HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-11-30 OrdinanceItem Number: 11.c.
November 30, 2021
O rdinanc e c onditionally rezoning approximately 53.36 ac res from C ounty Agric ultural (A) to Intensive
C ommercial (C I-1), approximately 17.03 acres from C ounty Agricultural (A) to Interim Development
C ommercial (I D-C ), and approximately 9 ac res from R ural R es idential (R R -1) to Intensive C ommerc ial (C I-1)
for land loc ated west of the intersec tion of I W V R oad S W and S lothower R oad.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Planning and Z oning Commission Rezoning Staff Report
Rezoning Exhibit
Site Grading and Erosion Control Plan
Wetland Delineation Report - Part 1
Wetland Delineation Report - Part 2
Wetland Delineation Report - Part 3
Wetland Delineation Report - Part 4
Rezoning L egal Description
C I -1 Z one Permitted Uses
Updated Conditions Memo for P lanning and Zoning Commission
P&Z Minutes 09/16
P&Z Minutes 10/21
Correspondence
Draft Ordinance
Draft Conditional Zoning Agreement
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
(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.
08-24-21 REVISED ZONING BOUNDARIES -JDM
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
07-07-2021
KJB
RLW
GDM
IOWA CITY
10355-010 1
REZONING EXHIBIT
1
1"=200'
(COUNTY "A" TO CI-1 )
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-R7
WN 1\2 - NW 1\4SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNE 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-R7WGRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0
1"=200'
20 50 100 150 200
REZONING 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
REZONING PARCELS
PORTIONS OF THE NORTH
ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 13,
TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7
WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN
REZONING PARCEL NO. 2
( RR1 TO CI-1 )REZONING PARCEL NO. 1 (COUNTY "A" TO ID-C )
REZONING PARCEL NO. 3
9.00 AC53.36 AC
17.03 AC
POINT OF BEGINNING PARCEL NO. 1
POINT OF BEGINNING PARCEL NO. 2
POINT OF BEGINNING PARCEL NO. 3
DESCRIPTION - REZONING PARCEL #1
A PORTION OF 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, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Beginning at the North Quarter Corner of Section 13, Township 79 North, Range 7 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa; Thence S00°00'59"W, along the East Line of
the North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13, a distance of 1305.56 feet, to its intersection with the Easterly Projection of 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 Easterly Projection and
North Line, 300.07 feet; Thence N00°00'59"E, 1307.41 feet, to a Point on the North Line of the North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13; Thence N89°06'50"E, along said
North Line, 300.04 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Rezoning Parcel #1 contains 9.00 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record.
DESCRIPTION - REZONING PARCEL #2
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 S00°00'59"W, along the East
Line of the North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13, a distance of 1305.56 feet, to its intersection with the Easterly Projection of 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 Easterly Projection and
North Line, 300.07 feet, to the Point of Beginning; Thence continuing 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, 1551.41 feet; Thence N13°37'32"W, 53.10 feet; Thence N04°19'09"E, 213.22 feet; Thence N22°47'41"E, 655.46 feet; Thence N33°02'35"E, 438.62 feet; Thence N00°53'27"W,
86.39 feet, to a Point on the North Line of the North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13; Thence N89°06'50"E, along said North Line, 1471.32 feet; Thence S00°00'59"W,
1307.41 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Rezoning Parcel #2 contains 53.36 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record.
DESCRIPTION - REZONING PARCEL #3
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:
Beginning at the Northwest Corner of Section 13, Township 79 North, Range 7 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa; 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 862.10 feet; Thence S00°53'27"E, 86.39 feet; Thence S33°02'35"W, 438.62 feet; Thence S22°47'41"W,
655.46 feet; Thence S04°19'09"W, 213.22 feet; Thence S13°37'32"E, 53.10 feet, to a Point on 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, 370.12 feet, to the Southwest Corner of the North One- Half of the Northwest Quarter of said 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 Point of Beginning. Said Rezoning Parcel #3 contains 17.03 Acres, and is subject to
easements and restrictions of record.
IWV ROAD SW / F46SLOTHOWER ROAD
HURT ROAD SWALBERT ANDFAY'S FIRSTADDITIONKAUBLE'SSUBDIVISIONNW
1
4 -
N
E
1
4SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NE14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSE 14 - NW14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNE 1
4
- NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNW 14 -
NW
1
4SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNE 14 - NE 14SECTION 14-T79N-R7WSE 14 - NE 14SECTION 14-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SE 14SECTION 11-T79N-R7WSW 14 - SW 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SW 14SEC. 12-T79N-R7WSW 14 - SE 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7WCOMMONACCESS(CONCEPT)ACCESS(CONCEPT)PROPOSEDBASINPROPOSEDBASINPROPOSEDBASINLOT SPLIT
(CONCEPT)
LOT SPLIT
(CONCEPT)LIMITS OFCONST.LIMITS OFCONST.LIM
ITS
OFCONST.
LIMITS OF
CONST.
FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY
(319) 351-8282LAND PLANNERSLAND SURVEYORSCIVIL ENGINEERSLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSIOWA CITY, IOWA 52240MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTSwww.mmsconsultants.net1917 S. GILBERT ST.PER CITY COMMENTS -JDM08-06-2107/08/21JDMFIELDBOOKTAVJDM10355-001162.36 ACPART OF THENW14-NW14 ANDTHE NE14-NW14OF SEC. 13,T79N, R7WJOHNSON COUNTY,IOWAREVISED BOUNDARY -JDM08-24-21SITE GRADING ANDEROSION CONTROL PLANAND SENSITIVE AREAS11"=100'GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET1"=100'010255075100SITE GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND SENSITIVE AREASPART OF THE NW1/4-NW1/4 AND NE1/4-NW1/4, SEC. 13,T79N,R7WJOHNSON COUNTY, IOWACWPRDL010203DPREPARED BY:MMS CONSULTANTS INC.1917 S. GILBERT STREETIOWA CITY, IA 52240OWNER/APPLICANT:DLCWPRIWV HOLDINGS LLC2916 HIGHWAY 1 NEIOWA CITY IA 52240AREA OF PROPOSED ID-C ZONING:A SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENTPLAN FOR THIS PARCEL WILL BECOMPLETED WHEN A PERMANENTZONING CLASSIFICATION APPLICATIONIS SUBMITTED. SENSITIVE AREASSHOWN IN THIS AREA ARE FORREFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY.WESTERN BOUNDARY OFPROPOSED CI-1 ZONING.NO CONSTRUCTION SHALLOCCUR WEST OF THIS LINE.WESTERN BOUNDARY OFPROPOSED CI-1 ZONING.NO CONSTRUCTION SHALLOCCUR WEST OF THIS LINE.NOT TO SCALELOCATION MAPPROJECTLOCATION
IWV ROAD SW / F46SLOTHOWER ROAD
HURT ROAD SWALBERT ANDFAY'S FIRSTADDITIONKAUBLE'SSUBDIVISIONNW
1
4 -
N
E
1
4SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NE14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSE 14 - NW14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNE 1
4
- NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNW 14 -
NW
1
4SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNE 14 - NE 14SECTION 14-T79N-R7WSE 14 - NE 14SECTION 14-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SE 14SECTION 11-T79N-R7WSW 14 - SW 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SW 14SEC. 12-T79N-R7WSW 14 - SE 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7WPREPARED BY:MMS CONSULTANTS INC.1917 S. GILBERT STREETIOWA CITY, IA 52240OWNER/APPLICANT:NOT TO SCALELOCATION MAPPROJECTLOCATION(319) 351-8282LAND PLANNERSLAND SURVEYORSCIVIL ENGINEERSLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSIOWA CITY, IOWA 52240MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTSwww.mmsconsultants.net1917 S. GILBERT ST.PER CITY COMMENTS -JDM08-06-2107/08/21JDMFIELDBOOKTAVJDM10355-001162.36 ACPART OF THENW14-NW14 ANDTHE NE14-NW14OF SEC. 13,T79N, R7WJOHNSON COUNTY,IOWAREVISED BOUNDARY -JDM08-24-21SENSITIVE AREAS OVERALL MAP 21"=100'GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET1"=100'010255075100SITE GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND SENSITIVE AREASPART OF THE NW1/4-NW1/4 AND NE1/4-NW1/4, SEC. 13,T79N,R7WJOHNSON COUNTY, IOWAIWV HOLDINGS LLC2916 HIGHWAY 1 NEIOWA CITY IA 52240
IWV ROAD SW / F46SLOTHOWER ROAD
HURT ROAD SWALBERT ANDFAY'S FIRSTADDITIONKAUBLE'SSUBDIVISIONNW
1
4 -
N
E
1
4SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NE14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSE 14 - NW14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNE 1
4
- NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNW 14 -
NW
1
4SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNE 14 - NE 14SECTION 14-T79N-R7WSE 14 - NE 14SECTION 14-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SE 14SECTION 11-T79N-R7WSW 14 - SW 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SW 14SEC. 12-T79N-R7WSW 14 - SE 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7WPREPARED BY:MMS CONSULTANTS INC.1917 S. GILBERT STREETIOWA CITY, IA 52240OWNER/APPLICANT:NOT TO SCALELOCATION MAPPROJECTLOCATION(319) 351-8282LAND PLANNERSLAND SURVEYORSCIVIL ENGINEERSLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSIOWA CITY, IOWA 52240MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTSwww.mmsconsultants.net1917 S. GILBERT ST.PER CITY COMMENTS -JDM08-06-2107/08/21JDMFIELDBOOKTAVJDM10355-001162.36 ACPART OF THENW14-NW14 ANDTHE NE14-NW14OF SEC. 13,T79N, R7WJOHNSON COUNTY,IOWAREVISED BOUNDARY -JDM08-24-21SENSITIVE AREAS STREAM CORRIDORSAND WETLANDS 31"=100'GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET1"=100'010255075100SITE GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND SENSITIVE AREASPART OF THE NW1/4-NW1/4 AND NE1/4-NW1/4, SEC. 13,T79N,R7WJOHNSON COUNTY, IOWAIWV HOLDINGS LLC2916 HIGHWAY 1 NEIOWA CITY IA 52240
IWV ROAD SW / F46SLOTHOWER ROAD
HURT ROAD SWALBERT ANDFAY'S FIRSTADDITIONKAUBLE'SSUBDIVISIONNW
1
4 -
N
E
1
4SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NE14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSE 14 - NW14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNE 1
4
- NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNW 14 -
NW
1
4SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNE 14 - NE 14SECTION 14-T79N-R7WSE 14 - NE 14SECTION 14-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SE 14SECTION 11-T79N-R7WSW 14 - SW 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SW 14SEC. 12-T79N-R7WSW 14 - SE 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7WPREPARED BY:MMS CONSULTANTS INC.1917 S. GILBERT STREETIOWA CITY, IA 52240OWNER/APPLICANT:NOT TO SCALELOCATION MAPPROJECTLOCATION(319) 351-8282LAND PLANNERSLAND SURVEYORSCIVIL ENGINEERSLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSIOWA CITY, IOWA 52240MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTSwww.mmsconsultants.net1917 S. GILBERT ST.PER CITY COMMENTS -JDM08-06-2107/08/21JDMFIELDBOOKTAVJDM10355-001162.36 ACPART OF THENW14-NW14 ANDTHE NE14-NW14OF SEC. 13,T79N, R7WJOHNSON COUNTY,IOWAREVISED BOUNDARY -JDM08-24-21SENSITIVE AREAS WOODLANDS ANDGROVES, SLOPES 41"=100'GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET1"=100'010255075100SITE GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND SENSITIVE AREASPART OF THE NW1/4-NW1/4 AND NE1/4-NW1/4, SEC. 13,T79N,R7WJOHNSON COUNTY, IOWAIWV HOLDINGS LLC2916 HIGHWAY 1 NEIOWA CITY IA 52240
IWV HOLDINGS
NW1/4, NW1/4, & NE1/4, NW1/4, SEC.13-T79N-RW7W
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
“WATERS of the U.S.” DELINEATION REPORT
& PERMIT APPLICATION
Prepared For:
IWV Holdings
US Army Corps of Engineers
Prepared By:
Lee Swank
l.swank@mmsconsultants.net
MMS Project No. 10355-010
08/25/2021
IWV HOLDINGS
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
PROJECT # 10355-010
AUGUST 5TH, 2021
SUMMARY
MMS Consultants, Inc. was contracted by IWV Holdings to delineate potential “Waters of the United
States” on an approximately 75-acre parcel. The study area is located in the NW1/4 of the NW1/4 and
the NE1/4 of the NW1/4 of Section 13, T79N, R7W, in Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa. The Site
Location and Vicinity Map, in Appendix A, show the approximate location of the site.
According to aerial photos, it appears the site has been in row crop production for at least the last century
and was planted with soybeans at the time of the wetland delineation in May of 2021. A treed fence row,
and two buffered streams are also present on the property. Preliminary data research of the site revealed
that aerial indicators of surface water, two streams, and hydric soils were present within the study area,
and that further research and field data needed to be collected. An on-site investigation was conducted on
May 11th to identify areas of potential “waters of the United States”. Assessments determined that 1.45
acres of emergent wetland, 1.12 acres of wooded wetland, and 1,752 linear feet of stream channel are
present within the study area. It appears the boundaries of the wetlands extend beyond the limits of the
study area. Only wetlands that fall within the study area were delineated. As no impacts to wetlands are
proposed, a copy of this report has not been sent to the Army Corps of Engineers.
PRELIMINARY RESEARCH
Preliminary data research included:
The USGS 24K Topographical Map
The USDA/NRCS Web Soil Survey Hydric Soils Map
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Map
FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Map
and Aerial photos from the 1990s, and between 2004 and 2017
All of the above-mentioned figures are presented in the Appendix, respectively.
METHODOLOGY
A site visit was conducted on May 11th, 2021, to document soils, vegetation, and hydrology. Field
verification followed the methodology outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual
(January 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:
Midwest Region (Version Two).
SITE DESCRIPTION
Soils
The soils throughout the project area are shown on the Hydric Soils Map from the Web Soil Survey in
Appendix A. The mapped soils are listed in the below table along with their hydric rating and which
sample points were taken within each soil type:
IWV HOLDINGS
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
PROJECT # 10355-010
AUGUST 5TH, 2021
Table 1: Hydric Soils
Map Unit
Symbol
Map Unit Name Hydric Rating Sample Point Taken
within Soil Type
11B Colo-Ely Complex, 0-5% slopes 55B 1-5
75 Givin silt loam, 0-2% slopes 5
76B Ladoga silt loam, 2-5% slopes 0
76C2 Ladoga silt loam, 5-9% slopes 5
76D2 Ladoga silt loam, 9-14% slopes 0
80B Clinton silt loam, 2-5% slopes 0
80C2 Clinton silt loam, 5-9% slopes 5
80D2 Clinton silt loam, 9-14% slopes 0
M163E2 Fayette silt loam, 14-18%
slopes, eroded
0
M163E3 Fayette silt clay loam, 14-18%
slopes, severely eroded
0
According to the hydric soils map, approximately 15% of the study area is comprised of soils that are 55%
hydric, approximately 26% of the study area is mapped as 5% hydric, with the residual 19% of study area
mapped as 0% hydric. Hydric soils were observed at sample points 1, 4, and 5. Depleted Below Dark
Surface (A11), Depleted Matrix (F3), Redox Dark Surface (F6), Depleted Dark Surface (F7), and Redox
Depressions (F8) were the hydric soil indicators that were observed.
Hydrology
The below WETS table was obtained from AgACIS. Data utilized in the table was obtained from the
weather station at the Iowa City Municipal Airport approximately four miles from the project site.
Precipitation totals from Jan-June 2021 were considered below average. The month prior to the site visit
was considered a normal month, and the month of the June site visit was considered dry. It rained 1.2
inches two days prior to the site visit.
Table 2: WETS table
WETS Station: Iowa City Municipal Airport
Requested years: 1971 - 2021
Month 2021 Monthly
Precip Totals
Avg
Precip
30% chance
precip less
than
30% chance
precip more
than
Normal/Wet/Dry
Jan 1.48 0.91 0.46 1.11 Wet
Feb 0.7 1.23 0.71 1.5 Dry
Mar 2.63 2.15 1.26 2.62 Wet
Apr 2.37 3.7 2.68 4.37 Dry
May 4.33 4.26 3.17 4.99 Normal
Jun 2.67 5.14 3.83 6.02 Dry
TOTAL 14.18 17.39
Sources of on-site hydrology were also investigated. A culvert runs under IWV Rd at the northwest corner
of the site. This culvert conveys water from the surrounding uplands north of IWV, to a stream channel
that runs southwest across the west 1/2 of the property. This stream channel had active water flowing
during the site visit in May. This stream appears to be fed by groundwater and surface runoff from the
IWV HOLDINGS
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
PROJECT # 10355-010
AUGUST 5TH, 2021
surrounding uplands. A second stream channel was identified along the center of the southern boundary
line for the study area. This stream had flowing water during the site visit. Standing water was identified
within the wetland area upslope of the stream. This stream appears to be fed by groundwater and surface
runoff from the surrounding uplands.
The presence of hydrology indicators were investigated during the wetland delineation. Sample points 1,
4 and 5 all classified as having wetland hydrology. Sample points 2 and 3 did not meet sufficient indicators
to classify as exhibiting wetland hydrology. The following primary hydrology indicators were observed:
High Water Table (A2) and Saturation (A3). The secondary indicators of Drainage Patters (B10),
Geomorphic Position (D2), and the FAC-Neutral Test (D5) were also observed.
Vegetation
The study area consists of 3 separate Vegetative Areas (VA):
The row-crop farm fields, which comprise the majority of project area, are classified as Vegetative
Area 1 (VA1) and were planted with Soybeans at the time of the site visit.
The vegetation surrounding the stream channels are classified as VA2 and dominated by Phalaris
arundinacea and Acer saccharinum.
A treed fence row (VA3) is present through the center of the site. Understory vegetation is
comprised primarily of Bromus inermis and dominant tree species include Acer saccharinum and
Acer negundo.
Summary
Soils, hydrology, and vegetation were assessed throughout the project area to determine the presence of
wetlands. Two areas were identified that met all three wetland criteria, which include 1.45 acres of
emergent wetland and 1.12 acres of wooded wetland. Two stream channels were also identified within the
study area with a total of 1,752 linear feet of intermittent stream channel. The table below provides a
summary of the streams and wetlands.
Table 3. Stream and Wetland Summary
Emergent
Wetland
Wooded
Wetland
Intermittent
Stream
TOTAL
Wetland A 0.95 AC 0.37 AC 1.32
Wetland B 0.50 AC 0.75 AC 1.25
Stream 1 232 LF
Stream 2 1,520 LF
TOTAL 1.45 1.12 1,752 2.57
Wetland A is located along the southern edge of the project area and was delineated at 1.32 acres.
This wetland has 0.95 acres of emergent wetland, and 0.37 acres of wooded wetland. The wetland
is associated with the Stream 1. Ground water and the stream appear to be the primary sources of
hydrology for Wetland A. Vegetation of Wetland A was dominated by Phalaris arundinacea.
Wetland B is located along the west edge of the study area and was delineated at 1.25 acres. This
wetland has 0.50 acres of emergent wetland and 0.75 acres of wooded wetland. Wetland B is
associated with Stream 2. Groundwater and the stream appear to be the primary sources of
hydrology for Wetland B.
Stream 1 flows along the southern edge of the project area and was measured at 232 linear feet.
This stream has a defined bed and bank, and ordinary high-water mark. Water was observed within
IWV HOLDINGS
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
PROJECT # 10355-010
AUGUST 5TH, 2021
the stream channel during the site visit (less 12”). The sources of water for stream flow are ground
water, and overland flow. Based on the sources of water for stream flow, water observed within
the channel, and morphology of the stream channel, it was determined that Stream 1 was a
intermittent stream.
Stream 2 flows through the western 1/4 of the study area and was measured at 1,520 linear feet.
This stream has a defined bed and bank, and ordinary high-water mark. Water was observed
within the stream channel during the site visit. The sources of water for stream flow are overland
flow, channelized flow from a culvert that runs under IWV road and groundwater. Based on the
sources of water for stream flow, water observed within the channel, and morphology of the
stream channel, it was determined that Stream 2 is an intermittent stream.
Conclusions
The project area has historically been utilized for agriculture with a long history of row crop production.
Approximately 90% of the land area is in crop production. The residual non-crop areas included a treed
fence row, and two buffered streams. The site exhibits a mix of topography with uplands, drainage ways
and lowland. Soils, hydrology, and vegetation were evaluated during the May site visit and followed the
methodology outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (January 1987) and the
Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (Version
Two).
The May field visit verified the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydrology within
two regions of the site. The boundaries of the wetlands were delineated using a handheld GPS and
categorized as 1.12 acres of wooded wetland, and 1.45 acres of emergent wetland. Additionally, 1,752
linear feet of intermittent stream were identified within the project area. As no impacts to wetlands are
proposed, a copy of this report has not been sent to the Army Corps of Engineers. Per City of Iowa City
Code, a delineation of construction area limits has been provided around, and to protect, the wetland
areas, as illustrated in the site grading and erosion control plan included in the appendix of this
report. No grading, dredging, clearing, filling, draining, or other development activity is allowed within
a regulated wetland or required buffer area, unless said activity is a use, activity or structure allowed
according to subsection 14-5I-2D of City of Iowa City Code. To protect the wetland, erosion control
measures must be installed prior to any development activity occurring on the site.
AppendixSITE LOCATION & VICINITY MAPUSGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAPUSDA NRCS WEBSOIL SURVEY (HYDRIC SOILS MAP)NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY MAPFLOODPLAIN MAP
Designed by:LRSDrawn by:Checked by:LRSLRSScale:not to scaleDate:08/04/2021Project No::IC10355-010SITE LOCATION & VICINITY MAPSNW1/4, NW1/4, & NE1/4, NW1/4, Sec.13-T79N-R7WIWV RD SWLOCATION MAPVICINITY MAPIOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWAMMS CONSULTANTS, INC.IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240(319) 351-8282www.mmsconsultants.netApproximateProject Location ApproximateProject Location Map Source: Iowa Geographic Map Server https://isugisf.maps.arcgis.com
Designed by:Drawn by:Checked by:Scale:Date:Project No::USGS 24K TOPOGRAPHIC MAPApproximate Study LocationLRSLRSLRSnot to scaleICMMS CONSULTANTS, INC.IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240(319) 351-8282www.mmsconsultants.netMap Source: USGS https://viewer.nationalmap.gov08/04/202110355-010NW1/4, NW1/4, & NE1/4, NW1/4, Sec.13-T79N-R7WIWV RD SWIOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Johnson County, Iowa
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
5/10/2021
Page 1 of 5461220046123004612400461250046126004612700461220046123004612400461250046126004612700615000615100615200615300615400615500615600615700615800615900
615000 615100 615200 615300 615400 615500 615600 615700 615800 615900
41° 39' 29'' N 91° 37' 10'' W41° 39' 29'' N91° 36' 27'' W41° 39' 9'' N
91° 37' 10'' W41° 39' 9'' N
91° 36' 27'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 15N WGS84
0 200 400 800 1200
Feet
0 50 100 200 300
Meters
Map Scale: 1:4,510 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
Hydric (100%)
Hydric (66 to 99%)
Hydric (33 to 65%)
Hydric (1 to 32%)
Not Hydric (0%)
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
Hydric (100%)
Hydric (66 to 99%)
Hydric (33 to 65%)
Hydric (1 to 32%)
Not Hydric (0%)
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
Hydric (100%)
Hydric (66 to 99%)
Hydric (33 to 65%)
Hydric (1 to 32%)
Not Hydric (0%)
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:15,800.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Johnson County, Iowa
Survey Area Data: Version 23, Jun 10, 2020
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Apr 12, 2011—Nov
18, 2020
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Johnson County, Iowa
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
5/10/2021
Page 2 of 5
Hydric Rating by Map Unit
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
11B Colo-Ely complex, 0 to 5
percent slopes
55 12.6 15.4%
75 Givin silt loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
5 2.6 3.1%
76B Ladoga silt loam, 2 to 5
percent slopes
0 24.5 29.9%
76C2 Ladoga silt loam, 5 to 9
percent slopes,
eroded
5 16.8 20.6%
76D2 Ladoga silt loam, 9 to 14
percent slopes,
eroded
0 2.2 2.7%
80B Clinton silt loam, 2 to 5
percent slopes
0 1.2 1.5%
80C2 Clinton silt loam, 5 to 9
percent slopes,
eroded
5 2.0 2.5%
80D2 Clinton silt loam, 9 to 14
percent slopes,
eroded
0 13.8 16.9%
M163E2 Fayette silt loam, till
plain, 14 to 18 percent
slopes, eroded
0 0.7 0.9%
M163E3 Fayette silty clay loam,
till plain, 14 to 18
percent slopes,
severely eroded
0 5.3 6.4%
Totals for Area of Interest 81.8 100.0%
Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Johnson County, Iowa
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
5/10/2021
Page 3 of 5
10355-010
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Wetlands
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
Estuarine and Marine Wetland
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Other
Riverine
May 10, 2021
0 0.2 0.40.1 mi
0 0.35 0.70.175 km
1:1 3,434
This page was produced by the NWI mapperNational Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site.
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250
Feet
Ü
SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT
SPECIAL FLOOD
HAZARD AREAS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A, V, A99
With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulatory Floodway
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mileZone X
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood HazardZone X
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
Levee. See Notes.Zone X
Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D
NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
Area of Undetermined Flood HazardZone D
Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance
17.5 Water Surface Elevation
Coastal Transect
Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Effective LOMRs
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
Digital Data Available
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.
The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the
authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map
was exported on 8/5/2021 at 11:49 AM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and
time. The NFHL and effective information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.
This map image is void if the one or more of the following map
elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels,
legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers,
FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for
unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.
Legend
OTHER AREAS OF
FLOOD HAZARD
OTHER AREAS
GENERAL
STRUCTURES
OTHER
FEATURES
MAP PANELS
8
B 20.2
The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.
1:6,000
91°37'9"W 41°39'32"N
91°36'31"W 41°39'5"N
Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery: Data refreshed October, 2020
Appendix B 2020 & 2019 AERIAL IMAGE2017 & 2016 AERIAL IMAGES2015 & 2014 AERIAL IMAGESPHOTOS 1 – 3 PHOTOS 4 – 6 PHOTOS 7 – 9 PHOTOS 10 – 12 PHOTOS 13 – 15 PHOTOS 16 – 18
Designed by:Drawn by:Checked by:Scale:Date:Project No::2020 & 2019 AERIAL IMAGELRSLRSLRSnot to scaleICMMS CONSULTANTS, INC.IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240(319) 351-8282www.mmsconsultants.netMap Source: Iowa Geographic Map Server https://isugisf.maps.arcgis.com2020201908/04/202110355-010NW1/4, NW1/4, & NE1/4, NW1/4, Sec.13-T79N-R7WIWV RD SWIOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
Designed by:Drawn by:Checked by:Scale:Date:Project No::2017 & 2016 AERIAL IMAGELRSLRSLRSnot to scaleICMMS CONSULTANTS, INC.IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240(319) 351-8282www.mmsconsultants.netMap Source: Iowa Geographic Map Server https://isugisf.maps.arcgis.com2017201608/04/202110355-010NW1/4, NW1/4, & NE1/4, NW1/4, Sec.13-T79N-R7WIWV RD SWIOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
Designed by:Drawn by:Checked by:Scale:Date:Project No::2015 & 2014 AERIAL IMAGELRSLRSLRSnot to scaleICMMS CONSULTANTS, INC.IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240(319) 351-8282www.mmsconsultants.netMap Source: Iowa Geographic Map Server https://isugisf.maps.arcgis.com2015201408/04/202110355-010NW1/4, NW1/4, & NE1/4, NW1/4, Sec.13-T79N-R7WIWV RD SWIOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
Designed by:Drawn by:Checked by:Scale:Date:Project No::PHOTO LOCATION MAP (LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE)LRSLRSLRSnot to scaleICMMS CONSULTANTS, INC.IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240(319) 351-8282www.mmsconsultants.netMap Source: Iowa Geographic Map Server https://isugisf.maps.arcgis.com08/04/202110355-010NW1/4, NW1/4, & NE1/4, NW1/4, Sec.13-T79N-R7WIWV RD SWIOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA123511812910467141617181513
Designed by:Drawn by:Checked by:Scale:Date:Project No::PHOTOS 1 - 3LRSLRSLRSnot to scaleICMMS CONSULTANTS, INC.IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240(319) 351-8282www.mmsconsultants.netPhoto 1 (left): Standing near southeast edge of property, looking west. Photo 2 (right): Standing near southeast edge of property, looking north. Photo 3 (left): Standing near southeast edge of property, looking east. Photo source: MMS Consultants Inc. 202008/04/202110355-010NW1/4, NW1/4, & NE1/4, NW1/4, Sec.13-T79N-R7WIWV RD SWIOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
Designed by:Drawn by:Checked by:Scale:Date:Project No::PHOTOS 4 - 6 LRSLRSLRSnot to scaleICMMS CONSULTANTS, INC.IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240(319) 351-8282www.mmsconsultants.netPhoto 4 (left): Standing within Emergent Wetland A, looking south. Photo 5 (right): Looking east across Emergent Wetland A. Photo 6 (left): Looking at start of Intermittent Stream 1, within Wetland A. Photo source: MMS Consultants Inc. 202008/04/202110355-010NW1/4, NW1/4, & NE1/4, NW1/4, Sec.13-T79N-R7WIWV RD SWIOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
Designed by:Drawn by:Checked by:Scale:Date:Project No::PHOTOS 7 - 9LRSLRSLRSnot to scaleICMMS CONSULTANTS, INC.IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240(319) 351-8282www.mmsconsultants.netPhoto 7 (left): Looking at Intermittent Stream 1. Photo 8 (right): Looking at north section of Emergent Wetland A within drainageway of Ag field. Photo 9 (left): Looking at standing water within above (photo 8) pictured section of wetland. Photo source: MMS Consultants Inc. 202008/04/202110355-010NW1/4, NW1/4, & NE1/4, NW1/4, Sec.13-T79N-R7WIWV RD SWIOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
Designed by:Drawn by:Checked by:Scale:Date:Project No::PHOTOS 10 - 12LRSLRSLRSnot to scaleICMMS CONSULTANTS, INC.IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240(319) 351-8282www.mmsconsultants.netPhoto 10 (left): Looking at boundary of Wooded WetlandA.Photo 11 (right): Looking at Intermittent Stream 2 within Wetland B. Photo 12 (left): Looking at sample point 5 within Emergent Wetland B. Photo source: MMS Consultants Inc. 202008/04/202110355-010NW1/4, NW1/4, & NE1/4, NW1/4, Sec.13-T79N-R7WIWV RD SWIOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
Designed by:Drawn by:Checked by:Scale:Date:Project No::PHOTOS 13 - 15LRSLRSLRSnot to scaleICMMS CONSULTANTS, INC.IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240(319) 351-8282www.mmsconsultants.netPhoto 13 (left): Standing near center of Wetland B, looking north. Photo 14 (right): Standing on east side of Wetland B, looking north at boundary of wetland. Photo 15 (left): Standing on west side of Wetland B, looking south at boundary of wetland. Photo source: MMS Consultants Inc. 202008/04/202110355-010NW1/4, NW1/4, & NE1/4, NW1/4, Sec.13-T79N-R7WIWV RD SWIOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
Designed by:Drawn by:Checked by:Scale:Date:Project No::PHOTOS 16 - 18LRSLRSLRSnot to scaleICMMS CONSULTANTS, INC.IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240(319) 351-8282www.mmsconsultants.netPhoto 16 (left): Looking north at Intermittent Stream 2 within Wetland B. Photo 17 (right): Looking north at Intermittent Stream 2, north of Wetland B boundary. Photo 18 (left): Looking at north end of Intermittent Stream 2 at culvert that feeds stream. Photo source: MMS Consultants Inc. 202008/04/202110355-010NW1/4, NW1/4, & NE1/4, NW1/4, Sec.13-T79N-R7WIWV RD SWIOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
Appendix C • WETLAND DELINEATION MAP• SITE PLAN • DATA FORMS
IWV ROAD SW / F46SLOTHOWER ROAD
HURT ROAD SWALBERT ANDFAY'S FIRSTADDITIONKAUBLE'SSUBDIVISIONNW
1
4 -
N
E
1
4SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NE14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSE 14 - NW14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNE 1
4
- NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNW 14 -
NW
1
4SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNE 14 - NE 14SECTION 14-T79N-R7WSE 14 - NE 14SECTION 14-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SE 14SECTION 11-T79N-R7WSW 14 - SW 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SW 14SEC. 12-T79N-R7WSW 14 - SE 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7WCOMMONACCESS(CONCEPT)ACCESS(CONCEPT)PROPOSEDBASINPROPOSEDBASINPROPOSEDBASINLOT SPLIT
(CONCEPT)
LOT SPLIT
(CONCEPT)LIMITS OFCONST.LIMITS OFCONST.LIM
ITS
OFCONST.
LIMITS OF
CONST.
FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY
(319) 351-8282LAND PLANNERSLAND SURVEYORSCIVIL ENGINEERSLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSIOWA CITY, IOWA 52240MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTSwww.mmsconsultants.net1917 S. GILBERT ST.PER CITY COMMENTS -JDM08-06-2107/08/21JDMFIELDBOOKTAVJDM10355-001162.36 ACPART OF THENW14-NW14 ANDTHE NE14-NW14OF SEC. 13,T79N, R7WJOHNSON COUNTY,IOWAREVISED BOUNDARY -JDM08-24-21SITE GRADING ANDEROSION CONTROL PLANAND SENSITIVE AREAS11"=100'GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET1"=100'010255075100SITE GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND SENSITIVE AREASPART OF THE NW1/4-NW1/4 AND NE1/4-NW1/4, SEC. 13,T79N,R7WJOHNSON COUNTY, IOWACWPRDL010203DPREPARED BY:MMS CONSULTANTS INC.1917 S. GILBERT STREETIOWA CITY, IA 52240OWNER/APPLICANT:DLCWPRIWV HOLDINGS LLC2916 HIGHWAY 1 NEIOWA CITY IA 52240AREA OF PROPOSED ID-C ZONING:A SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENTPLAN FOR THIS PARCEL WILL BECOMPLETED WHEN A PERMANENTZONING CLASSIFICATION APPLICATIONIS SUBMITTED. SENSITIVE AREASSHOWN IN THIS AREA ARE FORREFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY.WESTERN BOUNDARY OFPROPOSED CI-1 ZONING.NO CONSTRUCTION SHALLOCCUR WEST OF THIS LINE.WESTERN BOUNDARY OFPROPOSED CI-1 ZONING.NO CONSTRUCTION SHALLOCCUR WEST OF THIS LINE.NOT TO SCALELOCATION MAPPROJECTLOCATION
(319) 351-8282
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
www.mmsconsultants.net
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
IOWA CITY
IWV RD SW
IWV HOLDINGS08/05/2021
10355-010LRS
LRS
LRS
FIELDBOOK
1"=300'WETLANDSGRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET01"=300'3075150225300
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Midwest Region
Applicant/Owner:
Are Climatic/ Hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Naturally Problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific name of plants.
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot Size:)
(A)
(B)
= Total Cover
(AB)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size:)Prevalence Index Worksheet:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
=Total Cover x 5 =
Herbaceous Stratum (Plot Size:)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Index:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophtic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Pevalence Index is <3.01
Problematic Hydrophytic vegetation1 (Explain)
=Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size:)
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
2.
Yes X No
20%= 20 100
50%=0 20%=0 0
30ft radius Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
1.
10. 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology
must be present, unless disturbed or problemtic50%= 50
9.
4-Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet8.
X
7.
6.
5. X
4.
3.
Yes FACW 2.00
2.Urtica dioica Stinging Nettle 5 No FACW
5ft radius
1.phalaris arundinacea Reed Canarygrass 95
0
Column Totals:105 (A)210 (B)
FACU Species 0 0
50%=0 20%=0 0 UPL Species 0
210
4. FAC Species 0 0
3. FACW Species 105
5.
2. OBL Species 0 0
67%
15ft radius
1.
50%=10 20%=4 20 Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of:Multiply By:
5.
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across all Strata:34.
3.
