HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 10.01.20PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, October 1, 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
Zoning Code Text Amendments
4. Case No. REZ20-0006
Commercial Reuse Exception Ordinance
Consideration of the Commercial Reuse Exception Ordinance, which amends Title 14
Zoning to allow exceptions to zoning regulations for alternations and expansions to
existing buildings due to building and/or site constraints in the Mixed Use (MU),
Commercial Office (CO-1), Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1), Community Commercial
(CC-2), Central Business Service (CB-2), and Central Business Support (CB-5) zoning
districts.
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/tJYrduGupjopGNVW267QvOhkqO2HjMp4O
grx 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 926 1868 1321 when prompted.
Providing comment in person is not an option.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 1, 2020
5. Case No. REZ20-0007
Parking Reduction in Commercial Zones Ordinance
Consideration of the Parking Reductions in Commercial Zones Ordinance, which
amends Title 14 Zoning to allow parking reductions of up to 50% of the required
number of spaces through a minor modification process in the Mixed Use (MU),
Commercial Office (CO-1), Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1), Community Commercial
(CC-2), Central Business Service (CB-2), and Central Business Support (CB-5) zoning
districts.
Other
6. Discussion on the Good Neighbor Program
7. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: August 20, 2020
8. Planning & Zoning Information
9. 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: October 15 / November 5 / November 19
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
Date: October 1, 2020
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Zoning Code Amendment (REZ20-0006) to allow flexibility for alterations and
expansions to existing buildings in lower intensity commercial zones
Introduction
The City of Iowa City’s 2020-2021 Strategic Plan includes a goal to promote an inclusive and
resilient economy throughout the city. To reach that goal, the City is taking steps to invigorate
neighborhood commercial districts and create new neighborhood commercial nodes which
encourage healthy, diverse, and sustainable economic activity. The proposed text amendment to
the zoning code (REZ20-0006) addresses one barrier for small-scale commercial areas near
developed residential neighborhoods: that some underutilized commercial parcels experience
difficulties meeting current zoning regulations due to existing physical constraints.
The proposed amendment modifies the Special Provisions section for certain commercial zones
(14-2C-8), including the Mixed Use (MU), Commercial Office (CO-1), Neighborhood Commercial
(CN-1), Community Commercial (CC-2), Central Business Service (CB-2), and Central Business
Support (CB-5) zones. The purpose of the amendment is to provide flexibility from zoning
regulations where altering or expanding a building is difficult due to existing building and/or site
constraints. In such cases, the Board of Adjustment would be able to waive or modify certain
zoning standards by special exception. The proposed amendment is detailed in Attachment 1.
Background
After City Council adopted the 2020-2021 Strategic Plan, the City received an inquiry from a
developer regarding a long-vacant property at 1120 North Dodge Street. Without providing some
additional flexibility from zoning regulations, the proposal for the site is impossible to achieve. This
prompted City staff to review the zoning code for ways to promote the reuse of this and other
similar commercial and/or mixed use sites in lower intensity, neighborhood contexts which are
underutilized under the City’s current standards.
The zoning code contains several mechanisms to adjust standards. Administrative methods
include minor modifications (14-4B-1), which allow specified requirements to be modified or
waived, and minor adjustments, which are a similar provision in the Riverfront Crossings Form
Based Development Standards (14-2G-7H). The zoning code offers greater flexibility through the
special exception process. Special exceptions are heard by the five-member Board of Adjustment,
which is appointed by City Council to provide scrutiny where allowed in the zoning code. As a
quasi-judicial body, appeals of their decisions must go through the district court. For example,
properties designated as an Iowa City historic landmark or registered in the National Register of
Historic Places may request a special exception to waive dimensional standards, site
development standards, and provisional requirements (14-2C-11A). For each of these
mechanisms, a specific set of approval criteria must be met.
October 1, 2020
Page 2
Proposed Amendment: Commercial Reuse Exception
Applicability
Staff developed the proposed amendment as a special exception that provides similar flexibility
to what is allowed for historic properties, but with a commercial focus and without competing
against those provisions. It would allow the alteration and expansion of existing structures in
specified commercial zones where building and/or site constraints related to the zoning code are
present. To avoid incentivizing tear downs, the amendment requires that a project utilizing the
exception cannot involve demolition of an existing principal structure, nor can it be used for a
property designated as an Iowa City historic landmark or registered in the National Register of
Historic Places. In addition, new construction projects are not allowed to request this exception.
Because the proposed amendment is intended primarily for use in less intense commercial areas
near developed residential neighborhoods, only properties in the following zones are eligible:
Mixed Use (MU), Commercial Office (CO-1), Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1), Community
Commercial (CC-2), Central Business Service (CB-2), and Central Business Support (CB-5). The
following zones are explicitly excluded from requesting an exception through the proposed
amendment because they are intended to accommodate higher-intensity uses that do not
primarily serve neighboring residential areas: Intensive Commercial (CI-1), Highway Commercial
(CH-1), and Central Business (CB-10).
Approval Criteria
To be approved under the proposed amendment, the Board of Adjustment must find that each
requested exception meets the following general approval criteria set forth in 14-4B-3A:
1)The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,
safety, comfort or general welfare.
2)The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property
values in the neighborhood.
3)Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the
district in which such property is located.
4)Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are
being provided.
5)Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to
minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
6)Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being
considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the
applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located.
7)The proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as
amended.
In addition, staff proposes the following specific approval criteria to ensure that any exception
meets the intent of the amendment while maintaining compatibility with adjacent development:
1)The exception is necessary due to existing building or site constraints that make it difficult
to meet that standard.
2)The exception will be compatible with and/or complementary to adjacent development in
terms of building mass and scale, relative amount of open space, traffic circulation,
general layout, and lighting.
3)The exception will not adversely affect views, noise, stormwater runoff, light and air, and
privacy of neighboring properties any more than would a development that satisfies the
applicable standard.
4)The exception is not contrary to the intent of the standard.
5)The exception will be in the public interest.
October 1, 2020
Page 3
Exceptions
Exceptions that could be requested through the proposed amendment cover a variety of
dimensional and site development standards. However, while certain use-specific development
standards may be waived, the proposed amendment would not permit uses where they are not
allowed. Potential exceptions could include modifications or waivers from the following standards:
1)14-4B-4 Specific Approval Criteria for Provisional Uses and Special Exceptions:
Includes specific standards for each use allowed provisionally or by special exception,
such as density standards for group living uses and design features for attached single-
family dwellings. The proposed amendment excludes minimum separation distance
provisions for land uses, such as for drinking establishments or adult businesses.
2)14-4C-2 Specific Approval Criteria: Includes specific standards for each use allowed on
site as an accessory use, such as setbacks for drive-throughs, space limitations for home
childcare uses, or size requirements for accessory retail uses.
3)14-2C-4 Dimensional Requirements: Includes lot size, setbacks, height, lot coverage,
floor area ratio, open space, and dwelling unit density.
4)14-2C-6 Commercial Site Development Standards: Includes parking area setbacks and
screening, pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation, and standards for large retail
uses in CO-1 and CC-2 zones.
5)14-2C-7 CN-1 Zone Site Development Standards: Includes building setbacks and
orientation, parking area setbacks, location and screening, pedestrian and vehicular
access and circulation, and the building-streetscape interface in CN-1 zones.
