HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 12.05.2019PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, December 5, 2019
Formal Meeting – 7:00 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
4. Case No. CZ19-03
Applicant: Richard and Jane Kroeze
Location: 4201 Nursery Lane SE
An application submitted by Richard and Jane Kroeze for a rezoning of approximately
3.21 acres of property located in unincorporated Johnson County from County
Agriculture (A) and County Residential (R) to County Residential (R-3).
5. South District Form-Based Code Update
6. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: November 7, 2019
7. Planning & 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 anne-russett@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time
to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: December 5 / December 19 / January 2
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
Date: December 5, 2019
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Jade Pederson, Planning Intern
Re: CZ19-03 – Southeast corner of Nursery Lane SE and Sand Road SE
Background Information
The applicants, Richard and Jane Kroeze, are requesting a rezoning from County Agricultural (A) and County Residential (R) to County Single-Family Residential (R-3) for approximately 3.21 acres of land located in Johnson County south of Nursery Lane SE and east of Sand Road SE in Fringe Area B – Outside of Iowa City’s Growth Area. Because the property is within Iowa City’s two-mile Fringe Area, the Fringe Area Agreement specifies that the City will make a recommendation to the County Planning and Zoning Commission before the County Commission considers the application. The final decision on the rezoning falls within the County’s jurisdiction. If this rezoning is approved, the applicants intend to perform a boundary line adjustment to include the 3.21-acre area into one lot, whereas it is currently a part of one lot and two parcels. The applicants then plan to sell the lot area. This all is after the permanent closure of Pleasant Valley Nursery which resided on the southern-most subject parcel. The applicants anticipate leaving two access points, one coming off Nursery Lane SE and one off Sand Road SE. The access point from Sand Road SE will have a 40’ access easement provided.
Analysis
Existing Land Use and Zoning The subject area is zoned County Agricultural (A) and County Residential (R) and currently contains a single-family residence as well as vacant outbuildings. The existing zones do not align with the current parcel boundaries, see the attached Zoning Map. Properties to the north, south, east and west are zoned County Agricultural (A) with the exception of a property to the northeast zoned County Residential (R). Proposed Zoning & Surrounding Area The applicants are requesting a rezoning to County Single-Family Residential (R-3) which allows single-family homes on lots at least 3 acres in size. Nursery Lane SE contains two other single-family homes apart from the one on the subject property. The subject area is surrounded by row crop fields on all sides and the Pleasant Valley Golf Course to the north. Compliance with the County’s Comprehensive Plan The Future Land Use Map of the County’s Comprehensive Plan designates this area Agricultural. The Agricultural Land Use category typically includes land devoted to agriculture with limited residential development. Any “residential development should be associated with food production or be consistent with the historic use of the property and area.” Compliance with the Fringe Area Agreement In reviewing proposed rezonings in the Fringe Area, staff relies on the policies outlined in the Fringe Area Agreement. The Fringe Area Agreement is a component of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and applies to areas not specifically planned for in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Fringe Area Agreement is intended to provide guidance regarding the development of land located within two miles of Iowa City’s corporate limits.
November 26, 2019
Page 2
The agreement’s slated purpose is to provide for orderly and efficient development patterns appropriate to non-urbanized areas, protect and preserve the fringe area’s natural resources and environmentally sensitive features, direct development to areas with physical characteristics which can accommodate development, and effectively and economically provide services for future growth and development. This property is located in Fringe Area B – Outside the City’s Growth Area. For this area, the agreement states that agricultural uses are preferred. Specifically, the agreement states: “Until otherwise changed by amending this agreement, this area shall be restricted to those uses consistent with a Rural/Agricultural area as indicated in the Johnson County Land Use Plan, and as designated for a Rural/Agriculture area in Chapter 8:1.6 Class A District of the Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance, as amended.” According to the Johnson County Comprehensive Plan, the Agricultural land use category envisions agricultural uses, such as row crops and animal husbandry, with “very limited residential development.” According to the Johnson County Zoning Code, Agricultural uses are defined as farms, nurseries and greenhouses, orchards and tree farms, with residential uses to be restricted to two single-family dwellings on a farm 40 acres or larger. Summary Existing development in the subject area falls within two parcels and one lot that each have two zoning designations. This current configuration conflicts with the County’s intent to have a single zoning classification per parcel. The proposed rezoning does not align with the land use policy direction in the Fringe Area Agreement. However, the residential use already exists and no additional residential development would be allowed by the proposed rezoning. Furthermore, the proposed rezoning would remove the split-zoning designation and allow for more efficient zoning code implementation and enforcement since all development would fall under one zoning category.
Staff Recommendation
Although the proposed rezoning is not consistent with the policies outlined in the adopted Fringe Area Agreement, staff recommends approval of this rezoning for the following reasons: 1. The subject area is, in part, already zoned for residential uses and contains an existing single-family residential use. 2. The proposed rezoning would not allow for further residential development, as only one unit is allowed based on the size of the lot. 3. This rezoning would create a single zoning classification for all of the existing development within the subject area which would allow more efficient regulation. 4. Johnson County’s zoning ordinance states an intent to eliminate instances of multiple zoning classifications within a single parcel. With the subsequent boundary line adjustment, this goal would be achieved.
Attachments:
1. Aerial Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Fringe Area Map
4. Rezoning Exhibit
Approved by: ________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
NURSERY LN SE
SOCCERPARKRDSOC C E R PA RK RD
S
A
N
D
R
D
S
E
CZ19-034201 Nursery Lane SEµ
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles Prepared By: Jade PedersonDate Prepared: Nov 2019
An application submitted by Richard & Jane Kroeze for the rezoning of 3.21 acres of property located at 4201 Nursery Lane SE from County Agricultural (A) and County Residential (R)to Single-Family Residential (R-3).
Iowa City Boundary
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
AA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
NURSERY LN SE
SOCCER P A RKRDS
A
N
D
R
D
S
E SOCCERPARKRDP1
CZ19-034201 Nursery Lane SEµ
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles Prepared By: Jade PedersonDate Prepared: Nov 2019
An application submitted by Richard & Jane Kroeze for the rezoning of 3.21 acres of property located at 4201 Nursery Lane SE from County Agricultural (A) and County Residential (R)to Single-Family Residential (R-3).
Iowa City BoundaryR
A
NURSERY LN SE
SOCCERPARKRDSOC C E R PA RK RD
S
A
N
D
R
D
S
E
Johnson County PD & S
CZ19-034201 Nursery Lane SEµ
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles Prepared By: Jade PedersonDate Prepared: Nov 2019
An application submitted by Richard & Jane Kroeze for the rezoning of 3.21 acres of property located at 4201 Nursery Lane SE from County Agricultural (A) and County Residential (R)to Single-Family Residential (R-3).
Iowa City Boundary
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 7 , 2019 – 7:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max
Parsons, Mark Signs, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Hektoen, Jesi Lile, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: John Yapp, Nicole Neal West, Siobhan Harman, Paul Esker,
Steve Gordon, Mike Pugh, Cordell Braverman, Ousainou Keita,
Gina Landau, Adam Jablaski
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 7-0, the Commission recommends approval of ANN19-01 and REZ19-09, a
voluntary annexation of approximately 35.29 acres and a rezoning from County Residential (R)
to Interim Development – Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) with the following conditions:
1. The developer satisfies the Comprehensive Plan’s Annexation Policy, as stated in
Resolution 18-211.
2. The dedication of 17 feet of additional public right-of-way along American Legion Road to be
dedicated to the City at the time of final platting.
3. Conveyance of a temporary construction easement to the City along the north side of
American Legion Road.
By a vote of 7-0, the Commission recommends approval of REZ19-11, a proposal to rezone
approximately 1.15 acres of property located at 1310 S. Gilbert St. and 348 Highland Ave. from
Intensive Commercial (CI-to Riverfront Crossings – South Gilbert Subdistrict (RFC-SG), subject
to the following conditions:
1. Upon redevelopment, the applicant must close all access points along S. Gilbert St. and
will reduce the number of access points along Highland Ave. to one.
2. The applicant must dedicate additional right-of-way to the City along Gilbert St. based on
the dimensions shown in Attachment 5 of the staff report.
By a vote of 2-5, (Dyer, Baker, Martin, Parsons and Hensch dissenting) the Commission failed
to recommend approval of REZ19-12, an application submitted by Pugh Hagan Prahm PLC for
a rezoning from Interim Development-Multi-Family (ID-RM) and Rural Residential (RR-1) to Low
Density Multi- Family (RM-12) for approximately 42.01 acres of land located south of Lehman
Avenue and east of Soccer Park Road.
By a vote of 6-1, (Baker dissenting) the Commission recommends approval of CZ19-02 an
application submitted by Charles Ockenfels for a rezoning of approximately 2.43 acres of
property located in unincorporated Johnson County from County Agriculture (A) to County
Residential (R) with encouragement that the rest of the property be preserved.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 2 of 32
By a vote of 7-0, the Commission recommends approval of ZCA19-05, Amendments to Title 14,
Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to utility- scale, ground-mounted solar energy systems with
the note about changing the draft ordinance language regarding glare.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CASE NOS. ANN19-01 AND REZ19-09:
Applicant: Allen Homes, Inc.
Location: North of American Legion Road and east of Eastbrook Street
An application submitted by Allen Homes, Inc. for an annexation and rezoning from County
Residential (R) to Interim Development – Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) for approximately
35.29 acres of land currently in unincorporated Johnson County and located north of American
Legion Road and east of Eastbrook Street.
Russett began the staff report showing a location map of the property, the property is currently
in the County zoned residential, it is surrounded by the City. To the north it is zoned P (where
there is a City park), to the east there is single family, to the west is multifamily and to the south
is more single family. The property is located in the Fringe Area B, which is inside the City’s
growth boundary, and the proposed rezoning is to Interim Development Single-Family
Residential. That zone allows very low density single-family, it also allows plant related
agricultural uses such as row crops and some other non-residential uses (allowed provisionally
or through special exception). Russett noted an additional rezoning will be required before any
platting or development of this site takes place.