2.Salix nigra Black Willow 15 Yes OBL
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:21.Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 5 Yes FACW
X
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status30ft radius
X Is the Sampled Area
within a wetland?X X
X
Soil Map Unit Name:11B Colo-Ely Complex NWI Classification:none (adjacent mapped riverine)
X No
Slope (%):0-5%Lat:41.653802 Long:-91.61294 Datum:Decimal Degree
Investigator(s):Lee Swank Section, Township, Range:NE1/4, NW1/4, SEC13-T79N-R7W
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Toeslope Local Relief (Concave, Convex, None):concave
CKR Construction Services LLC State:Iowa Sampling Point:SP1
Project/Site:IWV ROAD SW City/County:Iowa City Sampling Date:5/11/2021
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Midwest Region
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photo, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
11"Wetland hydrology Present?Yes X NoSaturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Yes X No Depth (Inches):
Depth (Inches):
Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (Inches):23"
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X
-Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)-Gauge or Well Data (D9)
-Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)-Other (Explain in Remarks)
-Iron Deposits (B5)-Thin Muck Surface (C7)X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
-Algal Mat or Crust (B4)-Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)X Geomorphic Position (D2)
-Drift Deposits (B3)-Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)-Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
-Sediment Deposits (B2)-Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)-Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
-Water Marks (B1)-Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)-Crayfish Burrows (C8)
X Saturation (A3)-True Aquatic Plants (B14)-Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
-High Water Table (A2)-Aquatic Fauna (B13)-Drainage Patterns (B10)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
-Surface Water (A1)-Water-Stained Leaves (B9)-Soil Surface Cracks (B6)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
-5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
-Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)-Redox Depressions (F8)
X Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)-Redox Dark Surface (F6)
-Thick Dark Surface (A12)-Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
-2 cm Muck (A10)X Depleted Matrix (F3)
-Stratified Layers (A5)-Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)-Other (Explain in Remarks)
-Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)-Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)-Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12)
-Black Histic (A3)-Stripped Matrix (S6)-Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
-Histic Epipedon (A2)-Sandy Redox (S5)-Dark Surface (S7)
-Histosol (A1)-Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)-Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
M SiLo
10YR 6/2 15 D M
11-32 10YR 5/1 60 7.5YR 4/6 25 C
10YR 5/2 25 D M
3-11 10YR 4/1 55 7.5YR 4/6 20 C M/PL SiLo
0-3 10YR 3/1 100 SiLo
(inches) Color (Moist) % Color (Moist) %Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
SP1
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Midwest Region
Applicant/Owner:
Are Climatic/ Hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Naturally Problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific name of plants.
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot Size:)
(A)
(B)
= Total Cover
(AB)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size:)Prevalence Index Worksheet:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
=Total Cover x 5 =
Herbaceous Stratum (Plot Size:)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Index:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophtic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Pevalence Index is <3.01
Problematic Hydrophytic vegetation1 (Explain)
=Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size:)
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
2.
Yes X No
20%= 22 110
50%=0 20%=0 0
30ft radius Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
1.
10. 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology
must be present, unless disturbed or problemtic50%= 55
9.
4-Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet8.
X
7.
6.
5. X
4.Alliaria petiolata Garlic Mustard 15 No FAC
3.Arctium lappa Burdock 10 No UPL
Yes FACW 2.41
2.Urtica dioica Stinging Nettle 10 No FACW
5ft radius
1.Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canarygrass 75
50
Column Totals:110 (A)265 (B)
FACU Species 0 0
50%=0 20%=0 0 UPL Species 10
170
4. FAC Species 15 45
3. FACW Species 85
5.
2. OBL Species 0 0
100%
15ft radius
1.
50%=0 20%=0 0 Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of:Multiply By:
5.
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across all Strata:14.
3.
2.
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:11.
X
X
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status30ft radius
X Is the Sampled Area
within a wetland?X
X
Soil Map Unit Name:11B Colo-Ely Complex NWI Classification:None
X No
Slope (%):0-5%Lat:41.653951 Long:-91.612911 Datum:Decimal Degree
Investigator(s):Lee Swank Section, Township, Range:NE1/4, NW1/4, SEC13-T79N-R7W
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):FootSlope Local Relief (Concave, Convex, None):none
CKR Construction Services LLC State:Iowa Sampling Point:SP2
Project/Site:IWV ROAD SW City/County:Iowa City Sampling Date:5/11/2021
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Midwest Region
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photo, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Wetland hydrology Present?Yes No XSaturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Yes No X Depth (Inches):
Depth (Inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (Inches):
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X
-Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)-Gauge or Well Data (D9)
-Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)-Other (Explain in Remarks)
-Iron Deposits (B5)-Thin Muck Surface (C7)X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
-Algal Mat or Crust (B4)-Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)-Geomorphic Position (D2)
-Drift Deposits (B3)-Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)-Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
-Sediment Deposits (B2)-Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)-Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
-Water Marks (B1)-Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)-Crayfish Burrows (C8)
-Saturation (A3)-True Aquatic Plants (B14)-Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
-High Water Table (A2)-Aquatic Fauna (B13)-Drainage Patterns (B10)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
-Surface Water (A1)-Water-Stained Leaves (B9)-Soil Surface Cracks (B6)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
sample not taken within a depression - does not meet indicator F8
-5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
-Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)-Redox Depressions (F8)
-Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)-Redox Dark Surface (F6)
-Thick Dark Surface (A12)-Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
-2 cm Muck (A10)-Depleted Matrix (F3)
-Stratified Layers (A5)-Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)-Other (Explain in Remarks)
-Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)-Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)-Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12)
-Black Histic (A3)-Stripped Matrix (S6)-Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
-Histic Epipedon (A2)-Sandy Redox (S5)-Dark Surface (S7)
-Histosol (A1)-Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)-Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
M SiClLo
10YR 5/2 10 D M
16-30 10YR 4/2 75 7.5YR 3/4 15 C
10YR 5/3 15 D M
3-16 10YR 3/1 83 7.5YR 4/6 2 C M Silo
0-3 10YR 3/1 90 10YR 5/3 10 D M Silo
(inches) Color (Moist) % Color (Moist) %Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
SP2
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Midwest Region
Applicant/Owner:
Are Climatic/ Hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Naturally Problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific name of plants.
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot Size:)
(A)
(B)
= Total Cover
(AB)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size:)Prevalence Index Worksheet:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
=Total Cover x 5 =
Herbaceous Stratum (Plot Size:)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Index:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophtic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Pevalence Index is <3.01
Problematic Hydrophytic vegetation1 (Explain)
=Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size:)
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Sample point taken in Ag field subject to herbicide application
2.
Yes No X
20%= 3 15
50%=0 20%=0 0
30ft radius Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
1.
10. 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology
must be present, unless disturbed or problemtic50%= 7.5
9.
4-Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet8.
7.
6.
5.
4.
3.
Yes UPL 5.00
2.Arctium lappa Burdock 5 Yes UPL
5ft radius
1.Glycine max Soybean 10
75
Column Totals:15 (A)75 (B)
FACU Species 0 0
50%=0 20%=0 0 UPL Species 15
0
4. FAC Species 0 0
3. FACW Species 0
5.
2. OBL Species 0 0
0%
15ft radius
1.
50%=0 20%=0 0 Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of:Multiply By:
5.
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across all Strata:24.
3.
2.
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:01.
X
X
Sample point taken in Ag field
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status30ft radius
X Is the Sampled Area
within a wetland?X
X X X
Soil Map Unit Name:11B Colo-Ely Complex NWI Classification:Riverine
X No
Slope (%):0-5%Lat:41.54005 Long:-91.612063 Datum:Decimal Degree
Investigator(s):Lee Swank Section, Township, Range:NE1/4, NW1/4, SEC13-T79N-R7W
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):footslope Local Relief (Concave, Convex, None):none
CKR Construction Services LLC State:Iowa Sampling Point:SP3
Project/Site:IWV ROAD SW City/County:Iowa City Sampling Date:5/11/2021
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Midwest Region
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photo, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Wetland hydrology Present?Yes No XSaturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Yes No X Depth (Inches):
Depth (Inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (Inches):
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X
-Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)-Gauge or Well Data (D9)
-Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)-Other (Explain in Remarks)
-Iron Deposits (B5)-Thin Muck Surface (C7)-FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
-Algal Mat or Crust (B4)-Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)-Geomorphic Position (D2)
-Drift Deposits (B3)-Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)-Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
-Sediment Deposits (B2)-Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)-Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
-Water Marks (B1)-Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)-Crayfish Burrows (C8)
-Saturation (A3)-True Aquatic Plants (B14)-Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
-High Water Table (A2)-Aquatic Fauna (B13)-Drainage Patterns (B10)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
-Surface Water (A1)-Water-Stained Leaves (B9)-Soil Surface Cracks (B6)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
-5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
-Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)-Redox Depressions (F8)
-Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)-Redox Dark Surface (F6)
-Thick Dark Surface (A12)-Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
-2 cm Muck (A10)-Depleted Matrix (F3)
-Stratified Layers (A5)-Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)-Other (Explain in Remarks)
-Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)-Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)-Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12)
-Black Histic (A3)-Stripped Matrix (S6)-Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
-Histic Epipedon (A2)-Sandy Redox (S5)-Dark Surface (S7)
-Histosol (A1)-Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)-Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
13-30 10YR 3/2 85 10YR 5/2 15 D M SiClLo
5-13 10YR 3/1 97 7.5YR 3/3 3 C M SiClLo
0-5 10YR 3/1 100 SiLo
(inches) Color (Moist) % Color (Moist) %Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
SP3
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Midwest Region
Applicant/Owner:
Are Climatic/ Hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Naturally Problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific name of plants.
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot Size:)
(A)
(B)
= Total Cover
(AB)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size:)Prevalence Index Worksheet:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
=Total Cover x 5 =
Herbaceous Stratum (Plot Size:)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Index:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophtic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Pevalence Index is <3.01
Problematic Hydrophytic vegetation1 (Explain)
=Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size:)
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
2.
Yes X No
20%= 22 110
50%=0 20%=0 0
30ft radius Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
1.
10. 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology
must be present, unless disturbed or problemtic50%= 55
9.
4-Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet8.
X
7.
6.Cryptotaenia canadensis Canadian Honewort 5 No FAC
5.Sanicula odorata Clustered blacksnakeroot 5 No FAC X
4.Alliaria petiolata Garlic Mustard 10 No FAC
3.Arctium lappa Burdock 5 No UPL
Yes FACW 2.38
2.Urtica dioica Stinging Nettle 10 No FACW
5ft radius
1.Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canarygrass 75
25
Column Totals:160 (A)380 (B)
FACU Species 0 0
50%=0 20%=0 0 UPL Species 5
220
4. FAC Species 45 135
3. FACW Species 110
5.
2. OBL Species 0 0
100%
15ft radius
1.
50%=25 20%=10 50 Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of:Multiply By:
5.
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across all Strata:34.
3.
2.Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 25 Yes FAC
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:31.Ulmus Americana American Elm 25 Yes FACW
X
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status30ft radius
X Is the Sampled Area
within a wetland?X X
X
Soil Map Unit Name:11B Colo-Ely Complex NWI Classification:none
X No
Slope (%):0-5%Lat:41.653765 Long:-91.613343 Datum:Decimal Degree
Investigator(s):Lee Swank Section, Township, Range:NW1/4, NW1/4, SEC13-T79N-R7W
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Footslope Local Relief (Concave, Convex, None):concave
CKR Construction Services LLC State:Iowa Sampling Point:SP4
Project/Site:IWV ROAD SW City/County:Iowa City Sampling Date:5/11/2021
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Midwest Region
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photo, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
22 Wetland hydrology Present?Yes X NoSaturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Yes X No Depth (Inches):
Depth (Inches):
Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (Inches):33
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X
-Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)-Gauge or Well Data (D9)
-Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)-Other (Explain in Remarks)
-Iron Deposits (B5)-Thin Muck Surface (C7)X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
-Algal Mat or Crust (B4)-Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)X Geomorphic Position (D2)
-Drift Deposits (B3)-Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)-Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
-Sediment Deposits (B2)-Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)-Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
-Water Marks (B1)-Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)-Crayfish Burrows (C8)
-Saturation (A3)-True Aquatic Plants (B14)-Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
-High Water Table (A2)-Aquatic Fauna (B13)-Drainage Patterns (B10)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
-Surface Water (A1)-Water-Stained Leaves (B9)-Soil Surface Cracks (B6)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
-5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
-Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)-Redox Depressions (F8)
X Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)-Redox Dark Surface (F6)
-Thick Dark Surface (A12)-Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
-2 cm Muck (A10)X Depleted Matrix (F3)
-Stratified Layers (A5)-Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)-Other (Explain in Remarks)
-Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)-Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)-Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12)
-Black Histic (A3)-Stripped Matrix (S6)-Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
-Histic Epipedon (A2)-Sandy Redox (S5)-Dark Surface (S7)
-Histosol (A1)-Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)-Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
M SiLo
10YR 6/2 20 D M
14-32 10YR 5/1 60 7.5YR 4/4 20 C
10YR 6/2 10 D M
8-14 10YR 5/1 80 7.5YR 4/6 10 C M/PL SiLo
0-8 10YR 3/1 100
(inches) Color (Moist) % Color (Moist) %Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
SP4
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Midwest Region
Applicant/Owner:
Are Climatic/ Hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Naturally Problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific name of plants.
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot Size:)
(A)
(B)
= Total Cover
(AB)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size:)Prevalence Index Worksheet:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
=Total Cover x 5 =
Herbaceous Stratum (Plot Size:)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Index:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophtic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Pevalence Index is <3.01
Problematic Hydrophytic vegetation1 (Explain)
=Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size:)
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
2.
Yes X No
20%= 20.4 102
50%=0 20%=0 0
30ft radius Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
1.
10. 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology
must be present, unless disturbed or problemtic50%= 51
9.
4-Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet8.
X
7.
6.
5. X
4.
3.Ambrosia artemisiifolia Ragweed 2 No FACU
Yes FACW 2.11
2.Sanicula odorata Clustered blacksnakeroot 10 No FAC
5ft radius
1.Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canarygrass 90
0
Column Totals:127 (A)268 (B)
FACU Species 2 8
50%=0 20%=0 0 UPL Species 0
230
4. FAC Species 10 30
3. FACW Species 115
5.
2. OBL Species 0 0
100%
15ft radius
1.
50%=12.5 20%=5 25 Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of:Multiply By:
5.
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across all Strata:24.
3.
2.
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:21.Acer saccharinum Silver Maple 25 Yes FACW
X
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status30ft radius
X Is the Sampled Area
within a wetland?X X
X
Soil Map Unit Name:11B Colo-Ely Complex NWI Classification:none- adjacent to mapped riverine wetland
X No
Slope (%):0-5%Lat:41.653923 Long:-91.61764 Datum:Decimal Degree
Investigator(s):Lee Swank Section, Township, Range:NW1/4, NW1/4, SEC13-T79N-R7W
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):footslope Local Relief (Concave, Convex, None):concave
CKR Construction Services LLC State:Iowa Sampling Point:SP5
Project/Site:IWV ROAD SW City/County:Iowa City Sampling Date:5/11/2021
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Midwest Region
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photo, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
5"Wetland hydrology Present?Yes X NoSaturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Yes X No Depth (Inches):
Depth (Inches):
Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (Inches):7"
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X
-Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)-Gauge or Well Data (D9)
-Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)-Other (Explain in Remarks)
-Iron Deposits (B5)-Thin Muck Surface (C7)X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
-Algal Mat or Crust (B4)-Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)X Geomorphic Position (D2)
-Drift Deposits (B3)-Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)-Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
-Sediment Deposits (B2)-Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)-Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
-Water Marks (B1)-Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)-Crayfish Burrows (C8)
X Saturation (A3)-True Aquatic Plants (B14)-Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
X High Water Table (A2)-Aquatic Fauna (B13)X Drainage Patterns (B10)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
-Surface Water (A1)-Water-Stained Leaves (B9)-Soil Surface Cracks (B6)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
-5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
-Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)X Redox Depressions (F8)
X Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)X Redox Dark Surface (F6)
-Thick Dark Surface (A12)X Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
-2 cm Muck (A10)X Depleted Matrix (F3)
-Stratified Layers (A5)-Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)-Other (Explain in Remarks)
-Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)-Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)-Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12)
-Black Histic (A3)-Stripped Matrix (S6)-Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
-Histic Epipedon (A2)-Sandy Redox (S5)-Dark Surface (S7)
-Histosol (A1)-Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)-Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
SiClLo26+ Gley 1 2.5/N 100
5-26 10YR 4/1 80 7.5YR 4/6 20 C M SiClLo
10YR 5/2 10 D M
0-5 10YR 3/1 80 10YR 5/8 10 C M/PL SiClLo
(inches) Color (Moist) % Color (Moist) %Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
SP5
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0
DESCRIPTION - REZONING PARCEL #1
A PORTION OF 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, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Beginning at the North Quarter Corner of Section 13, Township 79 North, Range 7
West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa; Thence S00°00'59"W,
along the East Line of the North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13, a
distance of 1305.56 feet, to its intersection with the Easterly Projection of 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 Easterly Projection and North Line, 300.07 feet; Thence
N00°00'59"E, 1307.41 feet, to a Point on the North Line of the North One-Half of the
Northwest Quarter of said Section 13; Thence N89°06'50"E, along said North Line,
300.04 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Rezoning Parcel #1 contains 9.00 Acres,
and is subject to easements and restrictions of record.
DESCRIPTION - REZONING PARCEL #2
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 S00°00'59"W,
along the East Line of the North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13, a
distance of 1305.56 feet, to its intersection with the Easterly Projection of 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 Easterly Projection and North Line, 300.07 feet, to the Point of
Beginning; Thence continuing 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,
1551.41 feet; Thence N13°37'32"W, 53.10 feet; Thence N04°19'09"E, 213.22 feet;
Thence N22°47'41"E, 655.46 feet; Thence N33°02'35"E, 438.62 feet; Thence
N00°53'27"W, 86.39 feet, to a Point on the North Line of the North One-Half of the
Northwest Quarter of said Section 13; Thence N89°06'50"E, along said North Line,
1471.32 feet; Thence S00°00'59"W, 1307.41 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said
Rezoning Parcel #2 contains 53.36 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions
of record.
DESCRIPTION - REZONING PARCEL #3
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:
Beginning at the Northwest Corner of Section 13, Township 79 North, Range 7 West, of
the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa; 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 862.10 feet; Thence S00°53'27"E, 86.39 feet; Thence S33°02'35"W, 438.62 feet;
Thence S22°47'41"W, 655.46 feet; Thence S04°19'09"W, 213.22 feet; Thence
S13°37'32"E, 53.10 feet, to a Point on 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,
370.12 feet, to the Southwest Corner of the North One- Half of the Northwest Quarter of
said 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 Point of
Beginning. Said Rezoning Parcel #3 contains 17.03 Acres, and is subject to easements
and restrictions of record.
Permitted
by Right
Permitted
Provisionally
Permitted by
Special Exception
Selected Criteria
Residential Uses
Assisted group living S 1 roomer/300 sf lot area
Commercial Uses
Building trade P
Indoor/Outdoor Commercial
Recreation
P
Eating establishments P
General and medical/dental office P
Most Retail: Alcohol sales,
Hospitality, Outdoor storage and
display, Personal service, Repair,
Sales
P
Surface passenger service P
Adult business PR Must be 1,000' from educational, parks, religious
assembly use, or residential uses or zones and 500'
from other adult business uses
General/Intensive Animal related
commercial
PR Facilities with outdoor areas must be 400' from
residential zones. Overnight boarding facilities must be
completely indoors.
Drinking Establishments PR Provisions not applicable here
Quick vehicle servicing PR Vehicular use areas must be screened from the ROW
(S2) and abutting residential zones (S3).
Fuel dispensing equipment must be set back 50' from
residential zone boundaries.
Vehicle repair PR If abutting residential zone, outdoor work and loud
indoor work is only allowed 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. The
site must minimize views of vehicular use areas from
the ROW and adjacent properties. All outdoor storage
areas abutting other properties must be fenced (S5)
and screened (S3) with landscaping.
Industrial Uses
Industrial service P
Self-service storage P
Warehouse and freight movement P
Wholesale sales P
General and Technical/light
Manufacturing and production
PR S Use is limited to 5,000 sf or 15,000 sf by special
exception. The following are prohibited: Chemical,
vehicle, rubber, or plastics manufacturing; milling or
processing grain; leather tanning; and textile mills.
Heavy manufacturing S Limited to concrete batch/mix plants at least 500' from
any residentially zoned property.
Institutional & Civic Uses
Religious/private group assembly P
Daycare PR Requires minimum usable interior floor space and
childcare uses must provide a minimum fenced outdoor
play area enclosed by a fence (S4) and screened along
the perimeter (S3). A drop off/pick up area must be
provided with adequate stacking and/or parking spaces.
Basic utility PR S If located in a completely enclosed building with
another principal use, it is allowed provisionally. If not,
it typically requires a special exception and must be
screened from public view and adjacent residential
zones (S3). It must also be compatible with surrounding
structures and uses, particularly if close to or within
view of a residential zone.
Community service - long term
housing
PR S A special exception is required if across the street from
or adjacent to an RS zone. Minimum 900 sf of lot area
per dwelling unit is required (with only eff./1-BDR
units). Requires a site plan and a management plan and
neighborhood meeting for nearby owners. Only 50% of
the 1st floor may be occupied by residential uses.
Community service - shelter S A minimum of 300 sf of lot area per permanent resident
and 200 sf of lot area per temporary resident is
required. The applicant must submit a site plan and a
shelter management plan that address nuisance issues.
General community service S Must not significantly alter the overall character of the
zone or inhibit future development.
Detention facilities S Must be 1,000' from educational, parks, religious
assembly use, or residential uses or zones and 500'
from other detention facilities. Requires a security plan.
Specialized Educational Facilities S Must be compatible with surrounding uses.
Utility-scale ground-mounted
solar energy systems
S Must be 200' and screened from view (S3) from any
residential zone. Must be enclosed by a 6-8’ tall security
fence and the maximum height shall be no greater than
15'. Must also satisfy the special exception approval
criteria for a basic utility use.
Other Uses
Communication transmission
facility: Antennas
PR The antenna must be mounted on another structure
allowed in the zone and may not be illuminated by
strobe lights unless required by federal regulations. Any
equipment associated with the antenna must be within
the walls of the building to which the antenna is
attached or screened from public view (S3).
Communication transmission
facility: Towers
S Must serve an area that cannot be served by an existing
tower or industrial property or by locating antennas on
existing structures in the area. The proposed tower
must camouflage the structure and be no taller than is
necessary, up to 120'. The tower must be set back at
least a distance equal to the height of the tower from
any residential, ID-R zone. Any associated equipment
must be enclosed in an equipment shed, cabinet, or
building, which must be adequately screened from view
of the public right of way and any adjacent residential
or commercial property.
Use
Categories Subgroups CI-1
Residential uses:
Group living
uses
Assisted group
living S
1) Maximum Density: One roomer per 300 square feet of lot area.
(staff/live-in staff of a facility are not considered roomers)
2) Must have bath and toilet facilities available for use by roomers (per
Title 17). May allow tenants' access to a communal kitchen, dining room,
and other common facilities and services.
14-4B-4A-
8
Fraternal group
living
Independent
group living
Household
living uses
Attached single-
family dwellings
Detached
single-family
dwellings
Detached zero
lot line
dwellings
Duplexes
Group
households
Multi-family
dwellings
Commercial uses:
Adult business uses PR
Must be at least:
1) 1,000' from any property containing an existing daycare use,
educational facility use, parks and open space use, religious/private
assembly use, or residential use; or any single-family or multi-family
residential zone.
2) 500' from any other adult business use.
14-4B-4B-
1
General PR
Animal related
commercial
uses
Intensive PR
Any facility with outdoor runs or exercise areas must be located at least
400' from any residential zone. Overnight boarding facilities must be
located completely indoors within a soundproof building. If all aspects of
the operation, including any accessory uses, are conducted completely
indoors within a soundproof building, then the setback requirements of this
provision do not apply. However, the use is subject to any setback
requirements of the base zone.
14-4B-4B-
3
Building trade uses P
Commercial parking uses
Commercial
recreational
uses1
Indoor P
Outdoor P
Drinking establishments1 PR Applies only to Drinking Establishments In the university impact area or
riverfront crossings district.
14-4B-4B-
11
Eating establishments1 P
Office uses
General office P
Medical/dental
office P
Quick vehicle servicing uses1 PR
1) All vehicular use areas, including parking and stacking spaces, drives,
aisles, and service lanes, must be screened from the public right of way to
the S2 standard and to the S3 standard along any side or rear lot line that
abuts a residential zone boundary.
2) Sufficient vehicle stacking spaces must be provided to prevent
congestion and vehicle conflicts along abutting streets.
3) Unenclosed canopies over gas pump islands must be set back at least
10' from any street right of way. Fuel dispensing equipment must be set
back at least 10' from any street right of way, and at least 50' from any
residential zone boundary.
4) All lighting must comply with 14-5G
14-4B-4B-
12
Retail uses1
Alcohol sales P
Delayed deposit
service uses
Hospitality P
Outdoor
storage and
display
P
Personal
service P
Repair P
Sales P
Surface passenger service uses P
Vehicle repair uses PR
1) If on a property abutting a residential zone boundary, in addition to
applicable noise control provisions (6-4-2), all outdoor work operations are
prohibited between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. Any indoor operations that
result in noise exceeding 60 dBA as measured at the residential zone
boundary are prohibited between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M.
2) No vehicle shall be stored on the property for more than 45 continuous
days.
3) The site must be designed to minimize views of vehicular use areas
from the public right-of-way and from adjacent properties.
(a) Outdoor storage areas, including storage of vehicles to be
repaired, must be 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 public view to at least the
S3 standard.
(b) Other vehicular use areas that abut the public right-of-way,
including parking and stacking spaces, driveways, aisles, and service
lanes, must be set back at least 10' from the public right-of-way and
landscaped according to the S2 standard.
(c) All outdoor storage areas that abut other properties must be
fenced to the S5 standard and screened to at least the S3 standard.
Landscape screening must be located between the fence and the abutting
property. The landscape screening requirement may be waived by the
building official, upon convincing evidence that a planting screen cannot
be expected to thrive because of intense shade, soil conditions, or other
site characteristics. The presence of existing pavement, by itself, shall not
constitute convincing evidence.
14-4B-4B-
21
Industrial uses:
Industrial service uses P
Manufacturing
and production
uses
General
manufacturing PR
a. The proposed use is limited to 5,000 square feet of gross floor
area, excluding floor area devoted to other principal or accessory uses,
except it may be increased up to 15,000 square feet by special exception
b. The proposed use meets the performance standards for off site
impacts contained in 14-5H "Performance Standards". The city may
require certification of compliance from a registered professional engineer
or other qualified person.
c. The following general manufacturing uses are prohibited in the
CI-1 zone: The manufacturing of chemicals and allied products; Any
manufacturing establishment that includes milling or processing of grain;
Leather tanning; Manufacture of motor vehicles; Manufacture or
processing of rubber and plastics; and Textile mills.
14-4B-4C-
2
Technical/light
manufacturing PR
Heavy
manufacturing S
1) Heavy manufacturing uses is limited to concrete batch/mix plants 2)
Must be at least 500' from any residentially zoned property.
3) All proposed outdoor storage and work areas must be located and
screened to adequately reduce the noise, dust, and visual impact of the
proposed use from surrounding properties.
4) Traffic circulation and access points must be designed to prevent
hazards to adjacent streets or property.
14-4B-4C-
4
Salvage operations
Self-service storage uses P
Warehouse and freight
movement uses P
Waste related uses
Wholesale sales uses P
Institutional and civic uses:
Basic utility uses PR/S
1) Basic utilities are permitted within a building that houses another
principal use allowed in the zone, provided the facility is completely
enclosed, and there is no visible indication of the existence of the facility
from the exterior of the building.
2) Basic utilities not enclosed within a building are permitted only by
special exception (except water and sanitary sewer pumps or lift stations
approved as part of subdivision or site plan approval)
a) Proposed uses must be screened from public view and from view of
any adjacent residential zones to at least the S3 standard.
b) In addition, the applicant must provide evidence that the proposed
use will be compatible with surrounding structures and uses with regard to
safety, size, height, scale, location, and design, particularly for facilities
that will be located close to or within view of a residential zone.
c) For uses located in highly visible areas, the board may consider
additional design elements such as masonry or brick facades, and walls or
fencing to improve public safety and to soften the visual impact of the
proposed use.
14-4B-4D-
1
Community
service uses
Community
service - long
term housing
PR/S
1) A minimum of 900 sf of lot area per dwelling unit is required.
2) Dwelling units must be efficiency and/or one bedroom units.
3) The applicant must submit a site plan and a management plan that
addresses potential nuisances such as loitering, noise, lighting, late night
operations, odors, outdoor storage and litter. The management plan must
include plans for controlling litter, loitering and noise; provisions for 24/7
on site management and/or security, and a conflict resolution procedure to
resolve nuisances if they occur. The site plan and management plan must
be submitted concurrently to the city, or if permitted as a special exception
said plans must be submitted with the special exception application.
4) A special exception is required if the proposed use is across the street
from or adjacent to a single-family residential zone.
5) Prior to a building permit being issued, the owner or operator of the
community service - long term housing use must hold a neighborhood
meeting inviting all property owners within 200' of the proposed use. At
the neighborhood meeting, the owner or operator must provide copies of
the management plan, and contact information for the management team
of the proposed use.
6) Must comply with the minimum standards as specified in the Iowa City
housing code and maintain a rental permit.
7) Up to 50% of the first floor of the building may be occupied by
residential uses.
14-4B-4D-
6
Community
service - shelter S
1) A minimum of 300 sf of lot area per permanent resident and 200 sf of
lot area per temporary resident is required.
2) Nuisance Issues: The proposed use will not have significant adverse
effects on the livability of nearby residential or commercial uses due to
loitering, noise, glare from lights, late night operations, odors, outdoor
storage, and litter. The applicant must submit a site plan and a shelter
management plan that address these issues. The management plan must
include a litter control plan, a loitering control plan, a plan for on site
security, and a conflict resolution procedure to resolve nuisance issues if
they occur. The site plan and shelter management plan must be submitted
along with the application for a special exception, or if allowed as a
14-4B-4D-
5
provisional use, such plan must be included with the materials submitted
for site plan review.
3) Must comply with the minimum standards as specified in the Iowa City
housing code
General
community
service
S
The proposed use will not significantly alter the overall character of the
zone and will not inhibit future development of uses for which the zone is
primarily intended. The board will consider such factors as size and scale
of the development, projected traffic generation, and whether adequate
transportation, transit, and pedestrian facilities exist to support the
proposed use. Community service uses that are industrial or repair
oriented in nature or that include operations that require outdoor work
areas may be particularly suited to these zones.
14-4B-4D-
4
Daycare uses PR
1) Building must contain at least 35 sf of usable interior floor space per
child or 60 sf of usable floor area per adult client. An additional 20 sf of
floor area is required for every adult client who uses ambulatory aids.
Reception areas, kitchens, storage areas, offices, bathrooms, hallways,
treatment rooms, and specialized areas used for therapy are excluded
when calculating the required floor area. The dining area may only be
included in the square footage calculation if used by daycare participants
for activities other than meals. When collocated in a facility that houses
other uses or services, the proposed daycare use must have its own
separate identifiable space for program activities during operational hours.
2) Child daycare uses must provide a fenced outdoor play area of not less
than 100 sf per child based on the maximum number of children that will
be using the outdoor play area at any given time. The outdoor play area
must meet the following standards:
a) Playground equipment is not permitted within the front and side
setbacks.
b) Outdoor play areas must be well drained, free from hazards, and
readily accessible to the daycare center. The outdoor play area must be
completely enclosed by a fence built to the S4 standard and be screened
along the perimeter of the fence to the S3 standard. The city may waive
the screening requirement if it is determined that land uses surrounding
the daycare use will not pose a nuisance or safety hazard to the children
such that a screening buffer is necessary.
3) The use must provide a drop off/pick up area in a location that is
convenient to or has good pedestrian access to the entrance to the facility.
This drop off/pick up area must contain sufficient stacking spaces and/or
parking spaces to ensure that traffic does not stack into adjacent streets
or other public rights of way. (See 14-5A-4, table 5A-2) To promote safe
vehicular circulation, one-way drives are encouraged.
4) A sidewalk must be constructed connecting the main entrance of the
center to the adjacent public right of way. Pedestrian access must be
clearly separated or distinguished from vehicular circulation areas to
minimize the extent to which users of the facility are required to walk
across drives or aisles to gain access to the daycare center.
14-4B-4D-
7
Detention facilities S Must be located at least:
1) 1,000' from any property containing an existing daycare use,
14-4B-4D-
8
educational facility use, parks and open space use, religious/private group
assembly use or residential use; or from any residential zone.
2) The proposed use will be located at least 500' from any other detention
facility.
3) The facility and its operations will not pose an unreasonable safety risk
to nearby uses and residents. The applicant must submit to the board of
adjustment a detailed plan for on site security.
Educational
facilities
General
Specialized S
The use will be functionally compatible with surrounding uses, such that
the health and safety of clients/students are not compromised. The board
will consider factors such as the types of businesses that predominate in
the immediate vicinity, whether there are any significant negative
externalities created by these uses, such as excessive noise, dust, or
vibrations from outdoor work areas that may pose a health or safety risk to
clients/students of the proposed use; and where such negative
externalities exist, whether the building(s) and site can and will be
designed to mitigate the harmful effects.
14-4B-4D-
13
Hospitals
Parks and open space uses
Religious/private group assembly
uses1 P
Utility-scale ground-mounted
solar energy systems S
1) Must be at least 200' from any residential zone.
2) Must be screened from public view and from view of any adjacent
residential zones to at least the S3 standard.
3) May not be closer than 20' from all property lines, or according to the
minimum setback requirements in the underlying base zone, whichever is
greater.
4) Must be enclosed by security fencing between 6' and 8' in height. Up to
3 individual horizontal strands of barbed wire may be placed atop the
fence (not to be included in the overall fence height measurement).
5) The maximum height shall be no greater than 15'.
6) Any on-site lighting provided for the operational phase of the utility-
scale ground-mounted solar energy system shall be equipped with full
cutoff fixtures, shielded away from adjacent properties, and positioned
downward to minimize light spillage onto adjacent properties.
7) Exterior surfaces of utility-scale ground-mounted solar energy system
panels shall have a nonreflective finish to minimize glare and solar arrays
shall be designed and installed to minimize glare towards vehicular traffic
and any adjacent building.
8) Must also satisfy the approval criteria for a special exception for a
basic utility set forth in Section 14-4B-4D-1b-(2).
14-4B-4D-
18
Other uses:
Communication transmission
facility uses PR/S
1) Communications antennas are permitted, provided the following
conditions are met:
a) The antenna must be mounted on another structure allowed in
the zone, such as a rooftop, light pole, or utility pole.
b) In CI-1 zones, antennas may not be illuminated by strobe lights
unless required by federal regulations. If alternatives are allowed under
federal guidelines, strobe lights may not be used.
c) Any equipment associated with an antenna must be located
within the exterior walls of the building to which the antenna is attached or
screened from view of the public right of way and any adjacent property to
at least the S3 standard. If the equipment is located on the roof, it must be
set back and screened so that it is not within public view or appears to be
part of the building.
2) Communications towers are allowed by special exception, and must
comply with the following approval criteria:
a) Must serve an area that cannot be served by an existing tower
or industrial property or by locating antennas on existing structures in the
area. The applicant must document attempts to utilize existing structures,
towers, and industrial properties within 1/2 mile of the proposed tower
including maps illustrating the location of existing towers and potential
alternative sites for antenna and towers that have been explored and the
reasons these locations were not feasible.
b) The proposed tower will be constructed in a manner that will
camouflage the structure and reduce its visual impact on the surrounding
area. Examples of camouflage design include monopoles, which do not
have guywires or support trusses and that are painted to blend in with the
sky or surroundings, towers camouflaged as flagpoles, monuments,
steeples, or the integration of rooftop towers onto existing buildings, water
towers, etc. Rooftop towers must use materials similar to or that blend in
with the structure to which it is attached. Other camouflaged tower
structures must be of similar height and appearance as other similar
structures allowed in the zone, e.g., towers camouflaged as light poles or
utility poles must be of similar height and appearance as other such poles.
The applicant must include an illustration of how the tower would appear
in the proposed location.
c) The proposed tower will be no taller than is necessary to
14-4B-4E-
5
provide the service intended. Evidence presented should include
coverage maps illustrating current gaps in coverage and changes to
coverage with the proposed tower. Communications towers are exempt
from the maximum height standards of the base zone, but under no
circumstance may the tower be taller than 120' from grade.
d) The proposed tower will be set back at least a distance equal
to the height of the tower from any residential zone, ID-RS zone, and ID-
RM zone.
e) Any equipment associated with the tower facility will be
enclosed in an equipment shed, cabinet, or building, which must be
adequately screened from view of the public right of way and any adjacent
residential or commercial property.
f) The proposed tower will not utilize a backup generator as a
principal power source. Backup generators may only be used in the event
of a power outage.
g) The proposed tower must be designed and constructed to
accommodate at least one additional user, unless in doing so the tower
will exceed the 120' height limitation or if the board of adjustment
determines that allowing the additional height needed to accommodate
another user will detract from the area to the extent that it will prevent
future development intended in the zone. The applicant shall provide a
certification by a professional engineer licensed in this state that the
proposed tower will be designed to permit a second antenna system of
comparable size to be added to the tower above or immediately below the
original antenna system.
h) If use of the tower is discontinued, the tower and any
associated equipment must be removed by the owner of the tower, the
operator, or the owner of the property within one year of discontinuance of
use and the land graded and replanted to prevent erosion. The applicant
shall present a signed lease agreement, a recorded declaration of
covenants, or other satisfactory evidence acknowledging this obligation.