6)14-2C-8 Central Business Site Development Standards: Includes building setbacks,
and orientation, parking area setbacks, location and screening, pedestrian and vehicular
access and circulation, the building-streetscape interface, and bonus provisions in CB-2,
and CB-5 zones.
7)14-2C-9 Site Development Standards in MU Zone: Includes building setbacks
materials, and orientation, parking area setbacks, location and screening, pedestrian and
vehicular access and circulation, and the building-streetscape interface in MU zones.
8)14-5 Site Development Standards: Includes general standards for off street parking and
loading, signs, access management, intersection visibility standards, landscaping and
trees, screening and buffering, outdoor lighting, and performance standards, but the
proposed amendment excludes sensitive lands and features or floodplain management.
Analysis
Numerous commercial areas across Iowa City could benefit from the proposed Commercial
Reuse Exception amendment. Figure 1 maps which parcels may be able to utilize the proposed
amendment, i.e. they have existing buildings and are in eligible zoning districts. The map
illustrates that most neighborhood commercial areas are potentially eligible, including the
Northside, Towncrest, Olde Town Village, Iowa City Marketplace, Pepperwood Plaza, and
Walden Square. Other individual small-scale commercial uses, such as DeLuxe Bakery or the
Hilltop Tavern, would also be eligible. However, because the proposed amendment only applies
to properties in certain commercial zones, some businesses in residential zones would not be
eligible, such as the Design Ranch. As such, other amendments may be required to allow more
neighborhood commercial uses across Iowa City.
In addition, some commercial areas may be eligible though they are not small-scale or
neighborhood oriented. These include businesses in the Northgate Business Park or at the
intersection of Highway 218 and Highway 1. In those instances, the ordinance relies on the
proposed approval criteria to evaluate intent on a case-by-case basis. The criteria primarily
address compatibility with surrounding properties, meeting the intent of the City’s standards, and
the presence of building or site constraints. In the case of most large-scale commercial uses, staff
believes it would be difficult for the applicant to prove to the Board that the requested exception
is necessary due to existing constraints.
October 1, 2020
Page 4
Figure 1. Map of Potentially Eligible Sites for the Commercial Reuse Exception
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
In addition to furthering City Council’s strategic plan, the proposed amendment also supports
several related goals and strategies from the City’s comprehensive plan:
•Encourage compact, efficient development that is co ntiguous and connected to existing
neighborhoods to reduce the cost of extending infrastructure and services and to preserve
farmland and open space at the edge of the city.
•Encourage a healthy mix of independent, locally-owned businesses and national businesses.
•Improve the environmental and economic health of the community through efficient use of
resources.
By allowing flexibility for existing commercial buildings, the proposed amendment efficiently
utilizes the City’s building stock to promote economic activity throughout the community. Staff
intends this exception to be primarily used by local businesses on unique infill lots because many
national and international businesses prefer new structures that are more standardized. Adoption
will provide an avenue for neighborhood businesses to move to established neighborhoods in
Iowa City, or to expand in-place where otherwise they may have to move.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the zoning code be amended as illustrated in Attachment 1 to invigorate
neighborhood commercial districts and empower new small neighborhood commercial nodes by
allowing the Board of Adjustment to provide flexibility from zoning regulations where altering or
expanding a building is difficult due to existing building and/or site constraints in MU, CO-1, CN-
1, CC-2, CB-2, and CB-5 zones.
October 1, 2020
Page 5
Attachments
1.Proposed Zoning Code Text Amendments
2.Map of Potentially Eligible Sites for the Commercial Reuse Exception
Approved by:
_____________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
Attachment 1 Page 1
Draft Zoning Code Text
Underlined text is suggested new language. Strike-through notation indicates language to be
deleted.
Amend 14-2C-11 as follows:
D. Commercial Reuse Exception
1.Purpose. The commercial reuse exception allows the alteration of existing buildings for
which the constraints of the building and/or site make it difficult to meet certain zoning
code standards. It is intended primarily for use in less intense commercial areas in or
near developed residential neighborhoods.
2.Applicability. The exception provides flexibility in the design and use of existing
structures provided the following circumstances are met:
a.The exception is requested for an alteration or expansion of an exis ting building;
b.The project does not result in the demolition of any existing principal structures;
c.The property is not designated as an Iowa City landmark or registered in the
National Register of Historic Places; and
d.The property is not in a CI-1, CH-1, or CB-10 zone.
3.Waivers. The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to waive or modify any
approval criteria listed in 14-4B-4 “Specific Approval Criteria for Provisional Uses and
Special Exceptions” or 14-4C-2 “Specific Approval Criteria,” or any standard in 14-2C-4
“Dimensional Requirements”, 14-2C-6 “Commercial Site Development Standards”, 14-
2C-7 “Central Business Site Development Standards”, 14-2C-8 “CN-1 Zone Site
Development Standards”, 14-2C-9 “Site Development Standards in MU Zone”, or 14-5
“Site Development Standards. However, waivers and modifications cannot be requested
for required minimum distances separating land uses or standards in 14-5I “Sensitive
Lands and Features” and 14-5J “Floodplain Management Standards”.
4.Approval Criteria. In addition to the general special exception approval criteria set forth
in chapter 4, article B of this title, the following approval criteria must be met:
a.The exception is necessary due to existing building or site constraints that make
it difficult to meet that standard.
b.The exception will be compatible with and/or complementary to adjacent
development in terms of building mass and scale, relative amount of open space,
traffic circulation, general layout, and lighting.
c.The exception will not adversely affect views, noise, stormwater runoff, light and
air, and privacy of neighboring properties any more than would a development
that satisfies the applicable standard.
d.The exception is not contrary to the intent of the standard.
e.The exception will be in the public interest.
Amend 14-2C-4 as follows:
Dimensional Requirements: The dimensional requirements for the commercial zones
are stated in tables 2C-2(a) and 2C-2(b) of this section. The following subsections
describe in more detail the regulations for each of the dimensional requirements listed in
the tables. Provisional uses and uses allowed by special exception may have specific
dimensional requirements not specified in tables 2C-2(a) and 2C-2(b) of this section.
Approval criteria for these uses are addressed in chapter 4, article B of this title.
Dimensional requirements may be waived or modified for developments approved through
the planned development process (see chapter 3, article A, "Planned Development
Attachment 1 Page 2
Overlay Zone (OPD)", of this title) or through the commercial reuse or historic preservation
exceptions as outlined in section 14-2C-11, "Special Provisions", of this article.
