HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 08.06.2020PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, August 6, 2020
Electronic Formal Meeting – 7:00 PM
Zoom Meeting Platform
Agenda:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
4. Case No. CPA20-0001
Applicant: MMS Consultants
Location: Parcel #1112476001 (north of Camp Cardinal Blvd, west of Camp Cardinal
Rd)
A public hearing on an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan future land use
map designation from Public/Private Open Space to General Commercial for
approximately 3.11 acres.
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is
impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of
Commission members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19.
You can participate in the meeting and can comment on an agenda item by
going to: https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJUsc-
mvrjkiGNyEY2kb_yhm89XmTHx539MM to visit the Zoom meeting’s
registration page and submitting the required information. Once approved,
you will receive an email message with a link to join the meeting. If you are
asked for a meeting or webinar ID, enter the ID number found in the email. If
you have no computer or smartphone, or a computer without a microphone,
you can call in by phone by dialing (312) 626-6799 and entering the meeting
ID 911 4070 2828 when prompted. Providing comment in person is not an
option.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 6, 2020
Other
5. Discussion on the good neighbor program
6. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: July 16, 2020
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: August 20 / September 3 / September 17
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
1
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: CPA20-0001
Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner
Date: August 6, 2020
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: MMS Consultants
1917 S. Gilbert Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-351-8282
l.stutzman@mmsconsultants.net
Contact Person: MMS Consultants
1917 S. Gilbert Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-351-8282
k.billick@mmsconsultants.net
j.marner@mmsconsultants.net
Property Owner(s): Jon Harding
709 Normandy Dr
Iowa City, IA 52246
Requested Action: Change the Comprehensive Plan future land use
map designation from Public/Private Open Space to
General Commercial
Purpose: To allow the construction of an event center
Location: Parcel #1112476001 (north of Camp Cardinal Blvd,
west of Camp Cardinal Rd)
Location Map:
Size: 3.11 acres
2
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Vacant (open space); Neighborhood Public (P-1)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Vacant (open space), Interim Development,
Research Park (ID-RP)
East: Residential & Institutional; Low Density
Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) & Low
Density Single-Family Residential with
Planned Development Overlay (RS-5 OPD)
South: Residential & Institutional; Low Density
Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) &
Neighborhood Public (P-1)
West: Institutional; Institutional Public (P-2)
Comprehensive Plan: Public/Private Open Space
District Plan: Not Applicable
File Date: June 25, 2020
BACKGROUND:
Jon Harding owns approximately 3.11 acres of property located at the corner of Camp Cardinal
Boulevard and Camp Cardinal Road, across the street from 80 Gathering Place Lane. The owner
hired MMS Consulting, the applicant, to prepare three applications to allow the development of a
7,000 square foot building that would function as a community event center on the north side of
the property. Attachment 5 includes the proposed site plan for the property.
This application proposes to amend the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use map (CPA20-
0001). The property is in the Northwest Planning District, which doesn’t have an adopted District
Plan. Attachments 3 and 4 illustrate how the proposed amendment is to change the property’s
future land use designation from Public/Private Open Space to General Commercial.
The other concurrently submitted applications include a right-of-way vacation (VAC20-0001),
which would allow the owner to acquire additional land on Camp Cardinal Boulevard, and a
rezoning (REZ20-0001), which would change its zone from Neighborhood Public (P-1) to
Community Commercial (CC-2) with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD) to protect on-site
sensitive features. Generally, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment must be approved for the
rezoning to comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant indicated that they intend to use the Good Neighbor Policy and hold a Good Neighbor
Meeting. However, they opted to not conduct an in-person meeting due to COVID-19, but instead
sent letters on June 30 informing neighbors that they will accept comments and questions directly.
ANALYSIS:
The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan serves as a land-use planning guide by illustrating and
describing the location and configuration of appropriate land uses throughout the City, providing
notification to the public regarding intended uses of land; and illustrating the long-range growth
area limit for the City. Applicants may request an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan
with approval of the City Council, following a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning
3
Commission. Applicants for a comprehensive plan amendment must provide evidence that the
request meets the approval criteria in Section 14-8D-3D. The comments of the applicant are
found in Attachment 3. Staff comments on the criteria if as follows.
14-8D-3D Approval Criteria: Applications for a comprehensive plan amendment must
include evidence that the following approval criteria are met:
1. Circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors have come
to light such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest.
The subject property was deeded to Johnson County in 1875 as part of a larger tract
known as the Johnson County Poor Farm. The construction of Highway 218 and right-of-
way for Camp Cardinal Road in 1981 severed the subject property from the larger tract.
In 2012, Johnson County voted to dispose of this property, and on January 23, 2014, the
parcel was sold to Jon Harding (Book 5202, Page 455 in the Office of the Johnson County
Recorder).
Iowa City adopted its current Comprehensive Plan on May 14, 2013, just prior to the parcel
being sold. The Future Land Use Map designates the subject parcel as Public/Private
Open Space, due to its public ownership and sensitive features, including steep slopes,
wetlands, and a stream corridor. Future land use maps from earlier Comprehensive Plans
simply show the area as remaining a public use. At that time, the area contained no City
infrastructure and was generally used for agricultural purposes.
The surrounding area only began experiencing significant development following the
construction of Camp Cardinal Boulevard in 2007. The emerging neighborhood includes
a variety of housing types and a few compatible non-residential uses. Cardinal Pointe
South, located approximately a quarter mile to the north, contains a mix of single-family
homes, townhouses, and duplexes. There is also a medical office and elementary school
located on Kennedy Parkway approximately a half mile to the north, and Cardinal Villas
and St. Andrew Presbyterian Church directly east of the property. Additional development
is anticipated in the near future.
Staff finds the sale and development of the surrounding neighborhood as constituting a
change of circumstances. While the current Future Land Use Map designation provides
for open space that is both publicly and privately owned, shifting from public to private
ownership can change the best use for a property. In addition, the development of the
neighborhood changes the context that existed at the time the plan was adopted. While
sensitive features remain on the property, modifying the future land use designation to
allow development that accommodates sensitive features, in compliance with the City’s
Sensitive Areas Ordinance, maintains the spirit of the ordinance. The proposed
designation of General Commercial also allows development that is compatible with
nearby development.
2. The proposed amendment will be compatible with other policies or provisions of
the comprehensive plan, including any district plans or other amendments thereto.
A detailed district plan has not been prepared for the Northwest District, but the
Comprehensive Plan contains policies addressing land use and natural resources.
4
Land use policies encourage buffers between residential development and major
highways (p. 23) and indicate that alternatives to single-family development may be
appropriate for property located at major intersections (p. 27). The subject property is near
Highway 218 on the corner of Camp Cardinal Boulevard, an arterial road, and Camp
Cardinal Road, a collector street. Because commercial uses are less sensitive to highway
noise, they would be appropriate for this location by buffering residential areas from
Highway 218, while benefitting from the visibility and higher traffic counts at this location.
In addition, the Comprehensive Plan supports appropriate transitions between high and
low-density development and commercial and residential land uses (p. 25). A higher-
intensity commercial use at this property would maintain an appropriate transition with
multi-family uses to the east. Lower density residential uses are located farther north and
east. Similarly, two Comprehensive Plan Amendments that increased the intensity of uses
were approved for properties directly east across Camp Cardinal Road and to the
southeast. CPA16-00001, adopted May 3, 2016, changed the future land use map
designation for the property north of Melrose Avenue and east of Camp Cardinal
Boulevard from Residential 2-8 Dwelling Units per Acre to Office Commercial. CPA16-
00003, adopted January 17, 2017, changed the future land use map designation for the
property at the northeast corner of Camp Cardinal Road and Camp Cardinal Boulevard
from Residential 2-8 Dwelling Units per Acre to Residential 8-16 Dwelling Units per Acre.
Policies regarding natural resources include discouraging sprawl by promoting infill
development and continuing to identify and preserve environmentally sensitive areas by
enforcing the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (p.42). If the future land use is changed from
Public/Private Open Space to General Commercial, the property would be required to
abide by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. As such, the rezoning application concurrently
submitted includes a Planned Development Overlay (OPD) to preserve these features.