The applicant did not hold a good neighbor meeting, but staff will recommend a good neighbor
meeting be held upon the next rezoning. Staff has forwarded this application to the Johnson
County Board of Supervisors and the Scott Township Trustees and neither have expressed
concerns regarding the annexation or the rezoning.
The project site is located in the Southeast District Plan area, which again is within the City’s
growth boundary. In terms of intended future land use Russett noted the majority of this site is
intended for low to medium single family residential and duplex housing at a density of 2-8
dwelling units per acre. A small western portion of the site allows for medium to high density
single-family residential and townhouse housing at a density of 8-13 dwelling units per acre.
Staff uses three criteria to review annexation requests. The area under consideration falls
within the adopted long-range planning boundary. (1) A general growth area limit is illustrated in
the Comprehensive Plan and on the City’s Zoning Map; (2) Development in the area proposed
for annexation will fulfill an identified need without imposing an undue burden on the City and;
(3) Control of the development is in the City’s best interest. Regarding the first criteria, the
subject property is located within the City’s long-range growth boundary and surrounded by City
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 3 of 32
property. In terms of the second criteria, the Comprehensive Plan encourages growth that is
contiguous and connected to existing neighborhoods. The subject property is bordered by the
city limits on the west, north, and east sides. The property is specifically highlighted in the
Southeast District Plan as an example of leapfrog development to the north and east. The
proposed annexation will allow for implementation of the City’s affordable housing policy upon
development of the site. Therefore, staff is recommending the satisfaction of this requirement
as a condition of the rezoning. For the third criteria, that control of the development is in the
City’s best interest, this annexation will allow for contiguous provision of City services such as
Fire, Police, water, and sanitary sewer service. The City has an interest in administrating zoning
in this area to make sure that the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan are met.
Russett reiterated the requested rezoning is to ID-RS, Interim Development Single-Family.
Agricultural and nonurban uses can be continued within this zoning until the property is
developed. Because the applicant is still exploring options on how to develop and subdivide the
property this interim zoning designation is appropriate. In terms of sanitary sewer and water, the
developer will be required to pay a water main extension fee of $456.75 per acre before
development. The subject property is located outside of the sewer tap-on fee district, and will
not be required to pay sanitary sewer tap-on fees. The subject property is located within 100
and 500-year flood plains. In terms of access and street design, to match existing right-of-way
located to the west and east of the subject property, staff is recommending that as a condition of
the rezoning, the developer dedicate 17 feet of additional right-of-way to the City when the
property is platted for future development. As the City performs road improvements to American
Legion Road over the next several years, staff is recommending the developer pay 12.5%
improvement costs to the American Legion Road frontage. Staff is also recommending another
condition to allow for the conveyance of a temporary construction easement to the City along
the north side of American Legion Road for the reconstruction of American Legion Road. The
improvements will extend from Scott Boulevard on the west side all the way to Taft Avenue on
the east side. The City is looking at installing a roundabout at the intersection of Scott
Boulevard and American Legion Road, the improvements will also include buffered bike lanes, a
10-foot sidewalk along the north side of American Legion Road and a 5-foot sidewalk along the
south side as well as a grade-separated crossing at Hoover Elementary School. In terms of the
City’s timeline, the City is currently trying to acquire property in this area and may bid this
project in spring 2020 but it may be pushed to fall 2020 or winter 2021.
The role of the Commission in this rezoning and annexation is to determine if it satisfies the
conditions as stated in the Comprehensive Plan, whether the proposed annexation and
rezoning falls within the growth boundary, whether if development in the area proposed will fill
an identified need, and whether control of development in the City’s best interest.
In terms of next steps, after the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation,
the City Council will hold a public hearing. Before the public hearing, utility companies and non-
consenting parties will be sent the application via certified mail. Pending approval of the
annexation by the City Council, the application for annexation will be sent to the Secretary of
State’s Office for final approval and acknowledgement.
Staff recommends approval of ANN19-01 and REZ19-09, a voluntary annexation of
approximately 35.29 acres and a rezoning from County Residential (R) to Interim Development
– Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) with the following conditions:
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 4 of 32
1. The developer satisfies the Comprehensive Plan’s Annexation Policy, as stated in
Resolution 18-211.
2. The dedication of 17 feet of additional public right-of-way along American Legion Road to be
dedicated to the City.
3. Conveyance of a temporary construction easement to the City along the north side of
American Legion Road.
Hensch sought confirmation that, since this was an ID rezoning, this property would definitely
come back before the Commission prior to development. Russett confirmed the Commission
would see it again when it is rezoned for development.
With regard to the improvements to American Legion Road, Hensch noted it is in the five-year
road plan. Russett confirmed that is correct and the latest the project would be bid is winter
2021.
Hensch noted to the west is a water detention area to combat flooding and asked if this property
was outside of that flooding area. Russett said a portion of that water retention area is in the
project site so that area will have to remain an outlot and not be developed.
Baker asked when this application comes back before the Commission on the next rezoning it is
possible the entire project could be developed at the higher density that is allowable in the
western portion. Russett stated that is not possible. When the applicant requests the rezoning,
they may just request one zone district but it is possible to request two zone districts, having the
western portion at a higher density.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
John Yapp (930 4th Avenue) is representing Allen Homes, the applicant, he wanted to speak
about the temporary construction easement that staff has recommended. Yapp said he talked
with staff about (and it’s not reflected in the report) if his project moves faster than the American
Legion Road project they would grade that area where the temporary construction easement is
to meet both their purposes and the City’s purposes. This would potentially reduce, or
eliminate, the size of that temporary construction easement and this was something staff was
agreeable to and would put in the conditional zoning agreement.
Hensch asked if the area was currently being row cropped. Yapp confirmed it was. Hensch
asked it was being farmed by the owner or leased. Yapp replied it was leased. Hensch asked
what the CSR was for the property. Yapp is unsure of the CSR.
Hensch asked about the flooding area. Yapp said there was a floodway easement
approximately where the 100-year flood plain is. Hench noted that in the 1993 flood that whole
area was under water.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Parsons moved to recommend approval of ANN19 -01 and REZ19-09, a voluntary
annexation of approximately 35.29 acres and a rezoning from County Residential (R) to
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 5 of 32
Interim Development – Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) with the following conditions:
1. The developer satisfies the Comprehensive Plan’s Annexation Policy, as stated in
Resolution 18-211.
2. The dedication of 17 feet of additional public right-of-way along American Legion
Road to be dedicated to the City.
3. Conveyance of a temporary construction easement to the City along the north
side of American Legion Road.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Baker asked about the next steps and what was meant by “non-consenting parties” to the
annexation. Russett noted that is not applicable in this case, it is only required if there are any
non-consenting landowners that don’t want to be annexed. In this case all of the parties are
consenting.
Parsons feels this application makes sense for the overall development along American Legion
road. Signs agreed.
Baker went on record to say he feels it will end up being higher density than what is discussed
here, but that can be reviewed at the next stage of rezoning.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
CASE NO. REZ19-11:
Applicant: Kum & Go LLC
Location: Northeast corner of S. Gilbert Street and Highland Avenue
An application submitted by Kum & Go LLC for a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to
Riverfront Crossings – South Gilbert (RFC-SG) for approximately 1.15 acres of land located at
the northeast corner of S. Gilbert Street and Highland Avenue.
Lile began the staff report showing an aerial map of the subject property, to the south is
Highway 6. The subject property is currently zoned Intensive Commercial (CI-1) and across
Gilbert Street to the west is zoned Riverfront Crossings-South Gilbert District.
The property at 1310 South Gilbert Street is owned by Kum & Go and they have a purchase
agreement with the owners of 348 Highland Avenue. The proposed redevelopment would
expand the floor area of the convenience store, add two additional gas pumps and provide for
additional parking.
The applicant held a Good Neighbor Meeting on October 23, 2019 where seven local business
owners attended. Neighbors were concerned with access to their properties during
construction and the proposed timeline. The applicant was able to convey that the site will be
entirely self-contained during the construction process and would not disturb access to
surrounding businesses. All attendees expressed excitement about the redevelopment.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 6 of 32
Currently the subject property contains a Kum & Go to the west that was built in 1991, as well
as commercial condos to the east that were built in 1955. The current site is not conducive to
good traffic flow due to the location of the canopy on both sides of the store as well as the many
access points, specifically the two on South Gilbert Street. Lile showed the development
concept submitted by the applicant, the new convenience store will front along South Gilbert
Street, with both of those access points closed and six fuel pumps behind the store as well as
additional parking and landscaping.
Lile noted this area is part of the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan – South District which calls
for a high-intensity of mixed-use development with active ground floors. The uses allowed in
this subdistrict include commercial, recreational, eating establishment, office, retail and quick
vehicle service uses through the special exception process. Upon approval of a rezoning the
applicant must apply for a special exception to go through the Board of Adjustment.
The Riverfront Crossings Form Based Code requires businesses to be oriented toward the front
of the lot with street-facing entries. This provides a more comfortable environment for
pedestrians and offers buffering from vehicular traffic.
Staff uses the following two criteria in the review of rezonings:
1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan;
2. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character.
The subject property is part of the Central District Commercial Redevelopment Area which calls
for redevelopment of commercial uses. To the right is the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan
area which calls for pedestrian scale development with buildings to the front of the street and
parking to the rear. It also calls for a retail/convenience store in this area to serve local
residential and commercial uses. The Master Plan envisions this area to be redeveloped and
shows a building placed in the front corner of the lot with parking in the rear.
As for compatibility with the existing neighborhood, across the street there are properties zoned
Riverfront Crossings – South Gilbert and this rezoning would allow for an improvement to the
current subject property in regard to traffic circulation and safety, pedestrian friendliness, and
landscaping. The proposed rezoning will allow for improved convenience retail in the
neighborhood to serve local residents, business owners, and customers while being brought up
to Riverfront Crossings standards.
