HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 06.17.2021PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, June 17, 2021
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
Development Items
4. Case No. REZ21-0004
Applicant: LT Leon Associates, Inc
Location: 1125 N. Dodge Street
An application submitted for a rezoning to Community Commercial with a Planned
Development Overlay (OPD/CC-2) for approximately 7.5 acres of property. The request
is to modify the conditional zoning agreement for this property to allow a drive-through
for Hy-Vee’s “Aisles Online” grocery pickup service.
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/tJUlduGgqT0qEtOHt0CwdM5IvVVpXq4jZ_
O2 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 918 1887 6087 when prompted.
Providing comment in person is not an option.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 17, 2021
5. Discussion on returning to in-person meetings
6. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: May 6, 2021
7. Planning & Zoning Information
8. Adjournment
If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please
contact Anne Russett, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5251 or anne-russett@iowa-city.org.
Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: July 1 / July 15 / August 5
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ21-0004
Prepared by: Joshua Engelbrecht, Planning
Intern and Ray Heitner, Associate Planner
Date: June 17, 2021
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: LT Leon Associates, Inc
5820 Westown Parkway
West Des Moines, IA 50266
515-267-2800
Contact Person: Luis Leon
LT Leon Associates
(515) 422-7016
lleon@ltleon.com
Owner: Hurd Iowa City, LLC
2000 Fuller Rd.
West Des Moines, IA 50265
Requested Action: Revision of conditions stated in previous
conditional zoning agreement
Purpose: To allow for construction of a permanent
kiosk, canopy, and three drive-through
grocery pickup lanes
Location: 1103 & 1125 N. Dodge Street. Iowa City, IA
Location Map:
Size: 7.546 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Community Commercial with a Planned
Development Overlay (OPD/CC-2)
2
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Low-density single-family residential
(RS-5)
Rural Residential (RR-1)
South: Community Commercial (CC-2)
Low-density multi-family residential
(RM-12)
East: Neighborhood commercial with a
Planned development overlay
(OPD/CN-1)
Mixed Use (MU)
West: Low-density single-family residential
(RS-5)
Comprehensive Plan: General Commercial
District Plan: North District Plan; Retail/Community
Commercial
Neighborhood Open Space District: N1
Public Meeting Notification: Property owners located within 300’ of the
project site received notification of the
Planning and Zoning Commission public
meeting. Rezoning signs were also posted on
the site
File Date: 5/12/2021
45 Day Limitation Period: 6/26/2021
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In September of 2013, the City Council approved the conditional zoning (REZ12-0026) of
approximately 7.79 acres of property at the intersection of North Dodge St. and Prairie du Chien
Road to community commercial with a planned development overlay (OPD/CC-2). This property
would serve as the new location for the North Dodge Street Hy-Vee. The rezoning also helped to
facilitate development of a gas station and convenience store on the property’s west side. The
convenience store was originally planned to have a drive-through component, but the drive-through
was never built. This conditional zoning agreement laid out the following conditions:
A.A buffer area generally consistent with the attached plan shall be established along the
western property line of the parcel rezoned to CC -2. This buffer must be screened to the
S3 standard. Wherever the buffer area is less than 35 feet a masonry wall shall be provided
consistent with the attached plan.
B.No signs shall be permitted within the 35-foot buffer, or on the north and /or west sides of
the convenience store facing the residential development, except for a monument sign at
the intersection of Dodge Street and Prairie Du Chien Road. There will be no more than two
(2) free - standing signs permitted along the Dodge Street frontage. Other fascia and
monument signs are permitted as per the code.
C.Any building or structure including canopies shall be of a quality design appropriate for
3
property abutting a residential neighborhood, including features such as stone and masonry
materials, standing seam metal roofs, and muted colors. The design of any buildings as well
as associated structures and facilities must be presented to and approved by the Design
Review Committee prior to the City issuing a building permit.
D.Existing evergreen screening and mature trees will be preserved along the northwest side
of the property where possible.
E.A bus pull off, the design of which must be approved by the City Engineer, shall be
constructed by the Applicant within the Dodge Street right -of-way.
F.Development and landscaping shall be generally consistent with the attached plan.
G.A parapet wall shall be provided on the northwest wall of the grocery store to buffer roof top
equipment.
In March of this year, Hy-Vee, Inc submitted two special exception applications to the Board of
Adjustment for North Dodge Hy-Vee and Waterfront Drive Hy-Vee to allow construction of a kiosk
and drive-through lanes for the “Aisles Online” grocery pickup service. After discussions with Staff,
it was determined that a rezoning would be necessary, due to the development’s inconsistency with
condition F.
In May, Hy-Vee Inc. submitted this application (REZ21-0004) to revise the conditions of the 2013
Conditional Zoning Agreement. This revision would update condition F of the above conditions by
providing an updated development and landscaping plan with the footprint and layout of the desired
kiosk, canopy, and drive-through lanes. The zoning designation of community commercial with a
planned development overlay (OPD/CC-2) would remain unchanged, and new construction would
be required to comply with conditions associated with the approved updated OPD Plan. The original
rezoning required a Planned Development Overlay because more than 35% of critical slopes were
impacted.
The applicant has chosen not to utilize the City’s Good Neighbor Policy for this rezoning.
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning:
The current zoning designation, community commercial with a planned development overlay
(OPD/CC-2), allows most retail-type stores, restaurants, and services. The CC-2 zone is intended
to provide for major business districts to serve a significant segment of the total community. The
OPD overlay is designed to permit flexibility in the use and design of structures and land in situations
where conventional development may be inappropriate and where modification to requirements of
the underlying zone will not be contrary to the intent and purpose of the zoning code.
Proposed Zoning:
There would be no change to this property’s current zoning designation. Updated development and
landscaping plans would allow for the construction of a kiosk and canopy along the northern edge
of the property (as seen in Figure 1), but a Board of Adjustment special exception would be required
to allow the drive through lanes that service the kiosk.
4
General Planned Development Approval Criteria:
Applications for Planned Development Rezonings are reviewed for compliance with the following
standards according to Article 14-3A of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance.
1.The density and design of the Planned Development will be compatible with and/or
complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass and scale,
relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout.
Density: The proposed OPD rezoning does not contemplate any residential uses.
Land Uses Proposed: The proposed OPD rezoning would allow for the development of a
permanent kiosk for Hy-Vee’s “Aisles Online” program, along with a canopy and three traffic lanes
for grocery pickup. This configuration is similar to kiosks that are currently being constructed at
other Hy-Vee store locations in the area.
While the surrounding land uses are residential in character, a Hy-Vee store location has occupied
the subject property since 2014. The new site plan indicates that the landscaping buffer that
currently exists between the proposed kiosk will remain and be enhanced. Additionally, the kiosk
building itself serves as an additional buffer to traffic and automobiles circulating within the parking
lot.
Mass and Scale: The attached kiosk elevations show the layout and structural elevation of the
proposed kiosk and drive-through facilities. The kiosk building will be 1,150 square feet and will
be located at the northern edge of the current parking lot. The kiosk building will be 72’ long and
16’ wide, with a height of approximately 12’.
The kiosk building and canopy will be subject to the City’s Design Review process, per condition
4C of the existing conditional zoning agreement, which states that “Any building or structure,
Figure 1
5
including canopies, shall be of a quality design appropriate for property abutting a residential
neighborhood, including features such as stone and masonry materials, standing seam metal
roofs, and muted colors. The design of any buildings as well as associated structures and facilities
must be presented to and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to the City issuing a
building permit.” Additional analysis as to how the proposed kiosk and canopy will affect
neighboring residents is provided in the “Compatibility with the Existing Neighborhood” section of
this report.
Open Space: The proposed OPD rezoning does not contain a public open space requirement,
since the rezoning does not involve residential uses.
General Layout and Traffic Circulation: Three lanes of southwest bound traffic will feed into six
designated pickup parking spaces. A 752 square foot canopy will provide cover for the pickup
spaces. Seven parking spaces to the northeast of the kiosk building will remain in place. Staff
noted in its review of the OPD Plan that the presence of these seven parking spaces may cause
potential conflicts with southwest-bound traffic using the “Aisles Online” facility. Staff suggested
that the applicant consider a redesign of this area but did not feel it was necessary to require a
redesign of the “Aisles Online” traffic queue for the purpose of approving the OPD Plan.
2.The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities.
The proposed kiosk will only require electrical utilities. There will be no changes to street layout
or pedestrian access to the north of the proposed kiosk, and an additional pedestrian sidewalk
will be constructed to provide access to the new kiosk. No alterations or additions to other existing
infrastructure will be constructed. This change is not expected to increase traffic volume because
the trips generated by the grocery pickup kiosk are expected to replace traditional trips to the
larger site.
3.The development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property values and privacy
of neighboring properties any more than would a conventional development.
The additional screening from the kiosk and additional landscaping are expected to mitigate any
impacted views. The “Aisle Online” pickup service operates using incremental time slots allowing
the control of traffic volumes over the course of business hours. Additionally, the outdoor illumination
standards for properties zoned CC-2 are the same regardless of drive-through presence.
Staff did note in its review of the OPD Plan that there are a few areas outside of the subject property
where the foot candles from the development exceeds the allowable limit of 0.5. The applicant has
stated that this is an existing noncompliant condition. The proposed lighting plan exceeds the
allowed light trespass allowed by the zoning code and is noncompliant with the City’s outdoor
lighting standards. A compliant lighting plan must be submitted for review at the time of site plan
submittal.
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.
The Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map shows this property as appropriate for general
commercial uses. Hy-Vee has seen its online orders increase dramatically during the COVID-19
pandemic, and now processes hundreds of online orders from this store location each day.
Construction of the proposed kiosk and canopy will be in the public interest by allowing for the
provision of adequate infrastructure to meet this growing demand. The applicant has not requested
any waivers to modify the underlying zoning requirements or City street standards.
6
Staff uses the following two criteria in the review of rezonings:
1.Consistency with the comprehensive plan.
2.Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan:
While the City’s North District Plan encourages a “Main Street” style of commercial development
that is compatible with the adjacent residential character, the subject property was rezoned to
Planned Development Overlay Community Commercial (OPD/CC-2) with the intention to develop
a Hy-Vee grocery store and gas station that could be designed in a manner that would make the
overall development compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. This was
originally accomplished by placing the grocery store building closer to Dodge Street to provide a
shallower side yard setback. A 35’ buffer and S3 landscaping screening between the west
property line and the convenience store building was also implemented to soften the transition
between the grocery store use and parking lot toward the residences to the west. The applicant
has taken similar steps to incorporate the proposed “Aisles Online” addition in a manner that
should not create any negative effects for adjacent residents above and beyond those that might
already result from the existing use.
Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood Character:
A mixture of single-family and multi-family residential uses can be found to the north, west, and
south of the Hy-Vee property. W hen the property was rezoned in 2013, the conditional zoning
agreement included a condition related buffering the existing commercial use from the residential
properties to the west and north by requiring a 35’ buffer along the property’s west side, and by
prohibiting signage on the convenience store property’s west and north sides. While the proposed
“Aisles Online” use adds some degree of traffic intensity to the northern portion of the parking
area, the applicant’s updated landscaping plan provides an enhanced S3 screen consisting of
shrubs and four overstory trees along the property’s northern edge. As a part of the OPD Plan
approval process, the developer will be required to install the landscaping shown in the proposed
landscaping at the time building permits are issued. In addition, a row of evergreen trees still
exists along the southern boundary of the properties to the north. These trees were originally put
in place to screen these properties from the former Roberts Dairy facility that used to occupy the
Hy-Vee property.
Furthermore, the permanent kiosk building itself will provide some degree of screening and act
as a noise barrier from the proposed traffic lanes. When factoring in St. Clement Street right-of-
way, the proposed pickup lanes will be approximately 85’ from the south property lines of the RS-
5 zone to the north. Staff finds this separation distance to be adequate, given the landscaping
enhancements that will be provided to the north, as well as the preexisting parking lot use that is
currently taking place on the subject property.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas:
The proposed new development will replace existing parking lot with no modifications to
surrounding slopes.