Overall, staff finds that the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the
future land use designation of the subject property from Public/Private Open Space to
General Commercial is compatible with other policies in the Comprehensive Plan,
especially those relating to land use and natural resources.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of CPA20-0001, a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
to change the future land use designation from Public/Private Open Space to General Commercial
for Parcel #1112476001, located north of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and west of Camp Cardinal
Road.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Application Statement
4. Proposed Future Land Use Map
5. Good Neighbor Meeting Documents
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
CA M P C A R D INALRDHIGH
WAY 218
GATHERING PL A C E LN
DEER C R E E K R D
CAMP CARDINAL BLVD
HIGH
WAY 218
218 SB TO M
ELR
O
SE AVE
MELROSEAVETO218NB
CPA20-01 - Harding Event CenterNorth of Camp Cardinal Blvd, West of Camp Cardinal Road.µ
0 0.07 0.140.035 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: June 2020
An application submitted by MMS Consultants, on behalf of Jon Harding, to request a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of approximately 3.1 acres of property from Public/Private Open Space to General Commercial
CA M P C A R D INALRDHIGH
WAY 218
GATHERING P L A C E LNDEE R C R E E K R D
CAMP CARDINAL BLVD
HIGH
WAY 218
CAMPCARDINALBLVD
218 SB TO M
ELR
O
SE AVE
MELROSEAVETO218NB
P2
RM12
RR1
ID-RP
P1
ID-RS
RS5
CPA20-01 - Harding Event CenterNorth of Camp Cardinal Blvd, West of Camp Cardinal Road.µ
0 0.07 0.140.035 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: June 2020
An application submitted by MMS Consultants, on behalf of Jon Harding, to request a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of approximately 3.1 acres of property from Public/Private Open Space to General Commercial
June 26, 2020
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Re: Camp Cardinal Event Center
On behalf of Jon Harding we are submitting a request for a Planned Development
Overlay(OPD) in conjunction with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. We are
proposing a change of the land use from Public/Private Open Space to General
Commercial to allow for the construction of 7,000 square foot building that would
function as an event center. Since the current Comprehensive Plan was adopted,
circumstances have changed and the property was sold to the applicant by Johnson
County. The proposed land use will be compatible with the surrounding land uses,
specifically the multi-family and church sites immediately to the east. The property
proposed for development contains sensitive areas that will need to be regulated
according to the City’s Sensitive Lands and Features Ordinance, warranting the request
for a rezoning to Planned Development Overlay (OPD).
Respectfully submitted,
Keith Billick, P.L.A.
MMS Consultants, Inc.
9744-004ApplicantStatement.docx
WARRANTY DEEDACQUISITION PARCEL
SE 1\4 - SE 1\4SECTION 12-T79N-R7WST. ANDREW PRESBYTERIAN
CHURCH - PART ONE
OUTLOT "A"
LOT 2
GATHERING PLACE LANE
CAMP CARDINAL ROAD (R.O.W. VARIES)CA
M
P
C
A
R
D
I
N
A
L
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
(R
.
O
.
W
.
V
A
R
I
E
S
)
AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2011054
Q
U
I
T
C
L
A
I
M
D
E
E
D
(319) 351-8282
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
www.mmsconsultants.net
1917 S. GILBERT ST.
IOWA CITY
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
06-22-2020
JDM
JDM
GDM
IOWA CITY
9744-004 1
1259
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENT
EXHIBIT
1
1"=50'
138,525 SF
3.18 AC
OPEN SPACE TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0
1"=50'
5 25 50
A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH,
RANGE 7 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT EXHIBIT
IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
PLAT PREPARED BY:
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
1917 S. GILBERT STREET
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
OWNERS \ APPLICANT:
JON M HARDING
709 NORMANDY DRIVE
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52246
LOCATION MAP - N.T.S.
DESCRIPTION - OPEN SPACE TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL
A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION
12, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Commencing at the Northeast Corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of
Section 12, Township 79 North, Range 7 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Iowa City,
Johnson County, Iowa; Thence S89°07'21"W, along the North Line of said Southeast Quarter of
the Southeast Quarter, 50.20 feet, to the Point of Beginning; Thence S01°03'05"E, along a Line
parallel with and 50.20 feet normally distant Westerly from the East Line of said Southeast
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, 175.17 feet; Thence S89°07'21"W, 32.14 feet, to a Point on
the West Right-of-Way Line of Camp Cardinal Road; Thence S09°21'07"W, along said West
Right-of-Way Line, 239.41 feet, to its intersection with the Northerly Right-of-Way Line of Camp
Cardinal Boulevard; Thence N56°24'45"W, along said Northerly Right-of-Way Line, 581.75 feet;
Thence Northwesterly, 99.74 feet, along said Northerly Right-of-Way Line on an 1100.00 foot
radius curve, concave Northeasterly, whose 99.71 foot chord bears N35°59'36"W, to its
intersection with the North Line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; Thence
N89°07'21"E, along said North Line, 611.12 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Rezoning Parcel
contains 3.18 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record.
POINT OF BEGINNING
REZONING PARCEL
A PORTION OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF SECTION 12,
TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH,
RANGE 7 WEST OF THE
FIFTH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN
G:\9744\9744-004\9744-004N-COMP.dwg, 6/25/2020 11:35:06 AM, jdm
Notice of Good Neighbor Meeting and Open House
June 30, 2020
Location: In light of the COVID-19 situation we will not be conducting an in person meeting, instead we
will accept comments and questions directly via email or letter..
To Our Neighbors:
The Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) will soon consider a comprehensive plan
amendment and rezoning for a property in your area. The property is located at the corner of Camp
Cardinal Road and Camp Cardinal Blvd (see attached map). The proposal is to change the Land Use
designation from Public/Private Open Space to General Commercial and Rezone the property from
Neighborhood Public (P1) to Community Commercial (CC-2). The zoning will allow for the construction
of a 7,000 square foot Camp Cardinal Event Center, nestled back into the wooded lot (see attached site
plan and building elevations).
It is anticipated that the Planning and Zoning Commission will review this proposal on August 6, 2020 at
7:00pm. A notice of a formal review by the Planning and Zoning Commission will be sent to all property
owners within 300’ of the property under review by the City. You are encouraged to attend these
meetings and voice your opinions.
As the representative of this request we would like to invite you to take the time to review the
information provided in the enclosed packet and learn about the requested land use change so we may
gather comments and feedback regarding this proposal. Please feel free to send any questions or
comments utilizing the contact information listed below.
Thank you,
Keith Billick
Anne Russett, Senior Planner
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org
(319) 351-8282
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
www.mmsconsultants.net
1917 S. GILBERT ST.
CAMP CARDINAL
EVENT CENTER
IOWA CITY
JOHNSON CO.
IOWA
6/22/20
.KB
KB
LCN
9744-004IC 2
LOCATION
MAP
X
NTS
G:\9744\9744-004\9744-004W5.dwg, 6/22/2020 2:46:55 PM, Kbillick
A2.0
SHEET used. Do not scale drawings.agreement with the Architect.any other work except by writtenDesign and shall not be used onOnly written dimensions shall beThese drawings and specificationsare the property and copyrightof Andrew Fell, Architecture andcommencement of any work..shall be brought to the notice ofthe Architect prior to theDimensions shall be verified onthe job site. Any discrepancyDATE : 30JUNE2020REVISIONS :PROJECT # 20044msCORPORATE RETREATNEW CONSTRUCTIONIOWA CITY, IOWACAMP CARDINAL ROADS T O A K E S & F E L L WEST ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
FIRST FLOOR PLAN A1.0
SHEET used. Do not scale drawings.agreement with the Architect.any other work except by writtenDesign and shall not be used onOnly written dimensions shall beThese drawings and specificationsare the property and copyrightof Andrew Fell, Architecture andcommencement of any work..shall be brought to the notice ofthe Architect prior to theDimensions shall be verified onthe job site. Any discrepancyDATE : 30JUNE2020REVISIONS :PROJECT # 20044msCORPORATE RETREATNEW CONSTRUCTIONIOWA CITY, IOWAS T O A K E S & F E L L SECOND FLOOR PLAN CAMP CARDINAL ROAD
1
Date: July 31, 2020
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Good Neighbor Program
Background
At the Planning and Zoning Commission’s June 4, 2020 meeting, the Commission requested
that staff add discussion of the good neighbor program to a future agenda. The good neighbor
program was last discussed with the Commission on April 4, 2019. Attachment 1 is a memo
dated April 1, 2019 to the Commission and although this memo covers multiple topics, the
first section focuses on the good neighbor program. Attachment 2 are the minutes from that
meeting.