Date: October 21, 2021
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner
Re: REZ21-0006 – IWV/Slothower Rezoning – Updated Conditions
BACKGROUND:
On September 16, 2021, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on a
rezoning of property located south of IWV Road and west of Slothower Road from County
Agricultural (A) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for 53.36 acres, and to Interim
Development – Commercial (ID-C) zone for 17.03 acres. The application also included a rezoning
of 9 acres of Rural Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone. The rezoning was
recommended for approval by the Commission by a vote of 4-1.
At that same meeting, the Commission considered an amendment to the comprehensive plan for
this same property. That amendment did not pass, so the applicant has submitted a new
comprehensive plan amendment, which the Commission is considering contemporaneous with
this agenda item. In the event that this new comprehensive plan amendment receives the required
4 votes to recommend approval, then the Commission should reconsider the rezoning conditions.
ANALYSIS:
The newly requested comprehensive plan amendment seeks to mitigate the negative externalities
of intensive commercial use on the surrounding land, particularly the undeveloped land to the
south currently shown as appropriate for rural residential on the City’s Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use Map. Concerns about these negative externalities were raised at the September
16, 2021 meeting. Rather than changing the boundaries of the Intensive Commercial zoning
designation, Staff recommends imposing additional conditions on the land to be zoned Intensive
Commercial to ensure that the goals of the Comprehensive Plan are met and the public need for
this buffering are satisfied.
To be consistent with the comprehensive plan’s identified public need for buffering the intensive
commercial uses along the south 350’ of the subject property, Staff recommends that when the
land is platted, the Owner should dedicate to the City a buffer easement and impose upon the
land a use restriction prohibiting development within 350 feet of the southern boundary of the
subject property. Such use restriction should prohibit installation of structures, parking lots, drive
aisles, or loading areas. Streets may be necessary, as determined through the subdivision
process. Additionally, at the time the land is platted and upon construction of the public
improvements, the Owner shall plant landscaping to the S3 standard along the southern boundary
within this easement area in locations that do not contain sensitive areas or sensitive areas
buffers, as identified on the approved Site Grading and Erosion Control Plan and Sensitive Areas
Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff 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
October 15, 2021
Page 2
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 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;
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.
Approved by: __________________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 15 of 36
Townsend stated she is torn because of the intensive commercial in what was supposed to be a
residential area, so she is still pondering that even though it has changed and it's going to
continue to change, especially with the new development off of Rohret Road.
Craig stated she is supportive of the of the change, staff makes the case for the changes that
have happened and occurred and agrees that when you drive down Melrose and IWV it is not a
residential neighborhood.
Hensch stated in the immediate area it's pretty hard to see this as residential with the National
Guard Armory, the SEATS and Secondary Roads campus, the Joint Emergency
Communications Center, Chatham Oaks residential care facility, it’s just not a residential
character of that neighborhood.
Signs agrees with Townsend and thinks there needs to be a lot of buffering but is impressed with
the buffering that is currently proposed and won't have any problem suggesting maximum
buffering when they get to some of the other phases as property develops, but he does think
that's key, but there is quite a bit already there 300 feet is a lot of butter, that's a football field.
Padron stated she will not be supporting this; she is concerned with the sensitive areas around
the intensive commercial. Commercial is not a kind of buffer. Also, the Poor Farm has been used
lately to for festival and family activities and this is too close to the Poor Farm and if that's the
intention, or the plan, of how to use the Poor Farm, then there are too many concerns for her.
Padron also didn’t like that there weren't enough neighbors at the good neighbor meeting, there
should have been more people there.
A vote was taken and the motion failed 3-2 (Townsend and Padron dissenting).
CASE NO. ANN21-0003 & REZ21-0006:
Location: SW corner of Slothower Road and IWV Road
a. An application for an annexation of approximately 70.39 acres of land currently in
unincorporated Johnson County.
b. An application for a rezoning from County Agricultural (A) to Intensive Commercial
CI-1) for approximately 53.36 acres, Interim Development Commercial ( ID-C) for
approximately 17.03 acres, and approximately 9 acres of land from Rural Residential
RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1).
Heitner stated the presentation is going to have a lot of similarity between this agenda item and
the previous agenda item so he would try to not be duplicative in the interest of time. He began
with an aerial view of subject property and an overview of the existing zoning noting County
Agriculture, Rural Residential and County Residential. Heitner noted the majority of the 70 acres
of subject property is located in the growth area of the Fringe Area Agreement, there is a little
strip, around 9 acres, to the east that is already in the City limits. That nine-acre strip along with
about 53 acres of the proposed annexation would seek CI-1 (Intensive Commercial) zoning and
the remaining balance to the west would seek ID-C (Interim Development Commercial) zoning
for about 17 acres.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 16 of 36
Heitner explained this agenda item is focusing on the actual annexation application and the
rezoning associated with that annexation as the property is annex into the City. He also wanted
to comment on a couple things from just the general background stance, there's been discussion
about the lack of attendance at the good neighbor meeting. Those notices were sent out
pursuant to the City's current requirement of a 300-foot notification radius. Heitner attended that
meeting, and they made a concerted effort in notification, they sent out notifications to residents
within the Country Club Estates Fourth and Fifth Additions as well which is outside of the 300-
foot notification window. Staff did so because they understood that there is a potential for a larger
impact for area, since it is a larger agricultural property. They also held a consult on the
annexation on July 29th with two Union Township trustees and they also voiced concerns mostly
about the potential loss of farmland and tax revenue to the township.
Heitner showed an overview of the existing Southwest District Plan and Weber subarea, as
Lehmann mentioned the majority of this area was slated for future urban development for single
family duplex residential and then also a Vegetative and Noise and Sight Buffer to the west near
the landfill.
For the annexation component of this, voluntary annexations are reviewed under three different
criteria, first, that the area under consideration falls within the adopted long range planning
boundary, second that development in the area proposed annexation will fulfill and identify need
without imposing an undue burden on the City, and third, that control of the development is in the
City's best interest. Heitner stated on that first point with the area under consideration falling
within the adapted long range planning boundary, the portion of the subject property that isn't
already in the City limits is all entirely within the City’s growth area in fringe area C and it’s
anticipated that anything within that growth area will eventually or could eventually be annexed
into the City. Number two, that development in the area proposed for annexation will fulfill an
identified need without imposing an undue burden on the City. The applicant has demonstrated
that sanitary sewer service is possible to the eastern properties that are seeking the intensive
commercial CI-1 zoning. There are capital improvements underway on IWV road with the intent
of bringing the road to urban arterial standards. That will include an urban overlay of that
segment of the road roughly between the Poor Farm and Hebl Avenue to the landfill as well as
installation of a water line throughout that segment of road with the expectation that waterline
and section of the road will be utilized for those infrastructure improvements. Heitner noted there
is a great deal of highway adjacency lot size and also arterial proximity that makes this subject
property pretty appealing for future commercial development. Also, with regards to the
Comprehensive Plan the subject properties are contiguous the City limits there by satisfying that
goal for annexation. The last point, control the development is in the City's best interest, as
previously mentioned this property is within the City's growth area and is appropriate for
properties seeking annexation upon development to seek adequate City services, this is
especially true for commercial and industrial oriented uses that may develop within the growth
area. It is a long-standing policy that the City tries to direct those uses within the City limits if
possible.
Heitner showed an overview of the zoning noting the eastern parcels will have intensive
commercial zoning with the western parcel seeking interim development commercial. As an
overview of a CI-1 zone, it is a zone with a lot of depth to it and the purpose of the zone is to
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 17 of 36
provide areas for sales and service functions, businesses whose operations are typically
characterized by outdoor displays and storage of merchandise, repair, and sales of large
equipment or motor vehicles or commercial amusement recreational activities. It's an extensive
zone and there's a lot of discussion within the zoning ordinance about how to buffer some of
those uses from adjacent residential zones. Heitner acknowledged there's been a lot of talk
about MidAmerican being a potential end user here, certainly a possibility, but when staff is
assessing a rezoning like this, they have to analyze the potential for any kind of use that might
be permitted within that zone. There are three different ways they look at uses in zones, they
have uses that are permitted by right, meaning that if they follow all of the other items and steps
within the zoning or subdivision ordinance they are permitted without any further scrutiny, there's
provisional uses which require a few more steps and criteria to satisfy and then there's uses
permitted by special exception which require even more criteria to satisfy and they have to obtain
that special exception through the Board of Adjustment, an entirely different review body.
Heitner showed a quick overview of some of the uses that are permitted through each
mechanism. By right, they can have building trade, commercial recreational, eating
establishments, office, retail, industrial service, self-service storage warehouse, and freight
movement. Provisional uses, which again require a bit more criteria to satisfy are adult
businesses, animal related commercial, some general manufacturing, and basic utility. Finally
are the uses as permitted by special exception which deserve a bit more analysis and scrutiny,
are things like heavy manufacturing, basic utilities that maybe are outside, detention facilities,
and utility scale solar.
The IDC zone to the far west is intended to provide areas for managed growth, it's a default
zoning district that's often applied to undeveloped areas until City services can be provided, as is
the case with this portion of the subject property. For the rezoning component Heitner explained
there's two criteria that need to be satisfied, consistency with Comprehensive Plan and
compatibility with the existing neighborhood character. With respect to consistency with
Comprehensive Plan, a lot of that is tied to the previous agenda item and whether intensive
commercial designation within the Comprehensive Plan is passed. What is existing right now is
classified as future urban development. Heitner wanted to touch on the attractiveness of the site
for a couple reasons, the highway adjacency and future arterial road access. As mentioned
earlier, there are improvements ongoing right now to IWV Road to make that up to arterial urban
design standards. Also discussed already tonight was the potential for the extension of 965 that
would be on the west side of the subject property, closer to the interim zone area, and then in the
Comprehensive Plan there are plans for making Slothower Road a collector street which is a
step down from an arterial assuming less traffic than an arterial but still more volume than a local
neighborhood street.
With respect to compatibility with the existing neighborhood character Heitner wanted to highlight
topography of the area, with the lighter industrial uses to the northeast of the subject property,
the Poor Farm directly east, agricultural residential to the north and the Country Club Estates
residential of the southeast. Staff does acknowledge there's definitely concerns with potentially
having a zone with the breath of uses that an intensive commercial zone presents and being as
sensitive as possible to existing neighbors and adjacent properties so there are a few conditions
in that respect that staff would recommend for rezoning. Staff is recommending a S3 high
screen landscape buffer along the properties on Slothower Road frontage. S3 is the most
intense screening within the code and consists of six-foot-tall dense shrub and/or tree buffer with
potential to incorporate berming with that buffer or a masonry wall. They are also recommending
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 18 of 36
a condition that any parking along the IWV Road frontage be screened to the S3 standard and
that any loading areas and outdoor storage be located behind the principal structure. In addition,
there's also some built in criteria for buffering that's for more intense uses that might fall under
this zone, the code already prescribes in terms of buffering for uses such as manufacturing,
which is limited concrete mix plants, would require at least the 500 foot buffer from any
residential zone. General manufacturing has a size limitation of about 15,000 square feet and
there's certain protocols for what production could take place out of that general manufacturing.
Detention facilities must be at least 1000 feet from any residential zone and communication
transmission facility towers have to be set back at least the distance equal to the height of the
tower from any residential zone.
Heitner next discussed the environmental sensitive areas, the applicant did submit sensitive
areas plan as part of the review of the annexation and rezoning. It was already discussed about
the natural buffering that will take place on the south side of the subject property spanning the
entire width of the property and again that's largely because of a combination of planned
detention, also the stream corridor on the south end of the property, as well as a wetland a little
bit under an acre in size on the south of the property and associated 100-foot buffer around that
wetland. So there will be natural buffering on the south side of subject property that effectively
prohibits any urban development from taking place within that area.
Regarding traffic and access to the site, right now the most recent vehicle count that they have
for IWV Road is approximately 2000 vehicles per day which is well below the arterial size
capacity of about 17,000 vehicles per day. Staff is looking to finalize access to the site upon site
plan review, however, there is a City Code policy on limiting access to arterial roads, and it is the
City's preference to have that primary access point off Slothower Road, and there's a few
conditions related to that access. One, that the applicant would be obligated to improve
Slothower Road to the southern end of that proposed access and then contributes 25% toward
the cost of upgrading the remaining portion of Slothower Road along the rest of the frontage.
Staff is also requesting a dedication of approximately 13 feet of additional right -of-way along the
Slothower Road frontage.
Heitner noted the public comments received regarding concerns with the annexation were largely
similar to the concerns related to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment about the wide range of
uses in the proposed zone, concerns about buffers and impacts to sensitive features, detrimental
property valuation to adjacent residences, concerns about negative externalities from the use of
traffic, lighting impacts, the large shift from a rural residential character to an intensive
commercial or lighter industrial character and then potential implications for the larger area.
With respect to the annexation policy, the role of the Commission tonight is to determine that the
following are satisfied conditions by the Comprehensive Plans annexation policy, one that the
area falls within the adopted long range planning boundary; two, that the development area
proposed for annexation will fulfill an identified need without imposing undue burden on the City;
and three, that control of the development is the City's best interest.
With respect to next steps, after recommendation from this Commission the following will occur:
• City Council would set a public hearing for both the annexation and rezoning.
• Prior to the public hearing, utility companies and non-consenting parties will be sent the
annexation application via certified mail.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 19 of 36
• City Council will consider the comprehensive plan amendment (CPA21-0002), annexation
ANN21-0003), and rezoning (REZ21-0006).
• The application for annexation will be sent to the State Development Board for consideration
and approval.
Staff recommends approval of ANN21-0003, a voluntary annexation of approximately 70.39
acres of property located south of IWV Road and west of Slothower Road.
Staff also recommends approval of REZ21-0006, a rezoning of approximately 53.36 acres from
County Agricultural (A) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1), 9 acres from Rural Residential (RR-1) to
Intensive Commercial (CI-1), and 17.03 acres from County Agricultural (A) to Interim
Development Commercial (ID-C) subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall:
a. Plat all the property herein rezoned to follow the zoning boundaries.
b. Submit a landscape plan, which shall be approved by the City Forester, to ensure
that, when developed, the subject property is designed in a manner that emphasizes
green components within its location along an arterial and as an entryway into the
City.
c. Owner shall contribute 25% of the cost of upgrading Slothower Road, south of the
proposed access, to collector street standards, adjacent to the subject property.
2. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the property fronting Slothower Road:
a. Installation of landscaping to the S3 standard, as detailed in section 14-5F-6C of City
Code, along the subject property’s Slothower Road frontage. If said certificate of
occupancy is issued during a poor planting season, by May 31 following issuance of
the certificate of occupancy.
b. Improvement of Slothower Road to the southern end of the proposed access off
Slothower Road.
3. At the time the final plat is approved, Owner shall dedicate additional right-of-way along the
Slothower Road frontage in an amount and location approved by the City Engineer.
4. Parking, loading areas, and outdoor storage shall either not be located between the front
facade of the principal structure and the front yard right-of-way line or shall be screened to
the S3 standard along the IWV Road frontage.
Hensch had three questions, one about uses as permitted by right, provisionally and by special
exception. For the special exceptions, is it correct that those would have to go before the Board
of Adjustment to get approval and there'd be no administrative course of action, because some
of those uses sound pretty intensive. Heitner confirmed that was correct anything requiring a
special exception will require Board approval. Hensch acknowledged a couple of the public
speakers intermixed industrial zoning with intensive commercial zoning and they're not talking
about any industrial zoning tonight, the heaviest zoning is intensive commercial. Again Heitner
confirmed that was correct.
Hensch noted that Slothower Road is currently a county level B road, so that means that there's
zero maintenance going on and it's essentially non-traversable at this point by a regular motor
vehicle. Heitner confirmed it's a level B road so the County provides no maintenance for the
entire length of that road.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 20 of 36
Hensch’s last question is under the additional conditions in staff’s recommendation, the
recommendation was that there should be S3 screening standards applied for landscaping along
the length of Slothower Road and he was curious why that wasn't extend to the length of the IWV
Road since that is an entry area to Iowa City. Hensch noted the Commission has always paid
particular importance to green entry ways into the City so was there any consideration given to
have S3 standards for that length IWV Road and if not that's something he’d be interested in
adding. Heitner stated there was consideration given to it and if it's the Commission's desire to
create a new condition that would require that S3 screening on the IWV Road frontage staff
would be supportive of that. Their focus with respect to IWV Road was just making sure that any
parking within that front yard area off IWV Road be screened but again would be totally
supportive of extending that screening throughout the entire IWV Road frontage. Hensch is not
only concerned aesthetically but also quite certain the engineering staff would recommend
limitation of access on IWV Road from the main property so if they’re not going to have
driveways anyway why not have this look as aesthetically pleasing as possible. Heitner agreed
and stated it also goes to further satisfy the Comprehensive Plan goal about having aesthetically
pleasing beautified entries into the City.
Signs stated he did appreciate the review of the various uses this by right, provisional and by
special exception, that did answer some of his questions. He would definitely be supportive of
extending the S3 screening standard the entire length of the IWV Road on the side of that
property. Signs noted one of the things that they seem to be bumping up against a lot lately, in
the last year of applications that came before the Commission, is there's a common theme of not
wanting change and not wanting growth. For those folks here tonight to speak against growth, if
they stick around a little bit longer, they're going to hear the folks that are going to speak against
growth on the south side. The Commission talked with all the folks on the northeast side of town
a couple times in the last two years about the fact that they didn't want their natural areas to
grow, and it really got him thinking and begging the question of where is the City going to grow if
nobody wants to grow. In the paper last week it stated the official census estimate for Iowa City
shows that the growth was less than expected, while the growth in the neighboring communities
was way more than expected. And to be honest, there's a reason for that and it is because they
want to grow and the Iowa City community, at least part of the community, doesn't want to grow.
The Commission is seeing this trend and it's starting to concern him and as stated earlier their
role is to look at the good of the community as a whole. He is not opposed to change, they've
seen change happen on the IWV corridor and her anticipates that the demand for that's going to
continue regardless of any decision made tonight. He personally thinks that if he had to choose
between that and 230 some acres south of Rohret Road this makes the most sense to put in
some type of a heavier use of zoning so there are some of those types of businesses and
industries on that side of town and it's really the only place that seems logical for him. He likes
the staff’s conditions and totally support those, he would also support extending the screening on
IWV Road and is inclined to support this. He is definitely inclined to support the annexation and
is comforted by the chart that showed the uses of the zoning allowed so he is more inclined now
to support the zoning.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Jon Marner (MMS Consultants) stated they would also support the extension to the S3 screening
along IWV Road. The other thing he wanted to add is just to reiterate again that this zoning
amendment is being sought not just for one user, there's an opportunity for multiple other
businesses, whether they've expressed interest at this point or not, this is a great location to
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 21 of 36
provide quick access to the arterial road and immediate access to Highway 218 and the
interstate system and as staff pointed out there's not a lot of those types of properties in the
area. Other areas are located away from the highway or from the interstate or the area on the
east part of town is located near railways and are different uses or smaller parcels. A lot of the
people that are interested in this type of property for this type of uses are searching for
something more in the neighborhood of 10 to 15 acres or a little larger and those properties
simply don't exist in the Iowa City area at this time, so this is a great location.
John Bergstrom (Slothower Farms) want to state they are not anti-growth, they just don't like the
abrupt change in the land plan and doesn’t think he was hearing anti-growth. This area has
always been deemed to be residential and he thinks it should continue as residential. As far as
north of Melrose frankly this development would probably fit better north of Melrose, but as they
turn onto Slothower Road that should be residential or neighborhood commercial because then
to the south is residential and the County Farm will have a residential component to it. Again,
this is just a big change, and as they change an instrument like the Comprehensive Plan it
should be much more encompassing than just accommodating MidAmerican Energy because it's
very clear from all the staff comments that is what this is all about.
Hensch stated just so everybody knows they have not materials that state what the potential
users of these properties and they strictly look at the application and what the application says.
Eric Freedman (4401 Tempe Place) wanted to acknowledge he heard a couple of the
Commissioners say this is not a residential area, west on Melrose, but that's not the concern, the
concern is the views from the south, and what this impacts to the south. On the map it is shown
that a ton of people live right across the Poor Farm, it's a clear line of sight. If the Poor Farm is
going to be a community resource with trails and some housing and community farming, then
right next to it will be a row of trees or shrubs like six feet high and he has no idea what it's going
to look like so it'd be nice to at least see something that would show them what it's going to look
like when this is built to the west of the Poor Farm. There is concern among people who live in
this vibrant neighborhood of what the impact would be. He doesn’t think any of them are
opposed to annexing more land and creating space for things that are useful to the City, but they
don't understand why it was chosen to be here without looking at other options. Why not north of
Melrose, what's the long-term plan, is this going to be one little tiny piece, or is there going to be
expansion for other intensive commercial, is there a plan for that they haven't seen. He’d like to
know more, in order to be able to make a clear decision and he doesn’t know how they can make
a decision on this, given what they've heard so far. For example, something along the east side
of that space that was more compatible and useful to the people living there. Nobody wants to
live next to a dump so if there's going to be stuff farther west that is fine, but he thinks people are
concerned about along Slothower Road is directly next to where people live.
Jim Larimore (1143 Wildcat Lane) is one of the families that looks across that field at the
proposed site. Since one of the Commissioners made some comments that are interpreted as
being directed at those who are here in attendance, he thinks it's interesting sometimes that they
can hear the same words and or be exposed to the same words and hear such dramatically
different things. Larimore has not heard a single one of his neighbors express a concern about
growth. Some of them came to Iowa City and contributed to the growth of the population, so he
doesn’t think that anyone is anti-growth. From what he’s heard so far, they do have some
concerns about what is planned, or what is potentially going to be for some of them within a very
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 22 of 36
long stone's throw of their neighborhood and the thing that he would point out and where he
heard some things tonight that are worrisome was actually in the documentation that was posted
online and there is a reference in some of the material that suggests the plan for the County and
the Poor Farm. They're actually considering putting some residential units there which would be
very close to the proposed site and that creates a much more immediate conflict between the
kinds of uses for these properties. The thing he is very concerned about, because there were
also comments that none of us has a crystal ball, they really don't know what will go there and
there's no confirmed plan for MidAmerica Energy to use the site, but there is beyond the rights
that can be exercised to build on that site subject only to provisional review. What was
referenced as an adult video stores or strip clubs that's what the Code says so by opening up the
door for intensive commercial use on this property, not very far from one of Iowa City's high
schools and not very far from residential neighborhoods are possibilities that no one really want
in their backyards.
Cindy Seyfer (36 Tempe Court) wanted to follow up with that comment they’re not concerned if
it's MidAmerican or who it is that builds there, they are looking at what's in the best interest for
Iowa City and the public. She thinks it's really dangerous to annex and start to allow that land to
be used in a way that they don't have a plan for. They don't know what the future will hold for
that land, but what they do know is what is near it. The Commissioners indicated it isn't
residential, but she would assume that the residents of Walnut Ridge and Galway Hills would
beg to differ, because they would find themselves pretty close to that area. Her neighborhood
would find themselves close to that area and again that's where she thinks they need to be
looking at tiers, rather than jumping straight from residential to intense commercial. Once it is
intense commercial all of those options exist in terms of what could go on that land, and it makes
it really hard to feel comfortable with what the future might hold. She also wanted to echo none
of them are against the growth, they wanted residential growth or at the very least maybe some
neighborhood commercial growth, they just don't think an appropriate use is intense commercial.
Sherri Slothower Bergstrom (Slothower Farms) feels like the panel here maybe doesn't have a
good understanding of that area. They have been talking a lot about IWV Road but the people
that are here and the big impact that they are missing is what's going to happen south of there.
There's a big strip of land there and this small piece of land that they're addressing tonight is
going to set the tone for what happens in that whole area, and it really concerns her and bothers
her a lot that the people on the panel are not really understanding that. Maybe the
Commissioners are not real familiar with the area, but IWV Road is probably not what they
should be thinking about here, there is going to be impact in the future from this decision on a
large area of agricultural land and on a lot of people. Look at that neighborhood there and look at
what's going to happen in the future on that agricultural land and what they are deciding here for
a very small plot is going to impact that greatly.
Duane Kruse (965 Slothower Road) and as Bergstrom just pointed out the decision that's being
imposed on the Commission tonight does impact a lot of people and it's a very large decision.
When one drives up and down IWV you see commercial, but you get past that and there's a lot
of land there that is going to be impacted by this decision if this area goes to heavy industrial.
He is also not opposed to growth, they all want to grow, they all want to be successful, but he
also thinks if they make this decision in favor of the heavy industrial, they're opening pandora's
box and can't close it once it's opened.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 23 of 36
Craig corrected that it's not heavy industrial zoning.
Kruse accepted that but stated he is opposed to this, his wife Kathy is opposed, their two dogs
are opposed, their three cats are opposed and 49 pheasants in their front yard last winter are
opposed.
Hensch asked the applicant what's the CSR (corn suitability rating) for this land. Marner replied
he did not know off the top of his head. Hensch noted several people mentioned the agricultural
lands and he presumes it's around 50-60. He assumes it would be the same as the Poor Farm
and the Poor Farm CSR is low, it's around 50.
Freedman had a quick question as there was a mention in the conditions for the plan that the
resident would pay 25% of the improvements to Slothower Road to the south of the site. What is
the vision and is that going to extend all the way down to Rohret Road or that would connect up
the Lake Shore.
Hensch reminded him this is not a question/answer opportunity, it's an opportunity for the public
to address the Commission and share information. He could certainly ask staff after the meeting.
Freedman stated then if the idea was that collector road is going to feed on to Lake Shore and
not go all the way down to Rohret Road it would be tremendously opposed by many, many
people in the community because then lots of traffic would be going right through a street where
there's tons of kids. So if there's thinking here about creating a collector road they have to be
very careful and do an analysis of where that collector is going to go, he thinks it should go to
Rohret Road.
Marner stated the CSR is 72, he was able to look it up on the internet. Hensch noted just so
people know it's a scale of zero to 100 and the closer to 100 is prime agricultural land and as it
goes down its lesser value and that determines how it sells frankly.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Townsend moved to recommend approval of ANN21-0003, a voluntary annexation of
approximately 70.39 acres of property located south of IWV Road and west of Slothower
Road.
Signs seconded the motion.
Hensch stated here they are talking about the annexation of approximately 70.39 acres and they
need to analyze three criteria that's in the annexation policy. Number one, the area under
consideration falls within the adopted long range planning boundary; number two, development
in the area proposed for annexation will fulfill an identified need without imposing undue burden
on the City, so talking about city services such as utilities and other services; and number three,
the control of the development is in the City's best interest and really that's what the Commission
is always to look at, what's best for the City.
Hensch started he completely empathizes with everybody in this room, he lives on the south side
of Iowa City and there's been a lot of zoning actions have been taken adjacent to his property
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 24 of 36
that he did not agree with and did not like but that's just the way it is. Other people make these
decisions, sometimes in our favor and sometimes not. He looks at this critically, he has been
doing this for seven years now, and so on these annexations he thinks it's usually pretty
straightforward by reviewing the three criteria. Again, they are not talking about rezoning, it has
nothing to do with the conversation right now, this is about annexation. He thinks all three of
these criteria clearly been met.
Signs agrees, he is very much supportive if the property owner wants to bring their property into
the into the City and add value to the City.
Hensch thanked Signs for bringing that up. The City's annexation policy is it's only voluntary
annexation so the owner of this property wishes to be annexed into Iowa City.
Signs agrees and states he personally thinks they need to look pretty favorably upon it, as long
as it's not going to create some detriment to City services or resources.
Townsend, Craig and Padron all agreed.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
Motion by Signs to recommend approval of REZ21-0006, a rezoning of approximately
53.36 acres from County Agricultural (A) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1), 9 acres from
Rural Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1), and 17.03 acres from County
Agricultural (A) to Interim Development Commercial (ID-C) subject to the following
conditions:
5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall:
a. Plat all the property herein rezoned to follow the zoning boundaries.
b. Submit a landscape plan, which shall be approved by the City Forester, to
ensure that, when developed, the subject property is designed in a manner
that emphasizes green components within its location along an arterial and
as an entryway into the City.
c. Owner shall contribute 25% of the cost of upgrading Slothower Road, south
of the proposed access, to collector street standards, adjacent to the
subject property.
6. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the property fronting Slothower
Road:
a. Installation of landscaping to the S3 standard, as detailed in section 14-5F-
6C of City Code, along the subject property’s Slothower Road frontage. If
said certificate of occupancy is issued during a poor planting season, by
May 31 following issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
b. Improvement of Slothower Road to the southern end of the proposed
access off Slothower Road.
c. Installation of landscaping to the S3 standard along the property line and
IWV Road.
7. At the time the final plat is approved, Owner shall dedicate additional right-of-way
along the Slothower Road frontage in an amount and location approved by the City
Engineer.
8. Parking, loading areas, and outdoor storage shall either not be located between the
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 25 of 36
front facade of the principal structure and the front yard right-of-way line or shall
be screened to the S3 standard along the IWV Road frontage.
The motion was seconded by Craig.
Hensch stated this is the hardest part and he presumes no one in the audience will like what he
has to say but they have to look at what's best for the entire city of Iowa City, not for particular
areas. He has heard every word they said, he listened carefully, and he understands exactly
why they feel the way they do but the Commission’s job is to make decisions that's best for the
entire city of Iowa City. He personally thinks Mr. Signs comments were correct that there seems
to be a real strong, and he’s not accusing anybody in here of this, of anti-development in Iowa
City because the Commission has gone through some really rough public hearings for
development on east side by Hickory Hills and on the south side with the new zoning standards.
Somebody's got to pay property taxes, land has to be developed for the people that want to live
here, people keep moving here and they have to live somewhere, they have to work somewhere,
so the Commission has to make really hard decisions that are pretty thankless. At the end of the
day, he has to look at is a Comprehensive Plan being complied with, are the district plans and
the subdistrict plans being complied with, in general, because this is subjective when talking
about comprehensive plans and district plans and then in a particularity are the development
ordinances being followed. That’s the Commission’s role and he views it pretty literal and has to
take out his personal feelings on a lot of things. Hensch acknowledged there's some subjectivity
but mostly their job is are the rules being followed and is the intention of the plans being followed
and the answer for him in this case is yes. He acknowledged he wouldn't like it if he was a
neighbor, he does disagree with them that the residential area is farther to the south, and he is
thrilled to have a developer voluntarily without coercion have one third of their property be a
buffer. Hensch stated this is a onetime thing for the neighbors, but this is a regular every
meeting for Commission and this is a great deal and he will support this without reservation
Craig stated she also supports the rezoning, she would not support it if it came further south, but
she thinks it's in keeping with what is going to be there when 965 comes down between the
landfill and this property. They weren't going to be building residential houses to the west
because like someone already said residential houses don't want to back up to the landfill, well
residential houses don't want to live on 965 either, so there's going to be something happening
there that is not residential, and this creates the beginning of that buffer that they are going to
want to your residential neighborhoods. If this was that full strip of land they were asking for, she
would not approve it, but she thinks the corner up there by Melrose is in keeping with the uses on
Melrose, so she is very supportive of it.
Padron is still opposed to the change; she still thinks the Poor Farm is too close. For example,
the bike library is organizing rides to different farms in town, so people can ride their bike and go
to other farms and the Poor Farm has been participating in that. She received notifications to go
there and spend the day there with other nonprofit organizations doing family events as well, so
she thinks it is too close to the Poor Farm. She is also concerned with all the uses that were
listed; some are not very family friendly. Padron acknowledged Craig said if it were the whole
strip she would not approve but Padron feels approving this corner might be a beginning for
developers to keep asking for changes on the whole strip. She is very in favor of City growth but
doesn’t think this is the right way to grow the City and is concerned. This particular area is not
the right place for it.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 26 of 36
Townsend noted at this point they're not voting on any specific proposal, right now they're just
voting on rezoning the land and she doesn’t have a problem.
Hensch agreed, they never really know what it's going to end up somewhere when they rezone
it, they rezone land and do not rezone for particular use that's going to happen eventually in the
future.
Signs appreciates that comment and would agree and is not making any decision based on the
idea that MidAmerican Energy as maybe the tenant there. He supports this type of growth along
IWV in whatever it might be. There were couple of references to some of the provisional uses
there he can assure them if something like an adult bookstore came before the Board of
Adjustment, he is sure there would be a tremendous neighborhood input in that session, and he
is pretty sure it wouldn't get past. He also reiterated it is really important to note this is not
industrial, this is intensive commercial and he is in support of the rezoning.
A vote was taken and the motion passes 4-1 (Padron dissenting).
CASE NO. CPA21-0001:
A public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the South District Plan
to facilitate development that follows form-based principles.
Russett began with a brief summary of what's in the staff report, the City has been working with
Opticos on this since 2019 and they’ve met with several stakeholders over the past two years to
get input on the plan. A few things she wanted to highlight since the Commission last saw this is
staff has made some changes to the Comprehensive Plan and some of those changes were also
incorporated into the proposed zoning code. The vast majority of the changes are non-
substantive changes, formatting issues and typos, but there were also a few things staff found
that they wanted to clarify in the code so they made those changes. One thing is they did
change the Comprehensive Plan future land use map based on recent input from a landowner
south of Wetherby Park and that will be discussed later in the presentation.
Lehmann stated for CPA21-0001, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is really a couple
changes to the context, the goals and objectives, new land use descriptions, and a new future
land use map. Lehmann showed an image of the new future land use map that takes a form-
based approach to land use. As far as context and background, there's some information about
the form-based code process and some added some information about history including planning
and of the area and development that's happened since the Plan was initially adopted in 2015,
as well as some generalizing language, based on the proposed new future land use map.
Lehmann noted it also talks about form-based zoning and form-based codes and how those
work, which is instead of organizing zones by uses, zones are organized by what they look like
and trying to tailor the character to the form of the area. He explained that is a difference and it
clarifies how that would occur in the South District. As part of that staff also is proposing three
new goals and objectives that discuss exactly what form-based zoning looks like in the South
District and how those would support other goals that are also within the Plan and broader goals
of the City as well, including a diversity of housing types, promoting walkability and use of
alternative modes of transportation, and including new neighborhood commercial areas.
Planning and Zoning Commission
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
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 11 of 18
intensive commercial zoning (CI-1) with the third parcel on the west going to interim development
commercial.
Regarding the background on why the rezoning is back in front of this Commission. At the
September 16 meeting it was recommended for approval by a vote of 4-1 but there were
concerns raised regarding negative externalities, negative impacts to viewsheds, noise, traffic
etc. So, in an attempt quell those concerns, the applicant did submit the revised Comprehensive
Plan Amendment that was just discussed, featuring the 350-foot vegetative and noise buffer also
designated as open space. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment that occurred within the last
item does identify a need for buffering intensive commercial uses along that southern 350-foot
distance of the subject property. So with that in place, staff is recommending two additional
conditions to the rezoning application which is why this item is here for discussion today. The two
additional conditions staff is recommending are first when the land is platted the owner should
dedicate to the City a buffer easement and impose upon the land a use restriction prohibiting
development within 350 feet of the southern boundary of the subject property. This would
effectively prohibit any installation of structures, parking lots, drive aisles or loading areas within
this area. Secondly at the time the land is platted and upon construction of the public
improvements the owner shall plant landscaping to the S3 standard along the southern boundary
within the easement area in locations that do not contain sensitive areas or sensitive area
buffers. The sensitive areas are focused mostly at the south property boundary and there's a
sizable 1.3 acre wetland within that area with a 100 foot wetland buffer all around the wetland.
There is also a wetland and stream corridor on the western most property.
As far as the rezoning is concerned, the role of the Commission is to determine whether the
rezoning meets the review criteria, which is consistency with Comprehensive Plan and
compatibility with the existing neighborhood. Regarding consistency with Comprehensive Plan
there will be consistency pending approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to intensive
commercial. Also, the Southwest District Plan does call for future urban development within this
subject property. The rationale for why intensive commercial development may be attractive in
this location is due to the location and size of the properties, the adjacency to forthcoming arterial
road access, and highway adjacency. With respect to compatibility with the existing
neighborhood character, there are preexisting uses of comparable intensity to what might be
found in an intensive commercial zone along the north side of IWV Road, the County Public
Works facility and the Iowa National Guard Armory. Staff is proposing a S3 high screen
landscape buffer, originally this was just proposed along the Slothower Road frontage but it was
discussed at the last meeting to have this screening standard applied to the IWV Road frontage
as well. Staff is also recommending placement of this S3 screen along the southern property
boundary where there are no sensitive areas and there are additional screening standards within
the City Code that are intended to conceal parking and loading areas from adjacent residential
zones or neighborhoods. Lastly, staff does have a condition pertaining to the location of loading
areas and outdoor storage and prohibiting those areas between the principal building facade and
the IWV and Slothower Road right-of-way lines.
