering of Muscatine, I owa designed this project and is assisting the City staff
during bidding, letting, and construction. Watersmith E ngineering estimated the cost of the project
as $460,000.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
L ocation Map
Resolution
Prepared by Joe Welter,Public Works,410 East Washington Street,Iowa City,Iowa 52240,(319)356-5144
Resolution No. 21-296
Resolution approving the project manual and estimate of cost for
the construction of the Highway 1 Water Main Replacement
Project, establishing amount of bid security to accompany each
bid, directing City Clerk to post notice to bidders, and fixing time
and place for receipt of bids.
Whereas, notice of public hearing on the project manual and estimate of cost for the above-named
project was published as required by law, and the hearing thereon held; and
Whereas, the City Engineer or designee intends to post notice of the project on the website owned
and maintained by the City of Iowa City; and
Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Hwy 1 (Hawk Ridge to Walmart) Water Main
Replacement, Account Number W3313.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
1. The project manual and estimate of cost for the above-named project are hereby approved.
2. The amount of bid security to accompany each bid for the construction of the above-named
project shall be in the amount of 10% (ten percent) of bid payable to Treasurer, City of Iowa
City, Iowa.
3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to post notice as required in Section 26.3,
not less than 13 days and not more than 45 days before the date of the bid letting, which
may be satisfied by timely posting notice on the Construction Update Network, operated by
the Master Builder of Iowa, and the Iowa League of Cities website.
4. Sealed bids for the above-named project are to be received by the City of Iowa City, Iowa,
at the Office of the City Clerk, at the City Hall, before 3:00 p.m. on the 21st day of December,
2021. At that time, the bids will be opened by the City Engineer or his designee, and
thereupon referred to the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, for action upon said
bids at its next regular meeting, to be held at the Assembly Room at The Center, 28 South
Linn Street, Iowa City, Iowa, at 6:00 p.m. on the 4th day of January, 2022, or at a special
meeting called for that purpose. If City Hall is closed to the public due to the health and
safety concerns from COVID-19, sealed bids may still be delivered in person on Mondays
through Fridays 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. The person delivering the sealed bid may come to the
front lobby of City Hall, 410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, and upon arrival
telephone the City Clerk at(319) 356-5043.
5. If City Council does not meet in person due to the health and safety concerns from COVID-
19, the council meeting will be an electronic meeting using the Zoom Meetings. For
information on how to participate in the electronic meeting, see www.icqov.orq/councildocs
or telephone the City Clerk at(319) 356-5043.
Resolution No. 21-296
Page 2
Passed and approved this 30th day of November , 2021
Mayor
Approved by
s./
1 ) CT:
Attest: 1/ , ( L�
City Clerk City Attor y s Office
(Liz Craig— 11/23/21)
It was moved by Taylor and seconded by Bergus the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
X Bergus
x Mims
X Salih
X Taylor
X Teague
X Thomas
X Weiner
Item Number: 15.
November 30, 2021
Resol u tion establish ing the City of Iowa City's 2022 state l egisl ative p riorities.
Prepared B y:Rachel K ilburg, Assistant City Manager
Reviewed By:Redmond J ones, Deputy City Manager
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:None
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:Iowa League of Cities 2022 Legislative Values
I owa Metro Coalition 2022 L egislative Priorities
Resolution
Executive S ummary:
Prior to the start of each S tate of I owa legislative session, the City C ouncil traditionally adopts
state legislative priorities by f ormal resolution and communicates the C ity’s positions on those
issues to our elected delegation. T he City's 2022 state legislative priorities were developed
based on issues impacting the community and City Council priorities, including the C ity's 2020-
2021 S trategic Plan.
Background / Analysis:
Prior to the start of each S tate of I owa legislative session, the City C ouncil traditionally adopts
legislative priorities and communicates the City’s positions on those issues to our elected
delegation. T he 2022 S tate of I owa L egislative Session will commence on J anuary 10, 2022.