Summary of Current Deadlines and Notification Procedures
On June 4, 2020, the Commission also requested information on how the City’s notification
policies interact with the required review and approval deadlines. Below is a summary of the
codified deadlines:
•Per the City’s zoning ordinance, the Planning and Zoning Commission must make a
recommendation to the City Council within 45 days of receipt of a complete rezoning
application. If no report is made to the City Council within that timeframe, the rezoning is
considered to be recommended for approval.
•Per the City’s subdivision code, the Planning and Zoning Commission must make a
recommendation to the City Council within 45 days of receipt of a complete preliminary
plat application. If no recommendation is made within that timeframe, the preliminary plat
is considered to be approved by the Commission.
•Per the City’s subdivision code and State code, the City Council shall approve or
disapprove a final plat within 60 days of receipt of a complete final plat application. If the
City Council does not approve or disapprove the plat within 60 days, the final plat shall
be deemed approved.
In addition to the voluntary good neighbor program, additional notification is required for
comprehensive plan amendments, rezonings, preliminary plats, and vacations prior to Planning
and Zoning Commission meetings. Staff works with the applicant to complete the following:
•Sign(s) posted near the property a minimum of 7 days prior to the Planning & Zoning
meeting (this is not required for comprehensive plan amendments). Signs are typically
posted upon receipt of an application, which is often several weeks prior to the Planning
and Zoning Commission meeting.
•A letter to adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the property must be sent by the
City a minimum of 7 days prior to the meeting. Although staff aims to get these letters
out two weeks prior to the Commission meeting, we often do not know if an item will be
on a specific agenda until a week or so before the meeting date.
2
•Comprehensive plan amendments require setting a Planning & Zoning Commission
public hearing.
Recent Cases and Application of Good Neighbor Meetings
Table 1 provides an overview of some recent cases and whether or not a good neighbor
meeting was held.
Table 1.
Case Description Good Neighbor Meeting?
Rezoning Tamarack Ridge
o 60 single-family lots;
adjacent to existing
single-family
Yes
Preliminary Plat Tamarack Ridge
o 60 single-family lots;
adjacent to existing
single-family
No (Held at rezoning)
Rezoning 305-315 E. Prentiss Street
o Rezoning to RFC-CX; 8-
story building
o Amendment to regulating
plan
Yes
Rezoning 1310 S. Gilbert St & 348
Highland Ave
o Rezoning to RFC-SG;
redevelopment of Kum &
Go
Yes
Preliminary Plat The Crossings, SW Corner of
1st St and S. Gilbert St
o 0.80 acre, 1-lot mixed-
use subdivision
No (Held at rezoning 4 years
prior)
Preliminary Plat Westside Estates
o 39 single-family lots;
adjacent to existing
single-family
o Prelim plat previously
approved expired
No (Held during previous
preliminary plat process 2
years prior)
Next Steps
At the Commission’s August 6, 2020 meeting staff would like to resume the discussion
regarding the City’s good neighbor program and ways to ensure that members of the public and
other stakeholders are informed of proposed development items.
Attachments
1.Memo to the Planning and Zoning Commission; Dated April 1, 2019
2.Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes; April 4, 2019
Approved by: ________________________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Neighborhood & Development Services
1
Date: April 1, 2019
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Good Neighbor Policy, Application Requirements, and Rezoning Criteria
Background
On March 12, 2019, the Planning and Zoning Commission had a consultation with the City
Council on the proposed rezoning at 2130 Muscatine Avenue. During this consult there was a
discussion on implementation of the good neighbor policy, the level of detail provided at the
rezoning stage (e.g. concept plans), and the criteria used for reviewing rezoning applications.
The Mayor requested that the Commission discuss these items and provide thoughts and any
recommendations to the City Council. At the Commission’s meeting on April 4, 2019, staff would
like to begin discussion of these items.
This memo provides some background information for the Commission’s consideration,
including a background on the good neighbor meeting policy, a summary of the land
development process and specific information required as part of rezoning applications, and a
summary of the criteria staff utilizes in the review of rezonings.
Good Neighbor Meetings
The City established the good neighbor policy in 1998. The policy was developed to encourage
more dialogue between the applicant and adjacent properties owners. In 2013, staff reviewed
the policy. Attachment 1 is a memo dated May 8, 2013, which outlines the recommendations at
the time. In 2013, staff recommended and the City Council agreed that good neighbor meetings
should continue to be optional for applicants. Today, staff would also recommend that good
neighbor meetings continue to be voluntary for the following reasons:
1. Every project is different. Some are small in scale with limited impacts to the surrounding
community while others are large with significant impacts.
2. Some projects utilize the good neighbor policy as part of the rezoning, but not later in the
process at preliminary and final platting.
3. Neighbors are notified by the City via letter and signage posted on the property. Staff
regularly answers questions from the public and relays that information to applicants. If
staff receives several questions staff would request that a good neighbor meeting be
held if one has not been.
Over the course of the past several months there have been a wide variety of cases that have
been brought before the Commission. Table 1 provides an overview of some of these cases and
whether or not a good neighbor meeting was held.
2
TABLE 1. Recent Cases and Application of Good Neighbor Meeting Policy
Case Description Good Neighbor Meeting?
Rezoning & preliminary plat Forest View
o Large scale, significant
change from current
conditions
Yes
Vacation Hutchinson Ave north of Park
Road
o Small scale, little impact
No
Rezoning Moss Ridge Rd & Highway 1
o Small scale, commercial
at edge of community
No
Rezoning Herbert Hoover Highway east
of Scott Blvd
o Multi-family housing at
edge of community
Yes
Rezoning 2130 Muscatine Ave
o Small scale, infill
development
No
Rezoning & preliminary plat Cherry Creek
o Moderate sized
development adjacent to
existing single-family
neighborhood
Yes
Preliminary plat Rollins Pass
o Moderate sized
development at the edge
of the community
No (Held at rezoning)
The Commission has also expressed an interest in increasing those notified of good neighbor
meetings. Currently, the good neighbor policy requires notification of property owners within 300
feet of the proposed project. Map 1 shows the notification distance and all of the properties
located within 300 feet of 2130 Muscatine Avenue. The blue shows the 300-foot radius and the
red identifies all of the properties who received notification.
3
MAP 1. 300-Foot Radius Example
Additional notification is required for comprehensive plan amendments, rezonings, preliminary
plats, and vacations prior to Planning and Zoning Commission meetings. Staff works with the
applicant to complete the following:
o Sign(s) posted near the property a minimum of 7 days prior to the Planning & Zoning
meeting (this is not required for comprehensive plan amendments)
o A letter to adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the property must be sent by the
City a minimum of 7 days prior to the meeting
o Comprehensive plan amendments require setting a Planning & Zoning Commission
public hearing
After the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation, additional notification
requirements (e.g. public notice in a newspaper) is required prior to City Council meetings.
In summary, the 300-foot notification requirement for good neighbor meetings is consistent with
the City’s requirements for notifying property owners prior to the Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting. Although staff has not completed a review of other jurisdiction’s
notification requirements, 300 feet is comparable to other local jurisdictions that staff is familiar
4
with. That said, staff is aware of other communities that have larger notification requirements,
specifically 500 feet, for more rural contexts where lot sizes are much larger.
Summary of the Land Development Process
Figure 1 provides a high-level summary of the land development process – from comprehensive
planning to building permits and inspections. For the purposes of this memo, staff would like to
focus on the rezoning process, which falls under Step 2. Legislative Land Use Approvals.
Staff reviews rezonings to ensure consistency with the comprehensive plan and that the uses,
densities (i.e. dwelling units / acre), and intensities (e.g. height, FAR) permitted by the proposed
zone district are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Rezonings are a request to use
the land differently – different uses, different development standards – and they are not always
tied to a specific development project. The question that needs to be answered in the review of a
rezoning is whether or not the proposed zone district is appropriate for the area and consistent
with the comprehensive plan.