With respect to next steps, there will be a public hearing on November 16, not only for the
annexation and rezoning but also for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Prior to the public
hearing, there is a notification process that is tied to the annexation where the City has to notify
utility companies and non-consenting parties are sent the annexation application via certified
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 12 of 18
mail, and the annexation component of the project also has to gain City Development Board
approval from the State.
Staff 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;
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.
Hensch noted it seems a little inconsistent stating the first part where would have to be approved
by City Forester but does that also include the second highlighted portion also needing to be
approved by the Forester. Hensch feels that both need to pre-approved by the Forester. Heitner
confirmed that's the intent. Hensch next asked if at some point staff could share the City's
development ordinances regarding what constitutes S2 or S3 screening, he would like to read
more about that and have an understanding of those.
Hekteon looked it up, it is as at 14-5-F6 in the zoning code. The S3 standard intent is a buffering
treatment that uses dense landscape screening to provide a visual and physical separation
between uses and zones. It is commonly applied between residential uses and commercial and
industrial uses and to screen outdoor work or storage areas. Required materials are enough
shrubs and small evergreens to form a continuous screen or hedge at least five to six feet in
height and more than 50% solid year-round. Screening materials must be at least three feet high
when planted and at least one half of the shrubs must be evergreen varieties. An alternative is to
use a berm in conjunction with a hedge to achieve an overall height of at least six feet or a
continuous or semi continuous five- to six-foot-high masonry wall or solid fence. Hekteon added
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 13 of 18
the permitted plants are described in table 5-F2 where it states S3 screening and says American
Arborvitae, Emerald trees, compact burning bushes, or Hatfield trees are allowed. Deviations
from the list of plants are allowed if the replacement shrubs are similar in form or hardiness to a
permitted variety and are approved by the City.
Signs asked if there is any way that they can add a provision that some of that screening area
have some large evergreen and or deciduous trees. Heitner replied yes, if the Commission
wishes to add deciduous or evergreen trees that's certainly the Commission's right to request
that. Signs would normally refer to it as a reforestation plan but there is not just planting, so is
there a percentage of the plant material needs to be trees of mature height over 30 feet or
something. Hensch noted it said 50% has to be of evergreen variety, he hates to be too
prescriptive but it’d be nice to try to beautify that reforest a little bit. Signs noted that all the
shrubs described are six-to-eight-foot mature shrubs, even the evergreen ones.
Craig added when they are talking about evergreens, they are talking 40–50-foot evergreen trees
so could that be added to the buffer zone on the recommendation of the City Forester’s plan as
he decides.
Hensch said they can just add that as a condition to the motion.
Hekteon said they could add a condition giving some guidance to the City Forester.
Nolte asked if the developer is obligated to maintain this land in perpetuity, it's an easement but it
could be sold. Hektoen noted right now they haven't platted it so it could be platted as an outlot
to be owned by the City to be owned by anyone at this point or put in a land trust or something
like that, there is a use agreement but that doesn't mean that ownership can't be transferred
because it's not City property.
Signs stated they could potentially deed it to the City to be part of that western buffer. Hektoen
confirmed at the time that the land is platted, they could plat it as an outlot to be dedicated to the
City or to be dedicated to whomever or conveyed to whomever.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Josh Entler (IWV Holdings) is representing the applicant and had a couple of comments he'd like
to address. They are in agreement with those revised conditions with one technical clarification,
in terms of the S3 buffer on the south, they will provide the S3 screening along the south line in
areas where there's not sensitive features. He doesn’t want to get into trouble with the Army
Corps of Engineers because there is a designated wetland out there and a buffer and they need
to stay out of it. Entler just wanted to explain that so if a year from now somebody asks why
there's not a continuous straight line of brand-new trees, that is why. They'll plant new trees and
S3 screening where there's not sensitive features. Another comment on the S3 screening, they
just did this in coordination with Hiawatha for a development that also needed screening and as
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 14 of 18
mentioned this also works well in tandem with buffers or with berms and they are also in
agreement to proposing a two- or three-foot berm to elevate the base of the planting up a little
higher. They’ve found that seems to gain some traction with the adjacent residents. In terms of
the specifics of the plant, he would like to propose to table the specific tree requirement to site
plan review, once they have a specific user or person that's actually going to be planting those
trees. He asks that they push that off to the site plan review and just focus on rezoning. He does
welcome the idea of having that responsibility on to the City Forester.
Hensch was happy to hear about the berm as the concern is they just don't want a wall of
arborvitae. Entler agreed and doesn’t want that either. Hensch wants to be sensitive to the
neighbors and what they have to see and mixed deciduous and conifers is a year-round barrier
and everybody would be much happier with that.
Craig asked is that something that could be handled at site plan review. Russett replied yes,
that's typically when they would review the landscaping plan, which would be required for this.
However, if the Commission wants the condition to be more specific, that could be incorporated.
Jim Seyfer (36 Tempe Court) stated he understands the Poor Farms plans are not set in stone
but the map that he saw of future development on the Poor Farm, the affordable housing was
going to backup to Slothower Road. Someone said earlier, correctly, it was in the southwest
corner of the Poor Farm but that's subject to change. He understands but the plan was for that
housing to be fairly close to Slothower and south of the southern boundary of the land to be
rezoned. He just wanted to bring that up as a possible issue.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend 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
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 15 of 18
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;
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.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Hensch noted his only concern is exactly the same thing Signs brought up about appropriate
screening, mostly is out of ignorance with not being really familiar with S3 standards.
Signs can totally defer to the City Forester but he doesn’t want a six-foot hedge going around this
entire boundary as that has very little impact on the view. He’d like to see something much more
deciduous and evergreen trees that are 30 feet plus in that mature height.
Craig proposes where it says installation of landscaping to the S3 standard along the Slothower
Road and IWV Road frontage to state landscaping shall include in addition to the S3 standard, a
mix of deciduous and evergreen trees as approved by the City Forester.
The Commission’s intent is pretty clear, they'd like to see deciduous and coniferous trees. Also
they fully understand that in sensitive areas they should not be added there.
Hekteon asked if this is in the 350-foot buffer area or in all areas where S3 screening as
required. Craig answered it's in the buffer area. Hensch noted although the motion would just
be that the more intense screening would be in the buffer area he also doesn’t want to see a wall
of arborvitae on the north side either as it is an entrance to Iowa City.
Signs amended his motion to add installation of landscaping to the S3 standard shall
include a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees as approved by the City Forester.
Craig seconded the amendment.
A vote was taken on the motion and it passed 5-0
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 7, 2021:
Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of October 7, 2021.
Signs seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
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
Prepared by: Ray Heitner,Associate Planner,410 E.Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240;319-356-5238(REZ21-
0006)
Ordinance No.
Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 53.36 acres from County
Agricultural (A) to Intensive Commercial (Cl-1), approximately 17.03 acres
from County Agricultural (A) to Interim Development Commercial (ID-C), and
approximately 9 acres from Rural Residential (RR-1) to Intensive
Commercial (0I-1) for land located west of the intersection of IWV Road SW
and Slothower Road.
Whereas, the applicant, IWV Holdings, LLC., has requested a rezoning of approximately
53.36 acres from County Agricultural (A) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1), approximately 17.03
acres from County Agricultural (A) to Interim Development Commercial (ID-C), and approximately
9 acres from Rural Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) for land located west of the
intersection of IWV Road and Slothower Road; and
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the subject area is appropriate for intensive
commercial development and vegetative noise and sight buffer in the southern portion of the
subject area; and
Whereas, the subject property is located within .3 miles of an established residential
neighborhood within the city limits; and
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan calls for appropriate transitions between residential
neighborhoods and higher intensity commercial development; and
Whereas, there is a public need to buffer intensive commercial uses from residential uses to
the south; and
Whereas, the subject property will have frontage onto Slothower Road; and
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan calls for a collector street within the Slothower Road right-
of-way, between Melrose Avenue and Rohret Road; and
Whereas, there is a public need to upgrade Slothower Road to collector street standards upon
development; and
Whereas, the subject property is being annexed into the city limits; and
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan further establishes goals for preserving and enhancing
entryways to the City; and
Whereas, there is a public need to preserve and enhance aesthetics on City entryways by
screening items used for outdoor storage and by implementing specific standards for landscaping
along entryway corridors; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with reasonable
conditions regarding satisfaction of public needs through the buffering of intensive commercial
Ordinance No.
Page 2
uses from existing residential uses, upgrading the subject property's Slothower Road frontage to
collector street standards, and the preservation and enhancement of City entryways, the
requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa that:
Section I Approval. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and
incorporated herein, the property described below is hereby reclassified as follows:
For the property below, from its current zoning designation of Rural Residential (RR-1) zone to
Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone:
A PORTION OF 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, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
Beginning at the North Quarter Corner of Section 13, Township 79 North, Range 7 West, of the
Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa; Thence S00°00'59"W, along the East Line of the
North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13, a distance of 1305.56 feet, to its
intersection with the Easterly Projection of 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 Easterly Projection and North Line, 300.07
feet; Thence N00°00'59"E, 1307.41 feet, to a Point on the North Line of the North One-Half of the
Northwest Quarter of said Section 13; Thence N89°06'50"E, along said North Line, 300.04 feet, to
the Point of Beginning. Said Rezoning Parcel #1 contains 9.00 Acres, and is subject to easements
and restrictions of record.
For the property below, from its current zoning designation of County Agricultural (A) zone to
Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone:
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 S00°00'59"W, along the East Line of
the North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13, a distance of 1305.56 feet, to its
intersection with the Easterly Projection of 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 Easterly Projection and North Line, 300.07
feet, to the Point of Beginning; Thence continuing S88°45'34"W, along said North Line, 414.99
feet, to the Northwest Comer 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, 1551.41 feet;
Thence N13°37'32"W, 53.10 feet; Thence N04°19'09"E, 213.22 feet; Thence N22°47'41"E,
655.46 feet; Thence N33°02'35"E, 438.62 feet; Thence N00°53'27"W, 86.39 feet, to a Point on the
North Line of the North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13; Thence
N89°06'50"E, along said North Line, 1471.32 feet; Thence S00°00'59"W, 1307.41 feet, to the
Point of Beginning. Said Rezoning Parcel #2 contains 53.36 Acres, and is subject to easements
and restrictions of record.
For the property listed below, from its current zoning designation of County Agricultural (A) zone
to Interim Development Commercial (ID-C)zone:
Ordinance No.
Page 3
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:
Beginning at the Northwest Corner of Section 13, Township 79 North, Range 7 West, of the Fifth
Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa; 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 862.10 feet; Thence
S00°53'27"E, 86.39 feet; Thence S33°02'35"W, 438.62 feet; Thence S22°47'41"W, 655.46 feet;
Thence SO4°19'09"W, 213.22 feet; Thence S13°37'32"E, 53.10 feet, to a Point on 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, 370.12 feet, to the Southwest Corner of the North One- Half of the Northwest
Quarter of said 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 Point of Beginning. Said
Rezoning Parcel #3 contains 17.03 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record.
Section II. Zoning Map. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change
the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final
passage, approval and publication of this ordinance by law.
Section III. Conditional Zoning Agreement. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to
sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s)
and the City, following passage and approval of this Ordinance.
Section IV. Certification And Recording. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the
same, at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, at the owner's expense, all
as provided by law.
Section V. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section VI. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a
whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section VII. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of , 20_
Mayor
Approved by:
Attest: •
City Clerk City Attorne s Office
(Sara Greenwood Hektoen- 11/09/21)
Prepared by Ray Heitner,Associate Planner,410 E Washington,Iowa City,IA 52240(REZ21-0000)
Conditional Zoning Agreement
This agreement is made among the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter
"City"), and IWV Holdings, LLC. (hereinafter referred to as "Owner").
Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 79.39 acres of property located
west of the intersection of IWV Road SW and Slothower Road, legally described below; and
Whereas, the Owner has requested the rezoning of said property to allow for future
intensive commercial development; and
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the subject area is appropriate for
intensive commercial development and vegetative noise and sight buffer in the southern portion
of the subject area; and
Whereas, the subject property is located within .3 miles of an established residential
neighborhood within the city limits; and
Whereas, the subject property will have frontage onto IWV Road and Slothower Road; and
Whereas, in order to ensure the long-term health of existing neighborhoods by providing
appropriate transitions between residential and intensive commercial areas, upgrading City
roadway infrastructure to meet future travel demand, and to preserve and enhance aesthetics
on City entryways, this rezoning creates public needs to provide a buffer between the proposed
commercial development and existing residential areas to the south, upgrade the property's
Slothower Road frontage to collector street standards, and to provide enhanced screening along
entryway frontages; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate
conditions regarding a buffer along the property's south side, dedication of right-of-way along
the west side of Slothower Road, improvements to the southern end of any future access off
Slothower Road, contribution toward the cost of 25% of future upgrades on Slothower Road,
south of any future proposed access, enhanced landscaping along Slothower and IWV Roads,
and screening of any loading areas or outdoor storage areas from the Slothower and IWV Road
frontages; and
Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2021) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in
order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
Whereas. the Owner agrees to develop this property in accordance with the terms and
conditions of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as
follows:
1. IWV Holdings, LLC. is the legal title holder of the property legally described as:
1
A PORTION OF 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, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, DESCRIBED
AS FOLLOWS:
Beginning at the North Quarter Corner of Section 13, Township 79 North, Range 7 West, of the
Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa; Thence S00°00'59"W, along the East Line of
the North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13, a distance of 1305.56 feet, to
its intersection with the Easterly Projection of 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 Easterly Projection and
North Line, 300.07 feet; Thence N00°00'59"E, 1307.41 feet, to a Point on the North Line of the
North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13; Thence N89°06'50"E, along said
North Line, 300.04 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Rezoning Parcel#1 contains 9.00 Acres,
and is subject to easements and restrictions of record.
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 SOO°00'59"W, along the East Line
of the North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13, a distance of 1305.56 feet, to
its intersection with the Easterly Projection of 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 Easterly Projection and
North Line, 300.07 feet, to the Point of Beginning; Thence continuing 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, 1551.41 feet; Thence N13°37'32"W, 53.10 feet; Thence N04"19'09"E, 213.22 feet; Thence
N22°47'41"E, 655.46 feet; Thence N33°02'35"E, 438.62 feet; Thence N00°53'27"W, 86.39 feet,
to a Point on the North Line of the North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13;
Thence N89°06'50"E, along said North Line, 1471.32 feet; Thence S00°00'59"W, 1307.41 feet,
to the Point of Beginning. Said Rezoning Parcel #2 contains 53.36 Acres, and is subject to
easements and restrictions of record.
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:
Beginning at the Northwest Corner of Section 13, Township 79 North, Range 7 West, of the
Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa; 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 862.10 feet;
Thence S00°53'27"E, 86.39 feet; Thence S33°02'35"W, 438.62 feet; Thence S22'47'41"W,
655.46 feet; Thence SO4°19'09"W, 213.22 feet; Thence S13°37'32"E, 53.10 feet, to a Point on
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, 370.12 feet, to the Southwest Corner of the North One-
Half of the Northwest Quarter of said 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
2
the Point of Beginning. Said Rezoning Parcel #3 contains 17.03 Acres, and is subject to
easements and restrictions of record.
2. Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the
Comprehensive Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2021)
provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a
rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public
needs caused by the requested change.
3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner agrees that
development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the Zoning
Code, as well as the following conditions:
a. Prior to issuance of any building permit, Owner shall plat the property herein
rezoned to follow the zoning boundaries.
i. 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.
Landscaping within the buffer easement area shall meet the S3 standards
and include a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees that will be at least
30'tall upon maturity.
ii. 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.
b. Pursuant to Iowa City Code Title 15, Owner shall, contemporaneous with the final
plat approval, execute a subdividers agreement addressing, among other things,
the following conditions:
i. 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.
ii. Owner shall install landscaping to the S3 standard along the Slothower
Road and IWV Road frontages;
iii. Improve Slothower Road to the southern end of any future access off
Slothower Road.
c. For all lots fronting NW 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.
4. The conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under
Iowa Code §414.5 (2021), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused
by the requested zoning change.
3
5. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the
land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with
title to the land, unless or until released by the City of Iowa City. Once a building permit
is issued or certificate of occupancy is issued, as applicable, the conditions shall be
deemed satisfied and no further release will be provided. The parties further
acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors,
representatives, and assigns of the parties. In the event the subject property is
transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all development will conform with the
terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
6. Nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner
from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
7. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the
ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the
ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at
the Owner's expense.
Dated this day of , 20_.
City of Iowa City
Bruce Teague, Mayor By: 01/4144, r
Attest:
Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk
Approved by:
City Attorney's - - oe
/I/C//ZI
City of Iowa City Acknowledgement:
State of Iowa
) ss:
Johnson County
This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 20_by Bruce Teague
and Kellie Fruehling as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
4
IWV Holdings, LLC. Acknowledgement:
State of„Trist.4)1
County of rya it use vt
T is r ord wacknowledged befgrt me on Akidiiih4r /6 , 2021 by
G1 rt
/ pid/1 (name) as float.i ' (title) of IWV Hold' gs, LLC.
Notary Public in angifor ti tate of Iowa
AMANDA J WAUGH S
Commission Number 799220 (Stamp or Seal)
My Commission Exp'
September. 19,2Q My commission expires: QH or" 26z2.-
5
z -
5
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Bergus
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Weiner
First Consideration 11/30/2021
Vote for passage: AYES: Weiner, Bergus, Mims, Salih, Taylor,
Teague, Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration
Vote for passage:
Date published
Item Number: 11.d.
November 30, 2021
O rd inan ce conditional l y rezonin g ap p roximatel y 5.81 acres of p roperty
l ocated east of S. Riverside Dr. and n orth of McCollister Bl vd. from High
d ensity single-family resid ential (R S-12) to h igh d ensity single-family
resid ential with a plan n ed d evelop ment overl ay (O P D/R S-12). (R E Z 21-0009)
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Staff Report with Attachments
L etter to Council
Supplemental Memo
P&Z Minutes
Draft Ordinance
Draft Conditional Zoning Agreement
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ21-0009
Prepared by: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner
Date: October 21, 2021
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Ed Cole
Cole’s Community LLC
2254 S. Riverside Dr.
Iowa City, IA 52246
319-321-1002
Dirtworks0405@gmail.com
Contact Person: Brian Boelk, Axiom Consultants
60 E. Court Street, Unit 3
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-519-6220
BBOELK@AXIOM-CON.COM
Owner: Cole’s Community, LLC
C/O Ed Cole
2254 S. Riverside Dr.
Iowa City, IA 52256
319-321-1002
Dirtworks0405@gmail.com
Requested Action: Rezoning from high density single-family
residential with a planned development overlay
(OPD/RS-12) to OPD/RS-12
Purpose:
Allow the expansion of existing manufactured
housing development
Location:
East of S. Riverside Dr. and north of McCollister
Blvd.
Location Map:
Size: 5.81 Acres
2
Existing Land Use and Zoning: High density single-family residential (RS-12);
Manufactured Housing Development
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Manufactured housing development;
High density single-family residential
(RS-12)
South: Open space; Neighborhood public (P1)
East: Neighborhood public (P1); High density
single-family residential (RS-12)
West: General Industrial (I1); Neighborhood
Public (P1);
Institutional Public (P2)
Comprehensive Plan:
Single family residential
District Plan:
South Central
Neighborhood Open Space District:
S1
Public Meeting Notification:
Property owners located within 300’ of the project
site received notification of the Planning and
Zoning Commission public meeting. Rezoning
signs were also posted on the site.
File Date: September 16, 2021, resubmitted application to
proposed 5.81-acre rezoning area on October 26,
2021
45 Day Limitation Period:
Waived 45-Day review period
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Ed Cole, is requesting a rezoning to approve a Planned Development Overlay (OPD)
plan for a 5.81-acre property located east of S. Riverside Drive and north of McCollister Blvd. to
High Density Single Family Residential Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12) zoning
designation.
The property was rezoned (REZ15-00007, Ord. No. 15-4639) to high density single-family with a
planned development overlay (OPD/RS-12) for the entire 14-acre parcel in 2015. Per 14-8D-7C-4,
OPD plans are valid for no more than 24 months unless otherwise specified in the ordinance
approving the OPD overlay zone. Since a building permit for the OPD Plan was not issued within
two years of the OPD approval from 2015, the OPD expired. A new OPD rezoning is required for
development of a manufactured housing park. With the existing application, the applicant wishes to
rezone the vacant 5.81-acre section of the 14-acre parcel. The rezoning is intended to facilitate
expansion of the existing manufactured housing park. While the subject boundary has changed, the
subject application is highly similar to the rezoning that was approved by the City in 2015. The
subject application contains 3 fewer lease lots than the 2015 OPD Plan.
The expansion of the manufactured housing park requires approval of an OPD Plan through the
rezoning process. The existing manufactured home park was created in 1974 for 55 units, and the
rezoning would allow for the development of an additional 35 manufactured homes in the
undeveloped area of the parcel.
Currently, the property contains Cole’s Community Manufactured housing Park (formerly known as
3
Thatcher), along with approximately 5.81 acres of undeveloped land where the expansion is
proposed. The neighboring property to the north contains another manufactured housing park
(formally known as Baculis’ Manufactured Housing Park), which has been acquired by the applicant.
The applicant has indicated that he intends to combine the existing parks into one development that
will share facilities such as storm shelters and playgrounds. The storm shelter will also function as
a community room for the park.
The surrounding area includes a permanent open space with a levee to the east, Mesquakie Park
(former landfill) across McCollister Boulevard to the south, and general industrial parcel use to the
west.
The applicant held a virtual Good Neighbor Meeting on October 11, 2021. No members of the public
attended the meeting.
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning: The current zoning of the property is for High Density Single Family Residential
with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12). The high density single-family residential zone
(RS-12) is intended to provide for development of single-family dwellings, duplexes and attached
housing units at a higher density than in other single- family zones. Because this district represents
a relatively high density for single-family development, dwellings should be in close proximity to all
city services and facilities, especially parks, schools and recreational facilities. Special attention
should be given to site design to ensure the development of quality neighborhoods. Nonresidential
uses and structures permitted in this zone should be planned and designed to be compatible with
the character, scale, and pattern of the residential development. The RS-12 zone allows single
family dwellings on lots with a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet and 45-foot lot width. Duplexes
and attached single family dwellings are permitted with a minimum lot area of 3,000 square feet.
The overlay zone is required in order for a property owner to construct a manufactured housing
park, a form of commercial property in which individual owners of manufactured homes lease lots
for their dwellings from the property owner. Overlay zones also allow increased flexibility for
development standards such as setbacks, lot area, and road widths as long as certain specifications
are met and it is not contrary to the Comprehensive Plan.
Proposed Zoning: The applicant is requesting approval of an OPD/RS-12 rezoning to expand the
existing manufactured housing park and to allow waivers from street standards, setbacks and
minimum lot sizes. The details of the OPD plan are discussed below under the Planned
Development Overlay (OPD) Plan heading.
General Planned Development Approval Criteria: Applications for Planned Development
Rezonings are reviewed for compliance with the following standards according to Article 14-3A of
the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance.
1. The density and design of the Planned Development will be compatible with and/or
complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass and scale,
relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout.
Density – The proposal meets the standard pertaining to density. In OPD zones, density is
calculated based on the underlying residential density in the base zone. In the case of RS-12, it
allows up to 13 units per acre of net land area. The proposed density of 35 units on 5.81 acres
equals approximately 6 units per acre. This density is comparable to the approximate density of 6.5-
7.5 units per acre that can be found in the existing manufactured housing park communities to the
west and north.
Land Uses Proposed – The proposed manufactured housing park use would be an expansion of
4
the existing manufactured housing park.
Mass, Scale and General Layout – The manufactured homes will be approximately 14’ x 70’ in size,
equaling 980 square feet. The RS-12 zone requires a minimum building width of 20’. The applicant
has requested a waiver from this standard to allow for the installation of 14’-wide buildings
throughout the planned development. While section 14-3A-4K of the City Code does not contain a
specific modified standard for a reduction in building width, section 14-3A-7 of the City Code does
allow for exceptions to the OPD approval criteria, provided that the requested modification meets
the following:
• The modification will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City Code and the
City Comprehensive Plan.
• The modification will generally enhance the proposed planned development and will not
have an adverse impact on its physical, visual, or spatial characteristics.
• The modification shall not result in a configuration of lots or a street system that is impractical
or detracts from the appearance of the proposed development.
• The modification will not result in danger to public health, safety, or welfare by preventing
access to emergency vehicles, by inhibiting the provision of public services, by depriving
adjoining properties of adequate light and air, or by violating the purposes and intent of the
City Code or City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Staff maintains that the requested modification to allow for the construction of 14’-wide
manufactured homes in the planned development area meets the aforementioned criteria. While
not specifically listed within the City’s Planned Development Overlay approval criteria, there is a
separate section of the Code that addresses additional requirements for manufactured housing park
planned developments. The intent is to allow for the development of manufactured housing parks
in certain situations. As stated earlier, it is not uncommon for manufactured homes to be less than
20’-wide. By allowing the proposed manufactured housing size, the planned development may
proceed with developing land that is currently vacant and underutilized within the subject property.
Since the manufactured homes will be arranged in a similar manner to the existing manufactured
housing community to the west, the modification will not result in a configuration of lots or a street
system that is impractical or detracts from the appearance of the proposed development. Finally,
the smaller building width will not result in any apparent dangers to public health, safety, or welfare.
Open Space – The proposed development provides the required 20’ of separation between units,
with 15’ of separation provided between end to end units. However, each lease lot as proposed will
not be able to meet the RS-12 base zone standard for having 500 square feet of usable open space
with a minimum dimension of 20’ in the rear yard (14-2A-4E-2(b)). Because of this, the applicant is
requesting a waiver of from this standard to allow for a minimum open space dimension of 10’ in
the rear yards of all lease lots except for lease lots 1-3, where the rear yard minimum open space
dimension will be 0’. Section 14-3A-7 of the City Code does allow for exceptions to the OPD
approval criteria, provided that the requested modification meets the following:
• The modification will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City Code and the
City Comprehensive Plan.
• The modification will generally enhance the proposed planned development and will not
have an adverse impact on its physical, visual, or spatial characteristics.
• The modification shall not result in a configuration of lots or a street system that is impractical
or detracts from the appearance of the proposed development.
• The modification will not result in danger to public health, safety, or welfare by preventing
access to emergency vehicles, by inhibiting the provision of public services, by depriving
adjoining properties of adequate light and air, or by violating the purposes and intent of the
City Code or City’s Comprehensive Plan.
5
Each lease lot will still be able to achieve 500 square feet of usable private open space. The
character of the lease lots will be similar to the existing neighborhoods to the north and west. The
Comprehensive Plan does indicate a need for affordable housing in areas with access to parks and
recreational amenities. An existing City Park is located east of the proposed manufactured housing
park development, which provides some open space. Additionally, the positioning of each housing
unit will ensure that each property receives adequate light and air. Staff does not see any other
dangers to public health, safety, or welfare as a result of this requested modification.
Staff is also recommending a condition that the property owner provide an open space plan for a
vacant area near the entrance to the park. The plans should detail future amenities, such as
playground equipment and/or recreational fields. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the new
manufacturing housing park, compliance with the approved plan will be required, including
construction of the open space improvements. This open space area will be available to all park
residents.
The OPD standards typically require a dedication of neighborhood open space or fees in lieu of in
order to ensure that adequate usable neighborhood open space is provided for residents of new
development. When the property to the east was purchased by the City from the previous owner of
Cole’s Community Manufactured Housing Park, the purchase agreement stipulated that the land
satisfies future open space requirements upon expansion of the manufactured housing park. The
applicant has agreed to install a trail connection to provide residents of the development with access
to the open space
Traffic Circulation – Staff does not have any concerns with the additional trips that will be generated
as a result of the proposed planned development. McCollister Boulevard has controlled access at
the intersections of Old Highway 218 and Gilbert Street. Both McCollister Boulevard and Gilbert
Street have excess capacity to accommodate the development’s traffic demand.
The internal street network will consist of an extended access street from S. Riverside Drive, with a
loop street that will accommodate the new lease lots. This layout is similar to the existing layout to
the west. The applicant is requesting a waiver to reduce the required street width from 26’ to 22’
and the required right-of-way from 60’ to 32’. Private streets do not have specific modification
standards in the City Code. However, section 14-3A-4K-2c(1) of the City Code does specify that
private streets in single-family and two-family residential areas are discouraged and that requests
for private streets in these areas will be carefully scrutinized and will only be approved if the
proposed private street serves as a shared access to a cluster or small group of housing units and
does not support any through traffic. The Code further specifies that if private streets are approved,
the developer must submit a legally binding instrument setting forth the procedures to be followed
for maintaining private streets and providing garbage service and snow removal, and for financing
these services. The private streets will only serve the cluster of housing within the manufactured
housing park and will not support any through traffic. The owner will be responsible for street
maintenance and garbage service provision. With respect to the requested reduction, staff views
the request as fair, given the comparable private street network that is seen in the existing adjacent
manufactured housing park communities to the west and north.
2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities.
This property has public street access from Riverside Drive to the west. McCollister Boulevard is
located approximately 680 feet to the south. Old Highway 218 is approximately 1,000 feet to the
north. These arterial streets provide good access from the development to the larger community.
The proposed 35 dwelling units are estimated to generate approximately 250 vehicle trips per day.
Staff maintains that the existing roadway capacity in the surrounding street network is adequate for
this additional traffic.
6
Within the existing development the current streets are asphalt without curb and gutter or sidewalks.
The entrance road will have a 5’-wide sidewalk along the south side of the road. Staff has proposed
that installation of this sidewalk be a condition of the rezoning. All new lots are proposed to have a
sidewalk integrated with the curb. A sidewalk on the south side of the development will provide
access to McCollister Boulevard, which leads to the Iowa River Corridor Trail and the Terry
Trueblood Recreation Center located on the east side of the Iowa River.
City water and sanitary sewer services are adequate to serve the proposed development.
Construction plans providing at the time of platting will need to address connections to City system.
The plan indicates that storm water will be directed to an existing drainage way that is located
adjacent to McCollister Boulevard.
The site grading plan is also necessary to review the proposed routing of storm water through the
site including piping and culverts, overland flow routes, drainage ways, and channels. The current
plan should also include any proposed storm sewer and culvert layout.
Staff recommends as a condition of the rezoning that the property is final platted prior to the
issuance of building permits. At the time of final platting, the applicant will be required to submit
construction drawings and a site and grading plan for the City Engineer to review.
3. The development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property values and privacy
of neighboring properties any more than would a conventional development.
The proposed planned development will meet this standard. The base RS-12 zone allows single
family homes to be as tall as 35 feet. The applicant proposes to create additional lots for
manufactured homes that would be substantially lower in height. This will result in no more
adverse effect than conventional development.
4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying
zoning requirements or from City street standards will be in the public interest, in harmony
with the purposes of this Title, and with other building regulations of the City.
Setback Reductions
In addition to the previously described variations from the underlying zoning requirements for
minimum building width, open space, and street and right-of-way width, the applicant is requesting
three different waivers for setback reductions, which are described below.
1. 30’ setback from the edge of the property (Lease Lots 1-3 (0’) and Lease Lots 4-13 (10’)).
2. Reduction of the rear yard setback from 20’ to 10’ (All Lease Lots except 1-3).
3. Reduction of the side yard setback from 5’ to 0’ (Lease Lots 1-3).
Section 14-3A-4K-1a of the City Code provides the criteria that must be met if minimum setbacks
are to be reduced. The criteria and staff’s rationale are outlined below.
(1) The setbacks proposed will provide adequate light, air, and privacy between dwellings and
between dwellings and public rights of way.
(2) Sufficient setbacks are incorporated to provide the opportunity for adequate private open space
for each dwelling unit.
(3) The setbacks proposed will provide sufficient area for utilities and street trees.
7
(4) If front setbacks are reduced, measures should be taken to preserve privacy within residential
dwellings and to provide a transition between the public right of way and private property. To
ensure privacy within single-family and two-family dwellings for which setbacks are reduced,
the first floor must be elevated at least thirty inches (30") above the grade of the adjacent public
sidewalk. Other methods to increase privacy are also encouraged, such as use of front porches.
(5) Residential buildings that are located in close proximity to each other must be designed to
preserve privacy. This can be achieved by placement of windows to prevent direct views into
the windows of adjacent residential dwelling units. In addition, balconies and air conditioning
units may not be located along a building wall that is within twenty feet (20') of a building wall of
an adjacent principal building on the same lot, if the wall of the adjacent building contains
window or door openings into dwelling units. Proximity of building walls will be subject to all
current building code fire protection requirements.
30’ setback from the edge of the property (Lease Lots 1-3 and Lease Lots 4-13)
The 30’ setback reduction request for the lots along the east side of the development will still allow
for adequate light, air, and privacy as these lots abut city-owned open space to the east. The City
acquired the land for flood control purposes, and it will remain as permanent open space lessening
the need for a setback for the residential units. Lease lots 1-3 will border the existing manufactured
housing park to the north. The buildings on Lease lots 1-3 will still be required to maintain a 15’
separation between buildings from end to end. The resulting setbacks will be 0’ for lease lots 1-3,
and 10’ for lease lots 4-13.
Reduction of the rear yard setback from 20’ to 10’ (All Lease Lots except 1-3)
The requested 10’ rear yard setback will match what is generally seen in the existing manufactured
housing park community to the west. The homes will be offset from one another, so that one unit is
not directly across the street from another unit. Between units on the same side of the street, the
minimum separation distance of 20’ will be in place. Building lot coverage on each lease lot will
range between 18% and 22%. The RS-12 zone allows for a building lot coverage of up to 50% for
detached single-family homes. Therefore, the proposed lease lots will still have ample on-site open
space.
Reduction of the side yard setback from 5’ to 0’ (Lease Lots 1-3)
The buildings on Lots 1-3 will be positioned diagonally, running from the northwest to the southeast.
This will help to vary views to and from each neighboring lease lot. The positioning also creates
room for private open space to the north and south of each building. No more than 21% of each
lot’s area will be occupied by the manufactured housing structure, leaving room for on-site open
space on each lot. The attached OPD Plan shows that street trees can still be located on each lease
lot.
Minimum Lot Size Reduction from 5,000 sq. ft. to 4,500 sq. ft. (Lease Lots 1-2 and Lease Lots 32-
36)
Finally, the applicant is requesting a waiver to reduce the minimum lot area for Lease lots 1-2 and
Lease lots 32-36 from 5,000 square feet to 4,500 square feet.
Section 14-3A-4K-1c of the City Code provides the criteria that must be met if the minimum lot area
is to be reduced. The criteria and staff’s rationale are outlined below.
(1) The proposed modifications will not result in increased traffic congestion or a reduction in
neighborhood traffic circulation. To mitigate for the concentration of dwellings, shorter block
lengths may be appropriate, and the location of driveways and pedestrian facilities must be
carefully planned.
(2) Garages and off-street parking areas must be located so that they do not dominate the
8
streetscape. Alley or private rear lane access will be required, unless garages are recessed
behind the front facade of the dwelling in a manner that allows the residential portion of the
dwelling to predominate along the street.
As detailed earlier in the report, the proposed planned development will not result in increased traffic
congestion to the greater area. Neighborhood traffic circulation will mirror existing traffic circulation
seen in the established neighborhood to the west. The density of the planned development will
actually be slightly less at 6 dwelling units per acre than the neighborhoods to the west and north,
which are approximately 6.5-7.5 dwelling units per acre. Driveways within the development are
intended to be offset, thereby reducing potential traffic conflicts. Sidewalks will be constructed along
both sides of the new private streets, and a pedestrian connection will be provided to McCollister
Boulevard to the south.
While the planned development will not provide alley or private rear lane access to each dwelling
unit, parking pads will be recessed so that designated parking areas will be located behind the front
façade of each dwelling unit.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The subject property falls within the South Central
District Plan. The future land use map shows this parcel as being an intensive commercial or
highway commercial use. At the time the district plan was written the only access to the area was
from Riverside Drive, which was surrounded by industrial uses. There was a concern that the
residential uses in this area were isolated among industrial uses. The District Plan notes that in
the long-term to avoid conflicts with the industrial uses and potential flooding, residential uses
should be phased out in this area. The District Plan was written before McCollister Boulevard and
the levee were constructed. The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan also indicates a need for affordable
housing, especially in areas with good access to parks and other amenities.
Unless an alternative location or form of affordable housing is provided, the goal of removing
manufactured housing from this area may not be realistic at least in the near term. The City may
want to consider studying the area and determine if the land use designation should be changed
to reflect the current residential uses and the recent construction of the levee and McCollister
Boulevard.
The application does not up-zone the area. That is, it maintains the existing base zone.
