HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 10.21.2021PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, October 21, 2021
Formal Meeting – 7:00 PM
The Center – Assembly Room
28 S. Linn Street
(Entrance on E. Washington Street)
Agenda:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
4. Case No. CPA21-0002
Location: SW corner of Slothower Road and IWV Road
A public hearing on a proposed amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan future
land use map to Intensive Commercial and Public/Private Open Space and to change
the Southwest District Plan text and future land use map to Intensive Commercial and
Vegetative Noise/Sight Buffer for approximately 79 acres of property located south of
IWV Road SW and west of Slothower Road.
5. Case No. REZ21-0006
Location: SW corner of Slothower Road and IWV Road
An application for a rezoning from County Agricultural (A) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1)
for approximately 53.36 acres, Interim Development Commercial (ID-C) for
approximately 17.03 acres, and approximately 9 acres of land from Rural Residential
(RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1).
6. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: October 7, 2021
7. Discussion of Commission meeting day and time
8. Planning & Zoning Information
9. Adjournment
If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact
Anne Russett, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5251 or anne-russett@iowa-city.org. Early requests
are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: November 4 / November 18 / December 2
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
Date: October 21, 2021
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner
Re: CPA21-0002 – IWV/Slothower Comprehensive Plan Amendment Resubmission
BACKGROUND:
On September 16, 2021, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on a
requested amendment to change the Southwest District Plan and Comprehensive Plan future
land use map designations, and related plan text, from residential, open space, and future
development to intensive commercial for approximately 79.4 acres located south of IWV Road
SW and west of Slothower Road. Staff recommended approval based on rationale detailed in the
staff report dated September 2, 2021 (Attachment 2). The motion to approve the comprehensive
plan amendment failed by a vote of 3-2 (Padron and Townsend against) because a minimum of
4 votes is required to recommend approval.
The applicant, MMS Consultants, applying on behalf of Matt Adam and IWV Holdings, LLC, has
submitted a revised comprehensive plan amendment (Attachment 1) for consideration.
ANALYSIS:
The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan serves as a land-use planning guide by illustrating and
describing the location and configuration of appropriate land uses thro ughout the City, providing
notification to the public regarding intended uses of land; and illustrating the long -range growth
area limit for the City. Applicants may request an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan
with City Council approval after a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Applicants for a comprehensive plan amendment must provide evidence that the request meets
the following two approval criteria in Section 14-8D-3D:
1. Circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors have come to light
such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest.
2. The proposed amendment will be compatible with other policies or provisions of the
comprehensive plan, including any district plans or other amendments thereto.
The revised submittal contains the following changes from the original submittal:
1. The addition of an approximately 340- to 350-foot Vegetative Noise and Sight Buffer along
the southern property line in the Southwest District Future Land Use Map.
2. The addition of approximately 340 to 350 feet of Public/Private Open Space along the
southern property line in the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map.
The purpose of the new vegetative buffer is to reduce the potential undesirable side-effects of the
proposed use, such as noise or unwelcome views, from future adjacent development. These new
future land use categories typically correspond to open space areas that are free of structures.
While this can indicate parkland or natural areas, in this case, it will likely be used to preserve
sensitive features and to provide for stormwater management. This is consistent with how these
future land use designations are used in other areas of the City.
October 21, 2021
Page 2
Figure 1 below shows the original submittal reviewed by the Commission on September 16.
Figure 2 below shows the revised submittal, which will be presented at the public hearing on
October 21. In Figure 2, Tracts 1-3 would become Intensive Commercial while Tracts 4-6 would
become Vegetative Noise and Sight Buffer / Public/Private Open Space.
Figure 1: Original Comprehensive Plan Amendment Map
Figure 2: Revised Comprehensive Plan Amendment Map
October 21, 2021
Page 3
The proposed revision clarifies which areas of the subject properties are intended for intensive
commercial development and which are intended for an open space buffer. Proposed changes to
the Southwest District Plan text also continue to apply. As such, the revised amendment does not
affect staff’s analysis detailed in the September 2 staff report (Attachment 2). However, staff has
updated the staff report packet with current exhibits and added a description of intensive
commercial land uses in Appendix A of the district plan for additional clarification. Overall, staff
still finds that the approval criteria are met by the applicant’s revision to the proposed
comprehensive plan amendment.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
In addition to public comments attached to the updated staff report packet, 9 members of the
public expressed concerns with the proposed plan amendment at the public meeting. Their
comments, and the discussion, are included in the September 16 Planning & Zoning Commission
meeting minutes (Attachment 3).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve CPA21-0002, a proposed
amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan future land use map to Intensive Commercial
and Public/Private Open Space and to change the Southwest District Plan text and future land
use map to Intensive Commercial and Vegetative Noise/Sight Buffer for approximately 79 acres
of property located south of IWV Road SW and west of Slothower Road.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Revised Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Materials
2.September 2, 2021 Staff Report Packet [Updated October 1, 2021]
3.September 16, 2021 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Approved by: __________________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
(319) 351-8282
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
www.mmsconsultants.net
1917 S. GILBERT ST.
09-27-2021 REVISED LAND USE PER CLIENT -JDM
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
05-20-2021
KJB
RLW
RRN
IOWA CITY
10355-010 1
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN EXHIBIT
1
1"=200'
IWV ROAD SW / F46
SLOTHOWER ROADHURT ROAD SWALBERT AND
FAY'S FIRST
ADDITION
KAUBLE'S
SUBDIVISION NW 14 - NE 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NE14SECTION 13-T79N-R7
W
SE 14 - NW14SECTION 13-T79N-R7
WNE 14 - NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNW 14 - NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNE 14 - NE 14SECTION 14-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7
WSE 14 - SE 14SECTION 11-T79N-R7WSW 14 - SW 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SW 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7
W
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0
1"=200'
20 50 100 150 200
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXHIBIT
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
PORTIONS OF THE NORTH ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7
WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN
PLAT PREPARED BY:
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
1917 S. GILBERT STREET
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
OWNER/APPLICANT:
IWV HOLDINGS LLC
2916 HIGHWAY 1 NE
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
LOCATION MAP - NOT TO SCALE
SITE LOCATION
PORTIONS OF THE NORTH
ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 13,
TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7
WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN
TRACT 1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL 2-8 DU/A
PROPOSED LAND USE: INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL
PROPOSED LAND USE: INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL
TRACT 2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: RURAL RESIDENTIAL
PROPOSED LAND USE: INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: FUTURE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSED LAND USE: INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL
TRACT 3
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: PUBLIC/PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
PROPOSED LAND USE: INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: VEGETATIVE NOISE AND SIGHT BUFFER
PROPOSED LAND USE: INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL
TRACT 1TRACT 4TRACT 2TRACT 5TRACT 6TRACT 3TRACT 4
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL 2-8 DU/A
PROPOSED LAND USE: PUBLIC/PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL
PROPOSED LAND USE: VEGETATIVE NOISE AND SIGHT BUFFER
TRACT 5
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: RURAL RESIDENTIAL
PROPOSED LAND USE: PUBLIC/PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: FUTURE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSED LAND USE: VEGETATIVE NOISE AND SIGHT BUFFER
TRACT 6 (NO CHANGE REQUESTED)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: PUBLIC/PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
PROPOSED LAND USE: PUBLIC/PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT PLAN
CURRENT LAND USE: VEGETATIVE NOISE AND SIGHT BUFFER
PROPOSED LAND USE: VEGETATIVE NOISE AND SIGHT BUFFER
1
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: CPA21-0002 IWV & Slothower
Parcel(s): 1113202001, 1113201001,
1113226003
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Contact Person:
Property Owner(s):
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner
Date: September 2, 2021
[Attachments 5, 7, and 8 Updated October 1, 2021]
Matt Adam
IWV Holdings, LLC
madam@spmblaw.com
Lacey Stutzman
MMS Consultants
1917 S. Gilbert Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-351-8282
l.sexton@mmsconsultants.net
IWV Holdings, LLC
2916 Highway 1 NE
Iowa City, IA 52240
To change the Southwest District and Comprehensive
Plan future land use map designations, and related
plan text, from residential, open space, and future
development to intensive commercial
To allow intensive commercial development
South of IWV Road SW, West of Slothower Road
Location Map:
Size: 79.4 acres
2
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Agricultural & Residential; Rural Residential (RR-1)
in Iowa City & Agricultural (A) in Johnson County
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Agricultural; Rural Residential (RR-1) &
Residential - ¼ Acre Lot Minimum (R)
East: Agricultural & Institutional; Neighborhood
Public (P-1)
South: Agricultural; Rural Residential (RR-1) &
Agricultural (A)
West: Agricultural; Agricultural (A)
Comprehensive Plan: Residential 2-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre, Rural
Residential, & Public/Private Open Space
Southwest District Plan: Single-Family/Duplex Residential, Future Urban
Development, & Vegetative Noise and Sight Buffer
File Date: May 27, 2021
BACKGROUND:
IWV Holding, LLC owns approximately 79.4 acres of property located south of IWV Road SW
(Melrose Avenue in City limits) and west of Slothower Road. The owner is working with MMS
Consultants to prepare three applications to allow for intensive commercial development. This
specific application (CPA21-0002) proposes to amend the Southwest District Plan, part of the
Comprehensive Plan, by changing the future land use map designation of the subject properties
to intensive commercial. This includes some changes to the text of the Southwest District Plan as
well. Attachments 7 and 8 illustrate the proposed changes to the plans, and Attachment 6 includes
the applicant statement describing the rationale behind the request, along with other application
materials.
The Southwest District Plan, adopted in 2002, includes the subject properties in the growth limit
of the Weber Subarea. The future land use scenario indicates the properties are primarily
appropriate for Future Urban Development, with Single-Family/Duplex Residential shown along
Slothower Road to the east and a Vegetative Noise and Sight Buffer to the west near the proposed
alignment of US Highway 965, which will run south from the Hurt Road alignment and along the
eastern edge of the Iowa City Landfill (see Attachment 3). The plan describes that limited
residential development may occur west of Slothower in the Future Urban Development area, but
that limitations on sanitary sewer service prevent any significant urban development. It also notes
the importance of buffering residential uses from the landfill and the proposed location of US-965
when development eventually occurs and that a more detailed plan will be needed at that time.
The other concurrently submitted applications include an annexation (ANN21-0003), which would
annex 70.4 acres into City limits, and a zoning map amendment (REZ21-0006) which would
rezone the full 79.4 acres from Rural Residential (RR-1) in Iowa City and Agricultural (A) in
Johnson County to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) and Interim Development Commercial (ID-C).
The Comprehensive Plan Amendment must be approved for changes to the zoning map to be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant held a Good Neighbor Meeting on July 28, 2021. Four neighbors attended.
Attachment 5 provides the summary report of the meeting provided by the applicant.
3
ANALYSIS:
The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan serves as a land-use planning guide by illustrating and
describing the location and configuration of appropriate land uses throughout the City, providing
notification to the public regarding intended uses of land; and illustrating the long-range growth
area limit for the City. Applicants may request an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan
with City Council approval after a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Applicants for a comprehensive plan amendment must provide evidence that the request meets
the approval criteria in Section 14-8D-3D. The comments of the applicant are found in the
attachments. Staff comments on the criteria are as follows.
14-8D-3D Approval Criteria: Applications for a comprehensive plan amendment must
include evidence that the following approval criteria are met:
1.Circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors have come
to light such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest.
The subject properties are in the Weber Subarea of the Southwest District Plan. Before
1990, the area west of US-218 and north of Rohret Road was relatively undeveloped, with
a few houses fronting on Rohret Road and public uses along Melrose/IWV, primarily at
the County Historic Poor Farm. By the time the District Plan was adopted in 2002, housing
was developing west and north of Rohret Road and south of the Poor Farm. The District
Plan’s future land use map primarily shows the subject properties as Future Urban
Development, with Single-Family/Duplex Residential along Slothower Road and a
Vegetative Noise and Sight Buffer to the west. Currently, the land is used for agriculture.
When the District Plan was adopted, Iowa City’s Comprehensive Plan was from 1997. The
1997 Plan was the first to extend the City’s western growth boundary from near Slothower
Road to the proposed future alignment of US-965 (see Attachment 3). Consequently, it
was the first time the City considered the future use of the subject properties, with the
future land use map showing them as interim development/rural residential, a placeholder
category that applied to future residential, commercial, and industrial development. Both
the District and 1997 Comprehensive Plans included a policy to protect the Melrose
Avenue and US-218 interchange from commercial encroachment, instead encouraging
such development at the Highway 1 and US-218 interchange. This policy was first
incorporated into the 1983 Comprehensive Plan, adopted around the time of the
construction of US-218, because of concerns that the City could not support commercial
development at both interchanges. Instead, planning documents maintained public uses
directly west of the Melrose interchange. The City’s current Comprehensive Plan, adopted
in 2013, no longer explicitly discusses this policy. However, it is reflected in the future land
use map, which shows most of the subject properties as rural residential, and in the 2006
Fringe Area Agreement, which is a component of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Since adopting the Southwest District Plan, development west of US-218, and around the
Melrose interchange, has continued. Land east of the interchange developed with more
intense uses following Camp Cardinal Boulevard’s construction in 2007, facilitated in part
by three comprehensive plan amendments. These increased the intensity of uses
northeast of Camp Cardinal Boulevard by introducing Office Commercial (CPA16-00001),
Residential 8-16 Dwelling Units per Acre (CPA16-00003), and General Commercial
(CPA20-0001) future land uses. West of the interchange, public uses intensified, including
the addition of the Iowa National Guard Readiness Center, the Joint Emergency
4
Communications Center, and the Johnson County SEATS facility. Housing development
has also continued north of Rohret Road and east of Slothower Road right-of-way.
Recent development in the area constitutes a change in circumstances near the subject
properties such that it is in the public interest to explore future uses for the site. The subject
properties have been in a holding pattern since they were first considered in Iowa City
planning documents. This was largely because sewer service was not expected to be
available until a lift station could be constructed, which prevented any significant urban
development. However, the application shows that the north side of the properties could
be serviced, which could accommodate some larger users, such as MidAmerican Energy.
Additionally, Iowa City and its neighboring metropolitan cities have seen rapid growth and
a redistribution of population over the past 30 years (Figure 1). Iowa City has added more
than 15,000 new residents, an increase of more than 25 percent. However, the other
metropolitan cities (Coralville, North Liberty, Tiffin, and University Heights) have tripled in
size. This change from 1990 to 2020 is primarily due to residential growth in North Liberty
(+17,553 residents) and Coralville (+11,971 residents), though Tiffin has experienced
recent growth as well (+4,052 residents). With these changes, Iowa City’s population has
decreased as a proportion of the metro, and the center of population has shifted to the
northwest. This makes the US-218 corridor increasingly important.
Figure 1: Population Change from 1990-2020
1990 2000 2010 2020 Change
(#)
Change
(%)
Iowa City 59,735 62,220 67,862 74,828 +15,093 +25%
Other Metro Cities 14,775 22,452 35,279 48,537 +33,762 +229%
Remainder of County 21,609 26,334 27,741 29,489 +7,880 +36%
Johnson County 96,119 111,006 130,882 152,854 +56,735 +59%
Iowa City as Percent
of Metro Cities
80.2% 73.5% 65.8% 60.7%
Source: 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020 Census Data
The proposed amendment changes the future land use of the subject properties to
intensive commercial. The Zoning Code, which helps implement City plans, describes the
Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone as providing areas for sales and service functions and
businesses whose operations are typically characterized by outdoor display and storage
of merchandise, by repair and sales of large equipment or motor vehicles, by outdoor
commercial amusement and recreational activities, or by activities or operations
conducted in buildings or structures not completely enclosed. Types of retail trade are
limited to provide opportunities for more land intensive commercial operations and to
prevent conflicts between retail and industrial truck traffic. It notes that adjacent residential
zones must be buffered from the potential negative aspects of allowed uses, which include
a variety of commercial, light industrial, and limited institutional and residential uses.