Amend 14-2C-10 as follows:
14-2C-10 Special Exceptions and Minor Modifications to Site Development
Standards: A special exception may be granted to waive or modify certain provisions of
section 14-2C-6, 14-2C-7, 14-2C-8, or 14-2C-9 of this article through the commercial
reuse or historic preservation exceptions in accordance with section 14 -2C-11, "Special
Provisions.” A minor modification to adjust specific provisions of section 14 -2C-6, 14-2C-
7, 14-2C-8, or 14-2C-9 of this article, may be requested in either of the qualifying situations
listed below. Such requests will be reviewed by the design review committee, the director
of planning and community development, and the building official according to the
procedures for minor modifications as set forth in chapter 8, article B of this title and must
meet the following approval criteria. The following approval criteria are to be applied in lieu
of the general approval criteria listed in section 14-4B-1, "Minor Modifications", of this title:
Amend 14-4B-4 as follows:
Specific Approval Criteria for Provisional Uses and Special Exceptions: The
following uses are listed as provisional uses or special exceptions in one or more of the
base zones, unless specifically exempted or superseded by more specific provisions of
this title. Provisional uses are permitted, subject to the additional requirements contained
in this article. A use listed as a special exception in a base zone is permitted only after
approval from the board of adjustment, subject to the approval criteria contained in this
section and to the general special exception approval criteria contained i n section 14-4B-
3 of this article. In addition to the approval criteria listed in this article, all provisional uses
and special exceptions are required to meet the regulations of the base zone in which they
are located and all other applicable regulations of this title. If a regulation in another part
of this title conflicts with a regulation contained in this article, the regulation that is more
specific to the situation applies. When regulations are equally specific or when it is unclear
which regulation to apply, the more restrictive regulation applies.
Amend 14-4C-2 as follows:
Specific Approval Criteria: Any accessory uses listed in the following subsections must
comply with the conditions listed, unless specifically exempted or superseded by more
specific provisions of this title. As noted, some require special exception approval from the
Board of Adjustment. If a regulation in the base zone chapter conflicts with a regulation
contained in this article, the regulation that is more specific to the situation applies. When
regulations are equally specific or when it is unclear which regulation to apply, the more
restrictive regulation will govern
Amend 14-5B-2A as follows:
Applicability: All signs on private property must be installed, maintained, and/or removed
according to the provisions of this article, unless specifically exempted or superseded by
more specific provisions of this title.
Amend 14-5C-A as follows:
It is unlawful for any person to cut, break, or remove any curb along a street except in
compliance with the requirements of this article, or unless specifically exempted or
superseded by more specific provisions of this title.
Attachment 1 Page 3
Amend 14-5D-2 as follows:
Applicability: Lots located at the corner of any street intersection must comply with the
requirements of this article, unless specifically exempted or superseded by more specific
provisions of this title.
Amend 14-5E-2A as follows:
Applicability: No building permit shall be issued for the construction, reconstruction o r
structural alteration of a building nor shall any use be established or converted nor shall a
certificate of occupancy be granted for a use without conformity with the provisions of the
tree regulations, unless specifically exempted or superseded by more specific provisions
of this title.
Amend 14-5F-2 as follows:
Applicability: The screening and buffering standards will be applied throughout this title,
unless specifically exempted or superseded by more specific provisions of this title, where
they will be referenced with the numbers S1, S2, S3, etc. The regulations in this article
address materials, placement, layout, and timing of installation. The standards in this
article are expressed as minimum standards; additional landscaping and screening
materials may be used as long as they do not conflict with the provisions of this article.
Amend 14-5G-2A as follows:
Applicability of Provisions: The standards contained in this article apply to all uses in
all zones, except for the exemptions listed in subsection B of this section, or unless
specifically exempted or superseded by more specific provisions of this title.
Amend 14-5H-2 as follows:
Applicability: The provisions of this article apply to all uses located within the city of Iowa
City, unless specifically exempted or superseded by more specific provisions of this title.
Nonconforming development is subject to the provisions of chapter 4, article E,
"Nonconforming Situations", of this title
Legend
Historic & Conservation Districts
Base Zones
Central Business Service (CB-2)
Central Business Support (CB-5)
Community Commercial (CC-2)
Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1)
Commercial Office (CO-1)
Mixed Use (MU)
Attachment 2: Commercial Reuse ExceptionPotentially Eligible Properties
Created by: Kirk LehmannDate: September 21, 2020¯
Date: October 1, 2020
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Zoning Code Amendment (REZ20-0007) to allow parking reductions in lower intensity
commercial zones
Introduction
The City of Iowa City’s 2020-2021 Strategic Plan includes a goal to promote an inclusive and
resilient economy throughout the city. To reach that goal, the City is taking steps to invigorate
neighborhood commercial districts and create new small neighborhood commercial nodes which
encourage healthy, diverse, and sustainable economic activity . The proposed zoning code
amendment (REZ20-0007) seeks to further this goal by addressing one barrier for small-scale
commercial areas near developed residential neighborhoods: that minimum parking standards
can prevent neighborhood commercial development.
The proposed amendment replaces a provision that allows parking reductions only in CN-1 zones
with one that allows parking reductions in less intense commercial zones, including the following:
Mixed Use (MU), Commercial Office (CO-1), Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1), Community
Commercial (CC-2), Central Business Service (CB-2), and Central Business Support (CB-5). The
proposed amendment is detailed in Attachment 1.
Background
After City Council adopted the 2020-2021 Strategic Plan, City staff have heard that minimum
parking requirements are a constraint to the redevelopment of vacant commercial sites in several
other projects. This prompted City staff to review the zoning code for ways to promote the use of
other similar sites in lower intensity, neighborhood contexts which were not being utilized under
the City’s current standards.
The zoning code contains several mechanisms to adjust parking standards. Administrative
methods include parking reductions by landbanking in CN-1 zones, by allowing compact, scooter,
and motorcycle parking, by promoting Liner Buildings in the Riverfront Crossings district, by
allowing fees in lieu of parking in the downtown and Riverfront Crossings district for up to 50% of
spaces, and by allowing nearby off-site parking in most non-residential zones. The code also
includes minor modifications (14-4B-1) from standards which allow the number of parking spaces
to be reduced by up to 10% for commercial uses, up to 30% of dwelling units in CB-5 and CB-10
zones provided they are affordable, and up to 50% where parking is shared by non-residential
uses with different hours. The code also permits continuing legal nonconforming uses.
The code offers even greater flexibility through the special exception process where the Board
of Adjustment must find the request to meet all applicable criteria as specified in the code. For
example, the code includes special exceptions from standards which allow the number of
parking spaces to be reduced by up to 50% where a specific use has unique characteristics or
will reduce the ability to use or occupy a historic property; up to 100% for historic buildings or
October 1, 2020
Page 2
where nearby off-site parking is guaranteed in residential and CB-10 zones, and from 50% to
100% by allowing fees in lieu of parking in the downtown and Riverfront Crossings district.
While these standards cover a variety of situations, they do not allow the reduction of multifamily
parking for mixed use developments in commercial zones, nor do they apply in all situations.
This is problematic as this can stop infill projects which include new construction and can leave
sites vacant in traditional commercial areas. For example, a mixed-use project was discussed
for the Franz Pest Control site, but it was not feasible because parking reductions were not
available for multi-family units. Similarly,620 South Riverside Drive is a 15,000 square foot
vacant parcel with multiple inquiries, but the site cannot be parked as required under current
standards due its size and layout.
Proposed Amendment: Parking Reductions in Commercial Zones
The existing provision that would be replaced allows land banking to reduce parking in
Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) zones. As currently written, the City may administratively
reduce the minimum parking to promote small scale commercial uses in conveniently located
neighborhood shopping areas that serve nearby residents. The City may require that the owner
sign an agreement that up to 30% of the land that would otherwise be needed to provide the
required amount of parking shall be set aside onsite to provide for the future construction of a
parking area if the City determines it is necessary. Because it is restricted to the relatively
uncommon CN-1 zone, the provision is underutilized with no current examples of its use since
adoption.
