HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 07.01.2021PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, July 1, 2021
Electronic Formal Meeting – 7:00 PM
Zoom Meeting Platform
Agenda:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Election of Officers
4. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
Development Items
5. Case Nos. VAC20-0003
Applicant: Gilbane Development Company
Location: Right-of-way adjacent to 220 Lafayette Street
An application submitted for a vacation of approximately 0.14 acres of public right-of-
way.
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/tJEocOqrqj8pGNdP8ElhHX6-
VloDPx2mzwf5 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 955 7334 4323 when
prompted. Providing comment in person is not an option.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
July 1, 2021
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendment Items
6. Presentation on the proposed South District Plan Amendment (CPA21-0001) to
facilitate the adoption of form-based zones and standards (REZ21-0005)
7. Discussion on returning to in-person meetings
8. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: June 17, 2021
9. Planning & Zoning Information
10. 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 15 / August 5 / August 19
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Ray Heitner, Associate
Planner
Item: VAC20-0003 Date: July 1, 2021
700 S. Dubuque Vacation
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Gilbane Development
7 Jackson Walkway
Providence, RI 02903
267-256-4520
Mapt@Gilbaneco.com
Requested Action: Vacation public right-of-way
Purpose: To accommodate redevelopment
Location: County Seat Addition, Block 18, at the
northeast corner of South Dubuque and
Lafayette Streets.
Location Map:
Size: Approximately 0.14 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Commercial and multi-family residential,
RFC-CX, Riverfront Crossing – Central
Crossings
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: RFC-CX, Riverfront Crossing - Central
Crossings
South: CI-1, Intensive Commercial
East: CC-2, Community Commercial
West: Institutional Public (P-2); RFC-CX,
Riverfront Crossing - Central Crossings; CI-
1, Intensive Commercial
File Date: December 10,2020
45-Day Limitation: N/A
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Gilbane Development has applied to vacate an alley that separates the properties located at 700-
730 South Dubuque Street from the apartment building at 220 Lafayette Street. Gilbane is acquiring
all of these lots and intends to redevelop them as one development spanning the alleyway.
Gilbane previously applied to rezone these properties to Riverfront Crossings -Central Crossings
(RFC-CX). The Commission recommended approval of that application at its December 17, 2020
meeting, and Council approved the same on February 2nd, 2021, subject to a conditional zoning
agreement that required certain Ralston Creek stream bank restoration activities and the dedication
of a sanitary sewer easement in a location to be determined by the City Engineer.
ANALYSIS:
The following factors are to be considered in evaluating a vacation request:
a) Impact on pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation;
b) Impact on emergency and utility vehicle access and circulation;
c) Impact on access of adjacent private properties;
d) Desirability of right-of-way for access or circulation needs;
e) Location of utilities and other easements or restrictions on the property; and
f) Any other relevant factors pertaining to the specific requested vacation.
a) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation and access to private property:
The alley contains no sidewalk or other formal means of pedestrian access or circulation. The
alley provides vehicular access to parking areas along the west and north sides of the apartment
building at 220 Lafayette Street and the east (rear) side of the businesses fronting 700-730 S.
Dubuque Street. The applicant has indicated that it will be acquiring all of these properties, but
until the buildings are vacated, the alley will still be needed for vehicular circulation and access.
b) Emergency and utility and service access:
The International Fire Code requires that fire apparatus access roads be located within 150’ of
any facility or building that is served under the jurisdiction (IFC (2018) 503.1.1). Since the
approximate distance between S. Dubuque Street and the western wall of 220 S. Lafayette Street
is 185’, fire apparatus access to the existing alley is necessary to provide fire protection to the
building at 220 Lafayette Street until it is demolished.
The alley is currently used for gas and electric service lines. A utility easement should be retained
for these utilities until the adjacent properties are vacated and utilities no longer used.
A sanitary sewer main runs through the middle of the existing alley and serves other properties in
the neighborhood, not just the adjacent land the applicant intends to redevelop. A sanitary sewer
easement should be retained for this utility until the sanitary sewer main is relocated to a new
easement area dedicated to the City at no cost, as required by the conditional zoning agreement.
c) Impact on access of adjacent private properties:
The applicant intends to redevelop all adjacent private property as one development project.
These adjacent properties were collectively rezoned to RFC-CX subject to a conditional zoning
agreement. As described above, the vacation will impact access to the existing buildings, though
they will all continue to have right-of-way frontage along public streets. The proposed right-of-way
vacation will not impact access to any other nearby properties.
d) Desirability of right-of-way for access or circulation needs:
The applicant wishes to use right-of-way for development of a multi-family residential building with
access off S. Dubuque Street and E. Lafayette Street. Upon redevelopment according to their
plans, the existing alley will not be necessary for any future access or circulation needs.
e) Location of utilities and other easements or restrictions on the property:
Private utilities have been contacted and asked to identify if they have and facilities within the subject
right-of-way. The subject right-of-way contains gas and electric utilities and a City sanitary sewer
main. Easements for these uses must be retained as described above. The applicant intends to
establish new easement areas upon redevelopment so that the property is served by all necessary
private and public utilities.
f) Any other relevant factors pertaining to the specific requested vacation:
Although the applicant intends to acquire the adjacent property, there are currently numerous
owners of the adjacent land. In order to avoid creating an ownership interest in yet another private
entity, Staff will recommend to the City Council that it not convey the alley to the applicant until they
are the titleholder to all adjacent land and that the buildings are no longer occupied to ensure that
access to the adjacent properties is not impacted.
SUMMARY:
Staff recommends vacation of this alley, contingent upon the retention of an access easement,
private utility easement and sanitary sewer easement for so long as the adjacent property is
occupied. While this alley currently serves as an important corridor for traffic circulation and
utilities, the alley is not necessary for traffic or utilities according to the applicant’s redevelopment
plans.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the proposed vacation will be
reviewed by the City Council. The City Council will not only discuss the vacation, but also the
conveyance of this land to the applicant for fair market value.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the approval of VAC20-0003 a vacation of the Block 18, County Seat Addition
public alley right-of-way adjacent to 220 Lafayette Street, subject to a utility easement, access
easement, and sanitary sewer easement as described in this report and in forms approved by the
City Attorney’s office.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Vacation Plat
Approved by: ______________________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
SGILBERTSTS DUBUQUE STLAFAYETTE ST MAIDENLN
VAC20-0003700, 710, 720, 730 S. Dubuque St. & 220 Lafayette St.µ
0 0.02 0.040.01 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: December 2020
An application submitted by Axiom Consultants, on behalf ofGilbane Development, to request the vacation of the public right-of-way for approximately 0.14 acres of property in order toaquire this portion of the right-of-way and add it to the adjacentproperty.