Lile noted this is a high traffic area with the intersection of South Gilbert Street and Highway 6,
there is an average daily traffic count of 15,600 vehicles per day in 2018. The four access
points on the current Kum & Go site are not conducive to safety. There are two access points
on South Gilbert Street and one each on Highland Avenue and 3rd Street. This is considered
non-conforming, as the Municipal Code allows only three access points on corner lots. To bring
this site into compliance, the applicant must close all but three access points. The current
access points off South Gilbert Street create congestion and safety issues due to their proximity
to nearby intersections and the amount of traffic this street experiences daily. To help mitigate
these issues, staff is proposing a condition that the applicant must close all access points onto
South Gilbert Street and reduce the number of access points to one on Highland Avenue.
Staff is also proposing a condition that the applicant dedicate additional right-of-way to the City
along South Gilbert Street. Currently the right-of-way along South Gilbert Street is not sufficient
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 7 of 32
to create a pedestrian friendly environment envisioned in the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan.
This additional right-of-way area would help to create a landscape area and a wider public
sidewalk. It should also be noted the applicant must reconstruct the sidewalks that currently
exist around the property on South Gilbert Street, Highland Avenue, and 3rd Street.
Lile stated the existing stormwater infrastructure should be able to accommodate the runoff from
this development but it will be analyzed and confirmed during the site plan stage.
The role of the Commission is to determine whether the rezoning complies with the
Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the existing neighborhood character.
Lile noted there was some late correspondence handed out today from a neighboring property
owner who was in support of the proposed rezoning and development and did mention parking
issues in the area but did not think this proposed redevelopment would further compound that
issue.
Regarding next steps, pending the Commission’s recommendation City Council will set a public
hearing for this rezoning and upon City Council approval the applicant must apply for a special
exception. Lile noted that any redevelopment on this site must be reviewed by the staff form-
based code design review committee and also go though site plan review process.
Staff recommends approval of REZ19-11, a proposal to rezone approximately 1.15 acres of
property located at 1310 S. Gilbert St. and 348 Highland Ave. from Intensive Commercial (CI-to
Riverfront Crossings – South Gilbert Subdistrict (RFC-SG), subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant must close all access points along S. Gilbert St. and will reduce the number of
access points along Highland Ave. to one.
2. The applicant must dedicate additional right-of-way to the City along Gilbert St. based on the
dimensions shown in Attachment 5 of the staff report.
Hensch began by acknowledging the applicant for holding a good neighbor meeting.
Hensch shared his surprise that the average daily vehicle count for that road was only in the
15,000 range, he drives that road daily and it sure seems like a higher number than that. He
asked if there would be any access points along 3rd Street. Lile stated the applicant is allowed
three access points and staff has made a condition to allow one on Highland Avenue and none
on South Gilbert Street so that will allow the applicant to have two access points on 3rd Street.
Hensch observed a lot of impervious surface on this site so in the redevelopment he hopes
there will be an increase in pervious area and be able to decrease the stormwater management
issues.
Martin asked if the additional parking was a requirement of the City or just something the
applicant wants to do. Lile stated it is just what the applicant is proposing, they currently meet
the minimum parking requirements for Riverfront Crossings.
Baker asked after this goes to Council it will then go to the Board of Adjustment and they will
have the final say in the elevations and how this building fronts on Gilbert Street. Will the
building actually front on Gilbert Street or front to the parking in the back. Lile said it will be
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 8 of 32
pedestrian oriented and front on Gilbert Street, it will be comparable to the Kum & Go on
Muscatine Avenue and 1st Avenue and the one on Riverside Drive and Benton Street. Baker
said that is then a fake façade of a front with a door to get into the store. Lile confirmed that is
the proposed plan.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Nicole Neal West (3405 SE Crossroads Drive, Grimes, IA) is from Civil Design Advantage
representing Kum & Go and came forward to answer any questions.
Martin asked why they need the additional parking.
Siobhan Harman (1459 Grand Ave., Des Moines, IA) is the site development manager for Kum
& Go and stated with the volume they have in the larger square footage stores, this one will be
5600 square feet, they need additional parking with customers coming and going. They have
made a big push to move to the inside of the store, they are pushing more fresh food, made-to-
order food, sandwiches, fresh pizza, fruits and vegetables. There is just more volume in these
new stores with food sales.
Martin asked if in Iowa City those parking spaces will get utilized on a regular basis. Harman
confirmed they do get utilized.
Dyer asked if there would be a pedestrian entrance on Gilbert Street. Neal West replied there
would be a pedestrian access off of Gilbert Street. Dyer said that would be different from the
stores on Benton Street and on 1st Avenue where there are blank walls. Neal West confirmed it
would be different from those stores.
Baker feels this is a wonderful project except for one thing, he filed a complaint against their
store at 1st Avenue and Muscatine because of noise, the electronic music coming out of the
canopies. He asked if that was a standard Kum & Go practice. Neal West confirmed it is.
Baker asked what the advantage to that is in marketing. Harman said it is to keep the
customers happy and upbeat when out at the pumps. Harman did add when there have been
complaints about the noise in neighborhoods they respond to those requests. Baker believes it
is one of the worst abuses of commerce to impose noise on the public. He will vote in favor of
this application, but hopes somewhere down the line someone rethinks that policy.
Paul Esker is a student who wanted to echo what Baker said as he lives across the street from
the Kum & Go at Benton Street and Riverside Drive. Additionally he doesn’t feel the parking is
fully utilized either, there are a lot of empty spots.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommends approval of REZ19-11, a proposal to rezone approximately
1.15 acres of property located at 1310 S. Gilbert St. and 348 Highland Ave. from Intensive
Commercial (CI-to Riverfront Crossings – South Gilbert Subdistrict (RFC-SG), subject to
the following conditions:
1. The applicant must close all access points along S. Gilbert St. and reduce the
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 9 of 32
number of access points along Highland Ave. to one.
2. The applicant must dedicate additional right-of-way to the City along Gilbert St.
based on the dimensions shown in Attachment 5 of the staff report.
Parsons second the motion.
Hensch is in favor of this application and is happy to see the start of improvements to the east
side of Gilbert Street. He acknowledged it is a difficult area because of the traffic and by closing
off the access from Gilbert Street his concerns are largely resolved.
Parson agreed it will be a huge improvement.
Signs agreed as well that it is nice to see improvements like this on Gilbert Street. He also
noted he goes to the Kum & Go on Riverside Drive and Benton Street a lot and their parking lot
is pretty full most of the times he is there.
Martin is excited about the improved walkability of this area, she loves the Riverfront Crossings
overlay, she is still hesitant on the need for additional parking for that particular business
because as Hensch mentioned impervious surfaces and that is something to think about. She
wants everyone to think about the big picture and that they are moving forward thoughtfully.
Noise, pollution, light pollution are a very big deal and the business owners need to take that to
heart as there is more and more residential in that area and need to be thoughtful of that moving
forward.
Baker asked when this goes before the Board of Adjustment do they have the right to impose a
condition of approval to prohibit the use of exterior amplified music. Russett does not believe
so, the Board of Adjustment is tasked with reviewing the proposed project based on the criteria
that are in the Code. Hektoen would like to review the specific criteria before commenting and
can let Baker know.
Signs wondered if Kum & Go has experience with permeable pavement. Hensch agreed and
hoped as Kum & Go design this site they are mindful to create as much pervious surface as
possible.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
CASE NO. REZ19-12:
Applicant: Pugh Hagan Prahm PLC
Location: Lehman Avenue and Soccer Park Road
An application submitted by Pugh Hagan Prahm PLC for a rezoning from Interim Development-
Multi-Family (ID-RM) and Rural Residential (RR-1) to Low Density Multi- Family (RM-12) for
approximately 42.01 acres of land located south of Lehman Avenue and east of Soccer Park
Road.
Russet began the staff report showing the project site, located south of Lehman Avenue and
east of Soccer Park Road. It's surrounded by Interim Development zones and the Sycamore
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 10 of 32
Greenway to the east. In 1994, this area was voluntary annexed as part of 422-acre Sycamore
Farms annexation, and upon annexation the majority area was rezone to ID-RM and a small
portion- around three and a half acres- was rezone to RR-1 with the conservation easement. In
2015, the landowners submitted a rezoning application to RM-20, which is a medium density
multifamily zone. The Commission and the City Council voted to deny the application. The
property owners sued the City, arguing they were entitled to RM zoning designation. The courts
ruled that the owners were not entitled to any particular zoning classification. The applicants
have submitted a rezoning application now to RM-12 which allows for high density single family
and low-density multifamily development. The zone is intended to provide a diverse variety of
housing options such as detached and attached single family, duplexes and multi family. Careful
attention to site and building design is important in this zone to ensure compatibility of variety of
housing types, and based on the maximum density allowed in the zoning district the project site
could potentially get 670 dwelling units at a maximum on the project site.
Russett noted this is within the Comprehensive Plan’s South District, which designates this area
as appropriate for low to medium density single-family residential on the southern portion of the
site. The northern part of the site its designated as appropriate for low to medium density mixed
residential. The compatible zoning designation to these land use designations would include a
mix of single-family zones and some multifamily near Lehman Avenue, if assurances were
made that the development would not result in large-scale multifamily buildings that are not
compatible with lower scale housing types. Russett stated the low to medium density single-
family residential land use designation allows the density of between two and eight dwelling
units per acre. It's intended primarily for single-family development. However, duplexes on
corner lots would be allowed and attached housing would be considered if it's located along an
arterial street or adjacent to permanent open space. The low to medium density mixed-
residential land use designation allows a density between 8 and 13 dwelling units per acre. This
land use designation is intended for small lot detached single-family zero-lot lines, duplexes and
townhome development. Low-density multifamily may be considered if designed to be
compatible with lower scale residential buildings.
Russett stated the proposed zoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The RM-12
zone allows for larger scale multifamily buildings, which is not envisioned by the South District
Plan land use map. Furthermore, the Plan includes policies that encourage compact and
contiguous development and the proposed rezoning would create a large concentration of
multifamily without access to goods, services and transit.
In terms of infrastructure and services, the closest transit stop is approximately one and a half
miles to the north. In addition, Lehman Avenue is not built to City standards. The portion of
Lehman Avenue between Sycamore Street and Soccer Park Road is chip seal, and east of
Soccer Park Road it's gravel.