Storm Water Management:
The construction of the grocery kiosk, canopy, and drive-through lanes will result in a minimal
change to impervious surface on the property. Additionally, the existing drainage patterns and
stormwater sewer facilities will remain unchanged.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation from the Planning & Zoning Commission,
a public hearing will be scheduled for consideration of the application by City Council. A special
Rezoning Review Criteria:
7
exception from the Board of Adjustment will be required to allow the “Aisles Online” facility, as it is
considered a drive-through facility in an OPD/CC-2 zone. As noted earlier in the report, the proposed
kiosk building and canopy will be subject to the City’s Design Review process.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that an application submitted by Hy-Vee, Inc to amend the conditional zoning
agreement for approximately 7.546 acres of land located at 1103 & 1125 North Dodge Street, zoned
Community Commercial with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/CC-2) be approved, subject
to the following conditions to replace the previous conditions:
1.A buffer area generally consistent with the attached plan shall be established along the
western property line of the parcel rezoned to CC -2. This buffer must be screened to the
S3 standard. Wherever the buffer area is less than 35 feet a masonry wall shall be provided
consistent with the attached plan. (Same as previous CZA condition)
2.No signs shall be permitted within the 35-foot buffer, or on the north and /or west sides of
the convenience store facing the residential development, except for a monument sign at
the intersection of Dodge Street and Prairie Du Chien Road. There will be no more than two
(2) free - standing signs permitted along the Dodge Street frontage. Other fascia and
monument signs are permitted as per the code. (Same as previous CZA condition)
3.Any building or structure including canopies shall be of a quality design appropriate for
property abutting a residential neighborhood, including features such as stone and masonry
materials, standing seam metal roofs, and muted colors. The design of any buildings as well
as associated structures and facilities must be presented to and approved by the Design
Review Committee prior to the City issuing a building permit. (Same as previous CZA
condition)
4.Existing evergreen screening and mature trees will be preserved along the northwest side
of the property where possible. (Same as previous CZA condition)
5.Development and landscaping shall be generally consistent with the attached plan, dated
06/08/2021. (Condition amended to reflect updated OPD Plan from 06/08/2021)
Two conditions from the original Conditional Zoning Agreement pertaining to installation of a
dedicated bus pull off lane and construction of a parapet wall on the northwest corner of the grocery
store have been removed from staff’s list of proposed recommended conditions, since these
conditions have been satisfied.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Location Map
2.Aerial Photograph
3.Applicant Narrative
4.Site Construction Document Package and OPD Plan
5.Kiosk and Canopy Elevations
6.Ordinance and Conditional Zoning Agreement from 2013
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
CONKLIN LNST MATHIAS ALYN SUMMIT STDODGE STREET CT
ST CLEMENT STNDUBUQUERDS T C LE M ENTSTKIMBALL AVE
PRAIRIE DU CHIEN RDN D O D G E STREZ21-00041103 & 1125 N. Dodge St.µ
0 0.04 0.080.02 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: May 2021
An application submitted by LT Leon Associateson behalf of Hy-vee, Inc for the rezoningof approximately 7.546 acres of property located at 1125 North Dodge St. and 1103 N. Dodge St. for therevision of conditions stated in previous conditional zoning agreements. .
CONKLIN LNST MATHIAS ALYN SUMMIT STDODGE STREET CT
ST CLEMENT STNDUBUQUERDS T C LE M ENTSTKIMBALL AVE
PRAIRIE DU CHIEN RDN D O D G E STRM12
RS8
RS8
RS8
RS5
RS8 CN1
CC2
RS8
RS8
P1
RS5
RM12
RM12
CC2
RS8
CC2
MU
RS12
REZ21-00041103 & 1125 N. Dodge St.µ
0 0.04 0.080.02 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: May 2021
An application submitted by LT Leon Associateson behalf of Hy-vee, Inc for the rezoningof approximately 7.546 acres of property located at 1125 North Dodge St. and 1103 N. Dodge St. for therevision of conditions stated in previous conditional zoning agreements. .
Overlay Zones
Overlay Description
Historic District (OHD)
Planned Development (OPD)
500 E Locust Street, Suite 400 DES MOINES IA 50309 P515.422.7016 www.ltleon.com
May 4, 2021
City of Iowa City
Rezoning Application
Hy-Vee Iowa City # 3 Aisles Online Drive Through Lanes and Kiosk
1125 and 1103 North Dodge Street, Iowa City
RE: Applicant Statement and Approval Criteria (14-3A-4)
Hy-Vee, Inc (the applicant) is proposing a rezone to amend the existing Conditional Zoning Agreement on the subject
property located at 1103 N Dodge St and 1125 N Dodge St, parcels 1002336003 and 1002336001 respectively. The
subject property is owned by Hurd Iowa City, LLC (the property owner).
The subject property is 7.546 acres, comprised of two lots, and is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of
North Dodge Street and Prairie Du Chien Road. The subject property currently contains a Hy-Vee grocery store, C-Store
(convenience/gas station) with canopy and associated parking, open space, and loading facilities.
The subject property was rezoned per Ordinance 13-4547 to Planned Development Overlay – Community commercial
(OPD-CC-2). With the rezone to OPD-CC-2, the property was also subject to a conditional zoning agreement. The subject
property has been fully and successfully developed consistent with the existing agreement.
The applicant is asking for a rezone to amend the existing Conditional Zoning Agreement, Ordinance No 13-4547 to
remove language under agreement number 4, part F which states, “Development and landscaping shall be generally
consistent with the attached plan.”
As Hy-Vee anticipates a steady increase in online orders in the coming years, they are requesting approval to install a
permanent installation for pick-up service in their parking lot. This is not currently possible under the existing conditional
zoning agreement as it conflicts with the above-mentioned language and is not ‘generally consistent’ with the original
attached site plan.
The attached new proposed site plan outlines the improvements Hy-Vee is proposing that will add 3 grocery pick up
lanes, an 1150 SF permanent kiosk with 752 SF canopy, and additional landscaping.
Hy-Vee has been working on how to better serve their customers with online grocery ordering, delivery, and pickup over
the past several years. They were working with order volumes that could be easily accommodated with several dedicated
parking stalls prior to the COVID-19 disruption. In a matter of a week, they went from processing 50 to 60 online orders
each day to processing hundreds of orders per hour each day.
Hy-Vee does not anticipate that the drive through lanes will increase the amount of traffic to the store but will replace
existing in store shopping trips. Using existing access points means we will not be adding any additional curb cuts or
affecting pedestrian safety. The drive through layout allows a queue of cars rather than a pull in configuration which will
improve traffic flow and customer satisfaction.
This rezone is warranted as you will see in the following responses. This proposed new use is compatible with the
surrounding development, the public infrastructure and facilities are adequate to serve this zone change, and this is in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Since the subject property has been fully built out, there is little risk in
2 | Page
removing the language that limits development to the original site plan. Additionally, this proposed site plan will have to
go through the Special Exception process for approval and will conform to all city standards and building code.
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.
The surrounding neighborhood is residential in character. The existing landscape buffer between the Aisles
Online and the street will be maintained, and all trees will be protected. Additional landscaping will be added to
help buffer the uses and the kiosk is located such that it will effectively block the Aisles Online drive through
lanes. The change of use from a parking lot that is car-oriented to a drive through queue that is car-oriented is
minor and does not affect the design quality of the site.
The existing pedestrian sidewalk to the north of the Aisles Online project will remain. A new pedestrian walk will
connect that sidewalk to the new kiosk, providing a safe and accessible route that utilizes existing pedestrian
circulation.
2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities.
The Aisles Online kiosk only requires electrical utilities which is being provided. Additional access roads are not
needed as the facility uses existing parking lot access points. Impervious surface remains nearly identical to
before and the existing drainage patterns and storm sewer facilities will remain the same and will contain the
same volume of stormwater as the previous configuration.
Orders are processed in incremental time slots to control the number of trips coming to the store and has based
the car stacking on volume capabilities. Hy-Vee is seeing peak hours between 4 pm and 6 pm as customers pick
up their groceries on the way home from work. Typical hours of operation are from 8 am to 10 pm but may be
less based on demand at a location.
As a result of this information, Hy-Vee is providing 3 lanes in this location with each lane stacking 6 cars, totaling
18 stacking spots. This is more than enough stacking for the volume and Hy-Vee will easily be able to control the
number of customers through their incremental time slots.
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.
Hy-Vee does not anticipate that the drive through lanes will increase the amount of traffic to the store.
Additionally, Hy-Vee can control the volume through their incremental time slots. The development of the Aisles
Online drive through is commercial in nature and consistent with the surrounding land uses.
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.
The Future Land Use Map shows this property as General Commercial. As it is already in a commercial use, a
commercial grocery drive through is compatible with that use. This project “encourages compact, efficient
development” since it is not building more pavement in addition to the parking lot but replacing existing parking
lot with a more efficient use. It is furthering commercial development in a “defined commercial node” and is
appropriate for the Land Use and “compatible and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood”.
Prepared by Rachel Harris, PLA, LT Leon Associates, Inc.
FLOOR LEVEL
+0"
T/ LOW PARAPET
+10'-8"
T/ LOW PARAPET
+10'-8"
2
B/ LOW FASCIA
+8'-0"
B/ LOW FASCIA
+8'-0"
B/ HIGH FASCIA
+9'-4"
1
1
A B
A6.0
5
1
T/ HIGH PARAPET
+12'-0"
0.A 0.C
D1
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
2
THIN BRICK BY KANSAS BRICK & TILE
COLOR: #530 FLASH
SIZE: MODULAR
BOND: 1/3 RUNNING
MORTAR: SOLOMON GRIND 10H
1
MASONRY UNITS
PHENOLIC WALL PANEL: STONEWOOD
COLOR: MATCH SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
"MAISON BLANCHE" 7526
WALL CLADDING
PHENOLIC WALL PANEL: STONEWOOD
COLOR: MATCH SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
"NANTUCKET DUNE" 7527
2
PHENOLIC WALL PANEL: STONEWOOD
COLOR: "GRANITE GREY" 7026
PREFINISHED 0.40 ALUMINUM PANELS
COLOR: ALPOLIC "NSG GREY"
METAL TRIM COLORS
3
1
3
PREFINISHED METAL TO MATCH
CLADDING COLOR
PAINT
X
FLOOR LEVEL
+0"
T/ LOW PARAPET
+10'-8"
B/ LOW FASCIA
+8'-0"
21
T/ HIGH PARAPET
+12'-0"
2
2
1
1
FLOOR LEVEL
+0"
T/ LOW PARAPET
+10'-8"
T/ LOW PARAPET
+10'-8"
B/ LOW FASCIA
+8'-0"
B/ LOW FASCIA
+8'-0"
B/ HIGH FASCIA
+9'-4"
AB
A6.0
5
T/ HIGH PARAPET
+12'-0"
2
2
1
3
3
2
1 1
2
B/ LOW FASCIA
+8'-0"
B/ HIGH FASCIA
+9'-4"
NON-LIT SIGNAGE
8 1/2"10'-3 1/2"1'-0"EQ EQ 8 5/8"1'-4"FLOOR LEVEL
+0"
T/ LOW PARAPET
+10'-8"
B/ LOW FASCIA
+8'-0"
2 1
T/ HIGH PARAPET
+12'-0"
1 1
2
0.1 0.2
2
1
3 3
DATE:DRAWN:
SCALE:JOB NUMBER:
SHEET:
TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTHEMPLOYEE OWNEDHY-VEE, INC.5820 WESTOWN PARKWAYWEST DES MOINES, IOWA 50266TELEPHONE: (515) 267-2800FAX: (515) 267-2935RLOCATION:REVISION DATE
BY
As indicated
BIM 360://00_Hy-Vee Projects - R20/20050 AOL IOWA CITY 3_A2_R20.rvtA6.0
03/05/2021
20050
MJ / KK
ELEVATIONSIOWA CITY 3AISLES ONLINE KIOSK100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - 03/05/2021
4
A6.0
SCALE:N.T.S.