S89° 21' 34"W 91.10'N00° 52' 18"W
40.00'N02° 26' 27"W 286.42'S32° 51' 20"W60.29'S87° 33' 44"E 116.89'
N89° 22' 53"E 150.00'
N00° 50' 07"W 16.84'
N89° 09' 53"E 19.84'N01° 15' 47"W 140.57'S00° 47' 29"E 118.70'S01° 15' 47"E60.40'S89° 21' 34"W 148.59'
S89° 21' 34"W
20.01'S00° 51' 59"E 302.83'N00° 50' 07"W 302.77'0 30 60
SHEET NUMBER:
SHEET TITLE:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NO.:
DATE ISSUED:
CURRENT REV:
WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220
DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:
S. DUBUQUE STREET DEVELOPMENT
12/07/2020
R.O.W. VACATION EXHIBIT
1 OF 1
190173WELCHS. DUBUQUE STREETRALSTON CREEKLAFAYETTE STREET
CRANDIC RAILROAD
IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD
122
LAFA
Y
E
T
T
E
S
T
725
S DU
B
U
Q
U
E
S
T
715
S DU
B
U
Q
U
E
S
T
(PARKI
N
G L
O
T)
707
S DU
B
U
Q
U
E
S
T
808
S DUBUQUE ST
228
E BENTON ST
220
LAFA
Y
E
T
T
E
S
T
730 S.
D
U
B
U
Q
U
E/
206 L
A
F
A
Y
E
T
T
E
S
T
PART
L
O
T
5
720 S.
D
U
B
U
Q
U
E
LOT
6
A
N
D
PART
O
F
L
O
T
S
5
A
N
D
7
710 S.
D
U
B
U
Q
U
E
PART L
O
T
7
700 S.
D
U
B
U
Q
U
E
LOT 8
ROW VACATION
0.14 ACRES
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A 20 FOOT WIDE ALLEY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO LOT 5 THRU LOT 8 IN BLOCK 18, IN THAT PART OF IOWA CITY, IOWA,
LAID OFF BY THE COMMISSIONERS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, AS THE COUNTY SEAT OF JOHNSON COUNTY,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 1 & 2, PAGE 253, DEED RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA,
AS SHOWN ON THE RIGHT OF WAY VACATION EXHIBIT.
PART
L
O
T
1
PART
L
O
T
2
PART
L
O
T
3
PART L
O
T
4
Date: July 1, 2021
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner and Anne Russett, Senior Planner; Neighborhood &
Development Services
Re: Introduction to the South District Plan Amendment (CPA21-0001) to facilitate the adoption
of form-based zones and standards (REZ21-0005)
Introduction
The City has been working with Opticos Design since January 2019 to develop a form-based
zoning code for the undeveloped portion of the South District, shown in Figure 1. The hope is to
eventually apply these standards to other undeveloped, greenfield sites in the city. When applying
the form-based code to new areas in the City, the district plans must first be updated to facilitate
its adoption. The first such district plan update running concurrently with the zoning code
amendment is the South District Plan amendment (CPA21-0001).
Figure 1. South District Form-Based Code Study Area
The Zoning Code provides rules for how land can be used and developed and is the City’s main
tool to implement its Comprehensive and District Plans. It outlines what structures can be built
July 1, 2021
Page 2
where, and how they will be used. Conventional zoning dictates the density of dwelling units
allowed, maximum heights, lot coverage, and minimum on-site parking, among other standards.
Form-based codes differ from conventional zoning by focusing less on land use (e.g. single-family
vs. multi-family) and more on the development’s scale (e.g. bulk and height) and its relationship
to the public realm (e.g. streets and sidewalks). The purpose of the form-based code is to
implement the Comprehensive Plan’s vision for walkable development through context -specific
standards. It will help produce neighborhoods that:
• Are safe for pedestrians and encourage walking
• Will preserve important environmental resources
• Contain a connected network of streets and paths
• Allow for a variety of housing types and price-points
Overview of Stakeholder Outreach
The form-based code project builds on previous planning work in Iowa City and specifically in the
South District. The City adopted the current South District Plan in 2015 which outlines the vision
for the area after extensive collaboration with the community. The City then worked with Opticos
Design to assess the feasibility of implementing a form-based code for undeveloped areas in the
district with a goal of expanding their applicability in other undeveloped areas of the city over time.
Completed in August 2017, the Project Direction Report and Form-based Code Analysis included
the results of stakeholder interviews, a community workshop, and a visual preference exercise
for the South District. A residential market analysis was also completed in July 2019 to help inform
the form-based code standards. These documents are available on the project website:
https://www.icgov.org/project/form-based-zones-and-standards.
Additional outreach was conducted during the formulation of the form-based code in 2019 and
2020. The City engaged approximately 125 people at a mix of individual interviews, focus group
meetings, community meetings, and presentations by staff and Opticos. Participants included
representatives from the local development community, local government entities, property
owners, architects, affordable housing advocates, and the public. Table 1 provides more detail on
outreach conducted as part of this process.
Table 1: Stakeholder Outreach Meetings
Group Date Approx.
Attendance
Focus Group Meetings: Local Builders & Development
Community; Community Members; Property Owners; Realtors
& Lenders; Architects; Affordable Housing Advocates
April 2019 25
Residential Market Analysis Presentation to Property Owners
and Development Community
July 2019 15
Community Meeting on Initial Draft Code Nov 2019 30
Developer and Land Owner Meeting on Initial Draft Code Nov 2019 18
Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition Nov 2019
June 2020
5
Private Utility Companies Jan 2020 5
Johnson County Livable Communities Housing Action Team Jan 2020 8
Individual Meetings with Property Owners on Draft Zones Feb 2020 4
Developer and Property Owner Meeting on Draft Zones Feb 2020 10
Home Builders Association June 2020 5
Meetings with Land Owners Ongoing
July 1, 2021
Page 3
Amendment Framework
The proposed amendment to the Zoning Code (REZ21-0005) is coupled with a proposed
amendment to the South District Plan (CPA21-0001). Although the proposed changes to the code
align well with existing goals and objectives in the South District and Comprehensive Plans, staff
has also proposed amendments to the South District Plan to make these connections more
explicit. Many of the proposed changes to the District Plan are intended to provide additional
context and aid in the implementation of this proposed zoning code amendment. Most notably are
the updated future land use maps for the planning area described in Figure 1 [Attachment 1]. As
part of the proposed update to the future land use map, staff created new land use designations
which directly align with the proposed Form-Based Zones included in the code amendment.
The proposed code amendment includes changes to several chapters of the Zoning Code (Title
14). The primary addition is the new Article H of Chapter 2, which includes the new Form-Based
Zones and Standards section. Other supplementary changes are in Chapters 5 (Site
Development Standards) and 9 (Definitions). In addition, new standards are being proposed for
Title 15 (Land Subdivisions) to help with the implementation of the form-based standards. While
the Planning and Zoning Commission does not review changes to the City Code outside of Title
14, they will be summarized in follow up memos so the Commission can understand how the
proposed changes work together towards implementation of the new standards.
Form-Based Zoning
A form-based zoning code represents a paradigm shift in the way that the City’s built environment
is regulated. Unlike conventional, use-based codes, the proposed amendment utilizes the
intended physical form, rather than use, as the organizing framework of the code. Further, it
regulates elements not just to create a good individual building, but a high-quality place. The
terminology in the proposed amendment reflects the intended physical form and hierarchy of
different places. For example, instead of a zone being "commercial" or "mixed use," it might be
called "main street." The term ties back to the intended physical form or place, which includes a
mix of uses, civic spaces, thoroughfares, frontages, and building types that create vibrant
walkable urbanism.
While the proposed code primarily regulates the intended physical form, it regulates use
secondarily. The code allows a range of uses that are carefully chosen to maximize compatibility
between uses and the intended physical form. As a result, the use tables are simplified and
categorized by use type, and clearly defined, to allow a greater degree of administrative decision-
making related to particular uses.