The goal of the proposed amendment is similar, i.e. to promote small-scale commercial uses in
neighborhood shopping areas that primarily serve nearby residential neighborhoods. However,
the proposed amendment would expand parking reductions to all zones that can utilize the
proposed Commercial Reuse Exception (MU, CO-1, CN-1, CC-2, CB-2, and CB-5 zones), would
only waive up to 50% of the required number of spaces, and would not require land banking. In
addition, the process would change from Director approval to a minor modification which includes
notification of nearby property owners and an administrative hearing. The proposed parking
reduction could be utilized for new construction, redevelopment, alteration, or expansion projects
that include commercial and/or residential uses. Except for the CN-1 landbanking provision, other
parking flexibility offered through the code would remain, including for CB-10 zones downtown.
To ensure the amendment meets its purpose, buildings are limited to a 5,000 square foot footprint,
which is the maximum typically allowed in CN-1 zones and is scaled appropriately to adjacent
house-scale buildings. In addition, the developer must submit a parking demand analysis which
demonstrates that the amount of parking proposed will sufficiently meet the development’s
parking demand. Finally, the proposed amendment maintains protections for historic or potentially
historic properties by not allowing reductions for development that results in the demolition of an
Iowa City landmark, or a property in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
Analysis
Numerous commercial areas across Iowa City could benefit from the proposed parking reduction
amendment. Figure 1 is a map showing which parcels that are in eligible zoning districts (MU,
CO-1, CN-1, CC-2, CB-2, and CB-5). The map indicates that most neighborhood commercial
areas are potentially eligible, including the Northside, Towncrest, Olde Town Village, Iowa City
Marketplace, Pepperwood Plaza, and Walden Square. The proposed amendment would be
especially useful in areas where some commercial lots remain vacant, such as at the southeast
corner of Muscatine and 1st Avenue (2229 Muscatine Avenue). However, because the proposed
amendment only applies to properties in certain commercial zones, existing businesses in
residential zones could not use the proposed amendment.
October 1, 2020
Page 3
However, some commercial areas may be eligible though they are not small-scale or
neighborhood oriented. These include businesses in the Northgate Business Park or at the
intersection of Highway 218 and Highway 1. In those instances, the ordinance relies o n the
parking study and building size restrictions to ensure the parking reductions are appropriate to
the context of each site. Regardless, reducing parking where appropriate to match market realities
results in numerous economic and environmental benefits, including reduced costs to business,
less stormwater runoff, and more efficient use of the site.
Figure 1. Map of Potentially Eligible Sites for Parking Reductions
That said, reducing parking may affect some properties in older parts of the City th at already
experience some issues related to overflow parking. Most properties near the Northside
Marketplace and Mercy Hospital are in commercial zones and could potentially use the proposed
parking reduction if they can sufficiently demonstrate through a study that they can accommodate
their parking demand. To avoid on-street parking spillover effects near residential properties, the
City can include conditions through the minor modification process, such as restricting the number
of customers or allowing a lesser parking reduction than the full 50% of spaces.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
In addition to furthering City Council’s most recent strategic plan, the amendment also aligns with
the City’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan which discusses reducing parking minimums to
encourage trips by modes of transportation other than the automobile. Furthermore, the proposed
amendment supports several related goals and strategies from the City’s comprehensive plan:
•Encourage compact, efficient development that is contiguous and connected to existing
neighborhoods to reduce the cost of extending infrastructure and services and to preserve
farmland and open space at the edge of the city.
•Discourage sprawl by promoting small-lot and infill development.
October 1, 2020
Page 4
•Improve the environmental and economic health of the community through efficient use of
resources.
By allowing parking reductions, the proposed amendment efficiently promotes economic activity
throughout the community. Staff intends this exception to be primarily used on unique infill lots.
The parking reduction also assists businesses which serve surrounding neighbors and
consequently attract less automobile traffic. Adoption will provide an avenue for redevelopment
of neighborhood mixed and commercial uses on infill sites where room for parking may be limited.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the zoning code be amended as illustrated in Attachment 1 to invigorate
neighborhood commercial districts and new small neighborhood commercial nodes by replacing
a provision that allows parking reductions from only Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) zones with
a provision that allows parking reductions of up to 50% in MU, CO-1, CN-1, CC-2, CB-2, and CB-
5 zones.
Attachments
1.Proposed Zoning Code Text Amendments
2.Full-Sized Map of Potentially Eligible Sites for Parking Reductions
Approved by:
_____________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
Attachment 1 Page 1
Draft Zoning Code Text Amendments
Underlined text is suggested new language. Strike-through notation indicates language to be
deleted. Italics indicate notes.
Amend 14-5A-4F as follows (will affect number for subsequent items as well):
2.Minor Modification For Parking Allowed Reductions For Shared On Site Parking: The
building official, in consultation with the Director of Neighborhood and Development
Services, may approve a minor modification as specified in section 14-4B-1 of this title to
reduce the total number of parking spaces required by up to fifty percent (50%) if the uses
sharing the parking are not normally open, used, or operated during the same hours. To
qualify for a reduction under this provision, a parking demand analysis must be submitted
that provides evidence that the amount of parking proposed for the shared parking area
will be sufficient to meet the parking demand. This reduction is not allowed for residenti al
uses.
3. Land Banked Parking In The CN-1 Zone: The Director of Neighborhood and
Development Services may reduce the minimum parking requirements in the CN-1 Zone,
if it is determined that the proposed reduction will further the intent of the CN -1 Zone. In
such a case, to accommodate future changes in land use, changes in ownership, and
shifts in shared parking demand, up to thirty percent (30%) of the land area that would
otherwise be needed to provide the required amount of parking shall be land banked or
set aside on the site to provide for the future construction of a parking area. If an
enforcement official of the City determines at some point in the future that additional
parking spaces are needed, the property owner will be required to construct parking on
the land banked area. A written agreement between the property owner and the City must
be properly executed and recorded as a covenant running with the land and binding upon
all successors and assigns, assuring the installation of parking within the land banked
area by the owner if so ordered by the enforcement official. (Ord. 14-4586, 6-3-2014)
3.Minor Modification For Parking Reduction in Commercial Zones: The building official, in
consultation with the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services, may approve
a minor modification as specified in 14-4B-1 of this title to reduce the total number of
parking spaces required by up to fifty percent (50%) if it meets the following standards:
a.It must be in a CB-2, CB-5, CC-2, CN-1, CO-1, or MU zone;
b.Buildings must be limited to a footprint of 5,000 square feet;
c.A parking demand analysis must be submitted that provides evidence that the
amount of parking proposed will be sufficient to meet the parking demand , which
depending on the complexity of the site, may require an engineered study, as
determined by staff; and
d.The proposed development must not result in the demolition of a property that is
designated as an Iowa City landmark, registered in the National Register of
Historic Places, or individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
4.Minor Modification For Parking Reduction In The Central Business Zones: In the CB-
5 and CB-10 Zones, a minor modification may be granted as specified in section 14-4B-
1 of this title exempting up to thirty percent (30%) of the total number of dwelling units
contained in a building from the minimum parking requirements, provided that those
dwelling units are committed to the City's assisted housing program or any other
affordable housing program approved by the City.