KEY PLAN
3
A6.0
1
A6.0
2
A6.0
SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"
FRONT ELEVATION1
SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"
SIDE ELEVATION W/ DOOR3SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"
REAR ELEVATION2
SCALE:3/4" = 1'-0"
ENLARGED SIGNAGE ELEVATION5
SCALE:
3D VIEW
SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"
SIDE ELEVATION W/ CANOPY4
5f
Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319- 356 -5240 (REZ12- 00026)
ORDINANCE NO. 13 -4547
ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 7.79 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH DODGE STREET AND PRAIRIE DU
CHIEN ROAD FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (RS -8), NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC (P -1)
AND HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL (CH -1) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY - COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL (OPD- CC -2). (REZ12 -00026)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Hy -Vee Stores, has requested a rezoning of property located at the northeast
corner of the intersection of North Dodge Street and Prairie Du Chien Road from Medium - Density Single -
Family Residential (RS -8), Neighborhood Public (P -1), and Highway Commercial (CH -1) to Planned
Development Overlay /Community Commercial (OPD /CC2); and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan, North District Plan Map, shows this area as appropriate for
retail /community commercial use provided that it is designed to be compatible with the adjacent residential
neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a concept plan showing how commercial redevelopment of this
property can be made compatible with the adjacent neighborhood with careful building design and
placement, the use of buffer areas and landscaping; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed rezoning and has
recommended approval provided that it meets conditions addressing the need for compatibility with the
adjacent neighborhoods and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2011) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable
conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to
satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the owner and applicant have agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance
with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate
development in this area of the city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. Property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning
designation of RS -8, CH -1 and P -1 to OPD /CC -2:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
TRACT #1) - REZONE FROM P -1 TO CC -2
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 14, ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION, IOWA
CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, AT PAGE
583, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE S019115 "E,
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14, A DISTANCE OF 85.61 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE N64 012'45 "E, 152.25 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 44.66 FEET ALONG AN ARC OF A
175.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, WHOSE 44.54 FOOT CHORD BEARS
S48 °54'39 "W; THENCE S25 °41'52 "W, 8.25 FEET; THENCE S64 °12'45 "W, 118.43 FEET, TO A POINT ON
THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE N01 °11'15 "W, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, 22.00 FEET, TO
SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 2,572 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS, AND SUBJECT TO
EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
TRACT #1A) - REZONE FROM P -1 TO CC -2
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 14, ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION, IOWA
CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, AT PAGE
583, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE SO1 ° 11' 15 "E,
Ordinance No. 13 -4547
Page 2
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14, A DISTANCE OF 85.61 FEET; THENCE N64 012'45 "E, 184.60
FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING N64 °12'45 "E, 178.92 FEET, TO A POINT
ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE SO 1 ° 12' 11 "E, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 22.00 FEET;
THENCE S64012145 "W, 125.00 FEET; THENCE SO 1 ° 12'11 "E, 146.79 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH
LINE OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE S64 °13'01 "W, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 94.68 FEET; THENCE
N25 °58'47 "W, 43.37 FEET; THENCE NO1 °11'25 "W, 85.98 FEET; THENCE S25 °41'52 "E, 17.45 FEET; THENCE
N64 °18'08 "E, 75.30 FEET; THENCE N25 °41'52 "W, 49.49 FEET, TO SAID POINT OF BEGINNING,
CONTAINING 0.37 ACRE, MORE OR LESS, AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF
RECORD,
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (TRACT #2) - REZONE FROM RS -8 TO CC -2
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 14, ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION, IOWA
CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, AT PAGE
583, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE SO1 °11'15 "E,
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14, A DISTANCE OF 53.36 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE N88 048'45 "E, 10.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, 144.29 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A
150.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, WHOSE 138.79 FOOT CHORD BEARS
N61'15'1 8"E; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, 80.12 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A 150.00 FOOT RADIUS
CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, WHOSE 79.17 FOOT CHORD BEARS N49 °00'00 "E; THENCE
N64° 18'08 "E, 150.18 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE SO 1'12'11 "E,
ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 27.51 FEET; THENCE N64 °12'45 "E, 44.86 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST
LINE OF YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION, IOWA CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 6, AT PAGE 49, IN SAID RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY
RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE N00 °4 1'26 "W, ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION,
76.28 FEET, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT B OF SAID YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION; THENCE
N65 °07'33 "E, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT B, 158.32 FEET, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER
THEREOF; THENCE N00 036'30 "W, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF LOT C OF SAID YEGGY'S FIRST
ADDITION, AND ITS NORTHERLY PROJECTION THEREOF, 123.75 FEET; THENCE N88 125'19 "E, 158.03
FEET, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 96064, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 44, AT PAGE 325, IN SAID
RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE N88 °48'55 "E, ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL 96064, A DISTANCE OF 12.29 FEET; THENCE SO1 °11'05 "E,
ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 157.65 FEET; THENCE S64 °53'24 "W, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT X
OF SAID YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION, AND ITS EASTERLY PROJECTION THEREOF, 188.89 FEET, TO
THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE S65 °38'32 "W, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT Y OF
SAID YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION, AND ITS WESTERLY PROJECTION THEREOF, 201.58 FEET, TO A
POINT ON THE SAID EAST LINE OF LOT 14 OF ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION; THENCE
SO1 °12'11 "E, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 0.44 FEET; THENCE S64 °12'45 "W, 363.52 FEET, TO A POINT ON
THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE NO 1 ° 11'15"W, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, 32.25 FEET, TO
SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 1.47 ACRE, MORE OR LESS, AND SUBJECT TO
EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (TRACT #3) - REZONE FROM CH -1 TO CC -2
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 14, ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION, IOWA
CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, AT PAGE
583, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE SO1 °11'15 "E,
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14, A DISTANCE OF 107.61 FEET, TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE N64 °12'45 "E, 123.87 FEET; THENCE SO1 °11'25 "E, 99.09 FEET; THENCE
S25 °58'47 "E, 43.37 FEET; THENCE N64° 1 TO 1 "E, 94.68 FEET; THENCE NO1 ° 12' 11 "W, 146.79 FEET;
THENCE N64 012'45 "E, 125.00 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF LOT 14 OF SAID ST.
MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION; THENCE NO 1 ° 12' 11 "W, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 22.44 FEET; THENCE
N65 °38'32 "E, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT Y, OF YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION, IOWA CITY, IOWA,
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 6, AT PAGE 49, IN SAID
RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, AND ITS WESTERLY PROJECTION
THEREOF, 201.58 FEET, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE N64 °53'24 "E, ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF LOT X OF SAID YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION, AND ITS EASTERLY PROJECTION
THEREOF, 188.89 FEET, TO A POINT ON.THE NORTH LINE OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 96064, JOHNSON
COUNTY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 44, AT
Ordinance No. 13 -4547
Page 3
PAGE 325, IN SAID RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE SOI'l V05 "E,
ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 27.69 FEET; THENCE N88 °48'55 "E, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
AUDITOR'S PARCEL 96064, A DISTANCE OF 12.29 FEET; THENCE SO1 °11'05 "E, ALONG SAID NORTH
LINE, 185.34 FEET; THENCE N88 048'55 "E, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 12.29 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE
WEST LINE OF LOT 10 OF ST, MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION, IOWA CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, AT PAGE 583, IN SAID RECORDS OF THE
JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE N88 °53'07 "E, 193.31 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE
EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 10 OF ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION; THENCE SO 1 ° 11'05, ALONG SAID
EAST LINE, 203.80 FEET, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF NORTH
DODGE STREET; THENCE S64° 13'01 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 592.68 FEET;
THENCE S640 13' 18 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 27.03 FEET; THENCE S640 13'01 "W,
ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 180.79 FEET; THENCE S25 °46'59 "E, ALONG SAID NORTH
RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 2.00 FEET; THENCE S640 13'01 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE,
39.43 FEET; THENCE S69 °55'40 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 40.20 FEET; THENCE
S64-13'01 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 37.48 FEET; THENCE S88 048'35 "W, ALONG
SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 51.07 FEET; THENCE SO1 °56'19 "E, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -
OF -WAY LINE, 33.08 FEET; THENCE S64° 13'01 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 9.29
FEET, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF PRAIRIE DU CHIEN ROAD;
THENCE NO l ° 11' 15 "W, ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 319.03 FEET, TO SAID POINT OF
BEGINNING, CONTAINING 5.90 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND
RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning
map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and
publication of the ordinance as approved by law.
SECTION III. CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to
sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s) and the
City, following passage and approval of this Ordinance.
SECTION IV. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance, and record the same in the
Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage,
approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law.
SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION VI. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this 3rd day of September , 20_j L_.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
C CLERK"
A prov d by
dP - d'J —
Attorney Rep the City
Ordinance No. 13 -4547
Page 4_
It was moved by Dobyns and seconded by Payne that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Dickens
Dobyns
Hayek
Mims
Payne
Throgmorton
First Consideration 12/18/2012
Voteforpassage: AYES: Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns,
Hayek. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Hayek. NAYS:
1/8/2013
AYES: Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns,
Ndne. ABSENT: None.
Date published 911212013
Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5251 (REZ12- 00026)
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation
hereinafter "City "), Roberts Dairy Company; L.L.C., an Illinois limited liability company
hereinafter "Owner ") and Hy -Vee, Inc., an Iowa corporation (hereinafter "Applicant ").
WHEREAS, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 7.37 acres of property
located on the north side of North Dodge Street between Prairie Du Chien Road and North
Dubuque Road; and
WHEREAS, the City owns approximately .42 acres of adjacent property including right -
of -way of St. Clements Street, which the Applicant proposes to purchase; and
WHEREAS, the Owner and Applicant have requested the rezoning of said property from
Medium - Density Single - Family Residential (RS -8), Neighborhood Public (P -1), and Highway
Commercial (CH -1) to Planned Development Overlay /Community Commercial (OPD /CC -2); and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate
conditions regarding redevelopment of the property with a design that is compatible with the
adjacent residential neighborhood, the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2011) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing
regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the Owner and Applicant acknowledge that certain conditions and
restrictions are reasonable to ensure the development of the property is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the need for compatibility with the North District Plan and the adjacent
residential neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the Owner and Applicant agree to develop this property in accordance with
the terms and conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties
agree as follows:
1. Roberts Dairy Company is the legal title holder of the property legally described as:
LFGAL DESCRIPTION (TRACT #2) - REZONE FROM RS -8 TO CC -2
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 14, ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION, IOWA
CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, AT PAGE
583, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE SO1 °11'15 "E,
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14, A DISTANCE OF 53.36 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE N88 048'45 "E, 10.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, 144.29 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A
150.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, WHOSE 138.79 FOOT CHORD BEARS
N61 ° 15' 18 "E; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, 80.12 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A 150.00 FOOT RADIUS
CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, WHOSE 79.17 FOOT CHORD BEARS N49 °00'00 "E; THENCE
N64 °18'08 "E, 150.18 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE SOI °12'11 "E,
ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 27.51 FEET; THENCE N641 1245 "E, 44.86 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST
LINE OF YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION, IOWA CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 6, AT PAGE 49, IN SAID RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY
RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE N00 041'26 "W, ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION,
76.28 FEET, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT B OF SAID YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION; THENCE
N65 007'33 "E, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT B, 158.32 FEET, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER
THEREOF; THENCE N00 °36'30 "W, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF LOT C OF SAID YEGGY'S FIRST
ADDITION, AND ITS NORTHERLY PROJECTION THEREOF, 123.75 FEET; THENCE N88 °25'19 "E, 158.03
FEET, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 96064, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 44, AT PAGE 325, IN SAID
RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE N88 °48'55 "E, ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL 96064, A DISTANCE OF 12.29 FEET; THENCE SO1 °11'05 "E,
ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 157.65 FEET; THENCE S64 °53'24 "W, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT X
OF SAID YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION, AND ITS EASTERLY PROJECTION THEREOF, 188.89 FEET, TO
THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE S65 °38'32 "W, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT Y OF
SAID YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION, AND ITS WESTERLY PROJECTION THEREOF, 201.58 FEET, TO A
POINT ON THE SAID EAST LINE OF LOT 14 OF ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION; THENCE
SO °12'11 "E, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 0.44 FEET; THENCE S64 °12'45 "W, 363.52 FEET, TO A POINT ON
THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE NOI °11'15 "W, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, 32.25 FEET, TO
SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 1.47 ACRE, MORE OR LESS, AND SUBJECT TO
EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (TRACT 431 - RFZONE FROM CH -1 TO CC-2
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 14, ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION, IOWA
CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, AT PAGE
583, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE SO1 °11'15 "E,
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14, A DISTANCE OF 107.61 FEET, TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE N64° 12'45 "E, 123.87 FEET; THENCE SO 1 ° 11'25 "E, 99.09 FEET; THENCE
S25 °58'47 "E, 43.37 FEET; THENCE N64 °13'01 "E, 94.68 FEET; THENCE N01'12'1 I "W, 146.79 FEET; THENCE
N64-12'45 "E, 125.00 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF LOT 14 OF SAID ST. MATTHIAS SECOND
ADDITION; THENCE NO1 °12'11 "W, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 22.44 FEET; THENCE N65 °38'32 "E, ALONG
THE NORTH LINE OF LOT Y, OF YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION, IOWA CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 6, AT PAGE 49, IN SAID RECORDS OF THE
JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, AND ITS WESTERLY PROJECTION THEREOF, 201.58 FEET,
TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE N64 °53'24 "E, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT X
OF SAID YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION, AND ITS EASTERLY PROJECTION THEREOF, 188.89 FEET, TO A
POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 96064, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 44, AT PAGE 325, IN SAID
RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE SO1 °11'05 "E, ALONG SAID
NORTH LINE, 27.69 FEET; THENCE N88 °48'55 "E, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S
PARCEL 96064, A DISTANCE OF 12.29 FEET; THENCE S01 11 1'05"E, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 185.34
FEET; THENCE N88 °48'55 "E, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 12.29 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE
OF LOT 10 OF ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION, IOWA CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, AT PAGE 583, IN SAID RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON
COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE N88 053'07 "E, 193.31 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF
SAID LOT 10 OF ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION; THENCE SO1 011'05, ALONG SAID EAST LINE,
203.80 FEET, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF NORTH DODGE
STREET; THENCE S64'13'0 I "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 592.68 FEET; THENCE
S64 °13'18 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 27.03 FEET; THENCE S64 °13'01 "W, ALONG
SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 180.79 FEET; THENCE S25 °46'59 "E, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -
OF -WAY LINE, 2.00 FEET; THENCE S64 °13'01 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 39.43
FEET; THENCE S69 055'40 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 40.20 FEET; THENCE
S64 °13'01 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 37.48 FEET; THENCE S88 °48'35 "W, ALONG
SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 51.07 FEET; THENCE SO1 °56'19 "E, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINE, 33.08 FEET; THENCE S64'13'01 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 9.29
FEET, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF PRAIRIE DU CHIEN ROAD;
THENCE NOI -I 1'15 "W, ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 319.03 FEET, TO SAID POINT OF
BEGINNING, CONTAINING 5.90 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND
RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
2. The City is the legal title holder of the property legally described as:
2
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (TRACT #11- RF.7.0NE FROM P -1 TO CC-2
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 14, ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION, IOWA ..
CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, AT PAGE
583, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE SOVI 1'15 "E,
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14, A DISTANCE OF 85.61 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE N640 12'45 "E, 363.52 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE
S01 °12'11 "E, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 22.00 FEET; THENCE S64 °12'45 "W, 125.00 FEET; THENCE
S01 °12'11 "E, 146.79 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE S64 °13'01 "W,
ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 94.68 FEET; THENCE N25 °58'47 "W, 43.37 FEET; THENCE N019 1'25"W, 99.09
FEET; THENCE S64 °12'45 "W, 123.87 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE
N01-1 1-15"W, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, 22.00 FEET, TO SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING
0.51 ACRE, MORE OR LESS, AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
3. The Owner and Applicant acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure conformance to
the principles of the Comprehensive Plan and the North District Plan. Further, the parties
acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2011) provides that the City of Iowa City may
impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and
above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested
change.
4. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner and Applicant agree
that development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the
zoning chapter, as well as the following conditions:
A) A buffer area generally consistent with the attached plan shall be
established along the western property line of the parcel rezoned to CC -2. This
buffer must be screened to the S3 standard. Wherever the buffer area is less
than 35 feet a masonry wall shall be provided consistent with the attached plan.
B) No signs shall be permitted within the 35 foot buffer, or on the north
and /or west sides of the convenience store facing the residential development,
except for a monument sign at the intersection of Dodge Street and Prairie Du
Chien Road. There will be no more than two (2) free - standing signs permitted
along the Dodge Street frontage. Other fascia and monument signs are permitted
as per the code.
C) Any building or structure including canopies shall be of a quality design
appropriate for property abutting a residential neighborhood, including features
such as stone and masonry materials, standing seam metal roofs, and muted
colors. The design of any buildings as well as associated structures and facilities
must be presented to and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to the
City issuing a building permit.
D) Existing evergreen screening and mature trees will be preserved along
the northwest side of the property where possible.
E) A bus pull off, the design of which must be approved by the City
Engineer, shall be constructed by the Applicant within the Dodge Street right -of-
way.
F) Development and landscaping shall be generally consistent with the
attached plan.
G) A parapet wall shall be provided on the northwest wall of the
3
grocery store to buffer roof top equipment.
5. The Owner and Applicant, and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein
are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2011), and
that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning
change.
6. The Owner and Applicant, and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is
transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the
terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
7. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be
a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force
and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the
City of Iowa City.
8. The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind
all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties.
9. The Owner and Applicant acknowledge that nothing in this Conditional Zoning
Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner or Applicant from complying with all
other applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
10. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by
reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and
publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County
Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense.
11. This Agreement may be executed in two (2) or more counterparts, each of which shall
be deemed an original, but all of which taken together shall form one and the same
agreement. For purposes of executing and delivering this Agreement, a facsimile or
scanned and emailed signature shall be as effective as an original signature.
Dated this
50t
day of .=+, 20 13.
City:
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Q /1%.
Matthew Hayek, Mayor
Attest:
X
Mari K. Karr, City Clerk
4
Approved by:
Attorney Representing the City
CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on ' ' !' 3 , 2013by Matthew Hayek
and Marian K. Karr as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City.
eu r,Le- k /
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
i
o 't s KELLIE K. TUTTLE
z Commission Number 221819
My Co issi n ires
IOWA
Owner:
Roberts Dairy Company, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company
By:
Its: Partner
STATE OF COUNTY OF cz: - ,
ss:
This instment was acknowledgeA.before me 09 /8 by
as-s%Gu of obe Dairy Company, LLC,
an Illinoit limitdd 40MV company.
tarry Pu lic
JOHN M. ALDREryD
r4N MISSOURI
alblld
ene County
shy iummillsion Expires Mov. 5, 2015
we';
leebn e11460004
Applicant:
Hy -Vee, Inc., an Iowa corporation
Anthony - McCann, Sr. Vice President
By:
k"-' A RfK (print name)
Its: Asi tvk -t Stec{ ar
STATE OF IOWA, COUNTY OF POLK, ss
On this 15+1- day of Peu.4 --6r , 2012, before me, the undersigned, a Notary
Public in and for the state of Iowa, personally appeared Anthony McCann and
j1,b„-t ah Wiev% , to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn did say that
they are the Sr. Vice President and AWs(x,l- 5tctA4v r , respectively, of Hy -Vee, Inc., an Iowa
corporation, that the instrument to which this is attached was signed on behalf of said corporation
by authority of its Board of Directors; and that the said Anthony McCann and
AAA- -,. A1(tK as such off,
be the voluntary act and deed of said corpo
acknowledged the execution of said instrument to
n, by it and
MAT ANA D. MASSMAN Not'a'ry P blic in and for
MISSION NO. 154M State o owar-1
7
ntarily executed.
A
D
i
0
w -
y --
Right of N;tt
a
CD (roN
0 CD
cP x m
v
O
Ql
a.
O m
n
d y U N
CD o
F a'
wc'
Rightof Way
P
T O
6
a.
O m
n
d y U N
F a'
a.
n
d y U N
F a'
wc'
wb
Right of Way
Ub
y
Right of Way
m
V)
R
C dO
n CD CD
CDo
C
is
a
wb
Right of Way
Ub
y
Building coma
m
A O R
Building coma
rs.
oar
GI
0
M.
V,
m
X
TV
I
Z r
fir, QRaS.< + .rsRYi y O V * O4a
o;°O
ma y D
F m
RR
Hill, ?
i! pp
ep¢
p9
1FM ll
N ~
0
mi
o z V
Jl —
1
O
m
NO O
z:1N
N 9
D A
F
s9r
V N D
1S 1N3W3-10 '1S s p m
lnz
O O m<
O
S FC V
m O D
o z O
yp
DA
b
mm
y
mzpz
mzg
M.
V,
m
X
TV
I
Z r
fir, QRaS.< + .rsRYi y O V * O4a
o;°O
ma y D
F m
RR
Hill, ?
i! pp
ep¢
p9
1FM ll
N ~
0
mi
o z V
Jl —
1
O
m
NO O
z:1N
N 9
D A
F O
i m
lnz
O O m< 1 1
S FC V
m O D
o z O
yp
DA
mm
y
i3W a f f f o DyD < oz
i
m ={ $$E$$ g
I mm
fir, QRaS.< + .rsRYi y O V * O4a ygyg 1I I ! m
RR
Hill, ?
i! pp
ep¢
p9
1FM llA
g1 g! 011161r i lio 0
mir'
j
Rj
jy
N
i3W a f f f o DyD < oz
i
m ={ $$E$$ g
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 2021 – 7:00 PM
ELECTRONIC FORMAL MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Mark
Nolte, Mark Signs. Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Ray Heitner, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Welch, Adam Tarr, Jo Dickens, Tom Goedken, Laura
Routh, Ann Synan, William Synan, Casey Kohrt, Mitch Meis,
Glenda Buenger, Hannah Rapson, Riley Larson, Allison Jaynes,
Arturs Kalnins, Matthew Deforest, Jason Napoli, Ken Gayley
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 (Martin dissenting) the Commission recommends approval of REZ20-0016, an
application for a rezoning of approximately 48.75 acres of land from Interim Development Single-
Family (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5)
with the following conditions:
1. In accordance with the subdivider’s agreement at final platting, approval of a Woodland
Management Plan that shall consist of a plan to remove any invasive species within the
Outlot A area, as well as removal of any hazardous trees or limbs. The plan shall be
prepared by a woodland specialist and approved by the City Forrester. Invasive species
removal will be the responsibility of the owner and must be completed prior to transfer of
Outlot A to the City.
2. Provision of trail connections, as shown on the concept plan dated 04/29/2021. The trail
connections should be provided in the same location as shown on the concept plan and
must be constructed before public improvements to the corresponding subdivision are
approved.
3. The final plat shall incorporate traffic calming devices, including but not limited to raised
crosswalks at park entrances, in locations approved by and designed to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
4. Where trees are shown on the landscaping plan, installation of right-of-way trees, to be
planted by Owner or its successor, along the proposed Hickory Trial right-of-way. Said trees
shall be planted prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each lot, or, if said
certificate of occupancy is issued during a poor planting season, by May 31 following
issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Right-of-way trees shall be consistent with the
approved landscaping plan that has been reviewed by the City Forrester. Trees shall be
planted generally 30’ apart, though the City recognizes that exact locations may vary
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is impossible or impractical
due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission members, staff and the public
presented by COVID-19.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2021
Page 2 of 23
depending on driveway locations, signage, and other utility conflicts. Final location and
species of the trees shall be approved on a lot-by-lot basis prior to issuance of a building
permit for each lot.
5. No building permit shall be issued for any of the subject property until the City Council
approves a final plat subdividing the subject property to confirm to the zoning boundaries
established by the zoning ordinance.
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends updating the single-family site development
standards, which amends Title 14 Zoning related to paving in the front setback area and partially
repeals Ordinance No. 19-4815.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CASE NO. REZ20-0016:
Applicant: Axiom Consultants on behalf of Joseph Clark and Nelson Development 1, LLC
Location: South of Scott Blvd and West of 1st Avenue, Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
An application for a rezoning of approximately 48.75 acres of land from Interim Development
Single-Family (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family with a Planned Development Overlay
(OPD/RS-5).
Heitner began the staff report with an aerial overview of the subject property and noted previous
iterations of this rezoning application have come to this Commission in February and in March.
He next showed the current zoning of the subject area and stated the application is applying for
an OPD/RS-5 single family residential zoning. The present OPD plan contains 41 detached
single-family homes and a senior living facility with 135 bedrooms. All of the development would
stem off of an extension of Hickory Trail that would extend to the west and north. With the OPD
plan the protected slopes and sensitive areas are avoided completely and with the current plan
mitigation wasn’t required because it is preserved at a rate of 51% and mitigation is only required
for preservation less than 50% with this zone.
Heitner reiterated earlier iterations of this application were presented to the Planning and Zoning
Commission in February and March. At the February meeting staff did recommend approval, with
five conditions related to approval of a woodland management plan for outlot A, provision to trail
connections as shown in the OPD plan, incorporation of traffic calming devices per staff
direction, installation of right-of-way trees and requirements to have the plan go through the final
platting process. Heitner stated at those two earlier meetings the motion to approve failed and at
both meetings the Commission provided general direction to the applicant in how to revise the
OPD plan. Therefore, staff has received a further revised plan to be presented the Commission
for consideration.
Heitner highlighted the major changes in this third version of the plan. This version removed the
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2021
Page 3 of 23
condo style housing that was in the previous versions, so it's all detached single family
residential throughout Hickory Trail, except for the senior living facility to the east. He noted there
is a single loaded street for approximately 71% of the Hickory Trail extension and with that the
increased acreage from outlot A has increased from 11.6 acres in the previous plan to 14.02
acres in the current plan. A third pedestrian crossing was added just south of the traffic circle, it's
not projected to be a raised traffic crossing but is another dedicated space for pedestrian
crossing. Within the street extension as well, a sidewalk to the senior living facility on the east
side was also added with this plan. Impacted critical slopes were reduced once again with this
plan from 17% to 13% and the preserved woodlands are up at 51%, the applicant also increased
the stream corridor buffer to 25 feet on each side of the stream corridor.
Heitner showed a side-by-side comparison of the original plan that was presented to this
Commission in February and the current proposal. He noted the biggest difference is the single
loaded street that takes place throughout the south-central portion of Hickory Trail to the
midpoint of the street and again noted about 71% of the street extension would be single loaded.
Heitner also noted the street is also shifted slightly to the west. Heitner showed another view of
the current OPD plan and noted while the Northeast District Plan does show the use of cul-de-
sacs, the applicant is preferring to do through street with this proposal. However, in the
Northeast District Plan with the cul-de-sacs it shows potential homes on both sides of the streets
and so terms of proportionality to what shown in the Plan versus the proposed OPD, staff feels
it's a fairly close match. In previous versions there was housing on the southern corner and
almost up to the midpoint of the street but that's been removed for a single loaded layout.
Heitner stated staff did present the OPD plan to the Parks and Recreation Commission on April
14 for recommendations on the open space dedication as required by Code. That Commission
recommended deferral of a formal recommendation on the open space dedication until the
Planning and Zoning Commission approves this rezoning.
Heitner noted with respect to correspondence, staff did receive a letter of support of the rezoning
from the current property owner and also received eight new emails and letters this week
opposing the rezoning. The principal points for the opposition include wanting outlot B included
as an addition to Hickory Hill Park, lack of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, lack of
compatibility with surrounding uses, the scale of the senior living facility and lack of buffer to the
park.
Heitner reiterated the conditions staff is proposing with approval of this zoning.
1. Provision of a woodland management plan prepared by woodland specialists and approved
by the City Forster. The removal of invasive species would be the responsibility of the
owner and would have to be completed prior to transfer outlot A to the City.
2. Provision of trail connections as shown on the most recent concept plan.
3. Incorporation of traffic calming devices, as requested by staff.
4. Installation of right-of-way trees to be planted by the owner successor along the proposed
Hickory Trail right-of-way.
5. No issuance of building permits until the application has gone through final platting.
Hensch noted he has read this very carefully and asked Heitner in his professional opinion is
everything on this OPD plan in general consistent with Comprehensive Plan and with the
Northeast District Plan and also does it comply with all development ordinance requirements for
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2021
Page 4 of 23
this rezoning. Heitner confirmed it complies with all development ordinance requirements and
that's one reason why they had an attachment of the buildable area layouts for lots as they
wanted to make sure that those lots would be buildable. In terms of compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan, staff is supportive of this version of the plan and as he noted earlier there's
a pretty close similarity between the allocation of houses that's proposed between
Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast District Plan and what's on the proposed plan. He
acknowledged there's differences in terms of not having a cul-de-sac and not having density to
the north, but overall, the spirit of the plan, the allocation of housing, the provision of a majority
single loaded street, the diversity of housing that is presented with the addition of the senior
living facility are all positive attributes and staff believes that is the vision of the Comprehensive
Plan. Hensch stated if he would have taken the Northeast District Plan mockup and overlaid it
with what the applicant submitted it certainly looks like the layout is remarkably similar.