T his session marks the second year of the biennium (89th I owa General A ssembly), which means
that, except for bills which have been adopted by both houses in different forms, all bills f iled in the
2021 S ession which have not been withdrawn, defeated, or indefinitely postponed, will be
rereferred to committee. Committees will have the option to re-assign to a subcommittee or
indefinitely postpone. T he City’s contract with Carney & A ppleby to provide consultant and
lobbying services has been renewed for the 2022 session.
T he 2022 state legislative priorities were developed in alignment with I owa City's adopted 2020-
2021 S trategic P lan and previous C ouncil discussion on priority issues. As in prior years, the
City's 2022 state legislative priorities also express support f or the aligned legislative ef f orts of the
I owa L eague of Cities and I owa Metropolitan Coalition.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
I owa L eague of Cities 2022 L egislative Values
I owa Metro Coalition 2022 Draft L egislative P riorities
Resolution
2022 Legislative Priorities (Draft)
The Metropolitan Coalition is a coalition comprised of Iowa’s eleven largest cities. These cities include
Ames, Ankeny, Cedar Rapids, Council Bluffs, Davenport, Des Moines, Dubuque, Iowa City, Sioux City,
Waterloo and West Des Moines. The coalition was created to advocate for and promote the similar
needs and interests of Iowa’s largest cities
The following is a list of the legislative priorities identified by Metro. Coalition for the 2020 Legislative
Session.
1. Economic Development Tax Credit Programs. The Metro Coalition sees these programs as ways
to attract a workforce to Iowa and grow its population.
a. Historic Property Tax. The Temporary Historic Property Tax Exemption provides a local
property tax incentive for the sensitive, substantial rehabilitation of historic buildings.
This program has allowed cities’ “historic” properties to be preserved by offering tax
benefits to buyers who wish to restore historic properties.
b. Brownfield/Grayfield Properties. Brownfield sites are abandoned, idled, or underutilized
industrial or commercial properties where real or perceived environmental
contamination prevents productive expansion or redevelopment. Grayfield sites are
abandoned public buildings, industrial or commercial properties that are vacant,
blighted, obsolete or otherwise underutilized. Developers in Iowa can receive tax credits
for redeveloping these properties.
Workforce Housing Tax Credits. This program provides tax benefits to developers to provide
housing in Iowa communities, focusing especially on those projects using abandoned, empty or
dilapidated properties.
2. Protecting Local Control/Home Rule
a. Tax Increment Financing (TIF). Tax Increment Financing is a financing mechanism for
Urban Renewal. It involves dividing the property taxes paid from property within a
designated area between the traditional taxing authorities (counties, cities, schools,
etc.) and the taxing authority that created the TIF area. The Metropolitan Coalition
believes tax increment financing (TIF) should remain as-is and is opposed to any
changes.
b. Automatic Traffic Enforcement (ATE) Systems. Several bills that eliminated or heavily
regulated traffic enforcement cameras were considered in previous sessions. The Metro
Coalition is opposed to banning the use of ATE devices as these devices are extremely
beneficial to ensure officer safety, as well as drivers’ safety on roadways.
3. Pension Oversight
a. Any changes to the IPERS or Municipal Police and Fire Retirement System (411) should
be based upon ways to bring the two systems closer together. All added benefits should
not be borne on the taxpayers.
4. On Premise Alcohol Licensing
a. The Alcohol Beverage Division shall work with local cities to better control nuisance
establishments leaving the decision to remove a liquor license for the courts (as
opposed to the ABD).
5. Revise Municipal Bonding Limits
a. Bonding limits have not been adjusted since 1992.
b. Expand “essential corporate purpose” definition
Prepared by: Rachel Kilburg,Assistant City Manager,410 E.Washington St., Iowa City,IA 52240(319)356-5014
Resolution No. 21-297
Resolution establishing the City of Iowa City's
2022 state legislative priorities
Whereas, the Iowa City City Council seeks to encourage legislation that enhances the quality of life
for residents in Iowa City as well as the State of Iowa; and
Whereas, the City of Iowa City and other cities play a critical role in the future of the State; and
Whereas, it is in the interest of the residents of Iowa City that the City Council establish legislative
priorities and convey said priorities to our State delegation and other relevant stakeholders.