The City and metro are expected to continue growing, and commercial and industrial areas
must grow to accommodate increasing demand. The City currently has around 1,239
acres of commercial and 838 acres of industrial zoning, 398 acres of which is zoned
specifically for intensive commercial uses (Figure 2). Most land zoned Intensive
Commercial (CI-1) is occupied, but approximately 51 acres (13%) is vacant land, located
on scattered parcels along Scott Boulevard and south of the Highway 1 north and east of
the airport and at its interchange with US-218 (Attachment 4). While this land does not
5
have buildings, only 45 acres are expected to develop; the rest is used by adjacent
owners. Of developable parcels zoned Intensive Commercial (CI-1), most are less than 2
acres. Other vacant parcels in the City are zoned to accommodate similar land uses, such
as industrial zones, but while there is a relative abundance of vacant land zoned industrial
(217.5 acres), it is primarily in the City’s southeast industrial park which is well-positioned
to attract railroad users but does not have good highway access. As such, the supply of
vacant land in the City currently does not meet all of the needs of users in the City,
including MidAmerican Energy.
Figure 2: Acres Zoned for Industrial and Commercial Land Uses
Land Uses Current Zoning
(Acres)
Current Vacant
(Acres)
Current
Vacancy Rate
General Commercial 322.84 20.04 6%
Highway Commercial 64.22 8.99 14%
Intensive Commercial 397.96 51.23 13%
Industrial 837.74 217.50 26%
Other Commercial 453.63 131.43 29%
Total Commercial/Industrial 2,076.39 429.19 21%
Source: Johnson County parcel information, obtained August 2021
By 2040, the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County estimates Iowa City
will grow to a population of 94,093 (+25.7%). Assuming demand for Intensive Commercial
(CI-1) zoning increases at the same rate, the City should anticipate a need for about 500
acres (397.96 x 125.7%) of CI-1 zoning by 2040. Based on the future land use map, the
City currently plans for an additional 44 net acres of intensive commercial, or a total of
about 442 acres (Figure 3). This leaves a gap in demand of 58 acres, and more than that
will be needed because over 60 acres of expected additions are already occupied, plus
additional land is likely needed to accommodate sensitive features and right-of-way. While
this is based on the current development pattern which is changing (for example, online
retail is supplanting brick-and-mortar stores), staff anticipates that demand for intensive
commercial and light industrial uses will remain relatively stable as warehousing and
transportation uses will fulfill needs associated with logistics and online purchasing. Staff
also anticipates that MidAmerican Energy will utilize a portion of the subject property.
Figure 3: Expected Change in Acres Zoned for Industrial and Commercial Land Uses
Land Uses Current
Zoning
(Acres)
Expected
Additions*
(Acres)
Expected
Losses**
(Acres)
Net
Change
(Acres)
Land Use
Potential
(Acres)
General Commercial 322.84 +10.70 -40.81 -30.11 292.73
Highway Commercial 64.22 +0.00 -0.00 +0.00 64.22
Intensive Commercial 397.96 +107.91 -63.43 +44.48 442.44
Industrial 837.74 +300.79 -14.07 +286.72 1,124.46
Other Commercial 453.63 +613.07 -0.24 +612.83 1,066.46
Total Commercial/Industrial 2,076.39 +1,032.47 -118.55 +913.92 2,990.31
*Expected additions: Land shown as a use on the future land use map which is not currently
zoned for that use (primarily in the City’s growth areas).
**Expected losses: Land currently zoned for a use that is not expected to be developed as that
use based on the future land use map (primarily Riverfront Crossings and publicly owned land).
Source: Johnson County parcel information, obtained August 2021, IC2030 Comprehensive Plan
6
Development and planning in the area constitutes a change in circumstances. Based on
projected long-term demand and the characteristics of the site, including access to US-
218 and intensive commercial uses being appropriate as a buffer against future landfill
expansion and US-965 extension, staff believes that the proposed amendment is in the
public interest.
2.The proposed amendment will be compatible with other policies or provisions of
the comprehensive plan, including any district plans or other amendments thereto.
The Weber Subarea of the Southwest District Plan has several policies relevant to the
proposed amendment relating to transportation, infrastructure, and land use.
With regards to transportation, the subject properties will be bounded by three major
streets to the west, east, and north. To the west, along the City’s growth limit, the City
plans to extend US-965 south as an arterial to connect with Rohret Road and eventually
Highway 1. As development occurs, the City needs to secure adequate right-of-way and
compatible land uses near the Iowa City Landfill. To the east, a north-south collector street
is expected between Melrose Avenue and Rohret Road, primarily along the Slothower
Road right-of-way. To the north, Melrose Avenue needs to be improved to City standards
beyond current City limits. This is currently planned for 2021 in the City’s Capital
Improvement Program.
With regards to land use and other infrastructure, The Weber Subarea future land use
map designates most of the land west of Slothower Road as Future Urban Development
until sewer service is extended and lift stations are constructed where required. Water
service will be expanded as part of the Melrose/IWV project in 2021. The Plan allows for
some residential uses along the west side of Slothower Road, but it discourages “leapfrog”
development without street and trail connections between the proposed US-965 alignment
and Slothower Road. It notes that as development becomes imminent, a more detailed
plan will be needed for areas of future development. The District Plan also discourages
commercial uses around the Melrose and US-218 interchange, noting that there are
nearby commercial areas, including the Highway 1/US-218 interchange, Walden Square,
and future commercial areas south of Rohret Road. It also discusses the importance of
buffering residential uses from the Iowa City Landfill and future US-965.
The proposed amendment generally follows the existing policy direction of City planning
documents. Amending the future land use map permits the accommodation of
transportation policies discussed in the Southwest District Plan through the rezoning and
subdivision processes. Similarly, the application shows that infrastructure needs can be
met while allowing for continuous, contiguous development from Slothower to US-965.
The proposed use is also more compatible with the nearby landfill than residential uses,
which would require buffering, and is an appropriate use near two major streets. While
some buffering is required between intensive commercial and residential uses, those can
be accommodated through the site development standards and rezoning process.
Furthermore, the proposed amendment meets several goals and strategies from the
Comprehensive Plan regarding commercial and industrial development. Specifically:
•Use the District Plans to identify appropriate commercial nodes and zone accordingly
to focus commercial development to meet the needs of present and future population.
7
•Identify, zone, and preserve land for industrial uses in areas with ready access to rail
and highways.
•Target industrial and business sectors that align with Iowa City’s economic strengths,
including biotechnology, healthcare, advanced manufacturing, information technology,
education services, and renewable energy.
•Focus growth within the Iowa City urban growth area by using the City’s extra-territorial
review powers to discourage sprawl and preserve prime farmland.
While goals generally align, some differences between the proposed amendment and
plans must be reconciled. Allowing intensive commercial development along Melrose
somewhat diverges from policy preventing commercial encroachment near the US-218
and Melrose interchange. However, the area nearest the interchange will remain
dedicated to public uses, and the proposed uses are consistent with goals related to
identifying appropriate areas for commercial and industrial development. Another potential
discrepancy is the goal of encouraging new business development in existing core or
neighborhood commercial areas. While this is important, existing commercial areas do not
appear to be able to accommodate all users looking to locate in Iowa City. The amendment
was initially considered because MidAmerican Energy has been unable to find an
appropriate site for a new facility. As such, there appears to be a need for new intensive
commercial areas to meet the needs of Iowa City’s future population.
Other goals of the Comprehensive Plan also need to be met through the rezoning process
for the subject properties. They include the following:
•Discourage linear strip commercial development that discourages walking and biking
and does not contribute to the development of compact, urban neighborhoods.
•Guide development away from sensitive environmental areas, such as floodplains,
wetlands, woodlands, steep slopes, flood hazard areas, and streams.
These will be achieved through the City’s Sensitive Areas Ordinance and conditions on
rezonings, where necessary. Based on information submitted by the applicant, there
appears to be approximately 1.13 acres of wooded wetlands, 1.46 acres of emergent
wetlands, and 2.36 acres of sensitive woodlands and groves of trees on the subject
properties. Sensitive features, required buffers, and potential stormwater detention areas
will limit the acreage on the subject properties that may be developed.
Finally, the proposed amendment meets policies adopted in other documents of the City.
The Fringe Area Agreement shows this land as being within Iowa City’s Growth Area C. It
encourages commercial and industrial development south and southwest of the Iowa City
Municipal Airport, and in interchanges of paved roads, to be annexed prior to
development. However, it discourages such development in all other areas of Fringe Area
C. The subject properties will be at paved intersections, and an application for annexation
has been submitted with the proposed amendment. The City is currently in the process of
updating the Fringe Area Agreement with Johnson County. The new agreement will state
that development should follow the policy direction of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
For the reasons above, staff finds that the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment
(Attachments 7 and 8) is compatible with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan.
However, implementing this proposed amendment requires annexing the property and
amending the zoning map, which should include conditions ensuring the goals of the
8
Comprehensive Plan are met (to be considered under ANN21-0003 and REZ21-0006
respectively).
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Staff received one written comment opposing the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment
due to potential traffic and lighting impacts. The comment can be found in Attachment 5.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve CPA21-0002, a proposed
amendment to change the following, as shown in Attachments 7 and 8, for approximately 79.4
acres of property located south of IWV Road SW and west of Slothower Road:
•The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation from Rural Residential, Open
Space, and Residential at 2-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre to Intensive Commercial; and
•The Southwest District Plan future land use map designation from Single-Family/Duplex
Residential and Future Urban Development to Intensive Commercial, and to change the
text of the District Plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Location Map
2.Zoning Map
3.Proposed Iowa Highway 965 Extension & Fringe Area Maps
4.Map of Current and Expected Intensive Commercial Land Use
5.Correspondence and Good Neighbor Meeting Materials [Updated October 1, 2021]
6.Applicant Submittal
7.Proposed Changes to the Weber Subarea of the Southwest District Plan [Updated
October 1, 2021]
8.Proposed Changes to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map [Updated
October 1, 2021]
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
MELROSE AVE218S B T O M E L R O S E A V E
W ILDCAT LN
C AR LSBADPLTEMPE CTL A K E S H ORE DRMELROSE AVESLOTHOWERRDSANTAFEDRSLOTHOWERRDSWTEMPE PLHIGHWAY 218HURT RD SWSLOTHOWER RDIWV RD SWANN21-0003, CPA21-0002 & REZ21-0006IWV and Slothower Rd.µ0 0.15 0.30.075 MilesPrepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: June 2021Three applications submitted by MMS Consultants, on behalf of IWV Holdings, LLC,for the Annexation of 70.4 acres of property located south of IWV Rd. and west of Slothower Rd.the rezoning of 79.4 acres from County Agricultural (A) and Rural Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) and Interim Development - Commercial (ID-C)and a comprehensive plan amendment changing the future land use fromPublic/Private Open Space, and Rural Residential to Intensive Commercial.
IWV RD SWCARLS B A DPLTEMPE CTMELROSE AVESLOTHOWERRDFLAGSTAFFDRDURANGOPLSANTAFEDRWILDCATLNMELROSE AVESLOTHOWERRDSWHIGHWAY218 TEMPEPLHURT RD SW2 1 8 S B T OMELROSE A V E
SLOTHOWER RDP1/RM12RS5P2P1RR1Johnson County PD & SANN21-0003, CPA21-0002 & REZ21-0006IWV and Slothower Rd.µ0 0.15 0.30.075 MilesPrepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: June 2021Three applications submitted by MMS Consultants, on behalf of IWV Holdings, LLC,for the Annexation of 70.4 acres of property located south of IWV Rd. and west of Slothower Rd.the rezoning of 79.4 acres from County Agricultural (A) and Rural Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) and Interim Development - Commercial (ID-C)and a comprehensive plan amendment changing the future land use fromPublic/Private Open Space, and Rural Residential to Intensive Commercial.
55
IOWA 1U
S
2
1
8
US 6
MUSCATI NE AVE
MELROSE AVE
S GI
LBERT STSAND RDROCHESTER AVE
OLD HIGHWAY 218DODGE STE BURLINGTON ST GOVERNOR STOAK CREST HILL RD SES RIVERSIDE DRMORMON TREK BLVDUS 6
Legend
Zoned CI-1; N o Expected Change
Not Zoned CI-1; Expected A dditions*
Zoned CI-1; E xpected Losses**
Vacant; Expected to Develop
Vacant; Not Expected to Develop
Major Roads
Intensive Commercial Land Use
Current and Expected
Prepared by: Kirk Leh mann , Associate Planne r
Date: August 25, 2 021
Source: Johnson County Parcel Data
*Expected Additions: La nd shown as inte nsive commercial
on the future land use map which is not currently zoned
Intensive Co mmercial (CI-1).
**Expe cted Losses: Land currently zon ed Intensive Commercial
(CI-1) that is not expected to be de ve loped as in tensive
commercial based on the future land u se map.0 0.5 10.25 Miles
¯
From:Pamela
To:Raymond Heitner
Date:Wednesday, August 18, 2021 7:32:08 PM
I am against the rezoning of Slothower Rd. I feel like it will lead to loud traffic and distracting
lighting to our neighborhood.
Pamela Miller-DeKeyser
1630 Lake Shore Drive
Iowa City, IA 52246
Sent from the all new AOL app for Android
From:DEANAGHOLSON
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Rezoning at Melrose and Slothower
Date:Monday, September 13, 2021 4:00:16 PM
Mr. Heitner,
I am emailing you in regard to the recent proposal of rezoning in the area of Melrose and Slothower. We have lived
in Iowa City for twenty years this year. We built our home on the southwest side of town near Weber school and
have loved our neighborhood and location. We have paid close attention to the area to our north (Poor Farm) and
west (farmland) and were happy with the cities comprehensive plan for this area over time.
We are very concerned that the recent rezoning proposal is to go from rural/residential to commercial in this area.
We are aware that rezoning happens (it obviously had to in order for our neighborhood to be developed) but to leap
from rural to commercial seems like quite a drastic change. Once a commercial property area is developed, it seems
likely that it could very well continue to develop in that manner which could effect us in the future.
I am unsure if we will be able to attend the P&Z meeting this week but would request that you log our concerns in
with any others you may have gotten regarding this rezoning. We would like to see the city take a step back and
reassess the situation and come up with a revised comprehensive plan to share with the southwest citizens before
forging ahead at this time.
Thanks for your time!
Deana Gholson
1332 Phoenix Drive
IC IA
This email is from an external source.
From:John Bergstrom
To:Raymond Heitner
Cc:Sherri Bergstrom
Subject:Case CPA21-0002 SW corner of Slothower Road and IWV Road
Date:Monday, September 13, 2021 6:28:15 PM
As representatives of Slothower Farm we are expressing our objections to the dramatic change in
the Comprehensive Plan to allow for Intensive commercial development on land that has long been
anticipated to be residential. This change to the IWV Holding parcel is being brought about to allow
for the development of a Mid American Energy service complex that the City evidently feels that
they have no where else to place it. This is certainly a change to a relatively small parcel that will
affect the future of many existing and future residents. We would like to see the following
addressed or answered:
1. The staff report (as well as the MMS report) refer to the significant changes that have taken
place. Frankly, the changes in the immediate area west of the interchange are not new.
What is new is the significant residential growth to the area abutting the County Farm. The
proposed changes will affect the existing neighborhoods, existing residents and the future
development of the Johnson County Poor Farm.
