HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 01.04.2023PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 4, 2023
Formal Meeting – 6:00 PM
Emma Harvat Hall
Iowa City City Hall
410 E. Washington Street
Agenda:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
Development Items
(deferred from 12/21/2022)
4. Case No. REZ22-0015
Location: North of W. Benton Street and west of Orchard Street
An application for a rezoning of approximately 3.52 acres of land from Low Density Single-
Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront Crossing
- Orchard (RFC-O) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC-O).
5. Consideration of meeting minutes: December 7, 2022
6. Consideration of meeting minutes: December 21, 2022
7. Planning and Zoning Information
8. Adjournment
If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact
Anne Russett, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5251 or arussett@iowa-city.org. Early requests are
strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: January 18 / February 1 / February 15
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
Date: January 4, 2023
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Rezoning of approximately 3.52 acres of land to Riverfront Crossing-Orchard (RFC-O)
zone located north of W. Benton St. and west of Orchard St. (REZ22-0015)
Background
At the Planning and Zoning Commission’s December 21, 2022 meeting, the applicant of REZ22-
0015 requested a deferral to January 4, 2023 to allow more time to discuss the proposed rezoning
conditions with staff. At issue was staff’s recommended condition that would require the owner to
resubdivide the property through the final platting process. After further discussion, staff has
proposed to remove the condition related to final platting. Staff’s main concern related to the public
improvements required for this development, such as the traffic signalization and associated
intersection improvements. Staff has revised the conditions to eliminate the need for a plat, but
still ensure the public improvements are installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
The revised conditions are as follows:
1. Prior to site plan approval for any development on the property, Owner shall:
a. Enter into an agreement with the City providing for the construction of public
improvements or the provision of an improvements escrow prior to issuance of a building
permit. In all cases, however, the public improvements shall be constructed prior to
issuance of any certificate of occupancy. The public improvements shall include, but not
be limited to:
i. 6’ wide sidewalk along the W. Benton Street frontage of the subject property in a
location approved by the City Engineer.
ii 5’ wide sidewalk along the Orchard Street/Court frontage of the subject property
in a location approved by the City Engineer.
iii. Traffic signalization at the corner of W. Benton and Orchard Streets, and
associated intersection improvements, which may include turn lanes, as approved
by the City Engineer.
iv. Reconstruction of Orchard Street/Court in a manner approved by the City
Engineer.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any development on the property, Owner shall
dedicate:
a. A 30’ wide public access easement over the span of the pedestrian street and dedicate
right-of-way to the City, without compensation, along W. Benton Street and Orchard
Street/Court. The area to be dedicated shall be up to 15’ wide, depending on the design of
the traffic signalization and is subject to approval by the City Engineer.
b. Any additional easements necessary to comply with the City’s subdivision design
standards.
January 4, 2023
Page 2
Public Comment
Staff received several pieces of correspondence related to this rezoning that were submitted after
publication of the December 21, 2022 agenda packet. All comments received as of December 29,
2022 are included in Attachment 2.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of REZ22-0015, a proposal to rezone approximately 3.52 acres of
property near the intersection of W. Benton Street and Orchard Street/Court from Low Density
Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront
Crossing - Orchard (RFC-O) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC-O), subject to the revised
conditions outlined above.
Attachments
1. December 21, 2022 Staff Report
2. Late Correspondence
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ22-0015
Prepared by: Emani Brinkman,
Planning Intern and Anne Russett,
Senior Planner
Date: December 21, 2022
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Zach Feldman
Aptitude Development
669 River Drive, Suite 402
Elmwood Park, NJ 07407
zf@aptitudere.com
Contact Person: Brian Boelk
Axiom Consultants, LLC
60 E. Court Street, Unit 3
Iowa City, IA 52240
bboelk@axiom-con.com
Owner: M&W Properties
P.O. Box 5152
Coralville, IA 52241
319-430-5991
Ryanwade1000@gmail.com
Requested Action: Rezone from Low Density Single-
Family Residential with a Planned
Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5)
and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard
(RFC-O) to Riverfront Crossing -
Orchard (RFC-O)
Purpose:
Redevelopment of the area to
comply with the Riverfront Crossings
Form-Based Code.
Location:
North of W Benton Street and west
of Orchard Street/Court
2
Location Map:
Size: 3.52 Acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Residential building, Low Density
Single-Family Residential with a
Planned Development Overlay
(OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront Crossing
- Orchard Subdistrict (RFC-O)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: RS-8, Medium Density
Single-Family Residential
Zone
RFC-WR, Riverfront
Crossings - West Riverfront
South
:
RS-8, Medium Density
Single-Family Residential
Zone
East: RS-8, Medium Density
Single-Family Residential
Zone
West: RFC-WR, Riverfront
Crossings - West Riverfront
Comprehensive Plan:
Mixed Use
District Plan:
Riverfront Crossings Master Plan
Neighborhood Open Space District:
SW3
Public Meeting Notification: Properties within 500’ of the subject
property received notification of the
Planning and Zoning Commission
public meeting. A rezoning sign was
posted on the site on November 19,
2022.
File Date: November 15, 2022
45 Day Limitation Period:
December 30, 2022
3
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Aptitude Development, has requested a rezoning from Low Density Single-Family
Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (RS-5/OPD) and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard
(RFC-O) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC-O) for 3.52 acres near the intersection of Orchard
St and Benton St. The proposed rezoning includes 224, 226, 330, 614, 622, 630, 650, and 652
Orchard Court; 711, 725, 727, 741, and 743 Orchard Street; 204 and 206 W. Benton Street (See
Attachment 3).
In 2016, the City Council adopted an amendment to the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings
Master Plan creating the Orchard District, which included properties along Orchard Street and
Orchard Court north of Benton Street. The purpose of the District was to encourage residential
redevelopment that would serve as a transition between the higher intensity mixed-use area
along S. Riverside Drive and the lower intensity single-family residential neighborhood to the
west. After the amendment to the Master Plan, the City Council adopted an amendment to the
zoning code to incorporate Orchard District standards into the Riverfront Crossings Form-Based
Code. The zoning standards were adopted to ensure that buildings are complementary in mass
and scale to the adjacent single-family neighborhood. This zoning code amendment also
included the addition of the Orchard District to the Regulating Plan.
The properties on Orchard Ct. were zoned as Low Density Single-Family Residential with a
Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) in 1981 (Ordinance No. 81-3038). This was done
because of the multi-family units that were proposed on the lot. The multi-family units were used
as a buffer for the single-family housing from the commercial uses to the east and the railroad
tracts to the north.
In 2018, a portion of the subject property was rezoned to RFC-O (REZ18-00019) subject to the
following conditions:
a. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall:
i. Dedicate 15’ of right-of-way along the north side of the Benton St. frontage to the
City;
ii. Dedicate a 30’ wide access easement running in a north-south direction generally
along the western 30’ of the vacated Orchard Court right-of-way south across the
property locally known as 330 Orchard Ct., to the southern property line of 330
Orchard Ct., in a location approved by the City Engineer;
iii. Dedicate a 30’ wide public access easement over the span of the pedestrian
street;
iv. Design and obtain approval from the City Forrester of a landscaping plan for the
subject property. The landscaping plan shall include, among other plantings, street
trees in the Orchard St. right-of-way; and
v. Execute an affordable housing agreement to satisfy the affordable housing
obligations imposed pursuant to Iowa City Code of Ordinances 14-2G-8 through the
provision of on-site owner-occupied dwelling units, on-site rental dwelling units,
and/or the payment of a fee in lieu of the remaining dwelling units not provided on-
site or as otherwise agreed to between Owner and the City.
b. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, Owner shall:
i. Construct a 6’ wide sidewalk along the Benton St. frontage of the subject property
in a location approved by the City Engineer;
ii. Construct a 5’ wide sidewalk along the Orchard St. frontage of the subject
property;
iii. Construct a pedestrian street as shown in the concept plan; and
iv. Install all plantings shown on and required by the approved landscaping plan.
The applicant has held two good neighbor meetings (See Attachment 4). The original meeting
4
was held September 28, 2022. The concept presented at the September 28th meeting did not
align with the policy direction of the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan or the Riverfront Crossings
Form-Based Code; and therefore, could not be developed without amendments to both the plan
and the code. Based on feedback from both staff and members of the public, significant changes
were made to the concept and rezoning proposal and the applicant held a second good neighbor
meeting on November 30, 2022. The revised concept presented during the second good neighbor
meeting is included in Attachment 5; however, the proposed rezoning does not require that any
future redevelopment of the subject property be consistent with this concept.
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning: The property is currently zoned Low Density Single-Family Residential with a
Planned Development Overlay (RS-5/OPD) and Riverfront Crossings – Orchard (RFC-O). As
was previously mentioned, in 1981 a portion of the site was rezoned to RS-5/OPD to allow for
multi-family development.
The RS-5 zone is primarily intended for the development of single-family residential although
some other uses such as duplexes and daycares are allowed in the zone. The Planned
Development Overlay allows flexibility in the use and design of structures and land in situations
where conventional development may be inappropriate and where modification to requirements
of the underlying zone will not be contrary to the intent and purpose of this title, inconsistent with
the comprehensive plan, as amended, or harmful to the surrounding neighborhood.
The RFC-O zone is “Intended for lower intensity residential development in buildings with street-
facing entries opening onto pedestrian-friendly streetscapes that provide a transition between
higher intensity mixed-use areas along Riverside Drive and low-scale residential neighborhoods to
the west.” This zone was tailored specifically for an approximately 5-acre area, within which the
subject properties are located. The zone also explicitly prohibits commercial and industrial uses in
this zone, except in live-work townhouses.
Proposed Zoning: The proposed RFC-O zone does not restrict density through limitations on
dwelling units per acre, but rather through limitations on maximum building height. Unlike the
other RFC zones, the Orchard zone has no bonus height provisions and does not allow building
heights to exceed the base maximum of three stories. Multi-family buildings in this subdistrict
that are two stories or greater are also required to have a 10’ stepback, intended to mitigate the
visual impact of larger buildings.
If the proposed rezoning is approved, future development will be subject to the Affordable
Housing Requirement in place for all Riverfront Crossings zoning designations. This
requirement mandates the provision of affordable housing units in the amount of 10 or more
percent of all dwelling units in the development. This requirement may also be satisfied through
a fee in lieu contribution to an affordable housing fund. The applicant intends to satisfy the
affordable housing requirement through a fee in lieu. Although the affordable housing
requirement was included as a condition of the 2018 rezoning, staff is not carrying forward that
condition as it is a requirement of the zoning code and does not need to be included as a
separate condition.
Existing Land Uses: The subject property is currently developed with a mix of single-family,
duplex, and four-plex units. In total, there are approximately 24 dwelling units within the
proposed rezoning area.
Rezoning Review Criteria:
Staff uses the following two criteria in the review of rezoning:
1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan;
5
2. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The Riverfront Crossing Master Plan describes
the Orchard Court District as fully developed with duplexes, small multi-family and some single-
family dwellings. The plan encourages redevelopment of this area at a higher density while
providing a transition between the large-scale development along S. Riverside Drive and the
single-family to the west. Development should be restricted to building typologies, such as
cottage clusters, townhomes, live -work townhomes and multi-dwelling buildings that are
designed and scaled in a manner that is complementary to the rhythm and scale of the single-
family neighborhood located to the south and west, where the goal is to preserve the existing
housing stock. The Riverfront Crossing Plan also has objectives to improve the design quality of
development and create better and more visible street access for the Orchard District.
The figure to the right shows an
excerpt from the Riverfront Crossing
Master Plan that lists the plan
objectives, desired development
character for the district, and the
types of development envisioned for
this area. The proposed rezoning
would satisfy several of these
objectives. It would allow
development that would create a
transition from larger-scale mixed
use and commercial buildings along
S. Riverside Dr. to single family
housing to the west of the district.
Rezoning the property to RFC-O will
facilitate the type of redevelopment
envisioned for this area in the
Downtown and Riverfront Crossings
Master Plan. Development in this
area would be required to go
through the staff Design Review
Committee and comply with the
Riverfront Crossings Form-Based Code, which is the intent of the adopted policy direction for
this area.
6
Compatibility with Existing
Neighborhood Character: The proposed
rezoning is distinct from a typical rezoning
in that the impetus for the Orchard zone’s
creation was to ensure neighborhood
compatibility. It was expressly created to
provide a transitional buffer between the
more intensive development allowed in the
Riverfront Crossings – West Riverfront
(RFC-WR) zone to the east and the
existing Medium Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-8) to the west. To ensure
neighborhood compatibility the zone
restricts height to three stories and
requires an increased setback of 30’ from
adjacent residential uses. In addition, the
Regulating Plan (see figure at right)
includes a north/south pedestrian street
that ensures more than one building, which
helps to break up the mass and scale of
any redevelopment. Staff is recommending
as a condition of the rezoning that a 30’
public access easement be dedicated over
the span of the pedestrian street. The
condition from the 2018 rezoning that a pedestrian street be constructed is not needed since it
is required by the Regulating Plan, which is part of Title 14 Zoning. The 2018 rezoning also
included conditions related to landscaping. For the proposed rezoning, staff is not
recommending any conditions related to landscaping since the Riverfront Crossings Form-
Based Code has landscaping requirements, including the planting of street trees.
Transportation and Access: When a portion of the subject property was rezoned in 2018, staff
requested that the applicant submit a traffic study to evaluate how the proposed development
might impact traffic in the area. The study examined two adjacent intersections: Benton St. and
Orchard St. and Benton St. and S. Riverside Dr. The analysis indicated that while the S.
Riverside Dr. and Benton St. intersection would continue to operate at an acceptable level of
service (LOS), the southbound approach of Orchard St. at Benton would operate at an
unacceptable LOS E during the AM peak hour and a LOS F during the PM peak hour.
The proposed rezoning in 2018, which included a portion of the subject property, was
anticipated to create an additional 20-30 peak hour trips during AM and PM peak hours
(approximately 7:30 A.M. to 8:30 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. to 5:30 P.M.). The proposed rezoning
being considered now would result in substantially more traffic generation. Since the area under
consideration would result in additional traffic than previously contemplated, staff recommends a
condition that the intersection of Benton St. and Orchard St. be signalized. Signalization may
also require intersection improvements, such as turn lanes, as well as dedication of additional
right-of-way which is also required by the proposed rezoning condition.
There are also other transportation related conditions that staff recommends be carried forward
from the previous rezoning. These include the construction of a 6’ wide sidewalk along W.
Benton Street, the construction of a 5’ wide sidewalk along Orchard Street, and the dedication
of right-of-way along W. Benton Street and Orchard Street. Lastly, staff is recommending a
condition that Orchard Street be reconstructed in a manner approved by the City Engineer.
There is one condition related to access from the 2018 rezoning that staff is not recommending
7
as part of this rezoning. Specifically, a condition related to the dedication of a 30’ wide
north/south access easement along the western edge of the property is no longer needed. This
condition was contemplated with the previous rezoning in case an additional access point was
needed to address traffic. Instead, staff is recommending signalization.
Neighborhood Open Space: According to section 14-5K of the City code, dedication of public
open space or fee in lieu of land dedication is addressed at the time of final platting for residential
subdivisions. As part of a condition of the rezoning, staff is recommending that the area be re-
subdivided through the final plat process due to the required signalization and infrastructure
improvements that are needed. During the subdivision process the neighborhood open space
requirement will be evaluated.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council will hold a
public hearing on the proposed rezoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of REZ22-0015, a proposal to rezone approximately 3.52 acres of
property near the intersection of W. Benton Street and Orchard Street/Court from Low Density
Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront
Crossing - Orchard (RFC-O) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC-O), subject to the following
conditions:
1. Prior to site plan approval, Owner shall re-subdivide the property through the final
plat process.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall:
a. Dedicate a 30’ wide public access easement over the span of the pedestrian
street.
b. Dedicate right-of-way to the City, without compensation, along W. Benton Street
and Orchard Street/Court. The area to be dedicated shall be up to 15’ depending
on the design of the traffic signalization and is subject to approval by the City
Engineer.
3. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, Owner shall:
a. Construct a 6’ wide sidewalk along the W. Benton Street frontage of the
subject property in a location approved by the City Engineer.
b. Construct a 5’ wide sidewalk along the Orchard Street/Court frontage of the
subject property in a location approved by the City Engineer.
c. Install traffic signalization at the corner of W. Benton and Orchard Streets,
and associated intersection improvements, which may include turn lanes, as
approved by the City Engineer.
d. Reconstruct Orchard Street/Court in a manner approved by the City
Engineer.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Rezoning Exhibit
4. Summary Report from Good Neighbor Meetings
5. Development Concept
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
W BENTON ST S RIVERSIDE DROLIVE STORCHARDCT
S RIVERSIDE CT
ORCHARD STORCHARD
C
TGIBLIN DRµREZ22-0015
The Marshall - Orchard Ct. and Benton St.