Russett stated the role of the Commission is to determine whether this rezoning complies with
the Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with existing neighborhood character.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 11 of 32
Regarding next steps, after the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation this
will be forwarded to City Council for a public hearing.
Staff does recommend that the application be denied.
Parsons asked if staff has received anything regarding concept plans or a vision for what would
be built on the site. Russett replied no.
Martin asked who owns the property directly to the west. Russett is unsure who the property
owner is.
Hensch asked if the nearest bus stop was up north by the school. Russett said it is further north
than the school, within the neighborhood to the north. Hensch asked where the nearest
commercial area where somebody could buy a loaf of bread or get a cup of coffee. Russett said
it would be up by Gilbert Street and Highway 6.
Signs asked Russett to recap the two land use designations that are suggested in the
Comprehensive Plan and what they would allow for sure. Russett stated the first land use
designation is low to medium density single family, which envisions primarily single-family
development at a density of two to eight dwelling units per acre, but also would consider
duplexes on corner lots and attached housing if it's located along an arterial street or adjacent to
permanent open space. The low to medium density mixed residential land use designation to
the northern end of the project site envisions a density range of between 8 and 13 dwelling units
per acre, which would be small lot single families zero-lot lines, duplexes, townhomes and
potentially low density multifamily, if it's compatible with lower scale housing types.
Hensch asked if on is there anything in the next five years for the improvement of Lehman
Avenue in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan. Russett replied no. Hensch noted then if the
applicant wasn't prepared to shoulder that cost and the City would have to pay that cost and it's
not in the plan. Russett confirmed that is correct and typically the City requires the developer to
make and pay for the improvements.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Steve Gordon (4078 Buckingham Lane) is representing the owner of the property. He noted that
to understand this application, it’s best to review when it all started back in 1994, to understand
the annexation, the scope of that annexation, why the ID-RM zoning is significant, and why at
that time it was chosen both by the City and the landowner. The City needed this ground in
order to build the treatment plant down in the area contiguous to city limits so at the time the
annexation was important to both parties, and negotiations were done and commitments were
made by both sides. The owners committed to put almost half of the of the land, the 420 acres
that was annexed in, into a conservation easement to preserve natural areas resources and
habitat. Because of that it was crucial that the rest of the property be zoned properly to make
sure that the entire project was feasible and sustainable. The owners also committed to
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 12 of 32
dedicate 15 acres for a potential school site if needed, maintain and enhance certain wetlands
that are in the area, restrict farming on certain ground in the area, dedicate land for arterial
streets, install infrastructure as needed to ensure connectivity through their development and
future developments in the area. Gordon stated the owners have met those commitments that
were made back then and continue to do so to this day. The City on their side committed to
certain zoning for each parcel and that was part again of a larger vision for the feasibility of the
project. This parcel as indicated was zoned ID-RM. ID-RS was available at the time. R-1 was
available at the time, but that zoning was not selected by either parties as it was agreed to and
decided that the land to be zoned ID-RM and the City committed to that for a reason and the
owners committed to that for a reason.
Gordon noted this is not a 40 acre site sitting in a vacuum, as mentioned. It's an integral part of
a 420 acre development and land that was annexed into the City, with over 200 acres put into
green space, open space, conservation easement, natural habitat for all to enjoy. The
remaining land was carefully rezoned as part of that bigger project. The RM zoning on this
piece of ground is so integral in fact that the owners actually pulled the annexation when there
was issues about not being able to get this piece of ground zoned multifamily RM, but again,
because it was important to both sides negotiations were done and the determination was to
zone it a ID-RM. At that time infrastructure was not in the area so the ID-RM designation was
done and the annexation went through.
Gordon noted several things in the staff report to be discussed including the Comprehensive
Plan, development character of the surrounding neighborhood and the adequacy of
infrastructure services to serve the proposed density. The South District Plan contains a future
land map that shows zoning use that is different than what the parties negotiated during the
annexation years ago. If the owners had known at the time that they and the City could
negotiate in good faith a CZA and a RM zone only to have the City be able to negate that
through a comprehensive plan process they would not moved forward with the annexation
process. They needed the multifamily zoning to have the density to offset the over 200 acres
that they agreed to not develop and put into a conservation easement. In addition, Gordon
cannot think of another instance where the City had an ID-RM zoning has been reduced to a
lower density than multifamily when the ID designation was dropped. W ith respect to the
compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods, Gordon feels the property is an ideal location for
higher density development. Directly to the north is a multifamily development, directly to the
east is 200 acres of permanent open space, walking trails and nature areas, directly to the
south is a public amenity along with a park, and to the west there's a new elementary school
and another large city park. Additionally, the area is less than two miles from the main
commercial corridor in Iowa City. In fact, this rezoning is entirely compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood, as it is simply part of the overall Saddlebrook development. When
viewed in that context, it makes sense. Saddlebrook includes apartments, condominiums,
townhomes, mixed use buildings, single family homes and duplexes. Currently there are nearly
150 undeveloped platted lots for single family homes that they are continuing to develop and
work on as well as nearly 50 additional acres that is not platted but is zoned RS-8 for single
family. Gordon stated it is entirely possible to rezone this land to multifamily as was intended
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 13 of 32
and not disrupt a future land use map with mostly single-family development. The bulk of what
remains to be developed in Saddlebrook will be developed as single-family homes, therefore, if
the City truly wants to encourage diversity of housing options rezoning this property as
multifamily would be appropriate.
Gordon notes staff references that this development would be built without adequate
infrastructure, access to goods and services, and transit. Sycamore Street has been improved
and extended to the intersection adjacent to Lehman Avenue. W ater and sewer are located
adjacent to the property. Existing infrastructure here is hardly difficult, as the City could assess
part of the cost of improving Lehman Road to the owners and the applicants absorb some itself,
as is typical with this type of infrastructure and assess private landowners along the improved
portions and when they choose to rezone and develop their property, assess them again.
Gordon noted this happens all the time and is standard practice. In addition, improving Lehman
Road would benefit the City as there would be improved access to the to the soccer park and
for the many families that use that park and City staff that use that area. Gordon commented it
is interesting that the City feels the infrastructure is sufficient for access to the soccer park with
its many families each year using that, but not sufficient for residential development in this area.
The staff report also claims that it would be difficult to extend bus service to the area. Given that
service is not in every neighborhood in the City, this should not be a disqualifying statement.
The report also states the limited street network would make access for police and fire
protection less than ideal. Gordon noted it is unclear how that would be the case given the
ability of those vehicles to access Alexander Elementary without any issue and with
improvements from Sycamore to Lehman to the property there should be no issue with this
whatsoever. The staff report also references that the application doesn't comply with compact
and contiguous development. Again, there's nothing more compact than multifamily
development. In addition, this is continuous contiguous development as it is part of the entire
Saddlebrook development and is adjacent to the protected open space and existing multifamily
housing. The staff report refers to a desire to encourage a diversity of housing options in all
neighborhoods and again, given that most of the remaining development within Saddlebrook is
single family development, allowing multifamily here actually meets that goal quite well. Staff
mentions that the property is on the far outskirts of the City, Gordon contents it is their feeling it
is no farther in the outskirts then several recently approved projects on Herbert Hoover Highway
or Taft Avenue. Clearly it is not uncommon for the City to approve developments that leapfrog
other undeveloped ground and are on chip and seal roads. Gordon reiterated the bottom line is
that this request is to remove the interim zoning designation, any issues with development and
access to the property would be solved during the planning and site plan stages of the process.
Finally, Gordon wanted to address affordable housing. A few nights ago, the City had an
election and every candidate running made affordable housing a very important issue.
Additionally, every one of the current Council members also made affordable housing a priority
when they ran and they continue to make it so as they sit on the Council today. Gordon noted
countless staff hours, 10s of thousands of dollars have been spent on consultants and millions
of dollars have been put towards creating and maintaining affordable housing in this area and
that is that is very commendable and has made a huge difference in this city. However, public
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 14 of 32
dollars used to subsidize housing can only go so far. Giving the private sector the tools it needs
to fill that gap and create housing that is affordable is the only long term sustainable economic
solution. Every consultant that has been hired to look at housing challenges in Iowa City has
said that one of the major roadblocks is lack of higher density zoned land. Higher density in the
Riverfront Crossing District and in the City core are not the only areas where higher density can
and should exist. There are certain people that do not want to live in these areas and want to
live elsewhere and need this type of housing. Another frequent conversation is with respect to
the missing middle housing. Gordon notes they have been building missing middle housing
since before it was in style. The missing middle includes duplexes, townhomes, courtyard
apartments and multiplexes, and there are all those types of housings inside Saddlebrook.
Gordon stated they aren't asking to build single family homes or mid-rise buildings on this
property, which are the types of housing that are outside of the definition of missing middle. As
he mentioned, they had many lots platted and acres available for more single family, they want
to build affordable missing middle housing, they want to add to the property tax base of the City
and they want to continue the vision they had for Saddlebrook development since the time it
was annexed into the City.
Gordon notes the staff reports seems to infer 369 units could be possible on this property after
set asides for infrastructure and whatnot. Gordon invites everyone to drive through
Saddlebrook. The density in the developed areas of Saddlebrook is the same as the density that
they are proposing for this piece of ground. He would like to know why the Saddlebrook
development density there would be inappropriate for this piece of ground. In Saddlebrook they
have over 500 homes and each of them meets the definition of affordable housing, whether they
are rentals or owner occupied, every home is affordable to working families in this community.
One can buy a house in that neighborhood for as little as $100,000 or rent a three-bedroom
home for $1100. If workforce housing that is affordable to working families is truly a priority, then
Gordon believes everyone should work together to create more of it in the community. The
vision of Saddlebrook started 25 years ago with this 400 plus acre annexation into the City. The
City had certain needs and made certain commitments to meet their needs. Gordon reiterated
they had certain zoning and density needs to meet reasonable investment goals and to be able
to realize this vision and bring needed housing to this community. They have stayed true to the
commitments they made and have met their obligations to date. They are asking the City to
allow them to continue to provide valuable housing resources to the working families of Iowa
City.