2. There seems to be concern about the landfill needing a buffer. The proposed 965 extension
will provide a natural separation. MMS has come to its own stated conclusion that the best
buffer is commercial development. Seems a little self serving.
3. Why is a longstanding planning instrument being drastically altered to accommodate a 40
acre development (initially) that will affect a large overlay area. If the Comprehensive Plan is
to be altered like this, it should be much more encompassing, studied and thought out. Not
as a reaction to a single user.
4. The City feels it needs more intensive commercial land? Fine, don’t put it on or next to areas
long slated for residential. Or, if you can’t accommodate certain uses, is there any harm
letting them gravitate to a neighboring community that can?
5. There are complementary non-residential uses that are compatible with neighborhoods that
don’t infringe on residents. The uses allowed under the proposed zoning (including Mid
American Energy) are not compatible.
6. The goal of the existing Comprehensive Plan is to encourage commercial and industrial
development south and southwest of the Iowa City Municipal Airport. Now you appear to
conveniently be changing the Fringe Area Agreement just to accommodate a single user.
7. How does Johnson County feel about this as it relates to the Poor Farm? Intensive
commercial uses would not be complementary to the proposed development schemes we
have seen for the farm.
Please reconsider this change to the Comprehensive Plan and the subsequent zoning changes that
would result. The City needs to slow down and better understand the ramifications of this action.
John and Sherri Bergstrom
From:James Larimore
To:Raymond Heitner
Cc:Jim Larimore
Subject:Opposition to proposed amendment to Comprehensive Plan
Date:Wednesday, September 15, 2021 3:43:33 PM
Dear Mr. Heitner,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of land near the
intersection of Melrose and Slothower in Iowa City.
My family and I live on Wildcat Lane in the Southwest District, and our house is one of those
with a direct line of site to the proposed location of Intensive Commercial development. We
purchased our house seven years ago in large measure because of the assurances provided in
the City's Comprehensive Plan for the Southwest District, which explicitly discouraged "the
establishment of commercial uses around the Melrose Avenue-Highway 218 interchange" and
envisioned that future development of this area should preserve the rural character of the
district, provide a diversity of housing types, and potentially include the creation of a regional
park that could be connected to a planned water reservoir, the Willow Creek trail and other
parks in the Southwest District.
I am certain that others who have purchased homes in this area, at the combined cost of tens of
millions of dollars of personal investment, also took into account the rural and residential
nature of the district when they decided to move into the Southwestern District.
The proposed rezoning will irretrievably damage the rural and residential character of the
Southwest District and creates a risk that the proposed Intensive Commercial development
will eventually cascade further down Slothower Road, impacting home values and quality of
life, as well as introducing unwanted vehicular traffic seeking a faster path to Highway 218.
Furthermore, in stark contrast to the transparent and inclusive process that informed the
current proposal takes a piecemeal rather than comprehensive approach, and with extremely
limited effort at outreach, information dissemination, and community engagement on the part
of the Planning and Zoning office. I am concerned that precipitous action on the part of the
Planning and Zoning Commission puts at risk the public trust which was earned by
the Commission's predecessors, who facilitated direct community engagement in the creation
of the current Comprehensive Plan. Trust is hard to earn and easy to squander, and I urge the
Commission not to trade away public trust and confidence in the expedient pursuit of a
problem for which there are likely alternative solutions.
I look forward to participating in the Commission's hearing on September 16th.
Sincerely,
Jim Larimore
Wildcat Lane
Iowa City
August 5, 2021
City of Iowa City
Planning and Community Development
Attn: Ray Heitner
410 E Washington
Iowa City, IA 52240
RE: IWV Annexation, Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment
In response to the letter provided on July 30, 2021 we offer the following comments on behalf
of the developer.
CPA21-0002 Comments:
1. Because a comprehensive plan amendment is required, this application requires
two meetings at the Planning & Zoning Commission; one to set the public
hearing, and then the public hearing.
We acknowledge this comment.
2. In discussing the area slated for “future urban development” on the subject
properties, the Southwest District Plan notes that “When development becomes
imminent a more detailed plan will need to be developed for this area.” Please
discuss what detailed planning has gone into determining the proposed use for
the area.
The District Plan references the ‘future urban development’ in the final
paragraph of the section titled Land Use for the Weber Subarea. It mentions
the importance of providing a buffer for residential uses from the Iowa City
Landfill and the intended Highway 965 extension along the western most
boundary. Commercial uses are the best option to provide the buffer in our
opinion. This will allow for ease of access to Highway 965 for those
commercial uses as well.
3. Staff anticipates that the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council will
have questions on potential end users and uses of the subject property. Please be
prepared to make this information public prior to the public hearing date for the
comprehensive plan amendment.
We acknowledge this comment. The applicant will take this into consideration
prior to the meetings.
ANN21-0003/REZ21-0006 Comments:
Urban Planning:
1. The rezoning will analyze all potential CI-1 uses and describe any potential
impacts those uses might have on surrounding development. Some examples of
July 8, 2021
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Re: IWV Road SW Rezoning, Annexation and Comprehensive Plan Amendment
On behalf of IWV Holdings LLC we are submitting a request for an Annexation and
Rezoning in conjunction with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The described land
consists of 79.39 acres in total, the proposal includes 70.39 acres to be annexed into the
City of Iowa City with 9.0 acres currently located within the city limits. The area is
shown as a future growth area. Scheduled improvements to IWV Road will provide
necessary arterial access, with additional access provided via Slothower Road. Public
water will be available to the site, and public sewer can be extended to serve the site as
required.
Circumstances for this site have changed since the current plan was adopted. As
mentioned above, there are scheduled improvements to IWV Road, and the city has
expressed a plan to revisit the comprehensive plan for this region in the near term.
These factors, in addition to the plans by the county for the Johnson County Poor Farm,
meet the approval criteria for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. We are proposing a
change of the land use from a mix of Public/Private Open Space, Rural Residential and
2-8 DU/A to Intensive Commercial. We feel this amendment is appropriate given the
access from the property to an arterial road which provides a direct route to Interstate
I-380. The proximity to the Iowa City Landfill and a number of other commercially
zoned properties along IWV Road SW shows a consistent pattern of compatibility with
surrounding development in this area, and is generally compatible with the policies and
provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.
At this time Intensive Commercial (CI-1) is being requested for the East portion of the
property and Interim Development Commercial (ID-C) is being requested for the West
portion of the property. The ID-C zoning will allow for managed growth of future
development and for the current use of the land to continue until a plan to provide city
services can be established. This zoning also allows for a review of the stream corridor
and the associated sensitive areas located in the West portion when a permanent
zoning classification application is submitted. Development of the West portion, and
any potential impacts to the sensitive areas, can be more appropriately reviewed when
city services are able to be provided.
If you have questions or require any additional information, please contact us
accordingly.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Marner.
MMS Consultants, Inc.
10355-010L2.DOCX
(319) 351-8282
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
www.mmsconsultants.net
1917 S. GILBERT ST.
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
05-20-2021
KJB
RLW
RRN
IOWA CITY
10355-010 1
PROJAC
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN EXHIBIT
1
1"=200'
IWV ROAD SW / F46
SLOTHOWER ROADHURT ROAD SWALBERT AND
FAY'S FIRST
ADDITION
KAUBLE'S
SUBDIVISION NW 14 - NE 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NE14SECTION 13-T79N-R7
W
SE 14 - NW14SECTION 13-T79N-R7
WNE 14 - NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNW 14 - NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNE 14 - NE 14SECTION 14-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7
WSE 14 - SE 14SECTION 11-T79N-R7WSW 14 - SW 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SW 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7
W
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0
1"=200'
20 50 100 150 200
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXHIBIT
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
PORTIONS OF THE NORTH ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7
WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN
PLAT PREPARED BY:
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
1917 S. GILBERT STREET
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
OWNER/APPLICANT:
IWV HOLDINGS LLC
2916 HIGHWAY 1 NE
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
LOCATION MAP - NOT TO SCALE
SITE LOCATION
PORTIONS OF THE NORTH
ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 13,
TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7
WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIANCURRENT LAND USE: 2-8 DU/APROPOSED LAND USE: INTENSIVE COMMERCIALCUR
R
E
NT L
A
N
D
U
S
E:
R
U
R
AL
R
E
SI
D
E
NTI
AL
PRO
P
O
S
E
D L
A
N
D
U
S
E: I
NT
E
N
SI
V
E
C
O
M
M
E
R
CI
AL
CURRENT LAND USE: PUBLIC / PRIVATE OPEN SPACEPROPOSED LAND USE: INTENSIVE COMMERCIALS89°06'50"W
N89°06'50"E
300.04'
N89°06'50"E 2333.41'S00°00'59"W1305.56'S88°45'34"W
300.07'
S88°45'34"W
414.99'
S00°06'26"E
3.41'
S89°03'31"W1921.53'N00°08'52"E1315.30'G:\10355\10355-010\10355-010N-COMP.dwg, 7/8/2021 6:03:22 PM
DESCRIPTION - REZONING PARCEL NO. 1
THE EAST 300 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13,
TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7 WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA.
SAID REZONING PARCEL NO. 1 CONTAINS 9.0 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
DESCRIPTION - REZONING PARCEL NO. 2
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH,
RANGE 7 WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA.
EXCEPTING THE EAST 300 FEET THEREFROM
SAID REZONING PARCEL NO. 2 CONTAINS 30.7 ACRES, MORE OR LESS
DESCRIPTION - REZONING PARCEL NO. 3
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH,
RANGE 7 WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. SAID REZONING PARCEL
NO. 3 CONTAINS 39.7 ACRES, MORE OR LESS
WEBER SUBAREA
Farm along Rohret Road
The Weber Subarea is located south of
Melrose Avenue and Highway 218, north of
Rohret Road, extending to the City’s growth
limits half a mile west of Slothower Road.
Before the 1980s this area was relatively
undeveloped, with a few houses fronting onto
Rohret Road. Through the 1980's and 90's
housing developed westward on the north
side of Rohret Road and south of the County
Poor Farm property. Roughly two-thirds of
the land area is undeveloped. Some patches
of woodland and native prairie exist, but most
of it is under cultivation. The area contains
three public/institutional uses: Irving B. Weber Elementary School, the Korean
Methodist Church, and Chatham Oaks, a residential care facility located on the
County Poor Farm property. There are no commercial uses in the subarea.
Transportation
In the future next 20 to twenty-five years, the City plans to extend Highway 965
southward along the current western growth limit to connect with Rohret Road via
the eastern edge of the Iowa City Landfill. It will eventually reach Highway 1 and
serve as a far west side arterial. As development approaches this area, the City
needs to secure adequate road right-of-way and sufficient buffer width against the
Iowa City Landfill. As an entryway corridor into Iowa City, Highway 965 should
incorporate boulevard design standards with a well-landscaped median and
generous landscaping along both sides, wide sidewalks and bicycle lanes. This
could serve as additional buffer against the landfill.
In the more immediate future a north-south collector street will be required between
Melrose Avenue and Rohret Road, part of it configured using the Slothower Road
right-of-way. Care must be taken to keep the eventual route somewhat circuitous
between Melrose and Rohret to diminish its desirability as a cut-through route for
non-local traffic. In addition, access routes to the southern portion of the County Poor
Farm should be incorporated into the local street layouts in future phases of both
Wild Prairie Estates and Country Club Estates.
Willow Creek Trail will eventually cross Highway 218 via tunnel and connect Hunters
Run Park to the wider community trail system. A trail link across the County Poor
Farm property to Melrose Avenue will connect this regional trail to the arterial street
system in the far western part of the Southwest District. If a regional stormwater lake
is constructed in the Rohret South Subarea, it will be important to construct a trail
connection between Hunters Run Park and the public open space surrounding this
new lake.
Southwest District Plan
10/8/02 38
As westward development creates the need, both Rohret Road and Melrose Avenue
will be improved to City standards beyond the point of the current corporate limits.
Public Services and Facilities
Before much of the area between Slothower and the landfill can be developed, a
sanitary sewer lift station will have to be constructed. Northern portions of Country
Club Estates can build out without further sewer improvements, but the southern two-
thirds adjacent to Rohret Road drains to the southwest. This portion cannot be
developed until a temporary lift station is built that connects to the landfill’s lift station
or a proposed permanent lift station is built south of Rohret Road on the western
edge of the Rohret South Subarea.
Land Use
Several areas of particular interest stand out in the Weber subarea with regard to
land use: the build-out of Country Club Estates and Wild Prairie Estates; the
development of the area west of Slothower Road; and future use of the County Poor
Farm property.
Johnson County Poor Farm
Future use of the County Poor Farm
property generated considerable discussion
and a wide variety of suggestions during
Citizen Planning workshops. The following
considerations should be used as a guide to
future development of this property:
•The following important elements should
be preserved and protected from the
encroachment of development: the
historic poor farm buildings and
cemetery; Chatham Oaks residential
care facility; and any environmentally sensitive areas.
•Approximately 90 acres of the property are wooded, brushy, or contain prairie
remnants. These areas would be suitable for use as a regional park that could be
connected via the Willow Creek trail to other parks and destinations in the
Southwest District.
•The southwest portion of the property contains approximately fifty acres of
relatively flat ground that is currently row-cropped. This area would be suitable for
residential development. Any new subdivisions in this location should be
connected to the street network developed in the Southwest Estates and Wild
Prairie Estates subdivisions located directly south of the County Farm property.
•If any development occurs on the county property adjacent to Highway 218, a
buffer should be maintained.
•Future use of the county property located north of Melrose Avenue should be
considered carefully with regard to potential impacts on the poor farm property.
Southwest District Plan
10/8/02 39
Wild Prairie Estates will soon reach its northern boundary. Access to and through the
Poor Farm is a desirable option in the future and for now a street stub northward up
to the Willow Creek-Hunters Run Trail extension will be necessary. North of that and
adjacent to Highway 218’s right-of-way, a noise and sight buffer should be
established between residential areas and the highway.
The Comprehensive Plan discourages the establishment of commercial uses around
the Melrose Avenue-Highway 218 interchange. This policy generally should be
maintained because there are several adequate commercial services in the vicinity
to serve this area. The Highway 1-Highway 218 interchange further south provides
community and highway commercial services. In addition, Walden Square in the
Willow Creek Subarea provides neighborhood commercial services, and a future
neighborhood commercial area is proposed in the Rohret South Subarea. However, intensive commercial uses may be appropriate along Melrose Avenue further
from the interchange due to proximity to major thoroughfares and to serve as
a buffer for residential uses from the potential future expansion of the landfill
and Highway 965.
The remaining portion of the Country Club
Estates property is primarily suitable for
low-density single-family development. If
well-designed, the portion of the property
adjacent to Rohret Road may be suitable
for clusters of medium-density residential
uses, such as townhouses or
condominiums. A transition between
existing Rural Residential-zoned (RR-1)
portions of Southwest Estates and future
low-density single-family residential
development to the west may be
accomplished by platting larger RS-5-
zoned lots backing onto the existing rural
residential lots of Southwest Estates.
A New Subdivision in the Weber Subarea
The land west of Slothower is currently used for agriculture. The Weber Subarea
Plan Map designates this area as "future urban development." However, until sewer
service is extended in that direction and one or more lift stations constructed, there
will not be any significant urban development. Before reaching the twenty-year
horizon of this plan, some residential uses, or intensive commercial, may develop
along the west side of Slothower Road and begin moving toward the future Highway
965 extension. However, the expectation is that development will not and should
not “leapfrog” without street and trail connections bridging the gap between 965 and
Slothower Road. When development becomes imminent a more detailed plan will
need to be developed for this area. When development does occur, it will be
important to buffer residential uses from the Iowa City Landfill and Highway 965.