Prepared By: Emani Brinkman
Date Prepared: November 2022
0 0.03 0.050.01 Miles
An application submitted by Axiom Consultants, on behalf of Aptitude
Development for approval of a rezoning of approximately 3.52 acres of
property located north of W Benton Street and west of Orchard Court from
Low Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay
(OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard Subdistrict (RFC-O) to
Riverfront Crossing - Orchard Subdistrict (RFC-O).
W BENTON ST S RIVERSIDE DROLIVE STORCHARDCT
S RIVERSIDE CT
ORCHARD STORCHARD
C
TGIBLIN DRRS8
RFC-O
RS8
RFC-WR
RS8
RFC-WR
RS5
RFC-WR
RS8
CC2
CC2
RFC-WR
CC2
CC2
RFC-O
RM20
CC2
RFC-WR
µREZ22-0015
The Marshall - Orchard Ct. and Benton St.
Prepared By: Emani Brinkman
Date Prepared: November 2022
0 0.03 0.050.01 Miles
An application submitted by Axiom Consultants, on behalf of Aptitude
Development for approval of a rezoning of approximately 3.52 acres of
property located north of W Benton Street and west of Orchard Court from
Low Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay
(OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard Subdistrict (RFC-O) to
Riverfront Crossing - Orchard Subdistrict (RFC-O).
L =3 0 8 .5 2 ,R =2 1 0 0 .0 0
N89° 49' 34"W
39.75'
S88° 45' 44"W 152.48'
S03° 36' 17"E 15.11'
S88° 48' 09"W 65.15'S03° 35' 55"E 212.99'S03° 31' 34"E 107.23'N88° 29' 36"E 32.73'
S79° 15' 13"E 24.07'
N88° 44' 41"E 32.00'
L
=
7
1.07,R=70.0 0
S11° 56' 42"E
15.35'
L=10
6
.
4
3,R=50.00S08° 00' 47"W 114.47'N03° 16' 18"W 159.64'S89° 10' 09"W 217.59'N03° 33' 33"W 142.68'S00° 38' 36"E 260.20'0 25 50
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT BOUNDARY:
ZONING INFORMATION:
CURRENT ZONINGS: OPD/RS-5 - 1.63 ACRES
(PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY/LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY)
RFC-O - 1.89 ACRES
(RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS - ORCHARD SUBDISTRICT)
PROPOSED ZONING: RFC-O - 3.52 ACRES
APPLICANT INFORMATION:
PREPARED BY:
AXIOM CONSULTANTS, LLC
C/O BRIAN BOELK
60 E. COURT STREET, UNIT 3
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
319-519-6220
BBOELK@AXIOM-CON.COM
ALL OF LOTS 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 8 OF ORCHARD COURT SUBDIVISION, AND ALL OF LOTS 1 THRU 5 OF BLOCK 4 OF
CARTWRIGHT'S ADDITION TO IOWA CITY, AND VACATED ALLEYS ADJOINING BLOCK 4 OF CARTWRIGHT'S ADDITION TO
IOWA CITY, AND ALL THE VACATED RIGHT OF WAY OF SOUTH RIVERSIDE COURT WEST OF ORCHARD STREET, ALL IN
THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 4 OF SAID ORCHARD COURT SUBDIVISION THENCE ALONG THE EAST
LINE OF SAID LOT 4 S08°00'47”W, 114.47 FEET TO THE NORTH ROW LINE OF ORCHARD COURT; THENCE 106.43 FEET
ALONG SAID NORTH LINE ON A 50.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY (CHORD BEARING S21°21'44”E, 87.44
FEET); THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE S11°56'42”E, 15.35 FEET; THENCE 71.07 FEET ALONG SAID NORTH LINE ON A
70.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY (CHORD BEARING S62°10'07”E, 68.06 FEET); THENCE ALONG
SAID NORTH LINE N88°44'41”E, 32.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE S79°15'13”E, 24.07 FEET; THENCE
ALONG SAID NORTH LINE N88°29°36”E, 32.73 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID ORCHARD STREET; THENCE ALONG
SAID EAST LINE S03°31'34”E, 107.23 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE S03°35'55”E, 212.99 FEET TO THE NORTH
ROW LINE OF WEST BENTON STREET; THENCE S88°48'09”W, 65.15 FEET TO THE WEST ROW LINE OF ORCHARD STEET;
THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE S03°36'17”E, 15.11 FEET TO THE NORTH ROW LINE OF WEST BENTON STREET;
THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE S88°45'44”W, 152.48 FEET; THENCE N03°33'33”W, 142.68 FEET; THENCE
S89°10'09”W, 217.59 FEET; THENCE N03°16'18”W, 159.64 FEET; THENCE N89°49'34”W, 39.75 FEET; THENCE
N00°38'36”W, 260.20 FEET TO THE SOUTH ROW LINE OF THE IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD; THENCE 308.52 FEET
ALONG A 2100.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTH (CHORD BEARING N85°21'59”E, 308.24 FEET TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNING.
THE PROJECT BOUNDARY CONTAINS 4.35 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF
RECORD.
THE PROPOSED REZONING AREA EXCLUDES THE EXISTING ORCHARD COURT PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND CONTAINS
3.52 ACRES AS HATCHED ON THIS EXHIBIT.
APPLICANT:
APTITUDE DEVELOPMENT
C/O ZACHARTY FELDMAN
669 RIVER DRIVE, SUITE 402
ELMWOOD PARK, NJ 07407
201-275-1787
ZF@APTITUDE.COM
REZONING EXHIBIT
THE MARSHALL
IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
IOWA INTERSTATE RAI
L
R
O
A
D
731 S RIVERSIDE DR
ZONING: RFC-WR
PROJECT LOCATION MAP:
(NOT TO SCALE)
PROJECT
LOCATION
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Nov 16, 2022 - 11:07am S:\PROJECTS\2021\210204\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Plats\210204 - Rezoning Exhibit.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:1 OF 1 APTITUDE DEVELOPMENTREZONING EXHIBITTHE MARSHALLORCHARD CTIOWA CITY, IOWA, 52246NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION21-0204 BOELKORCHARD CTW BENTON ST
ORCHARD ST629 S RIVERSIDE DR
ZONING: RFC-WR
245 S RIVERSIDE CT
ZONING: RFC-WR
536 OLIVE ST
ZONING: RS8537 OLIVE ST
ZONING: RS8
PARCEL ID: 1016183001
ZONING: RS8
702 GIBLIN DR
ZONING: RS8
706 GIBLIN DR
ZONING: RS8
710 GIBLIN DR
ZONING: RS8
714 GIBLIN DR
ZONING: RS8
718 GIBLIN DR
ZONING: RS8
722 GIBLIN DR
ZONING: RS8
314 W BENTON STZONING: RS8312 W BENTON STZONING: RS8308 W BENTON STZONING: RS8302 W BENTON STZONING: RS8GIBLIN DR809 ORCHARD STZONING: RS8205 W BENTON STZONING: RS8213 W BENTON STZONING: RS8215 W BENTON STZONING: RS8221 W BENTON STZONING: RS8225 W BENTON STZONING: RS8229 W BENTON STZONING: RS8303 W BENTON STZONING: RS8313 W BENTON STZONING: RS8321 W BENTON STZONING: RS8325 W BENTON STZONING: RS8121 W BENTON ST
ZONING: CC2
801 S RIVERSIDE DRZONING: CC2EXISTING ZONING: OPD/RS-5
PROPOSED ZONING: RFC-O
PARCEL ID: 1016188012ZONING: RS8224 W BENTON STZONING: RS8220 W BENTON STZONING: RS8218 W BENTON STZONING: RS8627 ORCHARD CT
ZONING: RFC-WR
EXISTING ZONING: RFC-O
PROPOSED ZONING: RFC-O
From:Brian Boelk
To:Anne Russett; Michael Welch
Subject:RE: [External] Orchard & Benton Rezoning
Date:Friday, December 16, 2022 7:16:32 AM
Attachments:image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
image009.png
image010.png
image011.png
image012.png
logo-charcoalandorange-linear-transparent-email_38c9a8be-ef67-4f1f-b5f3-7cbfaec9ab75.png
079_sm_fb_d4769f35-474f-4861-a58e-099aa5cfa8d3.png
079_sm_in_d8061d26-6e17-45d8-b821-e3b73de5d846.png
079_sm_twitter_73f8f4e9-8864-400f-9100-349a7b839898.png
079_sm_insta_b9829f39-ea7b-4ffb-9e4e-d1a11d6e4972.png
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
Please see below Anne from the first meeting. Will send you a separate email with comments from
second meeting.
Good Neighbor Meeting – September 28, 2022
11 attendees
Short presentation given and then Open House w/ Q&A
Notes from discussion with the Rew Family:
They have lived in this house for 44 years. Their son lives in the house adjacent to the west,
and their daughter lives in the house directly adjacent to their son. Thus, the Rew family
resides in the three parcels directly adjacent to our project along Benton Street.
Noted that the proposed Fire Lane/Access on the west side would be right next to their
existing drive and they would see a lot of cars in and out every day.
Extremely concerned with the size of the building, and in particular the height (3 stories) that
will be 65’ from their existing house. Noted the concern of those living in the new building
being able to look down into/onto their house.
Concerned that it is student living and the number of units proposed.
They asked about patios overlooking that west side and asked whether there would be
windows (and how many) overlooking their house.
They asked if the front units facing Benton could be lowered so that only 1 or 2 stories rather
than 3. Or, could the building be pushed back further from the ROW (to the north) so more in
line with their garage rather than house. I explained to them that there is a maximum setback
from the ROW as part of the zoning code so this was not possible. Concerned with losing
sunlight into their property and the view they currently have looking down Benton Street.
They are concerned with affordable housing being provided in this building and would rather
see the 10% requirement getting taken care of via fee in lieu of. They would rather not see
affordable housing next to them.
There was a lot of discussion regarding the drainageway (creek). Turns out, the gentleman
loves that the creek is in their backyard and is hoping that can remain in some fashion. His
wife has been concerned with erosion along the creek for some time now and fine with that
waterway moving away from or off property. The husband noted the best situation would be
to keep it as close as possible but improve the waterway by stabilizing and controlling erosion.
Many questions as to screening between the proposed building and their yard/house. Also
questions on exterior look, but they did like the idea that this would look more like
townhomes/townhouses.
Comments from other attendees:
Why one large building? That building is really large. That is too big.
Neighborhood character. Currently older, traditional small-scale houses. They assume new
building will have a more modern design appearance and worry about how the two fit (or
don’t fit) together
Existing “green space” associated with 224, 226, and 230 Orchard Ct is desirable. Micro-
neighborhood around those properties. The three buildings to the north can/need to go but
the stuff south of those has a feel that fits well in the neighborhood.
Previous rezoning & overall River Front Crossings in Comp Plan protected / buffered the
neighborhood by keeping single-family houses along Benton. Transition occurred in back
yards. Three story building along Benton will “tower over” the surrounding single-family
properties.
The Rews (302 W Benton) felt like the previously approved rezoning was too close and too
large but at least the other properties along Benton weren’t changing.
Light trespass
Lights from cars entering and exiting building
Light from exterior fixtures around building
Light from windows and decks / balconies on upper floors
Affordable housing
River Front Crossings district incentivizes student housing closer to campus (height
bonus if within 1,000 feet)
Miller-Orchard neighborhood seen has a location to reinvest in the existing housing
stock rather than replace
Students vs non-student
Displacing existing residents and likely higher rents
Some did NOT want affordable housing as they were concerned with those results in as
far as care, look, and those who may live there.
Student housing not seen as a need in this neighborhood or a desirable use
Traffic
There is already a lot of traffic on Benton
Will signals be required? If so, they are really close to Benton / Riverside intersection
What will impacts be to Hudson & Miller Streets? People already use those to cut over
to Highway 1. How much worse will this development make it?
Currently appears to be parking shortage because of number of cars ticketed on
Orchard Ct
Positive comments
The townhouse-style along the southern portion of the building was seen as a positive
Re-aligning/shortening Orchard Ct well received
Eliminating the three buildings (614, 622, 630) seen as OK as it is recognized that those
buildings are tired
Several questions on schedule – how soon will this happen? One from a current tenant in one
of the rental buildings while others just trying to get an idea on how quickly this is hoping to
get pushed through.
How would this project be constructed in terms of phasing/staging of equipment and
disruption to the neighboring residents?
Thanks,
BRIAN BOELK PE, CPESC, CPMSM
Owner - Principal - Civil Services Manager
CBJ Best of the Corridor 2019-2022
w: axiom-con.com c: 319-400-1056
.
From: Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 11:01 AM
To: Brian Boelk <bboelk@axiom-con.com>; Michael Welch
<Michael@welchdesigndevelopment.com>
Subject: RE: [External] Orchard & Benton Rezoning
Great. Could you please send me your summaries of the good neighbor meetings?
From: Brian Boelk <bboelk@axiom-con.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 10:54 AM
To: Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.org>; Michael Welch
<Michael@welchdesigndevelopment.com>
Subject: RE: Orchard & Benton Rezoning
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
Thank you, Anne. We will plan to be in attendance.
BRIAN BOELK PE, CPESC, CPMSM
Owner - Principal - Civil Services Manager
From:Brian Boelk
To:Anne Russett; Michael Welch
Subject:RE: [External] Orchard & Benton Rezoning
Date:Friday, December 16, 2022 7:37:29 AM
Attachments:image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image014.png
image015.png
image016.png
image017.png
image018.png
logo-charcoalandorange-linear-transparent-email_38c9a8be-ef67-4f1f-b5f3-7cbfaec9ab75.png
079_sm_fb_d4769f35-474f-4861-a58e-099aa5cfa8d3.png
079_sm_in_d8061d26-6e17-45d8-b821-e3b73de5d846.png
079_sm_twitter_73f8f4e9-8864-400f-9100-349a7b839898.png
079_sm_insta_b9829f39-ea7b-4ffb-9e4e-d1a11d6e4972.png
We sent you safe versions of your files.msg
Sign-In Sheet.pdf
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.
Please see below Anne from the second meeting. I have attached the sign-in sheet from the second
meeting but unfortunately left the the sign-in sheet from the first meeting at the school and it was
never found.
Good Neighbor Meeting – November 30, 2022
Open House w/ Q&A
Many compliments and appreciation for the changes made from original one large building to
three smaller buildings.
Residents (specifically the Rew family) very excited that the four parcels to the southeast,
included in previous plan, no longer part of project or being purchased by Aptitude.
Everyone seemed to really like the townhouse look based on the elevation provided/shown.
Based on changes in layout and parcels involved, several questioned if the existing
drainageway would be impacted or included in improvements in any way.
Requests that lighting be evaluated and focus be made on down lighting and least impacts to
neighbors as possible.
Several questions about screening, in particular to the west and south. Would this be
vegetation only? Residents would like fencing for purpose of screening visually as well as
providing safety/security.
Many still have a concern with traffic as several noted existing issues on Benton Street now.
How will these additional units/bed impact traffic? How would a signal work at
Benton/Orchard knowing there is a signal very close at Benton/Riverside? Will additional
R.O.W. or street width be made or wanted in the future.
We noted that a traffic study has been completed, and further evaluation and design will be
required to improve the intersection of Benton and Orchard. This may and most likely will
consist of traffic signalization and turn lanes on Benton Street.
There was a question as to how many units are existing within these sites based on single
family residential and multi family apartments. What is the comparison between existing
number of units and proposed number of units.
Several expressed concerns with parking and asked how much parking is to be provided on
site. Their concern being that there is not enough on-site parking so residents will park cars
on adjacent streets and impact the surrounding neighborhoods.
Questions on intended schedule for start of construction and leases.
Asked if height still the same and we reiterated that City Code limits these buildings to a
maximum of 3 stories/floors above ground.
Though some still would rather not have any development to area at all, they were very
complimentary and appreciative of the changes made and the new proposed layout and look.
Thanks,
BRIAN BOELK PE, CPESC, CPMSM
Owner - Principal - Civil Services Manager
CBJ Best of the Corridor 2019-2022
w: axiom-con.com c: 319-400-1056
.
BRIAN BOELK PE, CPESC, CPMSM
Owner - Principal - Civil Services Manager
CBJ Best of the Corridor 2019-2022
w: axiom-con.com c: 319-400-1056
.
From: Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 11:01 AM
To: Brian Boelk <bboelk@axiom-con.com>; Michael Welch
<Michael@welchdesigndevelopment.com>
Subject: RE: [External] Orchard & Benton Rezoning
Great. Could you please send me your summaries of the good neighbor meetings?