Hensch also noted that increasing outlot A to 14 acres makes about a third of the property is to
be dedicated to parkland. Heitner confirmed 14.02 acres dedicated with this iteration of the plan,
if approved, is slightly less than a third of the total acreage so a substantial part of the overall
property for sure.
Signs noted of the things they haven't addressed a lot is the on the eastern part of the property it
appears there's a significant portion dedicated in a conservation easement. Heitner confirmed
4.4 acres within outlot B would be dedicated within a conservation easement and not included in
Hickory Hill Park. Park staff didn't want that area included because of the condition of the trees
there but that would be another portion of this overall plan that would be undeveloped. Heitner
explained a conservation easement is something that would be drafted as a condition or
supplemental to legal papers with the subdivision in final platting that would essentially earmark
an area that would not allow for any kind of development. He added there is some overlap with
that easement onto some of the properties on the east side of Hickory Trail and that's something
that staff is going to work with the applicant to address and make sure there is demarcation
between where development can and cannot take place within those lots.
Craig asked for an explanation of what a planned development overlay is and then also has a
question pertinent in a broader sense to the Northeast District Plan and everybody referring to
where the cul-de-sacs were but in that Plan it also shows some bigger buildings along First
Avenue and that piece of property is yet to be developed but she assumes the concept there is
maybe a continuation of the condos that go up that side of First Avenue. She acknowledged it's
really not pertinent to this project, but she just wonders what conceptually the staff thinks will
happen if this gets approved, to that other corner that's left now at First Avenue and Scott
Boulevard. Heitner first answered the second question, and so as far as the building's shown
along First Avenue in the Plan it's a mix of neighborhood commercial further south and then
small apartment to the north towards Scott Boulevard so that is what they would envision taking
place there. Craig asked about commercial in that area. Heitner said it would be neighborhood
commercial, but they also wouldn’t rule out the possibility of a small apartment development
there.
Heitner next explained a planned development overlay is a tool they use to provide the applicant
some flexibility in terms of waivers from dimensional requirements or height obligations with
buildings or certain things within the zoning code. Craig asked if that negotiated in the final
platting. Heitner said it’s not so much in negotiation it's more a stricter codification that the
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2021
Page 5 of 23
applicant has to follow within a plan development but in exchange for going through a bit more
strenuous review there's some waivers from certain requirements.
Russett added one thing the Commission is considering tonight in the planned development
overlay and when you they look at those plans and see the location of the lots and the location of
the senior living and the dedication of the open space for the expansion of Hickory Hill Park and
the conservation easements, they are recommending approval or denial of those things and that
will not change as it moves through the process. A zoning overlay is very specific, and it will not
change without having to come back to the Commission.
Signs asked if they are also dealing with conservation design or conservation development type
of planning where they are clustering houses in areas that are the least impactful to the natural
areas and that often is tied to a planned overlay development. Heitner confirmed that's usually
one of the key attributes of a planned development, the clustering of density to avoid sensitive
areas in certain spots.
Signs noted under the proposed conditions on page four of the staff report, number two talks
about the need for the trail connections to be constructed before the public improvements are
made and wonders how if they don't have anything to connect to until after the public
improvements are made. Hektoen stated they are typically constructed contemporaneous with
the public improvements.
Martin asked Heitner about the comparison of the Northeast District Neighborhood Pan to the
current application proposal and what's the dwelling percentage difference in terms of proposed
dwelling units and of disturbance. Heitner noted dwelling units are not counted on the vision.
Hektoen confirmed Comprehensive Plans aren't usually that detailed, they are just the best
recommend guidelines for zoning classifications and this zoning designation is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan in terms of density.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Michael Welch (Axiom Consultants) is representing the development team and wanted to start by
thanking the Commission for again having an opportunity to discuss this. He is representing Joe
Clark and Jacob Wolfgang, Clark is responsible for the single family portion of the development
and Wolfgang is with Nelson Development who is doing the senior housing piece. Welch also
noted several other members of the development team that were on the call tonight if there are
specific questions. Welch stated like the two previous plans for this development, this one does
have the full support of City staff, the plan complies with zoning code requirements including the
sensitive areas code section, which includes woodland retention, sensitive slopes, floodplains
and wetlands. How this third version is significantly different than what they've seen before is
they worked to develop a layout that provides those single loaded streets that are shown in that
Bluffwood Neighborhood Northeast District Plan concept but also finding a plan that meets the
needs of the development team in making a successful development. With the new plan they
arrived at eliminating 15 single family lots on the south and west side of the Hickory Trial
extension and also eliminated 10 of the condominium units at the northwest corner of the site.
They also reduced lots sizes throughout the development to offset some of those loss of lots.
So, with the removal of the 15 single family lots and the elimination of the condos the result is 41
single family lots and the one lot for the senior housing project. They are providing single loaded
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2021
Page 6 of 23
frontage for 71% of the street frontage along Hickory Hill Park. Welch pointed out how far that
area is and that it is definitely not typical in single family developments in Iowa City. Additionally,
the park open space dedication did increase to 14 acres and still intended to be dedicated to the
expansion of Hickory Hill Park. They are providing the two pedestrian access points into Hickory
Hill Park and the plan provides for those connections to the existing public trails or at least to the
point where those trails currently stop. One is near the southwest corner of lot one where the
waterway goes south into Hickory Hill Park and the second is on the west side of development,
approximately across from lots 14 and 15. Welch noted this plan addresses traffic speeds on
Hickory Trail with the addition of the traffic circle and the two raised pedestrian crossings located
at those trail connections. All of the street trees they’re proposing and all the landscape trees on
lot one that are proposed have been and will continue to be reviewed with the City Forrester with
the goal to provide diverse tree populations there.
Welch touched on some of the comments that Commissioners made regarding areas within the
development and stated 37.9% of these 48 acres will either be conservation easement or
parkland dedication and will not be developed. On the woodland retention, they are retaining
51% of the woodlands, and there's an additional 16% of woodland that's buffer that does not
count towards retention, but also will not be disturbed so close to 70% of the existing woodlands
that are there today will remain after development. Welch stated this new plan is in compliance
with the Northeast District Plan and the Comprehensive Plan, including the Bluffwood
Neighborhood Plan. The new plan provides a buffer in the form of outlot A between the existing
boundary of Hickory Hill Park and the new development which directly addresses the statement
in the Comprehensive Plan calling for a “buffering green space to be provided between Hickory
Hill Park and residential development on the south and west portions of the Larson track”. The
requested rezoning for this development is RS-5 or low-density single-family and this is the
lowest density zoning designation possible within the City Code.
As far as the senior housing, Welch stated the senior housing development they are proposing is
a low intensity use, facilities such as this will generate fewer daily vehicle trips than a single-
family house on the western portion of this development. Likewise, a typical single-family lot of
comparable size to those that are in this development is between 35% and 40% imperviousness
on those lots and the senior housing development in this plan impervious area is 39%. So,
although the building type varies from what was envisioned 20 years ago in the Plan, the actual
intensity of the land use they are proposing is very similar to what was envisioned. The
Comprehensive Plan and Northeast District Plan discuss the idea of a view shed both in and out
of the park and they have addressed this for the senior housing development by stepping the
building height down as they move from north to south across that lot. The northern portion of the
building is three stories and the three-story piece of the building is about 42% of the building
footprint. There's a small section of building that is two stories, about 9% and the remaining 51%
of the building is a single-story structure. They are requesting a building height of 40 feet instead
of the standard 35 feet on the three-story section and that results in the top of the windows of the
third floor being at about 31 feet above the main building. For comparison the existing ridge on
the east property line is about 34 feet above the elevation of the main entrance so the building is
designed to sit down on the site.
Welch lastly wanted to address the question of the conservation easement. It is the developer’s
intention to use the language from the conservation easement that the City approved and will
allow for hiking, birdwatching and wildlife observation, removal of invasive trees and shrubs for
species control and stormwater management as required by the City of Iowa City if needed. It
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2021
Page 7 of 23
does not allow for anything to be constructed in that easement, additionally, the way that they
would propose to mark that easement would be to set property pins on the lot lines where that
easement crosses it on so in effect it is no different than if there was a lot line there.
Adam Tarr (Pugh, Hagan, Prahm Law Firm) is here on behalf of Nelson Development, one of the
applicants in favor of this rezoning, and yes, he is here as a lawyer for the applicant, but is also
here as a resident of the east side and a regular user of Hickory Hill Park. He wants to make
sure to address the public comments that have been provided in terms of the proposal and make
sure that it's clear that what they're talking about tonight is a plan that is not something that is
threatening the well-being of a park that they all hold dear, but it's something that actually
promises something very special here, the possibility of expanding and protecting that park. Tarr
stated for 12 years his family has lived a few blocks from the park and it was a huge positive in
choosing their home. Between the Commission, staff members, and the public he sees here
waiting to speak, he knows that his dog and his family has cross paths literally with everyone in
the park several times and will continue to do so. So, as somebody who expects to see
everybody over again in the park, he has confidence to be able to say without hesitation tonight
that he supports this plan, because it's a very good plan. Not just for the community, but for the
park itself. This plan has been supported by P&Z staff in the beginning and it's only improved
through two revisions incorporating City and public input. It's been supported by Parks and Rec
staff as well as the City Forrester. So to the concerns of any of the public worried about
protecting the park, it's protected. Tarr also supports the opportunity to come before the
Commissioners and his own neighbors tonight to offer and ask support for a plan that
significantly expands and improve Hickory Hill Park by over 14 acres which would be an 8%
increase in the park size. Parks and Rec staff have found that it would also improve the eco
diversity of the park to add outlot A in addition to adding trails and frontage to Scott Boulevard.
As the Chair noted earlier, this would be fully 28% of the property dedicated to Hickory Hill Park if
they count the conservation easement that's outlot B. With the conservation set aside there is
almost 38% of the development being set aside and the majority of the wooden tree cover being
preserved on the property. Tarr believes the human element here is something they also need
to consider; this plan is going to introduce good neighbors to the northeast boundary of the park.
These will be families and seniors who are choosing to live side-by-side because they're drawn
to Hickory Hill Park and can be counted on to cherish the park and to protect it. Tarr believes
they all need to welcome those new stewards into the neighborhood and can probably expect
them to be swelling the ranks of the Friends of Hickory Hill Park in the future. Tarr acknowledged
that development is a dirty word for a lot of people, but he wants to assure the neighbors and the
Commission that this is not a development nightmare where the words development of Hickory
Hill Park and people suddenly imagine bulldozers. This is in fact a very good proposal so he is
asking the community to listen to what's being proposed here, because it's clear that Nelson
Development has listened to the Community and listen to P&Z staff in terms of what they would
like to see here. With that being said, Tarr wants to ask his fellow neighbors and Friends of
Hickory Hill Park to just look inside themselves and ask are they opposed to the notion of a
development, or can they look beyond that and see that this is a development that offers to
actually improve and to protect the very things that they care about.
Tarr had one final comment regarding Commissioner Craig’s question earlier about the OPD and
exactly what an overlay and a plan development is. In the Code it governs approvals of plan
developments and directs the staff and the Commission to review the application for compliance
with the applicable approval criteria which are set forth in Chapter 3 Article A and that the report
will include findings with regard to the applicable approval criteria that are set forth there and
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2021
Page 8 of 23
again that's Chapter 3 Article A. Tarr noted City staff has repeatedly found this plan satisfies
those criteria and therefore this plan should be approved. By accepting the positions as
Commissioners each was sworn to uphold and abide by the authority that governs the decision
making and so here it would be Chapter 3 Article A of the Code. Staff has review this application
three times now and found it compliant and “adheres generally to the planning principles set forth
in the Northeast District Plan”. Again the applicants have listened to the comments by the
Commission and the public heard concerns about protecting the view and having a single loaded
street so these have been addressed and minimizes environmental features. Staff also noted
that the homes that might be visible from the park are going to be no more adverse in terms of
use, light, or privacy than any other conventional development would be. Tarr knows the
Commission has gotten an earful from public comment, and can expect an earful again tonight
but while they recognize that that public comment is vital and necessary for public transparency
and confidence in the zoning process, he hopes that comments tonight will be informed, not by
knee jerk opposition to development per se, but by the realities that have been presented here in
the plan. But no matter the input from the public, Tarr just want to remind the Commissioners
their mandate isn't to act as a political or a legislative body bending to the most vocal opposition
about a plan, if they do that they're abdicating their authority and obligations and overstepping
the bounds of what is set forth for P& Z. Instead, he is asking them to consider the staff’s
recommendation, whether the rezoning application meets the criteria in Chapter 3 Article A of
Title 14 and then make a recommendation to the City Council based upon those criteria, let that
duly elected representative body answer to its constituents and bear any political pressure as a
result.