Southwest District Plan
10/8/02 40
Open Space
As this subarea continues to develop
additional public open space will be
needed. Recent improvements to
Hunters Run Park increased the
amount of active park space in the
area. This park may be extended to
the west when the northern part of
Wild Prairie Estates is subdivided. As
mentioned, the County Poor Farm
property contains land that is suitable
for public open space and connecting
trail corridors. The County should plan
for public open space needs as it
contemplates future uses for the
property.
Hunters Run Park
The City plans to use a small parcel of land near the southwest corner of the County
Poor Farm property for a water reservoir. Most of the ground will remain open and
could be used for a small neighborhood park. Additional parkland could be added to
this property as Country Club Estates continues to develop.
Southwest District Plan
10/8/02 41
Appendix A
Southwest District Plan Map Designations
Large Lot/Rural Residential
Suitable for large lot single family development in areas
not suited for more intensive development due to
natural limitations, i.e. soil, slope, unavailability of sewer
and water utilities.
Development Density: approximately 1 dwelling
unit/acre
Single-Family/Duplex Residential
Intended primarily for single family and duplex
residential development. Lower density zoning
designations are suitable for areas with sensitive
environmental features, topographical constraints, or
limited street access. Higher densities are more
appropriate for areas with good access to all city
services and facilities.
Development Density: 2-12 dwelling units/acre
Narrow Lot/Townhouse Residential
Suitable for medium to high density single family
residential development, including zero lot line
development, duplexes, townhouses, and narrow lot
detached single family housing.
Development Density: 6-12 dwelling units/acre
Low-Density Multi-Family Residential
Intended for low -density multi-family housing. Suitable
for areas with good access to all city services and
facilities. Higher density zoning designations may not
be suitable for areas with topographical constraints or
limited street access.
Development Density: 8 -15 dwelling units/acre
Medium- to High-Density Multi-Family Residential
Intended for medium- to high-density multi-family
housing. Suitable for areas with good access to all city
services and facilities. Higher density zoning
designations may not be suitable for areas with
topographical constraints or limited street access.
Development Density: 16-44 dwelling units/acre
Future Urban Development
Areas within the growth limit that are not yet served by
City services and may not experience substantial
development within the lifetime of this district plan. As
development becomes imminent in these areas, the
City will develop more detailed land use and street
layout concepts to supplement the current plan.
Public/Private Open Space
Indicates existing open space that is important for the
protection of sensitive natural features and/or to provide
for recreational opportunities and protect the aesthetic
values of the community. An open space designation
on private land may indicate that an area is largely
unsuitable for development due to environmental or
topographical constraints. While these areas are best
reserved or acquired for private or public open space,
development may occur on privately held land if a
proposal meets the underlying zoning requirements and
the requirements of the Iowa City Sensitive Areas
Ordinance.
Vegetative Noise and Sight Buffer
Useful public facilities, such as limited-access highways
or landfills, can produce undesirable side-effects. In
these areas a substantial vegetative buffer should be
maintained or established to separate residential
development from these uses. Alternatively, where
appropriate, nonresidential uses can be used to buffer
residential areas from highways, landfills, and other
such uses.
Public Services/Institutional
Areas intended for civic, cultural, or historical
institutions; public schools; and places of assembly or
worship. Iowa City does not have a zone that
designates institutional uses as the primary, preferred
land use. However, there are a number of zones where
these uses are permitted or provisional uses.
Development proposals are subject to the requirements
of the underlying zoning designation. Land that is
owned by a public entity is typically zoned Public (P).
Neighborhood Commercial
Areas intended for retail sales and personal service
uses that meet the day-to-day needs of a fully
developed residential neighborhood. A grocery store or
grocery store/drug store combination is preferred as the
primary tenant in a Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1)
zone. Specific site development standards will apply in
these areas to ensure that commercial development is
pedestrian-friendly and compatible with surrounding
residential development.
Office Commercial
Areas intended for office uses and compatible
businesses. In some cases these areas may serve as a
buffer between residential areas and more intensive
commercial or industrial uses.
General Commercial
Areas intended to provide the opportunity for a large
variety of commercial uses that serve a major segment
of the community.
Mixed Use
Areas intended for development that combines
commercial and residential uses. An area may be
primarily commercial in nature or may be primarily
residential depending on the location and the
surrounding neighborhood. Commercial uses will
typically be located on the ground floor with housing
above. Development is intended to be pedestrian-
oriented with buildings close to and oriented to the
sidewalk.
Appendix A
Southwest District Plan Map Designations
Intensive Commercial
Areas intended for those sales and service functions
and businesses whose operations are typically
characterized by outdoor display and storage of
merchandise, by repair businesses, quasi-industrial
uses, and for sales of large equipment or motor
vehicles, or by activities or operations conducted in
buildings or structure not completely enclosed. Retail
uses are restricted in order to provide opportunities for
more land-intensive or quasi-industrial commercial
operations and also to prevent conflicts between retail
and industrial truck traffic. Special attention must be
directed toward buffering the negative aspects of
allowed uses from any adjacent lower intensity
commercial areas or residential areas.
MINUTES FINAL
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2021 – 7:00 PM
FORMAL MEETING
THE CENTER – ASSEMBLY ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Mike Hensch, Maria Padron, Mark Signs, Billie
Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Phoebe Martin, Mark Nolte
STAFF PRESENT: Ray Heitner, Sara Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Jon Marner, Josh Entler, John Bergstrom, Eric Freedman, Jim
Larimore, Sherri Slothower Bergstrom, Cindy Seyfer, Brenda Scott,
Tim Slothower, Duane Kruse, Jim Seyfer, Alex Hachtman, Joleah
Shaw, Chris Arch
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
By a vote of 3-2 (Townsend and Padron dissenting) the Commission recommends approval of
CPA21-0002, a proposed amendment to change the following for around 80 acres of property
located south of IWV and west of Slothower:
• The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation from Rural Residential, Open
Space, and Residential at 2-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre to Intensive Commercial; and
• The Southwest District Plan future land use map designation from Single-Family/Duplex
Residential and Future Urban Development to Intensive Commercial, and to change the text
of the District Plan to what was included in the agenda packet.
Note: After the meeting it was determined that the motion to approve the comprehensive plan
amendment did not pass because a minimum of 4 votes is required.
By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends approval of ANN21-0003, a voluntary annexation
of approximately 70.39 acres of property located south of IWV Road and west of Slothower
Road.
By a vote of 4-1 (Padron dissenting) the Commission recommends approval of REZ21-0006, a
rezoning of approximately 53.36 acres from County Agricultural (A) to Intensive Commercial (CI -
1), 9 acres from Rural Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1), and 17.03 acres from
County Agricultural (A) to Interim Development Commercial (ID-C) subject to the following
conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall:
a. Plat all the property herein rezoned to follow the zoning boundaries.
b. Submit a landscape plan, which shall be approved by the City Forester, to ensure
that, when developed, the subject property is designed in a manner that
emphasizes green components within its location along an arterial and as an
entryway into the City.
c. Owner shall contribute 25% of the cost of upgrading Slothower Road, south of the
proposed access, to collector street standards, adjacent to the subject property.
2. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the property fronting Slothower Road:
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 2 of 36
a. Installation of landscaping to the S3 standard, as detailed in section 14-5F-6C of
City Code, along the subject property’s Slothower Road frontage. If said certificate
of occupancy is issued during a poor planting season, by May 31 following
issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
b. Improvement of Slothower Road to the southern end of the proposed access off
Slothower Road.
c. Installation of landscaping to the S3 standard along the property line and IWV
Road.
3. At the time the final plat is approved, Owner shall dedicate additional right-of-way along
the Slothower Road frontage in an amount and location approved by the City Engineer.
4. Parking, loading areas, and outdoor storage shall either not be located between the front
facade of the principal structure and the front yard right-of-way line or shall be screened
to the S3 standard along the IWV Road frontage.
By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends approval of CPA21-0001, a proposed amendment
to the South District Plan to facilitate development that follows form-based principles in the South
District of Iowa City.
By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends recommend a Zoning Code Amendment to adopt
form-based standards for new development as identified in the South District Plan.
By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends setting a public hearing on October 7, 2021 on a
proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan on an update to the Fringe Area Policy
Agreement between Johnson County and the City of Iowa City.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS:
CASE NO. CPA21-0002:
Location: SW corner of Slothower Road and IWV Road
A public hearing on amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the Southwest
District Plan and Comprehensive Plan future land use map designations, and related
plan text, from residential, open space, and future development to intensive
commercial.
Lehmann began a presentation on the staff report noting this item is proposing to amend the
Southwest District Plan and the Comprehensive Plan future land use maps from their current
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 3 of 36
designations to intensive commercial south of IWV Road and west of Slothower Road. This
application was submitted by MMS Consultants on behalf of the owner. Lehmann noted it was
submitted with two additional applications as well, so in addition to the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment there is an annexation (ANN21-0003) which would annex 70 acres into the City and
a rezoning (REZ21-0006) to rezone this land from its current designations of Rural Residential
within the City and Agriculture in the County to Intensive Commercial and Interim Development
Commercial. Currently the land is used for agriculture and it's part of the Southwest District Plan
which was adopted in 2002. The subject properties are within the Weber Subarea of the Plan,
one of four subareas in this Southwest District Plan, and in the future land use it is shown
primarily as future urban development but then there's also some single-family duplex residential
along Slothower to the east side and a Vegetative Noise and Site Buffer to the west. The Plan
notes some limited residential development may occur west of Slothower Road, but that due to
sanitary sewer limitations, extensive development wasn't expected at that time, or in the near
future. The Plan also states that residential uses should be buffered from the landfill and the
proposed US 965 alignment and that a more detailed plan will be needed when development
eventually occurs.
Lehmann showed a map of the subject parcel noting it's south of IWV Road which turns into
Melrose Avenue and west of Slothower Road. It's approximately 80 acres and it's all agricultural.
US 218 is further to the east, but directly east is the Johnson County Historic Poor Farm. Again,
the property is currently zoned County Agricultural, it's got some Rural Agricultural to the north,
County Agricultural for the rest of it, and then to the east are some public uses where there's the
Poor Farm and some other uses such as the Johnson County facilities buildings and the National
Guard Center. Lehmann showed a picture of the topography of the area and noted some hills.
Lehmann noted the proposed amendment has two components, one for the Southwest District
Plan and one for the Comprehensive Plan and those would be to modify the future land use map
so that it's reflected in both of them. He added there's also some text changes to the Southwest
District Plan that generalizes the timeframe for the US 965 extension and then discusses
intensive commercial uses that may be appropriate along Melrose should the proposed
amendment be adopted. The proposed amendment would change the land use designation to
intensive commercial but that doesn't mean the entire site would be intensive commercial, there
are sensitive features on site that have to be accommodated, but the entire parcel would be
shown on the future land use map as intensive commercial and the future land use map on the
Comprehensive Plan would reflect that same change should it be amended.
The role of the Commission tonight is to decide if the two general criteria that are used to
determine if a Comprehensive Plan Amendment should be made (found at 14-8D-3D) and that is
that the circumstances have changed, or additional information or factors have come to light
such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest. Second, the proposed amendment
will be compatible with other policies or provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, including any
District Plans or other Amendments thereto.
Lehmann noted all of this is laid out in the staff report, but he will try to summar ize and make it as
clear as possible. Starting with the first criteria, looking at circumstances that have changed
such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest. First looking at what was happening
at the time these Plans were adopted, prior to 1990 the area was undeveloped, there are a few
homes on Rohret Road and some public uses, primarily the County Poor Farm on Melrose, but
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 4 of 36
other than that there wasn't much development. By the time the Southwest District Plan was
adopted in 2002 housing was continuing to develop west and north of Rohret Road and at that
time the Comprehensive Plan was from 1997. That Plan was the first to actually extend the
growth area of the City from approximately Slothower to the proposed future alignment of US
965. That Plan was also the first to consider the future use of the site and the future land use
map showed it as interim development or rural residential. Lehmann noted there was also a
policy that was included in that Comprehensive Plan and in the Southwest District Plan that talks
about discouraging commercial uses at the Melrose and 218 interchange and instead it
encouraged focusing commercial and industrial development at the Highway 1/218 interchange
due to concerns that both areas would not be able to support full development so staff wanted to
concentrate it at that south interchange. That policy was first adopted in the 1983
Comprehensive Plan so that policy has been in place since 218 was built. The 1983 Plan also
talks about maintaining public uses directly west of the Melrose interchange, and this policy while
it is not explicitly discussed in the current Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in 2013, it is
reflected in the future land use map showing the site as rural residential which is similar to the
interim development / rural residential that was used in 1997 and is also included in the 2006
Fringe Area Agreement, which is a part of that Comprehensive Plan. Regarding development
over time, predominantly south of Melrose, there's some early residential subdivisions that
started occurring along Rohret Road and then some additional residential development that
crosses 218 and even more once Camp Cardinal Boulevard was constructed in 2007. In 2016
and 2020 three Comprehensive Plan Amendments were made that started introducing some
commercial uses into the area, specifically office commercial, and some medium density
residential and general commercial uses in relatively small pockets. To the west of the
interchange, there are public land uses, the Iowa National Guard Readiness Center, the Joint
Emergency Communication Center and the Johnson County SEATS facility. Also housing
development has continued west of US 218 and north of Rohret Road. Therefore, staff believes
that it's in the public interest to explore future uses for this area as the site has basically been in
a holding pattern since the 1997 Comprehensive Plan and the 2002 Southwest District Plan,
partially because it was assumed that infrastructure would not be available and that would
prevent urban development. However, the applications show that the property can be serviced,
so it makes sense to define what future urban uses might look like in this area.
Another change in circumstance since the time this Plan was adopted has been rapid growth and
population redistribution in the Iowa City metro over the last 30 years. Since 1990 Iowa City has
grown by about 25% but other metros have grown by about three times their population,
especially North Liberty and Coralville, so with that, Iowa City has decreased as a proportion of
the metro population and the center of population has shifted northwest, which makes the US
218 corridor increasingly important. Growth is expected to continue so uses must grow to
accommodate demand as well.
The application is asking to change the future land use of this area to intensive commercial.
Lehmann explained intensive commercial has a broad range of uses that are allowed but it's
generally sales and service businesses, often characterized by outdoor uses such as large-scale
repair or sales or unenclosed operations. It includes some limited retail trade as well. With
intensive commercial uses, there is a need to buffer residential uses because it allows some
higher intensity commercial and light industrial uses. With regards to intensive commercial uses
across the City, it appears that the current vacant land does not meet the needs of all uses within
the City. Currently around 400 acres of intensive commercial is in the City and about 13% of that
land is vacant. Most of the vacant 45 acres is expected to develop into small parcels with
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 5 of 36
individual businesses occupying those spaces. Lehmann added some other zones allow similar
uses, there are commercials zones that are similar and industrial zones. There is quite a bit of
vacant general industrial land as well, but that is primarily positioned to attract railroad users,
whereas this site has access to the interstate so that was a factor in staff’s recommendation.