That said, it is often difficult to separate the rezoning designation of the land from the development
project proposed for it. In addition, there seems to be an interest from both the Planning and
Zoning Commission and the City Council to have additional detail at the rezoning stage. Staff also
requests this additional detail from applicants when the rezoning has the potential to have a larger
impact.
FIGURE 1. The Land Development Process
Level of Detail Provided at Rezonings
It seems that there is currently a disconnect between staff, the development community, the
Planning and Zoning Commission, and the City Council on the level of detail required at the time
of rezoning. For example, recent cases have resulted in recommendations of denial from the
Planning and Zoning Commission for lack of a concept plan. These recommendations have
resulted in consults with the City Council. Furthermore, the Commission has expressed concern
when rezoning applications lack concept plans, elevations, and landscaping plans or when this
information was provided, but was not detailed enough.
Staff advises applicants and often recommends that applicants prepare information that the
Commission will likely request. This often includes requests for concept plans, examples of
previous development projects, and details on landscaping and open space amenities. Staff
occasionally receives questions from applicants on why this information is being requested
because it is not a required part of the application.
Below is a summary of the City’s two different rezoning processes and the application
requirements:
1. Rezonings: Requests to change from one base zoning designation to another base zoning
designation (e.g. CC-2 to RFC-CX).
The following items are not required as part of a rezoning application:
• Concept plans
• Elevations and renderings
5
• Landscaping plans
• Details on building materials and open space amenities
• Details on storm water management
2. Planned Development Overlay Rezonings: Requests to change from a base zoning
designation to a base zoning designation with a planned development overlay (e.g. RS-5 to
RS-8/OPD). OPD Rezonings allow the developer some flexibility with respect to a number of
project components including site design, landscaping, parking, building placement, and
mixture of land uses. OPD Rezonings may be requested for the following types of planned
developments:
• Sensitive areas development
• Conservation development
• Neo-traditional development
• Mixed use development
• Infill development
• Alternative ownership development (e.g. manufactured housing, condominiums)
Due to the flexibility offered in OPD rezonings and the ability to request waivers from
development regulations, more detail is requested at the time of application. The following
items are typically included as part of an OPD rezoning application:
• Preliminary plan that shows the following: contours, proposed streets, proposed uses of
the land and buildings, number of dwelling units, location of buildings, location and areas
of open space.
• Elevations sketches to indicate the design, materials and character of the development.
• Landscaping plans
• If the site includes regulated sensitive areas (e.g. wetlands, woodlands) a sensitive
areas development plan.
The following items are not required for a Planned Development Overlay Rezoning:
• Details on open space amenities
• Details on stormwater management
Table 2 outlines recent rezonings reviewed by the Commission and whether concept plans,
elevations, and landscaping plans were provided. As shown in the table below, the applicants of
the rezoning on Herbert Hoover Highway for the proposed affordable housing project were
requested to provide additional detail not typically required as part of a standard rezoning.
Specifically, the applicants provided a site plan, elevations, and a detailed landscaping plan. This
was more than what was asked of the applicant of the rezonings on the southwest corner of Lower
West Branch Road and Taft Avenue and the northwest corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway
1.
6
TABLE 2. Comparison of Recent Rezoning Cases and Detailed Provided
Case Description Concept / Site Plan Elevations Landscaping
OPD Rezoning &
preliminary plat
Forest View
o Large scale,
significant
change from
current
conditions
Yes No, detailed
design
guidelines
required as a
condition
Yes
OPD Rezoning &
preliminary plat
Cherry Creek
o Moderate sized
development
adjacent to
existing single-
family
neighborhood
Yes Yes Yes
Rezoning Lower West Branch
Rd & Taft Ave
o Moderate sized
development at
the edge of the
community
Yes No No
Rezoning Moss Ridge Rd &
Highway 1
o Small scale,
commercial at
edge of
community
Yes No No
Rezoning Herbert Hoover
Highway east of
Scott Blvd
o Multi-family
housing at edge
of community
Yes Yes Yes
Rezoning 2130 Muscatine
Ave
o Small scale,
infill
development
No No No
Criteria for Reviewing Rezonings
It is common practice for zoning codes to outline specific review criteria for different application
types. This is especially common for rezonings. The City’s zoning code does not identify specific
review criteria for standard rezonings; however, staff has historically used the following two
criteria when reviewing rezoning applications:
1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan, including any district plans and the historic
preservation plan; and
2. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character.
For planned development overlay rezonings, the zoning code outlines specific review criteria
that must be considered. Therefore, in addition to consistency with the comprehensive plan and
7
compatibility with the neighborhood, staff reviews these proposed rezonings against the
following criteria:
1. The density and design of the planned development will be compatible with and/or
complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass and scale,
relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout.
2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities.
3. The development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property values and
privacy of neighboring properties any more than would a conventional development.
4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying
zoning requirements or from city street standards will be in the public interest, in
harmony with the purposes of this title, and with other building regulations of the city.
These are also the criteria that the Planning and Zoning Commission should use when
evaluating rezonings.
Conclusion
It is staff’s goal to have a consistent message to applicants in terms of what is required at the
application stage for various application types, particularly rezonings. It is also staff’s goal to not
require too much detail that the process becomes increasingly burdensome. Staff is particularly
concerned about how additional requirements impact multi-family development and affordable
housing development since it is very difficult to develop multi-family housing within the
community without going through the rezoning process. The City also adopted detailed
development regulations for multi-family development that are required and reviewed at the site
plan stage. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure quality development.
Furthermore, staff has been compiling additional research on what other local jurisdictions
require at the rezoning stage. Staff could conduct additional research for other areas of interest,
as well. This information will inform a memo that staff is preparing to the City Council regarding
the land development process. This memo and an associated discussion with the City Council
will occur in May.
At this point staff is providing the information in this memo to help inform the discussion at the
Commission’s meeting on April 4, 2019.
Attachments
1. Memo dated May 8, 2013; Good Neighbor Policy Evaluation
Approved by: ________________________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Neighborhood & Development Services
r
Ir CITY OF IOWA CITY
NO IP3
N MEMORANDUM
Date: May 8, 2013
To: Tom Markus and Geoff Fruin
From: Jeff Davidson and Marcia Bollinger
Re: Good Neighbor Policy evaluation
Introduction
Issues have surfaced, particularly in the last couple years, regarding implementation of the
Good Neighbor policy. Lack of structure allows for inconsistency in who is notified about
meetings, what information is provided, and accuracy of information. The timing of meetings
can also make neighborhood input challenging and frustrating. Lack of staff participation in the
meetings can result in incomplete /inaccurate information being provided. Reporting of the
meeting is not required so it is unclear if any of the input received was taken into consideration
by the developer. The process has caused more confusion or anxiety than what it mitigates.
And on a broader level, the public perceives the Good Neighbor meetings as being an
extension of the City and therefore all information provided is accurate and thorough. In
many instances this is not the case.
History /Background
The intent of Good Neighbor meetings has been to enable the land development process to run
more smoothly by encouraging community dialogue early in the planning process. It can help to
pinpoint, discuss and try to resolve neighborhood issues related to the impacts of proposed
projects. The Iowa City City Council reviewed and approved the City's current Good Neighbor
Policy in March, 1998. The City Council did not mandate Good Neighbor meetings but
approved it as a suggested process, and made available staff resources (Neighborhood
Services Office — NSO) to encourage developers /applicants to provide that opportunity. The
NSO has provided guidance regarding notification, meeting locations, and also notifies the
neighborhood association leaders in the area (if applicable) of the meeting.
Applicants for land use changes to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission are
asked if they intend to hold a Good Neighbor meeting as part of the application process and this
information is provided in the staff report. Board of Adjustment applicants are not required to
document if they intend to conduct a meeting on their application but are encouraged to as part
of the initial staff review process.