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Iowa City City Council hereby outlines its legislative
proposals to the Iowa City area legislative delegation for the 2022 Iowa State legislative session as
follows:
Strategic plan objective: demonstrate leadership in climate action
•
Support for Climate Action Initiatives
Support initiatives and legislation that further the goals contained in Iowa City's Climate Action
and Adaptation Plan and Accelerating Iowa City Climate Actions report. Iowa City encourages
the State to adopt the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code and provide cities the
ability to make local amendments. The City also encourages the state to initiate a statewide
climate action plan and invest directly in environmental and ecological efforts that will support all
Iowans.
Strategic plan objective: Advance social justice, racial equity, and human rights.
Support reform measures to reduce racial disparity in the criminal justice system and
address systemic racism
In the state of Iowa, Black people and persons of color are a small percentage of the population
but are significantly overrepresented in the criminal justice system. Discriminatory criminal
justice policies and disparate enforcement outcomes should be addressed through state
standardized and streamlined data collection for traffic stops and use of force incidents, uniform
minimum implicit bias and cultural competency training requirements for law enforcement, and
decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana. Iowa City supports the recommendations
issued in 2020 by the Governor's FOCUS Committee on Criminal Justice Reform to promote
unbiased policing, which include requiring and automating data collection on race/ethnicity from
traffic stops and adopting a statutory ban on disparate treatment in law enforcement activities.
Additionally, the City requests the State conduct a statewide review of community police review
boards and corresponding legislative policies to ensure these bodies have adequate oversight
powers.
Law enforcement agencies also need expanded legal avenues for addressing hate related acts.
Currently, the State Hate Crimes provision, Iowa Code Chapter 729A, enhances the penalty for
certain crimes when they are committed because of a person's race, color, religion, ancestry,
national origin, political affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, age or disability, but harassment and
trespass with the intent to harass are not included as enhanceable offenses. Iowa City
Resolution No. 21-297
Page 2
encourages the State to amend the existing Iowa hate crimes law to include harassment as an
enhanceable offense.
Support crisis intervention efforts and provide adequate funding for localities to
implement a mental health care continuum of services responsive to local need
Local law enforcement agencies are developing innovative solutions for preventing or improving
the response to calls for service which involve individuals experiencing a behavioral health,
substance abuse, housing, or other similar form of crisis. One strategy being explored involves
law enforcement documenting information about the contact made with an individual in these
types of incidents and sharing this information with licensed health care or social service
providers. The goal of information sharing is to provide opportunity for referral or intervention
and reduce the likelihood of the need for future police involvement. To ensure an effective
response is not dampened by confidentially concerns for the crisis victim's information, Iowa
City supports confidentiality protections for reports by law enforcement regarding contact with a
person experiencing a crisis that contain personally identifiable information.
Additionally, Iowa City encourages the State to enhance and expand support for mental health
care and intervention services to better treat those individuals who are at-risk for hospitalization
or jailing. Specifically, the City supports lifting the moratorium on specialty courts and increasing
funding through the Iowa Department of Corrections and Iowa Department of Justice for
specialty courts, including the proposed Sixth Judicial District Civil Mental Health Court.
Additionally, the State is encouraged to seek additional capacity for mental health care in Iowa,
including investing in Assistive Outpatient Treatment (AOT) and increasing the reimbursement
rates for mental health providers.
Strategic plan objective: invest in public infrastructure, facilities, and fiscal reserves
Modernize Municipal Bonding Laws
State law provides municipalities authority to issue general obligation bonds, within two defined
categories: `essential corporate purpose' bonds which do not require a referendum vote and
`general corporate purpose' bonds which do require approval by voters. Iowa Code sections
regulating how cities may issue these bonds are outdated and create inefficiencies that cost
taxpayers more and place strain on public facilities.