Lehmann also noted this all started with MidAmerican Energy trying to locate a site and after
looking around the City, they found none that met their needs and so they began looking at other
areas that might be suitable for that type of use. Lehmann added that this is change is brought
about by the application and is not a City-led process and staff is looking at what are the uses
generally that might be appropriate. Throughout the City there are three general areas that
might accommodate some of these uses, one is around the airport to the southwest, that's one of
the larger areas that allows light industrial uses. There's the industrial area that runs along the
railroad to the southeast and then on I-80 and Dodge Street to the north that is a commercial
area. All those areas have different challenges and benefits. The area to the north would require
rezoning and an annexation, the current industrial park doesn't have good highway access, and
the area near the airport primarily has smaller parcels. The area they're looking at now is
relatively small compared to these other general light industrial areas. In addition, staff looks at
future need for Iowa City. Based on MPO projections, Iowa City is expected to grow to
approximately 94,000 people by 2040 so that is a growth of about 26%. Assuming demand
increases at about the same rate, that shows a need for about 500 acres of intensive commercial
and based on what's been planned for in the City currently, there will be around 442 acres of
intensive commercial so that leaves a 58-acre gap. Lehmann noted it's actually a larger gap than
that because a lot of intensive commercial areas that are going to be annexed into the City are
already occupied either by intensive commercial uses or by other unrelated uses. Lehmann
noted there is also changing demand over time, and so, whether staff uses the same growth rate
as population, it's not the exact amount that is needed, it’s a ballpark for what's an appropriate
amount of intensive commercial uses. Staff anticipates demand is going to remain relatively
stable, unlike other uses related to commercial where there is a decline in brick and mortar
stores with a shift to online retail. The reason staff believes it's going to remain relatively stable is
because these sorts of uses often meet some of the demands that would have been met by brick
and mortar stores otherwise, especially logistics, transportation, warehousing and those sorts of
uses. Staff also believes that MidAmerican Energy would occupy a portion of the site. So based
on that projected demand and based on the site and its access to the interstate, staff believes
that the amendment is in the public interest and that circumstances have changed over time.
Lehmann reiterated areas where staff is expecting additions of intensive commercial are
primarily by the interstate interchange and then on south Riverside Drive, but when looking at
vacant parcels, that is just the area southwest of the airport, some small parcels near the US 218
interchange, some small parcels north of the airport and some small parcels on Scott Boulevard.
Again, generally there's not many large areas for this type of development within this zone.
Lehmann stated the second criterion staff uses to judge Comprehensive Plan Amendments is
tied to if it's compatible with the policies and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan or District
Plans and this proposal does align with many of the policies in the Southwest District Plan,
especially for the Weber subarea. This area was slated for future development until
infrastructure was available, it maintains the transportation vision for the area which includes US
965 along the west border, Slothower to the east, and Melrose to the north, it allows for
contiguous development from Slothower to US 965 and provides the transition from the landfill
and US 965 to intensive commercial and then to agriculture/residential uses. Additional buffering
for those uses can be accommodated through rezoning. It also aligns with other goals or
objectives in the Comprehensive Plan as well such as identifying appropriate locations for
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 6 of 36
commercial development, the needs of the future population, identifying land for industrial uses
with ready access to rail and highways and also targeting industrial business sectors that align
with Iowa City’s economic strengths, i.e., renewable energy or energy in general, finance
manufacturing and focusing growth in the City’s growth area. Lehmann stated this area is within
Iowa City's fringe Growth Area C.
Lehmann stated there are also policies affiliated with the Comprehensive Plan, looking at
commercial, industrial development south and southwest at the airport or along intersections of
paved roads to be annexed prior to development. This application is at paved intersections and
has applied for annexation. Lehmann also noted the Commission will be asked later to set a
public hearing for the Fringe Area Agreement, which they have to update because it is expiring,
but this policy also aligns with what staff is proposing for the future fringe area as well.
That being said, Lehmann noted there are some differences in policies that are in the
Comprehensive and Southwest District Plans. Intensive commercial somewhat diverges from
the policy mentioned against commercial encroachment near Melrose and 218. However the
area near the interchange will continue to remain as a public use, and it does meet other goals
that are tied to identifying appropriate locations for commercial and industrial development so
staff believes that the spirit of the policy is met. There's also another policy about encouraging
new businesses in existing commercial areas but in this case the existing commercial areas don't
seem to accommodate all users within the City that would like to locate here. Lehmann
reiterated this was initially considered because of MidAmerican Energy was looking for a site and
was not able to find one, and there is a need for future new intensive commercial uses based on
population growth within the City.
Lehmann stated there's some other policies he wanted to mention that could be accommodated
through the sensitive areas and site development processes, especially related to strip
commercial development, discouraging walking and biking and then also sensitive areas, a lot of
those can be covered either through conditions on rezoning or by the zoning standards generally
which helps those policies be met.
So, based on these findings staff believes that the proposed amendment is compatible with the
policies in the Comprehensive Plan but that implementation would require annexation and
rezoning which the Commission will also consider this evening and those should include
conditions to ensure that the goals of the Comprehensive Plan are met.
Lehmann stated staff also received public comments for this item and all were forwarded to the
Commission in advance of this meeting. The applicant held a good neighbor meeting, four
neighbors attended and there was discussion along a range of items that included the potentially
wide range of uses for the proposed zone, about buffers from residences and sensitive features
on the site, and also concern over property values for residential properties that are nearby. In
terms of written correspondence, there were four that were opposed, one due to potential traffic
and lighting impacts of the proposed use, one with concerns about the shift from rural residential
to commercial and that being a relatively large change in policy and that might encourage future
commercial development which might have negative impacts, one tied to concerns regarding
long term policy in a large area near residences and impacts on residential uses and requested
that the City slow down to better understand the impacts, and then one that noted the area being
rural residential with a diversity of housing types is one of the reasons they bought their home
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 7 of 36
and noted the amendment process was not transparent and did not have enough outreach.
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approved CPA21-0002, a proposed
amendment to change the following for around 80 acres of property located south of IWV and
west of Slothower:
• The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation from Rural Residential, Open
Space, and Residential at 2-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre to Intensive Commercial; and
• The Southwest District Plan future land use map designation from Single-Family/Duplex
Residential and Future Urban Development to Intensive Commercial, and to change the text
of the District Plan to what was included in the agenda packet.
In terms of next steps, the goal is to determine if the proposed plan amendment should be
recommended for approval by city council, which would run concurrently with the annexation and
rezoning. In terms of Council making the final decisions, they would consider the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment on November 16, that would be a single meeting, and then
there'd be three meetings on the rezoning, so two additional meetings potentially ending
December 21.
Hensch asked if the Comprehensive Plan for this area was last updated in 2002 so almost 20
years ago. Lehmann replied for the District Plan yes. Hensch asked what some of the current
uses of the land are to the east and to the north of this area. Lehmann stated directly east is the
County Poor Farm property that is currently used for agriculture, but also used for events, to the
northeast there is the facilities building for Johnson County, so outdoor storage of buses and
some maintenance facilities, also the National Guard Readiness Center is over there, but directly
north is agricultural.
Hensch noted also present on the Johnson County Poor Farm are the Joint Emergency
Communications Center and the Chatham Oaks residential care facility which is housing for the
long term chronically mentally ill. Hensch asked what the distance from the landfill these 79
acres is. Heitner replied it's about half a mile to three quarters of a mile to the southwest
depending on where they’re measuring.
Hensch asked if the roadway through here from 218 to just past the landfill is all being currently
improved. Lehmann confirmed it is.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Jon Marner (MMS Consultants) is representing the applicant First he thanked staff as they have
been working together on this project for close to six months and staff did a great job with the
report and putting the packet together with a lot of useful information. Marner wanted to highlight
one specific item, the comprehensive planning and zoning amendments that are being sought
are to provide an opportunity for businesses that require close access to not only arterial
roadways but also the interstate system. There are no finalized agreements at this time for any
end users. Staff alluded to MidAmerican as a possible end user and is somebody that would fit
this classification, but that’s not finalized at this time. Marner stated they feel that this use will be
beneficial as there is a growing need or a future need based on the growth in this area for this
type of use in the Iowa City community. Given the way the growth has moved towards the north
and west and with the recent improvements to the IWV this is a natural location, they feel, to
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 8 of 36
provide those uses. This location has arterial road access both on IWV right now and the future
Highway 965 location that's planned to go along the east side of landfill at the western edge of
this property. And of course, the property is in very close proximity to the interstate system.
Marner noted regarding a few other items staff mentioned were comments, questions and
concerns from the good neighbor meeting and also received written comments, they understand
there was a concern about the proximity of this type of use to future residential development in
the area. The southern edge of this property has a stream corridor that runs close to parallel to
the property line and there's a lot of sensitive features, wetlands, some wooded areas, forest, as
well as the stream corridor that runs north/south along the very west edge of the of the property.
Those features, combined with a detention basin that they have currently planned for the
property, account for approximately a third of the property and that is well above the required
buffer for this zoning code for intensive commercial from residential. They are taking advantage
of the natural features that are already in place and then extending them by providing the
detention that's required as part of the City's ordinance and utilizing that area to help provide an
additional buffer for any potential future residential development. Marner affirmed they did listen
to those concerns, as part of that meeting, as the original detention basin they had planned did
not extend all the way over to Slothower Road but they did extend it over all the way to
Slothower Road so it provides a full buffer all the way along the south edge of the property.
A couple other items Marner wanted to address were the changes to the area. There's a lot of
growth in this area and some of the uses have changed since 2002 when the Plan was adopted
such as the Joint Emergency Communication Center and the County's current plans as they
have changed the Poor Farm for that area since then.
One last item Marner wanted to address was the traffic flow on Slothower. Currently Slothower
terminates just south of Wild Cat Lane to the south, there is no connection all the way through to
Rohret Road, and it was an expressed concern in the Comprehensive Plan that it might be used
as a cut through as it develops to the south. There is an opportunity either through design of
traffic control features or rerouting that location to design that Slothower connection as it moves
south towards Rohret to discourage the cut through the Comprehensive Plan alludes to at this
time. Marner noted though all the anticipated traffic flow for this type of use will be to the
interstate as those uses desire close and easy access to the interstate. They would typically
utilize that entrance and would not go to the south, any potential flow to the south would likely
occur due to residential development that continues as it grows to the south.
Hensch stated it's a 79.4 acre site and about a third of the site will not be available for
development because of the sensitive areas and detention basin which is about 26 acres so that
the buffer area will all be to the south, or will that be distributed throughout the property. Marner
stated they submitted a plan that would do a much better job of depicting the area, but it is
wetlands and primarily a small stream corridor that runs north/south at the very western edge of
the property. The zoning parcel that's described runs along the stream corridor on the western
edge towards the western quarter of the property. The buffer he is referring to with the detention
basin and natural features are extended further east to try to get as close to Slothower as
possible. There's additional detention in the southwest corner next to that stream corridor and
then the sensitive features that are located centrally right in the middle of the site along the south
boundary is a combination of the stream corridor and wetlands.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 9 of 36
Hensch also asked about the extension of 965, he doesn’t recall the Iowa Department
Transportation Commission having funded that project. Marner confirmed it's not, everything that
they've alluded to is based on the City's Comprehensive Plan and long term.
Hensch wondered on something like that how wide would the right-of-way typically be. Marner
stated typically an arterial is at least 80 feet, oftentimes it will range up to 100, he knows there
was discussion mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan of utilizing that particular right-of-way to
provide some additional green space or to do a little bit of different design there to try to provide
some extra screening from the landfill.
Craig noted they spoke of the County’s plans for the Poor Farm and some of the correspondence
had said something about the County's plans for the Poor Farm and they all know plans change,
but what are the County's plans for the Poor Farm. Marner stated he hasn’t seen an updated
plan lately, his reference to it was primarily the change when the County moved forward with
their plan to develop the Poor Farm in some manner, as opposed to the previous plan that was in
place whenever the Comprehensive Plan was written. The Comprehensive Plan alludes to some
of that ground potentially becoming public or private development and park area, he doesn’t
know if that's necessarily in their current plan. Marner added, and staff will probably touch on
this during the rezoning application, one of the conditions suggested is a CZA to require S3
screening, so a higher level of screening, along Slothower to help with some of the visibility and
to help buffer on the east side any potential users of the Johnson County Poor Farm. Lehmann
noted he can touch a bit on that plan too as they recently updated their plan. The Johnson
County Poor Farm site shows the area as continued agricultural and if they have residential uses
it would be adjacent to the existing residential uses to the southeast of the property. Craig
confirmed she hasn’t followed it closely but it was her understanding that the nature of the Poor
Farm, while some of the individual uses may change, will still be pretty agriculture looking.
Signs asked if they had any idea of the amount of this parcel or property that MidAmerican is
interested in using. Marner replied it would depend on their total use, with the stream corridor
and the unusable land in the buffer area, the maximum available land would be around 40 acres.
Marner reiterated they’ve had a preliminary conversation at this point as far as their interest goes
but this application and request is being developed in this manner and the requested zoning and
Comprehensive Plan Amendment regardless of any user’s pursuance of the property. It fits the
need for the area and an opportunity to provide it in a good location for any type of user.
Townsend asked if at this point only MidAmerica has given an interest in this area. Marner can't
speak directly to that as he is not part of the development team on the ownership side. He
believes there's a chance that other parties are interested and MidAmerican Energy is just the
one staff was aware of.
Josh Entler (IWV Holdings) added they are committed to dedicating that vegetative buffer to
make sure there's no structures and what that equates to is the south 20 acres would be
reserved as vegetative buffer and the other six acres comes from that stream corridor going
north and south on the western third of the parcel, so it'll be about a 20 acre reservation. Entler
noted it is about seven times the required minimum buffer from commercial to residential so
they're doing as much as they can to acknowledge that they heard some feedback at the good
neighbor meeting and want to be committed to providing an adequate buffer on the property to
make sure that should the landowners to the south want to do residential in the future they have
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 10 of 36
a fair opportunity to do so.
Padron asked for clarification on the size of the buffer. Entler explained it would be 350 feet
going along the north and south and then it would stretch the entire width of the 70-acre parcel,
so it equates to 20 acres of reservation.
Entler also wanted to thank staff for spending lots of time and research kind exploring a variety of
different options, they’ve come to similar conclusions and the point he wanted to hit on is
commercial users are looking for larger contiguous tracts of land, not just little 5 and 10 acre
parcels but looking for opportunities that could be 10 or 20 acre parcels that are close access to
interstate 218 and the I-80/380 corridor as it is becoming a growing attractive location to have
some intensive commercial uses.
John Bergstrom (Slothower Farms) represents the family who owned the hundred plus acres
directly south of the subject property. His involvement is he’s married to Sherri Slothower and
her brother Tim is here tonight also and they've been monitoring things in this area for a while
and have come to the conclusion they would like to object to this development. They just don't
understand why blow-up years and years of planning and Comprehensive Plan zoning for a
single 40-acre user because this development is going to be the first step of dictating what
happens in a large overlay area. This area has always been anticipated to be residential and
now all of a sudden as he reads the staff report, everything planned to accommodate a 40 acre
user, MidAmerica. Bergstrom can appreciate the fact that they are having trouble finding a site,
but why take an area here that affects large neighborhoods, it will affect whatever happens at the
County Farm and it just doesn't make any sense. In reading the report, and his comments are in
the packet but he would like to address that the changes that are in place at that intersection.
Right now, the changes on the east side of the interchange really doesn't have much to do on
the west side. That is a natural separation and the general area there south of Melrose hasn't
changed much at all. Bergstrom talked to staff back in February and he went back through the
notes and the things that jumped out was it's going to be residential and also there was a note
that there is no commercial interest. Well, evidently there is by one user and it's intensive
commercial, it's not a good neighbor for residential and why blow up this entire area. They were
talking earlier about defining what an urban user is, well intensive commercial is very urban and
it's not a compatible neighbor for residential. There was concerned about the buffer, 965 will be
a natural buffer and he’s talked to residential developers, and they have concerns with the landfill
so they think it actually provides a natural ending point for a neighborhood. Iowa City appears to
be concerned about not having enough intensive commercial in the future, as he looked at the
map shown tonight, there's plenty of land near other commercial areas and intensive commercial
areas that could be land to develop. The current Fringe Area Agreement says that this type of
development in the future should be south and west of the airport well this is certainly not south
and west of the airport. Bergstrom can understand maybe some zoning changes but not this
abrupt of one, if this corner was going to be neighborhood commercial or something like that it's
complimentary to the residents that live in Country Club Estates and hopefully on the land that
the Slothower family owns and the land to the south. Bergstrom would just ask to slow this thing
down, this is a knee jerk reaction to a single user and it's a user that should not be on this corner.