From: Brian Boelk <bboelk@axiom-con.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 10:54 AM
To: Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.org>; Michael Welch
Late Correspondence
20 Dec 2022
Mark Falk
435 Douglass Court
Iowa City, Iowa 52246-5405
To Iowa City Planning and Zoning-Commission:
My address is 435 Douglass Court. I’m writing to comment on the proposed development adjacent to
my neighborhood [Miller/Orchard]. Large apartment buildings are planned for Orchard Street and Court
with insufficient free parking provided for the expected number of occupants.
I must protest. Without parking provided, these “developments” will flood my nearby neighborhood
with those who can’t park where they live. This will significantly and negatively impact the nature of our
quiet neighborhood. This is for the profit of developers, and is not in the interest the residents of the
neighborhood. That profit comes at the expense of our quality of life – for which we will receive no
compensation. We already have game day traffic and parking; such density which would only be
exacerbated by additional apartment parking.
Another “feature” of the proposed construction is the reconstruction of Orchard Street/Court “in a
manner approved by the City Engineer”. This is absolutely ridiculous. The street is only this fall
complete after a lengthy and total reconstruction, at considerable expense and inconvenience. This is a
gratuitous waste of tax dollars; surely there are better uses for city funds. If that project was not
completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, why was it allowed to proceed?
Orchard Street has a stop light at one end already, to add another at Benton Street would mean one
could hit three stoplights in 2 blocks distance, which seems excessive.
When City planners wanted to impose sidewalks in our neighborhood, our residents appealed to the
City Council; we were granted an exception from this “development” plan, based at least in part on the
unique nature of our neighborhood. Like a European model, the Douglass Street/Court neighborhood is
one where youngsters on bikes and seniors with walkers alike roll and stroll around our circle. My
partner is disabled and she uses this Circle as her main exercise venue.
If sufficient free parking is not provided for the tenants of these development complexes, we will suffer
significant loss of this quality of life, through no doing of our own.
Sincerely,
Mark Falk
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 7, 2022 – 6:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Maria Padron, Mark Signs, Billie
Townsend, Chad Wade
MEMBERS ABSENT: Susan Craig
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Alatalo, Barb Halm, Dan Black, Maria Story, Victoria Concha,
Kris Sehr, Jill Tentinger, Kelsey Sehr
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of CPA22-0002, a proposed amendment
to the Southwest District Plan to update background information and the section on the Rohret
South Subarea, as proposed in Attachment 1.
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends that Title 14 Zoning and Title 15 Land Subdivision
be amended as illustrated in Attachment 1 to enhance land use regulations related to solar
energy systems and to further implement the City’s goals related to climate action.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CASE NO. CPA22-0002 (continued from 11/16/22):
A public hearing on a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment to update the Southwest
District Plan, including background information and the future land use map for the Rohret South
Subarea.
Hensch continued the public hearing from the November 16 meeting.
Lehmann began the staff report with background on comprehensive planning and how it all fits
together. Iowa City has a Comprehensive Plan, IC 2030, which provides a roadmap for the future
of Iowa City and as part of that there are 10 planning districts for specific areas of the City. One
of those is the Southwest District Plan, which was adopted in 2002. The Southwest Planning
District is bounded by Melrose on the north, Highway One on the south, the Iowa River on the
east and then the growth area on the west. The reason the City is looking at this area specifically
is the plan is to extend sewer service under Highway 218 in 2023 to allow urban development in
the Rohret South subarea of this District which is the Southwest quadrant of the Southwest
District. Lehmann explained right now this area is largely agricultural because it hasn't had sewer
service and therefore couldn't be developed at an urban scale. But the City is anticipating once
sewers are put in then development will follow. The proposed amendments are looking
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 7, 2022
Page 2 of 25
specifically at that and updating background information, primarily because the Plan was
adopted 20 years ago and lots of things have changed.
The Amendments are also reimagining the future land use of the subarea, which includes looking
at incorporating form-based land use categories. In terms of this subarea, Lehmann noted not all
of it is annexed in the City, most of it is in unincorporated Johnson County. He explained
annexation is a voluntary process but the City would expect in the future that it would annex. In
terms of the total area of the subarea, it's larger than 1800 acres. Additionally, the process that
staff has done for this has been pretty lengthy compared to a lot of planning processes that they
do. They initially started looking at this area in winter of 2020, they started looking at the
background information and looking at things that needed to be updated. They also started the
initial public outreach at that time which involved sending out a survey to property owners and
folks that live within the area as well as stakeholders. The survey had 168 participants and the
results from that are included in the agenda packet. Staff also had a number of focus group
meetings with landowners, developers, neighbors’ groups in the area and with other groups that
might have interests in this area in the future, just to get some baseline feedback such as what
they like about the area, what they don't like about the area, and what opportunities to they see
for the area. This data collection concluded around April 2021 but staff did not start looking at
the area again until January of 2022 primarily because at that time there was an annexation of
approximately 200 acres, the area where sewer would be brought under Highway 218, and that
annexation was deferred indefinitely by City Council, so the applicant withdrew their application
at that time and went to the County. So there was a time period where staff wasn’t quite sure
what was going to happen with that land and paused until they had more guidance from Council.
Around January of 2022 is when staff started to develop the concept for the Rohret South
subarea, they worked with Optic Design who helped do the form-based code in the South District
Plan to develop the framework and then staff fleshed it out in more detail, including the final land
use categories, and the final thoroughfare types in the future land use map. Once staff had a
working map that they could move forward with, they had a series of additional meetings
including lots of conversations with landowners, they went to the party in the park event at
Hunter's Run Park in the Southwest District where they got some general feedback and after that
held a public open house on September 1 where they had 117 participants come and share
feedback. Lehmann noted a lot of that feedback is included in the agenda packet, all the written
documentation, as well as the interactive map that people were able to put stickers on for things
that they like and don't like. So based on that feedback, staff revised the public draft, and
completed revisions to the actual text of the Plan, which they posted on October 19. Staff revised
it again in November and there have been some small revisions since then based on errors that
have been noticed. Staff has also received correspondence throughout this time period and there
are 13 messages that are included in the agenda packet. Staff also tried to make sure that folks
were up to date and have a contact list that they've been sending out emails to and public
notices were sent to property owners within the area. That contact list is approximately 230 folks.
Lehmann explained this meeting is part of the adoption process phase, where they are still
collecting public input, but this is the final stretch and staff has developed recommendations,
which is what is before the Commission today.
In terms of the feedback that staff has heard throughout this process, Lehmann stated there
have been a number of recurring themes. One of the big ones is related to transportation issues.
In this subarea, Highway 218 is a barrier between the Rohret South subarea and the rest of the
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 7, 2022
Page 3 of 25
City. There are only two roads that go over Highway 218 into the subarea, Highway One to the
south and Rohret Road to the north. There is also Melrose to the north of the subarea, but that’s
only three routes in the District. There's lots of concerns with sole access from Rohret Road,
especially as there has been more development happening recently, and another concern is tied
to Kitty Lee Road where there is existing development. There are several correspondences in
the packet about that and about Kitty Lee Road becoming a through street regarding traffic and
safety. Some other comments are tied to the opportunities for new neighborhoods within this
area. They’ve heard a desire for a mix of housing types, but it should be consistent with existing
development within the area. As part of those new neighborhoods, there's also been a big
interest in creating neighborhood destinations, in some cases that may be commercial, and
there's been a lot of emphasis on parks and open space and trails and preserving the beautiful
rolling landscape that's out there. Additionally, there's lots of concerns about making sure that
public services are available for the area, especially schools, since Weber Elementary is pretty
much at max capacity, and emergency services as well. The final theme that came up a couple
of times, especially in the public open house, was concerns about involuntary annexation and
about what that may look like and how development occurs in the City in the future.
Lehmann reiterated in terms of the proposed amendment, staff took all these things into account
as they looked background information and revisited that section on the Rohret South subarea.
He explained the changes to the background information for the most part are relatively minor
and factual. For example, in the introduction, since this Plan was adopted in 2002, there's a new
Comprehensive Plan update that was done in 2013, so making sure that's referenced, including
a description of this update. Then there's the matter of updating maps throughout the Plan since
the current land use map is 20 years old, the subarea maps are old, and ensuring that they
incorporate the fringe areas that are currently in effect as of 2022. The maps also need updating
to show roads that have been completed like McCollister Boulevard and Camp Cardinal
Boulevard, which have a significant impact on the area. Other items are things like Roosevelt
school, which is closed, new developments that have occurred, and redevelopment within the
Riverfront Crossings area. Again, there's a number of changes that have happened and this is
just making sure that those are reflected in the planning document. Lehmann noted they did not
change the planning principles from the original plan, but they did add a reference to IC 2030.
They also removed a reference to the Carson Lake concept plan, which was in the old Rohret
South subarea. Lehmann noted there are some other subareas in this planning district but staff
did not touch those sections.
Lehmann showed an example of the old current land use map, noting there used to be areas that
were undeveloped east of Highway 218 and that's not the case anymore. He also pointed out
some areas at the far west and north of Rohret Road that have been developed since that time.
Staff updated the map to ensure that it is current and accurate and also to ensure that it includes
the new fringe area agreement boundaries as well.
As far as updating the Rohret South subarea concept, he explained that is where the most
substantive changes have been made. In some cases, it's retained many aspects of the current
plan with things like retaining the concept of a stormwater lake and park in the northeast portion
of the subarea, it's still largely residential in nature with some neighborhood commercial uses
and retains the existing planning goals. However, Lehmann stated there are quite a few changes
to the area, first it plans for the full subarea rather than having a section that is designated as
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 7, 2022
Page 4 of 25
future urban development. In the past as folks have come in to develop within those areas, and
the map is often not updated until it's happening ad hoc, so staff wanted to make sure that there
was a concrete plan for the whole area. Staff also wanted to ensure that they meet the full
growth area boundary that was adopted in 2021 so it reconfigures the location of some
neighborhood centers and adds some additional ones to ensure that most folks are within
walking distance to some sort of neighborhood center. Finally, the biggest change is that it uses
form-based land use categories and as part of that it includes a thoroughfare map. Again, for the
Rohret South subarea concept they’re looking south or Rohret Road, west of Highway 218, and
north of Highway One.
Lehmann showed the 2002 future land use map for later comparison. He stressed that future
land use maps are not a zoning code, they are just one way that shows how an area might
develop. This area has the stormwater lake and a park in the center, surrounded largely by
residential uses containing a mix of housing types. The new land use map still includes a
neighborhood center in the northeast corner, so a lot of those things are maintained. However,
there are some substantive differences in terms of the planning framework and the concepts that
were used to develop the new future land use map.
As far as residential uses, the planning framework includes ensuring that there's compact,
orderly development, that development doesn't leapfrog to areas far outside of City boundaries,
and that it's compact so that it preserves agricultural land until such a time as it is developed.
Another goal is requiring a mix of housing types, which includes single family, duplex,
townhomes, multifamily, all different housing types, and then also using form-based land use
categories to ensure that there's appropriate transitions between existing areas and new areas
and ensuring that there's an appropriate design and scale for new buildings within that, as well
as high quality design. In terms of nonresidential uses, it includes neighborhood centers
throughout that can help meet the needs of folks that live within the area and then also planning
for high levels of public services, including schools and emergency services. In terms of
transportation, they are wanting to ensure an interconnected street network with aligned streets
that help ensure safety, and also that there's a range of transportation options available.
Lehmann noted pedestrian linkages are provided throughout and also parks and open space
providing amenities near neighborhoods. This would include a regional park, there's a proposal
for a rec center and smaller area parks as well, in addition to preserving sensitive features and
managing stormwater at a regional level, which helps allow the City use stormwater as an
amenity that can benefit residents rather than just being there to manage stormwater.
Next Lehmann wanted to discuss form-based land use. The concept of form-based land use is
that instead of regulating areas by what the use is (i.e., residential, commercial, industrial) they
regulate areas by what they want that area to be like. So instead of commercial, it would be a
main street where not only is it tied to the uses that are allowed, but it's also tied to the streets
that are there and to the frontages that are allowed, it's tied to the forms and size of the
buildings. There are a number of different interrelated factors that that go into making a great
place within a range of different character zones called transects. Transects are rated from a
natural transects T-1 to T-6 which is the urban core, so the higher the number, the more intense
the land use. A T-6 is obviously downtown and T-1 would be natural areas. In this case, the area
is at the fringe of town so most of it is T-3 suburban, with some areas in the neighborhood
centers that are T-4, general urban. Lehmann noted within each transect there's still a range of
different kinds of character areas. For example, within the suburban transect, which is the bulk
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 7, 2022
Page 5 of 25
of the subarea, there's neighborhood edge and in those areas one might see single family
homes and duplexes, some cottage courts and those would largely be around existing
development. There would also be neighborhood general, which would primarily be single family,
but there's still the opportunity for duplexes, townhomes and maybe some small scale
multifamily. For the T-4 neighborhood centers there is neighborhood small, which retains some
small scale multifamily, has some larger clusters of townhomes, and some larger buildings are
possible. Then in the center of those neighborhood centers would be neighborhood medium
areas with larger multifamily (up to 12 or 16 dwelling units). Finally, there is the commercial
cores, main street areas, which is like the North Side Marketplace, for example, or what one
would think of as a traditional small town main street.
Lehmann showed on the future land use map how all those areas are laid out. He pointed out the
major streets within the area, Highway 218 to the east, Rohret Road to the north, Highway One
to the south and he pointed out Maier Avenue that goes through the center of the area and also
Kitty Lee Road on the east side. Lehmann also wanted to note that while it currently does not
exist, the future Highway 965 is a major arterial that would connect all the way up to Coralville in
the long term and would skirt the eastern edge of the landfill and would be a major arterial that
would potentially be added to this area.
Lehmann pointed out in this concept many of the features are similar to the old future land use
map with the stormwater lake, park, and commercial area in the northeast and overall it's still
largely residential. That being said, there are the neighborhood centers scattered throughout and
it covers the full subarea. He also pointed out that on the far eastern edge there are some areas
that aren't form-based land use areas, those are specifically commercial and commercial office
areas that are existing with commercial development. Staff proposes that those would remain
under the same commercial category. Lehmann also wanted to reiterate this is a future land use
map, so while it looks very specific, it is a conceptual map showing one way that it could develop,
how it actually develops will depend on property owners as they annex into the City and as they
subdivide and rezone their land. At the time of annexation, they have to comply with City
standards, which will attempt to do something like what is shown on the future land use map, but
it's not going to look exactly like this concept. This map just shows some of those general
themes that the City wants to see within the area, such as pedestrian linkages, neighborhood
nodes, and an interconnected street network that disperses traffic.
In terms of the way that it's laid out, the neighborhood edge area is generally along existing
residential developments, and again it would be largely single family uses with maybe some
duplexes or some cottage courts. The neighborhood edge is similar somewhat to an RS-5 zone.
The next land use category, T-3 neighborhood general, is still predominantly single family, but it
would also include some duplexes, it could include some cottage courts, some townhomes, and
then some small scale multifamily as well. It's a relatively versatile zone and it would depend on
the property owner as to what they'd be interested in. As they get into the neighborhood centers,
those are the T-4 areas. Neighborhood small is largely used as a transition from those T-3 areas
to the neighborhood centers. Also in some neighborhoods there may be small areas where
there's, for example, streets that only have development on one side, the idea being that it can
be really difficult to make it cost effective to build lower density homes along those areas.
Lehmann pointed that out primarily along the park to the east, where there are some single-
loaded streets, but they want that park to be a widely accessible, visible, and well-used resource.
In the center of the neighborhood centers, is neighborhood medium, where there are larger scale
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 7, 2022
Page 6 of 25
multifamily (up to 12 or 16 dwelling units). There are also the main street areas, there are only
two main street areas proposed for this subarea and that is in the northeast and in the southwest
but there are a number of other areas that are designated as open areas that would allow
commercial uses. Lehmann showed a map to illustrate the difference between places where
commercial is required, and places where commercial uses or other nonresidential uses are
allowed. He also pointed out walksheds in the areas where commercial is required, in the
northeast, and part of the reason for that is because it is right next to Highway 218 and there are
requirements about no residential uses within a certain distance of the highway. That area isn't
an appropriate place for residential, but it could be appropriate for some small-scale commercial
uses. The other area is near an existing commercial district to the southwest. Lehmann noted
there are other areas that would allow nonresidential uses, it may or may not be commercial,
those are scattered throughout because one of the goals is to ensure that most people are within
walking distance of one of the neighborhood centers. What the uses will be of course will depend
on market forces and what property owners want to develop, but there are opportunities there.