Because the property is maintaining an existing use, provides a relatively affordable housing
alternative, and has good access to the street network, trails and open space, it is staff’s opinion
a comprehensive plan amendment is not necessary in order to approve the OPD plan. If this
was a proposal to change the underlying zoning and establish a new residential use, an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would be necessary.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Floodplain: The subject property does not contain any
environmentally sensitive areas, but the proposed development is currently in the 100-year
floodplain (as shown in Figure 1). A levee was designed and constructed along the Iowa River to
meet US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) and FEMA design standards, but has not been
certified or accredited. FEMA accreditation would change the flood zone designation from A to X
which means the area is still technically in the 100-year floodplain but the mandatory flood
insurance requirement is lifted. USACE certification would make the levee eligible for federal
funding if the levee system was damaged by a flood event.
Development on the subject property will be required to conform to the City’s Floodplain
Management Standards (detailed in 14-5J-7 of the City Code). The City Engineer and Building
Inspection staff require review of a site grading plan to show proposed ground elevations in
relation to the floodplain. The grading plan will need to demonstrate that the lowest floor of new
dwelling units are located 1 foot above the 0.2% (500-year) flood elevation and that the private
9
streets are passible during a flood event per section 14-5J-7K-1 of the code: “Any subdivision,
planned development, or manufactured housing park intended for residential development must
provide all lots with a means of vehicular access that will remain passable during occurrence of
the 1% flood event.”
Figure 1. Floodplain Coverage
Infrastructure Fees: A water main extension fee of $503.57 per acre applies. There are no
additional infrastructure fees in this neighborhood.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be
scheduled for consideration by the City Council. Staff plans to have this application on the
November 30, 2021 City Council agenda, with public hearings set at the Council’s November 16,
2021 meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of REZ21-0009, a proposal to rezone approximately 5.81 acres of
property located east of S. Riverside Drive and north of McCollister Boulevard from high density
single-family residential with a planned development overlay (OPD/RS-12) to high density single-
family with a planned development overlay (OPD/RS-12), subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of any building permit for the property described herein, compliance with
the planned development overlay plan attached hereto, which shall include the construction
of a storm shelter and sidewalk along the existing east-west private street to Riverside Drive;
and
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, approval of a final plat of the subject property, at which
time, the applicant shall submit for review by the City Engineer:
a. Construction drawings
b. A site grading and drainage plan
10
3. As part of the final platting process the lot line between the property described herein and
the property to the north shall be dissolved. This condition will ensure that the required 30’
setback along the northern property boundary of the subject property is nullified when the
properties are combined. The final plat will need to include the adjoining properties to the
west and north, all of which are under the same ownership as the subject property.
4. Submission of an open space plan for the vacant area located south of the park entrance
and west of least lot 2 to be approved by the Director of Neighborhood and Development
Services. The plans shall detail future amenities, such as playground equipment and/or
recreational fields. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the property described herein,
compliance with the approved open space plan is required and includes construction of the
approved open space improvements.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Aerial Photograph
3. Applicant Statement
4. Rezoning Exhibit
5. Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
S RIVERSIDE DRCOLE'S MOBILEHOME COURTCOLE'S MOBILEHOME COURTNAPOLEON LNCOLE'S MOBILEHOME COURT
MCCOLLISTERBLVD
COLE'S MOBILEHOMECOURTCOLE'SCOMMUNITYMOBILEHOMEPARKI1
P1
P2
RS12
REZ21-0009East of S. Riverside Dr. & north of McCollister Blvd.µ
0 0.08 0.160.04 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: October 2021
An application submitted by Axiom Consultants, on behalf of Cole's Community, for the rezoning of 5.81 acres ofproperty located east of S. Riverside Dr. and north of McCollister Blvd. from High Density Single Family Residentialwith a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12) to High Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned DevelopmentOverlay (OPD/RS-12).
Overlay Zones
Overlay Description
Planned Development (OPD)
S RIVERSIDE DRCOLE'S MOBILEHOME COURTCOLE'S MOBILEHOME COURTNAPOLEON LNCOLE'S MOBILEHOME COURT
MCCOLLISTERBLVD
COLE'S MOBILEHOMECOURTCOLE'SCOMMUNITYMOBILEHOMEPARKREZ21-0009East of S. Riverside Dr. & north of McCollister Blvd.µ
0 0.08 0.160.04 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: October 2021
An application submitted by Axiom Consultants, on behalf of Cole's Community, for the rezoning of 5.81 acres ofproperty located east of S. Riverside Dr. and north of McCollister Blvd. from High Density Single Family Residentialwith a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12) to High Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned DevelopmentOverlay (OPD/RS-12).
CIVIL STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL SURVEY SPECIALTY
Project Number 200194 Page | 1
September 16, 2021
APPLICANT’S STATEMENT FOR REZONING
The proposed development area consists of a portion of Parcel 1022351009. The area being rezoned is approximately
14.36 acres of private property located west of S. Riverside Drive and north of McCollister Boulevard. Refer to the Rezoning
Exhibit included with the Rezoning Application for additional information, include the legal description.
It is bounded on the west by S. Riverside Drive as well as a self-storage facility owned by Linn Street Place, LLC. It is
bounded to the south by McCollister Boulevard and to the east by City property and the Iowa River. It is bounded to the
north by existing manufactured housing owned by applicant.
The current zoning classification is RS-12 – High Density Residential. The Applicant is seeking to rezone property to an
ODP/RS-12 zoning to allow for the expansion of the current manufactured housing. The zoning will be utilized with the
expansion.
The applicant is requesting waivers for:
• A 10-ft rear yard setback
• A 14-ft minimum building width
• A private street width of 22-ft in a 32-ft public access easement
• A reduced setback on east property line due to being adjacent to City owned property.
• A reduced setback on north property line due to combining two properties into one.
• A reduced setback on lots 44 and 45 due to 35’ distance to the back of the self-storage units to the south.
The proposed is an expansion of the single-family manufactured home development adjacent to the open space. City
utilities will serve the site. No storm water management is required due to proximity to Iowa River.
Thank you for the consideration.
Sincerely,
Brian Boelk, PE
PRINCIPAL
Page 1 of 1
Maria Padron
Iowa City, IA 52240
(319) 930-9528
marialorena.padron@icloud.com
November 7, 2021
City Council
410 E Washington St,
Iowa City, IA 52240
RE: CASE No. REZ21-0009, Location: East of S. Riverside Dr and North of McCollister Blvd
Honorable Members of the City Council,
My name is Maria Padron, and I am a commissioner in the Planning and Zoning Commission. On Thursday,
November 4th the commission reviewed CASE No. REZ21-0009, Location: East of S. Riverside Dr and North of
McCollister Blvd. I supported the rezoning of this plot because it will increase affordable housing in this city;
however, I have a few comments I would like to express.
This plot is in a 100-year floodplain zone. The frequency of floods is changing dramatically due to the climate crisis.
In a recent conference Des Moines mayor Frank Cownie said his city had four 500-year flood events in three years
recently (COP26 Climate Breakfast with Mayors, https://youtu.be/aRGonrbe8rQ?t=4420). Our meeting agenda
mentioned that a levee was built along the river, if this levee becomes certified FEMA will change the zone
designation from A to X, and lift the insurance requirement of this plot.
I would like to know:
1) What would happen if FEMA lifted the insurance requirement for these homes and there is a flood? Who
would be responsible if homeowners lose everything?
2) Could the city provide training to home buyers, or request that the developer provides information
(brochures or flyers) to the home buyers explaining all the risks, and how the flood frequency is changing
due to climate crisis?
3) There was also mention of the possibility of raising the plot. This action will affect the neighboring plots.
Will this increase the flood area nearby? Will the neighbors be notified?
4) If the city allows construction in flood zones, how will the city protect these buyers? In particular,
vulnerable populations buying affordable houses.
The City of Iowa City is always in need of more affordable housing. Housing is a human right, but it must be
sustainable, safe and affordable. Building houses in flooding zones is not sustainable nor safe. This is not in
compliance with the City Climate Action Plan.
Thank you for your consideration,
Maria Padron
Commissioner, Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 4, 2021 – 7:00 PM
FORMAL MEETING
THE CENTER – ASSEMBLY ROOM
CASE NO. REZ21-0009:
Location: East of S. Riverside Dr and north of McCollister Blvd
An application for a rezoning of approximately 5.81 acres of land from high density single-family
residential with a planned development overlay (OPD/RS-12) to OPD/RS-12.
A rezoning is necessary to expand the existing manufactured housing park due to the
expiration of the previously approved OPD plan.
Heitner began the staff report with an aerial view of the subject property, it is about 5.81 acres
and zoned a base zone of RS-12 with a planned development overlay. Regarding the
background on this application, this property was rezoned to OPD/RS-12 in 2015 as the rezoning
was necessary to expand the existing manufactured housing park. An OPD rezoning is required
for development of manufactured housing parks so that's the rationale for the planned
development overlay. The manufactured home park, situated to the west, was developed in 1974
with the build out of 55 units. The subject application wishes to add on an additional 35
manufactured homes in the undeveloped parcel area to the east. Heitner noted it’s staff’s
understanding that the applicant intends to combine the existing manufactured housing park to
the north and west along with the subject property. Some amenities that would be shared by the
community include a storm shelter and future playground and recreational areas. Staff is
proposing a condition that the applicant construct the storm shelter, as well as the adjacent
sidewalk along the south side of the entrance street prior to issuance of building permits. The
applicant did hold a virtual Good Neighbor meeting on October 11 but there were no members of
the public in attendance at that meeting.
Heitner explained with planned development rezonings there's more criteria for those rezonings
to be reviewed against, in addition to the standard rezoning review criteria of consistency with
Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with the existing neighborhood. The additional criteria for
OPDs is related to density and design being compatible with the adjacent development,
assurance that the development will not overburden existing streets and utilities, assurances that
development will not adversely affect views, property values, or privacy, and the interaction of
land use and building types will be in the public interest.
With respect to density and design being compatible to adjacent development, Heitner stated the
proposed density with 35 units would come up to about six dwelling units per acre, which is
allowed within the RS-12 base zone, which allows up to 13 dwelling units per acre. The proposed
homes would be about 14 feet by 70 feet, which is a fairly standard size for a manufactured
home of this type and so there does appear to be adequate open space within each lease lot.
Within the context of the greater community, there is vacant land in the northwest area of the
park and staff is proposing a condition that the applicant submit an open space plan for that open
land, particularly for the area south of the entrance road, and that open space plan should show
any future recreational amenities. Lastly, transportation planning staff did review the impact to
the local transportation road network and did not express any concerns with the build out of this
development to that network.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 2 of 10
Heitner noted the manufacture homes have a width of 14 feet and there is a requirement within
RS-12 zones that the minimum building width is 20 feet. However, through the planned
development process there's a mechanism to request a waiver from that standard or modification
of that standard. In judging that waiver request, there's criteria from section 14-3A-7 of the City
Code which allows for exceptions to the OPD approval criteria. One is that the modification will
be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan; two that
the modification will generally enhance the proposed planned development and will not have an
adverse impact on physical, visual or spatial characteristics; three that the modification will not
result in configuration of lots or street system that is impractical or detracts from the appearance
of the proposed development; and lastly, the modification will not result in danger to public
health, safety or welfare by preventing access to emergency vehicles, inhibiting the provision of
public services, depriving adjoining properties of adequate light and air or violating the purposes
and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. Heitner noted the requested building width
of 14 feet is in line with the existing manufactured housing stock that is in the neighborhoods to
the west and the north. Development of this vacant portion of the parcel would allow for
development of underutilized land within the subject parcel and the configuration of lots in the
layout of the internal street network will be similar to the neighborhood to the west. As mentioned
earlier, staff is recommending a condition for an open space plan just south of the entrance road.
The second criteria point that development will not overburden existing streets and utilities, as
already mentioned transportation planning staff looked at this and estimated 250 vehicle trips per
day generated from the development and the surrounding road network has sufficient capacity to
absorb that estimated trip amount. Staff is recommending a condition that with the final plat of
the subject property the applicants submit a site grading plan for the city engineer to review. It's
with that review that City staff will finalize its review of stormwater plans.
Criteria three is that development will not adversely affect views, property values and privacy.
Heitner explained this is mostly with respect to making sure that any structures are within the
confines of what's allowed within the base zone. These homes will be well within the allowable
bulk dimensions for structures, there's an allowable height of 35 feet within that base zone and
these will be well below that.
Finally, fourth that the land use and building types will be in the public interest. Heitner stated
there are several setback reductions that the applicant is requesting but noted this is something
that they would probably see in just about any manufactured housing park application due to the
nature of the lease lots not typically aligning with the lot size requirements that is in a base zone
(in this case RS-12). With the setback reductions the first is that there's a requirement for a 30-
foot setback from the edge of the property. Lots 1 through 3 and 4 through 13 are requesting this
reduction, 1 through 3 down to 0 feet and 4 through 13 to 10 feet. Second, reduction of the rear
yard setback for all least lots except 1 through 3 from 20 feet to 10 feet; and third reduction of the
side yard setback from 5 feet to 0 feet for lease lots 1 through 3. Regarding criteria evaluated for
setback reduction requests, one is that the setbacks proposed will provide adequate light, air and
privacy between dwellings and between dwellings and the public right-of-way; two, sufficient
setbacks provide the opportunity for adequate private open space for each dwelling unit; three,
setbacks proposed will provide sufficient area for utilities and street trees; four, if front setbacks
are reduced measures should be taken to preserve privacy within residential dwellings and to
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 3 of 10
provide a transition between the public right-of-way and private property; and five, residential
buildings that are located in close proximity to each other must be designed to preserve privacy.
Heitner explained with the first request of a 30-foot setback from the edge of the property this
would be applicable to the north side of the subject property for lots 1 through 3 and the east side
of the property for lots 4 through 13. For lots 4 through 13, the property to the immediate east is
a City owned park that will remain as open space due to its location within the floodplain. Lots 1
through 3 will still maintain a 15-foot separation distance which is also required by Code to the
structures to the north. Staff is recommending a condition to combine the existing neighborhood
to the north with the subject property at final platting as this would effectively remove this
requirement for a 30-foot setback from the edge of the property.
Second is the reduction requests of the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet. This applies to
every property except for lots 1 through 3, though they will all have a 10-foot setback, which
generally matches what is seen in the existing neighborhoods to the west and north. Heitner
showed an imagine noting the homes are offset across the street, meaning that they don't
perfectly align with one another and the homes on each side of the street will maintain that
required minimum separation distance of 20 feet. The resulting building coverage will only be
between 18% and 22% for each of these lease slots and that that can go up to 50% of the base
zone. Heitner stated that should provide adequate open space within each lease lot.
The side yard reduction requests from 5 feet 0 feet for lease lots 1 through 3 is because the
southeast corner of each of the proposed buildings, their grade does touch the side yard line so
that's why that request would be down to 0 feet. But again, the positioning of the homes here
helps to offset views in each home where they're diagonally arranged so one wouldn’t be
necessarily looking into their neighbor's home. There is a good amount of open space, both
north and south of these structures and approximately 21% of each lease lot will be covered by
the proposed homes.
In addition to the setback reduction requests, there's also a waiver reduction request for
minimum lot size for a few of these lots. The base zone requires a minimum lot size of 5000
square feet. Lots 1 and 2 and 32 through 36 are requesting that gets reduced down to 4500
square feet. As mentioned before, the smaller lots won't result in any increased density at six
dwelling units per acre. The existing neighborhood to the west is at about six and a half dwelling
units per acre and to the north it’s at seven and a half dwelling units per acre. So just because
they are smaller lots that doesn't mean its greater density. The driveways within each of these
lots will be offset from the lots across the street and there will also be recessed parking pads
behind each front facade as well.
Regarding the standard rezoning review criteria with respect to consistency with Comprehensive
Plan Heitner noted the South Central District does note that residential uses should be phased
out of this area. However, that plan was written close to 20 years ago and there have been some
changes in the surrounding areas since that Plan, mostly the improvement of McCollister
Boulevard with access eastward to Sycamore Street as well as construction of a levee to the
east. The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan also indicates a need for affordable housing, especially
in areas with good access to parks and other amenities, which staff thinks this application
achieves. Because the property is expanding on an existing use, provides a relatively affordable
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 4 of 10
housing alternative and has good access to street network, trails and open space, it's staff’s
opinion that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is not necessary to prove this OPD plan. With
respect to compatibility with the existing neighborhood character, there is already manufactured
housing parks to the north and west. The proposed development will be built within a similar style
and layout.
Heitner next discussed that the entirety of the subject property is located within the 100-year
floodplain. There was a levee constructed along the Iowa River in 2008 to meet US Army Corps
of Engineer and FEMA design standards but has not been certified or accredited. However,
FEMA accreditation would change the flood zone designation from A to X, which means the area
is still technically within the 100-year floodplain, but mandatory flood insurance would be lifted at
that stage. USACE certification would make the levee eligible for federal funding if the levee
system was damaged by a flood event. The subject property would be required to conform to
those standards and the city engineer and building inspection staff would require review of that
site grading plan to show that the proposed ground elevations are acceptable in relation to that
floodplain.
Heitner noted staff has not received any public comments on this rezoning, as previously
mentioned there was a good neighbor meeting on October 11 but there were no neighbors in
attendance at that meeting.
The role of the Commission tonight is to see if the proposed rezoning meets the aforementioned
planned development approval criteria along with the rezoning review criteria. With respect to
next steps, upon recommendation from this Commission, a public hearing would be scheduled
for City Council consideration. Staff anticipates the timeline of Council setting that public hearing
is at its November 16 meeting for a public hearing on November 30.
Staff recommends approval of REZ21-0009, a proposal to rezone approximately 5.81 acres of
property located east of S. Riverside Drive and north of McCollister Boulevard from high density
single-family residential with a planned development overlay (OPD/RS-12) to high density single
family with a planned development overlay (OPD/RS-12), subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of any building permit for the property described herein, compliance with
the planned development overlay plan attached hereto, which shall include the
construction of a storm shelter and sidewalk along the existing east-west private street to
Riverside Drive; and
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, approval of a final plat of the subject property, at
which time, the applicant shall submit for review by the City Engineer:
a. Construction drawings
b. A site grading and drainage plan
3. As part of the final platting process the lot line between the property described herein and
the property to the north shall be dissolved. This condition will ensure that the required
30' setback along the northern property boundary of the subject property is nullified when
the properties are combined. The final plat will need to include the adjoining properties to
the west and north, all of which are under the same ownership as the subject property.
4. Submission of an open space plan for the vacant area located south of the park entrance
and west of least lot 2 to be approved by the Director of Neighborhood and Development
Services. The plans shall detail future amenities, such as playground equipment and/or
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 5 of 10
recreational fields. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the property described herein,
compliance with the approved open space plan is required and includes construction of
the approved open space improvements.
Hensch has three questions and they're all interconnected. He recalls when they rezoned this
last time, in 2015 there were some conditions at that time as well, so the four conditions added to
the recommendations to the rezoning how do those vary from the conditions that were approved
by P&Z in 2015. Heitner stated the condition related to dissolving the north property line for the
30-foot setback was in the 2015 OPD, there was also a condition related to construction of the
storm shelter as well as that sidewalk on the east/west private street so those are carryovers.
New for this application would be requiring a final plat as staff saw that as necessary for getting a
more formal opportunity for reviewing these construction drawings and creating a drainage plan
as well as submission of that open space plan for the vacant area, that's a condition that they've
added for this subject rezoning.
Hensch noted regarding the floodplain he has noticed through the years they have been filling in
and raising the elevation of that subject parcel. Is the intention with the grading plan to raise it
above the 100-year floodplain and/or the 500 or both and if it's raised up does it technically come
out of the floodplain. Heitner is not sure if it's out of the floodplain necessarily, his understanding
is that the applicant intends to incorporate fill to raise above the flood hazard elevation level
which would be required by flood management standards. It has to be raised one foot above the
500-year floodplain.
Martin asked if the City put out that good neighbor meeting letter. Heitner said typically it is the
applicant who will reach out to the community with that good neighbor letter. Martin noted if the
notification goes out 300 feet, the City of Iowa City seems to own the land that would be in that
range so does someone from the City go to those meetings. Heitner replied there are staff at the
good neighbor meetings always just to see how those meetings are conducted, but not
necessarily ever to wear the hat of a neighbor. There was representation from the manufactured
housing park community in attendance at that meeting, just no members of the general public.
Townsend noted it’s being built in the flood zone, but the mandatory flood insurance requirement
would be lifted, so what happens if there is a flood, would their regular insurance cover that or
would they just be out of luck. Russett replied that since the levy has not been certified or
accredited, the mandate is that area is still required to have flood insurance.
Craig asked why the levee isn’t certified, and what does it take to get it certified, shouldn’t that be
one of the requirements of application. Russett said the City built the levee to FEMA and Army
Corps of Engineers standards, but it was never certified or accredited because it takes money to
go through that process. She is not sure how much money but could talk to public works about
that and find out.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 6 of 10
Craig noted the general concern she has is meeting the criteria of adequate private open space.
When looking at the map, it seems like things are really crammed in and they’re asking for
exceptions. She gets that with the type of housing and neighborhood that it is they’re not going
to have the standard setbacks but to go down to zero seems too much and in her mind that is not
adequate private open space, particularly along the border with the City property. If a housing
development came in here and wanted to even change the back setback from 20 feet to 10 feet
along a City park people would be up in arms over that but just because the City owns it they can
go to zero. Is there a definition of adequate, private open space? Hekteon clarified when the
City acquired that land back in 1998 they retained an easement over that area to satisfy any
future open space requirement. Mr. Cole is the easement holder that conveyed it to the City and
said in the event that the mobile home expands they get to use this land in their calculation for
that open space requirement.
Russett wanted to just further clarify that for the public open space, the neighborhood open
space requirement, not the private on site or open space requirement that they typically require,
for a development in an RS-12 zone, would be 500 square feet on site. Because these lease lots
don't meet that standard, staff has proposed that condition for the community open space area.
Sings is understanding that the places where the setback is going to zero is on lots one, two, and
three, and where the homes are built at an angle from corner to corner of those lots, but it still
seems, quite frankly, there's more open space on those three lots than there is on any of the rest
of them. Heitner stated it is zero on the back on everything that backed up to the City, lots 1
through 3 on the north side and lots 4 through 13 on the east side, the rear yard setback would
be 10 feet from the rear property line.
Craig stated it feels that in a neighborhood, and with all of the conversations about walking and
biking and things that they don't want a vehicle access onto McCollister, but to have a pedestrian
bicycle access onto McCollister feels like something that that whole little neighborhood would
benefit from. Heitner noted the OPD plan does show a connection in the southwest corner.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Nick Bettis (Axiom Consultants) is here on behalf of the applicant and able to answer any
questions they might have with the drawings. They feel that it's going to be a good addition and a
good continuation of the park in this part of town.
Hensch noted it looks like it's been elevated with a lot of grading and fill, is there still more work
to do to bring that up elevation out of the floodplain. Bettis confirmed yes, there has been fill dirt
added to the site over the years and it’s continuing to be brought in as is become available. It is
planned to be elevated to that 500 year, plus one, elevation for the low openings as required.
Hensch asked if that is for the entire parcel, including the roadways. Bettis stated they are
connecting on that northwest corner in the existing part of the park where it does not meet those
requirements so they will be connecting under the existing street at the northwest corner and
then coming up from that to the elevations. And then the entire subject parcel will be elevated
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 7 of 10
above the 500-year floodplain.
Nolte has a question is in regard to the flood insurance to even when that time comes that
they’re not mandated by FEMA to carry that level of coverage, does the owner generally still
provide some level of security on that.
Ed Cole (620 Foster Road) is the owner and applicant, and as far as the dirt goes on one end
they're out of the 500 year but on the other they’re not but by the time they leveled it out and cut
the streets in all the mobile home lots will be out of the floodplain, the yards might have a
waterway through it, but they’re going to make sure they're taken care of. As far as the
insurance, each homeowner has their own insurance, and if they have financing against it they're
required to have flood insurance on their homes until it is out of the floodplain.
Cole noted when he bought the park he was told he would get a loan certificate for the levee,
which meant they're in the clear but when he checked into with the engineer there was never a
definite yes, it was just part of his selling tactic. However, Cole stated they have a great
community down there, he grew up in that park and it's a close-knit community. It really doesn't
get any better as far as security, he was reluctant to put the sidewalk in off McCollister because
they have one way in and one way out of both the parks and know who's coming and who's
going.
Martin asked what 2008 looked like over there. Cole replied he didn’t own the park in 2008, he
bought it in 2013.
Craig asked regarding the insurance question, does the park carry the flood insurance as well as
the individual unit people on their units would have to carry flood insurance. Cole confirmed that
is correct. In both floods they were basically manmade, because of lack of using the reservoir for
what it was for. But they've not even been close since 2008 as far as water coming out and they
are really tracking it. He has been in the excavating business his whole life so they went out did
the proper thing and added fill to make sure they wouldn’t get hit with anything .
Marissa Rosenquist is with Cole’s Community and wanted to express the interest from all of their
tenants. Everybody that she has talked to wants a spot in the new section, so regardless of the
floodplain status, they're very excited. She is really hoping that this gets passed through and
everybody can be happy.
Martin asked if they have current residents that are interested in the newer homes, do they also
have people ready for those older units, would they do rehab on those. Rosenquist noted they
are really lucky, like her dad mentioned they are a tight-knit community and a lot of times what
happens is when something comes up for sale, it'll get sold within the same day, and it's usually
to a family member of a current tenant. Their waiting list is already halfway full.
Nolte asked what's the supply chain for getting homes right now. Rosenquist noted it is a little bit
backed up and they're still really in the very beginning phases working on the right financing, and
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 8 of 10
that kind of stuff to even start. Probably what they'll have to end up doing is bring in 10 at a time,
do it in phases, that'll probably be the most efficient way to do it.
Padron asked what are the price ranges for these units and when would they be ready?
Rosenquist would estimate the time of arrival for the first batch could be the spring if this goes
through, but realistically, a year and a half from now it could be completed. They'd like to start the
infrastructure as soon as possible and have people get them their financing and stuff. Currently
lot rents at $380, they raise rents on average about $10 a year. This year they were hit with
some pretty hard property taxes because of out of state buyers coming in and purchasing mobile
home parks for well above asking and as everyone knows, so they're trying to stay local and stay
family owned and operated. Regarding the price of the units that is hard to say but would
probably be an average of about $50,000 for a good quality-built place.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Nolte moved to recommend approval of REZ21-0009, a proposal to rezone approximately
5.81 acres of property located east of S. Riverside Drive and north of McCollister
Boulevard from high density single-family residential with a planned development overlay
(OPD/RS-12) to high density single family with a planned development overlay (OPD/RS-
12), subject to the following conditions:
5. Prior to issuance of any building permit for the property described herein,
compliance with the planned development overlay plan attached hereto, which
shall include the construction of a storm shelter and sidewalk along the existing
east-west private street to Riverside Drive; and
6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, approval of a final plat of the subject
property, at which time, the applicant shall submit for review by the City Engineer:
a. Construction drawings
b. A site grading and drainage plan
7. As part of the final platting process the lot line between the property described
herein and the property to the north shall be dissolved. This condition will ensure
that the required 30' setback along the northern property boundary of the subject
property is nullified when the properties are combined. The final plat will need to
include the adjoining properties to the west and north, all of which are under the
same ownership as the subject property.
8. Submission of an open space plan for the vacant area located south of the park
entrance and west of least lot 2 to be approved by the Director of Neighborhood
and Development Services. The plans shall detail future amenities, such as
playground equipment and/or recreational fields. Prior to issuance of a building
permit for the property described herein, compliance with the approved open
space plan is required and includes construction of the approved open space
improvements.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Craig is very appreciative of the sidewalk to McCollister, this is a good thing but is still concerned
if this is adequate private open space, the map makes it look like they're so jammed in there,
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 9 of 10
there are so many extreme requests for accommodations, but it is a housing need, and it's a nice
part of town.
Nolte trusts that the park owner knows what is attractive to their users and if those setbacks were
too narrow they would know that so he leans to trust their judgment of what will work there.
Signs noted it is hard to see on the images and has been looking trying to decipher what exactly
is the home, what exactly is the driveway, what exactly trees are there, it appears to him that if
the home is 980 square feet, and there's 500 square feet of open space minimum in those lots
it's pretty typical for manufactured home community and honestly that is part of the affordability
factor and part of what makes it affordable.
Martin feels that affordability brings them back to the floodplain, which is super real and they
have to really think about it. Flood insurance is expensive, even when it's inexpensive, it's
expensive, but if it was taken out of the flood zone, and there is no flood insurance, and it floods,
what happens to those people. Maybe the rules have changed, but she thought after 2008 the
City was not allowing homes to be built so close to the river, thus the stopping of the continuation
of Idlewild and buying out Normandy. Regarding the levee, with as many levees as were built
between now and 2008 how is it not automatic they have to get accredited. That's shocking.
Hensch voted for this in 2015 so doesn’t want to be contradictory and now vote against it but
being out of the 500-year floodplain mitigates all reasonable risk. A lot of people are going to be
hurt if there is another flood, especially one outside of a 500-year floodplain, there's going to be
people throughout the entire community affected.
Martin agreed but at the same time it’s out of the floodplain because of a levee. Hensch replied
it’s out of the floodplain because they are raising the elevation. Reasonable steps have been
taken and if there is a flood of that caliber, there will need to be assistance for everybody.
Craig stated the point is they're supposed to be mitigating that as a country and not allowing
development in floodplains and not putting people in the situation where that could happen. She
just wants some assurance that, yes, anything can happen, but it's very, very minimal that it will
happen here. Hekteon stated this will have to comply with the City's flood mitigation ordinances,
which is the elevation, those were the Code changes that were made after the 2008 flood. She
noted looking at photos from 2008 some of this area was under water in 2008, but that was
before the added fill and the existing manufactured housing park was not.
Padron noted that elevating the terrain has other consequences, they cannot just move land and
expect it all to be okay, the water is going to go somewhere else so if they raise the land here
some other place is going to get flooded and they have to be careful about that. Hekteon agreed
and noted there is a requirement about projects not having significant impact on adjacent land.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 10 of 10
Signs stated if the units will be built on pillars and the pillars are also on a concrete pad so the
there'll be several feet above the ground. The risk is probably pretty minimal.
Nolte agreed and stated they have 100% certainty that they need more affordable housing.
Pardon stated though if these houses have to have insurance, then how much is more the
mortgage, how much is the impact and then are they still going to be affordable. Flood insurance
is not cheap.
Signs stated compared to any other any other structure in Iowa City there are going to be
affordable.
Hensch noted there are many areas of Iowa City in floodplains, it's not just contained along the
Iowa river, there are all the creeks in town as well so a substantial portion of this City is in a
floodplain of some sort of the other. This is not a localized thing.
Padron wondered if units one, two, and three, where there is no setback, maybe they could be
smaller units and then they have more of a setback.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
CASE NO. REZ21-0008:
Location: South of Scott Blvd and West of 1st Ave, Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
An application for a rezoning of approximately 48.75 acres of land from Interim Development
Single-Family (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family with a Planned Development Overlay
(OPD/RS-5).
Heitner began the staff report with an ariel view of the subject property with the zoning applied. It
is currently ID-RS Interim Development Single Family residential zone. Regarding background
on this case, there was a series of previous applications for rezoning on this property in spring
2021. The last proposal had 41 detached single-family homes as well as a senior living facility
with 135 bedrooms but that was ultimately denied by the City Council. The current application is
still seeking the OPD/RS-5 zoning, but it does not contain that single family home component
that was in the previous application. This current application only contains the senior living facility
with a count of 134 bedrooms. The current application also includes a proposed dedication of
30.98 acres of land that was previously considered for development dedicated as neighborhood
open space. Heitner showed site plans of where the senior living facility would be as well as the
dedicated open space. He also noted the private open space located within the courtyard areas
of senior living facility.
With respect to zoning, the current zoning is Interim Development Single Family residential which
is intended to be a holding zone for property until their preferred use can be developed or
infrastructure can reach the property. The proposed zoning would be OPD/RS-5 with planned
development overlay. Typically, in the RS-5 zone it is housing for individual households. It's the
Iv ( , d
Kellie Fruehling
From: Maria Padron <marialorena.padron@icloud.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2021 1:26 AM
To: *City Council
Subject: CASE No. REZ21-0009, Location: East of S. Riverside Dr and North of McCollister Blvd
Attachments: 11-28_Letter to Concil_CASE No. REZ21-0009.pdf;ATT00001.htm;We sent you safe versions of your
files Late Handouts Distributed
2 ►
RISK (Date)
Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.
Dear City Council,
Please find attached another letter regarding CASE No. REZ21-0009, Location: East of S. Riverside Dr and North of
McCollister Blvd.
Thank you,
Maria Padron
+1 (319)930-9528
marialorena.padronicloud.com
1
Maria Padron
Iowa City,IA 52240
(319)930-9528
marialorena.padron@icloud.com
November 28,2021
City Council
410 E Washington St,
Iowa City,IA 52240
RE: CASE No.REZ21-0009,Location:East of S.Riverside Dr and North of McCollister Blvd
Honorable Members of the City Council,
My name is Maria Padron,and I am a commissioner in the Planning and Zoning Commission.On Thursday,
November 4th the commission reviewed CASE No.REZ21-0009,Location:East of S.Riverside Dr and North of
McCollister Blvd.After further consideration,I would like to let you know that I do not support the re-zoning of
this plot.
Development in flood areas is not safe and is not sustainable.Even when houses are raised,development creates
pavement on water-absorbing soil,which only makes floods worse.Also,raising the plot might inundate lower
neighboring developments.
And this project in particular is the perfect example of how our current climate crisis affects first and foremost
vulnerable populations.This project of affordable housing will target low-income residents.Low-income
populations are usually comprised of vulnerable groups like people of color,immigrants,elderly adults,transgender
members of our community,single mothers,and people with disabilities-just to name a few.If there is a flash flood
at night,how quickly would a person with disabilities be able to evacuate?
Development in flood areas has also a negative economic consequence for the city.The more people living in flood
areas,the more people the city will have to help and evacuate when the next flood happens.There will be more
demolition and more buying-out homes' costs.
I am asking you today to not approve this re-zoning.I would also like to request a meeting between the City
Council,the Planning and Zoning Commission,and a flood specialist from the city to review this case and try to
find a better solution,one that does not put people's lives at risk.
Thank you for your consideration,
Maria Padron
Commissioner,Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission
Page 1 of 1
Prepared by: Joshua Engelbrecht, Planning Intern,410 E.Washington Street,Iowa City, IA 52240;319-356-5230
, 1, d
(REZ21-0009)
Ordinance No.
Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 5.81 acres of property
located east of S. Riverside Dr. and north of McCollister Blvd. from High
density single-family residential (RS-12) to high density single-family
residential with a planned development overlay (OPD/RS-12). (REZ21-
0009)
Whereas, the applicant, Cole's Community, LLC, has requested a rezoning of property located
east of S. Riverside Dr. and north of McCollister Blvd. from High density single-family residential
(RS-12) to high density single-family residential with a planned development overlay (OPD/RS-
12); and
Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 5.81 acres of property located east
of S. Riverside Dr. and north of McCollister Blvd., legally described below; and
Whereas, the Applicant has requested the rezoning of said property to allow for the
expansion of an existing manufactured housing park, as shown in the attached plan; and
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan encourages a mix of housing types in all neighborhoods
to provide options for households of all types and people of all incomes; and
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan further states the need to maintain and improve safety
for all housing; and
Whereas, this rezoning creates a public need to ensure the safety of future residents from
inclement weather with the construction of community storm shelter, sidewalk access to said
shelter, and effective drainage controls to mitigate excessive on-site stormwater runoff; and
Whereas, the subject property is directly adjacent to existing manufactured housing to the
west and north; and
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan supports the efficient use of land for new development
by encouraging compact, contiguous development at the edge of the City; and
Whereas, the applicant is the owner of said existing manufactured housing to the west and
north; and
Whereas, this rezoning creates a public need to dissolve the north property line of the
subject property upon final platting to create greater efficiency; and
Whereas, the subject rezoning will add 35 new homes to the existing neighborhood; and
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan also encourages the development of adequate and
appropriate open space to serve new neighborhoods; and
Whereas, this rezoning creates a public need to plan for future recreational amenities within
the subject property; and
Ordinance No.