The proposed amendment uses an organizing principle called the Natural-to-Urban Transect. This
enables a customized framework of zones that are based on intended physical form. It uses a
hierarchy of physical environments or 'transects' from the most natural to the most urban. The
designation of each transect along this hierarchy is determined first by the physic al character,
form, intensity of development, and type of place, and secondly by the mix of uses within the area.
This hierarchy of physical environments becomes the framework for the entire code, replacing
use as the organizing principle. Each transect is used to reinforce existing or create new walkable
environments. Figure 2 depicts the Natural-to-Urban Transect.
July 1, 2021
Page 4
Figure 2. Natural-to-Urban Transects
Summary of Amendments
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Although the proposed zoning code amendment aligns with many policies of the City’s
Comprehensive and District Plans, staff is proposing some amendments to the South District Plan
to better align the plan with the proposed form-based code. To help facilitate the adoption and
implementation of the proposed code amendment, staff proposes the following changes to the
South District Plan:
1. Updated descriptions of the City’s development of form-based standards and changes
throughout that better reflect the desired outcomes of the form-based standards,
specifically in sections on new residential development, the future neighborhood scenario,
street layout & walkability, and neighborhood commercial areas.
2. New goals and objectives to the Housing, Transportation, and Commercial Area chapters
that explicitly discuss adoption of a form-based code.
3. New land use designations and an associated future land use map that better
accommodate a mix of residential uses than the current plan, which better aligns with a
more conventional zoning code. Specifically, the current future land use map
distinguishes between single-family, mixed, and multi-family residential uses and
provides for limited neighborhood commercial areas and missing middle housing types.
Zoning Code Amendment
The list below summarizes the most substantive differences between the existing and proposed
codes:
1. Building Type Mix Required: Every block, with the exception of the main street area,
requires at least two different building types. For example, a block with eight lots could not
have all single-family homes. At least one of the building types must be a duplex or other
building type allowed by the zone.
2. Frontage Type Mix Required: Similar to building types, each block must have a mix of
frontage types (e.g. porch, stoop) to ensure more variety along the streetscape.
3. Parking Setback: Alleys are not required with the exception of the proposed main street
area. However, parking must be setback from the front façade of the building.
4. Parking Ratios: The required amount of parking has been reduced slightly.
5. Carriage Houses: Carriage houses, sometimes referred to as accessory dwelling units,
granny flats or accessory apartments, are allowed with most building types. The current
code only allows ADUs as accessory to a single-family home.
6. Street Trees: Trees are required to be planted within the public right-of-way.
July 1, 2021
Page 5
7. Block Length: Block lengths are more limited depending on the zone to ensure a highly
interconnected network of streets and paths.
8. Design Sites: A new term “design sites” has been incorporated into the draft. A design site
is an area of land that can accommodate no more than one primary building type (with
exceptions). A platted lot may have multiple design sites. Design sites provide more
flexibility than traditional platted lots since they can be administratively adjusted.
9. Design Site Depth and Width: Unlike the existing code which includes minimum lot size
requirements, the proposed code includes minimum and maximum depth and width
standards for design sites. The maximum helps to ensure more compact development.
10. Civic Space: A number of different civic space types are defined. Civic spaces are also
identified on the future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan.
11. Affordable Housing: The proposed code includes regulatory incentives (e.g. height
bonuses) for voluntary affordable housing.
12. Subdivision Application Materials: The proposed code requires additional detail to be
submitted with preliminary and final plat applications. This includes noting building types
on preliminary plats and including a Neighborhood Plan with a final plat application. The
Neighborhood Plan will be used by staff to track landscaping, civic space, building types,
and other code requirements.
Future memos to the Commission will provide a detailed outline of the proposed Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Code amendments.
Justification for Amendments
Land use planning guides future development to ensure consistency with the community’s goals
and policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. While the City’s current zoning code provides
some flexibility for new development, it tends to lead to conventional development in greenfield
sites with land uses separated into discrete districts with a limited mix of uses. In order for
development to achieve some flexibility to accommodate a diversity of housing types it typically
requires a planned development overlay (OPD) rezoning, which can be a relatively burdensome
tool. Additionally, the current code allows duplexes on corner lots in single-family zones; however,
we have not seen a significant number of duplexes on corner lots be developed, and most
subdivisions in greenfield sites still tend to be exclusively single-family. Requiring a mix of housing
types and moving away from zoning that distinguishes single-family and multi-family building
types is important to ensure a variety of housing options. Attachment 2 includes a more
comprehensive analysis of recent greenfield development.
The changes contemplated with the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code
amendments are broad because it is a new kind of zoning for greenfield sites in Iowa City, to first
be applied to the South District. The changes are consistent with the long -term direction of the
City, especially as it relates to goals promoting equity and sustainability. One of Iowa City’s
strategic goals is to “advance social justice, racial equity and human rights”. While land use
decisions can reinforce existing inequities, they can also be a tool to actively promote equity.
Additionally, Iowa City also strives to be a leader in climate action through implementation of its
Climate Action & Adaptation Plan.
Historically, conventional zoning regulations have been used to enforce racial and class
segregation. While courts invalidated explicitly racial zoning in 1917, single-family zones and
large minimum lot sizes were often used an as exclusionary practice, along with other public
and private policies such as redlining and the demolition of “slums” where persons of color lived.
In Iowa City, owners used racially restrictive covenants until that was made illegal in 1968. A
2019 Fair Housing Study completed by the City found that 81% of residential land in the City is
zoned for single-family development, and over half of single-family residential zoning is for low
density development (RS-5). Prioritizing disadvantaged groups that are still recovering from
generations of targeted exclusion and disinvestment can help increase opportunity for all
July 1, 2021
Page 6
members of the community. The adoption of a form-based code for new development helps
address this issue by permitting a mix of housing types and price points for all members of the
community. While this does not solve this complex issue, it removes one barrier to providing
more variety in housing options and allows for a broader range of housing choices for residents.
Furthermore, the City strives to demonstrate leadership in climate action, which has culminated
in the 2018 Climate Action & Adaptation Plan. The plan includes goals to reduce carbon
emissions by 45% by 2030 and to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Conventional zoning
contributes to higher greenhouse gas emissions because it produces neighborhoods that are
difficult to navigate by anything other than a personal car. Low density zoning encourages
sprawl which reinforces an auto-oriented pattern of development and increases traffic
congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. Adoption of the form-based code will seek to
address this by improving the City’s building and transportation systems through development of
compact neighborhoods that can be easily traversed by foot, bike, and bus in addition to cars.
Next Steps
For the Planning & Zoning Commission’s two July meetings, staff will present the proposed
changes to zoning and subdivision codes, including the new form-based standards. Additional
memos will assist Commissioners and the public in their own review of the code by providing
more detailed descriptions of proposed changes. The Commission will also receive a memo
detailing changes to the District Plan prior to holding a public hearing. During this time, the
public draft will be available for the public, and staff will be accepting comments throughout this
adoption period.
Attachments
1. Proposed Future Land Use Map, South District Plan
2. Analysis of Greenfield Development (2010-2019)
Approved by: _____________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
58
Low to Medium Density Residential:
2-8 dwelling units/acre
Intended primarily for detached single-family
housing. Duplexes are allowed on corner lots in
all single-family zones. In some areas attached
housing may be located along arterial streets or
adjacent to permanent open space. The resi-
dentfal density for a property should reflect the
nature of the site and take into account sensi-
tfve environmental features, topographical con-
straints, street connectfvity, and compatfbility
with historical development patterns.