Eric Freedman (4401 Tempe Place) began by stating he agrees with Bergstrom and they just
heard there's over 100 families in their community and several hundred more in the area
surrounding Weber school and none of them really heard about this until they got an email from
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 11 of 36
one person who happened to hear from Bergstrom and the board of their housing organization
hasn't even had a chance to talk about it yet, this is too fast to allow a democratic process to
occur. Another point is there actually is a plan for the Poor Farm and they need to know what is
happening on that site before they make any decisions about what's happening across the
street. His understanding is that there's trails being created there, people are going to be able to
take walks and there's forested areas. He also believes there's going to be some housing for low
income families and some other community farm sites on that site. Freedman stated it doesn't
sound like the staff have a clear idea of what's happening there, and he thinks they need to get a
better sense of what's happening there before they build across the street. Freedman also
stated what the community that he lives in needs is neighborhood commercial as there's very few
supermarkets or restaurants or anything close to them. They need a road that connects right to
Melrose west of the highway so they can get to places north instead of having to weave all the
way around to the east side of the highway through all the backstreets. Those things seem to be
much higher priority than to make one exception for one company that wants to build there.
Freedman would like to see a better picture of the whole area, is this going to be the only heavy
commercial site or is there going to be more to the south or is it going to expand to the north,
what's going to happen. He thinks they need to think about this in a broader more long-term light
as opposed to this one organization that wants to build one thing in one place. They need to slow
down and have a more democratic conversation among all the hundreds of families that are
living there now.
Jim Larimore (1143 Wildcat Lane) stated from his front yard they have a clear line of sight to the
proposed building site and what he wanted to share tonight is that when his family decided seven
years ago that they would make their home in that neighborhood they carefully reviewed the
Comprehensive Plan and read through every word in the Southwest District Plan. They felt that it
was a very thorough, very well thought through plan, and it gave them a lot of confidence for
what the future of their neighborhood would be. His opinion is that the current proposal, in spite
of the language that was used rather artfully in some of the reports, is not consistent with the
Southwest District Plan, in fact the proposal reverses key parts of the Plan such as avoiding
commercial development at the Melrose/218 interchange and preserving the rural and residential
character of the area in question. Larimore takes issue with the idea that his neighbors and he
should consider intensive commercial development as a buffer to protect their neighborhood
when the documents from the City's Planning and Zoning Department included proposed
requirements that would buffer them from the impact of the proposed intensive commercial
development. If they need to be buffered from the proposed buffer, he doesn’t find it reasonable
to consider that intensive commercial development actually acts as a buffer. Larimore seconds
the call that the process should be slowed down, they should not act on a Comprehensive Plan
in a piecemeal way, if the Comprehensive Plan is going to be revisited then do it in an open,
inclusive process. The same type of process that was used about 20 years ago to develop the
current Plan. Larimore reiterated his request the Commission don't rush a judgment and don't
take a piecemeal approach to a Comprehensive Plan.
Sherri Slothower Bergstrom (Slothower Farms) is one of the co-owners with her family of the
Slothower Farm area that butts right up to the property that they're talking about here today. She
wants to echo what everybody has said, this has happened really quick, they are the next-door
neighbors and had no idea anything like this was being considered. The City talked about the
good neighbor meeting and that there were four people there, well, the reason there were four
people there is because no one was notified. There wasn't a sign what up on the property, they
had to ask about that and then they were told that legally the City is only required to notify people
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 12 of 36
within a 300-foot area of the property so none of the wonderful people that are here from the
Country Club Estates area were notified and the people that live in their farmhouse currently
were not notified. Bergstrom also noted they got a distinct impression that there's been a lot of
conversations going on between the City and the developer, as the developer said, for nearly six
months. Nobody knew anything, no one was notified about anything, and they felt like it was
done before it even came to the neighbors. Bergstrom asked the Commission to think for one
minute about what this means to the people that live in the beautiful neighborhood in the Country
Club Estates neighborhood which is right across the road from her farmhouse. They are going to
be looking at large lighting, tall fences, maybe even with security fencing, big trucks, lots of them,
and it will be very disruptive. Bergstrom can't think of a buffer they could come up with no matter
how long it stretches that is going to help them from the pollution, the light pollution, and the
noise. This will change to the character of their neighborhood.
Cindy Seyfer (36 Tempe Court) stated she doesn’t have a lot to add other than saying that she
agrees with what her neighbors have said and many of them chose to live there for the specific
reason that they had the rural residential mix. Her husband and she have the pleasure of looking
out their back yard onto the Poor Farm and seeing the sunsets from their deck and seeing the
dark night skies from their deck. She understands the need for public use and what might be in
the public interest, but she also thinks there is a balance and to her this is not going to be the
right balance for the interest of the public and the people if they move from rural residential to
intensive commercial. That's just leaping too far, too fast, and she agrees with Sherri Bergstrom
in terms of the ability for them to be part of the good neighbor process. There's a few of them
here tonight, but there would have been even more that would have come out had they had an
opportunity early on to be part of good neighbor discussions. Seyfer would like to encourage the
Commission, as others have said, to slow down, involve the rest of the community, and to look
closely and honestly at what the plan is for the future. One of the things they all appreciate about
Iowa City is the concepts and ideals of transparency and inclusivity and they've not found that
yet here but do appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight. They just want to be more involved
in the process.
Brenda Scott (1783 Lake Shore Drive) lives in the Country Club Estates and echoes what
everyone has said here. If anyone has ever driven out there late at night, go to the end of one of
these roads that they're talking about and see how dark it is. The biggest lights are coming from
the landfill and adding a ton of lights in an industrial area going to completely change the
neighborhood. Another thing to consider is as a parent of a West High student that's a young
driver that has to head south and goes through Shannon Drive currently, she knows there's been
talk of doing another road like Slothower was before Southwest Estates was built, but she has
heard that they have that route through Lake Shore Drive potentially, which is where she lives,
and that road has a ton of traffic, high speed traffic, so having additional traffic also go to Lake
Shore to get to this area would be bad especially if they are talking about giant trucks going
through a neighborhood filled with kids. Also, because the traffic to the east of this location
would be going by West High it will cause issues. The main road to get to West High for
everyone down there is Shannon Drive turning right to go to West High or turning left to get to
Northwest Junior High. In the mornings that street is backed up so much and trying to add large
industrial trucks into that is going to cause even more congestion and a dangerous situation for
immature drivers. Scott acknowledged she doesn’t really understand when they say
MidAmerican is going to be built there, what that means, is it a hub for their trucks or is it one of
those giant energy plant type things. She would appreciate an answer that too. But overall, just
the amount of traffic, the light, and changing the neighborhood is all happening way too fast.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 13 of 36
Tim Slothower (Slothower Farms) stated their family moved out to that area back in the early 70s
and so they lived out there at a time when that road actually went through from Melrose to
Rohret Road. About halfway down it turned into a mud road. Slothower also stated
unfortunately there's a lot of traffic that uses that road, because if anyone wants to go south and
then west the best place to go that direction is south on Slothower Road, from the interstate
there is not a direct route to head south and west. So, when they moved out there, the road was
through and they had constant traffic coming up and down that road from Secondary Roads.
They had 30-40 dump trucks a day going up and down that road, and at that time it was a gravel
road and it's not that much better now than it was back then. Slothower did have two questions,
one is there going to be access from this new development to Slothower Road or will all the
access be from Melrose and IWV. The other question he has is how much traffic would be going
down a road if it does get connected to the subdivision. Again, he has lived on that road for 30
years and seen a lot of changes out there as far as traffic and that kind of thing and he hates to
see it go back to that direction, it’s a nice quiet neighborhood and it should stay that way.
Duane Kruse (965 Slothower Road) is one of the two residents that live on Slothower Road and
agrees with what everybody has stated, it's beautiful out there at nighttime, it's dark with a great
view of the stars and wonderful sunsets. He’s grown to love the land and got the distinct privilege
of buying the family farmstead and three acres. They too were under the impression that when
they purchased this land in the future, at some point in time, it would be developed to residential.
He and his wife Kathy are opposed to this and think it should be very highly considered to jump
in lightly on this. It is not wise for a lot of different reasons, one, as everybody stated, to put in
heavy industrial is going to bring big lights and big fences. To his understanding MidAmerican
Energy would have a storage facility, which they have one now to the south and it’s not very neat
and orderly nor very attractive. Kruse spoke with the developer back there they have they have
a large buffer strip which is very positive, but it changes everything, it changes the environment,
it floods the area with lights, as the Iowa City landfill has done. The historic farm has also started
to put up heavy lights that flood the area. Kruse stated if they had a magic wand they would just
turn it all into a forest with ponds and maybe a park for the public to enjoy, but never industrial.
Again, he stated he had his wife Kathy are most definitely opposed, the 49 pheasants that were
in their front yard all winter long are opposed, their two dogs are opposed, their three cats are
opposed. They love that land; he grew up on a farm and to see something in this magnitude
really needs to be considered and take a pause and ask do they really need to change things to
this nature. Kruse asked if this was in your backyard, would you want it there. Wind turbines
are the most efficient use and are out in the ocean because east coast communities say no, they
can't put them in their backyards because they have political power. Maybe the City needs to
consider what's the real purpose here, why change something to this nature, because is that a
wise move. Kruse doesn’t know that answer, but he does know this much from having the
privilege of living out there for five years or so now, he has grown to love this property for a lot of
different reasons, so he urges the Commission to reconsider this.
Jim Seyfer (36 Tempe Court) had just a couple of points. Number one he is pretty astounded
that there isn't more understanding or knowledge of what the County Poor Farms plans are so
that is another reason to slow down. Secondly, he doesn’t have a master's in urban planning, but
he thinks a principle of urban planning is to group and place and approve the proper activities in
the right zones. As he looks at the maps and they're off in the west corner as a one-off proposal
which would need to be rezoned. It doesn't belong there and intensive commercial just flies in
the face of what he thinks urban planning should be all about. He just wants to echo his support
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 14 of 36
for everyone else who has spoken before him.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend approval of CPA21-0002, a proposed amendment to change
the following for around 80 acres of property located south of IWV and west of Slothower:
• The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation from Rural Residential,
Open Space, and Residential at 2-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre to Intensive Commercial;
and
• The Southwest District Plan future land use map designation from Single-
Family/Duplex Residential and Future Urban Development to Intensive Commercial,
and to change the text of the District Plan to what was included in the agenda packet.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Hensch noted the discussion now is relative exclusively to the amendment of the Comprehensive
Plan and the question before the Commission as set forth by the rules of Iowa City is looking at
the approval criteria for the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to this area and there's two
different items in this. His personal opinion is that the City has shown that these two items that
have existed, that is, the circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors
have come to light, such as the proposed amendment is in the public interest. Hensch noted that
is always the Commission’s purpose here, what are they looking at and what is best for the City
of Iowa City, the entire city. The second area is what is proposed will be compatible with other
policies and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, including any district plans or amendments
thereto. He believes both those circumstances and both those things are true so he’ll be
supporting this application.
Signs agrees and thinks Hensch made a good point that this piece is just around the
Comprehensive Plan change and that there are other opportunities to put criteria in if anyone
feels the need to as they go through the annexation and rezoning. He has struggled with this a
little bit, but does think that the area has changed, and the intent of some of the future plans such
as bringing 965 down on the west side and making it a major thoroughfare does enhance that or
indicate that there's going to be even more change in the future. Having driven on IWV road
many times there's a lot of dump trucks that go up and down that road so he certainly wouldn’t
call it a quiet residential neighborhood. He is impressed with the buffering that's naturally
created and the retention basin. As he looks forward to potentially the rezoning he probably
would be inclined to encourage a lot of buffering on the property as a whole, but he feels like the
growth of the residential area is coming from the south, he doesn’t foresee a big developer come
out on IWV road north of the landfill or next to the County property there. He thinks the
development that has occurred out there west of the interstate has started a pattern and started
a trend of use that is not inappropriate, certainly it can be subject to other people's visions, but it
seems to be a logical place to continue on with some of that commercial, industrial use and
continue to focus development to the south for residential and they know that there's a large
residential proposal south of Rohret Road and if he had to guess that's where the residential
growth is going to be in Iowa City in the coming years. He just doesn’t see residential really
happening along IWV road and so he is inclined to think that the change in the Comprehensive
Plan based on the changes in circumstances and the community needs warrants approval, and
he will be supporting this.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 15 of 36
Townsend stated she is torn because of the intensive commercial in what was supposed to be a
residential area, so she is still pondering that even though it has changed and it's going to
continue to change, especially with the new development off of Rohret Road.
Craig stated she is supportive of the of the change, staff makes the case for the changes that
have happened and occurred and agrees that when you drive down Melrose and IWV it is not a
residential neighborhood.
Hensch stated in the immediate area it's pretty hard to see this as residential with the National
Guard Armory, the SEATS and Secondary Roads campus, the Joint Emergency
Communications Center, Chatham Oaks residential care facility, it’s just not a residential
character of that neighborhood.
Signs agrees with Townsend and thinks there needs to be a lot of buffering but is impressed with
the buffering that is currently proposed and won't have any problem suggesting maximum
buffering when they get to some of the other phases as property develops, but he does think
that's key, but there is quite a bit already there 300 feet is a lot of butter, that's a football field.
Padron stated she will not be supporting this; she is concerned with the sensitive areas around
the intensive commercial. Commercial is not a kind of buffer. Also, the Poor Farm has been used
lately to for festival and family activities and this is too close to the Poor Farm and if that's the
intention, or the plan, of how to use the Poor Farm, then there are too many concerns for her.
Padron also didn’t like that there weren't enough neighbors at the good neighbor meeting, there
should have been more people there.
A vote was taken and the motion failed 3-2 (Townsend and Padron dissenting).
CASE NO. ANN21-0003 & REZ21-0006:
Location: SW corner of Slothower Road and IWV Road
a. An application for an annexation of approximately 70.39 acres of land currently in
unincorporated Johnson County.
b. An application for a rezoning from County Agricultural (A) to Intensive Commercial
CI-1) for approximately 53.36 acres, Interim Development Commercial ( ID-C) for
approximately 17.03 acres, and approximately 9 acres of land from Rural Residential
RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1).
Heitner stated the presentation is going to have a lot of similarity between this agenda item and
the previous agenda item so he would try to not be duplicative in the interest of time. He began
with an aerial view of subject property and an overview of the existing zoning noting County
Agriculture, Rural Residential and County Residential. Heitner noted the majority of the 70 acres
of subject property is located in the growth area of the Fringe Area Agreement, there is a little
strip, around 9 acres, to the east that is already in the City limits. That nine-acre strip along with
about 53 acres of the proposed annexation would seek CI-1 (Intensive Commercial) zoning and
the remaining balance to the west would seek ID-C (Interim Development Commercial) zoning
for about 17 acres.
Date: October 21, 2021
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner
Re: REZ21-0006 – IWV/Slothower Rezoning – Updated Conditions
BACKGROUND:
On September 16, 2021, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on a
rezoning of property located south of IWV Road and west of Slothower Road from County
Agricultural (A) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for 53.36 acres, and to Interim
Development – Commercial (ID-C) zone for 17.03 acres. The application also included a rezoning
of 9 acres of Rural Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone. The rezoning was
recommended for approval by the Commission by a vote of 4-1.