Hensch stated he does support the affordable housing, he asked if they would be offering below
market rate rentals or purchases there or is everything going to be market rate. Gordon replied
what he perceives market rate is that it's not a subsidized project with some sort of program and
it's built by the private sector and then rented or sold. The price that it's rented or sold for will
depend on what's built in the in the market at that time. Obviously, the more density there is in
a certain location, that tends to lead to pricing that is below the average for the area or
affordable to those making at or less in the area median income. Gordon noted as an example
within the Saddlebrook development it is clean, nice quality development, but because there's a
little more density there, the rents can and are lower and the prices can be and are lower and
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 15 of 32
thus fall within the definition of affordable looking at the area median income. So with the zoning
they are requesting, it would be conceivable that the variety of product that would be built over a
large number of years would tend to be probably under the average of other property in the City
because of the potentially higher density that that would be allowed.
Hensch mentioned the road improvement. He’s been on the Commission for five years and is
trying to think of a time when they would have relied on a special assessment on adjacent
property owners and can't come up with one. He asked if there was any reason the developer
wouldn’t just pay the cost of the improvements.
Gordon doesn’t believe it's really a special assessment. For example, they just developed a
property called Sycamore Trails and one of the costs they had was an assessment for the cost
of Sycamore Street down to the corner. Sycamore Street was improved before the land along
there was developed. One of their costs was a per acre cost for that road and then the road
was built, funded by the City and reimbursed as development came into that area and accessed
that road. Gordon noted future development is going to use that road and would pay for it. He
believes it done that quite regularly. He noted the earlier application tonight regarding American
Legion Road, if that road is improved before that application earlier tonight comes in with a
development plan they won't be asked to pay for it at that point, but when they come in with
their development plan they'll be a fee to access American Legion Road.
Martin asked why the applicant wants to develop that swath right there, they are talking about
Saddlebrook having more single-family homes that need to be developed over to the east and
further north, so why the leap-frog development?
Gordon replied this is the southernmost piece of their property and they do not own the property
to the west, that's owned by the Kruse family. He stated they have single family ground up to
the north quite a ways and then between this property and that property is all the open space,
the 200 acres that has been set aside and cannot be developed. Therefore, this property is
contiguous with where they’ve already developed in Saddlebrook- there is just the 200 acres of
open space in between.
Martin asked about the overall project and how it helps the missing middle?
Gordon stated Saddlebrook is off Heinz Road. He would consider that missing middle and a
higher density area that's all been developed. They are done developing there. Now they are
starting to develop to the west, and that will be all single-family homes. Some has been
developed and there is also some bare ground there that zoned RS-8, so that's all single family
zoned, and not zoned for missing middle or higher density. Then to the south is the 200 acres
set aside as the conservation area, then Sycamore Apartments, which are already there,
developed as another multifamily zone, that's all developed out. There's no more land there.
Therefore, this application is the next piece, the southernmost end of the property.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 16 of 32
Signs asked if he is correct that this is also close to the southernmost boundary of the City of
Iowa City.
Gordon confirmed the southernmost boundary the City of Iowa City is the soccer park and the
(wastewater) treatment plant, which is right south of this property.
Signs stated then no one is going to be going any farther south with residential construction.
Gordon said not at this point, if the City expanded to the south there would be the park and the
(wastewater) treatment plan in between this property and any development to the south. He
added to the east cannot be developed because it's the conservation easement and to the north
is already developed. There's a piece of ground to the west owned by the Kruse family, and
then is the school and the Lehman property which will be developed as that area grows.
Signs asked if he is correct that west of the Kruse property is the Pleasant Valley golf course.
Gordon confirmed that was correct but that's not in the City limits, the City limits ends at the
Kruse property.
Baker asked Gordon to clarify that he is not asserting that the City owes him this zoning.
Gordon responded that they feel it was negotiated in good faith at the time the ID designation
was put on it because at the time, 25 years ago, there was nothing down there, no road, no
sewer. Actually, this annexation allowed the sewer plant to be built to bring the sewer to that
area. Their understanding at that time and those negotiations was that the RM was the zoning
they had and the ID was a placeholder until infrastructures were place.
Baker stated he thought those issues were settled in court.
Gordon stated what they feel is the right thing to do and what was negotiated in fairness versus
the court thing might be two different answers.
Baker noted they are asserting tonight is that the factors justify this rezoning regardless of any
history.
Gordon stated there are a lot of current factors that they feel is an appropriate piece of ground
for the zoning they are requesting. He acknowledged there is also a lot of history in the
development as a whole that would show that this is the appropriate zoning for this piece of
ground as an entire development.
Baker observed that he agrees Gordon is absolutely right about the emphasis on bus
accessibility, he also feels staff is putting too much weight on that as a factor. It is his
experience with transportation issues that once a demand develops, they will find a way to
access that. That being said, Baker asked if there is any other process other than a straight
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 17 of 32
rezoning which would involve negotiation between the City and the property owners to achieve
the same goal with concessions and contributions by the developer and concessions by the City
such as some sort of planned overlay to resolve some of these issues.
Russett replied it would still be a rezoning process. Staff has conveyed to the applicant they are
willing to work with them on trying to get to a point where staff’s comfortable with recommending
approval and the applicant is comfortable with the concept. As of now, they haven't gotten to
that point.
Hektoen pointed out that this Comprehensive Plan was in the process of being approved at the
time the last zoning application was made. At the time the last zoning application was made, the
application for RM-20 was not consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan, nor this
Comprehensive Plan, so these same arguments were being made when this current
Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Hektoen added that despite the arguments that were being
made by the owners, this is the (comprehensive) plan that P&Z and Council did approve.
Signs asked if the current Comprehensive Plan was in place when the annexation of this
property occurred.
Hektoen replied no and stated the first South District Comprehensive Plan was adopted after
the annexation occurred, so it's been adopted and then amended since 1994.
Gordon added he believes the first Comprehensive Plan in this area was done in 1997, which
was a few years after the annexation, and at that time the Comprehensive Plan was not
compatible or didn't match the ID-RM zoning in this area. He doesn’t believe that, whether they
were not aware or what the reasoning was, there was not any discussion or talk by the owners
that it might be an issue. The owners felt the RM designation meant something. Then in the last
round, in 2015, Gordon recognized the issue and the challenge that it might produce and they
did come to the public hearings and reiterate their thought that this was not right and it should
be a different color in the Comprehensive Plan because of the ID-RM zoning and of course, did
not prevail in those arguments and then proceeded with our last rezoning.
Mike Pugh (425 E. Oakdale Blvd) spoke on behalf of the property owner. He acknowledged
they have been before this Commission both on previous rezoning applications and before the
Commission on participating in the South District Plan for about four or five years and if nothing
else they are persistent. Pugh would like the Commission to consider the interplay between the
intended future zoning that the ID-RM zoning reflects and the South District Plan map that is
inconsistent with that zoning. The question he would like for the Commission to consider is how
important the South District Plan is, specifically the future land use map that is included with that
plan, and the colors on the map and determine whether or not those colors on the map should
take precedent over the future use as reflected in the ID-RM zoning designation.
The part of the City Code that talks about interim development zoning states that the interim
development zone is established to provide for areas of managed growth in which agricultural
and other non-urban uses of land may continue until such time as the City is able to provide city
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 18 of 32
services and urban development can occur. The interim development zone is the default zoning
district to which all undeveloped areas should be classified until city services are provided.
Pugh noted in this case, it's taken several years but they believe they are at the point now
where the services can be provided to the property and the ID designation can be dropped.
There is water and sewer adjacent to the property, there's a new school near it, the property is
adjacent to City owned utility and recreational facilities, it's adjacent to a trail system and
considerable open space. Sycamore Street has been improved to a location very near the
property in the intervening road could easily be improved. Pugh added to Mr. Gordon's
comment, he has been involved in several subdivisions around Iowa City and Windsor West
came in, was subdivided, and the developer had to contribute a future cost to American Legion
Road. The applicant that was here tonight when they did that project on the corner of American
Legion and Scott had to contribute for future costs of American Legion Road. When Arlington
Development did the project around St. Pat's, they had to contribute to a cost of Lower West
Branch Road which actually had already been constructed. So it happens quite frequently and
they see Lehman Avenue being improved could be done the same way that when property
comes in and gets developed, the associated property owners and the adjacent property
owners contribute toward that road.
Pugh stated that in addition, the other section of the interim development code under the zoning
designations provides for several different designations of interim development. Those include
interim development single family residential, IR-S, interim development multifamily residential,
ID-RM, which is what the application property is zoned, interim development commercial, ID-C,
interim development industrial, ID-I, and interim development research park, ID-RP. Pugh
stated the key language they feel in the Code then goes on to say to reflect the intended future
use of the property according to the Comprehensive Plan as amended. ID-RS zoning was
available back when this property was annexed and both the City and the developers did not
choose this particular zone for this property. Pugh said it is very clear to him that as a result of
the annexation process, both the City and the developers intended for this property to be
developed as multifamily someday, and we believe that day is now.
Pugh stated that the primary basis in the staff report for the staff recommendation for denial is
that the application is inconsistent with a future land use map contained in the South District
Plan. That map is included in the Commission’s staff report, it's a colored map. Russett send
Pugh a letter soon after they submitted the application commenting on the application and the
primary reason, the only reason given, is that it wasn't consistent with the colored map. Pugh
reiterated at one time he participated back in 2015 in the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan
and stood before this Commission and made arguments that the map as it was colored at that
point was inconsistent with the zoning on the property and what they believed to be their
agreement with the City made back in 1994. Pugh stated they were told at the time that the
map is just a map, it is just a guideline, that the colors don't really mean much other than it's a
general guideline to how those properties could be developed and that the Commission and the
City Council did not have the resources or the information to develop the map and essentially
rezone all of the property in that District to those specific zoning designations that are reflected
on the map. Pugh believes that was a true statement, that the zoning map and the colors on
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 19 of 32
the map are just a mere guideline, just suggested zoning for the area. Therefore, they believe
the selection of ID-RM here was intentional, the parties did not choose it at random, they chose
it because it allowed the owners to set aside land for conservation but not lose the density they
needed to make the project economical and allow the City to protect wetlands and other areas
for conservation. Yet despite having negotiated for multifamily on this property, the primary
reason given for an unfavorable recommendation is that the future land use scenario map
shows the properties future land use is mostly low to medium density single-family residential
and low to medium density mixed residential. Pugh noted the owners had spent years
negotiating the annexation to obtain the ID-RM zoning designation, the RM portion of that
designation reflects the intended future use of the property. They believe the intended use of the
property as reflected by that zoning designation takes precedence over a map in the South
District Plan.