Page 2
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and
determined that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan provided that it meets conditions
addressing the need for construction of a storm shelter and sidewalk along the existing east-west
private street to Riverside Drive, submission of construction drawings and a site and grading plan
during final platting, dissolving the north property line upon final platting, and submission of an
open space plan for the vacant area located south of the park entrance and west of the existing
manufactured housing park; and
Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2021) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in
order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
Whereas, the owner and applicant has agreed that the property shall be developed in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to
ensure appropriate development in this area of the city.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa:
Section I Approval. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and
incorporated herein, property described below is hereby classified high density single-family
residential with a planned development overlay (OPD/RS-12):
Part of Lot 3 in Paden's Resubdivision of Lots 1 and 4 of Charles Subdivision of the Southwest
Quarter (SW 1A) of Section 22, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th P.M., Iowa City,
Johnson County, Iowa, described as:
Beginning at the Northwest corner of Auditor's Parcel 98057 as recorded in Book 2576, Page 229
of the Johnson County Recorder's Office, thence N80°01'00"W, 212.69 feet; thence S10°10'07"W,
83.45 feet; thence N79°49'53"W, 82.48 feet; thence S13°19'10"W, 18.21 feet; thence
N79°00'06"W, 106.78 feet; thence S18°25'11"W, 606.29 feet to the North line of the acquisition
parcel shown for McCollister Boulevard Extension in condemnation recorded in Book 4202, Page
714 of the Johnson County Recorder's Office, thence Southeasterly along said North line 392.02
feet on a 3842.50 foot radius curve concave Southwesterly (chord bearing S78°34'39"E, 391.85
feet); thence N16°32'54"E, 716.20 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Described area contains 5.81 acres and is subject to easements and other restrictions of record.
Section II. Zoning Map. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage,
approval and publication of the ordinance as approved by law.
Section III. Conditional Zoning Agreement. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to
sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s)
and the City, following passage and approval of this Ordinance.
Section IV. Certification and Recording. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and any
agreements or other documentation authorized and required by the Conditional Zoning
Agreement, and record the same in the Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at
the Owner's expense, upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance, as
provided by law.
Ordinance No.
Page 3
Section V. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section VI. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a
whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section VII. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication in accordance with Iowa Code Chapter 380.
Passed and approved this day of , 20_
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved by /,
•City Attorne s Office
(Sara Greenwood-Hektoen— 11/23/21)
Prepared by:Joshua Engelbrecht,Planning Intern,410 E.Washington,Iowa City,IA 52240(REZ21-0009)
Conditional Zoning Agreement
This agreement is made among the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter
"City"), Cole's Community, LLC. (hereinafter referred to as "Owner" and as "Applicant")
Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 5.81 acres of property located
east of S. Riverside Dr. and north of McCollister Blvd., legally described below; and
Whereas, the Applicant has requested the rezoning of said property to allow for the
expansion of an existing manufactured housing park, as shown in the attached plan; and
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan encourages a mix of housing types in all
neighborhoods to provide options for households of all types and people of all incomes; and
Whereas, the subject property is directly adjacent to existing manufactured housing to
the west and north; and
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan further states the need to maintain and improve
safety for all housing; and
Whereas, this rezoning creates a public need to ensure the safety of future residents
from inclement weather with the construction of community storm shelter, sidewalk access to
said shelter and existing public sidewalks, and effective drainage controls to mitigate excessive
on-site stormwater runoff; and
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan also encourages the development of adequate and
appropriate open space to serve new neighborhoods; and
Whereas, this rezoning creates a public need to plan for recreational amenities to serve
residents on the subject property; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate
conditions regarding construction of a storm shelter, sidewalk, and open space recreational
amenities, and development of a site and grading plan, the requested zoning is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan; and
Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2021) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in
order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
Whereas, the Owner agrees to develop this property in accordance with the terms and
conditions of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as
follows:
1. Cole's Community, LLC is the legal title holder of the property legally described as:
1
Being a part of Lot 3 in Paden's Resubdivision of Lots 1 and 4 of Charles Subdivision of the
Southwest Quarter (SW '/a) of Section 22, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th P.M.,
Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa.
Beginning at the Northwest corner of Auditor's Parcel 98057 as recorded in Book 2576, Page
229 of the Johnson County Recorder's Office, thence N80°01'00"W, 212.69 feet; thence
S10°10'07"W, 83.45 feet; thence N79°49'53"W, 82.48 feet; thence S13°19'10"W, 18.21 feet;
thence N79°00'06"W, 106.78 feet; thence S18°25'11"W, 606.29 feet to the North line of the
acquisition parcel shown for McCollister Boulevard Extension in condemnation recorded in Book
4202, Page 714 of the Johnson County Recorder's Office, thence Southeasterly along said
North line 392.02 feet on a 3842.50 foot radius curve concave Southwesterly (chord bearing
S78°34'39"E, 391.85 feet); thence N16°32'54"E, 716.20 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Described area contains 5.81 acres and is subject to easements and other restrictions of record.
2. Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the
Comprehensive Plan. Further, Owner acknowledges that Iowa Code §414.5 (2021)
provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a
rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, to satisfy public needs
caused by the requested change.
3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner agrees that
development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the Zoning
Code, as well as the following conditions:
a. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the subject property, Owner shall
construct a storm shelter in general conformance with the approved preliminary
planned development overlay plan;
b. Prior to issuance of any building permit for the property described herein,
Owner shall:
i. Obtain approval of a final plat of the subject property, which shall
include the adjoining properties to the west and north, combining the
existing manufactured housing developments into one parcel;
H. Said final plat application shall include a site grading and drainage plan;
and
Hi. The subdivider's agreement executed at the time of said final plat
approval shall require Owner to make certain off-site improvements,
including pavement of a 5' sidewalk and development of open space
along the south side of the existing east-west private street to S.
Riverside Drive. The open space shall be developed according to an
open space plan approved by the City with recreational amenities, such
as playground equipment and/or recreational fields.
4. The conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under
Iowa Code §414.5 (2021), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused
by the requested zoning change.
5. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the
land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with
title to the land, unless or until released by the City of Iowa City. Once a building permit
is issued or certificate of occupancy is issued, as applicable, the conditions shall be
2
deemed satisfied, and no further release will be provided. The parties further
acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors,
representatives, and assigns of the parties. In the event the subject property is
transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided,i all development will conform with the
terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
6. Nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner
from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
7. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the
ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the
ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at
the Applicant's expense.
Dated this day of , 20_.
City of Iowa City Cole's Community,
muniity, LLC.
Bruce Teague, Mayor By:Ck ut
OinCr Co\2,
Attest:
Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk
Approved by: •
City Attorney'sffi•e/F(oc-f2 em
„/ 24
City of Iowa City Acknowledgement:
State of Iowa
)ss:
Johnson County
This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 20_ by Bruce Teague
and Kellie Fruehling as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Cole's Community, LLC.Acknowledgement:
State of liSc
County of J n1nY1$Qf1
3
This record was acknowledged before me on R[)yQ,1M``bir �51.� , 2021 by
eivi &Le-- (name) as • 1•. 0title) of Cole's Community, LLC.
a AAAA . D
otary. 'ublic in and for the State of Iowa
"Aid. LAURA CLEMONS
ACommission Number 819420 (Stamp or Seal)
My Commission Expires
o.. 6 e-69-ga, �g
My commission expires: � ,•p 9 -�`
4
-_
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Bergus
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Weiner
First Consideration 11/30/2021
Vote for passage: AYES: Bergus, Mims, Salih, Taylor, Teague,
Thomas, Weiner. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration
Vote for passage:
Date published
Item Number: 11.e.
November 30, 2021
O rd inan ce conditional l y rezonin g ap p roximatel y 48.75 acres of prop erty
l ocated sou th of N. Scott Blvd . & west of N. 1st Ave., from In terim
Develop ment – Single F amily Resid ential (ID-R S) to Low Density Sin g l e-
F amil y Residen tial with a Plan n ed Develop ment O verlay (O P D/R S-5).
(R E Z 21-0008)
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Staff Report with Attachments
Updated O P D Plan
P&Z Minutes
Draft Ordinance
Conditional Z oning A greement
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ21-0008
Prepared by: Ray Heitner, Associate
Planner
Date: November 4, 2021
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Nelson Development
Jacob Wolfgang
jacob@nelsonconstruct.com
Contact Person: See above.
Owner: ACT, Inc.
Jason Happel
500 ACT Drive
Iowa City, IA 52243-0168
Jason.Happel@act.org
Requested Action: Rezoning from Interim Development –
Residential Single Family (ID-RS) to Low
Density Single-Family with a Planned
Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5)
Purpose:
Construction of Senior living facility and
open space dedication for the expansion
of Hickory Hill Park.
Location:
West of N. 1st Avenue and south of N.
Scott Boulevard.
Location Map:
Size: 48.75 Acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Undeveloped/Vacant Open Space,
2
Interim Development – Single Family (ID-
RS)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: RM-12, Low density Multi-family
Residential
RDP, Research Development
Park
ODP, Office Development Park
South: P-1, Neighborhood Public
East: RS-8, Medium Density Single
Family Residential
ID-RS, Interim Development –
Single Family Residential
ID-RP, Interim Development –
Research Park
West: P-1, Neighborhood Public
RS-5, Low Density Single Family
Residential
Comprehensive Plan:
2-8 units / acres
District Plan:
Northeast District
Neighborhood Open Space District:
C8
Public Meeting Notification:
Property owners west of the subject
property in the Hickory Heights
development and owners east of 1st
Avenue received notification of the
Planning and Zoning Commission public
meeting. Rezoning signs were posted on
the site at both Scott Boulevard and 1st
Avenue.
File Date: September 16, 2021
45 Day Limitation Period:
Completed application submitted on
October 25, 2021 – 45-day limitation due
on December 9, 2021
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Nelson Development, LLC, has requested a rezoning from Interim Development –
Single Family (ID-RS) zone to Low Density Single Family with a Planned Development Overlay
(OPD/RS-5) zone for 48.75 acres of land located south of N. Scott Boulevard and west of N. 1st
Avenue. The applicant intends to develop 8.85 acres as a senior living facility, which will contain
approximately 134 bedrooms for its residents (REZ21-0008).
The subject application is different from a previous application to rezone this property that was
considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council in Spring of 2021 (REZ20-
0016). The former rezoning application sought an OPD/RS-5 zoning designation, with both a senior
living facility component and single-family residential housing developed over the 48.75-acre
property. The subject application will still apply for the OPD/RS-5 zoning designation but will only
construct the senior living facility component of the prior application. With the proposed application,
the applicant intends to plat and dedicate a 38.98-acre outlot to the City as parkland. A future
3
rezoning to a Public (P) zone would be done by the City once the City acquires the dedicated land.
The development proposes to extend Hickory Trail from 1st Avenue to a cul-de-sac that will
terminate just short of the west lot line of the senior living facility. Sidewalks will be added to both
sides of the Hickory Trail extension, which will ultimately connect to the Hickory Hill Park trail
network, located south and west of the subject property.
The applicant also intends to grant the entirety of Outlot A from the OPD Plan (approximately 38.98
acres) to the City as neighborhood open space. This would exceed the required open space
contribution of 1.1 acres and would increase Hickory Hill Park’s size by about 21%.
Because the proposed development contains regulated sensitive features in the way of wetlands,
streams, woodlands, critical slopes, and steep slopes and modifications to the underlying zoning
designation are being requested, a Level II Sensitive Areas Review is required. A Level II Sensitive
Areas Review requires submission of a sensitive areas development plan (SADP). Furthermore, a
Level II sensitive areas review is considered a type of planned development and as such, must
comply with the applicable approval criteria set forth in chapter 3, article A, "Planned Development
Overlay Zone (OPD)".
The applicant conducted a virtual Good Neighbor meeting on September 22, 2021, which was
attended by 16 members of the public. Staff has received three additional emails pertaining to the
subject rezoning.
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning: The subject property is currently zoned Interim Development – Single Family
Residential (ID-RS). In ID-RS zones, only plant related agriculture is allowed by right. This zoning
designation effectively pauses development for a property until a time that the preferred use can be
developed, and the property can be rezoned.
Proposed Zoning: The applicant is requesting to rezone the entire property (48.75 acres) to Low
Density Single-Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5). The RS-5 zone is
intended to provide housing opportunities for individual households. The zone generally provides a
collection of homes with larger lot sizes and setbacks creating neighborhoods with a limited density.
While the proposed development contains group living in the senior living facility, the OPD process
allows for a mixture of uses, provided that additional criteria in section 14-3A-4C of the City Code
are met.
General Planned Development Approval Criteria: Applications for Planned Development
Rezonings are reviewed for compliance with the following standards according to Article 14-3A of
the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance.
1. The density and design of the Planned Development will be compatible with and/or
complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass and scale,
relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout.
Density – Table 3A-1 from the City Code outlines the maximum allowable density for planned
development zones. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to an OPD/RS-5 zone, which allows for
a density of (5) dwelling units per net acre of land area (total land minus public and private streets
right-of-way).
The senior living facility is considered a group living use, as the proposed facility most closely
resembles the following criteria for a group living use from section 14-4A-3B-1 of the City Code:
“Rooming units contain private space for living and sleeping, but not for cooking. Bathroom facilities
may be private or shared. There may also be shared kitchen and dining facilities and shared
4
common rooms and amenities for all residents. The rooming units are furnished with locks through
which one member of the group may prevent other members of the group from entering his/her
private rooming unit. The residents may or may not receive any combination of care, training, or
treatment, but those receiving such services must reside at the site.” The senior living facility is
estimated to have 134 bedrooms. These bedrooms are not included in the site’s density calculation,
because they are not dwelling units. As there are no dwelling units to factor into the site’s density
calculation, the proposed level of density is allowed within an OPD/RS-5 zone.
Land Uses Proposed – The applicant is proposing a group living land use (shown more closely in
Attachment #1) to accommodate a senior living facility in the southeast portion of the subject
property. There are currently two different multi-family developments near the subject property. The
first of which, Oaknoll East, can be found north of the subject property, along Scott Boulevard. The
second of which, the Hickory Pointe Condominiums, can be found directly east of the proposed
senior living facility. The addition of the senior living facility will help to satisfy an ongoing need for
elder housing within the City, while increasing the diversity of housing that is offered in the Northeast
District. The proposed senior living facility will be reviewed against the Multi-Family Site
Development Standards during Design Review.
Mass, Scale and General Layout –At a ground-floor area of 69,589 square feet, the footprint of the
senior living facility will be considerably larger than that of the Hickory Pointe Condominiums
building, which has a footprint of only 6,975 square feet. The applicant has requested a waiver for
the maximum height requirement of 35’, requesting an allowable height of 42’. The senior living
facility would be 3-stories at the north end and only 1-story on the south end. The adjacent Hickory
Pointe Condominiums building is 2 stories.
Open Space – The proposed development will need to comply with private open space standards,
outlined in section 14-2A-4E of the City Code. The senior living facility will be required to
accommodate 10 square feet of private open space per bedroom, for a total of 1,340 square feet of
private open space. The OPD plans shows three courtyards providing approximately 27,000 square
feet of on-site open space.
Traffic Circulation – The proposed development will be situated off an extension of Hickory Trail. An
interior access drive will provide access to the entire site, with points of access onto the east and
west ends of the Hickory Trail street extension.
2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities.
The subject property can be serviced by both sanitary sewer and water. Public Works has indicated
that both sanitary sewer and water mains have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed
development.
Transportation Planning Staff requested that the applicant submit a traffic study which examined
how the proposed development would impact traffic at the intersection of 1st Avenue and Hickory
Trail. The traffic study (Attachment #3) submitted by Axiom Consultants (performed by Gibson
Traffic Consultants, Inc.) indicates that the total average daily trips generated by the proposed
development is 288 (144 entering / 144 exiting) to 1st Avenue at full build-out. During peak hours
this breaks down to a total of 17 AM peak hour trips and 19 PM peak hour trips. The study shows
that all movements at the Hickory Trail access currently operate at a Level-of-Service D (or better)
and remain at a LOS D (or better) with the proposed development. As none of the individual
movements at the 1st Avenue intersection are anticipated to reach a failing Level-of-Service, Staff
is not recommending any off-site improvements at this time as a result of the proposed
development.
Additionally, a 5’-wide sidewalk will be added along the north side of Hickory Trail, and an 8’-wide
5
sidewalk will be added along the south side of Hickory Trail. Staff is recommending a condition that
the 8’-wide sidewalk on the south side of Hickory Trail be extended as an off-site public improvement
from the eastern property line of the subject property to 1st Avenue.
3. The development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property values and privacy
of neighboring properties any more than would a conventional development.
Attachment #1 shows the proposed elevations for the senior living facility. The facility will be roughly
1-3 stories in height, portions of which are taller than the Hickory Pointe Condominiums building to
the east, but similar in height to the Oaknoll East buildings off Scott Boulevard. Additionally, the
OPD plan is showing a separation distance of approximately 185’ between the senior living facility
and the Hickory Point Condominiums property.
4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying
zoning requirements or from City street standards will be in the public interest, in harmony
with the purposes of this Title, and with other building regulations of the City.
Staff finds that the proposed land use and building type meets the public interest. Staff finds the
requested height of 42’ versus the allowable 35’ in an RS-5 zone to be reasonable. Section 14-
3A-4K-1(b) of the City Code allows for the maximum building height and building coverage to be
modified or waived, provided the design of the development results in sufficient light and air
circulation for each building and adequate, accessible open space for all residents of the
development. When the underlying base zone is single-family residential, at least thirty five
percent (35%) of the net land area in a planned development shall remain free of buildings,
parking and vehicular maneuvering areas. The facility will be 185’ from the Hickory Pointe
Condominiums property line, and approximately 300’ from the Hickory Pointe building. The 69,589
square foot facility (with a building coverage of approximately 18%) will be situated on an 8.85-
acre lot, with 38.98 acres of open space (to be dedicated to Hickory Hill Park) to the west. The
adjacent public open space is in addition to 1,340 square feet of private open space that is
required to be on site. Staff finds that the facility’s placement within the greater site will provide
sufficient light and air circulation, with accessible open space for all residents. When factoring in
Outlot A, approximately 92% of the net land area will remain free of buildings, parking and
vehicular maneuvering areas.
Lastly, Staff recommends that no building permit shall be issued for any of the subject property
until the City Council approves a final plat subdividing the subject property to confirm to the zoning
boundaries established by the zoning ordinance.
Neighborhood Open Space: A neighborhood open space requirement of approximately 1.1
acres accompanies the proposed OPD rezoning. The applicant has proposed to dedicate the
entirety of Outlot A to the City for public open space, which is approximately 38.98 acres.
Dedication of Outlot A will be formalized through the subsequent subdivision process.
City Code requires that at least 90% of the land required to be dedicated be located outside of
floodways, lakes or other water bodies, areas with slopes greater than 15%, wetlands subject to
federal or state regulatory jurisdiction and other areas the city reasonably deems unsuitable for
neighborhood open space due to topography, flooding or other appropriate considerations.
However, the Code allows land in addition to the required dedication amount to include lakes,
ponds, creeks, other water bodies, wetlands falling under the jurisdiction of state or federal agencies
and other sensitive areas including woodland areas. City Staff views the proposed 38.98 acres of
dedication from Outlot A as sufficient abutting land that would be usable and extend the existing
Hickory Hill Park. This addition would increase the Park’s acreage by approximately 21%.
In addition to the dedication of land from Outlot A, the applicant will be required to provide a trail
6
connection from the proposed development to an existing trail south of the site as shown on the
OPD Plan (Attachment #2).
Per 14-5K-3C of the City Code, notice of the land dedication request was sent to Parks and
Recreation staff for comment and recommendation. Parks and Recreation staff support the
proposed dedication. City programming and planning for the additional parkland is not determined
at rezoning. Future programming and planning for the dedicated parkland will be done as part of
the Parks & Recreation planning process and the adoption of the Capital Improvement Program by
the City Council.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: With respect to compliance with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, Staff looks to the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast District
Plan for direction. The Northeast District Plan features several areas of focus for the subject
property’s neighborhood (the Bluffwood Neighborhood) that are discussed in more detail below.
Preserve Natural Features – The Northeast District Plan emphasizes the use of cul-de-sac streets
and single loaded streets (i.e. homes only on one side), where appropriate, to preserve sensitive
areas. The Plan’s intent is to preserve areas with ravines and potential wetland areas as a buffer
along the eastern and northern edges of Hickory Hill Park. Additionally, the City’s comprehensive
plan encourages the development of single-loaded street along parks.
The Bluffwood Neighborhood map (Figure #2) shows two cul-de-sac streets within the subject
property. One cul-de-sac is stemming southward from Scott Boulevard, while the other is a
westward continuation of an extension to Hickory Trail. Housing is shown mostly on both sides of
the street on the northern cul-de-sac, with an exception for the southwestern portion of the cul-
de-sac. The southern cul-de-sac shows housing only on one side of the street. A woodland buffer
is shown on the map, but dimensions for how wide the buffer are not provided.
Figure #2 - Bluffwood Neighborhood Map
The applicant intends to build just one cul-de-sac off 1st Avenue to provide access to the senior
living facility. Section 15-3-2A-4 of the City Code states the following “Use of cul-de-sacs and
other roadways with a single point of access should be avoided. Cul-de-sacs will be considered
7
where it can be clearly demonstrated that environmental constraints, existing development,
access limitations along arterial streets, or other unusual features prevent the extension of the
street to the property line or to interconnect with other streets within or abutting the subdivision.”
While previously submitted plans for this property illustrated that through access to this property
could be provided without the use of cul-de-sacs, the current proposal only includes one structure
being developed at the southeast corner of the overall site. Additionally, the applicant intends to
grant the entire 38.98 acres of Outlot A to the City as neighborhood open space. The proposed
land dedication would remove the portion of land where a through street connection to Scott
Boulevard could be made within the subject property.
Provide Pedestrian/Bicyclist Connections – The Plan calls for an interconnected sidewalk system
that is augmented by a trail system that will provide opportunities for people to walk, bike, or jog
to various destinations. The applicant is showing a 5’ wide sidewalks along the north side of the
Hickory Trail extension, with an 8’ wide sidewalk along the south side of Hickory Trail. The
sidewalk along the south side of Hickory Trail will connect to the existing trail network in Hickory
Hill Park.
Encourage a Reasonable Level of Housing Diversity – In addition to single-family dwellings, the
Plan calls for townhouses or small apartment houses at the edges of neighborhoods, where the
increased density can take advantage of the being located near major arterial streets. In-lieu of
small apartment buildings, the applicant is proposing to develop a senior living facility off the
extended Hickory Trail, just west of 1st Avenue. Staff believes that this development will add to
the neighborhood’s growing housing diversity, and compliment nearby comparable uses such as
the Hickory Pointe Condominiums building to the east, and the Oak Knoll East complex that is
located north of Scott Boulevard.
Create and Enhance Neighborhood Parks within the District (Natural Open Space/Buffer Areas)
The proposed plan improves and expands the existing Hickory Hill Park by 38.98 acres. Increased
opportunity for neighborhood access will be provided through sidewalk improvements that will be
made to both sides of the Hickory Trail. A connection to the existing Hickory Hill Park trail network
will be provided from the south side of the Hickory Trail.
Sensitive Areas Review: The applicant has applied for approval of a Sensitive Areas
Development, a type of planned development. The purpose of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is to
permit and define the reasonable use of properties that contain sensitive environmental features
and natural resources and allowing reasonable development while protecting these resources from
damage.
Outlot A contains the vast majority of the site’s sensitive features. Outlot A will be protected through
the dedication to the City as an extension of Hickory Hill Park.
Jurisdictional Wetlands - The purpose of regulating development in and around wetlands is to:
1. Preserve the unique and valuable attributes of wetlands as areas where storm water is naturally
retained, thereby controlling the rate of runoff, improving water quality, recharging ground water
resources, providing erosion control and lessening the effects of flooding;
2. Promote the preservation of habitat for plants, fish, reptiles, amphibians or other wildlife;
3. Minimize the impact of development activity on wetland areas;
4. Provide a greater degree of protection for many wetland areas above and beyond that provided
by the federal and state government; and
5. Minimize the long-term environmental impact associated with the loss of wetlands.
For this application, the subject property contains two wetlands, which are shown below in Figure
#3. The City’s Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires a 100 ft. buffer to be maintained between a
regulated wetland and any development activity (14-5I-6E-1). The Ordinance does allow for buffer
8
averaging to be permitted where an increased buffer is deemed necessary or desirable to provide
additional protection to one area of a wetland for aesthetic or environmental reasons. The applicant
has not chosen to request buffer averaging for either wetland, as each wetland and wetland buffer
will remain unimpacted.
Figure #3 – Wetland Delineation
Stream Corridors - The purpose of regulating development in and around stream corridors is to:
1. Preserve the value of stream corridors in providing floodwater conveyance and storage;
2. Promote filtration of storm water runoff;
3. Reduce stream bank erosion; and
4. Protect and enhance wildlife habitat.
The City’s Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires the delineation of any stream corridor and its
required natural buffer (14-5I-7). The subject property contains two drainageways, which require a
30’ wide stream corridor (spanning both sides of the stream) and 50’ wide stream corridor buffer on
each side of the stream. Both stream corridors are situated far enough away from the proposed
construction limits that neither corridor will be impacted.
Steep, Critical, and Protected Slopes – The purpose of regulating development on and near steep
slopes is to:
1. Promote safety in the design and construction of developments;
2. Minimize flooding, landslides and mudslides;
3. Minimize soil instability, erosion and downstream siltation; and
4. Preserve the scenic character of hillside areas, particularly wooded hillsides.
The City’s Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires a 2 ft. buffer for each foot of vertical rise of the
protected slope, up to a maximum buffer of fifty feet (50') (14-5I-8D-1). The buffer area is to be
measured from the top, toe and sides of the protected slope. No development activity, including
removal of trees and other vegetation, will be allowed within the buffer. The SADP contains 321,719
square feet of critical slopes, but no disturbance to protected slopes. Approximately 20%, or roughly
65,559 square feet of critical slopes will be impacted by the development. Table 1 below breaks out
the proposed impact to critical slopes. The City Code defines critical slopes as having a slope
greater than 25% but less than 40%. Section 14-5I-8E-4 states that a Level II sensitive areas review
is required if more than 35% of critical slopes are disturbed. The applicant is proposing to only to
disturb 20% of critical slopes, which is within the allowable threshold.
9
Table #1 – Critical Slope Summary
Existing Critical Slopes Impacted Slopes Non-Impacted Slopes
321,719 sq ft 65,559 sq ft
(20%)
256,160 sq ft
(80%)
Woodlands – The purpose of regulating development in and around wooded areas is to:
1. Reduce damage to wooded areas, particularly wetlands, steep slopes and stream corridors;
2. Reduce erosion and siltation;
3. Minimize destruction of wildlife habitat; and
4. Encourage subdivision and site plan design which incorporate groves and woodlands as
amenities within a development.
The subject property has approximately 1,325,064 square feet of woodlands. The SADP plan
(Attachment #2) shows that the development will preserve approximately 81% of woodlands, which
is above the 50% allowed per the sensitive areas ordinance.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be
scheduled for consideration by the City Council. Staff plans to have this application on the
November 30, 2021 City Council agenda, with public hearings set at the Council’s November 16,
2021 meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of REZ21-0008, a proposal to rezone approximately 48.75 acres of
land located south of N. Scott Blvd. and west of N. 1st Ave. from Interim Development – Single
Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Low Density Single Family with a Planned Development
Overlay (OPD/RS-5) zone subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to the acceptance of public improvements corresponding to the subdivision:
a. Construction of trail connections, as shown on the OPD Plan dated 10/28/2021.
b. Construction of an 8’-wide sidewalk extending from the subject property’s eastern
property line to 1st Avenue.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit:
a. Submission of a landscape plan detailing any proposed landscaping on Lot 1. The
landscape plan shall be approved by the City Forrester before a building permit is
issued.
b. City Council approval of a final plat subdividing the subject property to conform to
the zoning boundaries established by the zoning ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Senior Living Facility Elevations
2. OPD/SADP Plan
3. Landscape Plan
4. Traffic Study
5. Location Map
6. Aerial Photograph
7. Applicant Statement
8. Rezoning Exhibit
9. Correspondence
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
EXTERIOR ELEVATION GENERAL NOTES
1. PROVIDE CONCRETE SPLASH BLOCKS AT ALL DOWNSPOUTS WHICH SPILL ONTO
GRADE OR ROOFS.
2. ALL CONDUIT, METERS, VENTS, ETC. TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE.
3. GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS ARE PREFINISHED ALUMINUM.
EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEY NOTES:
MR STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
F1 FIBER CEMENT SIDING - COLOR A
F2 FIBER CEMENT SIDING - COLOR B
FP1 VERTICAL FIBER CEMENT PANEL BATTENS AT 16" O.C. - COLOR A
A THREE DIMENSIONAL ASPHALT SHINGLES
CSV CUT STONE VENEER
WP1 NICHIHA VINTAGEWOOD AWP-3-3- FIBER CEMENT PANEL- VERTICAL
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
C-TRUSS BEARING 125
125'-0"
TRUSS BEARING 114
114'-0"
1
AC601
A
AC600
C-TRUSS BEARING 124
124'-0"
VESTIBULE TRUSS BEARING
111'-0"
TRUSS BEARING 116
116'-0"
WP1
CSV
FP1
CSV
WP1
CSV
CSV
A
A
A
A
COMPOSITE METAL
WALL PANEL
SYSTEM PER 07610
STANDING SEAM METAL
WALL PANEL
SYSTEM PER 07610
STANDING SEAM METAL
ROOF PANELS
PER 07610
CSV
FP1
3" CUT STONE SILL
6X8 CUT STONE TRIM5/4X6 FIBER CEMENT TRIM
-2x12 CEDAR RAFTERS
-METAL WRAPPED BEAM AND COLUMNS
-2x8 CEDAR SLATS IN METAL FRAME
3" CUT STONE SILL
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
PORTE COCHERE TRUSS
BEARING
116'-0"
1
AC602
VESTIBULE TRUSS BEARING
111'-0"
CSV
WP1
FP1
FP1
CSV
A
COMPOSITE METAL
WALL PANEL
SYSTEM PER 07610
STANDING SEAM METAL
WALL PANEL
SYSTEM PER 07610
STANDING SEAM METAL
ROOF PANELS
PER 07610
A
5/4X6 FIBER CEMENT TRIM
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
C-TRUSS BEARING
112'-0"
C-TRUSS BEARING 125
125'-0"
PORTE COCHERE TRUSS
BEARING
116'-0"
C-TRUSS BEARING 124
124'-0"
2
AC602
VESTIBULE TRUSS BEARING
111'-0"
COMPOSITE METAL
WALL PANEL
SYSTEM PER 07610
STANDING SEAM METAL
WALL PANEL
SYSTEM PER 07610
STANDING SEAM METAL
ROOF PANELS
PER 07610
FP1
CSV
CSV
CSV
A
CSV
STANDING SEAM METAL
WALL PANEL
SYSTEM PER 07610
STANDING SEAM METAL
ROOF PANELS
PER 07610
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
1
AC601
A
AC600
TRUSS BEARING 116
116'-0"
A
A
WP1FP1
CSV
CSV
WP1
WP1CSV
WP1
CSV
CSV
FP1
CSV
FP1
CSV
A
A
COMPOSITE METAL
WALL PANEL
SYSTEM PER 07610
3" CUT STONE SILL
6X8 CUT STONE TRIM
STOREFRONT WINDOW
SYSTEM PER 084114
DATE
THIS DRAWING, ITS DESIGN CONCEPT AND ITS DETAIL ARE
THE SOLE PROPERTY OF AG ARCHITECTURE, INC. AND SHALL
NOT BE COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WITHOUT
WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF ITS DESIGNER/CREATOR
SHEET NO.
PROJECT
SHEET PRINTED ON:FILE PATH:SCHEMATIC DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONMEMORY SUPPORT
A
COMMONS
REVISIONS
B
ASSISTED
9/14/2021 3:18:04 PMBIM 360://202201-Iowa City-Nelson/202201_Architectural_R20.rvt23 JUL 2021
202201
AC5001/8" EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Iowa CityHickory Trails EstatesAssisted Living & Memory SupportIowaCOMMONS
4
31 2AC500
COMMONS
1
AC500
PORTE COCHERE FRONT ELEVATION
2
AC500
PORTE COCHERE SIDE ELEVATION
3
AC500
COMMONS
4
NO. DATE DESCRIPTION
EXTERIOR ELEVATION GENERAL NOTES
1. PROVIDE CONCRETE SPLASH BLOCKS AT ALL DOWNSPOUTS WHICH SPILL ONTO
GRADE OR ROOFS.
2. ALL CONDUIT, METERS, VENTS, ETC. TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE.
3. GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS ARE PREFINISHED ALUMINUM.
EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEY NOTES:
MR STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
F1 FIBER CEMENT SIDING - COLOR A
F2 FIBER CEMENT SIDING - COLOR B
FP1 VERTICAL FIBER CEMENT PANEL BATTENS AT 16" O.C. - COLOR A
A THREE DIMENSIONAL ASPHALT SHINGLES
CSV CUT STONE VENEER
WP1 NICHIHA VINTAGEWOOD AWP-3-3- FIBER CEMENT PANEL- VERTICAL
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
AL-TRUSS BEARING
132'-0 1/8"
TOP OF SUBFLOOR -2ND
FLOOR
111'-11 1/8"
TOP OF SUBFLOOR -3RD
FLOOR
122'-11"
CSV
WP1
CSV
F7CSV
FP1
A
A
9"
12"
F7
CSVCSV CSV
CSV
FP1
3" CUT STONE SILL
6x8 CUT STONE TRIM5/4x 6 FIBER CEMENT
TRIM
3" CUT STONE SILL
ARCHITECTURAL LOUVERS-
MODEL H6T
PAINTED METAL RECTANGULAR
TUBE BLADE SUNSHADE LOUVER
6" DEEP, 24" PROJECTION
(service@archlouvers.com)
888.568.8371
1x10 FIBER CEMENT FASCIA
1x10 FIBER CEMENT
FASCIA
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
GUTTER/ DOWNSPOUT
METAL PANEL CORNER
3" CUT
STONE SILL
5/4 X 6 FIBER CEMENT TRIM6X8 CUT STONE TRIM
3" CUT STONE SILL
CSV
F7
WP1
CSV
CSV
F7
A
1x10 FIBER CEMENT FASCIA
1x10 FIBER CEMENT
FASCIA
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
GUTTER/ DOWNSPOUT
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
AL-TRUSS BEARING
132'-0 1/8"
TOP OF SUBFLOOR -2ND
FLOOR
111'-11 1/8"
TOP OF SUBFLOOR -3RD
FLOOR
122'-11"
3" CUT STONE SILL
6X8 CUT STONE TRIM
5/4 X 6 FIBER CEMENT TRIM
CSVWP1
FP1
FP1
CSV
CSV
CSV
CSV
AA
METAL PANEL CORNER
3" CUT
STONE SILL
6X8 CUT STONE TRIM
5/4 X 6 FIBER
CEMENT TRIM
9"
12"
FP1
CSV CSV CSV
?
6X8 CUT STONE TRIM
3" CUT STONE SILL
9"
12"
FP1
CSV
WP1
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
AL-TRUSS BEARING
132'-0 1/8"
TOP OF SUBFLOOR -2ND
FLOOR
111'-11 1/8"
TOP OF SUBFLOOR -3RD
FLOOR
122'-11"
FP1
FP1
F7
FP1
F7
F7
CSV CSV
CSV CSV
F7
CSVCSVCSV
CSV
F7
FP1
F7
CSV
CSV
3" CUT STONE SILL
6X8 CUT STONE TRIM
3" CUT STONE SILL
6X8 CUT STONE TRIM
5/4X6 FIBER CEMENT TRIM
1
AA601
F7
DATE
THIS DRAWING, ITS DESIGN CONCEPT AND ITS DETAIL ARE
THE SOLE PROPERTY OF AG ARCHITECTURE, INC. AND SHALL
NOT BE COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WITHOUT
WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF ITS DESIGNER/CREATOR
SHEET NO.
PROJECT
SHEET PRINTED ON:FILE PATH:SCHEMATIC DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONMEMORY SUPPORT
A
COMMONS
REVISIONS
B
ASSISTED
9/14/2021 3:17:39 PMBIM 360://202201-Iowa City-Nelson/202201_Architectural_R20.rvt23 JUL 2021
202201
AA5001/8" EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Iowa CityHickory Trails EstatesAssisted Living & Memory SupportIowaASSISTED LIVING
4
1
23 5
AA500
EXTERIOR ELEVATION WING B
1
AA500
EXTERIOR ELEVATION WING B
2
AA500
EXTERIOR ELEVATION WING B
3
AA500
EXTERIOR ELEVATION WING B
4
AA500
EXTERIOR ELEVATION WING B
5
AA500
EXTERIOR ELEVATION WING A & WING B
6
6NO. DATE DESCRIPTION
EXTERIOR ELEVATION GENERAL NOTES
1. PROVIDE CONCRETE SPLASH BLOCKS AT ALL DOWNSPOUTS WHICH SPILL ONTO
GRADE OR ROOFS.