5.Minor Modification for Commercial Use Parking Reductions. The number of required
parking spaces for commercial uses may be reduced up to ten percent (10%).
Attachment 1 Page 2
Amend 14-4B-1A as follows (will affect number for subsequent items as well):
1. The number of required parking spaces for commercial uses may be reduced up to
ten percent (10%).
2. The building official, in consultation with the Director of Planning and Community
Neighborhood and Development Services, may approve a minor reductionmodification of
up to fifty percent (50%) of the total number of parking spaces required, if the uses sharing
the parking are not normally open, used, or operated during the same hours. However,
this reduction is not allowed for residential uses. To qualify for a reduc tion under this
provision, a parking demand analysis must be submitted that provides evidence that the
amount of parking proposed for the shared parking area will be sufficient to meet the
parking demand.
3.The building official, in consultation with the Director of Neighborhood and
Development Services, may approve a minor modification as specified in 14-4B-1 of this
title to reduce the total number of parking spaces required by up to fifty percent (50%) if
it meets the following standards:
a.It must be in a CB-2, CB-5, CC-2, CN-1, CO-1, or MU zone;
b.Buildings must be limited to a footprint of 5,000 square feet;
c.A parking demand analysis must be submitted that provides evidence that the
amount of parking proposed will be sufficient to meet the parking demand, which
depending on the complexity of the site, may require an engineered study, as
determined by staff; and
d.The proposed development must not result in the demolition of a property that is
designated as an Iowa City landmark, registered in the National Register of
Historic Places, or individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
43. In the CB-5 and CB-10 Zones, a minor modification may be granted exempting up to
thirty percent (30%) of the total number of dwelling units contained in a building from the
minimum parking requirements; provided that those dwelling units are committed to the
City's assisted housing program or any other affordable housing program approved by the
City.
Legend
Historic & Conservation Districts
Base Zones
Central Business Service (CB-2)
Central Business Support (CB-5)
Community Commercial (CC-2)
Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1)
Commercial Office (CO-1)
Mixed Use (MU)
Attachment 2:Proposed Parking Reduction Properties Zoned CB-2, CB-5, CC-2, CN-1, CO-1, MU
Created by: Kirk LehmannDate: September 23, 2020¯
1
Date: October 1, 2020
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Good Neighbor Program Background
On October 1, 2020, the Planning and Zoning Commission will further discuss the City’s good
neighbor program. The Commission last discussed the good neighbor program on August 6,
2020. At this meeting, the Commission recommended the following:
• Require one good neighbor meeting for most land development projects, but allow some
exceptions and recommend a second good neighbor meeting if the project extends over
multiple years.
• Identify ways to notify renters, including sending mailings to occupants of units in
addition to property owners.
• Send notification letters regarding the good neighbor meeting to those living within 500-
feet of the project site, as opposed to the current 300-foot recommendation.
• Ensure neighborhood association representatives are notified of the meeting.
Staff has reviewed and discussed these recommendations and this memo outlines staff’s
thoughts for the Commission’s consideration and discussion.
Voluntary vs. Mandatory
The good neighbor program was created as a voluntary program to encourage more dialogue
between the applicant and adjacent property 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, but improved the program by creating a formal and
standardized process. This included identifying notification requirements, staff review of good
neighbor letters prior to mailing, timing of notification, and other improvements.
More recently in April 2019, staff analyzed the program and also recommended that the
program be kept voluntary because the types of applications vary and staff wanted the ability to
work with applicants and continue to encourage them to hold good neighbor meetings
[Attachment 2]. Additionally, the good neighbor program has helped create dialogue between
developers and neighbors.
On August 6, the Commission recommended requiring at least one meeting for most land
development projects and also requiring additional meetings if the project spans multiple years.
If good neighbor meetings are to be required, staff recommends a clear policy that is limited to
those projects that impact or change land use policy and/or the allowed land uses and
associated development standards on a property. Staff does not recommend requiring these
meetings for more technical reviews, such as vacations and subdivisions. Specifically, staff
recommends the following:
2
• For annexations, require a good neighbor meeting at the time of annexation. If the
rezoning concurrent with the annexation is to an Interim Development (ID-) zoning
district, require a second meeting at the time of the subsequent rezoning from the ID-
zone to a zone that allows additional development.
• Require a good neighbor meeting for project-specific comprehensive plan map
amendments and associated rezonings.
• Require a good neighbor meeting for project-specific amendments to the zoning
map.
• Do not require good neighbor meetings for subdivisions or vacations.
• The good neighbor program is also encouraged for applications reviewed by the
Board of Adjustment. At this time, staff is not recommending that good neighbor
meetings be required for special exceptions or other applications reviewed by the
Board of Adjustment.
Moving from a voluntary to a mandatory approach has both pros and cons. Making it clear when
a meeting is required provides clarity for everyone involved, including the applicant, neighbors,
and the Commission. However, requiring meetings may appear to be severe when, based on
staff’s experience, applicants are willing to hold good neighbor meetings for larger-scale
projects with greater impacts. Additionally, this would be one more requirement of the
development community that could impact project timelines.
Notification of Renters and the Notification Radius
Currently, the good neighbor program recommends that letters be sent to neighboring property
owners within 300-feet of the proposed development project. However, in most cases, staff
works with the applicant to increase the notification radius. On August 6, the Commission
recommended an increase in the notification radius to 500-feet and an effort be made to notify
renters.
Staff supports the Commission’s recommendation to increase the notification radius to 500-feet.
Staff also agrees with the Commission that an effort should be made to notify renters. Staff
relies on data provided by the Iowa City Assessor’s Office in obtaining mailing addresses of
property owners. In some instances, but not all, the Assessor has mailing addresses for
individual units. In these instances, staff recommends that letters be mailed to the property
owners in addition to the resident of the unit. Due to concerns related to staff time, staff
recommends only using the data available from the City Assessor to notify residents of
individual units.
Tables 1 – 3 show how increasing the notification radius and notifying individual units will
increase the number of letters mailed out. Good neighbor meeting notices are mailed by the
applicant. However, staff also mails letters prior to Planning and Zoning Commission meetings
to neighboring property owners within 300-feet of the development project. If the notification
standards change for the good neighbor meeting, the standards will also need to be changed for
the letters mailed by the City.
Table 1. Downtown Example – Englert Theater
Radius
No. of Letters
(Property Owners Only)
No. of Letters
(Owners + Residents)
% Increase in No. of
Letters
300 ft 93 267 65.17%
500 ft 143 508 71.85%
3
Table 2. Neighborhood Example - 2130 Muscatine Ave.
Radius
No. of Letters
(Property Owners Only)
No. of Letters
(Owners + Residents)
% Increase in No. of
Letters
300 ft 26 40 35.00%
500 ft 75 113 33.63%
Table 3. Comparison of Current v. Proposed Notification Requirements
300 ft, Property
Owners
(Current)
500 ft, Owners
+ Residents
(Proposed)
% Increase in
No. of Letters
Postage
Costs
(Current)
Postage
Costs
(Proposed)
Englert Theater 93 508 81.69% $51.15 $279.40
2130 Muscatine 26 113 76.99% $14.30 $62.15
As is shown in Table 3, this change will increase the cost of mailing notification letters. It will
also increase the time Urban Planning staff spends on administrative duties. Urban Planning
staff does not have administrative support staff. Planners and the Intern are responsible for all
administrative work related to land development applications. This includes posting signs;
drafting, printing and mailing letters; and preparing and distributing agendas. Although these
proposed changes will increase the time staff spends on mailings, staff thinks that the increase
should be manageable.