In conclusion, Tarr stated this is a very good application, it provides interconnected streets as
preferred in the Northeast District Plan, it incorporates a variety of housing types, it limits impact
of sensitive areas and provides an additional now 14 acres of land to the park. Tarr also wanted
to address the fact that the assisted living facility that has been proposed, not only would it
create less density as far as traffic or traffic impacts then the rest of the residential development,
but it serves a vital community need given the geriatric crisis they're facing. The variety of
housing they're talking about and that they should value in any proposal for this District has got
to include providing for seniors and looking ahead and this plan is well balanced and does just
that. Tarr would ask the Commission to consider the plan and to recommend to the City Council
it'd be approved.
Jo Dickens stated she lives on North Dodge Street right around the corner from this development
and just wants to reiterate everything that Tarr just said, as a neighbor she is excited about this
development as it's a development that offers so much for the area on the north end of town, but
also as a Hickory Hill Park user she is very excited to have two more entrances in and out of the
park. She noted she lives in an area where on three sides of her house she is surrounded by
Hickory Hill Park and thinks it's awesome that this development will allow other people to live in
nature like she does, it's absolutely beautiful. So, she just wanted to give her support, echoing
what Tarr said about the job that the Commission is to do tonight, and is excited for this
development. It has her full support, thank you.
Tom Goedken stated he is a longtime member of the community and encourages the members
of P&Z Commission to vote yes on this development. He recognizes it's been contentious with
the two subsequent votes, resulting in one vote in favor which was unfortunate. He wanted to
talk about a few facts and then a few of his opinions. Facts first, the Northeast District Plan has
always contemplated development of this area, known as the Larson track, it actually speaks to
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2021
Page 9 of 23
Hickory Hill Park as a benefit to the houses in such a development and not that a development is
a detractor from Hickory Hill Park. The Northeast Plan encourages items such as single sided
streets, but did not require them, as evidenced by the Hickory Heights development. The
Northeast Plan considered a Hickory Hill Park as an important element of the plan, not the only
element of the plan, Iowa City needs housing, as stated before, of all types, there is a shortage
of houses at all price levels. Lastly, on the facts Hickory Hill Park is an urban park and by
definition an urban park abuts residential and commercial property. It was specifically noted in
the Northeast Plan that from vistas in Hickory Hill Park one can see residential buildings. When
he is walking in Hickory Hill Park, he can see many buildings including many residential areas
along Seventh Avenue and Bloomington Street in Iowa City that directly abuts the park already,
as it is an urban park. Lastly, this property is private property, it's not public land. Goedken next
shared some of his opinions. Development of this area will not detract from Hickory Hill Park,
that's a lame argument with no facts that support it. Watersheds in the park would be enhanced
by this project not detracted as the continued use of this property as a row crop pesticide and
fertilize ground is not a good neighbor to the park and has never been. Iowa City needs more
senior housing, his mother just moved into a facility after living for several years alone and
seeking suitable elder housing in this area is a chore, so more elder housing would benefit.
Lastly, Iowa City has always attracted people who will turn out to object to any development. He
remembers the shadow argument a few years ago with Chauncy development and the extension
of First Avenue, thankfully previous Commission members and Councils approved those
developments for the benefit of all of Iowa City. Goedken stated certain groups, such as the
Iowa City Chamber, has railed against this type of anti-development activism in the past,
rightfully so. He considers himself a friend of Hickory Hill Park, he has enjoyed Hickory Hill Park
for many years in every season. He proposed to his spouse in Hickory Hill Park over 40 years
ago, it's a special place and it'll remain a special place, and he believes will be enhanced by this
development. Goedken asks the members of the Commission to please have the courage to
approve this development as other commissions have done for the benefit of all of Iowa City.
thank you.
Laura Routh asks all attendees to consider whether Adam Tarr’s comments don't actually
represent a veiled threat of lawsuit, it's not helpful and frankly, she finds it a little disturbing. In
her opinion what is being proposed represents public harm for private profit. She hears Mr.
Goedken’s comments related to this, as private land, but that doesn't absolve it from the
obligation of the developer to make sure that the public is protected. The park expansion as
proposed is not sufficient to mitigate the overarching harm to habitat and the view scape that will
occur if this rezoning is approved. As a lifelong resident of Iowa City she has been watching this
park be carved out for decades, the park is being sold out, the view from its trails is being ruined,
users of the park will be able to see the houses that are being developed, habitat will be reduced
and diminished, stormwater will be impacted by impervious surfaces, those are facts. Routh
stated the City continuously asserts a spirit of equity in much of what it does, but in truth, this is
not being respected with this proposal. It appears that the City is subsidizing an affluent
development at the expense of a clear public good. If you are rich, you can buy access to the
park right out your back door, but everyone else will have to look at those homes from the park in
perpetuity and it's a shame. The tax revenue realized from this development will not cover the
cost of infrastructure and necessary building and maintenance of roads sewers etc. In her review
of the City budget the development fees that are charged by the City are laughably low so if this
is a continuous exercise in increasing tax revenue, they need to reevaluate whether or not
they're really getting what they think they're getting. If the Planning and Zoning Commission
chooses to vote to approve this proposal, she feels they are going to be irreparably harming the
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2021
Page 10 of 23
crown jewel of the City's park system. It's going to increase costs to existing taxpayers and
diminish the value of living in this town. People pay more and more and more and get less and
less and less and she just doesn’t think it's fair that basically access to the park is now going to
increasingly be granted to only those people that can afford to buy a $400,000 house on a hill.
The park and its inhabitants, and not just human but flora and fauna folks are dying a death by
1000 cuts and this cut, this project, it's a deep one and it hurts. Routh implores the City to
investigate purchasing this property to preserve and expand Hickory Hill Park, use eminent
domain if they must, for the public good, but at the very least she would request that this request
for rezoning be rejected.
Ann Synan (833 Cyprus Court) stated she and her husband have lived in the Iowa City area
since 1994. They are absolutely not opposed to development of this area and have recognized
that this area would be developed and welcome that, they just are imploring the Commissioners
to please reject this particular plan which they have done twice before because they just do not
believe this is the plan for this area. Synan doesn’t have an objection to a senior living facility
going into the northeast area, however as one of the Commissioners pointed out, it just looks like
something that was dropped into place in the middle of two existing neighborhoods, Hickory
Heights and the Bluffwood neighborhood and now a brand-new neighborhood and they just don't
think this nine-acre facility in the middle of the residential area and on the edge of the park is the
right thing for this area. At the at the risk of making it sound like she’s making light or making a
joke here she would like to say she thinks of something from many years ago, when her kids
were young, that was on Sesame Street where it said, one of these things is not like the other,
one of these things just doesn't belong, and when she looks at the senior living facility in the
plans she thinks that someone would look at this and say that does not belong in this area.
Synan noted the Commissioners have been very supportive and very patient in this process and
thanked them for listening and asks them to please reject this proposal hopefully for the final
time.
William Synan (833 Cyprus Court) just wanted to add most of them are not opposed to
development, however, this area was supposed to be low density and single family residential,
so the proposed plan does not mimic the Comprehensive Plan. An assisted living facility is
neither residential or low density and an assisted living facility is a business enterprise, it's a
commercial institution. The proposed assisted living is not low density, it has 135 units and is
also much bigger and taller than the adjacent condominium building. As an institution, there will
be delivery trucks coming and going, there will be 90 outdoor parking spaces, periodic
ambulances coming and going, it will require exterior lighting illuminating the building at night and
so these are just some of the reasons why this massive complex should not be located in the
middle of two residential neighborhoods, Bluffwood and Hickory Heights, and bordering on the
park. ACT owns a significant amount of the land along the north side of Scott Boulevard and that
would be a more appropriate area that this commercial institutional type of complex and a way of
avoiding the low-density residential property that it was meant to be and its own way of
describing the Comprehensive Plan. Synan implores that the Commissioners vote no again like
they did the past two times for the rezoning for not just this community, but both communities.
They are not against development nor are they against an assisted living facility, it just shouldn’t
be in the middle of the two residential neighborhoods.
Casey Kohrt stated the Friends of Hickory Hill Park board of directors operates under the rule of
consensus and their board has many and varied opinions on this version of the proposed
development. They have not reached consensus on this current proposed development for or
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2021
Page 11 of 23
against, therefore, they only offer opinions as the person for or against the development. Kohrt
stated they do like that the developers finally came back with single loaded street for the existing
park boundary as in alignment with City Plans. They do not like that in particular lots 12 to 17 will
most likely still be in the view shed of the park, due to the proposed road being a through street
and not a cul-de-sac. Kohrt gets the sense from the Commission that they do not support cul-de-
sacs in this location, even though this street will be a burden to the City in the future. They would
like the City to require the developer to plant, or have the City plant, more trees on the west side
of the street to try to hide those houses from the view shed. They also ask that only native Iowa
species be planted on that side of the street, there are currently many non-native species on the
list, several which are known invasive. Kohrt noted the north end of the proposed development
has houses on both sides of the street, so when outlot A is deeded to the City it will have houses
backed up to the park which is not in alignment with City Plans. He noted however it does look
much like the concept drawing in City Plans and they do think it's a reasonable compromise that
that land will be deeded to the City with the condition of the removal of the invasive species.
Kohrt also stated they do like that the condo loop was removed from the north end as it was
located in old growth of white oak savannah trees that will now be preserved in City parkland.
He stated they have always said they recognize the right of the owner to develop the area,
they’ve only asked that they adhere to the City Plans. Kohrt noted they appreciate the
Commission's recognition of the importance of the park to the citizens of Iowa City and the
promises made in the City Plans to its citizens in the in the past two votes.
Mitch Meis thanked the Commissioners for allowing him to address them this evening. He lives
at the end of Hickory Trail and Hickory Place so earlier when the gentleman that talked about the
length of this development it resonated with him because he’s at the end of that long length of
Hickory Trail. He stated it is a significant length and he has driven it thousands of times over the
years. A couple things he wanted to point out, and someone kind of alluded to this earlier, but the
following streets and avenues that currently border the park and have residential homes on them
are Woodward Avenue, North Seventh Avenue, North First Avenue, Cedar Street, Bloomington
Street, Hickory Trail, Hickory Heights, North Dodge Street and Rochester. So he thinks it would
be not unreasonable to consider an additional street that would have homes facing or frontage to
the park. The other thing he’d like to point out, and this is an opinion, is it seems a bit
hypocritical for people who live within eyesight of the park currently to be opposed to this
development. It seems to him that the more people that could be living close to the park and able
to enjoy the park with families is a wonderful thing. In closing, he would just like to say that as a
13-year resident of this part of Iowa City, who frequents the park with his family, he is fully in
support of this development, and hopes the Commissioners would approve it.
Glenda Buenger lives on South Lucas street in Iowa City and wanted to say is that she is not
opposed to development, she is just concerned about how it will take place. She acknowledged
that the current proposal is all kinds of better from the first two that were presented and does
appreciate all the work that has gone into making them better. There is part of a single loaded
street now and the buffer zones are a little bit better, they started out with about 15 feet on the
south side and now it's 45 and if she reads it correctly 75 feet of buffer on the west boundary.
However, Buenger stated that's not enough. She thinks that the park deserves and needs a
larger buffer zone to shield it from development. If this plan is approved as it's currently
presented, they're sacrificing public good for private gain. She thinks that the plan could be
tweaked a little bit further to create better buffer for the park. Again, she stated it's gotten better
in the last couple of reiterations, but with just a little more time, the developer can surely find a
way to give more buffer to protect the park.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2021
Page 12 of 23
Hannah Rapson (1415 East Davenport Street) also first just wanted to state she is not anti-
development. She has lived close to the park for the last 10 years. Rapson has some questions
about the changes that have occurred, one is that the streets been redrawn closer to the park
and wanted to understand how close that street is to the trail on the south end of the park.
Hensch noted perhaps at the end of the public comment the developer can address questions.
Rapson also has some concerns with regard to the nature of the retirement facility. She
understands they need this kind of housing, she just would like to see it done in a thoughtful way.
She can see that that there have efforts made for this building to fit into the topography of the
landscape and that the height is toward the back, which she thinks is positive, however this is
supposed to be low density and this facility does appear to be high density, even if considered to
be residential. Additionally, this type of facility that will have significant staff and is the kind of
facility that is going to have more people coming and going than just residents, so she really
doesn’t understand the traffic study with regard to this facility, when they look at what was
supposed to be here, which was low density residential. Rapson stated she suggested last time
and just wanted to continue to suggest that it may be worth the consideration that this facility be
oriented toward First Avenue and maybe it could be located at the north side of the property, so it
could be adjacent to Scott Boulevard. She feels that orienting a facility that's high density and
more similar to commercial development than to residential development away from a street that
runs adjacent to the park just make sense. She feels that would be a thoughtful response to
considering putting in a high-density housing that is not included in the Comprehensive Plan.
Rapson stated it's obvious that the through street is going to create more traffic and more noise
along the park. She reiterated everyone is here because they care about the park and these are
going to be their neighbors and they're going to love the park just as much. So, for these
neighbors let's consider re-orienting this building toward a busy street so that they don't have
additional traffic along their street. She also believes that the road is pushing the limits and
getting closer to the park, which is not necessarily better. When she looks at the new plan she
really doesn’t see that much has been given up, with having the through street the developer
gets access to adding more houses so asking the developer to stay closer to the road layout that
was initially set and giving more boundary from the park is something that she thinks the
Commission should consider because the developer is not losing opportunity for houses, they
have already gained opportunity for houses by creating a through street. They have also gained
high density with a facility that's been added to the plan, so please consider reorienting that
facility toward a street that is better suited for it, a nonresidential street, and please consider
pulling the road back from the border of the park.