First, the definition of`essential corporate purpose' bonds does not include public facilities which
the City considers essential to operations, including public safety facilities, general public works
functions, and trails. Additionally, the City cannot bond for modernization updates to `general
corporate purpose' facilities that were previously approved by referendum vote and must re-
seek voter approval. The City encourages updates to Iowa Code to amend the definition of
`essential corporate purpose' bonds to include these facilities.
Second, for `general corporate purpose' bonds, cities in Iowa are subject to bond limitations
based on population size. Iowa City is subject to a $700,000 limit annually for general purpose
bonded projects. These limitations were last updated in 1992, which was the only update since
the thresholds were adopted in 1975. Due to inflationary factors, the limitations established in
1992 are no longer adequate. For example, if the annual Consumer Price Index is calculated in
from 1992 levels, the current bonding limit for a city the size of Iowa City would increase from
$700k to $1.4 million, which is a more effective amount for needed public facilities and
improvements. The limits imposed by the 1992 thresholds force cities to break up projects over
multiple years, thereby increasing costs and the disruption caused by project construction.
Resolution No. 71-797
Page 3
The City further advocates for the State to adopt an amendment which would apply an annual
CPI factor to bonding limitations and base municipal population thresholds on the U.S. Census
Annual Population Estimates, rather than the Decennial Census.
Continue Resource Enhancement and Protection (REAP) funding
The REAP grant program has been critical for improvements and protection of Iowa City's
natural resources, park areas, and open spaces. During the 2021 Session, REAP was re-
authorized to receive $20 million in funding until Fiscal Year 2026. However, the state
legislature has historically appropriated less. For FY 2022, REAP was appropriated $12 million
(approximately $12.45 million including interest income). The City encourages the State to
continue supporting REAP annually and to increase the annual appropriation to ensure
continued conservation of Iowa's natural resources.
Strategic plan objective: Foster healthy neighborhoods and affordable housing
throughout the city.
Protect Home Rule authority for local governments
Local governments are uniquely positioned to respond to the needs and priorities of our
residents and taxpayers. Cities innovate in response to local conditions and implement new
ideas that can benefit the State as a whole, and more closely reflect the priorities of the public
we serve. This includes local flexibility in local building codes, revenue options, and land use
decisions.
Support University of Iowa Student Government (USG) proposal regarding rental
property move-in checklists
During the 2021 Iowa legislative session, a bill was introduced which would require landlords to
provide and use an inventory checklist at the start and end of a tenancy and included a process
for implementation. Important requirements which protect tenants against unfair withholdings of
rental deposits are detailed in the bill, including a list of required items to be included on the
checklist, a file retention period, and a requirement for landlords to provide a copy of this
documentation to tenants. Iowa City registered in support of this proposal.
With University of Iowa students representing a significant portion of rental tenants in Iowa City,
the University's student government has advocated for these protections. Iowa City stands with
USG in encouraging the State to pursue rental property move-in checklists.
Support legislation protecting the rights of manufactured housing residents
Recent sales of manufactured housing communities statewide and the resulting impact on those
communities has led to discussions at both the state and local levels regarding how best to
protect the rights of the families living in these communities. The City of Iowa City supports
rights for the residents of manufactured housing which include: rent protections including a
statewide cap on frequency and percentage of increases and lengthened notice periods for
proposed increases, uniform good cause eviction statewide standards, fair fee regulations
including standardized time frames for assessing late fees, and fair lease provisions and
effective enforcement mechanisms to combat illegal provisions.
Additionally, when manufactured housing communities are put up for sale, residents should be
offered first right of purchase and be protected from premature eviction during pursuit of local
ownership. If displacement is forced as a last resort, the owners profiting from the sale of the
park must be required to provide fair relocation assistance. The City also encourages the State
to consider a tax credit program which incentivizes the transfer/sale of land to residents of the
community, allowing them to build equity, and protects against "bad-actor" ownership.