Neighborhood Associations
The Commission also expressed an interest in ensuring that the neighborhood associations are
notified of any upcoming good neighbor meetings in their neighborhoods. Currently, staff in
Urban Planning coordinates with the City’s Neighborhood Outreach Planner who notifies
neighborhood association coordinators regarding good neighbor meetings.
Additional Notification
One additional way that staff notifies neighbors of upcoming development applications is
through signs posted on the property. These signs include a phone number that interested
residents can call with questions. The signs also include a website, which takes them to the
City’s new Customer Self Service site. Members of the public can search this site for
development proposals that are currently under review by both the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the Board of Adjustment.
Staff has also reached out to the City’s Communication staff to see if there is a way to increase
electronic notifications.
Summary
In summary, staff supports making some changes to the good neighbor program to help ensure
that more members of the public are notified of potential development projects, including:
• If good neighbor meetings are to be required, making them mandatory for annexations,
project-specific comprehensive plan map amendments and associated rezonings, and
project-specific amendments to the zoning map.
• Increasing the notification radius to 500-feet.
• Expanding those notified to individual residences when the mailing addresses are easily
attainable from the Assessor’s website.
4
• Exploring ways to increase electronic notification options.
Since this would be requiring more of applicants, staff recommends some coordination with the
development community to ensure they have an opportunity to comment on the proposed
changes. At the August 6, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, several interested
neighborhood representatives expressed support for these types of changes; however, staff has
not heard from the development community.
There are pros and cons to these proposed changes, which are summarized in Table 4.
Identifying when meetings are required will clarify the expectations of the Planning and Zoning
Commissions. Increasing the notification requirements alone will ensure more people are aware
of proposed development projects – even if a good neighbor meeting is not held.
Table 4. Summary of Pros and Cons
Pros Cons
- More residents are notified of
pending development projects
- Additional requirement for the
development community
- Clear requirements on when good
neighbor meetings are required
- Potentially increase time associated with
land development process
- Increase Planning staff’s time spent on
administrative tasks
- Increased costs associated with postage
Lastly, making the good neighbor meeting mandatory for certain projects will require an
amendment to the City’s zoning code.
Next Steps
At the Commission’s October 1, 2020 meeting staff would like to continue 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 from Neighborhood and Development Services staff to the City Manager’s Office;
May 8, 2013
2. Memo to the Planning and Zoning Commission; April 1, 2019
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.
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
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 20, 2020 – 7:00 PM
ELECTRONIC FORMAL MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Mark Nolte, Mark
Signs, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Joshua Engelbrecht, Eric Goers, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Scott Ritter, Jessica Plowman, Bryan Jensen
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 the Commissions recommends approval of CREZ20-0001, an application for a
rezoning of approximately 1.76 acres of County Agriculture (A) to County Residential (R) within
Fringe Area B – Outside the Growth Boundary of the City/County Fringe Area.
By a vote of 3-3 (Craig, Signs and Townsend dissenting) the Commission recommends denial of
CREZ20-0002, an application submitted by Bryan Jensen for a conditional use permit to allow for
a dog kennel and daycare facility on Lot 2 and Outlot A of 4665 Herbert Hoover Highway in
unincorporated Johnson County.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. He welcomed new Commission member Nolte
and also noted that Commissioner Carolyn Dyer has submitted her resignation so there is
another opening on the Commission.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting was held because a meeting in person was 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
August 20, 2020
Page 2 of 10
CASE NO. CREZ20-0001:
Applicant: Lindsey N. Fudge
Location: 4477 Sioux Avenue SE, Unincorporated Johnson County
An application for a rezoning of approximately 1.76 acres of County Agriculture (A) to County
Residential (R) within Fringe Area B – Outside the Growth Boundary of the City/County Fringe
Area.
Engelbrecht began the staff report with some background information. This property falls within
Fringe Area B outside Iowa City's growth area, the application proposes it to be rezoned to
County Residential and the applicant has also submitted a subdivision application to the County
to create two lots. Per the Fringe Area Agreement subdivisions of land into fewer than three lots
continue to be regulated by the County which is why the subdivision application isn't presented
tonight. Engelbrecht showed an aerial view of the property showing the full parcel outlined in
yellow with the white being the portion to be rezoned. The parcel is surrounded by County
Agricultural Land Use zone and is within Area B outside growth. Engelbrecht showed some
pictures of the area noting there is already a dwelling on the property. He also pointed out lots of
County Agricultural open space with some development in the distance, more open space and
agricultural use to the east across the street, and then more development in the distance and
open space to the south.
Engelbrecht stated in terms of compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan and the Future
Land Use Map of the County's Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as suitable for
agricultural uses and the Agricultural Land Use category typically includes land devoted to
agriculture with limited residential development. The City and County Fringe Area Agreement is a
component of the City's Comprehensive Plan and it applies to areas outside of the City's
jurisdiction that are planned for in the City's Comprehensive Plan. This agreement provides
guidance regarding land development within two miles of the Iowa City corporate limits. Staff
relies on this Agreement to review rezonings in the Fringe Area. So, the proposed rezoning is
located in Fringe Area B, and as noted several times is outside the City's growth area.
Agricultural uses are preferred in this zone, or in this area, and restricts to land uses consistent
with rural agricultural land use such as row crops, animal husbandry and very limited residential
development. In summary, the County Land Use Plan and the City County Fringe Area
Agreement recommend agricultural uses in this area, which does not directly align with the
proposed rezoning. However, the residential use already exists on this parcel and the proposed
rezoning would not allow for additional residential units to be developed.
The role of the Commission is to provide a recommendation to City Council on the rezoning
based on Fringe Area Agreement and then Johnson County Board of Supervisors is the ultimate
decision maker. The next steps are after the Commission, the City Council will review and
provide a recommendation to the Johnson County Planning Commission.
Staff recommends that although the proposed rezoning does not directly align with the policies
outlined in the adopted Fringe Area Agreement, staff recommends approval of the rezoning for
the following reasons. The first is that the subject property already consists of residential
development and dividing the parcel and rezoning the 1.76 acres would better reflect the current
land usage. Second the proposed rezoning would not allow for further residential development
as only one unit is allowed based on the size of the lot.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 20, 2020
Page 3 of 10
Hensch asked what Fringe Area Agreement they are operating off as he knows the southeast
area of Iowa City Fringe Area agreement had expired some time ago. Is this based on that
expired Fringe Area Agreement or is there a current agreement that hasn't expired yet. Russett
stated the Fringe Area Agreement hasn’t expired yet and they are still operating under that one.
Hensch asked if in this rezoning are they planning on building a new structure on that 1.76 acre
parcel. Engelbrecht stated the application didn't specify so he is not entirely sure but doesn’t
assume so.
Hensch asked approximately how many miles this is from City limits. Engelbrecht is unsure, but
noted it is less than two miles.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Scott Ritter (Hart-Frederick Consultants) is representing the applicant and is available to answer
any questions. He did note at this time he knows of no other buildings to be built there.