Pugh reiterated the bottom line is that the request and the application is basically just to remove
the ID designation from the zoning. At RM-12, it's not going to have 600 and some units in it
when you include easements and streets and everything else. He stated it is more likely going
to be in the 300 to 350 units range. Again, this development provides a variety of housing
stock, which is really the intention of the RM-12 zone.
In response to Mr. Baker’'s question to Mr. Gordon and to Russett about getting together and
talking about some sort of concept that would meet the needs of both the City and the property
owner, they went through that process about four or five years ago and got some initial
feedback from City staff at the time that they would be supportive for around 400 new units on
the property. Therefore, Mr. Gordon and his team went to work with some engineers on some
concepts with some higher-density multifamily housing right adjacent to the wetlands area,
some townhomes right along Lehman Boulevard and single family and duplexes butted up
against the Kruse property with some open space down by the sewer treatment plant. When
that concept was submitted they received a straight denial, no give and take, no nothing, it
looked very much like the staff report today. Pugh acknowledged the property owners are
always open to discussion, but to be honest, they've been through that process and don't want
to waste their time doing it again.
Pugh thinks the form-based code for this area has a possibility of passing. The developers
around the area have analyzed it to see if it's even going to provide for affordable housing and
noted there are concepts for missing middle type housing that are actually fairly expensive on a
square foot basis. It provides for a variety of housing stock, but it's not necessarily affordable
housing. Pugh would argue that this property owner is the largest provider of affordable
housing in Iowa City, as in the Saddlebrook development which is a fantastic development, and
they should be allowed to develop this property as what they agreed to do back in 1994 when it
was annexed.
Baker asked for some clarification on the statement that five years ago they were led to believe
by staff at that time that approximately 400 units would be a reasonable target.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 20 of 32
Pugh confirmed that was correct, and they submitted a concept plan and were told no.
Baker noted Russett was not on staff five years ago, he wasn't on the Commission, most of the
current members weren't on the Commission.
Signs stated he was in the audience at the 2015 meeting. Dyer, Martin, Hensch and Parsons
were on the Commission at that time.
Baker noted that every once in a while the Commission gets told “we were told A but B
happened”, so he is trying to learn if that did indeed happen.
Hektoen noted there was an application for an RM-20 rezoning made in 2015 that was denied.
Since that application and the litigation that was appealed all the way up to the Iowa Supreme
Court, there has been no application for any other rezoning or concept plan consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan since it was amended in 2015. She noted any of this kind of conversation
would have been had prior to the last zoning application and prior to this Comprehensive Plan
being approved.
Pugh clarified that the owners didn’t make a formal application- they had their rezoning
application turned down by P&Z, they then held the application from going to Council and met
with staff and got some preliminary positive feedback. They didn't actually run the (RM-20)
rezoning application before Council for several months while they went through this process of
working on a rough concept plan that the engineers put together, and then informally presented
it to staff and receive feedback they were not supportive of that with no real feedback of what
they would support. It was then, at that point, they put the application before Council, so it
wasn't a formal rezoning application, it was informal discussions with city staff.
Cordell Braverman (4325 Nursery Ln SE) is a neighbor of this proposed project to the south, he
is the county but his land does surround the water treatment plant and the soccer park. He
owns 240 acres down there which he farms. From his perspective on this proposal, the
densitys involved seem fairly seem reasonable to him. Outside of the 200 acres Mr. Gordon
was referencing within the City that has been given to a conservation easement, to the east is a
neighbor, an elderly farmer who's retired and rents the ground out, but with his low land and
another 80 acre piece directly to the east in a permanent wetland easement, all of that ground is
kind of wet and will probably never have any significant density development on it. In a
topography sense the ground that the applicant is trying to get the zoning on and the one next to
it is higher ground and then there are the soccer fields and it keeps coming down and there will
be a lot of open ground the south of this for forever. Therefore if anyone is worried about over
densifying that Southern part it really could be a density transfer because it's going to be open
forever, there's not much one can do with much of that land. Overall Braverman feels this was a
reasonable proposal for the densities involved and less then what was originally proposed. So
as a neighbor it doesn't concern him.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 21 of 32
Ousainou Keita stated he has been a resident of Iowa City for about 15 years and noted a little
bit of affordable housing was mentioned in the Saddlebrook group development. Keita bought
his first house in that development and lived there for the past 14 years. He is one of the owners
of the manufactured home in the development and now on the west side of him it is all
developed, when he moved in there it was all farmland. Keita stated last Sunday they did a
dedication of a couple of houses that were built by Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity. They were
built for two members of his community, the Muslim community. These are families who will
never dream of owning a home if not for this opportunity. So as a benefactor and as he has
seen it continue to benefit people who are getting affordable housing, the Saddlebrook
development has really contributed to affordable housing and he believes they will continue to
do so.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend approval of REZ19-12 an application submitted by Pugh
Hagan Prahm PLC for a rezoning from Interim Development-Multi-Family (ID-RM) and
Rural Residential (RR-1) to Low Density Multi- Family (RM-12) for approximately 42.01
acres of land located south of Lehman Avenue and east of Soccer Park Road.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Hensch reminded everyone that motions must be made in the affirmative, therefore the motion
is for approval.
Signs noted the applicants are clients of his occasionally in the real estate world, he is one of
many realtors they use to sell their various properties. He was also in the audience and spoke
to the Commission and the City Council, the last time this came before the Commission and the
City Council. Signs believes since his comments are public records he doesn’t see a need to
recuse himself.
Hektoen asked if Signs can be unbiased in his consideration of this application, despite his
association with the owners. Signs stated his opinions have not changed. Signs confirmed he is
not biased because of the relationship. It falls very much within his entire wheelhouse around
affordable housing and and he lives on the south side and has been involved with the South
Side Development plan.
Townsend asked about the statement of support for rezoning that references the 1994
document. She is having a problem understanding what was agreed to or why what came out of
it is now not happening. What is the reason for denying that?
Russett replied the reason for denying the request for rezoning in 2015 was very similar to the
recommendation before the Commission tonight that it was not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Townsend stated then the Comprehensive Plan annulled the agreement.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 22 of 32
Hektoen explained there was no agreement in 1994 to rezone this property to any particular
zoning designation in the future. That's what the court said- there was no agreement for any
future land use designation. Any consideration of a zoning application has to be made in the
context of the Comprehensive Plan that exists on the day that rezoning decision is made. The
zoning power is a police power that needs to be made after you give consideration to public
health, safety and welfare, and so that kind of decision can't be contracted away. The Council in
1994 couldn't bind the Council in 2019 to make a certain zoning decision because
circumstances change, public needs change, situations change. It is against public policy to
bind a future Council to a specific zoning decision. The courts recognize that and reviewed the
record that the property owners presented and that the City presented and they said they see
nothing in this record that guaranteed any zoning designation. Regardless of the fact that this is
ID-RM, that doesn't guarantee an RM designation. It doesn't guarantee any designation at any
particular point in time because of those factors just described. Therefore, despite what the
applicant continues to argue, the courts have very clearly disagreed with their arguments that
they've made here tonight and that they made back in 2015.
Hektoen stated what they negotiated for was an ID-RM designation, it was not for RM-12. That's
what the courts have concluded.
Signs asked if there could have been a CZA written at the time in 1994, included a designation
of a zoning for future use.
Hektoen said it could not, it would be a contract zoning situation that would be binding a future
Council to do this. She reiterated no one can take away Councils authority to adopt
comprehensive plans and respond to community needs in the in the zoning context.
Hensch noted he likes the future land use map, he feels it is more than just colors on a map, it is
a direction of where the people of Iowa City want to development to occur because it's
developed with the input of all the citizens of Iowa City. He understands the previous
communication errors, but feels the history is not relevant now because the court has decided.
Lastly he noted it's unfortunate that a middle ground can't be negotiated and reached between
City staff and the developers because he’s very pro-development for this area and wants to see
it happen. He just thinks the density is wrong for this area and agrees with the City staff
recommendations.
Parsons stated with this application there is a lack of concept and vision on what is going to go
here. He noted a lot can be done with RM-12 that probably wouldn't go well for this area, so he
is not comfortable with supporting this.
Signs stated again this situation is consistent with so many things he champions as a resident of
South Side and advocate for affordable housing. He won't go into the history with the exception
of saying the landowner agreed to a voluntary annexation and agreed to dedicate 200 acres into
a conservation zone and to think that there was no expectation that there would need to be
adjustment made to make up for the loss of development on that 240 acres five years ago and
today seems a little bit of a stretch. Signs noted this is a piece of ground that sits next to a
swamp, next to a sewage treatment plant, surrounded by land as the one neighbor indicated,
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 23 of 32
there's probably not going to be a whole lot more going on beyond this point. The idea that
somebody wants to build a $400,000 house next to a swamp and a sewer plant doesn't make
sense to him as a realtor looking at the market, looking at what people in $400,000 houses
expect of their neighborhood. The applicant mentions the diversity of housing, the affordability
of housing, the South Side Plan. W hen the South Side Plan was being revised, he spoke to the
fact that plan doesn't have much diversity in it at all, is vastly made up of single family homes. If
the City for years has had a plan of wanting to diversify areas of town, wanting to spread the
affordability around, and yet we prepared a plan that didn't do that.