Low to Medium Mixed Residential:
8-13 dwelling units/acre
Intended for medium- to high- density single-
family residentfal development, including small
lot detached single-family units, zero lot line
development, duplexes, and townhouses. Suita-
ble for sites where a single loaded street is de-
sirable to provide visibility and access to public
open space, or where clustering is desirable to
protect sensitfve environmental features. Low-
density multf-family residentfal may also be
considered if buildings are designed in a man-
ner that is compatfble in scale and design to the
lower scale residentfal dwellings in the neigh-
borhood (e.g. triplexes and 4- or 6-plexes).
Higher density housing should be located at the
edges of neighborhoods, principally in areas
with good street connectfvity, access to open
space or parks, trails, and transit.
Multi-Family
12-24 dwelling units/acre
Propertfes developed prior to 2015 may have
been established at higher densitfes, partfcular-
ly in neighborhoods close to Highway 6. The
“New Neighborhoods” sectfon of the plan (page
18) includes language describing the density,
locatfon, and design quality that will be part of
any rezoning to allow multf-family housing.
Higher-density zoning designatfons may not be
suitable for areas with topographical con-
straints or limited street connectfvity or access.
Preferred locatfons for new multf-family devel-
opments are along main travel corridors or in-
tersectfons, especially near permanent open
space or adjacent to commercial development.
Commercial
Areas intended to provide the opportunity for a
large variety of commercial uses, partfcularly
retail commercial uses, which serve a major
segment of the community.
Mixed-Use
An area intended for development that com-
bines commercial and residentfal uses. Individu-
al buildings may be mixed-use or single-use.
Development is intended to be pedestrian-
oriented, with buildings oriented to the street
with sidewalks, street trees and other pedestri-
an amenitfes. Buildings with residentfal uses
should be designed to ensure a comfortable
and functfonal environment for urban living in
close proximity to commercial uses. The mix of
uses requires special consideratfon of building
and site design.
Public Institutional
Property that is publicly owned and used for a
public purpose, including public schools, and
City, County, State, and Federal offices or facili-
tfes. If the property is proposed to be sold to a
private entfty for a non-public use, then the
land should be rezoned to be compatfble with
the surrounding neighborhood.
Public Parks/Open Space
Indicates existfng or potentfal public open space
intended for the protectfon of sensitfve natural
features, stormwater management, and/or to
provide for passive, actfve, recreatfonal, or oth-
er public open space needs, and/or to protect
the aesthetfc values of the community.*
Private Open Space
Indicates existfng or potentfal open space on
private land that is important for the protectfon
of sensitfve natural features and/or provides for
stormwater management, and/or for private,
shared passive or recreatfonal opportunitfes for
adjacent propertfes, and/or to protect the aes-
thetfc values of the community.*
*A public or private open space designatfon on land that is
not currently designated as open space may indicate that
an area is largely unsuitable for development due to envi-
ronmental or topographical constraints or may indicate
that an opportunity to acquire needed open space is pos-
sible if current land uses are discontfnued. While these
areas are best reserved or acquired for open space, devel-
opment may occur on privately held land if a proposal
meets the underlying zoning requirements and the re-
quirements of the Iowa City Sensitfve Areas Ordinance.
S o u t h D i s t r i c t F u t u r e L a n d U s e P l a n M a p D e s i g n a ti o n s
ATTACHMENT 1
59
S o u t h D i s t r i c t F u t u r e L a n d U s e P l a n M a p
60
TRANSECT 3: SUBURBAN
Neighborhood Edge:
A walkable neighborhood environment of detached,
small-to-large building footprint, low-intensity hous-
ing choices from House Large, Duplex Side-by-Side
to Cottage Court, supportfng and within short walk-
ing distance of neighborhood-serving retail, food
and service uses. Buildings are house-scale and de-
tached in nature. Both design site widths and build-
ing footprints are small-to-large with medium-to-
large front setbacks and medium Side Setbacks.
Homes are up to 2.5 stories tall, and frontage types
include Porch, Dooryard and Stoop .
Neighborhood General:
A walkable neighborhood environment of small foot-
print, low-intensity housing choices from House
Small, Duplex Side-by-Side, Duplex Stacked, Cottage
Court, Multfplex Small to Townhouse, supportfng
and within short walking distance of neighborhood-
serving retail and services. Buildings are house-scale
and detached in nature. Design site widths are small-
to-large with a small building footprint and medium
front and side setbacks. Homes are up to 2.5 stories
tall, and frontage types include Porch, Dooryard and
Stoop .
TRANSECT 4: GENERAL URBAN
Neighborhood Small:
A walkable neighborhood environment of small-to-
medium-footprint, moderate-intensity housing
choices from Cottage Court, Multfplex Small, Court-
yard Building Small to Townhouse, supportfng and
within short walking distance of neighborhood-
serving retail and services. Buildings are primarily
house-scale with both attached and detached vari-
ants. Design site widths, building footprints, and
front and side setbacks are all small-to-medium.
Homes are up to 2.5 stories tall, and frontage types
include Porch, Dooryard and Stoop.
Neighborhood Medium
A walkable neighborhood environment of small-to-
medium-footprint, moderate-intensity housing
choices from Cottage Court, Multfplex Small, Court-
yard Building Small to Townhouse, supportfng and
within short walking distance of neighborhood-
serving retail and services. Buildings are primarily
house-scale with both attached and detached vari-
ants. Design site widths and building footprints are
medium, while front and side setbacks are small.
Homes are up to 3.5 stories tall, and frontage types
include Porch, Dooryard Stoop, Forecourt and Ter-
race .
Main Street
A walkable, vibrant district of medium-to-large-
footprint, moderate-intensity, mixed-use buildings
and housing choices from Townhouse and Courtyard
Building Large to Main Street Building, supportfng
neighborhood-serving ground floor retail, food and
services, including indoor and outdoor artfsanal in-
dustrial businesses. Buildings are block-scale and
attached in nature. Design site widths are medium,
and building footprints are medium-to-large with
front and side setbacks that are small-to-none.
Buildings are up to 3.5 stories tall, and frontage
types include Dooryard, Stoop, Forecourt, Maker
Shopfront, Shopfront, Terrace, Gallery and Arcade .
OTHER DESIGNATIONS
Open Subareas:
Open subarea designatfons may be applied to T3
Neighborhood General, T4 Neighborhood Small, or
T4 Neighborhood Medium zones. The subzone al-
lows more uses than the base zone but maintains
the same form and character. As such, open subare-
as provides additfonal flexibility at or near intersec-
tfons that functfon or can functfon as a neighbor-
hood node of non-residentfal uses .
Public or Private Civic/Park/Open Space
Indicates existfng or potentfal civic or open space on
public or private land that is important for the pro-
tectfon of sensitfve natural features and/or provides
for stormwater management, and/or for private,
shared passive or recreatfonal opportunitfes for ad-
jacent propertfes, and/or to protect the aesthetfc
values of the community. This designatfon may indi-
cate that an area is unsuitable for development due
to environmental or topographical constraints. De-
velopment may occur if a proposal meets the under-
lying zoning requirements and requirements of the
Sensitfve Areas Ordinance .