Discussion of Solutions
A survey was conducted of seven nearby cities concerning their policies on Good Neighbor
meetings. Those surveyed were: Cedar Rapids, North Liberty, Des Moines, Ames, Davenport,
Bettendorf, and Marion. Davenport and North Liberty require Good Neighbor meetings. Of those
that do not require the meetings, three allow city administrators to require them when they deem
that the nature of the applicant's proposal makes one necessary. Five of seven (Cedar Rapids,
North Liberty, Ames, Davenport and Bettendorf) indicated that their planning staff attend Good
Neighbor meetings. One (North Liberty) indicated that City staff moderates the meetings.
May 8, 2013
Page 2
Joint Staff discussed the issues related to the current Good Neighbor Policy implementation at
their March 5 meeting which included:
Requiring Good Neighbor meetings
Notification requirements
Notification process
Info provided in meeting notice and staff review
Meeting notice schedule
Meeting schedule
Staff presence at meetings
Summary of meeting
After discussing the alternative structures that could be established for the Good Neighbor
Policy, staff developed the following recommendations:
Good Neighbor meetings should continue to be optional for applicants. Staff will continue to
recommend them for potentially controversial projects. If the applicant chooses to hold a Good
Neighbor meeting, they will be required to comply with the following:
Notify all property owners within 300' of the property as well as the Neighborhood
Services Coordinator so meeting information can be sent to impacted neighborhood
associations.
Staff will review the Good Neighbor letter prior to it being sent out to verify that
information is complete and accurate.
Meeting notices must be sent out not less than 7 days prior to the meeting.
Meeting shall occur not less than 7 days prior to board /commission meeting to enable
adequate time to provide input.
City staff will be in attendance at each meeting.
Applicant will develop a summary of input provided at the meeting which will be available
for distribution at the board /commission meeting.
Financial Impact: Additional staff time will be necessary to implement the policy; not
necessarily during the notification process but in attending the Good Neighbor meetings. It is
hard to quantify if /how much time will be saved by staff involvement at the meetings but
oversight at this stage is critical to ensure accurate information is available. It is expected that
staff other than just the Urban Planning staff can participate in this task including, but not limited
to the Neighborhood Services Coordinator, Traffic/Transportation staff and Community
Development staff depending upon the proposed project and complexity.
Recommendation
The FY 2012 -13 Strategic Plan has established focus on 5 major priorities, 2 of which are
Neighborhood Stabilization and Coordinated Communication and Customer Service Orientation.
The Good Neighbor Policy can contribute significantly to the success of each of these goals if
implemented responsibly. Staff recommends that the Good Neighbor Policy be restructured to
include those recommendations stated above. We will be at the City Council Work Session on
May 13 to present this information and answer any questions.
MINUTES APPROVED
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 4 , 2019 – 7:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Max Parsons, Billie
Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Phoebe Martin, Mark Signs
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT:
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
DISCUSSION ON THE GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY, APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS,
AND REZONING CRITERIA:
Russett noted this discussion came up during the March 12 City Council/Planning &
Zoning Commission consult meeting where the Mayor requested the Commission
discuss some of the items presented at that meeting, mainly related to the Good
Neighbor Policy application requirement and rezoning criteria. Russett noted this
evening the Commission doesn’t need to recommend any items, this is just the start of
the conversation and in May the City Council will also discuss this item so any
information discussed this evening will be shared with Council and Council will then
make any specific recommendations to staff next month.
Russett stated the Good Neighbor Meeting Policy was established in 1998 and reviewed
in 2013 and at that time both staff and City Council felt Good Neighbor Meetings should
be kept voluntary, and today staff recommends meetings remain voluntary as well fo r a
variety of reasons.
1. The projects that come before the Commission and that staff review are all very
different, some are large scale with large impact, some are small with small
impacts.
2. Some meetings happen early in the process of the rezoning stage and don’t
happen at platting.
3. There are notification requirements the City sends out as well as postings on the
site for notification to neighbors.
Russett shared a table that showed some of the applications the Commission reviewed
in the last few months and whether or not a Good Neighbor Meeting was held. The
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 4, 2019
Page 2 of 8
results are varied, there were a couple of rezonings (Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1
rezoning and the 2130 Muscatine Avenue rezoning) that did not hold Good Neighbor
Meetings, the vacation the Commission reviewed a few weeks ago did not hold a Good
Neighbor Meeting but the larger scale projects like Forest View, Cherry Creek and the
affordable housing project on the east side did hold Good Neighbor Meetings.
Russett noted the Commission has expressed some concerns about the number of
people who are notified of the Good Neighbor Meetings. The requirement is for
notification for neighbors within 300 feet of the project area. Russett showed a map of
an area to show what 300 feet looks like, the example property was 2130 Muscatine
Avenue. Staff has not done a comprehensive review of what other local jurisdictions
require, but based on the cities staff is aware of the 300 foot requirement is comparable,
they are aware of one other jurisdiction that does use a much larger area because it is
rural in nature.
Russett next presented some background on rezonings and how staff looks at rezonings.
Rezonings are requests to use the land differently and are not always tied to a specific
project. When staff receives an application for a rezoning they review that rezoning
against all of the uses that are permitted in that zone district. They look at the intensities
that are permitted, the densities, and they review whether they are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan vision as well as whether or not they would be compatible with the
neighborhood. She noted sometimes it is difficult to separate the rezoning of the land
from the specific development project that is being proposed. Often both the
Commission and the City Council want more information on the project, staff does as
well, particularly for the larger projects. In terms of application requirements for
rezonings, there are two types of rezonings. First is the standard rezoning which is one
base zone to another base zone designation (i.e. RS-5 to RM-12 or CO-1 to CC-2). The
other type is the OPD or Planned Development Overlay where there is a base zoning
designation and then an actual overlay. These are often done when there are sensitive
areas on the site. The application requirements for these two different types of
rezonings vary. There are more details on OPD rezonings required (landscaping,
elevations, concept plans) than on standard rezonings.
Russett showed another table of projects the Commission has reviewed over the past
few months along with the level of detail provided for those rezonings. Different levels of
detail are provided depending on the project. The Lower West Branch Road and Taft
Avenue and the Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1 rezonings only provided concept
plans whereas the rezoning of the multifamily housing on the east side provided a
concept plan, elevations and landscaping.
In terms of criteria, Russett stated the criteria is different between a standard rezoning
and a Planned Development Overlay rezoning. The general criteria for standard
rezonings is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with the
neighborhood. For OPD rezonings they look at those two criteria but also specific
criteria related to density, design, impact to streets and utilities, etc.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 4, 2019
Page 3 of 8
It is staff’s goal to have a consistent message to applicants in terms of what is required at the
application stage for various application types, particularly rezonings. Staff must often times
provide advice to applicants on what they should provide so the Commission can make an
informed decision and that should be a consistent message. If they are asking for concept plans
or landscaping plans that are not required as part of the application the applicant has the right to
question why they need to provide it. It is also staff’s goal to not require too much detail that the
process becomes increasingly burdensome.
Baker asked if the area of notification and the lack of a requirement for a Good Neighbor Meeting
is the same no matter what the type of application. Russett confirmed that was correct. Baker
suggested that perhaps the larger the development the wider the area of notification ought to be
as well as the requirement of a Good Neighbor Meeting. He feels the impact of the project
should dictate a different standard.
Parsons questioned how to clarify a size of a project. Does that mean acres it covers, because
in the example of the Chauncey project, it has a huge impact but yet only covers a small area.
Baker suggested possibility density as a measure as well as size of acres involved. In most
cases number of acres involved would create a higher density.
Hektoen noted the State Code allows people who live within 200 feet of a rezoning have the
authority to protest rezonings and trigger a super majority vote from Council.
Baker is not sure that addresses the issue, he still sees a bigger difference in the projects on
Muscatine Avenue and one the size of Forest View and how the community input and
notifications for each of those projects should perhaps be different. Russett said for a project
such as Forest View staff would, and has, told the applicant they should hold a Good Neighbor
Meeting as it is very important for the project. Baker appreciates that, noting if they don’t hold a
Good Neighbor Meeting then they will hear from the neighbors at the Commission meeting. He
also asked if there is any interest in having the area of notification larger for larger scale
developments.