At that same meeting, the Commission considered an amendment to the comprehensive plan for
this same property. That amendment did not pass, so the applicant has submitted a new
comprehensive plan amendment, which the Commission is considering contemporaneous with
this agenda item. In the event that this new comprehensive plan amendment receives the required
4 votes to recommend approval, then the Commission should reconsider the rezoning conditions.
ANALYSIS:
The newly requested comprehensive plan amendment seeks to mitigate the negative externalities
of intensive commercial use on the surrounding land, particularly the undeveloped land to the
south currently shown as appropriate for rural residential on the City’s Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use Map. Concerns about these negative externalities were raised at the September
16, 2021 meeting. Rather than changing the boundaries of the Intensive Commercial zoning
designation, Staff recommends imposing additional conditions on the land to be zoned Intensive
Commercial to ensure that the goals of the Comprehensive Plan are met and the public need for
this buffering are satisfied.
To be consistent with the comprehensive plan’s identified public need for buffering the intensive
commercial uses along the south 350’ of the subject property, Staff recommends that when the
land is platted, the Owner should dedicate to the City a buffer easement and impose upon the
land a use restriction prohibiting development within 350 feet of the southern boundary of the
subject property. Such use restriction should prohibit installation of structures, parking lots, drive
aisles, or loading areas. Streets may be necessary, as determined through the subdivision
process. Additionally, at the time the land is platted and upon construction of the public
improvements, the Owner shall plant landscaping to the S3 standard along the southern boundary
within this easement area in locations that do not contain sensitive areas or sensitive areas
buffers, as identified on the approved Site Grading and Erosion Control Plan and Sensitive Areas
Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of REZ21-0006, a rezoning of approximately 53.36 acres from County
Agricultural (A) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1), 9 acres from Rural Residential (RR-1) to Intensive
October 15, 2021
Page 2
Commercial (CI-1), and 17.03 acres from County Agricultural (A) to Interim Development
Commercial (ID-C) subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of any building permit, Owner shall plat the property herein rezoned to
follow the zoning boundaries.
a. Said plat shall show a buffer easement area generally 350’ wide consistent with
the comprehensive plan map. This easement area shall be governed by an
easement agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. This easement
area shall be planted according to a landscape plan approved by the City
Forester at such times as required by the subdivider’s agreement.
b. Said plat shall include the dedication of right-of-way along the Slothower Road
frontage in a size and location approved by the City Engineer to allow Slothower
Road to be improved to City urban design standards.
2. Pursuant to Iowa City Code Title 15, Owner shall, contemporaneous with the final plat
approval, execute a subdivider’s agreement addressing, among other things, the
following conditions:
a. Owner shall contribute 25% of the cost of upgrading Slothower Road, south of
any future access, to collector street standards, adjacent to the subject property.
b. Owner shall install landscaping to the S3 standard along the Slothower Road
and IWV Road frontages;
c. Improve Slothower Road to the southern end of any future access off Slothower
Road.
3. For all lots fronting IWV Road and Slothower Road, loading areas, and outdoor storage
shall not be located between the front facade of the principal structure and the public
right-of-way line.
Approved by: __________________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: ANN21-0003/REZ21-0006
Prepared by: Ray Heitner, Associate
Planner
Date: September 16, 2021
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
MMS Consultants
1917 S. Gilbert St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-351-8282
l.sexton@mmsconsultants.net
Contact Person: Jon Marner
MMS Consultants
1917 S. Gilbert St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-351-8282
j.marner@mmsconsultants.net
Owner: Matt Adam
IWV Holdings, LLC.
319-248-6316
madam@spmblaw.com
Requested Action: Annexation & Rezoning
Purpose:
Annexation of 70.39 acres of land currently
in unincorporated Johnson County and
rezoning it from County Agricultural (A) zone
to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone and
Interim Development – Commercial (ID-C)
zone. Rezoning of 9 acres of Rural
Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial
(CI-1) zone.
Location:
South of IWV Road and west of Slothower
Road.
Location Map:
2
Size: Annexation and rezoning - 70.39 acres;
Rezoning within the City limits – 9 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Farmland, Rural Residential (RR-1) and
County Agricultural (A)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: (Farmland) County Residential
R and Rural Residential RR-1
South: (Farmland, Rural Residential)
County Agricultural A and Rural
Residential RR-1
East: (Johnson County Poor Farm)
Neighborhood Public P-1
West: (Farmland) County Agricultural
A
Comprehensive Plan:
Intensive Commercial1
District Plan:
Southwest District Plan - Single-
Family/Duplex Residential, Future Urban
Development, & Vegetative Noise and
Sight Buffer
Neighborhood Open Space District:
SW5 – Only for the 9 acres currently in the
City limits.
Public Meeting Notification: Property owners located within 300’ of the
project site and residents of the Country
Club Estates Fourth and Fifth Addition
Subdivisions received notification of the
Planning and Zoning Commission public
meeting. Rezoning signs were also posted
on the site.
File Date: May 27, 2021
45 Day Limitation Period: NA
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The owner is requesting annexation and rezoning of 70.39 acres of property located south of IWV
Road and west of Slothower Road. The owner has requested that the property be rezoned from
County Agricultural (A) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) for approximately 53.36 acres, and to Interim
Development Commercial (ID-C) for approximately 17.03 acres. In addition, the owner has
requested a rezoning of approximately 9 acres of land currently located within the City limits from
Rural Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1).
1 Pending approval of the associated Comprehensive Plan amendment to Intensive Commercial
land use, per case number CPA21-0002.
3
The 70.39 acres of land that is currently located outside of the city limits is adjacent to Iowa City’s
current boundary and within Fringe Area C, inside the City’s growth area of the Johnson
County/Iowa City Fringe Area Agreement. The Southwest District Plan shows this area with a future
land use designation of Rural Residential for the majority of this land, with a narrow strip of
private/public open space to the west, bordering the City’s landfill. The Southwest District Plan
shows the portion of the subject properties that is currently within the City limits as
Residential at 2-8 dwelling units per acre. The owner has also applied for a comprehensive plan
amendment with the subject annexation and rezoning applications. If approved, the comprehensive
plan amendment would change the future land use designations to Intensive Commercial.
The owner has used the Good Neighbor Policy and held a Good Neighbor Meeting on July 28,
2021. Four neighbors attended. Attachment #11 provides the summary report of the meeting
provided by the applicant. Staff has received one email expressing opposition to the annexation
and rezoning, which is attached as correspondence. In addition, staff received several emails and
phone calls asking questions about the annexation and rezoning.
Pursuant to state code requirements for voluntary annexations, City staff held a consult with two
Union Township Trustees on Thursday, July 29, 2021 to discuss the proposed annexation
application. Trustees expressed concern about the loss of productive farmland and Township tax
revenue losses.
ANALYSIS:
Annexation: The Comprehensive Plan has established a growth policy to guide decisions
regarding annexations. The annexation policy states that annexations are to occur primarily through
voluntary petitions filed by the property owners. Further, voluntary annexation requests are to be
reviewed under the following three criteria. The Comprehensive Plan states that voluntary
annexation requests should be viewed positively when the following conditions exist.
1. The area under consideration falls within the adopted long-range planning boundary.
A growth area is illustrated in the Comprehensive Plan and on the City’s Zoning Map. The subject
property is located within the City’s long-range growth boundary.
2. Development in the area proposed for annexation will fulfill an identified need without imposing
an undue burden on the City.
The Southwest District Plan identifies the subject area as being appropriate for annexation and
development upon provision of sanitary sewer service. A sanitary sewer main line can be extended
to the west from its current endpoint near the Johnson County Poor Farm property, along the south
side of IWV Road. The extension could service the properties that would be rezoned to Intensive
Commercial (CI-1) zoning. The property seeking Interim Development Commercial zoning to the
west will likely need a lift station for future sanitary sewer service to be provided. Since there are no
plans to sewer this property right now, an interim zone is appropriate.
The City’s 2021 Capital Improvement Plan has budgeted over $5,000,000 for improvements to
Melrose Avenue between Highway 218 and Hebl Avenue. These improvements will bring this
stretch of roadway into compliance with the City’s Urban Design Standards. As a part of these
improvements, the City will also be extending its water main west to the City landfill site, allowing
any future development between Highway 218 and the landfill to tap into the water main.
Development in this area will engender suitable development to utilize these improvements, while
providing the City with needed land for Intensive Commercial use.
Staff’s analysis for the associated comprehensive plan amendment (CPA21-0002) revealed that
4
approximately 13% of the City’s Intensive Commercial zoned land is vacant. Furthermore, what
land is available for Industrial use tends to be clustered in the southeast section of the City, in the
City’s Industrial Park and south of the Highway 1 at the US-218 interchange and north and east of
the airport. While these are suitable locations for some industrial or intensive commercial uses,
these properties may not have the desired degree of highway access that other Intensive
Commercial or Industrial users may require. In addition, many of these vacant parcels are less than
2 acres in size.
Lastly, the Comprehensive Plan encourages growth that is contiguous and connected to existing
neighborhoods to reduce the costs of providing infrastructure and City services. The subject
properties are bordered by the city limits on the east side. Therefore, the subject property is
contiguous to current development and meets the goal of contiguous growth.
3. Control of the development is in the City’s best interest.
The property is within the City’s designated Growth Area. It is appropriate that the proposed property
be located within the City so that future development may be served by Fire, Police, water, and
sanitary sewer service. Annexation will allow the City to provide these services and control zoning
so that development of the subject area is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan.
For the reasons stated above, staff finds that the proposed annexation complies with the annexation
policy.
Current Zoning: The western properties are currently zoned County Agricultural (A), while the
eastern property already within the city limits is zoned Rural Residential (RR-1). The County (A)
zone is intended to provide land for all types of agricultural production. The zone allows for a wide
range of agriculturally oriented uses, as well single-family dwellings and manufactured homes. The
City’s RR-1 zone is intended to provide a rural residential character for areas in the city that are not
projected to have the utilities necessary for urban development in the foreseeable future or for areas
that have sensitive environmental features that preclude development at urban densities.
Proposed Zoning: The request is to rezone the eastern two properties as Intensive Commercial
(CI-1) zone, and Interim Commercial zone (ID-C) for the far western property. This request is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan amendment application filed contemporaneously with this
application, which staff supports for the reasons set forth in the associated staff report. Because the
requested rezoning boundaries do not follow existing property lines, however, a plat is necessary
to establish property lines consistent therewith.
The purpose of the Interim Development (ID) zone is to provide for areas of managed growth in
which agricultural and other nonurban uses of land may continue until such time as the City is able
to provide services and urban development can occur. The ID zone is the default zoning district to
which all undeveloped areas should be classified until City services are provided. Upon provision
of City services, a rezoning to zones consistent with the Comprehensive Plan may be considered.
The western property, shown in purple in Figure #1, does not have an immediate solution for
sanitary sewer service. Therefore, an ID zone is appropriate.
5
Figure 1 – Western ID-C Parcel
The purpose of the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone is to provide areas for those sales and service
functions and businesses whose operations are typically characterized by outdoor display and
storage of merchandise, by repair and sales of large equipment or motor vehicles, by outdoor
commercial amusement and recreational activities or by activities or operations conducted in
buildings or structures not completely enclosed. The types of retail trade in this zone are limited in
order to provide opportunities for more land intensive commercial operations and to prevent conflicts
between retail and industrial truck traffic. City Code specifies that special attention must be directed
toward buffering the negative aspects of allowed uses from adjacent residential zones.
The uses in Table 1 are permitted by right in a CI-1 zone.
Table 1 – Uses Permitted by Right in a CI-1 Zone
Use: Examples:
Building Trade Uses Electrical, plumbing, heating, and air
conditioning contractors, etc.
Commercial Recreational Uses Outdoor: Campgrounds; commercial tennis
and swimming facilities; drive-in theaters;
outdoor skating rinks; golf driving ranges;
outdoor miniature golf facilities; etc.
Indoor: Physical fitness centers; health clubs;
gyms; bowling alleys; indoor skating rinks; etc.
Eating Establishments Restaurants; cafes; cafeterias; coffee shops;
etc.
Office Uses Professional offices, such as lawyers,
accountants, engineers, architects, and real
estate agents; financial businesses, such as
mortgage lenders, government offices; etc.
Retail Sales Sales Oriented: Stores selling, leasing, or
renting consumer, home, and business goods.
Personal Service Oriented: Retail banking
establishments, laundromats, catering
services, dry cleaners, tailors, shoe repair, etc.
Repair Oriented: Repair of consumer goods,
such as electronics, bicycles, office
equipment; appliances.
6
Hospitality Oriented: Hotels; motels;
convention centers; guesthouses; and
commercial meeting halls/event facilities.
Outdoor Storage and Display Oriented:
Lumberyards; sales or leasing of consumer
vehicles, including passenger vehicles, light
and medium trucks, etc.
Alcohol Sales Oriented: Liquor stores; wine
shops; grocery stores; convenience stores;
etc.
Delayed Deposit Service Uses: Payday
lenders and any other similar use that meets
the definition of "delayed deposit service use",
as defined in chapter 9, article A of Title 14 of
the City Code.
Industrial Service Uses Facilities, yards, and preassembly yards for
construction contractors; welding shops;
machines shops; tool repair; electric motor
repair; repair of scientific or professional
instruments; repair of heavy machinery; towing
and vehicle storage; servicing and repair of
medium and heavy trucks; etc.
Self-Service Storage Uses Miniwarehouses; ministorage facilities.
Warehouse and Freight Movement Uses Separate warehouses used by retail stores
such as furniture and appliance stores;
household moving and general freight storage;
cold storage plants, including frozen food
lockers; major wholesale distribution centers;
truck and air freight terminals; etc.
Wholesale Sales Uses Wholesale sales and rental of heavy trucks,
machinery, equipment, building materials,
special trade tools, welding supplies, machine
parts, etc.
In addition to the uses that are permitted by right, several uses are permitted provisionally.
Provisional uses must abide by additional requirements, which are detailed in section 14-4B-4 of
the City Code. Attachment #12 provides a more detailed analysis of the additional criteria that is
required for each provisional use. The uses in Table 2 are permitted as provisional uses in a CI-1
zone.
Table 2 – Provisional Uses in a CI-1 Zone
Use: Examples:
Adult Business Uses Adult bookstores; adult video stores; nightclubs
featuring nude dancing.
Animal Related Commercial Uses General: Veterinary clinics; animal grooming
establishments; pet crematoriums; animal
daycare; indoor animal recreation.
Intensive: Kennels; stables.
Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses Full serve and miniserve gas stations;
unattended card key service stations; car
washes.
Vehicle Repair Uses Vehicle repair shops; auto body shops;
transmission and muffler shops; etc.
General Manufacturing Manufacturing, compounding, assembling or
7
treatment of most articles, materials, or
merchandise.
Basic Utility Uses Utility substation facilities; water and sewer lift
stations, water towers, and reservoirs.
Community Service – Long-term Housing Long term housing for persons with a disability
operated by a public or nonprofit agency.
Daycare Uses Childcare centers; adult daycare; preschools
and latchkey programs not accessory to an
educational facility use.
Communication Transmission Facility Uses Broadcast towers and antennas; wireless
communication towers and antennas; etc.
Furthermore, several uses in the CI-1 zoning designation are permitted by special exception. Uses
permitted by special exception must be approved by the City’s Board of Adjustment. Like provisional
uses, uses requiring special exception must meet additional criteria. Attachment #12 provides a
more detailed analysis of the additional criteria that is required for each use that is permitted by
special exception in the CI-1 zone. The uses in Table 3 are permitted by special exception in a CI-
1 zone.