F o r m -B a s e d C o d e F u t u r e L a n d U s e D e s i g n a ti o n s
61
F o r m -B a s e d C o d e F u t u r e L a n d U s e M a p
62
F u t u r e T h o r o u g h f a r e M a p
Prepared by Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner
Neighborhood and Development Services
Prepared July 2020
ATTACHMENT 2:
Analysis of Greenfield Development (2010-2019)
Introduction
This analysis aims to better understand how development occurs under the City’s current zoning
code by reviewing greenfield developments in Iowa City and summarizing the characteristics of units
produced in new neighborhoods, including how affordability is affected. This analysis was completed
in 2020 using data available through 2019.
Building Types
Approximately 51 residential subdivisions were developed on greenfield sites from 2010 to 2019
(Figure 1). Only around 18% of these subdivisions mix detached single-family lots with other building
types, such as duplexes, townhomes, or multi-family buildings. However, the City has experienced a
greater diversity in residential building types over time. Subdivisions platted after 2014 are nearly 4.5
times more likely to include another housing type with single-family detached homes compared to
subdivisions before then (32% to 7% respectively). Infill subdivisions are also more likely to mix
single-family detached homes with other residential building types (and are much more likely to
include only duplex, townhome, or multi-family buildings).
Over this timeframe, greenfield subdivisions include capacity for some 1,564 dwelling units. On
average, 68% of units expected in these subdivisions are for single-family detached units, though
this number varies by year from 27% in 2018 to 100% in 2011 and 2012. In terms of building form,
another 4% of units are expected to be duplexes, 15% are expected to be townhomes, and 13% are
expected to be multi-family buildings.1 As with subdivisions, the diversity of housing types in
greenfield sites increased most beginning in 2015.
Figure 1: Greenfield Building Types: Dwelling Units by Type by Year
Source: 2019 Johnson County Auditor data, City of Iowa City Development Services data
Note: No subdivisions had final plats approved in 2020 (as of June)
1 These numbers address building form rather than ownership structure. As such, two single-family attached homes are counted as a
“duplex”, single-family and multifamily properties with a run of units each with separate entrances are counted as “townhomes,” and
multiple units in a single building that don’t have individual entrances are considered “multi-family.”
58 83
122
249
187 156
84
43
86
34
8
16
2
34
92
33
62 8
16
72
30 53
36
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Dwelling UnitsYear
Detached Single-Family Duplex Townhome Multi-family
2
Lot Characteristics and Affordability
Residential parcels in greenfield subdivisions platted between 2010 and 2020 provide additional
information about the characteristics of recent developments in Iowa City. Around 1,468 parcels
intended for future residential development are platted in greenfield subdivisions. 58% have
structures built, while the other 42% are still vacant. Most parcels (78%) are intended for single,
individual ownership (regardless of building form), with the remaining parcels structured as
condominiums. Condominium parcels are more likely to have a structure but are less likely to be
owner-occupied than individual lots, as evidenced by the use of Homestead Tax Credits (21%
compared to 74% of single lots).
Figure 2: Ownership Characteristics for Greenfield Lots
Single Lot Condominium Total
Total Lots 1,141 327 1,468
Vacant 558 61 619
With Structure Built 583 266 849
Homestead Credit 432 56 488
Source: 2019 Johnson County Auditor data
Most individual greenfield lots are between 8,050 and 11,932 square feet, though lots ranged
from 3,000 to 166,246 square feet (see Figure 3). Individual greenfield lots were mostly
assessed between $285,400 and $419,270 with a median value of $340,810 (this includes the
assessed value of the land and structure). Condominium properties tend to be more affordable
with assessed values typically between $96,940 and $224,470 with a median value of
$209,940. When looking at all ownership types, greenfield properties are primarily assessed
between $217,960 and $382,560 with a median value of $293,080.
Figure 3: Greenfield Lot Sizes and Assessed Values
Single Lot
Area (sf)
2019 Assessed Value
Single Lot Condominium
Average 11,464 $361,222 $181,596
Minimum 3,000 $82,530* $83,850
25th Percentile 8,050 $285,400 $96,940
Median 9,472 $340,810 $209,940
75th Percentile 11,932 $419,270 $224,470
Maximum 166,246* $747,770* $325,050
Source: 2019 Johnson County Auditor data
* Some outliers were excluded from the Single Lot minimum and maximum area and assessed value to better represent the data;
they were included for the purpose of calculating average, median, and percentiles provided.
Data about properties built and sold from 2015 to 2020 adds further clarity. Sales prices tend to
be higher than assessed values, especially at lower home values, though some of this is due to
the timeframes involved (assessed values are for properties platted from 2010-2020 vs. sales
prices which are for properties built from 2015-2020). However, sales prices also contain
information about the total living area of properties, which tend to be between 1,405 and 1,775
square feet, with a median of 1,669 square feet. On a price per square foot basis, this means
that most properties sell for between $149 and $240 per square foot.
3
Figure 4: Greenfield Residential Sales Characteristics Sales Price Lot Area (sf) Total Living
Area (sf)
Price per
Square Foot
Average $328,465 8,719 1,645 $201.82
Minimum $167,099 3,637 798 $102.16
25th Percentile $239,175 5,507 1,405 $148.95
Median $309,950 8,556 1,669 $211.36
75th Percentile $385,500 10,529 1,775 $240.06
Maximum $725,000 20,194 3,692 $319.63
Source: Iowa City Assessor residential sales data built and sold from 2015 to 2020
Discussion
Iowa City’s current zoning code is not a true “conventional” zoning code in that it has some
avenues for flexibility built into its current regulations. This includes capabilities for planned
development overlay (OPD) rezonings on greenfield sites, and form-based infill opportunities in
Riverfront Crossings. However, many of these are not provided “by-right” and require
discretionary processes including rezonings or design review which can add cost to projects.
Based on this review, it is apparent that there is more demand for alternative housing types on
greenfield sites. Some of this is likely due to the benefits that these types of buildings can
provide in terms of variety of options and smaller unit size, which can lead to reduced price
points. However, affordability is always a challenge with new construction given the higher costs
of building new rather than rehabilitating existing units.
While the City does not yet know what kinds of neighborhoods a form-based code will produce,
the draft code is structured to reinforce the trend towards a wider variety of housing types. It will
also help ensure there is a greater mix of unit types within individual subdivisions and will do so
in a manner that provides more certainty for developers which should reduce total development
costs and increase the speed with which developments can happen. Based on this analysis, it
appears these measures will assist the City in its goal of providing a diversity of housing at a
variety of price points in new neighborhoods, and denser developments also creates additional
benefits related to sustainable neighborhoods. However, the City must continue to monitor
housing development in the future to ensure the code is helping to achieve its goals.
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 17, 2021 – 7:00 PM
ELECTRONIC FORMAL MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Mark
Nolte, Mark Signs
MEMBERS ABSENT: Billie Townsend
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Ray Heitner, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: John Brehm, Louis Leon
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission 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)
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
June 17, 2021
Page 2 of 13
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. 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.
Heitner began the staff report showing an aerial view of the subject property and an overlay of
the zoning. The subject property is zoned OPD/CC-2 Community Commercial. The surrounding
zoning consists of a small section of P1 Public Zoning to the northwest that's for an existing radio
tower, to the north and west there is a mix of RS-8 and RS-5 zoning, particularly RS-8 across the
street from the subject area of the discussion tonight.