Hensch noted there are a couple common things the Commission hears from the public at
meetings, they say they are never notified (but they are usually outside of the circle or just
ignored their mail) or they were not invited to a Good Neighbor Meeting. Hensch said he does
struggle with an application that chooses to not hold a Good Neighbor Meeting, philosophically
he is opposed to that because it is a good communication tool, it shows concern for the
neighbors and respect to the neighbors. It does not mean the applicant has to do or change
anything to appease the neighbors but maybe small things can be changed and problems
avoided. He does not see a downside of requiring a Good Neighbor Meeting for a rezoning. He
does not see it as necessary for a vacation or plat, but for a rezoning, when someone moves into
a neighborhood they know what the neighborhood should look like, but with a rezoning it brings a
choice of changes for land uses and could change a character of a neighborhood and therefore
the neighbors should be involved in that decision. Part of the role of the Commission is to do
what is best for the community. He feels requiring a Good Neighbor Meeting and expanding the
notification area is a good thing. He understands it won’t solve all the problems but there does
need to be changes. Putting notification in the newspaper is not the solution, no one reads
newspapers anymore, and it is time to rethink how these notifications are being presented.
Perhaps they should be done via social media. Hensch did note he does not want to create
more work for staff so it must be put on the responsibility of the developer.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 4, 2019
Page 4 of 8
Hektoen asked what Hensch would envision the consequence being if a developer doesn’t hold
a Good Neighbor Meeting. Hensch said the developer then could simply not proceed with the
rezoning. Parsons asked if notice goes out, no one responds, then what it the purpose of
holding a Good Neighbor Meeting. Hensch said that is fine, at least the option was there.
Parsons asked what would constitute a Good Neighbor Meeting, could the developer hold it at
their office at an inconvenient time. Hensch said there are already rules for Good Neighbor
Meetings set from Neighborhood Development Services on what constitutes a meeting. Russett
said the current process is the applicant would set up the meeting, staff would work with the
applicant on developing the letter to the neighbors and creating the list of the people who would
get the invitation. She noted staff does attend the meetings, they do not moderate them, but are
there in case there are questions related to processes.
Dyer also agrees that Good Neighbor Meetings should be required and also there has to be
better notice for projects with bigger impacts for the community at large and especially the
neighborhood. In the case of Forest View they did hold Good Neighbor Meetings and that was
good but there was not good notification of the meetings. Additionally that project will affect
everyone on the Peninsula not just those within 300 feet. In earlier meetings the people living in
Idyllwild came to express their concern about drainage and therefore a whole lot of work was
done regarding drainage as a consequence. The project affects whole neighborhoods, not just
300 or 500 feet from the edge of the project. She also agreed there has to be better ways of
notifying neighbors, more visible ways. In the case of big buildings, such as the ones downtown,
that concerns everyone, not just those within 300 feet. It will affect the skyline, traffic, and
aesthetics for the entire city. She is not sure what the answer is regards who to decide which
projects are large (area, density, dollar value, etc.). In the example of the Chauncey there were
lots of people at the zoning meetings and Council meetings because those people were not in
the area of which to be invited to the Good Neighbor Meetings.
Russet asked Dyer about projects that are downtown and affect the skyline does that concern
include Riverfront Crossings. Dyer confirmed she would include Riverfront Crossings when
discussing downtown skylines.
Hensch noted the issue of if the Commission receives a report from the Good Neighbor Meetings
has also come up in the past. Sometimes they occur but the Commission does not get a report.
He also discussed the inconsistency in requirements and the Commission decisions and that is
true, sometimes the Commission is aggressive on a project developer and sometimes back off
regarding elevations, concept drawings and construction material lists. He agrees there needs to
be consistency and developers deserve the right to know what is required, but these items are
what helps the Commission make their decisions. It helps the Commission make a correct
decision for a neighborhood if they can see exactly what the developer wants to do with the
rezoning.
Baker noted that was one of the problems with Forest View is there are design standards and
guidelines but that doesn’t really show what will actually be built on that area. Hensch said there
were some concepts with that application, they just didn’t have any elevations. He understands
some of the big projects will be phased in over time so all details may not be available but to deal
in trust and hope doesn’t always work out. He also knows that sometimes it does require the
developer to have certain drawings created and that costs money, but if they want the
development they should be willing to invest in the process.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 4, 2019
Page 5 of 8
Baker questioned however if a developer shows a drawing or elevations at the rezoning, how
obligated are they to follow those. Hensch noted they are not obligated but it shows a good faith
effort. Hektoen noted the drawings or elevations can be made as a condition of the rezoning, to
say they must have substantial compatibility with concept plans show.
Dyer noted that some of the OPDs they have reviewed over the past few years have required
changes before approval and the developers have ended up being happy with the changes
suggested by the Commission and ended up being better projects for the community.
Sometimes it is providing more open space in a family development or changes in building
materials to add distinction. She feels strongly that multifamily projects and OPDs need to have
concept drawings and elevations.
Hensch also said often a developer comes before the Commission, the 45-day clock is ticking,
and they don’t have concept drawings or elevations it can seem like a “rubber-stamp” being
pushed though. He feels in many cases the projects get so much better when there has been
this input by the Commission and the public and developers come back with better solutions.
Townsend noted that when there is a rezoning, there are the signs that go up, so it would be nice
to have Good Neighbor Meetings so the community can find out more details and an opportunity
to ask questions. Otherwise people see the signs and have to call City Staff and ask the
questions, staff may or may not have the answers to. Dyer asked if the wording on the signs is
legislative or could there be more information put on the signs. Hektoen doesn’t feel the
wordage is codified. Dyer said an attachment to the sign could post when the Good Neighbor
Meeting is being held.
Baker feels the consensus is a recommendation to require a Good Neighbor Meeting for all
rezonings and elevations for all projects.
Hensch said this is just an initial discussion meeting and they can come back to this at the next
meeting after some thought. He would like the suggestions to be thoughtful, not detrimental to
staff time, and helpful to citizens.
Hektoen noted that requiring site plans or concept plans it is important to note that all projects
are different and the stage of which they are in when they come before the Commission are
different so it is important to keep in mind within the zoning context the Commission has the tool
to impose conditions to address public needs that are created by the rezoning. So if there is an
application that is very nebulous or will be a 15 year build-out and the Commission can articulate
the public need, they can impose a design review as a condition of the rezoning to come back
before the Commission with a concept plan.
Baker asked if that could have been imposed on the Forest View project. Hektoen said the
condition of a design review was imposed. Dyer said that would be a staff review though, not
Commission. Russett said for the project at 12 East Court Street, they did add the condition of a
design review by the Commission. The project is in Riverfront Crossings, Pentacrest Gardens
apartments. Baker asked if the Council could also impose such a condition and Hektoen said
they can.
Russett will have this discussion topic on the next meeting agenda as well for continued
discussion.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 4, 2019
Page 6 of 8
Parsons stated his reservations of making Good Neighbor Meetings required, he doesn’t feel
they are necessary for all rezonings. He feels the trust is in staff, they know the rules and see all
the applications and they know what the Commission wants and what the public would or would
not want in their neighborhoods. He feels requiring such meetings for small projects would be a
burden on staff.
Townsend agrees with Parsons but does feel there should be a way people in the neighborhood
could find out more information, such as having a link posted on the site, etc.
Parsons asked when the notices of rezonings go out to the public. Russett said it must be a
minimum of seven days but they try to have them out at least two weeks prior. Dyer noted if the
neighbors are to have an impact, they need to be part of the process long before the rezoning
meeting.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: MARCH 21, 2019
Dyer moved to approve the meeting minutes of March 21, 2019.
Townsend seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett gave an update from the Council meeting on Tuesday where the Council discussed a
few things pertinent to the Commission. First, staff presented Council with a residential infill
analysis and she will send out the PowerPoint presentation to the Commission. Staff has been
directed by Council to work with the consulting firm, Opticos Design, to think about ways to
address out of scale or oversized infill residential. Also the City has executed a contract with
Opticos to work on a Form-Based Code for the South District. Council has asked staff to explore
an amendment to the contract to include a visioning session for the North Side Marketplace as
well as a parking study for the North Side Marketplace. That area is Linn Street east to Gilbert
Street and Market Street to Bloomington.