Hearing no questions for the applicant, and no other public input, Hensch closed the public
hearing.
Signs moved to recommend approval of CREZ20-0001, an application for a rezoning of
approximately 1.76 acres of County Agriculture (A) to County Residential (R) within Fringe
Area B – Outside the Growth Boundary of the City/County Fringe Area.
Nolte seconded the motion.
Hensch noted given the distance from the City, it’s not in the growth area and it looks like it's
probably close to the two mile outer limit and there's already an existing structure on there he
support this application.
Signs asked the staff again that there appears to be a little remnant of nonagricultural use or
non-field use just to the north of the subject property and could that be re-subdivided at some
future time to build another house. Russett replied that would have to be rezoned first before it
could be subdivided.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CASE NO. CREZ20-0002:
Applicant: Bryan Jensen
Location: Lot 2 and Outlot A of 4665 Herbert Hoover Hwy; Unincorporated Johnson County
An application for a conditional use permit to allow for a kennel and dog care facility in the
County Residential (R) zone within Fringe Area B – Inside the City’s Growth Boundary of the
City/County Fringe Area.
Engelbrecht noted this application is for a conditional use permit within Fringe area B for kennel
and dog care facility. He showed an aerial view of the property and the distance from Iowa City.
The property is zoned County Residential and there is a low-density residential development to
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 20, 2020
Page 4 of 10
the east and then mixed use and multifamily development to the west. The application is also
within Fringe Area B however, this one is inside the growth area of the Fringe Area Agreement.
Regarding the background, this is an application to Johnson County Board of Adjustment for the
allowance of a dog kennel and daycare facility in Johnson County. A conditional use permit
allows for a conditionally permitted use on a specific property and the role of the County Board of
Adjustment is to determine if a dog kennel and daycare facility meets the supplemental
conditions based on the facts presented and they may impose additional conditions if they deem
necessary. Engelbrecht pointed this out to make a distinction between the Commission's
discretion in policymaking ability and the County Board of Adjustment roll of approving an
application based on if it meets required conditions and criteria.
The proposed land use is a kennel intended to provide daycare and boarding for dogs with the
ability for the customers to request additional services such as grooming (which would require
another conditional use permit in the future). The subject property is located inside of the Iowa
City growth boundary and the City's Northeast District Plan identifies this area as appropriate f or
single family residential. Engelbrecht showed some pictures of where the facility would be
located and the concept plan showing the proposed kennel and sign. He noted there is
development in Iowa City further down the road, open space to the north, and then more open
space and some development to the east. The Johnson County Supplemental Conditions state
proposed daycare facility and kennel must comply with the following supplemental conditions
from section 8.1.23 of the Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance. The first is the
kennel shall not be located on parcels fewer than five acres except for as provided in the section.
The property is approximately 8.4 acres so the first condition is already met and that means that
the second condition doesn't necessarily apply. The second conditions is kennels may be
located on parcels three acres or larger if the facility does not provide overnight boarding
services and no more than four dogs which do no reside on the property are present at any given
time. The third is that all structures and run areas used to house or exercise animals shall be set
back a minimum of 200 feet from all property lines. Engelbrecht noted due to the layout of the
site, it is unlikely that the project will be able to meet this condition however, the setback can be
reduced to 100 feet through the County Special Exception Process. The fourth condition is that
animal boarding facilities may exceed the limits for keeping of dogs or cats contained in the
section when counting animals temporarily boarded for compensation. The number of animals
permanently residing on the premises shall comply with set limits at all times.
Regarding the City analysis, the proposed kennel and daycare facility use is allowed as a
conditional use in County Residential zones and development projects within Iowa City's
projected growth area shall conform to City Urban Design Standards contained in Title 14,
Chapter 7 of the City Code of Iowa City, including but not limited to City specifications for streets
and roads, sanitary sewer lines, stormwater management facilities and water lines. In addition to
complying with the City's Urban Design Standards, staff wants to ensure future street
connectivity in this area. Additionally, because the site is located near existing residential uses,
staff is recommending the following two conditions for this development. The first being all
overnight boarding facilities are located within a soundproof building. Second prior to obtaining
any building permits from the County, written approval from the City on the location of any future
building or structures is required.
Engelbrecht showed an aerial view of the subject property noting it is anywhere from 160 to 230
feet from residential uses, which is the reason for wanting to implement the soundproofing
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 20, 2020
Page 5 of 10
condition. The existing north/south streets, Nex Ave and American Pharoah Drive, are over
1,000 feet apart so another north/south street is needed in this area, as well as the extension of
Grindstone Drive, which is currently stubbed. Staff recommends that all County Supplemental
requirements be fulfilled in addition to the conditions that will be recommended by staff.
Engelbrecht reiterated the applicant can request a reduction in the 200 foot setback requirement
through the County Special Exception Process.
The role of the Commission is to determine if the dog kennel and daycare facility should be
recommended for approval to City Council and then City Council will make a formal
recommendation to the Johnson County Board of Adjustments.
Staff recommends approval of an application submitted by Bryan Jensen for a conditional use
permit to allow for a dog kennel and daycare facility on Lot 2 and Outlot A of 4665 Herbert
Hoover Highway in unincorporated Johnson County, subject to the following additional
conditions:
1. That the overnight boarding facilities be located completely indoors within a soundproof
building; and
2. Prior to obtaining any building permits from the County, written approval from the City on the
location of any future building or structure (including fences) to ensure future street connectivity.
Martin asked if this application falls under the purview of needing to do Good Neighbor meeting
because this is an area surrounded by Iowa City. Hensch stated likely not because it is in
Johnson County corporate limits.
Hensch noted the Commission has looked at this parcel before for different agenda items in the
past and recalls the development to the west, the multifamily there, created a lot of stormwater
issues and runoff to the property to the south so he wants to ensure for this application the City
Urban Design Standard are met. He asked if the City have a review process as that
development occurs to make sure that happens. Russett stated that since this parcel is over two
acres and a non-residential use is proposed, the City would review the site plan. Since it's not
being subdivided at this time, they would look at it to ensure compliance with Urban Design
Standards, which includes stormwater management.
Hensch’s second question is mostly just an education piece for the Commission on a Conditional
Use Permit, once that's granted, does it go on in perpetuity with the property regardless if the
property changes hand, or if the use ceases for at least a year. Russett stated she is not entirely
sure if it's in perpetuity or if they need to be renewed. She did note if there are any issues with
the use after it's built such as complaints from neighbors, for whatever reasons, it can come back
to the County Board of Adjustments for review.
Craig stated she was going to ask about the good neighbor policy as well because it does seem
there are a lot of people that live within throwing distance of the new dog kennel and the
Commission doesn’t know what kind of information the neighbors are going to get about this
proposal or not. That concerns her as the City limits are to the east and the west. She has
concerns about all the exceptions that they're asking, it's smaller than the Johnson County Code
says it should be, they're asking for an exception to the setback, it's in the middle of all this
residential. Yes there is commercial on the corner but then there is multifamily housing, and it
just feels like this whole piece should hook up to the other residential property on east. It doesn’t
seem logical to her that they're going to plunk down what she sees as a commercial use in the
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 20, 2020
Page 6 of 10
middle of what is currently residential and most logically would stay residential. She noted she
drove out there today and it's a very attractive looking multifamily housing unit.