Riley Larson (205 South Mount Vernon Drive) noted her main access point to the park is the
existing First Avenue entrance and would just like to say that that it is nice live surrounded by
nature but obviously she doesn’t live surrounded by nature, and the way she accesses to the
park is to drive into a very small parking lot and to enter that way. She hasn’t seen any official
entrance into the park in the plans and thinks that would be something that would make
everyone feel like a nice legacy for this Commission to approve as part of this development,
rather than to have the entrances to the space be an afterthought. She would also like to
reiterate what she said in the last meeting that she is concerned about the traffic study that was
used in this plan, it was conducted in January, which was in the middle of a pandemic.
Regardless of when the study happened, she lives very close to the proposed development site
and when there was a house fire in her neighborhood the response time was pretty great, but
what if that had happened during rush hour under normal conditions? How is that impacted as
the rush hour traffic at that intersection is intense? So, with this traffic in and out of this facility,
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2021
Page 13 of 23
no, the residents of this nursing home are not going to be coming and going multiple times a day,
but staff members or family members will, and it would be nice to just pause and say that we
have thought about this a little bit mercilessly. Larson just wanted to echo that she is not against
developing this at all, but just want to encourage the members of this Commission to think about
what is going to be developed here and see a forward-thinking area. Wouldn't it be great if this
developer was motivated to make changes the people are communicating and actually get
something that everyone is really proud of.
Allison Jaynes (1181 Hotz Avenue) wanted to speak not against development on this land, but in
particular against the development plan that is proposed here. She noted there's been a number
of good comments made already and she agrees with almost all the concerns that had been
raised. She wanted to bring up one more issue and that is one of equity and accessibility, she
believes that this came up during both of the previous meetings as well. Jaynes stated when
taking a look at some of the different entrances at Hickory Hill Park, for example of the difference
between the Seventh Avenue entrance which does not have a parking lot or anywhere for
visitors to park and the Bloomington Street entrance which is open and welcoming. She noted if
someone lives close enough to walk to the park, as she does, and tries to walk through that
Seventh Avenue entrance it's extremely uncomfortable and definitely gives the feeling that you
do not belong in that neighborhood and that entrance is not yours to access. Additionally, she is
speaking from a point of view of a white CIS woman and can't imagine that it's at all any more
welcoming for a different person than herself. Jaynes also noted looking at that change from the
last plan to this one, there was an excellent opportunity to take those lots and increase the buffer
and create a gateway to the park where visitors could park their cars and really feel like they
belong there and were able to access the park from that point. Instead, they will have people that
will feel entitled to the park in their own backyard and all that comes along with that, so again it is
an issue of equity and accessibility. Jaynes also want to end with the fact that Adam Tarr in his
argument presented a false dilemma fallacy, he said that you should ask yourself, are you
against development entirely or can you support this plan before you and Jaynes wanted to
remind everyone that there is not just those two options, there's a variety of other options or a
number of edits that could be required for this current plan. Therefore, she asks the Commission
to continue to push for what is best for Hickory Hill Park and the citizens of the Iowa City and still
allow for more reasonable development concepts to evolve.
Arturs Kalnins (44 Evergreen Place) is a resident of the Bluffwood neighborhood and had several
points he was going to make but most have already been discussed so he will just quickly
highlight them again. First of all, he does appreciate and thinks the plan is a big improvement
over what they saw last time, it's very good for the view shed from the field, he has a minor
concern about a couple of the houses at the end. From that perspective he was just out there
today and yesterday looking at it and trying to figure out how it lines up with the plan. Again, he
thinks the builders made a concession and he does appreciate that. Kalnins noted the 14 acres
is not developable land and it's probably not recreational either, but he is happy it's being
preserved. His main concern is with the assisted living facility and Commissioner Craig at the
beginning asked the exact question he wanted to ask in a more general sense. There is still the
whole corner of land there, he assumes is also owned by ACT, at Scott Boulevard and First
Avenue that's not a part of any of this proposal. Kalnins thinks that these things should be
decided in tandem as opposed to being sprung one after the next, once one has approval then
they immediately go and try to get the next approval. So, he doesn’t know what's happening with
that, but it does concern him as he is sure as soon as this proposal is approved, they’ll see a
proposal for that land and then once again have to think about new housing or even apartments.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2021
Page 14 of 23
Kalnins feels that's a perfect place for the senior living facility, the place where the senior living
facility is right now is absolutely not the perfect place. Mr. Synan made an important point about
the faculty requiring 24/7 lighting, it’s going to require delivery trucks, trucks that idle for hours
and make beeping noises backing up. Putting all those kinds of things right next to the park is
just inappropriate. Kalnins does not object to more single-family homes being built in that area,
he just wants to move that senior living facility. He also noted he has elderly parents he’d love to
get to move to Iowa City and that might be a great place for them, but put it on that corner where
it's further away from the park so it'll be much easier to access in terms of the ambulances, all
the delivery trucks, all the noise and traffic, on that corner it would have much less impact.
Therefore, he would urge the Commission not to vote yes on the current proposal until
substantially more work is done clarifying the nature and the role of that senior living facility that's
not consistent with the overall City Plans.
Matthew Deforest lives on Hotz Avenue in Iowa City and would very much echo most of the
points made against the new plan and just add a few things. He first noted that the previous two
plans were completely outrageous and absolutely should have been denied as they were.
However, that doesn't make this one more acceptable, it is still fairly outrageous to make these
small incremental changes, adding a street, now buffering the park but not a meaningful buffer to
the park so it really doesn't benefit the park. Deforest stated having this kind of development on
the edge of Hickory Hill Park very much benefits the developer and future homeowners, but it
doesn't account for the actual neighborhood they're moving into which is everyone goes to
Hickory Hill Park and so their neighbors are actually everyone and that just isn't being considered
quite enough as far as the long-term effects of having a neighborhood that close and a street
with traffic right along the walking trail that currently exists. Deforest also noted that it was very
strange that the last meeting the Chair stated that the development was definitely going to
happen and then he was the only yes vote on that absolutely outrageous plan and now the
majority of the proponents of the development seem to have some connection to ACT including
Tom Goedken, and whether they're representing themselves just as Iowa City residents or not
it's disingenuous, and the big point is that Hickory Hill Park represents a very generous
community spirit that's what started it and that's what's been sustaining it, and this is contrary to
that. Deforest very much hopes that the Commission will deny this request also and put some
real requirements on accommodating the park.
Jason Napoli began by thanking the entire Commission for going about this again and the City
staff and all the all the neighbors and people across the area for joining in today. He wanted to
comment on a few things that both City staff and the legal representation of Mr. Tarr commented
on. He believes City staff said the new design is a virtual snapshot of the Bufferwood rendering
and it absolutely is not. Mr. Tarr went onto say this is plagiarism of that overlay but Napoli
doesn’t think they are all looking at the same thing here. He acknowledged the developer has
definitely made progress, there's no denying and that is certainly appreciated, but to say that it's
a virtual snapshot and plagiarism is misleading and quite ridiculous when looking at lots 12 and
17. The Comprehensive Plan calls for cul-de-sacs and if there were cul-de-sacs they wouldn't
have lots on the other side of the street. Even though it's a through street, they definitely do not
need those lots to be there and it's not a virtual snapshot nor is it plagiarism. Napoli also wanted
to address some of these threats that are pretty ridiculous, the veiled threats from the legal
representation that is here tonight, it's really sad. Another thing that's really sad are the threats
that came from the seller around the time of the second meeting and now they have the
leadership of ACT accusing park users of vandalism and trespassing. They are talking about
fencing that has not been up for decades and all of a sudden, they're calling vandalism, it's a
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2021
Page 15 of 23
really, really long shot, and really sad to see one of the most respected leaders in this community
call that out. As for the trespassing, Napoli has known for years that's ACT land but many of the
people who are going to that park don’t, as there was no signage. There is signage now, there
are trespassing signs and the ultra-sharp barbed wire that went up immediately following the
second vote. Napoli stated that's not neighborly, ACT is not being neighborly, and if they're
trying to threaten people maybe it's worked, but it's not the right thing. Napoli stated he thinks
there's still work to be done on the plan, they're getting close which is appreciated, but stop the
threats and try to work together a bit more.
Ken Gayley (316 Dartmouth Street) would like to speak in favor of the idea of continuing this
process of iteration maybe one more time. He recognizes that development is going to happen
on that property and this plan is much better than the previous ones, but he is disturbed a little by
the fact that it took this many iterations to get here and is especially disturbed by the suggestion
that the Commission members are somehow not working in good faith if they were to vote
against this. If talking about working in good faith, one has to wonder why this plan is more
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and why the first two plans were so inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Gayley thinks they are all trying to do the same thing here, they're trying
to find a compromise measure where development does happen and it's consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. So, the question is, is this proposal consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and that is the question that the Commission members will decide if that's appropriate.
Gayley is bothered a little that they have this history where this is not the first plan, that they have
to reiterate and improve and make it into really good plan. Why is this the third plan and why are
they supposed to be so thankful that the third plan finally looks a little bit like the Comprehensive
Plan? Gayley stated the key issue is a public good that is being used for private interests, and
that is something that happens and it's appropriate for that to happen, but it needs to happen in a
compromised way. So, the question is if this compromise is appropriate or do they maybe need
to iterate it a little bit more? He feels like one more iteration is appropriate.
Hensch made a last call for comments, seeing none he closed the public hearing.
Nolte moved to approve REZ20-0016, an application for a rezoning of approximately 48.75
acres of land from Interim Development Single-Family (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-
Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) with the following conditions:
1. In accordance with the subdivider’s agreement at final platting, approval of a
Woodland Management Plan that shall consist of a plan to remove any invasive
species within the Outlot A area, as well as removal of any hazardous trees or limbs.
The plan shall be prepared by a woodland specialist and approved by the City
Forrester. Invasive species removal will be the responsibility of the owner and must
be completed prior to transfer of Outlot A to the City.
2. Provision of trail connections, as shown on the concept plan dated 04/29/2021. The
trail connections should be provided in the same location as shown on the concept
plan and must be constructed before public improvements to the corresponding
subdivision are approved.
3. The final plat shall incorporate traffic calming devices, including but not limited to
raised crosswalks at park entrances, in locations approved by and designed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
4. Where trees are shown on the landscaping plan, installation of right-of-way trees, to
be planted by Owner or its successor, along the proposed Hickory Trial right-of-way.
Said trees shall be planted prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each lot,
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2021
Page 16 of 23
or, if said certificate of occupancy is issued during a poor planting season, by May 31
following issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Right-of-way trees shall be
consistent with the approved landscaping plan that has been reviewed by the City
Forrester. Trees shall be planted generally 30’ apart, though the City recognizes that
exact locations may vary depending on driveway locations, signage, and other utility
conflicts. Final location and species of the trees shall be approved on a lot-by-lot
basis prior to issuance of a building permit for each lot.
5. No building permit shall be issued for any of the subject property until the City
Council approves a final plat subdividing the subject property to confirm to the
zoning boundaries established by the zoning ordinance.
Elliott seconded the motion.
Hensch stated he has studied this carefully and has been out to the site multiple times. He
acknowledged he’s been pretty open about what his role is, and his role is to ensure that the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinances are followed, and that the public good is
maintained. He thinks this plan is really good and couldn't even come up with a con for this.
Hensch is not saying it's perfect, just saying it is good and he believes the Commission’s role is
to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan, the District Plan and the Zoning Ordinances are
followed, and he believes they have been. Additionally, Hensch believes the public good has
been met, there's been a lot of given take from the developer and he also has been very public
about the need for these senior housing facilities in Iowa City. Hensch hates to use the word
NIMBY because of the way people construe that, but everyone is all in favor of certain things as
long as it is not in their neighborhood. But a senior housing facility is needed, and maybe the
location isn’t perfect but it’s a public good, and in the public interest of Iowa City, so he will
support this application.
Signs stated he was intrigued by or maybe a little offended by the interpretation of what a senior
living facility is, and the notion that it was considered commercial and not residential and he
totally disagrees, it is a residential use and it’s that way throughout the City. There are senior
living facilities integrated in neighborhoods next to single family homes, next to apartments and
condominiums because that is where senior members want to be. The senior members are
considered part of a community and not to be placed on the fringe of the community or in
outlying commercial areas. That is absolutely not where they should be located. Signs stated he
really appreciated a lot of the comments this evening and they could go on for iteration after
iteration after iteration but one of the things that he was a little fascinated by tonight is in the first
meeting there was very little reference to the senior living facility and if one goes back and looks
at the meeting minutes, they’ll find that that's absolutely true. In the second meeting when
changes were made by the developer, the Commission started hearing more and more
comments about the senior living facility and its appropriate use in this in this area. Now tonight
the developer has made some significant changes to single loaded streets and increase the
buffer area from the park boundary, so a lot of focus was on whether or not the senior living
facility is an appropriate use on the site. Signs thinks the renderings that were shared this time
shows a beautiful building that quite frankly is nestled in a hollow, so to speak, of the
neighborhood and it goes from one story on the street facing and rises up to the woodlands
behind it. The developers have done an amazing job of nesting what is a large facility into an
area in a residential area, which again is where he believes it belongs. Signs also noted again
this evening there was a call for the City to purchase this land and preserve it and it's his
understanding from some comments made in the first public hearing that both the City of Iowa
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2021
Page 17 of 23
City and the Friends of Hickory Hill Park were offered this property years ago and both of them
declined to purchase it. As Signs has stated many times, this is a piece of private property, and
whoever owns it has the right to do with it what they see fit as long as it meets the ordinances
and the goals of the City which he thinks this does. He finished by stating this is a significant
change and improvement in the plan from last time and he will be supporting it tonight.