Regarding background, Heitner reiterated the site was rezoned to OPD/CC-2 back in 2013 to
make way for the present-day Hy-Vee store. In May 2021 the City received an application to
revise conditions to that Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) from 2013 to update the OPD plan
reflecting the proposed change to allow the permanent Aisles Online grocery pickup kiosk and
drive-through lanes. Heitner stated this is the first step of the greater project review process, a
subsequent step is the Board of Adjustment will have to approve a special exception because a
drive-through is being proposed in a CC-2 zone.
Heitner next showed some pictures of the current property pointing out the temporary Aisles
Online facility modular building at the north end of the parking lot. The groceries are collected
together in that location and then distributed to the parking spaces that are designated for people
to pick up the groceries. Currently a couple of parking spaces have been blocked off to prevent
any potential conflicts with the pickup location. Heitner also pointed out the current landscaping
as well.
Heitner explained this is an OPD rezoning because it is an amendment to that CZA from 2013.
The OPD was originally required in 2013 because of impact to more than 35% of critical slopes.
He also noted there are some additional criteria that needs to be reviewed in addition to the
standard rezoning review criteria with respect to consistency with Comprehensive Plan and
compatibility with the existing neighborhood. First is the density and design compatible with
adjacent development. Heitner said there is no density to speak of as far as residential density
goes as this is a commercial project but as a component of review now and also with the site
plan and design review later on is how these proposed structures will fit in with the surrounding
neighborhood in terms of scale. The proposed building will be about 1150 square feet and the
canopy will be a little bit taller than 16 feet, but if sized up against the gas station and
convenience store to the west, it is still significantly smaller. The building and canopy will be
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 2021
Page 3 of 13
subject to City’s design review process and that's a result of the existing condition within the CZA
that staff is recommending keeping.
Second point of criteria that the development will not overburden existing streets and utilities.
Heitner noted this facility will only require electrical utilities. There is a sidewalk connecting to the
existing sidewalk to the north. Heitner acknowledged while one could maybe argue that there
might be some increased traffic intensity in this specific area with the kiosk it's not expected that
the kiosk will generate many more trips above and beyond what the grocery store site currently
sees. The kiosk and drive-through facility would really be a substitute for preexisting trips to the
greater site.
Third point of review criteria is the development will not adversely affect views, property values,
or privacy of neighboring properties. Heitner noted there will be some additional screening that
is in the applicant’s landscape plan to screen the kiosk from the north. Hy-Vee will be about
doubling the amount of S3 shrubbed screening to the north. Heitner noted a couple other
factors, the Aisles Online facility does have certain hours under which it will operate. The
applicant statement said it will typically be between about 8am and 10pm. There might be some
variability with those hours but those are the customary working hours. Staff did note in the OPD
plan there are a couple of areas just to the north of the property where the existing lighting is not
compliant in terms of the foot candle usage. Staff made a note in the staff report that when this
project goes through site plan review staff will be requiring a compliant lighting plan.
Fourth point of criteria review is the land use and building types will be in the public interest.
Heitner stated the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map shows the site as being
appropriate for general commercial uses, which would be fitting of not just the primary use, but
also this additional kiosk and drive-through use. Heitner noted in the applicant’s statements they
note that online orders increased dramatically throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and thereby
there is need to help facilitate development of these facilities, but in a manner that is in the City's
best interests and is least impactful as possible to surrounding properties.
Heitner next transitioned to the standard rezoning review criteria in terms of consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan. When the greater site was rezoned in 2013 it was done so in a way that
would have tried to respect the direction from the Northeast District Plan that called for a “Main
Street” style development in this area, particularly with the Dodge Street frontage. Heitner
explained that is one reason there is a shallower setback from the side of grocery store building
to Dodge Street. Conditions were put in the rezoning at the time for S3 screening and a 35-foot
buffer on the west side of the property and then an additional condition for some limitations on
what signage can be placed within the west side 35-foot buffer and on the north side. Heitner
noted there are some similar steps that the applicant has taken to lessen any negative impact for
residents to the north with this proposed facility. As already mentioned, the updated landscaping
plan will probably be the biggest contributor. The actual drive-through lanes will be about 85 feet
or so from the properties to the north, which is a fairly considerable distance. From a design
review perspective, the combination of materials on the kiosk building would be appropriate as
well.
In terms of compatibility with the existing neighborhood character, the mixture of single family
and multifamily residential to the west and north, the updated landscaping to the north is
probably the biggest method to provide a sensible transition to the north, but also the kiosk itself
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 2021
Page 4 of 13
will act as a little bit of a visual and noise barrier to the three lanes of Aisles Online traffic.
Heitner showed some pictures of the proposed site plan and landscaping plan.
Next steps upon recommendation from the Planning & Zoning Commission will be a City Council
public hearing. There is also a requirement to go before the Board of Adjustment for the special
exception for the drive-through lanes. There will also be a design review for the kiosk building
and canopy satisfying existing conditions that staff is recommending carry over, and then there's
also a site plan review component.
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)
Hensch asked for details on the standard for S3 screening. Heitner explained S3 screening is
one of the higher screening standards and it's intended to provide a suitable degree of screening
between commercial projects like this and residential properties. The intent of the S3 screening
is to provide more coverage and would be a dense row or possibly rows of shrubbery with a
mature height of five to six feet.
Martin asked in this particular instance, which is fairly unique, does the applicant have to prove a
need to the City since there's already a drive-through there, what does the City take into
consideration. Heitner replied when the City drafts a CZA for rezoning they always have to
address how the rezoning creates a public need. In this instance, probably one of the biggest
needs is that there's a demand driven need for this kind of facility. Heitner does believe there is
a need for the additional enhanced screening, as a result of the facility to make an adequate
transition from a commercial use to the residential users to the north and west.
Martin asked if there is a public need, in the photos shown there were lots of empty parking
spaces so three lanes seem like a lot for drive-through groceries in a in a town this size, so she
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 2021
Page 5 of 13
is trying to understand the public need. Heitner acknowledged that is a good question and in
terms of the volume that's needed or the demand that's needed for the facility, there was not a lot
of data available to planning staff so that might be something that the applicant or the
representative from Hy-Vee can address. City staff looked at how the proposed use is
incorporated into the preexisting commercial site and then how to best incorporate that use in a
manner that provides a sensible transition to preexisting residential uses and that is why they
proposed the enhanced landscaping buffers and so on.
Russett added when they were reviewing this rezoning, staff was reviewing it based on the OPD
rezoning criteria and does the proposed rezoning meet the four criteria related to density and
infrastructure and then also consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with the
existing neighborhood. The specifics of the drive-through in terms of stacking spaces and
driveways, those are specific criteria that will be looked at as part of the special exception
process and that information has not been provided to staff at this time.
Craig noted they want a drive-through service, but they could also just continue to do what they
are currently doing, asking if that is legal. Heitner confirmed that was correct, the drive-through
would is to gain some efficiency.
Craig asked about the plans that were shown, in the last slide it showed the three drive-through
lanes proposed and questioned the direction of the drive-through lanes as opposed to the
direction of other traffic in the lot. Heitner said the three drive-through lanes would all be going
southbound.
Craig asked if there is currently a drive up for the pharmacy at this location. Russett confirmed
there is a drive-through for the pharmacy. Craig noted then the traffic going to the pharmacy will
be going the other way as the driver has to be close to the building. Russett stated the
pharmacy is actually configured a little bit differently as one will enter it headed north and the
driver is on the left side and not against the building but against the little island there.