Lehmann noted perhaps things like childcare centers seems like it would be a good use for some
of those areas as they’re always looking for more of those across the City. He also pointed out
some of the other special uses throughout this area. So, in addition to the neighborhood centers,
they have two school sites that are identified, one is located next to the regional park in the
northeast and that would be a site for a potential elementary school, they're also proposing a rec
center in that area as well. Staff has identified a school site west of Maier Avenue as well and
that site would be large enough to accommodate an elementary school as well as a junior high if
that was needed in the future. There's also another park over there and a location for a future fire
station which is a need in this area. Lehmann noted there are some private parks shown
throughout the neighborhood as well, and to the west there's a large area that's a floodplain,
depending on need and depending on sensitive features, there might be more or less of these
and they might be located in different areas.
Lehmann next discussed the thoroughfare map that is incorporated in the future land use plan,
noting again it is just one way that the street network might look in the future. He pointed out
some of the main routes through the area, noting staff wanted to make sure that there are a
number of different routes so that not everyone is getting funneled to one or two roads, and the
neighborhood streets are dispersed in each of those neighborhoods. Again, the future Highway
965 will be a major arterial going through the area to the west. With the neighborhood streets,
staff would hope to see street trees and pedestrian friendly facades to ensure that it's a pleasant
place to walk, a pleasant place a bike, a place where kids can walk to school, etc. Again, this is
a future land use map so street design will depend on development but this is the vision of what
they'd want to see because that can really improve traffic safety and traffic flow. Lehmann also
pointed out a pedestrian passage network throughout the area with the goal to connect
neighborhood centers to activity generators like parks and schools so that folks can easily walk
or bike to those destinations.
Lehmann reiterated this is a huge area, 1800 acres is a lot of space, and there are a number of
different environmental factors that affect the way that infrastructure can be provided. First, t he
infrastructure that's currently being proposed under Highway 218 would service essentially the
northeast part, but to expand further beyond that with gravity sewer, based on the topography
and some ridge lines, there would need to be some additional substantial infrastructure
improvements. For example, for the southeast area to develop they’d need a lift station to the
south, for the northwest area to develop they’d need a lift station to the west, and then to the
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 7, 2022
Page 7 of 25
southwest, that's within the long-term serviceable area, but it is not currently identified as to
where the sewer service would come from. The Northeast would be expected to develop first,
because of those infrastructure limitations and the other areas would depend on additional
infrastructure investment.
Elliott asked for more detail on the walkability of the area. Lehmann explained within the future
land use map pedestrian passages are essentially a 20-foot-wide right-of-way that would allow
larger block lengths, because a large part of walkability is ensuring that there's connections so
that it's easy to walk from one place to another. With a 20-foot-wide right-of-way it would also
have approximately a five-to-10-foot pedestrian paved path that people can use to navigate
easier and it wouldn't be part of the street network, it'd be a separate network that would be
exclusively for use by bikes and pedestrians, a trail essentially.
Padron asked if those pedestrian/bike trails would be right next to a street or just its own path.
Lehmann replied most of them are through the center of blocks. The form-based zoning code is
organized to allow larger blocks where there's a pedestrian linkage through the middle.
Elliott asked about the lift stations, and why the northeast would develop first. Lehmann stated
that is what they would expect because the sewer is coming under Highway 218 roughly in the
center of that park because that's where the water sheds to and sewer relies on gravity for its
most cost-effective service. In other areas a lift station would need to be brought into the
development based on watersheds and the way that it flows. However, if a developer can show
that they can use gravity sewer to service any area then it could be developed. Elliott stated the
streets are put in when the development happens, correct. Lehmann confirmed that is true and it
is during the development process, including subdivisions and rezonings, where they get into the
nitty gritty of the exact street networks and connections and how the sensitive areas are
preserved. This is just a conceptual plan.
Padron noted the last time that they talked about a big development like this all the neighbors
were concerned about the response time of police and ambulances to reach, because there's
going to be more people. So, this plan shows a fire station there but it doesn’t show a police
station. Lehmann stated the fire station question really depends upon the amount of
development and their response times; those are the things that they track. The preliminary
plans show the fire station relatively far west in this development because they indicated an
interest that they would like to be able to access Rohret Road and the highway rather than be
located either on Rohret or the highway. Again, this is a conceptual plan so when fire identifies
that there's a need for that fire station, that's really when that would come in. With regards to
police, a lot of that's done by patrols, not necessarily tied to a central location so it would depend
on changing patrol patterns. Connectivity is really important for any future development in this
area and ensuring that there are connections to the south and the north is important and would
also help provide a response time and it prevent bottlenecks that might otherwise arise.
Signs noticed a couple of comments, one in particular in one of the letters received, questioning
why the district didn't extend to the south of Highway One. Lehmann replied the real reason is
somewhat arbitrary as it's in a different planning district and so this plan doesn't address that
area. Staff also don't anticipate development in that area for some time and are trying to focus on
those areas that they're expecting to develop first based on demand and infrastructure
availability.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 7, 2022
Page 8 of 25
Elliott noted when she looked at the Carson farm concept plan, they had noted that there were
larger lots based on the typography, and in her mind it seems like a more pleasant plan, the
concept plan just looks more pleasant. Lehmann noted as a Planning and Zoning Commissioner
what they think is more pleasant could guide their decision making, but he would say that while
the concept plan shows grid blocks, he does not anticipate grid blocks due to the topography and
anticipates it to be a lot more curvilinear. Again, it really depends on final development as it
comes in. The concept shows grid blocks primarily to show that there's connectivity throughout
the area so there are not bottlenecks to neighborhoods and that it's easy to navigate.
Wade asked Lehmann to share just a little bit from the conceptual standpoint to the point of a
developer approaching and the development and how this plan could look a lot different from
actual execution. Lehmann reiterated the Comprehensive Plan is the vision for the area but in
terms of the way that development is actually regulated, it's done by the zoning code and the
subdivision code and annexations since most of this area is not within City limits currently. So as
a property owners annex into the City, they do an application and include a rezoning as part of
that. Sometimes they are zoned interim development, if they're not sure what they want to do
yet, and sometimes they'll rezone to a specific zone and also include a subdivision with that. It's
at that point where they actually lay out block and start requiring traffic studies, etc., based on
what developers are proposing. It's also at that point they have to see where the sensitive
features are and map it to ensure that they're protected. The concept plan is an idea of what the
City would like to see and some of the land use categories that they think are appropriate within
different areas and the logic behind it, from transitions from existing homes, proximity to the
highway or single loaded streets. But it's up to the developer to propose what they want to do,
and then Planning and Zoning and Council to make those determinations about whether those
comply with this Comprehensive Plan. Lehmann also reiterated all annexations to the City are
voluntary, the Comprehensive Plan has a policy about annexations, it is only in extraordinary
circumstances that they would consider involuntary annexations.
Hekteon also noted before any of this gets developed, it would come back to the Commission
with at least three applications for the annexation, rezoning and a subdivision.
Lehmann next went into the analysis of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment noting it is based
on two approval criteria that Comprehensive Plan Amendments need to meet. One is that
circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors that come to light such that
the proposed amendment is in the public interest. Second is that it is compatible with other
policies or provisions of the Comprehensive Plan including any District Plans. With regards to the
first criteria the original plan was adopted 20 years ago and many things have changed in the
City in terms of demographics, development, regulation and policy. In terms of demographics
and development, since the time the Plan was adopted the City's added approximately 12,600
new residents and almost 3000 of those are west of Mormon Trek. The City also anticipates an
additional 19,000 residents by 2040 based on the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s
projections. Some other changes in terms of development are that most land east of Highway
218 is now fully developed and some areas are also redeveloping, especially in the Riverfront
Crossings District. Major infrastructure projects have been completed that improve traffic
capacity, such as Camp Cardinal Boulevard and McCollister Boulevard. Lehmann also
mentioned the closing of Roosevelt Elementary School, but that is a major part of the Roosevelt
subarea plan, which is a different subarea and not touched by this. Lehmann also noted
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 7, 2022
Page 9 of 25
annexations are decreasing and that the City needs to start planning for future growth and
expansion. A lot of recent residential development has occurred through redevelopment within
the downtown core, which has been important as it helps ensure compact development and a
livable city, but they also want to make sure that they're planning for different areas of the City as
infrastructure investments are being made.
In terms of regulation and policy, the most substantial is that the zoning code and subdivision
codes were updated in 2005 and 2008 and the City also adopted form-based zoning districts for
greenfield sites in 2021. The Amendment today is looking at expanding where those should
apply for future development within the City. The City has also seen an updated Comprehensive
Plan in 2013 and an updated Fringe Area Agreement as part of that in 2021. The City has also
had an increased focus on climate action with the adoption of the Climate Action and Adaptation
Plan in 2018 and an increased focus on social justice and racial equity with Resolution 20-159 in
2020. Lehmann showed a map from 2003 of the area and discussed how development is
occurring within the Southwest District. At that time Iowa City had 62,000 residents and since
that time there have been numerous new residential developments and commercial
developments, not all are within this subarea, but he wanted to highlight some areas that were
close as well. Iowa City is now at almost 75,000 residents and expects to continue growing. With
that population demand, there is a need to find housing and ensure that they can have that
population within Iowa City.
With regards to climate action, social justice, and racial equity that City Council has increasingly
focused on, in terms of climate action the goals are to reduce carbon emissions by 45% by 2030
and reach a net zero emissions by 2050. One of the problems with the current future land use
designations are they tend to lean towards the conventional zoning categories that would be built
in the area, which has some issues as it relates to climate action. First, they're often single land
use categories and low-density zoning often results in or contributes to higher greenhouse gas
emissions due to spreading out different uses and having to drive to meet needs. Lower density
also makes it harder to walk places and basically makes the personal car a requirement and
auto-oriented development becomes the norm. Additionally, as more people drive there is traffic
congestion. Form-based planning tries to address this is by looking at compact neighborhoods
that can be easily traversed by foot, bike and bus in addition to cars. It’s not to say that one can't
travel through it by car, it still tries to provide a pleasant experience with that, but it wants to
make sure that one can use more than just the car to get around. As a result, it seeks to improve
the City's building and transportation systems by creating more pedestrian friendly streetscapes.
With regards to the social justice and equity question, Lehmann noted the City is often focused
on enhancing that often by approaching it through the lens of housing diversity and affordability.
Again, one of the issues with conventional land use categories is that historically they have been
used to promote racial and class segregation. In 1917 actual racial zoning was banned but there
have been loopholes around it to try and use class segregation as de facto racial segregation as
well. That includes using things like really large minimum lot sizes, or exclusively single-family
zones where there are higher housing costs. Those items have worked with other policies that
were racially motivated, such as redlining, slum demolition, and those sorts of things and Iowa
City is not immune to that. Iowa City has racial covenants that are still on the books and 81% of
residential land is zoned for single family uses and over half of that is low-density single-family.
That again plays into both of these factors of climate action and social justice. Form-based land
use planning tries to address that by increasing housing choices, ensuring that there's a mix of
housing types, which helps ensure a mix of housing price points. Staff believes that it is in the
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 7, 2022
Page 10 of 25
public’s interest to look at changing some of these policies to ensure more diverse housing
options throughout the City.
The second criterion for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is related to ensuring that it is
compatible with other policies in the Comprehensive and District Plans and other adopted City
policies. Lehmann stated the proposed changes align with existing goals and objectives and they
did not change the goals or objectives as they updated this plan. In addition, this amendment
aligns with other policies such as the Council Strategic Plan, Climate Action Adaptation Plan,
Black Lives Matter and Systemic Racism Resolution as all of those things work together to try
and make Iowa City a better place.
In terms of land use categories shown on the map, Lehmann stated the Comprehensive Plan for
this area currently shows it as primarily residential at a density of two to eight dwelling units per
acre. It includes some rural residential and some semipublic space and open space, in addition
to small neighborhood commercial and mixed-use area. The Southwest District Plan largely
follows that pattern and includes a mix of housing types such as large lot rural residential, single
family, duplex residential, narrow lot townhouse residential, mixed use, neighborhood
commercial, open space, public services and institutional uses. In terms of the uses that are
allowed within the proposed future land use map, it maintains a lot of those similar uses, but it
goes about it in a different way and uses form-based land use categories. It tries to look at
similar building types and uses that are compatible with each other but interspersing those a bit
more than the previous plan had done, where it was a more segregated pattern of development.
The new future land use map shows a mix of building types throughout but does not include rural
residential land uses as a type nor include future urban development as a type. It does continue
to plan around neighborhood centers, but it includes more of those since it covers the full
planning area. It also takes a closer look at streets than the previous map did with a goal of trying
to look at all elements of the public realm that might make it a better place to live.
In terms of policy, the existing plan already supports a lot of the goals within the Comprehensive
Plan. There are goals to ensure a mix of housing types within each neighborhood, to encourage
pedestrian oriented development, and to plan for commercial development and defined
neighborhood nodes. There are also goals to preserve valuable farmland and open space, to
preserve environmentally sensitive areas, and ensure that there are future parks with visibility
and access. This map also ensures that those parks are open to the public with single loaded
streets. Within the Southwest District Plan, the Rohret South subarea goals support the same
goals for housing diversity, preserving natural features, streets that enhance neighborhood
quality, and commercial development that serves local residents. It also discusses things such as
adequate street and pedestrian access in space for neighborhood parks and trails, and then also
establishing focal points for new neighborhoods. The Rohret South subarea specifically mentions
a lake and park but also neighborhood centers and other such uses. Lehmann noted schools
are another good neighborhood focal point as well. So based on all of these factors, staff
believes these two approval criteria are met.
Lehmann noted staff received public comments, those 13 letters were included in the agenda
packet, and some of the concerns that are included in those were about involuntary annexation,
housing affordability and housing for seniors. There were comments about looking at the area
south of Highway One, looking at the design of Highway One and that the intersection of Kitty
Lee Road and Highway One may be good for civic uses. There was a letter asking that the Maier
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 7, 2022
Page 11 of 25
Avenue right-of-way be shifted a little bit. There was a letter from Kitty Lee Road residents who
are concerned about traffic speeds, road design, and safety, and they ask that the separate
primary street that's shown to the west be built first rather than using Kitty Lee Road as a
thoroughfare. There was a request to incorporate a greenbelt from Hunters Run Park along
Slothower for the proposed regional park and a concern the plan was too car centric and needs
neighborhood centers and more bike paths and potentially more park around the lake.
Taking these things into account, staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend approval of CPA22-0002, a proposed amendment to the Southwest District Plan to
update background information and the section on the Rohret South Subarea, as proposed in
Attachment 1.
In terms of next steps, presumably the Planning and Zoning Commission would make a
recommendation, a public hearing would be set at City Council, right now that is anticipated for
January 10, then there would be a public hearing in front of Council, potentially on January 24.
Hensch asked if this Rohret South subarea is identified as a growth area in the current fringe
area agreements. Lehmann confirmed it is part of the City's growth area. Hensch noted he has
been on the Commission for eight years and doesn’t recall any involuntary annexations in Iowa
City during that time or even in the past several decades. Lehmann stated the last one that he is
aware of that was attempted was somewhere on the east side of town but that was 30 plus years
ago. Hensch asked if there was an involuntary annexation what are the parameters that are
established now to describe that process. Lehmann stated there are parameters, but he
admitted he is not familiar with them because it just hasn’t happened. He stated there are 20/80
annexations, which is a separate process, depending on land area of land annexed. Hektoen
noted Iowa Code would govern it, chapter 368.
Hensch asked if this form-based code discussed here tonight, is this the same form-based code
that was adopted for use in the South District. Lehmann said it is the same future land use
categories and they anticipate that they would use the form-based code that's approved for this
South District.
Hensch asked if the lift stations, when those are indicated as needed, are those constructed by
the City and paid for by the City, or does the developer have any role in the construction or
paying for that. Also, are any of the two identified future lift stations in any sort of current City
plan. Lehmann replied the two lift stations are not in any near-term plan, they're just identified in
the 2012 sewer master plan as long-term projects. He doesn’t think that there's any plan for
them through 2040. In terms of who would build them, normally the City would as they are a
substantial infrastructure investment, however, the developer could build them if they wanted to
build them prior to the City being willing to build them, that's their prerogative. He noted it would
depend on development, growth pressure, and interest by developers. It's all those factors that
would lead to development and would cause the City to prioritize the lift stations.