Craig also questioned, it may not have anything to do with their decision making, but they talk
about how they're going to use existing water and septic which also serves the house. Currently,
it serves both houses and also one driveway is now going to serve the houses and 50 people a
day coming to drop off their dogs. Russett noted she can't speak to that, it will have to be
reviewed at the site plan stage and they would have to meet the well water and septic
requirements but the City would have requirements in terms of our Urban Design Standards and
ensuring that if this area's annexed it could be connected to City water and sewer. Craig asked if
this application was in the City limits would staff still be approving it.
Hensch stated about a year ago the Commission did approve a rezoning for a dog kennel
operation at the north east corner of Dodge Street. Townsend remembered but noted that
wasn’t in the middle of a residential area, it was an area with a lot of other commercial buildings
around it, as opposed to this one, which is in a residential area.
Signs noted the Code called for a 200-foot setback from all property lines and looking at the map
he doesn’t see any way in the world they’re going to be even close to that setback from the
property lines. Additionally, the report made reference of the need for connectivity to Grindstone
and the possible need to have another street coming off of Herbert Hoover. If that new building is
built smack in the middle of that parcel the other little building that's existing will make it hard to
meet that connectivity. Russett said they would like see Grindstone connect with Nex Avenue.
She also acknowledged with the existing structures having a north/south street may be difficult,
but that's why they want to review the site plan because the location map and the concept that
they've provided is a very rough concept. Signs asked if the site plan review would come back
before the Commission or is that just a staff level review? Russett stated it would be a staff level
review.
Engelbrecht reiterated the applicant can request a reduction of the setbacks. Townsend asked
regarding the setbacks, would those proposed come back before the Commission. Russett
noted those would just go to the County Board of Adjustment.
Signs asked if this property can be further subdivided and if they did have room to take
Grindstone over to Nex Avenue and bisect the property, could it be subdivided to where
development can be done on that southern half of the property. Russett said it may need to be
rezoned, but she does believe there could be more development there. Signs noted then it puts
the structure closer to another residential area.
Russett spoke to two items that came up in the discussion. The first is the notifying the property
owners and the County doesn’t have a good neighbor policy that she aware of but they do have
notification requirements. The neighbors are being notified of the County Board of Adjustment
meeting. And second, this is an unusual situation where they have City and Unincorporated
County boundaries like this and as Engelbrecht mentioned in his staff report there had been
interest in annexing this land, however the City can't annex this land because there is some
unincorporated County to the south which would create an island of unincorporated land which is
not allowed by State law.
Signs asked if that piece of property remains un-annexed for a length of time can the connection
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 20, 2020
Page 7 of 10
between Grindstone and Nex Avenue still be made and does the City have any control over that
connection and/or the development to the south of that new connection. Russett stated the City
would review any rezoning of the area which would go to the Commission and Council and any
subdivisions of this land would have to go to the Planning Commission and need to be approved
by City Council and need to meet the Urban Design Standards and street connectivity.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Jessica Plowman stated she is speaking on behalf of Bryan Jensen and Dave Jensen the
brothers that own all 14 acres of that land. Dave lives in the house the small skinny parcel to the
west, and the small structure referred to as a house is actually a garage that's probably in
disrepair and needs to be torn down. She added there is an unused well under that property that
they will utilize for the dog kennel so it doesn't utilize the same well as what's on current houses .
The other thing she wanted to address was the 200-foot setback, she has talked to Johnson
County and they said that it shouldn't be a problem for them to get the 100-foot setbacks. They
could fit a 60 x 100, 6000 square foot, building that is long and skinny in there and but that would
not allow for an outdoor area for the dogs to go out. So there is a high possibility that they would
take an acre of land to the east that Brian also owns with this parcel that they would take a little
bit of that to allow for the area for the dogs to relieve themselves and that would meet the 100-
foot setback and could fit a building there. Plowman added they would make the building
soundproof; they are very sensitive to the neighbors and the noise. She also added on the east
side of the property there is a creek and that absorbs the noise a little bit.
Hensch asked if Plowman could elaborate about the soundproofing or the hours that no dogs
would be outside because sound seems to be an issue. Plowman stated after 6pm no dogs will
be kept outside, they'll be put inside for the evening. They would need evening potty breaks but
they’d go out one by one, and no group of animals will not be left out after 6pm. They're all be
housed inside overnight and stay inside until 7am.
Hensch acknowledged it doesn't occur at this level right now, but if the Board of Adjustment
asked for some shrubs or trees or something to add for an additional sound barrier, is that
something they would not object to. Plowman confirmed there would be no objections, and
noted there are so many trees out there, noting they did have some damage with the recent
storm, but there are so many trees that from the street one can't see the house and they wouldn't
be able to see this building either.
Townsend asked if there was additional land that they own then why didn’t they allow enough for
those 200-foot setbacks.
Bryan Jensen stated that setback is from the sliver to the west and his brother has three acres so
that setback is from his house. The whole area is in different parcels, there's three acres to the
west and then there's the 11 in the middle, etc.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend approval of CREZ20-0002, an application submitted by Bryan
Jensen for a conditional use permit to allow for a dog kennel and daycare facility on Lot 2
and Outlot A of 4665 Herbert Hoover Highway in unincorporated Johnson County, subject
to the following conditions:
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 20, 2020
Page 8 of 10
1. That the overnight boarding facilities be located completely indoors within a
soundproof building; and
2. Prior to obtaining any building permits from the County, written approval from the City
on the location of any future building or structure (including fences) to ensure future
street connectivity.
Nolte seconded the motion.
Hensch noted they have to remember the layers of review of the Code that are above them on
this and that the Board of Adjustment will hear this also since this is in the unincorporated area,
and it is an existing structure that exists where the special exception can be granted by the
Board of Adjustment for that 100-foot setback. He also thinks they addressed it pretty clearly
about the soundproofing, their willingness to do some plantings or something to assist with that.
He knows with a lot of development around there, the boarding of pets is really important and
there is a shortage of that Iowa City as a pet owner, therefore, this is something that he will be
supporting.
Craig noted big concerns about the flow of residential as a beautiful new residential building is
there to the west, and then there's going to be what most people would perceive as a
commercial use before the residential picks up again. Additionally, the fact that this is
surrounded on two sides by Iowa City she is having a hard time getting over those two things.
Hensch understands that but noted they have to remember that any platting to occur must be
approved by others and those issues will be addressed. They are talking about a conditional use
here and shouldn’t get too overly concerned on things that have to happen yet in the future.
Townsend added her concern is not everyone is a pet owner, and not having that 200-foot
setback between the residences and this new use would be a concern to her.
A vote was taken and the motion failed 3-3 (Craig, Signs and Townsend dissenting).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: AUGUST 8, 2020:
Craig moved to approve the meeting minutes of August 8, 2020.
Townsend seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
None.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 20, 2020
Page 9 of 10
ADJOURNMENT:
Townsend moved to adjourn.
Martin seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2020-2021
7/16 8/6 8/20
CRAIG, SUSAN X X X
DYER, CAROLYN O/E O/E -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
HENSCH, MIKE X X X
MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X
NOLTE, MARK -- -- -- -- X
SIGNS, MARK X X X
TOWNSEND, BILLIE O/E X X
Vacancy
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member