Resolution No. 21-297
Page 4
During the 2021 state legislative session, the City of Iowa City registered in support of several
bills, which addressed many of these issues. Iowa City continues to support the protections for
manufactured housing residents outlined in this bill and encourages the State to adopt such
legislation.
Promote equitable access and affordability of high-speed, broadband internet, including
sustainable investment in cities' critical technological infrastructure
High-speed broadband is a driving force behind the local and state economy and is an indicator
of quality of life alongside minimum basic needs such as clean water and maintained roadways.
The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed many inequities in availability and affordability of high-
speed broadband internet access in cities across Iowa. It is critical that Iowans of all income
levels are on a level playing field when it comes to broadband access, speed, choice, and cost.
This will require the State to pursue significant investments in and sustainable funding for critical
infrastructure, such as fiber, and next-generation technology which will drive education,
employment, and basic human services.
Iowa City encourages the State to take measures which will expand access to high-speed,
affordable broadband in cities, specifically for low- and moderate-income Iowans in urban
neighborhoods. Additionally, the City supports efforts which incentivize public-private
partnerships and ensure reasonable local flexibility as communities work towards cost-effective,
universal broadband access.
Strategic plan objective: Promote an inclusive & resilient economy throughout the city.
Support the continued excellence of the State's primary, secondary, and higher
education institutions and advocate for additional education funding
Iowa's primary and secondary schools are fundamental drivers of the State's economic growth,
standard of living, and future prosperity. It is essential for the success of the State and our local
communities that support for our schools is a top priority in the State's budget, including support
for early childhood education.
The University of Iowa plays a critical role in supporting statewide economic, social, and cultural
growth. It is important the State of Iowa provides the university the needed resources to ensure
the university's continued ability to facilitate growth opportunities in varied sectors of the
business community. Likewise, community colleges play an important role in ensuring the
continued competitiveness and inclusivity of the state's economy. The City encourages the
State to carefully consider and support the legislative and financial priorities of the University of
Iowa and Kirkwood Community College.
Support initiatives improving access to affordable, high quality child care and developing
a professional child care workforce.
The City encourages the State to support workers by expanding access, affordability, and
quality of child care and developing a well-trained, professional child care workforce.
Specifically, the City supports implementation of the recommendations released by the
Governor's Child Care Task Force, using a multi-pronged approach including, lowering the Child
Care Assistance (CCA) program income eligibility threshold, encouraging business investments
through public-private partnerships, and supporting child care through tax credits.
Additionally, Iowa City encourages the State to support and invest in the child care and early
childhood educator workforce pipeline, through training and professionalization of the industry
and long-term wage supplements and increased benefits incentives for providers.
Resolution No. 21-297
Page 5
Continue use of federal funding to support residents and businesses in recovery from
the COVID-19 pandemic
Cities across Iowa are experiencing severe economic impacts due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Direct and flexible funding allocations to cities are essential to ensuring local needs are
addressed adequately through locally viable and effective solutions. Iowa City encourages the
State to continue investing available American Rescue Plan Act dollars and other federal
funding in local municipalities to support Iowa residents and businesses in recovering from the
COVID-19 pandemic.
Strategic plan objective: Strengthen community engagement and intergovernmental
relations.
Support the legislative efforts of the Iowa League of Cities and the Metro Coalition
In previous years, Council's adopted priorities included support for legislative efforts of the Iowa
League of Cities and Metropolitan Coalition, an organization comprised of the State's largest
cities. The 2022 legislative priorities for each of these organizations are attached.
Passed and approved this 30th day of November , 20 21 .
M r
Approved by
•
Attest: 4-':\c(
L�-c` l i c L (%
C y Clerk City Attorney' ice - 11/23/21
It was moved by Salih and seconded by Weiner the
Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes: Nays: Absent:
X Bergus
X Mims
X Salih
X Taylor
X Teague
X Thomas
X Weiner