Hensch noted looking the Comprehensive Plan, it is really just a question of a vision of what the
City is going to look like in the future and provide guidance on planning for that to happen. In
particular they are talking about the Rohret South subarea, and this is just simply some more
detailed direction that City staff has put together and then is adopted by the City to address the
unique issues and opportunities of that particular planning district but any specifics are
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 7, 2022
Page 12 of 25
determined through rezoning, annexations, and subdivisions. Hensch wanted to confirm any of
the maps that people are seeing are just concepts for a vision, there's no reality to any of those
because that will occur as there's voluntary annexations and then developers present
subdivision, rezoning, and annexation plans to the City. Lehmann confirmed that is correct and
added it's the same regarding the specific street layout, any concerns about a particular road
layout, grid layout, where different facilities or structures would be located, there is no true
answer to that as it will occur as the annexations, rezonings and subdivisions happen.
Signs was intrigued in both the public comments from the meeting and in some of the letters they
received regarding the concern about the involuntary annexation because he had not heard of
that in the 20 years he’s been here. Should an involuntary annexation ever occur, and Iowa City
has a policy against it, it would involve significant public input at that point. Hekteon stated
there's a State City Development Board that would hear that kind of application and before that
there are public notice and public meeting requirements that the City would have to go through.
Signs stated the norm is for a landowner or a developer to come to the City with an annexation
request. Hekteon confirmed that is correct.
Signs noted the other thing that he saw a lot of in the comments and the letters was concern
about the city doing this, or the city doing that and as he understands the development process,
development requests are typically driven by the landowner and/or developer and the City
doesn't own any of this land. Lehmann confirmed that is correct and the City has no plans to buy
any of this land other than maybe for a fire station or things like that. One other thing that's a little
unusual with this area is that because they are proposing regional stormwater, the City would
likely take a more active role in something like that, especially with looking at potentially using
that as park land as well. Therefore, there are some areas where the City would take a more
active role but most of the development of streets and all of that stuff is pretty much driven by
private developers and landowners as they develop their lands.
Padron asked regarding the City owning the land, there are public parks and open spaces here
and the City will own those. However, she stated it seems like there isn't enough green spaces
for her liking but remembers for the South District it was said that when a developer comes and
they develop their land, they may choose to put green space on their development correct.
Lehmann explained the City has a policy with minimum open space requirements so as
developers come in there's a formula used to ensure that there's open space provided based
approximately on the number of folks that would live within that area, three acres per 1000
residents. That will all be determined at the time of subdivision. In some cases, they'll pay a fee
in lieu if it's expanding another park. In this case, the park land that is shown on the map is the
regional park and is around 84 acres. But again, this is a concept plan and is more the idea
showing the proportion of different types of future land use categories, and then also making
sure to highlight things that they want to ensure are included in the area, such as emergency
services, schools, etc.
Hensch wanted to clarify the City currently owns no land in that area so any of these areas that
are being discussed would result from a voluntary sale between the landowner and the City.
Hektoen stated it could also come in the form of a dedication at the time of the subdivision.
Townsend noted staff spoke to the Resolution 20-159 and to enhancing social justice and racial
equity in the Community and that this form-based land use helps address these wrongdoings but
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 7, 2022
Page 13 of 25
the City needs to address that affordable housing piece. How do they get to the place that people
can actually afford these homes. Lehmann acknowledged that's tough. One of the ways they
tried to do it is by ensuring there's a mix of housing types where even if on a square foot basis, it
costs the same for new construction. New construction is often not affordable but if there are
some smaller units mixed in with larger units it would be more affordable as a result. Focusing on
a mix of housing types and ensuring that there's different housing types and a mix within each
area and within the neighborhood centers and throughout the whole planning area. Lehmann
added the City has an affordable housing annexation policy so as land is annexed into the City
there's an understanding that 10% of units should be affordable and that is determined at the
time of annexation. Affordability is defined within the Comprehensive Plan and could be both
ownership and rental.
Wade noted Highway One does not have a pedestrian lane and is that part of the plan to correct
that. Lehmann stated a lot of the times where they see trail connections occur is at the time of
rezoning, especially if there's a need for pedestrian connection of some sort. Because this is a
developing area the City would probably expect any trail connections or pedestrian connections
to occur as part of the rezoning process and as development occurs they would expand the trail
network as part of that.
Wade noted the City has seen such a drastic decline in annexations, but over a third of recent
annexations was for civic land, so what is the context of that. Lehmann replied that the City
annexed a fair amount of land for use for stormwater purposes in the South District as part of the
regional stormwater management and the sewer plant, that is the Sycamore Greenway.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Mark Alatalo (4053 Kitty Lee Road) wanted to discuss the thoroughfare map and how it relates to
Kitty Lee Road. He acknowledged that everything on this draft tonight is just that a draft and that
any development depends on plans submitted to City Council and there's a whole process for
that but he wanted to speak to the draft itself and about the connection at the north side of Kitty
Lee Road. Basically, where it makes a hard left turn, as it gets close to Highway 218, and that's
where he is concerned. He is concerned that Kitty Lee Road would be used more as a primary
road and not as it shown as a secondary road. He knows that there is a desire from the City to
get that regional park and stormwater facility there, with an elementary school and with a
recreation center, and Alatalo feels they want to do that sooner rather than later and the idea
would be to use a City road in lieu of having to wait for a landowner to annex or develop their
parcels and Kitty Lee Road is an attractive place to just tack onto the end of it. Also if there are
some utilities there a developer doesn’t have to build a whole own new road so there's
advantages and cost savings as the developer. Alatalo feels like if development of that park or
the school or the rec center is dependent on taking advantage of Kitty Lee Road in that way, it is
not fair to the 14 landowners on that road. The 14 landowners are taking it quite seriously, they
have already submitted a letter signed by nine of them on that street, and there's several of them
here tonight. Alatalo also noted Kitty Lee Road is quite hilly and if someone is traveling fast at all,
it would create unsafe situations coming over top of those hills. There are driveways on either
side of those hills that are quite close and quite blind as it is already so introducing more traffic
into that spot is going to make it unsafe for people to back out of their own driveways. He would
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 7, 2022
Page 14 of 25
not want to see any more traffic on Kitty Lee Road then absolutely needs to happen. Alatalo
acknowledged that a default way to control traffic speeds is to install speed bumps but that is
really no one's first pick of how to control traffic, speed bumps are a band aid way to solve the
larger problem of people being able to travel where they want at the speeds they want. The
solution is having land that's annexed and developed that can support a primary road and the
places where people want to travel to these larger areas like the park and the school. Alatalo
referenced Langenberg Avenue on the south side of town before it connects to McCollister Road,
people would cut up through Langenberg and it's just a rather dense residential area. So speed
bumps were installed there and are still installed to this day, even though McCollister connects.
Alatalo doesn’t think that's fair for those property owners to be dealing with traffic that was not
intended for the road, even though now there's a different road that's supposed to handle that
traffic, and they've been dealing with that for quite a long time. He would not want to see that
kind of situation come to Kitty Lee Road. Also on this map, the proposed primary street that is
the first one as someone is leaving town is a less direct path or arguably the same amount of
directness as it would be to cut across Kitty Lee Road and get back to all those areas or cut up to
Rohret Road so in this draft of the plan he doesn’t see how Kitty Lee Road would not be utilized
as a primary road. All that to say Kitty Lee Road is not a solution for the overuse of traffic on
Rohret Road, there's other better solutions including connections to Slothower, improvements to
Maier and other arterial roads going in before Kitty Lee Road is utilized. His request for the
Commission tonight is that this plan is not approved with that connection at the end of Kitty Lee
Road.
Barb Halm (4090 Kitty Lee Road) has lived on that road for 50 years and has experienced that
road being a through road, it was Mormon Trek from the end of Benton Street straight to
Highway One and there was a great deal of traffic they experienced and now it is being
considered to be returned to that and she has a lot of safety concerns. To briefly describe that
area, from Highway One it's very rural, there's the pasture and the back fence of Menards and
then you come up over a hill but before you reach the crest of that hill you have no vision of
what's on the other side of that hill. As you reach the top, there are three driveways right below
the crest of that hill, hers being one of them. Every time she goes to pull out of her driveway, she
is just hoping there's nobody coming over the hill. Now with it being dead end it's not as bad as it
was in past years. Halm also acknowledged that when there is a big snowstorm, that road
becomes impassable. In past years when it was a through road cars were off the road very
frequently and in big numbers when there was a bad storm, there are no shoulders on that road.
She invited the Commissioners to come out and just take a look at that road sometime and see
what they're dealing with out there. In closing, she shared an experience she had just this last
Saturday, a friend came to pick her up as she was getting ready to pull out of the driveway out of
the blue she said every time she pulls out of the driveway, she’s afraid a car's going to come
over the hill. Halm asked how the Commission would feel if a friend that said that to them.
Dan Black appreciated the opportunity to make a couple of comments and would echo what's
already been said here and in some of the concerns that were in the agenda packet. His three
greatest concerns really are the roads, Highway One, Rohret Road and Kitty Lee Road. He
acknowledged that this is all preliminary but from a design concept right now they're showing a
lot access on the Highway One and that might be necessary and needed, but he really thinks
that they need to be talking sooner rather than later to the Iowa DOT with regards to their plans
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 7, 2022
Page 15 of 25
for Highway One because this is a major entryway into Iowa City, it's of great importance for not
only this kind of development, but also possible commercial development down the road here.
So he really encourages them to get Iowa DOT as soon as they can on this kind of stuff. Black
also said in defense of his comments to go south on Highway One, they’ve already leaped over
Highway One and the development across from Menards is a pretty good-sized development on
the south side so that was why he thought it should actually be included. He understands it's
very nice and clean to make Highway One the boundary, but it's all so tangled up together and it
just seems like it's prudent to take a look at that. Black also wanted to echo what his neighbors
and friends on Kitty Lee Road had to say with regards to it being an old country road and it's
going to need a whole lot of improvement to make it to make it safe and make it right for this
development. He doesn’t quite know who does it or who bears the expense but it's one that
really needs to be factored in as they go down the road here. Rohret Road isn't a whole lot
better, but it’s not nearly as steep as Kitty Lee Road. He appreciates Commissioner Elliott’s
comments on the topography, he sees the same thing when he looks at the maps and the design
concepts of straight lines and that sort of thing. He has spent a lifetime on that country out there
and there's some nasty slopes and some nasty hills and it only seems prudent to design around
some of these obstacles. He also acknowledged during snowstorms getting up and down some
of those hills is extreme. Black also acknowledged he has been very appreciative of the staff’s
efforts to communicate and returning phone calls and talking through this, he has had a real
good experience with staff.
Maria Story (1223 Duck Creek Drive) lives on the first road past Highway 218 and was initially
pretty opposed to some of the development ideas going on when she first got that letter back in
January 2020. She attended the open house in early September and was really impressed with
all the thought that had gone into the planning of this property including thinking about things like
terrain and the neighborhood centers and she thinks that's been successful in other parts of Iowa
City. Her big concern with the plan at the moment is just that commercial area that's proposed
right on the northeast corner of the Highway 218 and Rohret Road. There's a lot of traffic on
Rohret Road already and while she understands there's plans to help alleviate some of that
traffic, they’re talking about developing a whole other section of the City. So, in general she is
supportive of the plan and thinks that it's a good plan but would like extreme caution to be taken
with specifically that commercial area because of the amount of traffic that's already there.
Victoria Concha (4086 Kitty Lee Road) wanted to echo all the concerns for safety on Kitty Lee
Road, she also lives on one of those driveways where none of them back down the driveways
due to the hills. When her sons who are now young adults are over and they backed out in the
driveway, she is terrified. They all turn around and drive straight down because one cannot
safely go across that road as it is with 14 homes and they know that people going up and down
that road. When her sons were young car dealerships used Kitty Lee Road for test driving cars,
and the number of times her husband ran after cars because they almost hit a child terrifies her
to think that that can happen again. Not just car dealerships, but anybody going down that road.
She has lived on that road for going on 29 years and echoes the same concern about the snow
removal. Again, they cannot get their out of their own driveways on snowy days, it will take
multiple tries and when they do get out of their driveway they can't make it up that hill. Even in
the summertime they drive slowly on that road and they know what it's like. There has been a
number of times she has crested that hill and felt like she is going to hit someone head on.
Concha added there are no sidewalks, no curbs, no shoulders, nothing, if a car goes off the road,
it goes into their front yard or into a ditch and then they have to get it out of there. If there is a lot
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 7, 2022
Page 16 of 25
of traffic going up and down the road the wear and tear on Kitty Lee Road will be immense. She
did not live there when it was a through street but did live there when they put it in the Menards
and had to live through that and the wear and tear on that front half of Kitty Lee Road is terrible.
She can't imagine the construction vehicles going up and down Kitty Lee Road to try and do
development for that number of housing that's going there. Another reason she is super
concerned, she knows this is all concept and who knows how long before it's going to happen,
and it all is based on development, but Carson has wanted to develop this area and has taken it
to the City and been denied at least twice, and has now taken it to the County, so that is just
waiting in the wings. They can say this is the future 20 - 30 years but it’s closer than that if
Carson wants to sell and wants to develop Kitty Lee Road, and if it goes through, they will all be
impacted. She fears for anybody living in and trying to get up and down that road.
Kris Sehr (4047 Maier Ave) has some serious concerns about being forced to annex. When they
bought the property they wanted to live in the country, and still want to live outside of the City
limits. She has no desire to live in the City limits and to be ignored, nor do many of her
neighbors. Beyond that, they talked a lot about Maier Avenue, which is currently a gravel road,
and she understands this is a concept and this is in the future, but obviously Maier would have to
change significantly. In the northeast section there's already lots and lots of traffic from Kalona or
from Sharon Center Road that uses that as a cut off. Lots of people go far too fast for a gravel
road to get over to Rohret Road and the more they develop that area, the more that's going to
happen. So again, if the plan is to develop northeast she thinks that there's going to be some
kind of some consequences sooner than what they might think. Her driveway is a blind driveway,
which scared her to death when her kids were learning to drive, the school bus would not stop at
her house because of the little hill that was on and they didn't feel it was safe for a school bus to
be stopped there. So that concerns her again, more traffic put there when there's not really great
visibility. Sehr also noted there's a subdivision on the west side of Maier closer and she hasn't
heard any talk about widening that road, but if they do, they're going to be taking people's yards.
One of the other people that commented about moving that road to the east, which would be
away from his yard, she can certainly appreciate. She acknowledged she hasn’t been
approached and been told if this happens, they're going to lose part of their front yard. Sehr
asked if they have the choice to say, “No, I'm not annexing and you can't use my yard to widen
the road” and that there's a lot of unanswered vagueness about saying owners never have to
annex. She owns six acres, which is relatively in the middle of that Maier Avenue stretch, so if
she says no to annexation, then does the plan get changed or will the City come back and say
too bad, you don't have a choice. She has some serious concerns about that. She also would
like to note that one of the things that was changed from the previous plan to the newer plan was
the removal of the valuation of farm ground, which apparently means they don't care about farm
ground anymore.
Jill Tentinger (4047 Kitty Lee Road) stated she lives at the very last house so the connection
would directly affect her so her only ask is that Kitty Lee Road not be connected because it
would be a de facto thoroughfare. Also they know that development is inevitable, but they do not
want to be annexed.
Kelsey Sehr (4047 Maier Ave) noted a big concern as they’ve seen a lot in the feedback is
people worried about being annexed into the City. Again, if one chooses not to be annexed in
what happens with like the sidewalks along Highway One, that's going to take quite a few
people's front yards and some of those houses are very close to Highway One, and if it is
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 7, 2022
Page 17 of 25
widened to put in a shoulder or sidewalks, people will lose their entire front yards. Same on Kitty
Lee Road or Maier Avenue. So even though the City is saying that people aren't going to be
annexed in, there's people have also lived there for their entire lives and that would be making
major changes, even if they decided not to be annexed into the City because obviously they are
going to need to widen roads, and then they're going to need sidewalks. Sehr also noted
secondly, the safety concern. People do drive up and down Maier Avenue much over 55. They
can put a 35 speed limit, but people are still going to go 65-70 and that's something that they've
personally taken to the secondary roads many times about lowering the speed limit without
anyone having any sort of solution or real concern about that.