Signs next discussed the whole plan and the guidelines. As he has said many times before, he
sees a comprehensive plan as a vision, not as a bible. And many times, this Commission and
the City Council have made decisions that didn't follow the Comprehensive Plan exactly
because things change. He noted the Comprehensive Plan is almost 10 years old. That's a lot
of time in the history of Iowa City, and in the priorities of affordable housing, of missing middle,
of a lot of things that we are doing today that we probably maybe didn't even comprehend 10
years ago. The IC2013 Comprehensive Plan is what he is discussing. However, when the
South District Plan was developed there were many public meetings held. Signs attended all but
one of them because he wasn't invited to because staff knew that his comments weren't
consistent with what they were proposing. He was purposely not invited to that meeting and
that has been confirmed to him by a staff member. Signs stated there were a lot of things that
were talked about that didn't end up in the South District Plan, so again to see that as a bible,
an immutable document that can't be finessed is a fallacy.
Signs state this is a piece of land surrounded by nothing that's going to be developed in the
future. It's not like it's going anywhere, it is landlocked, nothing will be developed around it with
the exception of the piece on the other side is Soccer Park Road, which he thinks should be the
zoned the same way. Signs stated this is a piece of land that is perfect. The other thing to look
at is the conservation zone and today it is often the case where one gets density transfers due
to conservation zones. That's is what the applicant did in 1994, they gave up 200 some acres of
land to preserve it, in exchange to believe that the other land would be zoned dense enough to
make up for the cost of that 240 acres being donated. That is now part of City policy,
conservation zoning and density transfer. As a resident of South Side, Signs feels this is one of
the few areas where the potential for affordable housing development is ever going to happen.
It's not going to happen out on East Court Street. It's not going to happen over by Camp
Cardinal Road. It's not going to happen up on the north side because they’ve turned it down
before. This is one of the few areas in town that has the ability and potential of ever being
developed as affordable with more affordable housing, and yet we’re saying no, we were saying
we want single family houses there. In 2015, it was said they wanted $300,000 and $400,000
house there, but that's not going to happen. Signs lives on the south side and he knows that
some of the newer construction that he has sold down that area hasn't passed the appraisals
because the appraiser doesn't see the value of that side of town.
Signs stated regarding infrastructure he likes the applicant’s idea of treating it like a tap-on-fee
because that's really what it is. To extend public services, which are almost there now, you have
a developer who's willing to bear the initial cost of doing that, with the idea that they get
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 24 of 32
reimbursed by the other folks who will benefit from it. Back in 2015, the comment was made
that we don't do that in the City of Iowa City. And yet someone at that point pointed out that
that's exactly what happened with the Peninsula development. The infrastructure was run to that
area and the future development paid for it.
Hektoen noted the comment was the City doesn’t do special assessments and that is an
accurate statement. In this case, the extension of Lehman is not in the City’s capital
improvements plan and that is where the City starts collecting the tap-on-fee, although that is
not exactly how the City describes it. Signs noted developers offered to do that. Hektoen
explained what they were describing tonight was that the City would front the costs and the
developer would contribute their 12.5% which is the standard contribution for arterial streets. But
it's not in City plans right now. Signs noted he doesn’t think the applicant has fully developed
their plans right now. They're looking at this as the first step to allowing them to get there.
Signs also noted regarding the use of this area that is in yellow on the map, there is basically a
driveway to a soccer park going right to the middle, so again he goes back to compatibility with
expensive single-family homes and that doesn't jive to him.
Martin stated she cannot speak to the history of the past conversations or the court cases, we
know what you've told us, she was not there. First, she wants to say she absolutely appreciates
the amount of work Steve Gordon in particular has done in Saddlebrook. She thinks that that
has been such an amazing neighborhood. That being said, there's a very large separation
between that area and this area, so she is having difficulty seeing it as one. As she is looking at
this, as a lay person, she sees there's room for and there are apartments there already, but
feels like it's important for a gradual transition from conservation area to residents. When we
talk about diversity of housing, there are already apartments there. Are the only options it's
either high density or million dollar homes? She thinks it could be lower density and more
gradual going towards the soccer park. When she hears a project surrounded by the things that
won't be developed, she visualizes this as it doesn't need to be this beacon of a whole bunch of
high density that is surrounded by all of this gorgeous land. She is looking for a gentle transition
from conservation to residents. She agrees a development here will be lovely at some point and
can see a lot of different housing but its low density because there already is a higher density
nearby. She is having a hard time wrapping her head around this island of land being
overpopulated just for that bottom dollar.
Signs noted this secluded pocket of land is much like the Peninsula, which is very highly dense,
and became even more so than it was originally planned. The Peninsula development was over
time zoned to allow for higher density because they needed that to make it economical.
Hektoen noted the Peninsula has a very specific zoning code adopted just for it, so it was very
prescriptive, unlike this particular application.
Baker stated he is really ambivalent about this because he doesn’t think the City or the applicant
have made their case. If he were approaching this without any history, his biggest concern
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 25 of 32
would be this is 40-something acres and he doesn’t see what they're planning here. If he had a
sense of what the developer was actually going to do it would be better. He doesn’t really have
a problem with the density, he has a problem with the sort of opaqueness of this this application
right now. Baker asked if the City even does CZAs anymore? If so then a conditional zoning
agreement with the density like this would require the developer and the City to reach some sort
of accommodation? He does not want to vote for just a simple blanket rezoning. He does
believe the developer has a more compelling case for doing something down there then the City
has for not letting it happen.
Signs stated that the last time the applicant was before the Commission they did have those
concept plans and probably spend a lot of money creating them and walked away empty
handed. He acknowledged they have certainly sent developers back many times to come back
with new plans.
Baker stated he just doesn’t see any plan here, he just sees a req uest for a rezoning “to let us
go” plan. Baker noted he will vote against a motion for approval of the rezoning at this time.
Dyer stated she sees this as an island in the middle of some pleasant land, but removed from
almost everything that one would need to conduct daily life. And being on an unimproved road,
a long way from any services, putting affordable or low-income housing in this area would seem
to be the kind of housing where many people wouldn't have cars and no bus lines. The other
concern is being by a sewer treatment plant, the idea of the only thing that's warranted to go
there is low income housing. She noted we’ve done that in this country for years and years and
years, put people in the middle of tank farms and toxic waste dumps and all kinds of other
things and that is what this looks like to her.
A vote was taken and the motion failed 2-5 (Signs and Townsend in the affirmative; Dyer,
Baker, Martin, Parsons and Signs in the negative).
CASE NO. CZ19-02:
Applicant: Charles Ockenfels
Location: 4653 Indian Lookout Rd SE
An application submitted by Charles Ockenfels for a rezoning of approximately 2.43 acres of
property located in unincorporated Johnson County from County Agriculture to County
Residential (R).
Russett stated this is a proposed rezoning within the fringe area, in unincorporated Johnson
County. She showed an aerial of the project site, it's on Indian Lookout Road SE, just east of
Highway 218. It is in Area C of the Fringe Area which is outside of the City growth boundary.
The area is currently zoned agriculture it is surrounded by some existing residential single-
family homes to the west. The proposed rezoning is from County Agricultural (A) to County
Residential (R), and if approved the applicant intends to build a single-family home on the
subject property.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 26 of 32
Russett noted in September of 2019 the County amended its future land use map in this area to
change the land use designation from agriculture to residential and at that time City staff
provided an advisory position on that plan amendment in support of the amendment. The
Fringe Area Agreement is a component of the City's Comprehensive Plan and applies to areas
outside of our jurisdiction and provides guidance regarding land development within those two
miles outside of the Iowa City corporate limits. The proposed rezoning is located in Fringe Area
C outside the City's growth area in the land use policy direction in the Fringe Area Agreement
for that area is to maintain it to be rural and agricultural land uses, but this policy is in conflict
with the County's updated future land use map.
Although the Fringe Area Agreement does not support residential zoning staff is recommending
approval for the following reasons. First is that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the
County's future land use map. There are also several large lot residences that can be found to
the west of the subject property. It's on a paved road that is suited to accommodate residential
development and repeated subdivision or over development of this subject property is unlikely
due to the woodlands and steep slopes as well as the County Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
Finally, staff is working with the County planning staff to update the Fringe Area Agreement to
address the conflicts that currently exists between the Fringe Area policy and the County's
future land use map. Hektoen noted in that work, staff would support a change consistent with
this application.
Russett stated the role of the Commission is to provide a recommendation to City Council. This
decision is ultimately the Board of Supervisors. Following the Commission's recommendation
this will go to City Council and City Council will provide a recommendation to the Johnson
County Planning Commission.
Staff is recommending approval of our CZ19-02 an application submitted by Charles Ockenfels
for a rezoning of approximately 2.43 acres of property located in unincorporated Johnson
County from County Agriculture (A) to County Residential (R).
Russett noted that in the staff report they had recommended approval subject to a condition that
the remaining four plus acres be put into a preservation or conservation easement. Staff is
amending that recommendation tonight and are suggesting instead to recommend Johnson
County consider options for preserving that additional 4.42 acres but not proposing it as a
specific condition. Hektoen noted the application is not for that 4.42 acres - the application is to
rezone 2.4 acres. The City can't attach a condition to land that's not subject to the rezoning.
Martin asked if only one house would be built on this piece of land could the homeowner or
property owner not build a house on it as currently zoned agriculture? Russett confirmed that's
correct. Martin asked if the 4.42 acres were put into a conservation or whatever, does that
benefit them tax wise? Is there a tax difference between preservation and agriculture? Russett
is unsure.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 27 of 32
Hensch noted this application is in conflict with the Fringe Area Agreement right now however
the implication is the new Fringe Area Agreement will be consistent with this proposed rezoning.
Russett confirmed that was correct.
Hensch noted a couple months ago there was an application on the east side off American
Legion Road where the Fringe Area Agreement was in conflict with the rezoning and the
Commission denied the rezoning because of that, and then it went to a conflict resolution
committee and was all worked out so in this case he doesn’t want to see any unnecessary steps
if staff is comfortable that in fact the Fringe Area Agreement is going to be modified to allow this
rezoning. Russett stated that would be their recommendation but they don't know what will end
up getting adopted.
Baker asked then why not just wait until the Fringe Area Agreement is modified. Russett stated
because the application is before us now and they don’t know when it's going to get resolved.