Townsend stated she thinks they have come a long way with this proposal and it's looking very
good to her, so she thinks they are going in the right direction.
Elliott noted one of her concerns someone brought up in a previous meeting is about the invasive
species which was a trigger to her and tonight when she read the City staff report it talked about
having some non-native trees because they were more resilient to some of the invasive species
that are in Iowa now. When Casey Kohrt from the Friends of Hickory Hill Park mentioned that
some of the trees that were in the design were not favorable. Elliott is wondering if there was
some kind of a way that they could come to a meeting of minds of what was a good landscape
plan for this area.
Hensch stated interestingly he just had a meeting last week with an environmental engineer, and
one of the topics was literally that topic. He acknowledged this is a different piece of land, but
the plan was approved by the City Forester and the idea is to maintain a diversity of species so
as disease comes through the trees, they don't lose them all at the same time, that's the concept.
Hensch noted invasive species are a huge problem with land that's been tilled and the
subspecies of things that come in and grow.
Signs reclass that part of the plan was that the developer had to remove the invasive species in
a as part of their dedication to the City.
Elliott agreed and might have misunderstood Kohrt but she got the impression that Friends of
Hickory Hill Park folks may have thought there was some invasive species still in the plan. Elliott
does really appreciate the developer coming through with a significant change and the single
loaded street. She would also like to say, as somebody who has spent considerable time with
elderly people in the community, she wants them to have access to the park and thinks this is
great that they can live so close. Older persons will want to go for walks in the park. And
regarding cars, she wishes there were more cars visiting people in senior facilities, people would
be surprised at how little traffic there actually is.
Martin first stated she appreciates the changes that have been made but respectfully disagrees
with Hensch a little bit about these iterations and there are cons. She looks at her role on
Planning and Zoning as to take into consideration the Comprehensive Plan but what they’re
really taking into consideration is everything including their legacy, and if a vote tonight on the
development happens, and the development happens, it takes a lot longer for a developer to
redevelop. She does think this could be a perfect scenario maybe with one more iteration. Does
she want to continue to hear this conversation over and over again, not really, but she can't be in
favor of this because she feels there are tweaks that could be made. She loves that the single
loaded street is 71% but it bums her out to see the street really kind of wedged its way into the
park area so that they could get those six or those five lots down there at the south end of it.
Martin does think about people being able to access the park, if this is still advertised as that and
people could access the park from that street or are they just parking on the street. How
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2021
Page 18 of 23
accommodating is it really, they talked about that last time and her concern as to the types of
people that want to go to the park, which are everybody, so she wants to be mindful of that
especially in the current climate and she feels like even in the public comment tonight she heard
the edginess of voices. Yes the world is a year and a half into a pandemic and we are all getting
squirrely, the vaccines are coming but she just feels like there's so much tension and if this gets
developed will all people feel welcome parking on that street, no matter what their car looks like
and no matter what they look like. That is something that speaks to her because their job as
volunteers is to really think about all of those parts and pieces and understand that a lot of
people are feeling like yep they can live with this and that's great but she will be the voice of
dissent because nope they can make it perfect.
Craig wanted to state there is no perfect plan and someone she worked with many, many years
ago, used to have a saying that if there is no solution seek it lovingly and one thing she
appreciates about Planning and Zoning and everyone in Iowa City is that generally speaking they
do seek it lovingly and she is going to support this. In the first meeting, and one can read the
minutes, she stated if they take those houses off the side of the street, she will support this plan.
She does wish they would have come back the second time with what they came back with
tonight, it would have given her a little more faith in them that they were listening, but she is also
very influenced by the fact that the Friends of Hickory Hill Park contains people both for and
against this and thinks that that shows just how far they've come. Craig acknowledged it could be
a whole lot worse and could talk about the species of the trees and this and that, as Martin says
the tweaking, but when people want to lose the senior housing that is not okay. Craig believes
it's in a good location and when she is old, she hopes that's where her kids put her so she can
look out the window and see the park. Craig confirmed she will vote yes.
Signs just wanted to add a couple things, first he does wish they had the earlier plan with that
Southwest corner area a little bit more. He also acknowledged a lot of people commenting on
moving the street closer to the park but as he looks at the numbers, on page 11 on the packet, it
appears there's like around 100 feet minimum from the south to the west between the edge of
the property and the street. In previous plans they had houses there where the back lot lines
were within 40 to 60 feet of the park boundary so even if the street is closer it feels like they've
actually gained a buffer.
Martin noted those backyards wouldn't be concrete.
Craig stated however when they talk about accessibility they don’t have to deal with backyards or
walking in somebody's yard. With that much open space it's a public street anybody can come
park on and bring their kids, or bike from someplace and leave the bikes on the curb and go
wander in the park, so it's way more accessible and that's the point of the single loaded street.
Signs agrees but also agrees with Martin and others that there's a way to improve it and perhaps
needing a sign for a visible entrance in this in this area. He also noted in the notes from the
Parks and Rec Commission meeting they talked about this and there was some mention about
the possibility of have a little parking lot kind of thing along the street there by lots 14 through 17
which seems a great obvious place to have a little parking lot entrance and it's right at the end of
the trailhead. Signs thinks there is an opportunity here to make a bit of a more welcoming
entrance to those to that trailhead.
Craig agrees and notes the Parks Commission can do that as it's parkland and will belong to
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2021
Page 19 of 23
Iowa City. She also wanted to state that she lives very close to the North Seventh Avenue
entrance and someone said that area didn't feel very welcoming and Craig just wanted to say if
she had a quarter for every car in the last 34 years that backed out of her driveway to get on the
right side of the road to park, she could probably buy a million-dollar house. Many, many, many
people use that entrance, yes it's a pedestrian entrance, which is very different parking lot, but
the parking lot is on Bloomington Street and all kinds of people come from the east side of town
and walk into that entrance on North Seventh Avenue.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1 (Martin dissenting).
CASE NO. REZ21-0003:
Consideration of an update to single-family site development standards, which amends Title 14
Zoning related to paving in the front setback area and partially repeals Ordinance No. 19-4815.
Russett first gave some background on how they got to this point. Back in 2019 the City
amended the Zoning Code to restrict paving in the front setback area for single family and duplex
uses. This amendment occurred after the State passed a law that restricted the City's ability
from enforcing rental permit caps and the purpose of the amendment at that time was to help
with some of the City's goals related to neighborhood stabilization and ensuring that all
neighborhoods within the City have a variety of housing choices and options for all residents.
Russett noted that can be particularly challenging within the core of the community, which has a
high student population. Since the adoption of that amendment, staff has learned that the
amendment was both unnecessary and harmful for some residents. In April of 2017 the State
Legislature passed a bill prohibiting cities from enforcing regulations related to occupancy limits.
In response to that, the City amended the Code in several places to achieve goals related to
neighborhoods stabilization. These Zoning Code amendments updated rear setback
requirements to discourage inappropriate expansions into rear yards, limited the number of
bedrooms in attached single family and duplexes to four, and updated private open space
requirements. In addition to that, the City moved to annual inspections for many rental properties
and increased nuisance and property maintenance enforcement. Lastly the City adopted the
rental permit cap ordinance which kept rental permits at 30% in certain neighborhoods. In April
2019 the State Legislature passed a bill prohibiting cities from enforcing rental permit caps so the
City adopted a 10-month rental permit cap moratorium and City Council asked staff to explore
other possible amendments that could help achieve goals related to neighborhood stabilization.
It was at that point staff proposed the amendment to the single-family site development
standards related to paving in the front setback area. Since that amendment was adopted staff
realized it's not doing what it needs to be doing. Russett next explained what the front setback
area is. The front setback area is the distance between an object, such as a building and another
point which is usually the front lot line. The setback area is the area where no structures are
allowed, so a front setback area is that space between the street and the front of the home or the
building.
Russett showed a slide of the previous Code and the amended Code. The main change from
the former Code and the current Code is that they had added the additional language which
requires that any additional paved areas within the front setback area to be separated by at least
nine feet of open space. The Code already states that parking spaces are allowed in the front
setback area if they lead directly to a parking space and that front setback area also has to be at
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2021
Page 20 of 23
least 50% open space. Russett explained they are proposing to repeal a portion of that
amendment and remove the additional requirement that additional paving required a nine-foot
separation. Russett showed some slides to give a visualization of the current regulations versus
the proposed regulation.
Craig asked what the role of the sidewalk in the setback is, a sidewalk is probably down much
closer to the street, but one can't park on the sidewalk. Russett didn't include sidewalks on her
examples but typically that's where the property line begins.
Russett stated with the amendment in 2019 a homeowner couldn’t have any additional paving in
the front setback area that's abutting a conforming parking space or additional paving. They
could have additional paving if there’s nine feet of separation between the conforming parking
space and additional paving. This could be a basketball court or patio or something like that, but
it couldn't be a parking space. With this proposed amendment staff is asking to allow some
additional paving within that front setback area that does not need to be separated by nine feet
from the existing paving. Russett explained they have received multiple requests from property
owners for some additional paving within that front setback area to allow a parking space in the
side yard and all of those requests had to be denied because it was not feasible on the site to
provide that nine feet of separation within the front setback area. Russett noted none of those
requests were within the core of the community, where the concern for the amendment was
originally placed. Also, based on information from Code Enforcement staff there are few issues in
the core and if there are any issues in the core, they can be addressed through Code
Enforcement.
Russett reiterated they are requesting that that nine feet of separation not be required so
someone could have some additional paving in the front setback area to have a third parking
space in the side yard. After the Commission makes a recommendation, this will move to City
Council for approval.
Hensch is glad to see this because he remembers when they approve that change, he found it
confusing and didn't really see how it would work.
Townsend thinks it'll look a lot nicer having concrete pavement there as opposed to people just
parking their car on the lawn which is what they see now.
Craig noted she has a triple wide driveway for a double car garage so people can park in that
space over at the side and it's been there for very long time. She did ask when they talk about
the core that pretty much means downtown Iowa City where most of the student rentals are, but
she thought that the way this all started was a concern about neighborhoods some distance from
downtown but where there are smaller houses in less expensive neighborhoods that were being
turned into many rentals.
Russett explained that the core is the residential neighborhoods adjacent to downtown where
most of the student population lives and when they proposed this amendment in 2019, they had
at least one instance where there was some additional paving in the front setback area that was
being used for parking which is not allowed and wasn't allowed by the former Code but it was
identified as a problem so they decided to propose the amendment to require that any additional
paving next to a conforming parking space would not be used for parking. They could have
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2021
Page 21 of 23
additional paving for a basketball court or patio or something like that, but people were saying
they were going to have a patio but then they were using it for parking which was not allowed.
Craig noted in her general neighborhood and places where she walks there's a couple of homes
that have pavement on the side where they park campers so is that okay. Russett said they
would have to look at the exact situation, but someone can have a camper parked in their yard.
Signs understands the whole thing here is in order to just logistically construct a third stall off to
the side and oftentimes they have to cut across that setback area so he can see how that could
be problematic in some situations.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one, Hensch closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend updating the single-family site development standards,
which amends Title 14 Zoning related to paving in the front setback area and partially
repeals Ordinance No. 19-4815.
Nolte seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: APRIL 15, 2021:
Craig moved to approve the meeting minutes of April 15, 2021.
Townsend seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett noted last Tuesday staff gave a presentation to the City Council during the work session
related to the Commission's recommendations on the Good Neighbor Program which would
require Good Neighbor meetings for certain land development applications and the Council
agreed with the Commission's recommendation, so staff will be preparing an ordinance or a
policy for the Commission’s consideration in the near future.
Hensch wanted it noted in the minutes that he believes pretty strongly that the folks in Russett’s
department needs support staff because it’s a lot of work to make sure those details get taken
care of with those notifications and it's really nice to have someone they can task that with.
Hensch also noted he will be gone on vacation on June 3 so Mr. Signs will have to chair that
meeting. He would also ask people if they know their vacation plans this summer to let him or
staff know so they don't have quorum issues.
Craig noted as she was reviewing the things for tonight and looking at the images of the senior
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2021
Page 22 of 23
living facility, she noticed all that dark roof and wondered if the City has anything that relates to
the size of a building and color of roof. A lighter colored roof really is an energy issue. Signs
stated he it's his understanding that there's more benefit of dark in the winter than there is light in
the summer
ADJOURNMENT:
Elliott moved to adjourn.
Townsend seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2020-2021
7/16 8/6 8/20 10/1 10/15 11/5 12/3 12/17 1/7 1/21 2/18 3/18 4/1 4/14 5/6
CRAIG, SUSAN X X X X X X O X X X X X X X X
DYER, CAROLYN O/E O/E -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
ELLIOTT, MAGGIE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X X X X X X
HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
NOLTE, MARK -- -- -- -- X X X X X X X O X X X X X
SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X O/E X
TOWNSEND, BILLIE O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member