2. ALL CONDUIT, METERS, VENTS, ETC. TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE.
3. GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS ARE PREFINISHED ALUMINUM.
EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEY NOTES:
MR STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
F1 FIBER CEMENT SIDING - COLOR A
F2 FIBER CEMENT SIDING - COLOR B
FP1 VERTICAL FIBER CEMENT PANEL BATTENS AT 16" O.C. - COLOR A
A THREE DIMENSIONAL ASPHALT SHINGLES
CSV CUT STONE VENEER
WP1 NICHIHA VINTAGEWOOD AWP-3-3- FIBER CEMENT PANEL- VERTICAL
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
AL-TRUSS BEARING
132'-0 1/8"
TOP OF SUBFLOOR -2ND
FLOOR
111'-11 1/8"
TOP OF SUBFLOOR -3RD
FLOOR
122'-11"
1
AA600
F7CSV
FP1F7
CSVCSV
FP1F7
CSV
A
AA
A
3" CUT STONE SILL
6x8 CUT STONE TRIM
5/4x 6 FIBER CEMENT
TRIM
1x10 FIBER CEMENT FASCIA
1x8 FIBER CEMENT TRIM
9"
12"
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM GUTTER/
DOWNSPOUT
FP1
CSVF7
CSV
CSV
WP1
CSV
FP1
A
A
A
3" CUT STONE SILL
6x8 CUT STONE TRIM
1x10 FIBER CEMENT FASCIA
3" CUT STONE SILL
5/4x 6 FIBER CEMENT
TRIM
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM GUTTER/
DOWNSPOUT
ARCHITECTURAL LOUVERS-
MODEL H6T
PAINTED METAL RECTANGULAR
TUBE BLADE SUNSHADE LOUVER
6" DEEP, 24" PROJECTION
(service@archlouvers.com)
888.568.8371
METAL PANEL CORNER
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
AL-TRUSS BEARING
132'-0 1/8"
TOP OF SUBFLOOR -2ND
FLOOR
111'-11 1/8"
TOP OF SUBFLOOR -3RD
FLOOR
122'-11"
CSV
WP1FP1
CSV
CSV
CSV
FP1
A A
A
CSV
3" CUT STONE SILL
6x8 CUT STONE TRIM
1x10 FIBER CEMENT FASCIA
1x8 FIBER CEMENT TRIM
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM GUTTER/
DOWNSPOUT
5/4x 6 FIBER CEMENT
TRIM
5/4 x FIBER CEMENT
CORNER TRIM
METAL PANEL CORNER
CSVCSV
WP1
FP1
FP1
F7F7
CSV CSV
AAA
3" CUT STONE SILL
6x8 CUT STONE TRIM
1x10 FIBER CEMENT FASCIA
1x8 FIBER CEMENT TRIM
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM GUTTER/
DOWNSPOUT
5/4x 6 FIBER
CEMENT TRIM
METAL PANEL CORNER
5/4x FIBER CEMENT
CORNER TRIM
3" CUT STONE SILL
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
AL-TRUSS BEARING
132'-0 1/8"
TOP OF SUBFLOOR -2ND
FLOOR
111'-11 1/8"
TOP OF SUBFLOOR -3RD
FLOOR
122'-11"
1
AA600
CSV
WP1
F7
F7
CSV
FP1
F7
CSV
CSV
FP1F7
F7CSVCSVCSV
CSV
WP1
AA
A
AA
3" CUT STONE SILL
6x8 CUT STONE TRIM
1x10 FIBER CEMENT FASCIA
1x8 FIBER CEMENT TRIM
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM GUTTER/
DOWNSPOUT
5/4x 6 FIBER CEMENT
TRIM
ARCHITECTURAL LOUVERS-
MODEL H6T
PAINTED METAL RECTANGULAR
TUBE BLADE SUNSHADE LOUVER
6" DEEP, 24" PROJECTION
(service@archlouvers.com)
888.568.8371
DATE
THIS DRAWING, ITS DESIGN CONCEPT AND ITS DETAIL ARE
THE SOLE PROPERTY OF AG ARCHITECTURE, INC. AND SHALL
NOT BE COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WITHOUT
WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF ITS DESIGNER/CREATOR
SHEET NO.
PROJECT
SHEET PRINTED ON:FILE PATH:SCHEMATIC DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONMEMORY SUPPORT
A
COMMONS
REVISIONS
B
ASSISTED
9/14/2021 3:17:56 PMBIM 360://202201-Iowa City-Nelson/202201_Architectural_R20.rvt23 JUL 2021
202201
AA5011/8" EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Iowa CityHickory Trails EstatesAssisted Living & Memory SupportIowaASSISTED LIVING321
AA501
EXTERIOR ELEVATION WING A
1
AA501
WING A-SOUTH WEST
2
AA501
WING A- WEST
3
AA501
WING A- NORTH WEST
4
AA501
EXTERIOR ELEVATION WING A
5
4
5
NO. DATE DESCRIPTION
EXTERIOR ELEVATION TYPICAL NOTES
ASPHALT SHINGLES
1 x COMPOSITE TRIM
5/4 COMPOSITE TRIM
MANUFACTURED STONE
BRICK
BRICK SILL
CUT STONE BAND
CAST STONE BAND
CUT STONE SILL
CAST STONE SILL
FIBER CEMENT SHAKE
CONTROL JOINT
DECORATIVE CMU
PREFINISHED METAL COPING
FIBER CEMENT SIDING WITH
5" EXPOSURE
VINYL SIDING WITH
X" EXPOSURE
ALUMINUM SIDING WITH
X" SIDING
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
RAKE FLASHING
SHAKE SIDING WITH
7" EXPOSURE
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
GUTTER AND
DOWNSPOUT
BRICK - ACCENT
COLOR 'A'1/4" COMPOSITE PANEL - NO
EXPOSED JOINTS
12" SOLDIER COURSE
PROJECT 3/8"
4" STACK BOND
PROJECT 3/8"
8" STACK BOND
PROJECT 3/8"
THREE DIMENSIONAL SHINGLES
CUT STONE HEAD
CAST STONE HEAD
FYPON BRACKET
BKT30x30
5/4 x 6 FIBER
CEMENT TRIM
5/4 x 8 FIBER
CEMENT HEAD
1 x 10 FIBER CEMENT FASCIA
5/4 x 6 FIBER CEMENT
CORNER BOARDS
FIXED SHUTTERS
B ACDE
WINDOW SCHEDULE
INSERT WINDOWS AS LEGEND COMPONENTS
(ANNOTATE TAB, COMPONENT, LEGEND COMPONENT)
MOVE TO SHEET AT401 IF TOO LARGE FOR THIS SHEET
SEE STANDARDS FOR
EXAMPLE OF SCHEDULE
SF1
STOREFRONT SCHEDULE
STOREFRONT INSTRUCTIONS:
REFER TO X:\03-Revit Documentation\01-Revit Procedures
TO FIND A DOCUMENT ABOUT HOW TO SETUP
STOREFRONT ELEVATION VIEWS.
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
MS -TRUSS BEARING
109'-6"
C-TRUSS BEARING 118
118'-0"
MS -TRUSS BEARING 118
118'-0"
MS -TRUSS BEARING 112
112'-0"MS-CORNER BEARING-111
111'-0"
A A
A A
A
CSV
CSV
CSVCSV
FP1
WP1
FP1 FP1
CSV
WP1
FP1
A
A
CSV
5/4x 6 FIBER CEMENT
CORNER TRIM3" CUT STONE SILL
6x8 CUT STONE TRIM 5/4x 4 FIBER CEMENT
TRIM
5/4x 10 FIBER CEMENT
FASCIA
5/4x 6 FIBER CEMENT
TRIM
6"
12"
5/4x 10 FIBER CEMENT
FASCIA
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
TRUSS BEARING 116
116'-0"
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
MS -TRUSS BEARING
109'-6"
MS -TRUSS BEARING 118
118'-0"
MS -TRUSS BEARING 112
112'-0"MS-CORNER BEARING-111
111'-0"
A
AM601
CSV
CSV
CSV
WP1
FP1
CSVCSVCSV
CSVWP1
CSVFP1
CSV
CSV
FP1FP1FP1
A A
A
AAA
WP1FP1
CSV
CSV
WP1
CSV
FP1
FP1
FP1
FP1
5/4x 6 FIBER CEMENT
CORNER TRIM3" CUT STONE SILL
6x8 CUT STONE TRIM5/4x 4 FIBER CEMENT TRIM
5/4x 10 FIBER CEMENT FASCIA
5/4x 6 FIBER CEMENT TRIM
5/4x 10 FIBER CEMENT
FASCIA
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
6"
12"
6"
12"
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
MS -TRUSS BEARING
109'-6"
MS -TRUSS BEARING 118
118'-0"
MS -TRUSS BEARING 112
112'-0"MS-CORNER BEARING-111
111'-0"
A
AM600
CSV
CSV
FP1
WP1
FP1
CSV
A
A
A
A
CSV
WP1
CSV
FP1
CSV
AA
WP1
FP1
CSV
WP1
FP1
CSV
CSV
3" CUT STONE SILL
6x8 CUT STONE TRIM
5/4x 10 FIBER CEMENT FASCIA
5/4x 6 FIBER CEMENT TRIM
5/4x 6 FIBER CEMENT
CORNER TRIM
5/4x 4 FIBER CEMENT TRIM
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
6"
12"
VESTIBULE TRUSS BEARING
111'-0"
EXTERIOR ELEVATION GENERAL NOTES
1. PROVIDE CONCRETE SPLASH BLOCKS AT ALL DOWNSPOUTS WHICH SPILL ONTO
GRADE OR ROOFS.
2. ALL CONDUIT, METERS, VENTS, ETC. TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE.
3. GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS ARE PREFINISHED ALUMINUM.
EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEY NOTES:
MR STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
F1 FIBER CEMENT SIDING - COLOR A
F2 FIBER CEMENT SIDING - COLOR B
FP1 VERTICAL FIBER CEMENT PANEL BATTENS AT 16" O.C. - COLOR A
A THREE DIMENSIONAL ASPHALT SHINGLES
CSV CUT STONE VENEER
WP1 NICHIHA VINTAGEWOOD AWP-3-3- FIBER CEMENT PANEL- VERTICAL
DATE
THIS DRAWING, ITS DESIGN CONCEPT AND ITS DETAIL ARE
THE SOLE PROPERTY OF AG ARCHITECTURE, INC. AND SHALL
NOT BE COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WITHOUT
WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF ITS DESIGNER/CREATOR
SHEET NO.
PROJECT
SHEET PRINTED ON:FILE PATH:SCHEMATIC DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONMEMORY SUPPORT
A
COMMONS
REVISIONS
B
ASSISTED
9/14/2021 3:18:16 PMBIM 360://202201-Iowa City-Nelson/202201_Architectural_R20.rvt23 JUL 2021
202201
AM5001/8" EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Iowa CityHickory Trails EstatesAssisted Living & Memory SupportIowaMEMORY SUPPORT
1
23
NO. DATE DESCRIPTION
EXTERIOR ELEVATION GENERAL NOTES
1. PROVIDE CONCRETE SPLASH BLOCKS AT ALL DOWNSPOUTS WHICH SPILL ONTO
GRADE OR ROOFS.
2. ALL CONDUIT, METERS, VENTS, ETC. TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE.
3. GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS ARE PREFINISHED ALUMINUM.
EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEY NOTES:
MR STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
F1 FIBER CEMENT SIDING - COLOR A
F2 FIBER CEMENT SIDING - COLOR B
FP1 VERTICAL FIBER CEMENT PANEL BATTENS AT 16" O.C. - COLOR A
A THREE DIMENSIONAL ASPHALT SHINGLES
CSV CUT STONE VENEER
WP1 NICHIHA VINTAGEWOOD AWP-3-3- FIBER CEMENT PANEL- VERTICAL
EXTERIOR ELEVATION TYPICAL NOTES
ASPHALT SHINGLES
1 x COMPOSITE TRIM
5/4 COMPOSITE TRIM
MANUFACTURED STONE
BRICK
BRICK SILL
CUT STONE BAND
CAST STONE BAND
CUT STONE SILL
CAST STONE SILL
FIBER CEMENT SHAKE
CONTROL JOINT
DECORATIVE CMU
PREFINISHED METAL COPING
FIBER CEMENT SIDING WITH
5" EXPOSURE
VINYL SIDING WITH
X" EXPOSURE
ALUMINUM SIDING WITH
X" SIDING
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
RAKE FLASHING
SHAKE SIDING WITH
7" EXPOSURE
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
GUTTER AND
DOWNSPOUT
BRICK - ACCENT
COLOR 'A'1/4" COMPOSITE PANEL - NO
EXPOSED JOINTS
12" SOLDIER COURSE
PROJECT 3/8"
4" STACK BOND
PROJECT 3/8"
8" STACK BOND
PROJECT 3/8"
THREE DIMENSIONAL SHINGLES
CUT STONE HEAD
CAST STONE HEAD
FYPON BRACKET
BKT30x30
5/4 x 6 FIBER
CEMENT TRIM
5/4 x 8 FIBER
CEMENT HEAD
1 x 10 FIBER CEMENT FASCIA
5/4 x 6 FIBER CEMENT
CORNER BOARDS
FIXED SHUTTERS
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
MS -TRUSS BEARING
109'-6"
MS -TRUSS BEARING 118
118'-0"
MS -TRUSS BEARING 112
112'-0"MS-CORNER BEARING-111
111'-0"
A
AM600
5/4x 10 FIBER CEMENT
FASCIA
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
5/4x 4 FIBER CEMENT
TRIM
3" CUT STONE SILL
AA
FP1
CSV
FP1
CSVTOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
MS -TRUSS BEARING
109'-6"
MS -TRUSS BEARING 118
118'-0"
MS -TRUSS BEARING 112
112'-0"MS-CORNER BEARING-111
111'-0"
A
A
A
CSV
FP1
WP1
CSVCSV
FP1
WP1 WP1 WP1
CSV
5/4x 10 FIBER CEMENT
FASCIA
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
5/4x 4 FIBER CEMENT
TRIM
3" CUT STONE SILL
VESTIBULE TRUSS BEARING
111'-0"
TRUSS BEARING 116
116'-0"
A
AM602
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
MS -TRUSS BEARING
109'-6"
MS -TRUSS BEARING 118
118'-0"
MS -TRUSS BEARING 112
112'-0"
FP1
CSV
FP1
CSV
AA
3" CUT STONE SILL 5/4x 4 FIBER CEMENT
TRIM
5/4x 10 FIBER CEMENT FASCIA
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
6"
12"
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
MS -TRUSS BEARING
109'-6"
MS -TRUSS BEARING 118
118'-0"
MS -TRUSS BEARING 112
112'-0"MS-CORNER BEARING-111
111'-0"
A
AM601
FP1
CSV
WP1
CSV
FP1
CSV
A
A
3" CUT STONE SILL5/4x 4 FIBER CEMENT
TRIM
CUSTOM 2-SIDED
GAS FIREPLACE
PER 10300
STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM
5/4x 10 FIBER CEMENT
FASCIA
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
6"
12"
COMPOSITE METAL
WALL PANEL SYSTEM
PER 07610
STANDING SEAM
METAL WALL PANEL
SYSTEM PER 07610
DATE
THIS DRAWING, ITS DESIGN CONCEPT AND ITS DETAIL ARE
THE SOLE PROPERTY OF AG ARCHITECTURE, INC. AND SHALL
NOT BE COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WITHOUT
WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF ITS DESIGNER/CREATOR
SHEET NO.
PROJECT
SHEET PRINTED ON:FILE PATH:SCHEMATIC DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONMEMORY SUPPORT
A
COMMONS
REVISIONS
B
ASSISTED
9/14/2021 3:18:21 PMBIM 360://202201-Iowa City-Nelson/202201_Architectural_R20.rvt23 JUL 2021
202201
AM5011/8" EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Iowa CityHickory Trails EstatesAssisted Living & Memory SupportIowaMEMORY SUPPORT23
NO. DATE DESCRIPTION
1
4
SET ROOT FLARE 2" ABOVE FINISH
GRADE. REMOVE BURLAP AND WIRE
CAGE FROM TOP HALF OF ROOTBALL.
SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH,
2" THICKNESS
FINISH GRADE
BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE
2X ROOTBALL
NOT TO SCALE1OVERSTORY TREE PLANTING
1 1/2X ROOTBALL
NOT TO SCALE3ORNAMENTAL TREE PLANTING
SET ROOT FLARE 2" ABOVE FINISH
GRADE. REMOVE BURLAP AND WIRE
CAGE FROM TOP HALF OF ROOTBALL.
SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH,
2" THICKNESS
FINISH GRADE
BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE
2X ROOTBALL
NOT TO SCALE4SHRUB PLANTING
SET ROOT FLARE 2" ABOVE FINISH
GRADE. REMOVE BURLAP AND WIRE
CAGE FROM TOP HALF OF ROOTBALL.
SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH,
2" THICKNESS
FINISH GRADE
BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE
2X ROOTBALL
NOT TO SCALE2EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING
SET ROOT FLARE 2" ABOVE FINISH
GRADE. REMOVE BURLAP AND WIRE
CAGE FROM TOP HALF OF ROOTBALL.
SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH,
2" THICKNESS
FINISH GRADE
BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE
SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE
L1.00 COVER NOTES, SCHEDULE & DETAILS
L1.01 PLANTING PLAN
DRAWING INDEX
PLANT SCHEDULE
OVERSTORY TREES
QTY KEY BOTANICAL COMMON SIZE ROOT NOTES
3 BP BETULA PLATYPHYLLA 'FARGO' DAKOTA
PINNACLE KAKOTA PINNACLE BIRCH 2" CAL.B&B
2 CB CARPINUS BETULUS 'FASTIGIATA'COMMON HORNBEAM 2" CAL.B&B
6 CR CARPINUS CAROLINIANA AMERICAN HORNBEAM 2" CAL.B&B
4 CT CATALPA SPECIOSA NORTHERN CATALPA 2" CAL.B&B
7 CO CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS COMMON HACKBERRY 2" CAL.B&B
3 CK CLADRASTIS KENTUCKEA YELLOW WOOD 2" CAL.B&B
2 CC CORYLUS COLURNA TURKISH FILBERT 2" CAL.B&B
8 GT GLIDETSIA TRICANTHOS 'SKYLINE'SKYLINE HONEY LOCUST 2" CAL.B&B
10 GD GYMNOCLADUS DIOCUS 'ESPRESSO'ESPRESSO KENTUCKY COFFEE TREE 2" CAL.B&B
10 LT LIRIODENDRON TULIPIFERA TULIP TREE 2" CAL.B&B
8 MA MACCKIA AMURENSIS AMUR MAAKIA 2" CAL.B&B
2 NS NYSSA SYLVATICA BLACK GUM 2" CAL.B&B
5 OV OSTRYA VIRGINIANA EASTERN HOP HORNBEAM 2" CAL.B&B
1 PA PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA LONDON PLANE TREE 2" CAL.B&B
6 QB QUERCUS BICOLOR SWAMP WHITE OAK 2" CAL.B&B
3 QC QUERCUS COCCINEA SCARLET OAK 2" CAL.B&B
3 QM QUERCUS MACROCARPA BUR OAK 2" CAL.B&B
2 QR QUERCUS RUBRA 'LONG'RED OAK 2" CAL.B&B
2 RP ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA 'CHICAGO BLUES'BLACK LOCUST 2" CAL.B&B
5 UT ULMUS THOMASII ROCK ELM 2" CAL.B&B
2 ZS ZELKOVA SERRATA 'MUSASHINO'ZELKOVA 2" CAL.B&B
EVERGREEN TREES
QTY KEY BOTANICAL COMMON SIZE ROOT NOTES
1 WF ABIES CONCOLOR WHITE FIR 6'-8' HT B&B
3 PA PICEA ABIES NORWAY SPRUCE 6'-8' HT B&B
9 PG PICEA CLAUCA 'DENSATA'BLACK HILLS SPRICE 6'-8' HT B&B
7 TC TSUGA CANADENSIS EASTERN HEMLOCK 6'-8' HT B&B
SHRUBS
QTY KEY BOTANICAL COMMON SIZE ROOT NOTES
23 BB CEPHALANTHUS OCCIDENTALIS BUTTONBUSH #3 CONT.6' X 5'
209 DK DIERVILLA 'KODIAK ORANGE'KODIAK ORANGE DIERVILLA 18" HT CONT.4' X 4'
18 FM FOTHERGILLA 'MOUNT AIRY'DWARF FOTHERGILLA #3 CONT.4' X 4'
6 HV HAMAMELIS VIRGINIANA WITCH HAZEL 6' HT CONT 10' X 8'
8 HP HYDRANGEA PANICULATA 'ILVOBO' PP#22,782 BOBO HARDY HYDRANGEA #3 CONT.3' X 4'
78 IV ITEA VIRGINICA LITTLE HENRY SWEETSPIRE #3 CONT.3' X 3'
76 JH JUNIPERUS HORIZONTALIS 'HUGHES'HUGHES JUNIPER #3 CONT.1' X 6'
131 PO PHYSOCARPUS OPULIFOLIUS NINEBARK #1 CONT 5' X 4.5'
7 RL RHODODENDRON X 'LANDMARK'LANDMARK RHODODENDRON #3 CONT.4' X 4'
115 ST SPIRAEA BETULIFOLIA 'TOR'TOR SPIREA #3 CONT.3' X 3'
49 TD TAXUS X MEDIA 'DENSIFORMIS'DENSE SPREADING YEW 48" HT CONT.4' X 6'
1.IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
LOCATION AND VERIFICATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES AND
STRUCTURES. DAMAGE DONE TO UTILITIES, STRUCTURES, OR
OTHER FINISHED WORK SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED AT THE
IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE.
2.IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL CONNECT TO BACKFLOW
PREVENTER AT BUILDING CONNECTION POINT INDICATED ON PLAN.
THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH GENERAL
CONTRACTOR TO INSURE THE POINT OF CONNECTION MEETS ALL
CODES AND IS IN GOOD WORKING CONDITION.
3.LAWN WILL NEED TO BE IRRIGATED WITH TURF HEADS. ALL
PLANTING AREAS TO BE IRRIGATED WITH DRIP IRRIGATION.
4.EXERCISE EXTREME CARE IN EXCAVATING AND WORKING NEAR
UTILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATION AND
CONDITION OF ALL UTILITIES AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGE.
FIELD ADJUST SPRINKLER LOCATIONS SO AS TO AVOID CONFLICTS
WITH UTILITIES (FIRE HYDRANTS, TRANSFORMERS, ETC)
5.ADJUST HEAD LOCATION IF SPRAY IS DETRIMENTAL TO OR
BLOCKED BY TREE, SHRUB, OR STRUCTURE, MAINTAINING EVEN
COVERAGE OF PLANTING AREAS.
6.ALL SPRINKLER HEADS TO BE ADJUSTED SO THEY DO NOT SPRAY
ONTO WALKS, PARKING AREAS, RETAINING WALLS, BUILDINGS OR
HARDSCAPE AREAS. HEAD TO HEAD COVERAGE REQUIRED IN ALL
LAWN AREAS.
7.PLACE VALVE BOXES IN LANDSCAPE BEDS, PARALLEL TO CURBS
AND WALKS. GROUPED VALVES TO BE EQUALLY SPACED.
8.CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL PVC SCH 40 PIPE SLEEVES UNDER
HARDSCAPE AT ALL POINTS WHERE IRRIGATION MAIN LINE AND
LATERALS ARE LOCATED.
IRRIGATION NOTES
1.CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE AND VERIFY ALL EXISTING UTILITY
LINES PRIOR TO PLANTING AND SHALL REPORT ANY CONFLICTS TO
THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
2.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES
(LINES, DUCTS, CONDUITS, SLEEVES, FOOTINGS, ETC.) WITH
LOCATIONS OF PROPOSED LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS (FENCE,
FOOTINGS, TREE ROOTBALLS, ETC.). CONTRACTOR SHALL REPORT
ANY DISCREPANCIES TO ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONTINUING WORK.
3.ALL WORK SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE WORK OF OTHER
TRADES.
4.IF DISCREPANCIES EXIST BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF PLANTS
DRAWN ON THE PLANTING PLAN AND THE NUMBER OF PLANTS IN
THE SCHEDULE, THE NUMBER OF PLANTS ON PLAN SHALL GOVERN.
5.ALL PLANT MATERIALS MUST CONFORM TO AMERICAN STANDARDS
FOR NURSERY STOCK ANSI Z 60.1, OR LATEST EDITION PUBLISHED
BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN, WASHINGTON
D.C. LARGER SIZED PLANT MATERIALS OF THE SPECIES LISTED
MAY BE USED IF THE STOCK CONFORMS TO THE A.S.N.S.
6.ANY PROPOSED SUBSTITUTIONS OF PLANT SPECIES SHALL BE
MADE WITH PLANTS OF EQUIVALENT OVERALL FORM, HEIGHT,
BRANCHING HABIT, FLOWER, LEAF, COLOR, FRUIT AND CULTURE,
AND ONLY AFTER WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT.
7.OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO SUBSTITUTE PLANT MATERIAL
TYPE, SIZE, AND/OR QUANTITY.
8.STAKE LOCATION OF ALL PROPOSED PLANTING FOR APPROVAL BY
THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT A MINIMUM OF 48 HOURS PRIOR TO
THE COMMENCEMENT OF PLANTING.
9.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DAMAGE DUE TO
OPERATIONS INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
PER PLAN. ANY AREAS OUTSIDE THE LIMIT OF WORK THAT ARE
DISTURBED SHALL BE RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION AT
NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER.
10.THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND MATERIALS INJURIOUS TO PLANT
GROWTH FROM PLANTING PITS AND BEDS PRIOR TO BACKFILLING
WITH PLANTING SOIL.
11.UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, TREES TO BE CENTERED IN PLANTING
AREAS.
12.TO AVOID DISRUPTION TO EXISTING TREES, HAND DIGGING
REQUIRED WITHIN DRIP LINE OF TREES. NO TREE ROOTS OVER 1"
IN DIAMETER ARE TO BE CUT.
13.PROVIDE SHREDDED HARDWOOD BARK MULCH, NATURAL COLOR,
IN ALL PLANT SAUCERS AND PLANTING BEDS TO A 3-INCH MAXIMUM
DEPTH. APPLY PRE-EMERGENT TO ALL PLANTING BEDS PRIOR TO
MULCHING.
14.NEW TREES LOCATED OUTSIDE OF PLANT BEDS, SHALL BE
PLANTED A MINIMUM OF SIX FEET AWAY FROM PLANT BED.
15.NO TREES OR SHRUBS SHALL BE PLANTED CLOSER THAN 5' FROM
ANY UTILITY SERVICE VALVE, BASED ON ANTICIPATED TRUNK SIZE.
PLANTING NOTES
ORNAMENTAL TREES
QTY KEY BOTANICAL COMMON SIZE ROOT NOTES
2 AG AMELANCHIER X GRANDIFLORA 'AUTUMN BRILLIANCE'AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY 8' HT B&B MULTI-STEM
4 CG CRATEGUS CRUS-GALLI VAR. INERMIS THORNLESS COCKSPIR HAWTHRON 2" CAL.B&B
2 MS MAGNOLIA X SOULANGEANA SAUCER MAGNOLIA 8' HT B&B MULTI-STEM
3 MXP MALUS 'PRAIRIE FIRE'PRAIRIE FIRE CRABAPPLE 1.5" CAL.B&B
7 MXS MALUS 'SPRING SNOW'SPRING SNOW CRABAPPLE 1.5" CAL.B&B
2 SR SYRINGA RETICULATA SSP. RETICULATA 'IVORY SILK'IVORY SILK JAPANESE TREE LILAC 2" CAL.B&B
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME: Oct 28, 2021 - 10:46am Z:\Projects2\20042-IC SENIOR LIVING\04 CAD\03 Current\P&Z_20042-PP_PLANTING PLAN.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:L1.00 G. JOSEPH CLARKLOT 1SENIOR LIVINGCOVER NOTES, SCHEDULE, & DETAILSHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD & SENSITIVE AREAS PLANPRELIMINARY20-0194BETTIS[ landscape architects ]
T 515 284 1010
WWW.GENUS-LA.COM
325 EAST 5 STREET
DES MOINES, IA 50309
TH
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY SETBACK
WATER
TELECOM
GAS
ELECTRIC
SANITARY SEWER
STORM SEWER
EXISTING EASEMENT
TREE PROTECTION FENCING
EXISTING CONTOUR
TREE REMOVAL LIMITS AT EDGE OF CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
LEGEND
EVERGREEN TREE
ORNAMENTAL TREE
SHORT GRASS PRAIRIE
MIX
SHADE TREE
SHRUB
TURFGRASS
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY SETBACK
WATER
TELECOM
GAS
ELECTRIC
SANITARY SEWER
STORM SEWER
EXISTING EASEMENT
TREE PROTECTION FENCING
EXISTING CONTOUR
TREE REMOVAL LIMITS AT EDGE OF CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
LEGEND
WWW W
WSS
2 GD
1 CO
1 QC
2 MA
3 PG
1 PA
1 CG
2 CR
1 QM
1 PA
2 TC
2 MA
1 CO
3 GD
2 CR
1 QC
1 QM
2 CR
1 WF
3 MXP
3 CO
1 PA1 QC
1 QM
2 GD
2 GT
3 UT
3 PG
1 CO
3 GD
1 GT
1 LT
1 GT
2 SR
1 GT
1 GT
2 MA
1 GT
1 GT
3 MXS
3 MXS1 MA 54 DK 3 HV
35 JH
1 MXS
32 ST
7 DK
5 TD
3 HP
40 DK
34 ST
7 DK
6 JH
5 HP
3 JH
9 ST
7 DK
21 JH
3 HV
41 DK
10 JH
1 SR
27 PO
23 BB
27 PO
77 PO
5 DK
3 CG
4' DIA. MULCH RINGS AT ALL
TREES IN LAWN SPACE, TYP.
1 RP
1 CC
1 QB1 CB1 LT1 ZS1 UT
1 CT
1 NS
1 CK
1 CR
1 OV
1 RP
1 NS
1 QR
1 PA 1 OV
1 CR
1 CK 1 QR 1 CT 1 UT 1 ZS 1 LT
1 CB
1 QB
1 CC
2 CT
3 QB
3 OV
3 BP
3 LT
1 QB
3 PG
1 LT
1 MA
1 MS
1 MS
2 AG
5 TC
1 CK
19 DK
11 TD
7 IV
5 IV
11 TD
27 IV 19 DK
11 TD
20 ST
2 LT
7 IV 1 TD
5 RL
2 RL
2 TD
7 IV
7 FM
6 TD
24 IV
5 FM
2 TD
8 DK
6 FM
2 LT
[ landscape architects ]
T 515 284 1010
WWW.GENUS-LA.COM
325 EAST 5 STREET
DES MOINES, IA 50309
TH
0 20 40
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME: Oct 28, 2021 - 10:49am Z:\Projects2\20042-IC SENIOR LIVING\04 CAD\03 Current\P&Z_20042-PP_PLANTING PLAN.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:L1.01 G. JOSEPH CLARKLOT 1SENIOR LIVINGPLANTING PLANHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLANPRELIMINARY20-0194BETTIS
DODGE STREET CT
BLUFFWOODDRN DODGE STSTUA
R
T
CTCONKLIN LNHICKORY TRL
HICK
O
RY
PL
ACT D R
BRIST
OL
DRBLU F F W O O D
C IR
N SCO T T B L V D
CYPRESSCTBLUFFW
O
O
D
LN EVERGREENCTN1STAVEACT PLHICKORYHEIGH T S LN
TAMARACKTRL
CN1
CO1
ID-RP
ID-RS
ORP
P1
RDP
RM12
RS12
RS5
MU
RS8
REZ21-0008Hickory Trail Estatesµ
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: September 2021
An application submitted by Axiom Consultants, on behalf ofNelson Development 1, LLC, for the rezoning of 48.75 acresof property located South of N. Scott Blvd, and West ofN. 1st Ave. from Interim Development - Single-Family (ID-RS) to Low-density Single Family Residential with a PlannedDevelopment Overlay (OPD/RS-5)
Overlay Zones
Overlay Description
Planned Development (OPD)
DODGE STREET CT
BLUFFWOODDRN DODGE STSTUA
R
T
CTCONKLIN LNHICKORY TRL
HICK
O
RY
PL
ACT D R
BRIST
OL
DRBLU F F W O OD
C IR
N SCO T T B L V D
CYPRESSCTBLUFFW
O
O
D
LN EVERGREENCTN 1ST AVEACT PLHICKORYHEIGH TS LN
N DUBUQUE RDTAMARACKTRL
REZ21-0008Hickory Trail Estatesµ
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: September 2021
An application submitted by Axiom Consultants, on behalf ofNelson Development 1, LLC, for the rezoning of 48.75 acresof property located South of N. Scott Blvd, and West ofN. 1st Ave. from Interim Development - Single-Family (ID-RS) to Low-density Single Family Residential with a PlannedDevelopment Overlay (OPD/RS-5)
CIVIL STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL SURVEY SPECIALTY
Project Number 200194 Page | 1
Figure 2: 831 N. 1st Avenue
Proposed Project Area Shown in Red
Figure 1: Bluffwood Neighborhood from Northeast District Plan with
Approximate Project Boundary
September 16, 2021
APPLICANT’S STATEMENT FOR REZONING
The proposed development area consists of a portion of Parcel 1002476002. The area being rezoned is approximately 48
acres of private property located west of N. 1st Avenue and south of N. Scott Boulevard. It is bounded on the south and
west by Hickory Hill Park. The current zoning classification is ID-RS – Interim Development Single-Family Residential. The
Applicant is seeking to rezone the entire 48.75 acres of the property to RS-5 – Low Density Single-Family Residential.
There is 1,332.95 feet of frontage on North Scott Boulevard. There are approximately 14 acres between the proposed
development and N. Scott Boulevard and N. 1 st Avenue that are not included in this development and are not included in
the rezoning application. Refer to the Rezoning Exhibit included with the Rezoning Application for additional information,
including the legal description.
Comprehensive Plan & District Plan
The Future Land Use Map within the Comprehensive
Plan shows this area as Conservation Design. The
Conservation Design designation indicates the
presence of sensitive features on the property. These
features include wetlands, a waterway, steep slopes,
and woodlands. The Northeast District Plan includes
the property within the “Bluffwood Neighborhood”
(Figure 1). The Bluffwood concept plan shows single-
family housing and two cul de sacs on the south and
west portion of the property. There is Neighborhood
Commercial depicted on the southeast portion of the
property (four red buildings on Figure 1) and Small
Apartment Buildings shown on the northeast portion
(five pink buildings on Figure 1). The plan shows
wooded areas remaining along the waterway at the
center of the property. Hickory Hill Park can be seen
along the west and south of the property. The cul de
sacs allow for a connection from Hickory Hill Park to the
drainageway at the center of the property.
Previous Projects
A previous rezoning application for the property located
Project Number 200194 Page | 2
at 831 N. 1st Avenue (immediately east of this project) was approved as a Planned Development Overlay Medium-Density
Single-Family (OPD RS-8) and a twelve-unit, 3-story building was constructed (Figure 2) in place of the Neighborhood
Commercial shown on the Bluffwood plan.
Project Overview
The Applicant proposes to develop a Senior Living Facility with Assisted Living and Memory Care east of the waterway.
The south end of the Senior Facility building will be a single-story structure memory care, the center of the building will be
a two-story structure containing the main entry, dining, common areas, and administrative areas, and the north end of the
north end of the building will consist of three stories of assisted living apartments. Refer to Figure 3 for a rendering).
Hickory Trail, which currently dead ends at the east property line, is being extended to the west and will terminate in a cul
de sac on the east side of the existing waterway.
Low-Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5)
The Low-Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) zoning proposed is consistent with the Bluffwood plan and is the least
dense zoning designation allowed within the Iowa City Code. The proposed senior living facility will occupy a 9-acre lot at
the southeast corner of the property. Approximately 1 acre will be dedicated to the city as right-of-way for the extension of
Hickory Trail, and the remaining 38 acres will be dedicated to the city as Public Open Space and the expansion of Hickory
Hill Park.
Figure 3:Conceptual Rendering of the Proposed Senior Facility (looking northeast)
Project Number 200194 Page | 3
The area where the Senior Living Facility is proposed was shown as a mix of single-family homes and small apartment
building on the Bluffwood Plan. The proposed building and site have been designed to take advantage of the existing
topography to prevent the building from dominating the view. The existing topography rises from the s outhwest to the
north east corner of the Senior Living site. The building has a single-story on the south and three-stories on the north
(refer to Figure 3). This prevents the mass of the building from dominating views from the park. The building is set into
the existing site with a first-floor elevation of approximately 735 and the eave on the tallest portion of the building is at an
elevation of approximately 768. The elevation of the northeast corner of the property 768 and N. 1st Avenue is at an
elevation of 760 in this area. This allows the natural grade along N. 1st Avenue to block the building from view as
pedestrians and vehicles travel along N. 1st Avenue. Refer to the Site Plan included in the rezoning submittal.