Victoria Concha (4086 Kitty Lee Road) forgot to mention about the annexation as she is also
concerned about that. The roads and Menards already behind them, that's her backyard, is
annexed to the City. The first half of Kitty Lee Road is City owned and the rest of it is County and
she can't imagine that if everything across Kitty Lee Road becomes annexed to the City, and
everything north is annexed, and everything south as annexed, they're really going to have this
two mile stretch of land that is not annexed into the City. She knows her neighbors and the
majority, at least, are not interested in that. She also wants to echo the concern about those
feeder streets at the south end of Kitty Lee Road, that's about less than half of a mile so she is
not sure how they get five blocks in there and how they have five streets. People should take a
drive out there and take a look and see is it a good idea or not.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend approval of CPA22-0002, a proposed amendment to the
Southwest District Plan to update background information and the section on the Rohret
South Subarea, as proposed in Attachment 1.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Signs acknowledged he totally hears the concerns from the residents of Kitty Lee Road and
honestly shares the general concern about the traffic as this area develops, it's going to put a
tremendous burden on Rohret Road in particular. Also one of the things that has been talked a
lot today was Slothower extension up to Melrose, and he thinks that's going to be a critical piece
of the puzzle, some of the additional major thoroughfares coming off of Highway One, heading
north will be a critical piece of the puzzle. As far as the need to make a change, specifically
about Kitty Lee Road in this plan, this is such a conceptual plan and having been on the
Commission now for six or seven years, rarely do these things end up anything quite like what
they're drawn in at this phase of the game. The public will have so many opportunities to give
specific feedback and issues when these things do come before a Council and he is of the belief
that probably the initial development is going to happen off of Rohret Road and not off of Kitty
Lee Road coming in from the south just because that's where the development is happening
now. The landowner who has come to the City before that's where they're looking at developing.
Signs is generally in support of the plan, he doesn’t see a need to exclude Kitty Lee Road or
change the Kitty Lee Road piece of it because he doesn’t think it's likely to end up being that way
and there'll be plenty of opportunity, if someone comes forward with a plan that does show that
to voice concerns.
Hensch agreed and is completely sympathetic to people talking about the road issues but
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 7, 2022
Page 18 of 25
remember that when this comes into the City they'll have to meet urban design standards and
right now the road is at rural design standards. He would venture to guess that a right-of-way
already exists on those properties that some people probably think is their property. But the right-
of-way is actually there adjacent to the roadway and that's just how it is on all rural roads, they're
66 feet. The road may only be 25 feet, but then there is right-of-way land on both sides. He
acknowledged sometimes the right-of-way isn't sufficient to meet the design standards and then
there would have to be a voluntary agreement to purchase that right-of-way. He also agrees with
Signs that this is a broad vision and this is not prescriptive, it's simply descriptive of that vision.
He has had rezonings in his neighborhood that he wasn't happy with and they happened anyway
so he understands the intense feelings, but stressed they need to just keep in mind that there's a
lot of additional steps if this is approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and by City
Council, that when specific plans come in for the rezoning and annexations and the subdivisions,
that's where things have to have actual maps drawn and the layouts actually occur. Right now it's
so conceptual and simply a vision. He would bet if they looked at this 30 years from now, it's
going to look markedly different than it does now. He does support this because he thinks it's
really important to have this vision for this District that doesn't exist now. It's already in the Fringe
Area Agreement, all land that's adjacent the City, the area outside of that for two miles, and if it's
a future land use growth area, the City has already said how the plans are to grow into that and
they have to prepare for that. He is sympathetic to people with their concerns and acknowledged
that's why it is very important that people participate in the public process. So when these
rezonings, annexation and subdivisions occur, get your voice heard and bring these things forth,
so that it meets your needs.
Hektoen wanted to clarify if the City does engage in a public improvement project, such as
construction of a street, sometimes they do exercise condemnation authority but that is different
than annexation. However, that is a situation in which it may result in a less than voluntary
arrangement, but compensation is paid, and negotiations are had. She noted it's pretty rare that
they actually get to condemnation. Hensch added when land is taken by eminent domain, it is a
citizen committee that listens to those concerns and develops that price. Hektoen noted
appraisals are obtained and fair market value is paid.
Padron stated she supports the plan as the way it is right now.
Elliott stated she went on Kitty Lee Road and it's a beautiful area but acknowledged it is very
hilly, so she hears what they're saying. She appreciates both the comments to explain the
concept plan and staff’s help with what the concept is, she supports the plan.
Hensch stated on those areas with the slopes, there's protected slopes and there are sensitive
slopes. The City already has regulations about impinging or disturbing those slopes so these
roads will not go straight, because those slopes, depending on their status, can't be impinged
upon, or there's pretty tight regulations about that. Likely they will end up with a curvilinear
design because this is a hilly area.
Signs noted regarding the walkability factor, and they hear this in every neighborhood
replanning, the community is very strong on walkability and bikeability so the City looks for
opportunities for that every chance they can, but the reality is they have land with contours to
deal with along the way.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 7, 2022
Page 19 of 25
Wade stated he had the opportunity to go through the letters and hear the voices tonight and
appreciates everybody being involved in the process, understanding that this is just a conceptual
process at this point, and not implementation of the road is going to connect or so on. For that
reason, he thinks providing a guidance for growth makes sense. However, he does understand
the neighbors on Kitty Lee Road being concerned about the traffic on that road and where
concerns come into place as far as the topography, speed, introducing traffic calming, avoiding
speed bumps, etc. He acknowledged that would be one of the considerations in the future from
a development standpoint.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CASE NO. REZ22-0011:
Consideration of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning to enhance land use regulations related to
solar energy systems and further climate action goals.
Lehmann noted this is a case that came before the Commission on November 2 because the
Climate Action Committee wanted to make sure to address any goals or issues in the zoning
code that might prevent the implementation for solar energy systems within Iowa City. Staff
looked through the code and looked at best practices to see if there's anything else they can do
to try and enhance some of those climate action goals. On November 2 staff came before this
Commission with some proposals that included adding and clarifying some definitions, limiting
regulatory barriers within the zoning code, providing regulatory incentives for projects that are
aligned with climate action goals, and finally, a set of standards related to electric vehicle
readiness and requiring that within parking areas. This Commission provided feedback
requesting additional information on requiring chargers in addition to EV readiness and had
some requests about applying it to handicap parking spaces. At this time, staff is still evaluating
best practices and figuring out what other communities are doing because it's a pretty substantial
step to move from EV readiness to EV chargers. Staff does have some good examples, but they
don't have a recommendation yet so in the meantime, staff would like to continue with the other
three items that were proposed on November 2 and then would bring before the Commission any
EV related amendments once they have a recommendation formulated. Staff has drafted a
revised zoning code amendment and removed all the regulations related to EV readiness.
In terms of current regulations, there's two branches of regulations, one related to accessory
solar energy systems and one related to utility scale ground mounted solar, which is a principal
use. For accessory solar systems they're allowed administratively as mechanical structures, but
they're not explicitly defined that way within the zoning code so that's one of the things staff
wants to address. There are also some specific use standards related to screening, setbacks,
and design that they're looking at changing to prevent potential barriers. With regards to utility
scale ground mounted solar, those are for uses that are over one acre in size, it's its own
principal use and is allowed provisionally in industrial and public zones and by special exception
in most other nonresidential zones. It is not allowed in residential or form-based zones. Lehmann
noted those regulations were adopted in 2019 and staff is not proposing to modify those. Staff is
primarily looking at accessory solar energy systems and at some additional things they think will
help try to address those climate action goals. In addition, staff has an administrative process for
historic and conservation district overlay zones, typically everything within those zones that are
exterior improvements are otherwise reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 7, 2022
Page 20 of 25
Lehmann reiterated the proposed amendments tonight are related to adding and clarifying
definitions, limiting regulatory barriers, and providing regulatory incentives for climate action
goals. He noted the incentives go beyond solar energy systems and includes a couple other
standards as well but again there are no standards related to EV readiness in the proposed
amendments. However, EV chargers are classified as mechanical structures so that is included
in this but that doesn't affect the regulation of them at all, it just makes it clear what it is and how
it gets regulated.
With regards to definitions, staff created a definition for mechanical structures, which doesn't
currently exist, and then cross-referenced mechanical structures and solar energy systems and
EV chargers to make sure that it's clear how they're regulated. With regards to removal of
potential barriers, some of these are again clarifications, for example, rooftop mechanical
structures are generally exempt from height limits but this clarifies it includes solar energy
systems. This also notes that solar energy systems are not buildings and aren’t required to follow
maximum lot coverage standards. Some other clarifications were to change standards
somewhat, such as by removing the screening requirement for ground mounted solar energy
systems and the concealed from public view requirement for roof mounted solar outside of
single-family zones, and also by adding a minor modification process that allows some additional
flexibility. A minor modification is an administrative process that involves mailings and notification
to property owners and an administrative hearing as well. Lehmann explained as part of a minor
modification, there are certain criteria that it has to meet, which includes that special
circumstances apply to a property which make it impractical to comply with the standard. A minor
modification provides an additional opportunity for flexibility in unusual circumstances where for
whatever reason they can't meet the zoning code. The circumstance he has seen related to solar
was a gentleman who was on a corner lot and the standard stated one can't have solar between
the street and the house but the backyard is filled with trees, so they can't have rooftop solar.
Therefore they asked about ground mounted solar in their side front yard, but not their front front
yard. In that case, there was no option but this amendment would allow in cases like those an
administrative process to modify those standards.
Finally, Lehmann stated State Code allows the City from preventing new deed restrictions from
unreasonably restricting solar. He explained that's something one might see in an HOA
covenant, for example, so the City is just adding to their subdivision ordinance what is allowed by
State Code about not having unreasonable restrictions on solar.
The bigger change that staff has proposed is a voluntary regulatory incentive, whereby different
actions supporting climate action goals are rewarded with either a density bonus or parking
reduction. In other words, providing indirect financial incentives where additional residential units
means additional income which means that they can cover the cost of those improvements. Or
alternatively, less parking means less cost and they can help cover the cost of some of those
improvements. With regards to residential density, that's only going to apply in zones that allow
residential uses and regulate by lot area. For example, there are some zones where that won't
be applicable, like the central business zones and Riverfront Crossings zones because those
zones don't look at density in that way. This would apply in other most commercial zones and
other residential zones. In terms of the parking reduction, that could be used in any zone with
any use. A commercial use without a residential component could use it and the reason staff
included that is partially because otherwise there wouldn't be an incentive for commercial uses to
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 7, 2022
Page 21 of 25
take advantage of it or industrial uses. The process by which staff is proposing this would occur
is administrative, which would be through either the site plan or building permit process. In some
cases, it might occur through a legislative process, such as if someone wants to reduce the lot
size of single-family homes by using the provisions, that's going to come through the subdivision
review because otherwise they won't comply with those minimum lot size standards. Similarly,
OPD rezoning would also be a legislative process so depending on what is being proposed, it
might be legislative, it might be administrative.
As to the bonus itself, Lehmann stated it would depend on meeting one of up to three eligibility
criteria and for each eligibility criteria that is met, it would provide a 10% bonus and those can be
stacked up to a maximum of 25%. For example, if someone meets one of the criteria, they could
get a residential density bonus of 10% and a parking reduction of 10%, if they meet two it would
be 20% and 20% and if they meet three, it would be capped at 25%. Staff chose that number
instead of 30% because it's more in line with some administrative processes that are
incorporated in other places, for example, other parking and reductions in the code.
As far as those eligibility criteria, first is having solar energy systems that cover 40% of the roof
area. Second would be to use electricity for 100% of regular energy usage because
electrification is a big goal and if someone is still using gas in a property, they're not going to be
able to use clean energy to provide the energy. Finally, third is constructing the building to the
most current International Energy Conservation Code as that's another goal of the City to
improve energy conservation but because of State regulations, the City is not allowed to require
the higher levels so instead are looking to incentivize those higher levels of Energy Conservation
Code energy efficiency. Lehmann stated those are the three eligibility criteria that a developer or
homeowner can stack and if they do more towards the climate action goals, then they are
provided some incentive through density bonus and parking reduction.
Lehmann presented an example of a 34,000 square foot lot zoned Community Commercial (CC-
2), if the owner/developer met two of the criteria, such as having higher Energy Conservation
Code and 40% of the roof area has solar then they would be eligible for a 20% bonus, both for
parking and residential density. In that case, without a density bonus, and assuming it has some
commercial uses, one could expect 12, two-bedroom units with a parking count of 44 spaces. If
they took advantage of that bonus, it would increase the amount of units by three up to 15, two-
bedroom units and in terms of a parking reduction it would be a 20% parking reduction, which
would take them down to 40 spaces. So it does increase density and reduces parking but it's a
tradeoff to incentivize some of those climate action goals.
Lehmann wanted to note that minimum parking doesn't mean that they can't provide more
parking than that, in a lot of commercial contexts the City often sees them provide more parking,
for example most HyVee parking lots are above what they require. The extent of the parking
that's provided on site is often driven by demand, but in terms of the minimum required it would
reduce it.
Lehmann stated in terms of analysis, the goal is to address some of those gaps identified within
the zoning code, but then also to try to provide some incentives to meet the City’s climate action
goals. Staff would expect potential benefits to be increased code clarity, reduced barriers to solar
implementation and some of those indirect incentives that would cause developers to prioritize
these climate action priorities. In terms of tradeoffs, one tradeoff downtown would be a potential
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 7, 2022
Page 22 of 25
reduction in the amount of fee in lieu payments for parking spaces. Lehmann explained one way
that properties downtown can provide less parking on site is that they provide money into a
parking fund that's used to fund parking projects in downtown Iowa City so if there's an
alternative way that they can reduce their minimum parking amount that might reduce that
parking fund somewhat. There would also be some impacts on design in terms of the number of
units and parking spaces if people are taking advantage of these incentives. Staff believes that
the potential benefits outweigh those tradeoffs. In terms of its consistency with other planning
documents this amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which encourages
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and the Climate Action Plan with the goal to reduce carbon
emissions by 45% by 2030, and net zero by 2050.
Staff recommends that Title 14 Zoning and Title 15 Land Subdivision be amended as illustrated
in Attachment 1 to enhance land use regulations related to solar energy systems and to further
implement the City’s goals related to climate action.
Staff did not receive any public comments on this other than from the last meeting where a
gentleman raised a concern about a density bonus with a parking reduction.
In terms of next steps, Planning and Zoning would make a recommendation tonight and Council
has set a public hearing on January 10 and then they would have three readings starting with
that January 10 hearing. At a future date staff would return to this Commission with EV readiness
and EV charging recommendations, which would incorporate those comments that were made at
the previous meeting.
Padron noted in one of the slides staff mentioned the Energy Conservation Code is that the only
thing that qualifies for the incentive or could someone use LEED or the Living Building Challenge
or something similar. Lehmann noted those are all different standards so as the amendment is
currently written it would only be the International Energy Conservation Code that would qualify
for the incentives. It is his understanding that code is the baseline that a lot of the other codes
are built off of so someone could still be LEED certified and meet that Energy Conservation
Code. With LEED, someone can get points for a number of different categories, which may or
may not be related to energy efficiency and this would really be focused on those energy
efficiency requirements.
Elliott likes the incentive structure. They mentioned best practices and wondered have there
been any places that have put this into use. Lehmann stated the places that have regulatory
incentives tend to be newer so there isn’t a lot of good information or they're small towns. One of
the tricky things with incentives is making sure the incentive offsets the cost of whatever is being
incentivized. Staff did talk to some communities where their incentive wasn't enough, so staff
tried to take that into account as they developed this code. They don't have a lot of good
evidence on what's needed to offset costs but did try to engage some stakeholders about that.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one, Hensch closed the public hearing.
Elliott moved to recommend that Title 14 Zoning and Title 15 Land Subdivision be
amended as illustrated in Attachment 1 to enhance land use regulations related to solar
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 7, 2022
Page 23 of 25
energy systems and to further implement the City’s goals related to climate action.
Padron seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: NOVEMBER 2, 2022:
Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of November 2, 2022.
Wade seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: NOVEMBER 16, 2022:
Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of November 16, 2022.
Townsend seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Hensch noted his understanding is several months ago City Council approved some rules
regarding public behavior at meetings and he noted that the planning and zoning procedure for
public discussion was dated 26 years ago and wondered if they should preemptively adopt some
rules to deal with unacceptable behavior so that they have something on the books and don't
have to try to make it up on the fly. It seems it would be appropriate to put that an agenda and
consider adopting that. He noted at the last meeting there was a potential problem with an
individual and that's just the environment. Hensch noted also at the County they've had their
share of issues and thinks they should be defensive. He noted they’ve been really lucky but the
day will come where the person doesn't want to listen to reason. It was agreed to put this item
on a future agenda.
Padron asked what City Council has done. Russett noted they adopted rules for what they would
do with a disorderly member of the public.
Hensch feels this is very important, rules prevent them from being discriminatory to people, if
they have rules that they enforce uniformly across the board to everybody, then there is no
discrimination.
Signs wanted to call out the comment from the one gentleman in the audience regarding staff
and communication efforts and wanted it on record they have a top-notch staff all the way around
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 7, 2022
Page 24 of 25
and when people make negative comments to staff, those comments are not reflective of the
experience, they're more reflective of the speaker.
ADJOURNMENT:
Padron moved to adjourn.