Signs added they use pneumatic tube like a bank teller might. He then asked about the cargo
containers that are there now, which they're using for their Aisles Online pickup. He wondered
what the Code says about those being there and did Hy-Vee have to get permission to put them
there and is it a limited term that they can leave them there. Russett doesn’t believe any permits
were pulled for those as they're meant to be temporary for all of the Hy-Vee’s. They will require
a special exception for the drive-through and they're working to get these properly permitted
through the process now.
Signs noted it seems like every time he is at this Hy-Vee the parking lot is fairly full and with this
proposal, they will be removing more spaces. He wondered is there any requirement that the
remaining spaces still meet the original parking space requirement. He noted from his
experience most commercial projects put in the absolute minimum allowed parking spaces that
they have to and assuming that was the case here, and they take out 15 or 20 of them now, they
won’t meet the minimum amount anymore. Heitner stated the facility is currently over parked by
quite a bit in terms of what the Code requires. Right now, there's 247 parking spaces and with
this proposed facility that would be reduced down to 215, but the requirement is only 189 spaces.
What effect that might have on parking during peak times of the day is to be determined but likely
Hy-Vee will monitor.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 2021
Page 6 of 13
Elliott asked about the statement in the staff report noting the applicant had chosen not to utilize
the City's good neighbor policy for this rezoning and what does that mean in terms of community
input or neighborhood input. Heitner stated staff encourages applicants to utilize the good
neighbor process with every application that comes to this Commission, this applicant chose not
to. In terms of what that means for outreach, he can't say what maybe Hy-Vee has done. The
City has had their signage on this property for several weeks and sent out notification letters on
this rezoning about three weeks ago. Staff hasn’t received a whole lot of public comment or
feedback on this particular rezoning, they've received a few phone calls mostly just curious about
what the nature of the rezoning is but not really any comments for or against the rezoning.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
John Brehm (LT Leon Associates) first wanted to give a little background on how they got to this
application in hopes it will help with a lot of the questions he’s been hearing. Prior to 2020 they
were taking baby steps towards figuring out e-commerce and creating an app and allowing their
customers to order groceries online and then pick a timeslot for them to have the groceries
delivered to their vehicle. At their busiest stores they had maybe 50 or 60 orders in a day and
could easily take care of that with a few parking stalls out in front of the store. Then Covid came
along and changed everybody's plans and as soon as the lockdown orders came and the
severity of the pandemic became evident, they saw a huge spike in e-commerce orders and
those 50 or 60 orders a day became 900 to 1000 orders in a day and that stayed steady all
through the pandemic. In most of their stores, this one included, they’re seeing about 7% to 10%
of total sales as just e-commerce orders, so people wanting to pick up their groceries instead of
parking in the lot and coming into the store and shopping. Brehm acknowledged they are taking
a bit of a risk by spending as much money as they are building this facility but from all the
research that they see in industry this is a trend that's not going to go away, and they anticipate
e-commerce orders and online grocery shopping increasing since everybody's been exposed to
it now and it's discovered it's convenient. Additionally, as their application gets better, and the
ability to provide good service gets better, they anticipate, and the industry anticipates that up to
30% of the volume the store does could be e-commerce orders. Due to the pandemic, they had
to find a real quick way to get pallets and pallets of grocery orders out of the front of their building
and keep customers from stacking up along the front of the building to pick up the orders and
keep them from spilling out and blocking traffic so that’s where the containers came in. Brehm
admitted they knew that they weren't probably going to get approval to put those in a community
so after not the best neighbor move, they made an executive decision for the sake of their
customers and for the sake of the community and for the sake of their stores to put the
containers in the parking lot without asking for permission. They did have to get electrical
permits for them to make sure that they were safe to operate that way. What they're doing now
is trying to rectify that situation, and they know the need is there and they're going to have to
continue providing it, so they need to make this legal, and make it work correctly. They need to
get rid of the containers, frankly they're not the prettiest looking things, so this is the concept that
they've developed over the last year and a half. They have four that are built already and
customers loved them, it handles the rush hour traffic, which is 4pm to 6pm when people
typically place the orders in the morning and then pick their order up on the way home from work,
so they don't have to deal with the grocery store at all.
Brehm acknowledged there was a comment about the drive-through lanes. The typical layout is
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 2021
Page 7 of 13
four lanes but in this scenario the rendering shows three lanes, a three-lane canopy with fourth
car still sitting there, so he apologizes for the confusion on that, this particular drive-through will
be three lanes and can hold 27 vehicles. The orders are picked inside the grocery store and
depending on their temperature they're packed into insulated totes and packed with dry ice or
frozen water bottles, and then stored in refrigerated space or cooled space and then an hour
before a customer is expected to arrive and pick up an order, they are brought out on a large
electric trolley to this facility and then from there the employees can get those groceries into the
customers vehicle right away.
Brehm stated another thing they ran into during Covid was vaccinations with their pharmacies.
They had to put another set of containers in the lot at their sites in order to provide for
vaccinations. He noted it's likely that they're going to see the need for booster shots and
seasonal flu shots which are probably going to be more in demand in the future so they've
created a space at the front of this kiosk where the pharmacy team can roll out some of their
cabinets seasonally and use the area as a first line to provide Covid booster shots if that
becomes a reality.
Brehm stated the materials they’re using on this building will match the existing store. The inside
of the building is pretty sparce, it's a finished concrete floor with plywood walls, it lighting and two
small HVAC units to keep the space comfortable. There's a door in the back facing the store,
that's a standard vendor door, and is where product is brought in, and then the door where the
employees help active customers is a glass slider under the canopy.
Martin stated she was curious if they intended to use it in perpetuity, which he answered. She
does wonder however that the pandemic, which fully is nearing an end soon so and during the
pandemic the numbers were enormous, but what if the numbers Aisles Online decline drastically,
what happens with this space. Martin feels four lanes seems like a lot, so she is just curious to
know what happens with this space if they don't need it and how does that meet a public need.
Brehm acknowledged that was a fair question and admitted it's really a risk-based analysis and a
risk that they've taken but if they are not in the e-commerce business and they're not meeting
their customers’ expectations, this little kiosk building is the least of their problems, they will be
worried about keeping the lights on in the grocery store. If this doesn't work out for some reason
and they need the parking stalls back, obviously they're going to have to spend the money to
restore the site back to the way it was. However, they are investing an awful lot of money and
basically 118 locations are doing the same exact same thing in anticipation that they are going to
have to be successful.
Martin questioned that those parking spaces that the building is replacing won’t be needed.
Brehm explained that if 10% of the volume is gone, that's 10% of the parking stalls they don't
actually need anymore because those people are picking those up instead of going into the
store. He doesn’t have actual data to support that yet, but anecdotally that is what they are
seeing.
Hektoen reminded the Commission that questions about public need are not applicable, the use
doesn't have to serve a public need, the public need comes in when they are imposing
conditions on Hy-Vee.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 2021
Page 8 of 13
Martin just had one more question then regarding if any, how much more concrete is being
added on this site. Brehm replied zero.
Signs noted in the demolition plan there's a note saying that pretty much all those shrubs and
trees along St Clements Street are being torn out and then later on in the landscaping plan it
shows a whole bunch of new ones being put back in. Seeing that there's a probably about an
eight-foot buffer of sod between those shrubs and where any construction is going to happen, he
is questioning the need to tear out the shrubs in the first place.
Brehm believes it is their engineer being a little bit conservative and just assuming that those
shrubs are probably going to get damaged during the construction process and so they're just
being honest and making sure that's in the budget to replace all that. If they can save them they
will save them.