In terms of recent applications sent to Council. 2130 Muscatine Avenue rezoning was adopted
as well as Rollins Pass preliminary plat. Council had the Forest View public hearing on Tuesday
and was continued to the April 23 meeting, staff has received some protest petition so are
running the numbers to see if a super majority vote is needed.
Hektoen mentioned there will be two people coming from Minneapolis to discuss the Race, Place
and Land Use Minneapolis 2040 Plan. They have eliminated single-family zoning and will be
speaking about that at the Iowa Memorial Union on April 25 at 7:30pm.
Baker asked when Council would vote on Forest View. Parsons said that is not known for sure.
Baker asked if there was time as a Commission to have discussion at the next meeting on
whether they wanted to recommend to Council to impose a condition of their vote to have
elevations and design review to come back before Council for approval. Russett said the
Commission has already made their recommendation to Council on that application. Hektoen
noted that Planning & Zoning’s review of the application has passed, the recommendation has
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2020 – 7:00 PM
ELECTRONIC FORMAL MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Mark Signs
MEMBERS ABSENT: Carolyn Dyer, Billie Townsend
STAFF PRESENT: Joshua Engelbrecht, Ray Heitner, Sara Hekteon, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Ward
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 4-0 the Commissions recommends approval of an application submitted by Ward
Development Services, Inc. for a conditional use permit to allow for a commercial
communications tower on the 4200 block of Yvette St. SW in unincorporated Johnson County.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Martin nominated Hensch as Chair, Signs seconded, a vote was taken and approved 4-0.
Hensch nominated Signs as Vice Chair, Martin seconded, a vote was taken and approved 4-0.
Craig nominated Martin as Secretary, Signs seconded, a vote was taken and approved 4-0.
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is impossible or impractical
due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission members, staff and the public
presented by COVID-19.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 16, 2020
Page 2 of 8
CASE NO. CPA20 -0001:
Applicant: MMS Consultants
Location: Parcel #1112476001 (north of Camp Cardinal Blvd, west of Camp Cardinal Rd)
A request to set a public hearing for August 6, 2020 on an application to amend the
Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation from Public/Private Open Space to
General Commercial for approximately 3.11 acres.
Russett stated staff is requesting the Commission set a public hearing on August 6 for this item.
Martin moved to set a public hearing for August 6, 2020 on an application to amend the
Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation from Public/Private Open Space to
General Commercial for approximately 3.11 acres.
Signs seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0.
CASE NO. CU20-02:
Applicant: Steve Ward on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC
Location: 4200 Block of Yvette Street SW; Unincorporated Johnson County
An application for a conditional use permit to allow for a commercial communication tower in the
County Agricultural (A) zone within Fringe Area C of the City/County Fringe Area.
Heitner began the staff report with showing an aerial of the subject property which is located at
the 4200 block of Yvette Street SW in the County. The entire subject parcel is zoned County
Agricultural as is most of the surrounding area however, to the immediate east, there's some
County Commercial and County Highway Commercial Zoning with some light industrial land
uses currently. Directly north across from Highway 1, there's some larger lot County Residential
zoning and are 5 to 10-acre residential lots. Heitner showed another map showing the Fringe
Area and noted the subject parcel is located outside of the City's growth area boundary in Fringe
Area C. He showed a photo of the subject parcel and pointed out where the proposed cell tower
is supposed to fall within the subject parcel.
Regarding some background on the case, it's an application to the Johnson County Board of
Adjustment for the allowance of a commercial communication tower located on the 4200 block
Yvette Street SW in Johnson County. The conditional use permit allows for use on a specific
property subject to fulfilling a number of conditions set forth by the County. It's the role of the
Planning and Zoning Commission this evening to determine if the conditional use that is being
applied for, a commercial communication tower within the City's Fringe Area, should be
recommended for approval to the City Council.
Craig asked if the County requires the same good neighbor information, letting people in the
neighborhood know what is going on, as the City does. Have those other commercial uses there
know what's happening and have they expressed any concerns or anything? Heitner replied the
County does have an outreach policy for Board of Adjustment hearings, which this will be a part
of, so that would be on the County to make that outreach. Heitner stated he hasn’t heard of any
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 16, 2020
Page 3 of 8
concerns or objections so far to this application.
Hensch noted the owner of the parcel in question is also the owner of the adjacent business
lands. Craig agreed but noted they might own the property, but there's quite a few businesses
there, seems like every towing business in town is there.
Heitner continued stating the proposed land use is a commercial communications tower. That's
how the County Zoning Ordinance classifies what's often referred to as a cell tower, and it's
usually a large monopole tower intended to house cellular service for cellular providers. He
noted the subject property in this application is not referenced in the City's Comprehensive Plan
because it's outside of the City's growth area. The area is pretty rural area for the most part other
than the light industrial, Highway Commercial area to the direct east of the subject property. The
parcel contains over 38 acres so it's a fairly large property in of itself. One unique aspect of this
subject property is that there is a transmission line that runs through the middle of the property
that bisects the property and with that line there is one transmission tower almost right in the
middle of the subject property. That tower is estimated to be about 141 feet from where the
proposed cell tower is proposed to go. Heitner showed images of the subject property and
surrounding area.
Heitner next showed a schematic of the proposed cell tower, the proposed height is 195 feet,
and a monopole design, not a whole bunch of guide wires or anything like that. For some of the
residual mechanical that's at the ground level, there's going to be a few layers of screening,
some fencing as well as some arbor variety trees, which is a good screening tree species.
Heitner next went over the supplemental conditions that the County requires as part of their
conditional use permit process. One is submission of a narrative, liability insurance for the
project, and site plan and the narratives an important component as it's on the onus of the
applicant to provide a justification for why the specific location is being selected for this use and
why colocation on another preexisting tower is not an option. The applicant did detail that that
and it was included in the staff report assemblage. Second condition is a setback requirement
requiring the tower to be 110% of the tower height setback from parcel lines. The applicant did
apply for a special exception with the County Board of Adjustment to reduce the setback
requirement and that was approved just last night. So additional conditions from the County were
installation of a landscape buffer, which can be seen in the schematic, as well as the security
fencing. That fencing must be eight feet tall with some barbed wire strands on top of it and
there's some specific lighting standards that the tower would have to conform to. Heitner noted
there'd be an independent inspection of the tower every 36 months and submission of an
operation and maintenance plan to the County as well as submission of a decommissioning plan
should the use for the tower ever subside, they would need a plan on how the applicant or the
tenant intends to take down the tower. Heitner said there must be compliance with County
environmental standards and sensitive area standards and a notification that any alterations to
tower height or location in the future would have to be legally conforming with County Zoning.
In terms of City analysis, they look at this in a couple ways. One is how does the zoning check
out in terms of what's allowable right now and the County zoning designation states this use is
allowed in all of the County zones except for an environmental resource preservation district, so
the County does permit this use in the current agricultural zoning district. Heitner did
acknowledge it was noted in the staff report that this parcel is potentially an area that the City
might consider for future growth boundary expansion. Right now, the County has in their future
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 16, 2020
Page 4 of 8
land use map designated this area as potentially suitable for highway commercial or light
industrial use. As far as the City staff review of how this use would fit in with those zones, they
feel it would be compatible with those zones or with an agricultural zoning district as is the
present case. Either way, staff does not feel that the overall character of the subject area will be
greatly affected by the addition of the tower.
Heitner reiterated when there are County requests, they collaborate in the analysis with County
planning staff. In addition to all those supplemental County conditions, Heitner reiterated there
was the request for setback reduction from the eastern property line that was approved last night
by the Johnson County Board of Adjustment. That setback would be about 187 feet, which is
almost 100% of the tower height, which is 195 feet. Another request staff worked on with the
County is trying to get a written approval from the FAA that a structure of the height in proximity
to the Iowa City Airport would be an allowable use. They don't suspect that will be an issue, but it
is his understanding the County is going to make that a condition of approval of their conditional
use permit.
Heitner reiterated the role of the Commission tonight is to determine if the conditional use that
was being applied for, a commercial communication tower within the City's Fringe Area, should
be recommended for approval to the City Council. In terms of next steps after Commission and
City Council consideration the item will be brought before the Johnson County Board of
Adjustment for approval.