Wade seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2022-2023
7/6 8/3 9/7 10/19 11/2 11/16 12/7
CRAIG, SUSAN X X X X X X O/E
ELLIOTT, MAGGIE X X X X X X X
HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X
NOLTE, MARK O/E O/E O/E -- -- --- -- -- -- --
PADRON, MARIA X X X X X O/E X
SIGNS, MARK X X X X O/E O/E X
TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X X X X X
WADE, CHAD --- --- --- --- X O/E X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 21, 2022 – 6:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Maria Padron (via
zoom), Mark Signs, Chad Wade
MEMBERS ABSENT: Billie Townsend
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett, Parker Walsh
OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Welch, Steve Long, Sanjay Jani, Ryan O'Leary, Kirsten Frey
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ22-0012, a proposal to rezone
approximately 31.2 acres of land located east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering
Place Lane from Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) and Low Density
Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density
Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8) subject to the
following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall contribute 50% of the cost of upgrading
Camp Cardinal Road to City standards from Gathering Place Lane to the future extension of
Deer Creek Road in accordance with 15-3-2 of the Iowa City Code. This contribution shall
include 50% of the cost of construction of the traffic circle at the intersection of Deer Creek
Road and Camp Cardinal Road.
2. In the event Owner desires to construct on-street angled parking, at the time of final platting,
Owner shall execute an agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney obligating the
Owner to maintain such spaces.
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends deferring application REZ22-0015 to the January
4, 2023 meeting.
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of VAC22-0002 a vacation of public
right-of-way located at the northwest corner of South Riverside Drive and the Iowa Interstate
Railroad right-of-way.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CASE NO. REZ22-0012:
Location: East of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane
An application for a rezoning of approximately 31.2 acres of land from Interim Development
Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) and Low Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 21, 2022
Page 2 of 16
Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned
Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8).
Lehmann explained this is a rezoning for 31 acres north of Gathering Place Lane and east of
Camp Cardinal Road on the west side of Iowa City. He stated this area is probably one of the
largest remaining undeveloped areas within the City east of Highway 218. It's been undeveloped
for quite some time and is surrounded mostly by existing development with single family homes
to the north and east, multifamily homes and a church to the south, and undeveloped land to the
west that was recently rezoned for duplexes and multifamily. Lehmann explained in terms of
zoning, the property to the north and south are low density single family residential or RS-5, the
properties to the east are rural residential or RR-1, and then to the west and a portion of the
south is low density multifamily residential, or RM-12. Lehmann pointed out there's lots of
planned development overlays in this area because of all the sensitive features, including
woodlands and a stream corridor to the north.
In terms of background, the Western Home Independent Living Services is looking to rezone the
area to allow a senior housing project with a mix of housing types and uses and would include
the development of some new streets including a connection into the proposed Cardinal Heights
development to the west that was recently rezoned. It would also allow future connections to the
St. Andrew's property to the east. Lehmann reiterated the area does contain several sensitive
features, including wetlands, streams, slopes and woodlands. This site was actually previously
proposed for rezoning for another senior housing project in 2016, 170 units, and it was
recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, but then was subsequently withdrawn
by the developer.
Lehmann next showed a few pictures of the site noting the topography of rolling hills and the
trees, especially along the north side of the property. He also pointed out the area that includes a
wetland with a stormwater detention basin.
In terms of zoning for the subject property, it actually consists of two properties. The northern
most is 27 acres, zoned interim development residential single family or ID-RS, which is primarily
intended for agriculture until such a time as it develops. The southern portion is about four acres
and zoned low density single family residential with an OPD and that OPD was part of the St.
Andrews rezoning for sensitive features. Lehmann explained low density single family residential
is primarily for single family uses so the proposed zoning is medium density single family
residential with a plan development overlay or RS-8/OPD for primarily single family detached
units, but the OPD does allow flexibility and that flexibility includes things like different housing
types and a commercial use. It also allows modifications to certain standards to the wetland
buffer, which is also being proposed as part of this development.
The proposed development would be on three different lots with a single owner and would it
include about 101 units, 35 single family, 8 duplexes, 20 townhouse style multifamily and 38
multifamily units. The proposed development would also include one assisted living building with
32 beds and then a small-scale neighborhood commercial use approximately 2300 square feet.
This development is proposed on extended streets through the area, including Gathering Place
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 21, 2022
Page 3 of 16
Lane, which would terminate on the east side of the property at the arc of the hill as there are
sensitive features primarily to the north.
In terms of the criteria used to evaluate OPDs Lehmann explained there are four general criteria
found at 14-3A and then there are also two standard criteria that apply to all rezonings. The
second standard criteria is tied to compatibility with an existing neighborhood that's also covered
by the first criteria for OPD which is tied to density and design and making sure that it's
compatible with adjacent development and looking at it from a couple different angles. Density in
terms of OPD/RS-8 zone allows eight dwelling units per net acre, and what is proposed is
approximately 3.7 dwelling units per acre, so they do meet that standard. Another way the City
looks at compatibility is tied to land uses. The proposed development does include a mix of
single-family, duplexes and multifamily uses, in addition to assisted group living and
neighborhood commercial uses. Lehmann did want to note that with the proposed land uses, this
is proposed as a senior development but that being said there's no obligation to provide it for
seniors except for the multifamily units, those do have to be provided as elder apartments
because they make use of a lower parking standard that that applies to senior housing. The rest
of the housing could be occupied by seniors, or it could be occupied by others, but the
multifamily must remain elder housing. In terms of how this works with surrounding land uses
Lehmann reiterated there's single family to the north and east, to the south there's group
assembly and multifamily and then to the west it is expected to be multifamily and duplex uses.
There are a mix of uses around the site and the development is trying to transition it through the
site. Specifically, the transitions look at having higher intensity uses to the west and south,
especially the townhomes, multifamily, and assisted group living. Then towards the east and
north, that's where there will be the single family uses with some duplexes on the corners
therefore providing a really good transition with the way that the existing neighborhoods are laid
out.
In terms of other concepts that staff look at with mass and scale they look at the elevations. Most
of the building heights that are being proposed are typical for these buildings. Lehmann noted
there is a requested waiver for building height for the two multifamily buildings in the center of
development, the multifamily building, and the mixed-use building which he will discuss later
when they get into the waivers. As far as other considerations, the developer does a good job of
making sure that the off-street parking doesn't dominate the streetscape, it's recessed for the
single family and duplex units and it's below ground for most of the multifamily units or it's
located in shared parking behind the units for the townhomes and assisted group living so that
doesn't dominate the streetscape. Lehmann also wanted to touch on lighting, the City does use
standards that minimize light and glare in surrounding properties and those standards are
stronger when it comes to being surrounded by residential uses so this being a residential zone it
would also abide by the low illumination district. Lighting will be reviewed during site plan review
as well. Another consideration in terms of compatibility is open space and that private open
spaces are provided on each or near each of the dwelling units in compliance with the City’s
open space standards. In addition to much of the development being open space anyway,
through either stormwater management areas or through sensitive features, there's plenty of
open space provided in compliance with standards.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 21, 2022
Page 4 of 16
With regards to traffic circulation, this development does propose extending Deer Creek Road
and Gathering Place Lane and Gathering Place Lane would curve through the property and end
at the property line to the east near St. Andrew's Church. Off Gathering Place Lane would also
be two cul-de-sacs and a loop street. Lehmann noted this project will also include the
improvement of Camp Cardinal Road, which is basically a gravel road right now. In terms of
access, the primary access for this development would be from Camp Cardinal Boulevard via
Camp Cardinal Road and then secondary access would come from the future connection of Deer
Creek Road to the west which would depend on the Cardinal Heights subdivision that was
recently rezoned. Staff is proposing that the owner must contribute 50% of the cost of upgrading
Camp Cardinal Road, that would include a roundabout that's proposed for the north side of
Camp Cardinal Road where it connects with Deer Creek Road. Lehmann noted that same
condition was applied to the Cardinal Heights subdivision to the west as well so between those
two properties there would be enough funds to improve that road fully and it would serve as
access for both of those developments.
Lehmann next discussed the elevations for the development. The single-family elevations are
one story, as are the duplex elevations, the townhomes are three stories, the assisted living units
are two stories, and the proposed mixed-use and multifamily buildings are proposed to be three
and a half stories with that top story being gathering space and outdoor patio space. However,
Lehmann explained having that additional half story would push it above the 35 feet that's the
typical height limit plus the grade.
Regarding the criteria tied to overburdening existing streets and utilities, generally the site can be
provided with water and sewer, one complication is that water needs to be looped so that may
occur on the site or it may occur off the site and that will determined during platting as those
calculations are done. Utilities are fine, in terms of streets it is a development with a single point
of access so to avoid overburdening the City does place thresholds on the amount of daily trips
that would be allowed. The amount of trips that they would expect at the intersection of Deer
Creek Road and Gathering Place Lane would be 309 daily trips, which is below the threshold for
becoming overburdened as a local street, but that is assuming that Deer Creek Road is extended
to the west. If Deer Creek Road is not extended to the west, that would mean that Camp
Cardinal Road where it connects with Camp Cardinal Boulevard would be the single access to
this development. However that road is built to collector standards which has a pretty substantial
increase allowed for daily trips so staff doesn't anticipate any issues even if there isn't secondary
access. One other unusual thing with this development is there's a proposed portion of Gathering
Place Lane that includes angled on-street parking and that is something that typically isn't
allowed because City services aren't equipped typically to maintain those, especially in snow.
Therefore, staff does recommend a condition that the owner maintain all of the on-street angle
parking spaces and adjacent properties. Staff does believe that the angle parking makes sense
given the fact that there's proposed small scale commercial uses located right outside.
Craig asked where's the secondary access if and when it gets developed. Lehmann pointed it
out as where Deer Creek Road would be extended as part of the Cardinal Heights subdivision,
but it can't go through until that gets developed. He added it is the same with Gathering Place
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 21, 2022
Page 5 of 16
Lane, it stubs off at the St. Andrews property, it does allow for future connectivity, but no
development is anticipated there in the near future.
The third criteria is related to effects on surrounding properties compared to conventional
developments. Lehmann stated to the north the building that's being proposed closer to the rear
property line as a single-family home would be 16 feet instead of 20 feet. That being said, the
closest development is located across a woodland preservation area and stream corridor so it's
not particularly close and staff doesn’t anticipate any more impacts than a conventional
development. To the east there is a pipeline easement that creates more than a 30-foot buffer
and that's further than would typically be in a conventional development as well. However, to the
west and south those setbacks are typical for single family zones and staff doesn't think that
there are going to be any impacts beyond the conventional development given those factors.
Regarding land uses, building types and modified requirements, all are in the public interest.
Lehmann stated there are several waivers that are requested as part of this application. For
example, there's a rear setback waiver from 20 feet to 16 feet for the single family home to the
north, there's a requested front setback reduction from 20 feet to 15 feet for three of the
townhomes along Gathering Place Lane and Deer Creek Road, there's a front setback reduction
from 25 feet to 15 feet for single family homes on the cul-de-sacs and as part of that for single
family homes that would also typically require that the first floor is elevated 30 inches above the
sidewalk, but they have requested a waiver from that as well because it's a senior housing
development and they want zero entry access. In terms of other building bulk standards, they
are requesting a waiver to increase the height for the multifamily buildings from 35 feet to 45 feet
to accommodate the additional half story on those buildings for gathering space and it would also
adjust for the grade that is on the property. The applicant is also proposing a mix of uses that
would not typically be in an RS-8 zone including single family, duplex, multifamily and assisted
group living, as well as a small-scale neighborhood commercial use. Lehmann explained
generally OPDs encourage a mix of uses and encourage commercial uses within mixed use
buildings that provide or help meet the needs of those living in the area. The final request for a
waiver is to reduce the onsite parking for the neighborhood commercial use reducing it from nine
spaces to seven spaces and again that is something allowed under the OPD zone for
commercial uses if it helps preserve sensitive areas. In this case the only place where those two
additional spaces could be added would be to the off-street parking lot to the north, which is right
next to sensitive features, so staff believes that criteria is met, especially considering the fact that
there's proposed on-street diagonal parking that would help meet the needs of this commercial
use that don't get counted towards this minimum parking requirement.
Moving onto the factors that are considered for all rezonings, first is compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan. This area is shown as having two to eight dwelling units an acre, there is
no Northwest District Plan that's adopted so staff just go by the Comprehensive Plan. There's
also a number of goals in the Comprehensive Plan related to housing diversity, connected
neighborhoods and contiguous neighborhoods, pedestrian oriented development, and
preservation of sensitive features. One that's a little more complicated is tied to street
connectivity but in this case it is a challenging site and there's not a lot of places to get access or
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 21, 2022
Page 6 of 16
where they can provide street stubs to adjacent properties. This proposal does include the Deer
Creek Road extension and connecting to the St. Andrews property, however there are no areas
to connect to the east or north because of sensitive features and the layout of those
neighborhoods. So given the extent possible, they do provide connectivity as to what would be
allowed on that site.
Lehmann stated there's the sensitive areas portion of this and a level two review is required,
which is a review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council that is tied to
reducing the wetland buffer from 100 feet to 50 feet. That being said, there's also a stream,
slopes and wooded areas on the site and staff also looked at archaeological sites. In terms of the
jurisdictional wetlands, the wetland area on this site is pretty small, just 0.04 acres. Typically, that
would require 100-foot buffer around the wetlands but it may be reduced to a 50 foot buffer with
a level two review and if certain standards are met and certified by a wetland specialist. In this
case there is a memo from the wetland specialist in the agenda packet that looks at those
different criteria. Staff has also reviewed the background information including information on
endangered species on the wetland itself and staff does concur with the findings by the wetland
specialist. Cardinal Creek is on the very north side of the property but it is located far enough
from construction boundaries that it's not really a factor in this. There are approximately 6.5
acres of woodlands on the property and to avoid a level two review they have to retain 50% of
that, and also provide a buffer. 52% of the woodlands are retained in this development and only
approximately 19% of the woodlands are impacted, the rest of the acreage is included within that
buffer area. In terms of slopes, there are numerous slopes on the property but a lot of the
steepest slopes are located at the northern part of the property and level two reviews are only
required if more than 35% of critical slopes are impacted or if the protected slopes or their buffers
are impacted. In this case, they've avoided the protected slopes and their buffers and have only
impacted 31% of critical slopes so this meets the standards for administrative review. With
regard to archaeological sites, a phase one study was completed in 2022 and no artifacts were
identified and no further work was recommended.
Finally, to touch on neighborhood open space standards which are required by 14-5K either by
providing open space on site or paying a fee in lieu of it, that’s addressed at final platting but in
this case with 31.2 acres in an RS-8 zone, it would require dedication of 1.08 acres or a fee of
approximately $140,000.
With regard to correspondence staff didn't receive any written correspondence on this
application. There was a good neighbor meeting held.
Staff recommends approval of REZ22-0012, a proposal to rezone approximately 31.2 acres of
land located east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane from Interim
Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) and Low Density Single-Family Residential with
a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density Single-Family Residential with
a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8) subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall contribute 50% of the cost of
upgrading Camp Cardinal Road to City standards from Gathering Place Lane to the
future extension of Deer Creek Road in accordance with 15-3-2 of the Iowa City Code.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 21, 2022
Page 7 of 16
This contribution shall include 50% of the cost of construction of the traffic circle at the
intersection of Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal Road.
2. In the event Owner desires to construct on-street angled parking, at the time of final
platting, Owner shall execute an agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney
obligating the Owner to maintain such spaces.
In terms of next steps, presuming there is a recommendation tonight for City Council, staff
anticipates setting the hearing on January 10 for consideration by Council on January 24, there
would be the hearing, and then there'll be two additional readings beyond that.
Hensch asked from the 2016 rezoning application, which was a different applicant, are these the
same parcel boundaries. Lehmann believes it was just the north part of the site and it was 170
units in that proposal, including a mix of some assisted living as well as independent living all in
one building.
Hensch has tried to read the topographic map and the elevations, but it looks like it generally
slopes from east to west with a lot of elevation changes and there's a ridge line that runs along
the bowl of it. Lehmann showed an aerial of the north portion of the site noting the ridge line
follows the street essentially and it slopes north, east and west, depending on where they are on
the property. On the south side of the site it generally slopes to the south.
Hensch asked that mostly just for issues with lighting and lighting glare for the people in the
Walnut Ridge neighborhood or people concerned about that and could Lehmann talk a little bit
about the downcast lighting requirements for the City and would that be for any parking areas
that have streetlights with that. Lehmann explained shielding is generally required if a volt is
above a certain amount. There are also requirements towards total light output and that's where
the low illumination standard comes in and that's the lowest standard that would be allowed. The
idea is to avoid just general glare and then there's also standards about not having light trespass
on the surrounding properties for residential uses. Finally, there's limits on pole height and a
couple other things that try to limit the impacts on surrounding properties.