Signs had another comment on if they've addressed this in the process with some of these
temporary locations in the last year the piles of empty totes sitting outside the containers at the
end of the day. He wonders if there will be some fencing or some other type of screening to
provide an area to stack a bunch of totes so that they are not in the parking lot.
Brehm agreed he personally doesn’t like that stores are stacking totes outside of the shipping
containers when they're done with them but thinks a lot of that is the function of the shipping
container itself, it's just inconvenient to put the totes back in and then drag them back to the
store. The intent here is for the empty totes to go back in the kiosk and they could be loaded
back on those racks and taken back to the store to be washed instead of stacking them outside.
Brehm also acknowledged that Louis Leon, their engineer is available to answer any technical
questions.
Having no more questions of the applicant, and no other public member present to speak,
Hensch closed the public hearing
Signs moved to recommend 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:
6. 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)
7. 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)
8. Any building or structure including canopies shall be of a quality design
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 2021
Page 9 of 13
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)
9. Existing evergreen screening and mature trees will be preserved along the
northwest side of the property where possible. (Same as previous CZA condition)
10. 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)
Craig seconded the motion.
Hensch stated he has been thinking lately about improving community resiliency for future
pandemics or for future similar type events and finds that this rezoning would be part of that
whole community building resilience and therefore he likes that Hy-Vee is doing this. He also
thinks the demand has been created, and they’ll be ready when something happens like this in
the future. Hensch stated they need to have the ability to respond nimbly to future events and
thinks this is the shape of things to come in many areas of their lives as lessons learned from the
pandemic.
Craig agrees and thinks once people have reaped the benefit of that convenience they don’t
want to go back to previous methods. People may choose to order more items like cereal and
peanut butter from conglomerates like Amazon rather than going into their local store so that is
why she is supportive.
Signs agreed in general online shopping is not going away, many industries have had to shift
things due to the pandemic and now people expect it. For example, in the real estate industry,
the pandemic forced them to start doing video tours and now the consumer expects it. He would
also much rather have this kiosk than a bunch of temporary cargoes in the parking lot. He
understands why they did the cargo boxes, but agrees the appropriate next step is to figure out a
more permanent solution. With regards to the number of lanes, when he has gone to pick up
groceries a couple times at the Waterfront Hy-Vee, he understands the need as there are a lot of
cars coming to the pickup, especially in the evening time. Having the three lanes will keep cars
from blocking the parking lot or sitting out on the highway or on a public street.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
DISCUSSION OF RETURNING TO IN-PERSON MEETINGS:
Russett stated there has been no decision made one way or the other for commissions at this
point in terms of going back to in person meetings, City Council is going back to in person
meetings next month. Russett wanted to open the conversation for the Commission to discuss
how they would like to move forward.
Hensch noted the Johnson County Board of Supervisors is back fully to public meetings and
personally he’s been to work every day throughout the pandemic. He has missed seeing people
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 2021
Page 10 of 13
and misses in person meetings, so he supports starting in person meetings in July.
Martin joked if they are going to continue to have all of their groceries delivered, they should
continue zooming and embrace the pandemic life.
Signs noted his office, and most offices he believes, are doing a hybrid model. He also has no
problem coming back to in person meetings and would welcome seeing everyone in person. He
did note there may be members of the public who aren't comfortable with that and may need
alternatives, and therefore even though it is more work, in his office they hold meetings in person
but also broadcast them via zoom for those that can’t or don’t want to be in person.
Martin agrees going hybrid is definitely more work for people but also noted Signs brought up a
good point, until her kids were fully vaccinated (because her kids are 12 and older) she was extra
careful and for those with children younger if they are going to do in person, they would need to
have a hybrid option, which will also allow for more public input. They need to make sure people
are comfortable, because they never know what individual situations are.
Nolte likes the flexibility of zoom, and having the hybrid option, but is fine either way.
Craig noted in the past people participated telephonically if they chose, she can recollect times
when there were City Council members on the telephone. So that may be easier than trying to
do a zoom at the same time as a live meeting, she would want staff input on their thoughts.
Martin asked how many people can be on the phone at one time and Craig replied multiple
people.
Russett confirmed for zoom meetings it can be multiple people, but pre-pandemic there's been
maybe a couple instances where a Commissioner couldn't attend in person, so they called in, but
that was pretty rare.
Hensch noted the loosening of the electronic regulations for public meetings was allowed by the
governor's emergency proclamation and it is his understanding that's going to expire June 26 so
will these options still be available for governmental public meetings. Council may have to weigh
in on that, there's always been an option for some electronic meeting uses, but it was really
loosened up by the governor's emergency proclamation. Another question is the technology
issues, the City Council chambers can readily adapt to hybrid meetings, but it's really hard when
they’re having a meeting and having to manage the technology of the meeting and the zoom
piece all at once. So there may be staffing issues. Regarding people with medical issues or
whatnot, people can still mask up, but he is very sympathetic committed medical issues.
Hektoen acknowledged the point Hensch brought up about the open meetings and she is going
to have to consult with her colleagues before she can give an opinion on what exactly they can
do regarding hybrid meetings and such.
Hensch stated in the latest governor's proclamation section 65 or 67 discusses electronic
meetings.
Craig noted she has been on this Commission for a year and never seen anyone in person.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 2021
Page 11 of 13
Hektoen also noted Council is going to start meeting at the Senior Center because of their
technological capabilities and space issues, so if this Commission does get back together, it
would likely be in that location because these meetings tend to draw larger groups.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: MAY 6, 2021:
Elliott moved to approve the meeting minutes of May 6, 2021 with the edit of 6-1 (Martin
dissenting).
Nolte seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett first wanted to take a moment to recognize Maggie Elliott since this will be her last
meeting and thanked Elliott for her service on the Commission.
Elliott stated it's been an honor and she has learned so much from everyone.
Hensch acknowledged it's pretty weird having come and gone and never actually been in person
at these meetings but appreciated Elliott’s service very much.
Russett stated today staff released their revised draft of the South District Form Based Code, this
is something staff has been working on for quite a while and have spent the last several months
revising the draft based on stakeholder comments and revising it to make sure that it works
within the existing planning and zoning framework. Staff plans to do informational meetings for
the Commission and because it's a lot of content and there's a lot of information they will split it
over two meetings, July 1 and July 15.
Martin noted she will be gone on July 15 and will be without Wi-Fi and the ability to join
electronically. In August she will be gone the 5th and the 19th but will be able to join
electronically if allowed.
Signs asked if Council passed the rezoning for the property they discussed. Russett replied the
first reading of the rezoning ordinance passed by a vote of 6-1.
Signs asked also about the sign at the corner of Kirkwood and Keokuk about a vacation and is
that for this Commission or some other commission. Russett said they are still working out some
information with the applicant, but it will probably be on an agenda soon.
Martin stated she will not be able to comment on that one.
Signs also noted there's a special exception notice over by Sycamore Mall where they're wanting
to put in a drive-through teller, which he supports because there's nothing in that part of town.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 2021
Page 12 of 13
ADJOURNMENT:
Signs moved to adjourn.
Elliott seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
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 6/17
CRAIG, SUSAN X X X X X X O X 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 X
HENSCH, MIKE X 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 X
NOLTE, MARK -- -- -- -- X X X X X X X O X X X X X X
SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X O/E X X
TOWNSEND, BILLIE O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member