Hensch noted we do know what the future land use map was modified to indicate and this
application is consistent with the modified future land use map.
Signs asked if there is a hammerhead in place and it would be the entry way probably to the
property. Russett confirmed that is their property, it fronts Indian Lookout Road but access will
be from that hammerhead.
Hensch asked if the Commission approves this and it is inconsistent with the Fringe Area
Agreement, that is their prerogative to do that. Hektoen confirmed it is.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Gina Landau (MMS Consultants) stated the proposal is to build one single family home on this
lot. She will address the outlot that was discussed for preservation, she understands the desire
for that but can confirm that people who move to the county and want to build homes in the
county want to keep those trees, they move there because they like the trees. They like the
ravines, they like all of that. So, that fact as well as the fact that the County’s Sensitive Areas
Ordinance ties them really tightly to everything. In the County right now they are only allowed to
clear 25% trees to build a home but that is about to go to 15% with the Unified Development
Ordinance that is planned to be approved in December or January. So there's really not a
reason to worry about preservation because the Sensitive Areas Ordinance in the County
already handled that. Landau addressed Mr. Baker’s comment about the Fringe Area
Agreement. She believes that the one with Iowa City has been expired since 2006. Hektoen
stated there is a valid Fringe Area Agreement in place right now, it is an automatic renewal.
Landau understands it automatically renews but it hasn't been updated with two of the current
County updates. Russett acknowledged it has been a long time since it's been updated, they
are working on updating it right now and recognize it's out of date.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 28 of 32
Parsons moved to recommend approval of CZ19-02 an application submitted by Charles
Ockenfels for a rezoning of approximately 2.43 acres of property located in
unincorporated Johnson County from County Agriculture (A) to County Residential (R)
with encouragement that the rest of the property be preserved.
Signs seconded the motion.
No discussion, so Hensch called the question.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1 (Baker dissenting).
CASE NO. ZCA19-05:
Discussion of Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to utility-scale,
ground-mounted solar energy systems.
Russett gave some background noting the City and MidAmerican energy are currently exploring
options for installing a solar facility near the water plant. Currently the Zoning Code doesn't
have a comprehensive solar ordinance. How the City regulates solar right now is to consider
large scale solar as a basic utility use, and basic utility uses are allowed in industrial and
commercial zones, they are not allowed in public zones. The proposed amendment is to create
a new use for utility scale ground mounted solar energy systems to add some additional
approval criteria for those uses, and to allow those uses as a provisional use in public zones.
The City allows basic utilities as a provisional use in the industrial zones via special exception
and the commercial zones and they are not allowed in our public zones. Staff is proposing is to
continue to allow just utility scale solar uses as a provisional use in industrial zones and via
special exception in the commercial zones, and then add utility scale solar as a provisional use
in public zones.
Staff is also proposing some specific approval criteria for these utility scale uses. Some of these
were carried over from the approval criteria the City requires for basic utility uses. Additional
criteria were added based on the review of other jurisdictions solar ordinances. In terms of the
criteria, staff is proposing that the solar and energy facility would be located at least 200 feet
from any residential zone, it is screamed from public view and view of any residential zone, and
they are proposing an exemption from this screening requirement if the solar facility has some
educational purpose and it's located in a public zone. Staff anticipates that some public entities
will want to have some sort of educational component to future solar facilities, this could include
signage and explanation of the benefits of solar energy. In those instances, it's important to
actually see the solar facility and not screen it. Staff is also recommending a setback of at least
20 feet from all property lines or the minimum setback that would be required in the bass zone if
it's larger than 20 feet. They are recommending adoption of an approval criteria that the solar
facility would be enclosed by a six to eight foot fence and are allowing additional height for
barbed wire fencing. Staff is recommending the solar facility height be maxed out at 15 feet and
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 29 of 32
that any lighting be full cutoff compliant lighting and that the solar panels use non-reflective
surfaces to minimize glare.
Regarding the solar facilities that would require a special exception process, all of those
provisional use criteria would be carried forward to the zones where special exception would be
required but then there would be some additional requirements that the Board of Adjustment
would have to review. The two additional criteria are that they use is be compatible with
surrounding structures and that the Board of Adjustment could consider additional design
elements for uses in highly visible areas. Russett noted these two criteria are carried forward
from the current code.
Staff are also proposing two definitions, one for a solar energy system, and then a definition for
utility scale ground mounted solar energy system. The important note here is they are
recommending the utility scale ground mounted start at a facility that's at least one acre in size.
The rationale for our text amendments is they feel this is kind of the first start and entry into the
City possibly expanding the solar provisions in the solar regulations, and in the future may
consider adopting a more comprehensive ordinance. These amendments also will not affect
how smaller scale accessory solar facilities are permitted on residential or commercial uses and
it will also create opportunities for public entities to consider solar on site. Finally, it will help to
achieve the City's climate action goals.
After the Planning Commission's recommendation this will go to City Council for public hearing
and consideration of the amendments.
Staff is recommending approval of the text amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City
Code related to utility-scale, ground-mounted solar energy systems.
Hensch asked if this regulation is only for PV fields that are one acre or more and they have to
be ground mounted units. Russett confirmed that was correct. Hensch asked if one is created
in an area zoned P1 or P2 does that have to go before the Board of Adjustment. Russett stated
they are recommending it be a provisional use so it would not have to go to the Board of
Adjustment in the P zones.
Martin asked if the screening requirement is also only for these large spaces. Russett confirmed
that was correct, for one acre or more areas.
Hensch comment the one thing he finds a little disturbing is the three strands of barbed wire the
top like it's a government secret or something, he can't really see how this is much of an
attractive nuisance. If you have a six-foot fence or eight-foot fence it seems cosmetically to look
bad and he doesn’t agree with that.
Signs agreed and asked what is the rationale for screening from public view? Russett stated it is
a provision that they carried forward from the current regulations for basic utilities. The concern
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 30 of 32
was that especially if it's close to residential or public right-of-way people might not like to look at
these and think they're not aesthetically pleasing. They are talking about S3 screening.
Baker asked what full cutoff compliant lighting is. Russett said another way to refer to it is as
dark skies compliant so all the light shines down and it avoids spillage.
Signs asked about S3 screening. Hensch explained it’s all the perimeter bushes and plants,
there is S1, S2 and S3 with S3 being the highest level. Russett added the S3 is between five
and six feet of screening height.
Signs wondered if there was any mention of any thought about roof mounted systems. For
example in the east side industrial park there's literally acres of roof out there, would this
prohibit that. Hensch asked if there was a regulation with the utilities that only a certain
percentage of a building power can be contributed by PV so that would prevent that from
happening. Signs asks because he knows there are communities across the country where
public utilities lease rooftops to put on large solar arrays to contribute to the to the net worth.
Hektoen stated this will not change how those are regulated. This amendment is allowing
ground-mounted large-scale solar arrays in the public zone and also establishing more criteria
for its use in other zones. It is not changing roof-mounted regulations.
Russett wonders if the question is if the roof-mounted facility is more than an acre, and if you
have a building that has a roof that is that large, would that be still accessory or not? Hensch
noted an acre rooftop is like 60 feet by 660 feet and it's going to be tough to find a building to
accomplish that. Russett said that is something to be considered for the future.
Townsend stated she is pleased to see some things happening with conserving energy now.
She asked how these regulations differ from the wind energy that we're seeing going up around
Iowa. Russett replied from a zoning standpoint some of the concerns related to wind are
different than the concerns related to solar. Some people really don't like seeing the windmills
and there's some concern about the visual impact of them, there's concerns about birds and if
they're in a migratory bird path. Townsend added with all the talk about climate change, Iowa
City would be a nice place to be in the forefront so why hide it.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Adam Jablaski (MidAmerican Energy) is from the office in Urbandale, Iowa. He appreciates the
City putting this together, they do think it's a very workable ordinance and addresses some of
the City's residents’ concerns. He wanted to add one comment, in the 18G section it says no
after image, after images are when you stare at a light and close your eyes you see the after
image of that light. So he recommends the City either say minimize the after image or
completely remove it because of the glare. The glare can cause any after image and the glare
minimization is already addressed in here, saying no to anything is a high standard to hit.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 31 of 32
Hensch asked about the question about solar panels on rooftops of commercial or industrial.
Jablaski stated he is not a system planning expert for a MidAmerica but can follow up.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Parsons moved to recommend approval of ZCA 19-05, Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of
the Iowa City Code related to utility- scale, ground-mounted solar energy systems with
the note about changing the draft code language regarding glare.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Dyer asked if this is installed at the Treatment Plant will it interfere with the walking trails.
Russett said it might temporarily during the construction phase but most of them will still be
open even during construction.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 17, 2019
Parsons moved to approve the meeting minutes of October 17, 2019.
Signs seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett noted on Monday the City Council adopted the rezoning ordinance and conditional
zoning agreement for the rezoning on East Prentiss Street for the Capstone Collegiate
Communities rezoning.
ADJOURNMENT:
Townsend moved to adjourn.
Baker seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2018 - 2019
3/15
(W.S.)
4/2
4/5
(W.S)
4/16
4/19
5/3
5/17
6/7
6/21
7/5
8/16
9/6
9/20
10/18
12/20
1/3
BAKER, LARRY -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X O/E X X
DYER, CAROLYN O/E X O/E X X X X X O/E X O O/E O X X X
FREERKS, ANN X X X X X O/E X X X ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- --
HENSCH, MIKE O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E
PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X
SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
THEOBALD, JODIE X X X X X X X X O/E ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- -- ‘-- --
TOWNSEND, BILLIE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X O/E X
1/17 (W.S.)
2/4
2/21 3/7 3/21 4/4 4/18 5/16 6/6 6/20 7/18 8/15 9/5 10/3 10/17 11/7
BAKER, LARRY X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X O/E X X
DYER, CAROLYN O/E X X X X X X O/E X X X X X O/E X X
FREERKS, ANN -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
HENSCH, MIKE X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X X X X X
MARTIN, PHOEBE X O/E X X X O/E X X X X O/E O/E X X X X
PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X
SIGNS, MARK X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X X X X
THEOBALD, JODIE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member