Hensch remembers from the 2016 conversation, the predominant thing they heard from the
neighbors to the east was about view shed disruption and the bulk size of the building, but the
larger building is now down in that south westerly portion for this application correct. Lehmann
said it would be in the west central between the two properties.
Craig asked about the clubhouse and if that is for the whole development, not just the people
who live in the 16 residential units. Lehmann confirmed it'd be available for anyone who lives
within this development. The clubhouse building does have space on the ground floor, including
a cafe that's available to residents, a gym that's available to residents, and then the gathering
space on the roof.
Signs had a question about the cul-de-sac on the east end of Gathering Place Lane and for all
practical purposes he doesn’t think that road is going to be extended anywhere, would staff
agree or disagree with that assessment. Lehmann agreed there are significant challenges to
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 21, 2022
Page 8 of 16
extending it to the south, there is another stream corridor and there are cost limitations that
would apply.
Signs noted they hear over and over the City doesn’t like cul-de-sacs anymore, for example they
had a significant development on the west side that involve sensitive land and it was modified
extensively because there was a cul-de-sac proposed on it so he was a little surprised to see
this.
Wade asked if he understands correctly that there's a waiver request for the single family from 25
to 15 feet. Lehmann states it is from 20 feet to 16 feet for the northern most lot, lot nine and also
for the cul-de-sac bulbs there's a larger front setback that's required than typical. So instead of
the typical 15 feet, which is what the single family typically is, there's a 25-foot requirement on
the bulb of the cul-de-sac, so that's the waiver that's being requested. Additionally, that's also
what triggers the 30 inches above grade standard that they're requesting another waiver from.
Wade also asked about the assisted living building at the southwest corner of Deer Creek Road
and Gathering Place Lane, he assumes that's going to be a staffed facility so where is the
associated staff parking. Lehmann stated he believes one parking space per staff person is
anticipated and one for every three beds within the facility for the residents, therefore they do
provide enough parking on site.
Padron asked for clarification on when it says illumination cannot exceed 0.5 initial horizontal
foot-candles and 2.0 initial maximum foot-candles at any property line adjacent to or across the
street so only on property lines adjacent to the street, will two be the maximum, but then in the
rest of the property lines it will be 0.5. Lehmann stated that would apply to any lot line that is by a
residential use, which he believes is almost all property lines with this specific property. The
horizontal foot candles are measured at a certain height above grade and in lumens so when
they submit a site plan they do a lighting analysis and staff makes sure it’s within the thresholds
for light trespass on adjacent properties.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Mike Welch (Welch Design and Development) is representing the applicant, also present tonight
is Sanjay Jani from AKAR and he's doing the architecture for everything other than the memory
care assisted living building and also in attendance is Steve Long who is the developer’s
representative for the project, so between the three of them, hopefully they can answer all the
questions. Welch began by noting this has been a challenging site and they've worked on it for a
number of years with different people. With Western Home, it's an exciting use of the various
uses that they're proposing and they don’t usually see that much variation across the site. The
addition of the 2300 square feet for neighborhood commercial is exciting to have a place for their
residents, but also for Cardinal Heights and other people in the neighborhood, since there's not
much else out there. So that is another good positive use of the site. Welch noted they did have
a good neighbor meeting and during that that meeting one of the things they heard most of from
the neighbors to the east and north was what the impact would be on those sensitive areas.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 21, 2022
Page 9 of 16
Welch reiterated that they are meeting the code requirements and feel real confident and good
about that.
Hensch noted during the good neighbor meetings in 2016 he remembers a consideration of that
application, which the Commission and Council did actually approve but it was withdrawn,
anyway, one of the overall concerns for the neighbors was view shed interruption. Did they hear
much of that at this good neighborhood meeting. Welch stated it was kind of brought up, people
that came were questioning what they were doing, what they were proposing and once people
saw that it was primarily single family on the north end the negative ones generally felt better
about that and that they weren't looking at a super tall building. Having the multifamily buildings
located far enough away from the neighbors to the north and the east that made those impacts
pretty minimal.
Hensch asked about lot number nine to the north, where they're asking for that reduction, is the
area behind there a really difficult area to develop. Welch confirmed yes, immediately north of
that property line is an outlot and from Cardinal Ridge, the development to the north, that’s in a
conservation easement.
Craig had a question about the townhouses, she doesn’t typically think of them as elder housing
because it’s living on three different floors, all the single-family houses are a single floor but then
all these townhouses that are three floors. Welch explained Western Home’s goal is that they
understand that people are at different points in their life and different mobilities and access and
desires so they've wanted to have that broad market for not just people who want a single-family
house or people who want condo style living, so there is an option in those townhouses to have
an elevator that people can add to the design. Also for those in memory care, they need to
recognize that sometimes a spouse or significant other may need the memory care, but others
are still independent and this gets that balance.
Signs asked if the first floor includes the garage. Welch confirmed it does and that is a fairly
common type of construction in the market.
Hektoen added the zoning code will limit the occupancy of that of those units, only the multifamily
are going to be limited by the zoning code for senior living.
Padron noted she was looking at the clubhouses floorplan and it says it has 16 units but the
floorplan that was presented tonight shows it has eight units. Welch replied it was 16 units in the
clubhouse building, there's no units on the first floor and then 8 units each on the second and
third floors.
Steve Long (Salida Partners representing Western Home) gave a little background about
Western Home communities. They are based in Cedar Falls, Iowa, but they have communities
throughout Central Iowa and Northeast Iowa. What they strived to do is to have a sense of
community and build community. At their main campus in Cedar Falls it's a 200-acre campus
with 1100 residents, which is larger than most towns in Iowa and it's a real community with
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 21, 2022
Page 10 of 16
restaurants and fitness facilities. Long stated his firm has been working with Mike Welch and
Sanjay Jani for over a year now to get this right mix of units for this market, they really wanted to
have that mix of two and three bedrooms, townhomes, condos, assisted living single family
homes and then even within single family homes have a variety so there is different affordability
as well. Western Home is known for their memory care and assisted living facilities and in this
market there is a big need for those facilities so that's an important part of the continuum that will
be developed probably towards the end of the project. Long noted even though he’s been in
Iowa City over 25 years, he grew up in Cedar Falls and has known about Western Home his
entire life and has a lot of friends and family members who have lived there so he’s excited to be
a part of this team to bring them to this market.
Craig asked what about affordable housing. Long acknowledged they talked about that and
given the market base it's going to be based on the size of units. There are not any subsidized
units being proposed but they’re happy to work with the Housing Trust Fund or another entity.
He added they mentioned these homes will be open to anybody, but these will all be deed
restricted as 55 plus is the model, except for the assisted living and memory care, of course, but
for the standalone homes, their deed restricted forever 55 plus. At this point they've been looking
at a mix of housing styles to offer different price points.
Hensch asked if the assisted living facility includes memory care or is it just assisted living. Long
confirmed it is a mixture of both.
Sanjay Jani (AKAR Architecture) stated he has been doing residential architecture for almost 35
years and one thing he does not like is when all the houses end up looking exactly the same
when the diversity of America is changing, and they all look different. So the first thing they did
was made it possible to be more democratic, where people buy into these houses they have
option to choose different colors, different planning, different options, so every house can be a
little more individual to ensure the individuality of the people who live with them. Nothing will look
like cookie cutter housing. Even with the townhouses, the way they are stepping it up to have
four-foot offsets instead of one linear flat building they are breaking the scale and are definitely
doing things a little different than what he’s seen in this marketplace.
Hensch asked about the elevators in the townhomes, if somebody purchased the townhome but
didn't have the elevator initially, can they add that like 20 years later if they then need an
elevator. Jani confirmed they’ll plan the elevator in the plan exactly where it should go because
they need the tolerances for the doors and everything to open, so the idea would be to put the
joists. He noted the amazing thing is this elevator is like a suction tube of only three foot six
wide, it's a perfect circle of glass of three foot six so even if one doesn’t don't build or buy the
elevator is not a huge wasted space.
Wade asked if all these units will be zero entry. Jani replied from garage to the house is zero
entry and the hope is to have zero entry everywhere, even the front door so there will be no
steps, and if there are floors, there will be an elevator option.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 21, 2022
Page 11 of 16
Ryan O'Leary (343 Butternut Lane) stated his house backs up to the eastern most portion of the
planned development and the southernmost area. He likes a lot of what he sees on the plan and
has a fair amount of optimism and faith that there'll be further detail to the plan. But, in particular
where his windows back up to three units along that back ridge, it has a pretty significant impact
and he has a fair amount of optimism that there'll be some landscaping screening that'll be
mutually beneficial. So he just wanted to voice his thoughts and concerns about that in the event
that there wasn't any sort of a landscaping buffer as that would be regrettable for him and
whoever lives in those three houses, but he always anticipated something being done back
there. He also noted with the slopes a lot of his property is about 35 feet below so it limits what
they can do on their property to create that visual screening. If some screening is done to the
west of the pipeline easement that would allow the visual screening. He noted right now they're
a density of one house per acre and this would put three houses in about 50% of their visual
vantage point out the back which is a little bit more concentration than they're used to.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend approval of REZ22-0012, a proposal to rezone approximately
31.2 acres of land located east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane
from Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) and Low Density Single-
Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density
Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8) subject to the
following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall contribute 50% of the cost of
upgrading Camp Cardinal Road to City standards from Gathering Place Lane to the
future extension of Deer Creek Road in accordance with 15-3-2 of the Iowa City Code.
This contribution shall include 50% of the cost of construction of the traffic circle at
the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal Road.
2. In the event Owner desires to construct on-street angled parking, at the time of final
platting, Owner shall execute an agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney
obligating the Owner to maintain such spaces.
Elliott seconded the motion.
Hensch really liked the mixed housing and the senior living facility, and the memory care, it's
exactly what they need in the City. Those on the Commission at the time were bitterly
disappointed when the previous application was withdrawn and now that facility is in Coralville.
Craig noted it's obvious a lot of thought has been put into this and also likes the diversity of
housing. She agrees that every house shouldn’t look the same. What she’s concerned about is
they’ve seen quite a few senior housing developments and thinks this is going to be really
expensive for people to live there and will be really out of reach for many, many people,
particularly elderly people, but is in support of the project.
Elliott agrees about the comments regarding the architecture and also is in support of this
project.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 21, 2022
Page 12 of 16
Signs stated notwithstanding his comments about the large cul-de-sac nature of the
development, he is in support of it too and thinks it's a fantastic mix and hopes it is developed
with the way it's been laid out.
Hensch agreed and is generally never in support of cul-de-sacs or bulbs but this is just a tough
site and there's not really any other option. Iowa City is running out of developable land and he
likes this application.
Wade stated he is on board considering the challenge and the topography. It's a nice layout, it
looks walkable for the neighborhood and it's nice to see the commercial area whether that ends
up as a coffee shop or whatever, it’s a draw to the neighborhood.
Padron also stated she supports this development.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CASE NO. REZ22-0015:
Location: North of W. Benton Street and west of Orchard Street
An application for a rezoning of approximately 3.52 acres of land from Low Density Single Family
Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront Crossing
- Orchard (RFC-O) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC-O).
Russett stated the applicant has requested a deferral to January 4, the next commission
meeting, staff is still working through some conditions with them.
Signs moved defer application REZ22-0015 to the January 4 meeting.
Elliott seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CASE NO. VAC22-0002:
Location: Northwest corner of S. Riverside Dr. and the Iowa Interstate Railroad
An application for a vacation of approximately 266 square feet of public right-of-way to increase
the developable area for the proposed redevelopment at the southwest corner of Myrtle Avenue
and S. Riverside Drive.
Russett explained this is a vacation of 266 square feet of public right-of-way along South
Riverside Drive. The area is just north of the Iowa Interstate Railroad. Russett showed the
zoning map of the area noting this is a public right-of-way. The background on this vacation is
the City recently acquired this 266 square feet and the purpose of that acquisition was to help
with installing a pedestrian tunnel under the Iowa Interstate Railroad, however that project is not
going to be moving forward because there were concerns from the Railroad regarding the tunnel
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 21, 2022
Page 13 of 16
under their right-of-way. The City is still committed to providing a pedestrian connection on the
west side of South Riverside Drive so now the City is working with the Iowa DOT to narrow the
street along South Riverside Drive and install a sidewalk between the curb and the bridge
abutment. She added this will also include some type of protective barrier for pedestrians in that
area. So again, there will eventually be a pedestrian connection, but it will not be a tunnel and
therefore the City no longer needs this 266 square feet right-of-way, so the property owner is
asking that it be returned to private property. Russett noted the Commission saw this rezoning
several months ago for proposed development on the corner of Myrtle and Riverside Drive and
returning this right-of-way to the property owner adds a little bit a square foot to their buildable
area.
Russett stated there are several criteria that need to be reviewed when looking at a vacation of
public right-of-way and staff has reviewed all of these criteria and find that they have all been
met. The first criteria is that whether or not there's an impact on pedestrian and vehicular access
and circulation. She reiterated this is a very small area, only 266 square feet, and pedestrian and
vehicle access will not be impacted through the vacation. The second is will there be any impacts
on emergency and utility vehicle access and circulation. Russett confirmed this right-of-way is
not needed to provide any utility services or emergency services to the site. The next criteria is
impact on access of adjacent private properties and there will be no impact as this vacation
essentially returns the property to its previous condition, which is private ownership and not
public right-of-way. Next is the desirability of the right-of-way for access or circulation needs and
since the pedestrian tunnel is no longer a viable option for that pedestrian connection there's no
need for the City to maintain that right-of-way. Next is the location of utilities and other
easements or restrictions on the property and there are no City utilities within this 266 square
feet. Russet stated private utilities have been contacted and she didn’t hear back from any with
concerns about the vacation and staff has not found any other relevant factors pertaining to this
specific vacation request.
Staff is recommending approval VAC22-0002 a vacation of public right-of-way located at the
northwest corner of South Riverside Drive and the Iowa Interstate Railroad right-of-way.
In terms of next steps, City Council will need to set a public hearing and staff anticipates the
public hearing to be on January 24 where Council will consider both the vacation and
conveyance of the right-of-way.
Craig assumes the City paid for it and now the property owner will have to pay for it back.
Russett confirmed that's correct.
Wade asked if the tunnel that was previously going to go through there is completely off the
table, is there ever a chance that that's going to be revisited. Russett doesn’t believe so, the City
had been working with the Railroad for quite a while trying to address concerns but at this point
feels it is not going to work so they’re working with the DOT for an alternate design.
Wade noted this is going to increase the need, right now people are sneaking through on the
street or on that little gravel portion which is pretty dangerous.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 21, 2022
Page 14 of 16
Elliott asked if there is a timeframe for the alternative. Russett is unsure but can ask Public
Works.
Craig asked what's the status of the development on the site. Russett stated they are currently
going through the final platting process, design review and site plan review and then the final plat
will go to City Council.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Kirsten Frey (attorney, Shuttleworth and Ingersoll) is representing the applicant stated she has
been working with Sara Hekteon recently on the purchase agreement for the 266 square feet of
right-of-way that was originally acquired in connection with a tunnel that's not going to get built.
She acknowledged they are planning to pay for the acquisition of the right-of-way.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Wade moved to recommend approval VAC22-0002 a vacation of public right-of-way
located at the northwest corner of South Riverside Drive and the Iowa Interstate Railroad
right-of-way.
Padron seconded the motion.
Wade noted the only comment he had was the concern if there was an opportunity that it might
be revisited by the railroad, he’d be reserved in making the sale but it sounds like that's out of
scope.
Signs noted he is in support of the vacation item but wanted to take the opportunity to comment
in general on the development. As he has discussed at a previous meeting, he is extremely
disappointed to learn that the proposed project for this property has been converted to a student
housing project, which is not at all what was presented to this Commission and it has gotten
some of the commissioners thinking about ways they can avoid that in the future.
Craig agrees with Signs and this project was just not done in good faith.
Hensch agrees but noted they know with any rezoning anything that is presented to them is just
a concept and they have to think about the all the possibilities that could be constructed within
that particular rezoning.
Padron supports this vacation and has the same feelings regarding the senior housing becoming
student housing.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 21, 2022
Page 15 of 16
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Craig moved to adjourn.
Signs seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2022-2023
7/6 8/3 9/7 10/19 11/2 11/16 12/7 12/21
CRAIG, SUSAN X X X X X X O/E X
ELLIOTT, MAGGIE X X X X X X X X
HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X X
NOLTE, MARK O/E O/E O/E -- -- --- -- -- -- -- -- --
PADRON, MARIA X X X X X O/E X X
SIGNS, MARK X X X X O/E O/E X X
TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X X X X X O/E
WADE, CHAD --- --- --- --- X O/E X X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member