Staff recommends approval of an application submitted by Ward Development Services, Inc. for
a conditional use permit to allow for a commercial communications tower on the 4200 block of
Yvette St. SW in unincorporated Johnson County.
Craig asked if other service providers might use this tower in the future they can use that
structure, and not create another structure for another service provider, they just use the same
tower. Heitner believed that was correct, it is something the applicant can touch on a little bit
more, but his understanding is that this tower will have capacity for up to three more users. He
doesn’t really know what the lifespan of how quickly users get added to these towers and when
new towers need to go up but he would imagine that this tower would provide pretty strong
coverage area for this area for the foreseeable future.
Martin said the application states what the applicant is going to do, but not why it is necessary.
Heitner stated he doesn’t recall the page number but there should be a report from the applicant
that outlines the need for the tower in this location and why colocation on existing towers in the
area was not a feasible option. Hensch added he read in the report that area had impaired
coverage.
Signs asked if the adjacent zoning is highway commercial or light industrial. Heitner confirmed
the current adjacent zoning is Highway Commercial and there is a little rectangular piece that's
just general County Commercial and the rest is agricultural. Signs stated he didn’t see a topo
and wondered what the elevations were there. He wanted to make sure they weren't on top of a
hill, but it doesn't look like it given the drainage there. Hensch noted there is a topo on page 37 of
the packet and it looks like the main line right by the A is 750 feet. Signs stated from his
recollection, right at that curve to the west of there it starts to go down again fairly rapidly and
fairly substantially. So that is definitely is the high spot out in that area from his recollection.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 16, 2020
Page 5 of 8
Signs noted it seems to that the height of the tower is greater than the distance between the
tower and the utility transmission lines and is there any concern about that. Heitner stated that
was probably their biggest concern when they were evaluating this, the proximity of the tower to
the transmission lines, and then also the eastern property line. There was a narrative by the
applicant, and they could probably go over this more eloquently, but the understanding is that in
in case of disaster where the tower would have to come down that the fall radius of the tower
would be about half of the tower’s height. So probably about 95 to 97 feet, because the
understanding is that the tower is designed to where the break point would occur halfway in the
tower’s height, so with that said, if the fall radius is in that 95 to 97 foot range, it should be clear
of that 141 foot distance to the transmission tower and then also the 187 foot distance to the east
property line. Hensch noted in the packet there's a page from an engineer with the statement
that the maximum fall zone radius equal to or less than half the height of the tower.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Steve Ward (Ward Development) is representing AT&T Cingular Wireless PCS stated he is here
to answer any questions the Commission may have. There were a couple of questions while
Heitner addressed them Ward can give a little bit more information. AT&T has a hole in their
network, a lack of coverage, this is an expanding area, and they need to bring additional services
to this area. There are no existing structures in the area that meet their need, but there are two
structures in the area he wanted to bring to their attention and let them know that they did look at
the transmission towers, which can be a possibility. Some communities or some power districts
allow attachments to those transmission towers, others do not, and Alliant does not. Additionally,
those towers really aren't built structurally to the codes required for communication antennas,
there's a different code and cell towers are at a higher standard than a transmission tower or a
power pole and those kind of things. There's an existing communication tower located on Maier
Road, which is to the northeast of the site, it's owned by American Tower and about 160 feet. It
has two users that are existing upon the tower and it just doesn't allow the elevation they need
for their coverage. Ward noted the lot that their using has some unique configurations as far as
the property lines and with the County's required setbacks where they were trying to place the
site. Therefore, they are placing it as far back into the property as they could away from the
highway. Additionally, there is the transmission line with a very wide easement that cuts diagonal
across it and there's a creek that kind of runs across the property in an east/west direction and
affects elevations So what they tried to do with nestle the tower as close as they could to the
easement line and as close as they could to where they start losing elevation, and then still keep
it as far away from the property line to the neighbors to the east as they could.
As mentioned, the County does have 110% of the tower height setback, Ward stated they
mentioned to the County where 110% comes from or what the reasoning is neither here nor
there, the tower is a monopole type tower. There are different types of towers, there are guide
towers, there are self-support towers, and there's monopole towers. A lot of times these fall zone
radiuses come from the guide towers because if a guide tower falls, it's either going to crumble
upon itself or if it were hit just right it could topple in a direction. Self-supported towers, which
would look like the erector sets, and monopole towers are typically designed with a break point
or fail point. It sounds bad, but it just basically the weakest point in the tower as designed by
code is going to be at the midpoint of the tower. So basically, if you can imagine trying to bend
the soda straw, that's how the tower would fail and then if that soda straw would break apart, and
then it would hit the ground and topple over, that's where you get the 50% radius. To the
property line to the east they are at 187 feet so they’re pretty close to almost making it, but again,
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 16, 2020
Page 6 of 8
they're far enough away with the fall zone. They did speak to that property owner, Mr. Kraus, he
owns an asphalt company. Mr. Kraus had a similar concern, because he thought it was going to
be right next to his building but they explained to him where it was and gave him the drawings,
the survey and the tower fall radius letter. He then didn’t have any problem with it. The other
concern, which is a concern, as far as safety is what happens if the tower would fall and hit the
powerlines, but again, with the tower fall radius, those power lines are about 141 feet away and
with fall zone radius that more than takes care of that issue.
Hensch asked what is the lifespan of this structure? Ward answered that's hard to say, it's a two-
fold question. Typically, steel structures are 50 to 75 years, that's why the County has an
inspection requirement and they've probably modeled that on FCC, who has a lot of regulations.
The towers are inspected, monopoles are typically every five years, but the County wants them
done every three years. An inspection is where somebody climbs up the tower and look at all the
connections, at the bolts, look for rust, look at the Foundation, and then writes a report. If there's
modifications or remedies that had to be made, they're made.
Ward noted it was asked earlier if this tower would be used for other people. He replied that's
the idea, vertical real estate. If someone else wants to use this such as Sprint, or Verizon or T-
Mobile, they could put up to probably three platforms, three additional platforms on that height of
a tower. In addition to that, a AT&T has a contract awarded by the federal government to build
out a nationwide network called FirstNet, a network for first responders, and they’re currently
building that out nationwide. So FirstNet will also have the availability to use this site if they need
it for their network.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Craig moved to recommend approval of an application submitted by Ward Development
Services, Inc. for a conditional use permit to allow for a commercial communications
tower on the 4200 block of Yvette St. SW in unincorporated Johnson County.
Signs seconded the motion.
Martin stated a concern she hopes that the county addresses is that the people that are there
that would could be affected have an opportunity to have a voice.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JUNE 4, 2020:
Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of June 4, 2020.
Martin seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 16, 2020
Page 7 of 8
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett gave a few updates, first on the rezoning off of Highway 1 West where they were
amending conditions, that Conditional Zoning Agreement was approved by Council earlier this
week. She also noted that Larry Baker resigned from the Commission, so they have one
vacancy. Those applications are due by the end of this month and hopefully they'll have a new
Commissioner appointed by City Council and their first meeting will be in August. She also
introduced Joshua Engelbrecht, he is the new planning intern. He’s been with the City since
May.
The last thing Russett wanted to mention was that Commissioner Townsend was joined by her
husband on one of Mayor Teague’s Community Connections videos. Mayor Teague has been
having conversations with people throughout the community. The discussion with Commissioner
Townsend and her husband aired earlier this week and she enjoyed listening to it and learning
more about her, her activism and volunteerism in the community.
Hensch noted how sad he was to hear of Baker’s resignation as he always had thoughtful
comments and he had a good humor and will be missed. He wants to welcome Engelbrecht and
hopes that they're able to meet sometime in person. He also wanted to extend a warm welcome
to Susan Craig noting she has a lot of years of experience and knowledge of Iowa City and a
great addition.
ADJOURNMENT:
Martin moved to adjourn.
Signs seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2020-2021
7/16
CRAIG, SUSAN X
DYER, CAROLYN O/E
HENSCH, MIKE X
MARTIN, PHOEBE X
SIGNS, MARK X
TOWNSEND, BILLIE O/E
Vacancy
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member