The proposed building and site achieve the density desired by the Applicant without a large footprint o r excessive
amounts of impervious area. The zoning suggested on the District Plan would allow for a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of up to
1.0. The proposed site has a FAR of 0.3. Another measure of building density on a property is the amount of impervious
surfaces (pavement, sidewalks, roof top). Impervious areas averaging eighty -five percent are common in commercial
areas. This building and site combine for an impervious area of 40%. This relatively low amount of imperviousness is by
design. The building features an interior courtyard within the memory care wing and a community garden space east of
the dining and kitchen facility. Parking is located along the loop road, where possible, to minimize the pavement
associated drive aisles in traditional parki ng lots. There is ample green space along the west and east sides of the loop
road to help provide buffers to adjacent properties. Each of these features combine to reduce the imperviousness of the
site.
The Applicant is committed to planting replacemen t trees to achieve the 20% woodland retention requirement of this
zoning designation. These trees will be planted along the west, east, and south portions of the Senior Living facility.
These plantings will enhance the view from inside the building, provide unique spaces on the property for outdoor
activities, and protect the views from those looking at the property from either the park or the single-family portion of the
development.
The applicant is not seeking adjustments to minimum area regulations or setbacks. A variance allowing building height of
40 feet (code allows for 35 feet) is being requested. The proposed development will avoid protected slopes, provide the
required 50% woodland preservation, and meets other regulations of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance as required by City
Code. A buffer will be provided between the rear of the single-family lots that are adjacent to Hickory Hill Park.
City Utilities
There is city water along the north side of N. Scott Boulevard and water at the end of Hickory Trail. The watermain on
Hikcory Trail will be extended to the end of the proposed cul de sac. There is sanitary sewer at the dead-end of Hickory
Trail and along the waterway south of the project. The sanitary sewer on Hickory Trail will be used to serve the proposed
Project Number 200194 Page | 4
Senior Living building. Private utilities such as gas, electric, and communications are also available. Storm water
management is provided by an existing basin downstream of the project.
Sensitive Areas
Detailed Analyses have been undertaken and, in addition to the woodlands and the waterway, have documented the
presence of wetlands and protected slopes. The Office of the State Archaeologist has completed a field investigation and
determined that no further archaeologic investigation is required. A Preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan
accompanies this application. The development has been designed to avoid the sensitive features and minimize impacts.
Protected slopes have been avoided completely and less than 7% of critical slopes are impacted.
Hickory Hill Park
The development team has met with the Friends of Hickory Hills Park (FHHP ) to gain their insight to the development. The
two groups are seeking areas where the goals of the development and FHHP align and are discussing how each can
benefit from this relationship. The Applicant will also be utilizing the Good Neighbor Meeting process to seek additional
community input.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Welch, PE
Project Engineer
0 150 300
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
ZONING INFORMATION:
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
CURRENT ZONING: ID-RS
PROPOSED ZONING: OPD/RS-5
APPLICANT INFORMATION:
PREPARED BY:
AXIOM CONSULTANTS, LLC
C/O MICHAEL WELCH
60 E. COURT STREET, UNIT 3
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
319-519-6220
MWELCH@AXIOM-CON.COM
NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT
LOCATION
HICKORY HILL PARK
1439 E BLOOMINGTON ST
ZONING: P1HICKORY HEIGHTS LNPARCEL ID:
1002401005
ZONING: ID-RS
2640 N SCOTT BLVD
ZONING: OPD/RM12
800 CONKLIN LN
ZONING: P1
PARCEL ID:
1002426001
ZONING: P1
PARCEL ID: 1002476002
ZONING: ID-RS
831 N 1ST AVEZONING: OPD/RS8PARCEL ID:1001328001ZONING: ID-RPN 1ST AVEN SCOTT
B
L
V
D
2041 N DUBUQUE RD
ZONING: RDP
PARCEL ID: 1001327004
ZONING: ID-RP
PARCEL ID: 1001326004
ZONING: ID-RP
PARCEL ID: 1001351002
ZONING: ID-RS
643 N 1ST AVEZONING: P1HICKORY HEIGHTS
ZONING: OPD/RS5
EVAN HEIGHTS
ZONING: RS5
2601 HICKORY TRLZONING: RM121725 N DODGE ST
ZONING: P1
PARCEL ID:
1002153001
ZONING: CO1
PARCEL ID: 1001351003
ZONING: ID-RS
CYPRESS CTBLUFFWOOD DRBLUFFWOOD CIR
640 STUART CT
ZONING: RM12
2510 BLUFFWOOD CIR
ZONING: RM12
2530 BLUFFWOOD CIR
ZONING: RM12
HICKORY TRL
TAMARACK TRAIL
SUBDIVISION
ZONING: OPD/RS5EVERGREEN CTTAMARACK TRL
H
I
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
HICKORY TRAIL SUBDIVISION
ZONING: RS5
2545 BLUFFWOOD DR
ZONING: ID-RS
500-YEAR
FLOOD LINE
48.75 ACRES
PROPOSED ZONING:
OPD/RS-5
TAMARACK RIDGE
SUBDIVISION
ZONING: RS5
APPLICANT:
NELSON DEVELOPMENT 1, LLC
ATTN: JACOB WOLFGANG
218 6TH AVE., STE. 200
DES MOINES, IOWA 50309
JACOB@NELSONCONSTRUCT.COM
APPLICANT ATTORNEY:
KIRTON MCCONKIE
ATTN: BRYCE K. DALTON
50 E. SOUTH TEMPLE, SUITE 400
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
BDALTON@KMCLAW.COM
STUART CT
BL
U
F
F
W
O
O
D
L
N
ST THOMAS CTZONING:
RM12
ZONING:
OPD/
RM12
ZONING:
OPD/
RM12 A09-14-2021REZONING APPLICATIONSHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Sep 14, 2021 - 9:13am S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Sheets\200194 - Rezoning Exhibit.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:1 OF 1 NELSON DEVELOPMENTREZONING EXHIBITHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESIOWA CITY, IOWA, 5224520-0194WELCHREZONING EXHIBIT
HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES
IOWA CITY, IOWA
23.33 ACRES
ZONING:
ID-RS
BEING PART OF AMENDED AUDITOR'S PARCEL #2005110 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 52, PAGE 143 OF
THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP
79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., IN IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS;
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL, THENCE N01°07'52”W,
656.03 FEET; THENCE N01°41'17”W, 1094.66 FEET; THENCE N01°38'34”W, 210.49 FEET; THENCE
N01°20'33”W, 538.67 FEET; THENCE TO THE NW CORNER OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL; THENCE
1332.94 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SCOTT BOULEVARD ON A 1018.50 FOOT
RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY (CHORD BEARING S65°18'23”E, 1239.83 FEET); THENCE
S27°14'33”W, 924.73 FEET; THENCE S01°14'34”E, 378.49 FEET; THENCE N77°55'52”E, 649.63 FEET;
THENCE S01°15'42”E, 868.85 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL; THENCE ALONG
SAID SOUTH LINE S87°54'07”W, 1302.79 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 48.75 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS
OF RECORD.
From:Anne Russett
To:"Jason Napoli"; Raymond Heitner
Subject:RE: Hickory Hill development w/Nelson Development...on this week"s P&Z agenda?
Date:Monday, October 18, 2021 3:28:47 PM
Hi, Jason – When we send out these meeting notices we try to strike a balance between letting the neighborhoodknow as soon as possible of the application and ensuring that the meeting date listed in the notice willactually be the meeting date. That’s why we list the meeting date as tentative and include the paragraphabout the meeting date being subject to change. Because of the community’s interest in this rezoning we wanted to get out the notices as soon aspossible. Unfortunately, the application was not ready for this week’s meeting. The main reason is thatstaff is still waiting on an updated traffic study from the applicant. The proposal has not changed fromwhat was presented at the good neighbor meeting. The plan still includes the senior housing developmentand dedication of 38 acres to the City for parkland. Due to your concern, though, we’ll try to reach out to those that we know are interested in this applicationvia email. Thanks, Anne
From: Jason Napoli <jasnap23@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 1:11 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>; Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner@iowa-
city.org>
Subject: Re: Hickory Hill development w/Nelson Development...on this week's P&Z agenda?
Hi Anne-
Thank you for the prompt follow-up.
I’m not sure how many people received the attached notice, however will the City update the public
on the information in the attached notification no longer being accurate?
This would’ve been a massive inconvenience to arrange childcare for an in-person only meeting, only
to learn the reason for attending the meeting is no longer on the agenda.
Also, can you please let us know if the developer still intends to present the same rezoning
request/development plan as was discussed at the good neighbor meeting? It’s concerning to see
this development take a direction that is favorable to so many concerned residents and
stakeholders, however now when we think it’s on the agenda, it disappears.
Is there new activity that’s caused the case to longer be on the agenda this week?
Any additional explanation you can provide would be great and please include this correspondence
in future P&Z packets related to this case.
Thanks again,
Jason
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Monday, October 18, 2021, 12:26, Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> wrote:
Hi, Jason –
The rezoning adjacent to Hickory Hill Park is not on this week’s agenda. We anticipate thatit’ll be on the Nov 4 Commission agenda, but keep checking in with us or checking theirwebsite.
We will also include your email below in the Commission agenda packet.
Let us know if you have any other questions.
Thanks, Anne
From: Jason Napoli <jasnap23@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 11:10 AM
To: Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner@iowa-city.org>; Anne Russett <Anne-
Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Hickory Hill development w/Nelson Development...on this week's P&Z
agenda?
Greetings Ray and Anne-
Just a quick note to confirm whether or not the Nelson/Axiom development abutting HickoryHill Park will be on this week's Planning and Zoning agenda. I had thought there wasnotification of it being so, however it doesn't appear to be on the latest agenda published by
the city.
https://www.iowa-city.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=2026480&dbid=0&repo=CityofIowaCity
Any additional information you can provide would be great.
That said, I would also like to take this opportunity to support the development as proposedduring the good neighbor meeting last month. Provided the ~38 acres of land would begifted to the city as dedicated parkland, this appears to be a very strong result to nearly ayear of votes, redesigns and correspondence.
Thank you for your service to the city and I appreciate this support being shared with theP&Z Commission prior to the case being discussed.
All the best,
Jason Napoli
Vice-chair, Friends of Hickory Hill Park
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended
solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient,
you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of
the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 4, 2021 – 7:00 PM
FORMAL MEETING
THE CENTER – ASSEMBLY ROOM
CASE NO. REZ21-0008:
Location: South of Scott Blvd and West of 1st Ave, Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
An application for a rezoning of approximately 48.75 acres of land from Interim Development
Single-Family (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family with a Planned Development Overlay
(OPD/RS-5).
Heitner began the staff report with an ariel view of the subject property with the zoning applied. It
is currently ID-RS Interim Development Single Family residential zone. Regarding background
on this case, there was a series of previous applications for rezoning on this property in spring
2021. The last proposal had 41 detached single-family homes as well as a senior living facility
with 135 bedrooms but that was ultimately denied by the City Council. The current application is
still seeking the OPD/RS-5 zoning, but it does not contain that single family home component
that was in the previous application. This current application only contains the senior living facility
with a count of 134 bedrooms. The current application also includes a proposed dedication of
30.98 acres of land that was previously considered for development dedicated as neighborhood
open space. Heitner showed site plans of where the senior living facility would be as well as the
dedicated open space. He also noted the private open space located within the courtyard areas
of senior living facility.
With respect to zoning, the current zoning is Interim Development Single Family residential which
is intended to be a holding zone for property until their preferred use can be developed or
infrastructure can reach the property. The proposed zoning would be OPD/RS-5 with planned
development overlay. Typically, in the RS-5 zone it is housing for individual households. It's the
lowest intensity residential zone but the planned development process does allow for some
mixture of uses that one wouldn't typically see in a RS-5 zone such as this senior living facility.
Heitner stated there are some additional approval criteria within the OPD section of the City
Code as well as compliance with the City's multifamily site development standards. Staff is
proposing a condition that the applicant submit a final plat conforming the proposed lots to the
proposed zoning designation.
The approval criteria for OPD are the density and design of the planned development will be
compatible and are complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass
and scale, relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout. With respect to
density the OPD/ RS-5 zoning allows for five dwelling units per acre. There is no density
calculation for this application because this is a group living use and those bedrooms are not
factored into density calculations. With respect to mass and scale, there is about 69,000 plus
square feet in the building footprint, the height that's being requested is 42 feet and there's about
27,000 square feet of onsite open space. Regarding traffic circulation, the previous application
had Hickory Trail extending to the west from First Avenue and then north to Scott Boulevard.
Because there's no proposed housing going in on that outlot A portion of this planned
development of the proposed application it culminates in a cul-de-sac. So stemming off that cul-
de-sac there'd be two access points along the north side of Hickory Trail for facilitating access
within the senior living facility. There will be construction of sidewalks along both sides of the
street extension with a five-foot-wide sidewalk on the north side and then an eight-foot-wide
sidewalk along the south side. Staff is also recommending a condition to construct that eight-foot
sidewalk east as an offsite improvement all the way to First Avenue so that there isn't a gap in
that sidewalk system.
With respect to development not overburdening existing streets and utilities, city water and sewer
is available to the subject property. Staff did ask the applicant to submit an updated traffic study
based on the fact that previous iterations of this application had two points of access from the
development, one to First Avenue and one to Scott Boulevard. Staff’s concern this time was
primarily how would that anticipate a traffic funnel out to just one access point on First Avenue
with the cul-de-sac being proposed. Heitner stated the returns from that traffic study yielded that
the First Avenue/Hickory Trial intersection would be a level of service D which transportation
planning staff found acceptable. A level of service D is in the middle leaning toward being more
congested, but again, it is a level that staff felt comfortable with going forward so no off-site traffic
related improvements are recommended at this time.
With respect to views, property values and privacy, there's 185-foot buffer distance between the
senior living facility and the property line for the Hickory Point Condominiums property to the
east. There is also considerable landscaping within that 185-foot buffer area with a combination
of shade and evergreen trees to soften that transition. Staff is proposing a condition requiring
approval of a landscape plan by the city forester prior to issuance of a building permit. Heitner
showed a general look at that landscaping pointing out a healthy concentration of shade and
evergreen trees along the east side.
With respect to land use and building types being in public interest, Heitner reiterated that the
current application is seeking 42-foot max height on senior living facility building. The base zone
has a maximum height of 35 feet, but staff did find that that requested height waiver basically
details that there will be at least 35% of the subject area free of structures, parking and loading
areas. Staff is recommending that no building permit is issued for any of the subject property until
the City Council approves a final plat subdividing the subject property to confirm these zoning
boundaries established by the zoning ordinance. Regarding neighborhood open space, the OPD
plan being proposed does show a dedication of 38.98 acres of outlot A to the City as public open
space which would eventually be incorporated into the existing footprint of Hickory Hill Park. The
plan does show a trail connection to the south off of the extended Hickory Trail Street, which will
connect into the parks trail network at the southeast corner of the subject property. Parks and
Recreation staff has commented that they support the proposed dedication.
With respect to compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast District Plan, both
promote the use of cul-de-sacs and single loaded streets where appropriate and the use of
ravine and wetland areas as a buffer to the park boundary. So even though the Comprehensive
Plan does contemplate single family housing along the left side of the subject property staff feels
that there are goals being accomplished by the subject OPD plan, mainly in the preservation of
natural features through the 38.98 acres of open space dedication, as well as the ability to
enhance the interconnectedness of the sidewalk system and trail network and providing more
housing diversity within the Northeast District with the senior living facility.
Heitner did address some sensitive areas noting the impacts to which are far less than they were
when previous iterations of this were being considered. With respect to wetlands and stream
corridors, there are two wetlands and two stream corridors within that outlot A lot. Both the
wetlands and stream corridors will be unimpacted and the wetlands will have a 100-foot buffer
and the streams will have a 30-foot stream corridor in addition to a 50-foot-wide stream corridor
buffer on each side of the stream corridor. There are some critical slopes being impacted as a
result of development on the senior living facility lot. However, only 20% of those critical slopes
will be impacted which is within the allowable threshold of up to 35%. Heitner noted there'll be
far less impact to woodlands with preservation of about 81% of the woodlands. The OPD/RS-5
designation would allow impact to their disturbance up to 50%.
Staff has received some correspondence regarding this rezoning. They've received emails from
two residents supporting the rezoning and the inclusion of outlot A as park land.
Regarding next steps, upon recommendation from this Commission, a public hearing would be
scheduled for consideration with Council with the anticipated timeline of Council setting that
public hearing on November 16 for a November 30 public hearing.
Staff recommends approval of REZ21-0008, a proposal to rezone approximately 48.75 acres of
land located south of N. Scott Blvd. and west of N. 1st Ave. from Interim Development – Single
Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Low Density Single Family with a Planned Development
Overlay (OPD/RS-5) zone subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to the acceptance of public improvements corresponding to the subdivision:
a. Construction of trail connections, as shown on the OPD Plan dated 10/28/2021.
b. Construction of an 8’-wide sidewalk extending from the subject property’s eastern
property line to 1st Avenue.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit:
a. Submission of a landscape plan detailing any proposed landscaping on Lot 1. The
landscape plan shall be approved by the City Forrester before a building permit is
issued.
b. City Council approval of a final plat subdividing the subject property to conform to
the zoning boundaries established by the zoning ordinance.
Padron asked when the developer presented these in September, the use was a different use
and now they are keeping the same building but they changed the use. Heitner confirmed the
zoning designation being applied for is the same, it’s OPD/RS-5 the big difference was that
previous application included development of single-family residential housing within that area
that's now described as outlot A within this application. This application just contains the senior
living facility component. The building use is the same, it’s still a senior living facility.
Hensch noted one of his concerns was the wetlands and the jurisdictional stream because of the
invasive species, and with being the responsibility in previous iterations of the homeowner’s
association which is pretty much the same as saying that's not going to be dealt with for the
invasive species. He feels much better knowing the City will manage those.
Townsend asked why all of a sudden did they decide to donate that almost 40 acres to the City.
Signs said because Council wouldn't let them build all that out. Townsend asked but why
wouldn't they keep that for themselves and try to do something later, just questioning how their
mind changed. Nolte stated he thinks the math just get really impossible.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Nick Bettis (Axiom Consultants) is here on behalf of the applicant for the senior living facility and
the property as a whole and can answer any questions regarding the engineering portions of the
application.
Andrew Alden (AG Architecture) can talk about the building and also wanted to share a video
that they showed at the Good Neighbor meeting a few weeks ago. In the video the first two
images are the renderings that they've seen before but then they have a fly-over of the property
with the building on site. Alden wanted to point out three things, the topography is accurate, the
hills and valleys are accurate, the building size and mass is accurate, but the trees and the
underbrush they didn't do species specific, so it's just to get the point across.
Hensch asked about the change in building height. Alden noted the two extra feet was
requested because of recent changes in best practice for dealing with older adults and
mechanical systems due to the pandemic. They need bigger ducts to have higher air flows and
filtration systems, and as a result they need more space between floors in order to fit it.
Martin asked how many people were at the good neighbor meeting. Alden replied 16.
Signs asked why they went from 135 bedrooms to 134. Alden replied that might be a
typographical error, it's 120 units plus one guest suite but in the AL apartments are some two
bedrooms and honestly he couldn't remember if it was 13 two bedrooms or 14 two bedrooms.
Laura Goddard (1807 Winston Drive) is speaking tonight as a member of and treasurer for the
Friends of Hickory Hill Park Board. This has been a long journey together, so she first wanted to
say thank you to the City staff and to all of the Commissioners. She reiterated this has been a
long process, but the Friends of Hickory Hill Park support this latest proposal and commend
Nelson Construction and Development for taking community and ecological input into
consideration for this latest design. They are glad that this proposal will both provide needed
assisted living facilities and maintain the integrity of an important and beloved natural space. She
was glad to see the clarity about the outlot A, that nearly 40 acres, because they do want to
make clear that their support is contingent upon that land being deeded to the City and being
incorporated into the park. Goddard also wanted to say while this was a long process, it has not
been a waste of time because this has been a good example of community involvement and
voices being heard. Regarding the invasive species Commissioner Hensch mentioned, the
Friends of Hickory Hill Park is committed to continuing their involvement with the space as they
have for many years and being active managers. They do regularly deal with invasive species in
partner with the Parks and Recreation Department to manage those species. Goddard hopes
the Commission will support this proposal.
Arturs Kalnins (44 Evergreen Place) has spoken to the Commission on this topic several time
and wanted to follow up as his perspective is not much different than the Friends of the Hickory
Hill Park. This new proposal is great, if they remember the one big debate was in the springtime
was about the view shed and it makes him very happy that the wonderful view will continue and
be intact. A huge part of the splendor of that park is having those views in what's otherwise
becoming a pretty densely populated residential area. Kalnins also wanted to state in addition of
that land added to the park there is also a nice potential access to the park from Scott Boulevard,
which is nice. So again, having that 38 acre lot which may become a prairie, or whatever the
plans the City would have for it, maybe walking trails, is a great access. Finally, Kalnins stated he
is 100% in favor and he is not an expert on issues of zoning, but he’s just curious why they're still
calling for a zoning that's going to include unit housing development when none is going to be in
the current plan. Maybe it’s just some technicality and that's just the way it works with zoning,
but overall he is hugely in support of this current plan.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Craig moved to recommend approval of REZ21-0008, a proposal to rezone approximately
48.75 acres of land located south of N. Scott Blvd. and west of N. 1st Ave. from Interim
Development – Single Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Low Density Single Family with a
Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) zone subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to the acceptance of public improvements corresponding to the
subdivision:
c. Construction of trail connections, as shown on the OPD Plan dated
10/28/2021.
d. Construction of an 8’-wide sidewalk extending from the subject property’s
eastern property line to 1st Avenue.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit:
e. Submission of a landscape plan detailing any proposed landscaping on Lot
1. The landscape plan shall be approved by the City Forrester before a
building permit is issued.
f. City Council approval of a final plat subdividing the subject property to
conform to the zoning boundaries established by the zoning ordinance.
Martin seconded the motion.
Hensch had a couple notes, the real positives from this is the senior living facility is in the
application, which he thinks is a strong need in the community, and now the City will have the
opportunity to manage the wetlands and take some control of the invasive species which is such
a serious problem. He doesn’t think anybody can deny that it's very positive to increase a City
Park by 21%, he hopes the City can afford to manage it and spend money in there and
remember that means property taxes, that money just doesn't magically appear. Hensch
acknowledged that's not part of their consideration but as a citizen of Iowa City it is his concern.
He thinks that the negatives are, when he first saw this, and the cul-de-sac, he never wants to
vote for a cul-de-sac because he really believes in complete streets and the City’s philosophy on
that. But because it is essentially an access drive for the senior living facility, he backed off. He is
still concerned about lack of housing diversity, certainly the senior facility is housing diversity, but
he’s talking about multifamily, that's a loss for the community. They always have to keep in mind
that by increasing all housing types, there's just a chain reaction, if you build a new house,
somebody moves out of a house, they move into the new house and it causes theoretically,
increasing the total supply, which over time in a normal healthy market would reduce prices but
Iowa City has always been very odd, because it's such a high demand place. But if people
question why he’s always supported these applications, it’s because he’s a 100% supporter of
affordable housing and they have to make hard choices to add to the housing diversity and the
only way for that to happen is to build places for people to live period, even if you don't really like
it in your neighborhood. In the south side with a lot of housing around him, he didn’t care for but
sucked it up because it's his responsibility as a citizen to participate for the welfare of the entire
city. So he will support this application.
Craig has supported the senior housing portion of this from day one and hope that's where her
kids put her when the day comes so she is a neighbor to Hickory Hill Park. She loves the park
and is very pleased to see it grow.
Signs want to point out that the developer has given up 80% of their land to get this to go
through, they have spent tens of thousands of dollars satisfying the community, satisfying this
Commission, satisfying City Council, including spending thousands of dollars on a fly-over video
just so they could see how much the roof did or did not stick above the treeline. His point is
there's a reason builders are not building in Iowa City, and they're building in all the communities
around us, and those things just mentioned are part of it. As a Commission, as a Council, as a
community have to understand that there are ramifications. If Iowa City doesn’t grow everyone’s
taxes will grow to maintain the services needed.
Padron wishes developers would start considering more sustainability when they design the
buildings because in the renders all the facades have the same amount of windows, there is not
a study of the sun, there is not a study of the façade, there's not an energy study, and this is why
they end up asking for more height when it shouldn't be necessary. There are other ways where
they can reduce the ducts and make the building more sustainable. There are mental illnesses
that people have that make them sensitive to light, people that will be living there could
potentially have dementia, or Alzheimer's or illnesses like that, so there's an opportunity to make
some of the windows smaller and have a different impact. The facades have different energy
consumption, there is a difference in how they affect the building energy. Also, the renderings
and the flyovers are very easy to make right now with the technology that they have so it's not so
impressive as it is something useful as she was worried impacted woodland in that area. She
will be supporting this project but do hope to see more projects in the future that are sustainable.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
I Lei
Prepared by: Joshua Engelbrecht, Planning Intern 410 E.Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240;319-356-5230
(REZ21-0008)
Ordinance No.
Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 48.75 acres of property
located south of N. Scott Blvd. & west of N. 1st Ave., from Interim
Development — Single Family Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-
Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5).
(REZ21-0008)
Whereas, Nelson Development 1, LLC, has requested a rezoning of property located south of
N. Scott Blvd. &west of N. 1st Ave., from Interim Development—Single Family Residential (ID-RS)
to Low Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5); and
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan encourages the provision of trail connections between
important neighborhood destinations, such as parks; and
Whereas, there is a public need to connect the subject property with adjacent parkland; and
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of wide, accessible
sidewalks that connect with neighborhood parks; and
Whereas, there is a public need to implement the City's adopted complete streets policy;
and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and
determined that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan provided that it meets conditions
addressing the need for provision of a trail connection to Hickory Hill Park, provision of an 8'-wide
sidewalk between the subject property and 1st Avenue, and required submission of a landscape
plan and final plat; and
Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2021) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in
order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
Whereas, the owner, ACT, Inc., and applicant have agreed that the property shall be
developed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement
attached hereto to ensure appropriate development in this area of the city.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa:
Section I Approval. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and
incorporated herein, property described below is hereby classified Low Density Single-Family with
a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5):
BEING PART OF AMENDED AUDITOR'S PARCEL #2005110 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 52, PAGE
143 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., IN IOWA CITY, JOHNSON
COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS;
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL, THENCE N01°07'52'W,
656.03 FEET; THENCE N01°41'17"W, 1094.66 FEET;THENCE N01°38'34"W, 210.49 FEET; THENCE
N01°20'33"W, 538.67 FEET; THENCE TO THE NW CORNER OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL; THENCE
Ordinance No.
Page 2
1332.94 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SCOTT BOULEVARD ON A 1018.50
FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY (CHORD BEARING S65°18'23"E, 1239.83 FEET);
THENCE 527°14'33"W, 924.73 FEET;THENCE S01°14'34"E, 378.49 FEET; THENCE N77°55'52"E,
649.63 FEET; THENCE S01°15'42"E, 868.85 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID AUDITORS
PARCEL; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE S87°54'07"W, 1302.79 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 48.75 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER
RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
Section II. Zoning Map. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage,
approval and publication of the ordinance as approved by law.
Section III. Conditional Zoning Agreement. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to
sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s)
and the City, following passage and approval of this Ordinance.
Section IV. Certification and Recording. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and any
agreements or other documentation authorized and required by the Conditional Zoning
Agreement, and record the same in the Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at
the Owner's expense, upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance, as
provided by law.
Section V. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section VI. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a
whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section VII. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication in accordance with Iowa Code Chapter 380.
Passed and approved this day of , 20_.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved by
City Attorne s ice .
(Sara Greenwood-Hektoen— 11/23/21)
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by _that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Bergus
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Weiner
First Consideration 11/30/2021
Voteforpassage: Mims, Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner,
Bergus. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration
Vote for passage:
Date published
Prepared by:Joshua Engelbrecht, Planning Intern,410 E.Washington,Iowa City, IA 52240(REZ21-0008)
Conditional Zoning Agreement
This agreement is made among the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter
"City"), ACT, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Owner"), and Nelson Development 1, LLC.
(hereinafter referred to as "Applicant").
Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 48.75 acres of property located
south of N. Scott Blvd. &west of N. 1st Ave., legally described below; and
Whereas, the Applicant has requested the rezoning of said property legally described
below from Interim Development Single-Family (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family with a
Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) zone; and
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the subject area is appropriate for
conservation design and single-family residential development; and
Whereas, to be compatible with the surrounding land uses, this rezoning creates public
needs to provide formal trail access to Hickory Hill Park, create pleasant spaces for walking to
neighborhood destinations, and to provide enhanced landscaping near future development; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate
conditions regarding construction of a trail connection, construction of an 8'-wide sidewalk
between the proposed cul-de-sac and 1s' Avenue, and required submission of a landscape plan
to be approved by the City Forester, the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan; and
Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2021) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in
order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
Whereas, the Owner and Applicant agree to develop this property in accordance with the
terms and conditions of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as
follows:
1. ACT Inc. is the legal title holder of the property legally described as:
PART OF AMENDED AUDITOR'S PARCEL #2005110 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 52, PAGE
143 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER
OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., IN IOWA CITY,
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS;
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL, THENCE
N01°07'52"W, 656.03 FEET; THENCE N01°41'17"W, 1094.66 FEET; THENCE N01°38'34"W,
210.49 FEET; THENCE N01°20'33"W, 538.67 FEET; THENCE TO THE NW CORNER OF
SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL; THENCE 1332.94 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY
LINE OF SCOTT BOULEVARD ON A 1018.50 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE
NORTHERLY (CHORD BEARING S65°18'23"E, 1239.83 FEET); THENCE S27°14'33"W,
924.73 FEET; THENCE S01°14'34"E, 378.49 FEET; THENCE N77°55'52"E, 649.63 FEET;
1
THENCE S01°15'42"E, 868.85 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE S87°54'07"W, 1302.79 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 48.75 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND
OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
2. Owner and Applicant acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the
principles of the Comprehensive Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code
§414.5 (2021) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on
granting a rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy
public needs caused by the requested change.
3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner and Applicant agree
that development of the subject property will conform to all requirements of the Zoning
Code, as well as the following conditions:
a. Prior to issuance of a building permit:
i. Submission of a landscape plan detailing the location of proposed shade and
evergreen trees on Lot 1. The landscape plan shall be approved by the City
Forrester.
H. City Council approval of a final plat subdividing the subject property to
conform to the zoning boundaries established by the zoning ordinance, and
acceptance of the public improvements required thereby, which shall include:
i. Construction of trail connections, generally in locations as shown on
the OPD Plan dated 10/28/2021, and
ii. Construction of an 8'-wide sidewalk extending from the subject
property's eastern property line to 1s'Avenue.
4. The conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under
Iowa Code §414.5 (2021), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused
by the requested zoning change.
5. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the
land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with
title to the land, unless or until released by the City of Iowa City. Once a building permit
is issued, the conditions shall be deemed satisfied and no further release of this
agreement will be provided. The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall
inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the
parties. In the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided,
all development will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
6. Nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner
from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
7. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the
ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the
ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at
the Applicant's expense.
Dated this day of , 20_
2
City of Iowa City ACT, Inc. 0G`/
114/
Bruce Teague, Mayor By: Gkrt y[ ;K
Attest:
Nelson Development 1, LLC
Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk
Approved by: '!
BT 04,0W K Niels
City Attorney's Office
City of Iowa City Acknowledgement:
State of Iowa
)ss:
Johnson County
This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 20 by Bruce Teague
and Kellie Fruehling as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
ACT, Inc. Acknowledgement:
State of IOW..
County of 3ek4son
This record was acknowledged before me on November 3v , 2021 by
Curr y ld l i K (name)as CR) (title) of
ACT,
Inc„
Amy Larkey-Rickels Notary�c in and for theeState of Iowa
s c emission Number 826484
MY Commbsan�res (Stamp or Seal)
MO, September 8,2023
My commission expires: SQ9I- B, tadR3
Nelson Development 1, LLC.Acknowledgement:
State of IA
County of ?el K -
3
This record was acknowledged before me on NON''t`nt e CSO , 2021 by
M ti Kt Ni Win (name) as Ma{,v,cte .( (title) of Nelson Development 1, LLC
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
.1QA
SIERRA SICILY ANDREAS (Stamp or Seal)
F Commission Number 627127
• • My Commission Expires My commission expires: I t) (27 /2022)
'a.," October 27, 2023
4
Item Number: 14.
November 30, 2021
O rd inan ce amen d ing Titl e 9, en titled "Motor Veh icles an d Traffic," Ch apter 3,
entitl ed "Rules of the Road," Section 6, en titled "Speed Restriction s,"
Subsection B, en titled "Exception s," to modify the 35 MP H sp eed zon e for
American Legion Road an d Muscatin e Aven u e. (Secon d Con sideration )
Prepared B y:J ason Havel, City E ngineer
Reviewed By:Kent Ralston, Transportation Planner
Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood and Development S ervices Director
Ron K noche, P ublic Works Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:None
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:American L egion Road and Muscatine Avenue S peed Z one Ordinance
Executive S ummary:
Currently, an existing 35 mph speed zone extends from a point 100 f eet east of J uniper D rive on
Muscatine Avenue east on A merican L egion Road to Taft Avenue. W ith the first phase of the
American L egion Road Reconstruction P roject, from Scott B oulevard to B uckingham L ane,
nearing completion, the speed limit is being changed to reflect the project design, adjacent
residential land uses and S tate Code.
I n conjunction with the completion of the reconstruction of the portion of A merican L egion Road
between S cott Boulevard and B uckingham L ane, and upon the basis of an engineering and traffic
investigation and the design speed of the new road segment, the speed limit west of B uckingham
L ane should be reduced to 25 mph.
Background / Analysis:
T he proposed speed limit change was determined upon the basis of an engineering and traffic
investigation, which considered the design of the reconstructed roadway, adjacent land uses, and
State Code.
During the design of the American L egion Road R econstruction P roject, design elements were
incorporated into the project to convert the roadway from a rural to an urban cross-section. T hese
elements sought to make the corridor more conducive to multimodal travel by including elements
such as narrower travel lanes, on-street buf f ered bicycle lanes and sidewalks. B ecause multi-
modal travel was identified as a priority for the reconstructed corridor, the design speed for the
roadway was set at 25 mph.
Recent development in the area has increased the amount of residential uses immediately
adjacent to the roadway corridor, and the section qualifies as residence district as defined by State
Code. Based on that designation, the speed limit shall be 25 mph according to S tate Code.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Ordinance
ILL
Prepared by:Sarah Walz,Acting Traffic Eng. Planner,410 E.Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240;319-356-5239
Ordinance No. 21-4867
Ordinance amending Title 9, entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapter
3, entitled "Rules of the Road," Section 6, entitled "Speed Restrictions,"
Subsection B, entitled "Exceptions," to modify the 35 MPH speed zone for
American Legion Road and Muscatine Avenue.
Whereas, it is in the best interest of the City to define maximum allowable speeds for vehicles
on public streets and highways; and
Whereas the current 35 MPH speed zone extends from a point 100 feet east of Juniper Drive on
Muscatine Avenue and continues east on American Legion Road, from Scott Boulevard to Taft
Avenue; and
Whereas, in conjunction with the reconstruction of the portion of American Legion Road,
between Scott Boulevard and Buckingham Lane, and upon the basis of an engineering and
traffic investigation and the engineered design speed of the new road segment, the speed limit
west of Buckingham Lane should be reduced to 25 MPH.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa:
Section I. Amendment
1. Title 9, entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapter 3, entitled "Rules of the Road,"
Section 6, entitled "Speed Restrictions," Sub-Section 8, entitled "Exceptions" is hereby
amended as follows:
Name of Street Where 35 MPH Limit Applies
American Legion Between the intersection of Scott Boulevard Buckingham
Road Lane and the intersection of Taft Avenue, except as set
fourth in subsection C of this section.
N.Jscat ne !! h
Avenue Juniper Drive to the City Limits.
Section Il. Repealer.
All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby
repealed.
Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a
whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon publication.
Page 1 of 2
Ordinance No. 21-4867
Page 2
Passed and approved this 30th day of November , 2021.
or 71-/S
� � '
Attest: V\r,...( Q Yl411
City Clerk (C1,2--- ,,
Approved by
City Attor ey's Office- 11/10/21
Page 2 of 2
Ordinance No. 21-4867
Page 3
It was moved by Weiner and seconded by salih that the
Ordinance as read 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
First Consideration 11/16/2021
Vote for passage: AYES: Bergus, Salih, Taylor, Thomas, Weiner.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mims, Teague.
Second Consideration
Vote for passage:
Date published 12/09/2021
Moved by Mims, seconded by Taylor, that the rule requiring ordinances
to be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings
prior to the meeting at which it is to be finally passed be suspended,
the second consideration and vote be waived and the ordinance be
voted upon for final passage at this time.
AYES: Teague, Thomas, Weiner, Bergus, Mims, Salih, Taylor.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.