Table 3 – Uses Permitted by Special Exception in a CI-1 Zone
Use: Examples:
Assisted Group Living Group care facilities, including nursing and
convalescent homes; assisted living facilities.
Heavy Manufacturing Concrete batch/mix plants; asphalt mixing
plants; meatpacking plants; sawmills and
planning mills; etc.
Basic Utility Uses Utility substation facilities; water and sewer lift
stations, water towers, and reservoirs.
Community Service – Long Term Housing Long term housing for persons with a disability
operated by a public or nonprofit agency.
Community Service - Shelter Transient housing operated by a public or
nonprofit agency.
General Community Service Libraries; museums; transit centers; park and
ride facilities; senior centers; community
centers; neighborhood centers; youth club
facilities; etc.
Detention Facilities Prisons; jails; probation centers; juvenile
detention homes; halfway houses.
Education Facilities (Specialized) Music schools, dramatic schools, dance
studios, martial arts studios, etc.
Utility-Scale Ground-Mounted Solar Energy
Systems
A solar energy system that is structurally
mounted on the ground and is not roof
mounted, and the system’s footprint is at least
1 acre in size.
Communication Transmission Facility Uses Broadcast towers and antennas; wireless
communication towers and antennas; etc.
Rezoning Review Criteria:
Staff uses the following two criteria in the review of rezonings:
1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan;
2. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character.
8
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The current Southwest District Plan future land use
map designates this area as appropriate for rural residential uses and private/public open space.
The owner has requested, and staff supports, an amendment to this plan to show this area as
appropriate for Intensive Commercial. The plan amendment would also change the Southwest
District Plan’s future land use map from Single-Family/Duplex Residential for the 9 acres within
the city limits, and as Future Urban Development for the remaining acres located outside of the
city limits to Intensive Commercial. That amendment is being contemporaneously considered by
the Commission and the reasons for Staff’s recommendation are described in detail in that staff
report. Assuming that the amendment is approved, this application would be consistent therewith.
The Comprehensive Plan identifies several goals and strategies regarding commercial and
industrial development. Specifically:
• Use the District Plans to identify appropriate commercial nodes and zone accordingly
to focus commercial development to meet the needs of present and future population.
• Identify, zone, and preserve land for industrial uses in areas with ready access to rail
and highways.
• Target industrial and business sectors that align with Iowa City’s economic strengths,
including biotechnology, healthcare, advanced manufacturing, information technology,
education services, and renewable energy.
• Focus growth within the Iowa City urban growth area by using the City’s extra-territorial
review powers to discourage sprawl and preserve prime farmland.
The Weber Subarea of the Southwest District Plan’s Future Land Use Map designates the subject
properties as appropriate for future urban development until sewer service is extended and lift
stations are constructed where required. The subject properties will eventually be bordered by
arterial streets along the north (Melrose Ave./IWV Rd.) and west (Hwy. 965 extension) sides, with
eventual improvements to Slothower Road creating a major collector street along the east side.
The subject properties also fall within a ½-mile to 1-mile distance of the Melrose Ave./Hwy. 218
interchange. The enhanced road network and highway adjacency make this land desirable for
future commercial or industrial development.
While the City’s comprehensive plan amendment analysis showed that there is a supply
(approximately 51 acres) of vacant Intensive Commercial land within the current city limits, the
suitability and location of much of that land may be inadequate, based on highway proximity and
land area constraints The analysis also forecasted a potential growing need for future Intensive
Commercial lands, given the region’s increasing population and the ever-increasing demand for
warehousing and logistics-oriented space. While the proposed annexation and rezoning would
likely result in the removal of productive farmland, it is in the City and County’s interest to ensure
that this development takes place within the City’s growth area, so as to not create “leapfrog style”
development that cannot be adequately served by City services.
Figure #2 below shows an outline of the City’s current Growth Area within the Fringe Area. The
subject properties that are outside of the City limits are highlighted within the Growth Area, in
Fringe Area C. Land that is located within the City’s Growth Area is anticipated to be annexed into
the City and further developed.
9
Figure #2 – Growth Area Map
Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood Character: The subject properties are adjacent to
undeveloped farmland to the north, south, and west. A mixture of farmland, streams, and
woodlands can be found throughout these properties. The properties to the south and west
contain County Agricultural (A) zoning, while the properties to the north contain a split of County
Residential (R) and City Rural Residential (RR-1) zoning.
The Johnson County Poor Farm is immediately east of the subject property. The Poor Farm
currently contains farmland (approximately 400’ x 1,270’) for the entire stretch of adjacent
property, across from Slothower Road. The County has expressed a desire to develop the
southwest portion of the Poor Farm property with future residential dwellings, but it is not believed
that this portion of the property will be directly across from this application’s subject properties.
Still, to soften the transition from an Intensive Commercial land use to an agricultural/residentia l
use to the east, staff is proposing a condition that the developer provide an S3 landscape buffer
along the entire Slothower Road frontage. In addition, staff is proposing a condition that the
developer submit a landscape plan, which shall be approved by the City Forester, prior to
issuance of any building permits for the subject properties.
The current land use composition changes outside of the immediately adjacent properties. About
650’ southwest of the southwestern extent of the subject properties begins the northern portion
of the Iowa City landfill. While the areas abutting the landfill are currently still agricultural in nature,
prudent planning would dictate that as the area between the landfill and Highway 218 continues
to develop, uses should be scaled in intensity from the landfill, a geographically large area with
several negative externalities (noise, odors, etc.) to the existing residences that can be found east
of Slothower Road. The Weber Subarea Plan briefly touches upon the need to buffer residential
uses from the landfill. Based on projected long-term demand and the characteristics of the subject
10
properties, including access to US-218 and intensive commercial uses being appropriate as a
buffer against future landfill expansion and US-965 extension, the subject properties will likely be
desired for future commercial or intensive commercial development.
Furthermore, land located northwest of the Melrose Avenue/Highway 218 interchange is already
zoned Public and contains lighter industrial and institutional uses in a County Public Works facility
and an Iowa Armory Board facility. These public zones that contain more intense uses are directly
adjacent to farmland and residential zoning (City and County), giving the corridor a light industrial
aesthetic.
The City’s Commercial Site Development Standards provide some initial restrictions pertaining to
the screening of parking and loading areas. Parking and loading areas must be set back at least
10' from any front and street-side lot lines. However, any loading area, parking spaces or aisles
located within 50' of a residential zone boundary must be set back at least 20' from the front or
street-side lot line. The Standards go on to specify that all areas of the site that are not used for
buildings, parking, vehicular and pedestrian use areas, sidewalk cafes and plazas must be
landscaped with trees and/or plant materials. A landscaping plan must be submitted for site plan
review. Furthermore, surface parking areas, loading areas, and drives must be screened from
view of abutting properties to at least the S2 standard. Additional screening is required for
properties that abut properties zoned residential. Parking areas, loading areas, and drives must
be screened from view of any abutting property zoned residential to at least the S3 standard. Staff
is proposing a condition to require an S3 High Screen, along the property’s eastern frontage.
While outdoor storage and display oriented retail is a permitted use in a CI-1 zone, the
Commercial Site Development Standards do regulate where these uses can locate, and how they
are screened from public view. The Standards detail that outdoor storage of materials in the CH-
1 and CI-1 zones is permitted, provided it is concealed from public view to the extent possible. If
it is not feasible to conceal the storage areas behind buildings, the storage areas must be set
back at least 20' from any public right of way, including public trails and open space, and screened
from view to at least the S3 standard. With respect to views into the subject properties from the
south, the Standards elaborate that any outdoor display area located along a side or rear lot line
that does not abut a public right of way must be set back at least 10' from said lot line and screened
from view of abutting properties to at least the S2 standard. If the display area is adjacent to a
residential zone boundary, it must be screened to the S3 standard.
Although the zoning code includes regulations that further regulate parking areas, loading zones,
and outdoor storage to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses, staff proposes a condition
of the rezoning that parking, loading areas, and outdoor storage shall either not be located
between the front facade of the principal structure and the front yard right-of-way line, or be
screened to the S3 standard along the IWV Road frontage. Staff is recommending this condition
for the following reasons. Shielding these uses from the IWV Road right-of-way will help
implement the Comprehensive Plan’s goal of emphasizing green components in all street
improvement projects, especially along arterial roads and entryways into the City. This portion of
IWV Road is both an arterial road and an entryway into the City from the west. The
Comprehensive Plan also encourages the preservation and enhancement of entryways into the
City. Implementing the requested screening along the IWV Road right-of-way will enhance the
aesthetics of the entryway into the city.
In addition to the baseline standards in the Commercial Site Development Standards, Attachment
#12 provides more detail on the additional criteria that applies to Provisional Uses in a CI-1 zone.
In general, the additional criteria require additional setbacks from certain other uses (residential,
religious, educational facility, etc.) as well as techniques to screen these CI-1 uses from adjacent
lower intensity uses. Hours of operation may also be restricted for certain uses, such as vehicle
repair uses. Certain General Manufacturing uses, such as chemical product manufacturing,
11
milling, motor vehicle manufacturing, and the processing of rubber and plastics are also prohibited
in the CI-1 zone.
Attachment #12 also provides more detail on the additional criteria that would be reviewed for any
uses seeking a special exception from the Board of Adjustment. As is the case with additional
criteria for provisional uses, the special exception criteria add more specific restrictions on use
setbacks, screening, and outright restriction of certain uses. An example of this is Heavy
Manufacturing, which is limited to concrete mixing plants that require a 500’ buffer from any
residential zone.
The existing use specific criteria and special exception process provides additional regulation that
are aimed are reducing conflicts with neighbors. While the combined acreage of the subject
properties is over 79 acres, much of the land to the south will not be able to be fully developed
since there are existing sensitive areas and logical places for stormwater detention. This creates
a generous buffer of at least 1,700’ from the nearest existing residential use to the southeast and
any potential CI-1 use. In addition, required improvements to Slothower Road, upon subsequent
development, to collector street standards will create a 66’ wide right-of-way, which should create
a clear physical distinction between the potential Intensive Commercial use on the subject
properties and the rural and residential uses to the east and southeast. Lastly, as described
previously, the IWV/Melrose corridor does already have some existing uses of higher intensity to
the east, with the Iowa City landfill located further west. A high landscape screen along the
property’s east side and the additional regulations applicable to more intense CI-1 uses will help
ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood character.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The subject properties contain several sensitive areas, as
shown on the Sensitive Areas Plan (Attachment #6). The sensitive areas plan meets the woodland
retention requirements and wetland buffer requirements and is not requesting any buffer
reductions. Because there are no impacts to these areas or requested buffer reductions, the
sensitive areas are reviewed under a Level 1 Sensitive Areas Review. This level of review is not
considered a type of planned development.
The southern ¼ of the properties that are seeking Intensive Commercial zoning (CI-1) contains a
blue line stream and a 50’ stream corridor buffer. The area also contains .37 acres of wooded
wetlands and .95 acres of emergent wetlands. The southern wetland (Wetland “A” from the
Wetland Delineation Report, Attachment #7) is bordered by a 100’ wetland buffer. Due to the
location of sensitive areas within the southern portion of these properties, future development in
this southern ¼ will not be allowed, thereby creating a natural buffer from development to the
south.
An additional wetland (Wetland “B” from the Wetland Delineation Report, Attachment #7) is found
on the westernmost property. This wetland contains .75 acres of wooded wetlands and .5 acres
of emergent wetlands. This wetland also contains a 100’ buffer. A stream bisects this property;
however, it is not regulated under Iowa City’s sensitive areas ordinance due to its lack of an
ordinary high watermark.
The westernmost property also contains 2.02 acres of sensitive woodlands, along with a 50’
woodland buffer. A small area of steep slopes can be found adjacent to both Wetland “A” and
Wetland “B”.
According to the Office of the State Archaeologist, the subject properties are not on record as
ever having been subject to professional archaeological investigation. Examination of available
data suggests the area to be a low to moderate probability location for preservation of significant
archaeological resources. No archaeological investigations are deemed warranted. If in the
course of ground-disturbing development activities unanticipated discovery of apparent
12
archaeological materials occurs, then construction activities must cease within 50 feet of the
discovery and staff from the State Historic Preservation Office and Office of the State
Archaeologist must be notified and allowed to evaluate and consult.
Traffic Implications: As of 2018, Iowa DOT traffic counts showed an average daily trip count of
approximately 2,000 vehicles per day on IWV Road in the vicinity of the subject properties. There
are no recent counts for vehicles on Slothower Road, but any counts for Slothower are assumed
to be insignificant, given the road’s rural character. At 2,000 vehicles per day, this stretch of IWV
Road is well below the arterial capacity of approximately 17,000 vehicles per day for a two-lane
roadway.
Access and Street Design: There is an existing driveway cutout along the south side of IWV
Road where the potential end user can obtain access from IWV Road. The City’s Access
Management Standards discourages direct access to arterial roads when possible. Should the
property to the west develop later, an additional access onto IWV Road will be required, unless a
cross access easement to a singular access of IWV Road becomes feasible. Access to the site
will be determined during site plan review. The attached grading plans shows two separate
conceptual access points off IWV Road to the eastern property. These access points are
conceptual and not supported by staff.
Access to a future development at the southwest corner of IWV Road and Slothower Road will
likely require an access point off Slothower Road as well. This is the City’s preferred point of
primary access to the overall site. The applicant will be responsible for any improvements needed
to the southern end of the future Slothower Road access point. Furthermore, since Slothower
Road is planned to be a future collector street, the applicant will be responsible for 25% of the
cost of upgrading the remaining portion of Slothower Road (south of the previously described
required improvements) for the entire section of Slothower Road that is adjacent to the subject
property. In addition, staff will be recommending a condition that the applicant dedicate the
necessary amount of land needed for a 66’ wide right-of-way along the Slothower Road frontage.
Stormwater Management: On the applicant’s Site Grading and Erosion Control and Sensitive
Areas Plan, stormwater management for the eastern two properties (intended to be developed as
one property) is shown as provided via three separate on-site detention basins. One smaller basin
is shown in the northeast section of the subject properties, while the other two basins would be
situated in the southern ¼ of the subject properties, closer to the southern property boundary.
Stormwater calculations will be reviewed more thoroughly once the properties are replatted to
conform to the proposed zoning boundary lines.
Infrastructure Fees: In addition to the previously described roadway improvements, the developer
will be required to pay a water main extension fee of $503.57 per acre before public improvements
are constructed. The subject properties will not be required to pay sanitary sewer tap-on fees.
NEXT STEPS:
After recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission the following will occur:
• City Council will need to set a public hearing for both the annexation and rezoning.
• Prior to the public hearing, utility companies and non-consenting parties will be sent the
annexation application via certified mail.
• City Council will consider the comprehensive plan amendment (CPA21-0002), annexation
(ANN21-0003), and rezoning (REZ21-0006).
• The application for annexation will be sent to the State Development Board for consideration
and approval.
13
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of ANN21-0003, a voluntary annexation of approximately 70.39 acres
of property located south of IWV Road and west of Slothower Road.
Staff also recommends approval of REZ21-0006, a rezoning of approximately 53.36 acres from
County Agricultural (A) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1), 9 acres from Rural Residential (RR-1) to
Intensive Commercial (CI-1), and 17.03 acres from County Agricultural (A) to Interim Development
Commercial (ID-C) subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall:
a. Plat all the property herein rezoned to follow the zoning boundaries;
b. Submit a landscape plan, which shall be approved by the City Forester, to ensure
that, when developed, the subject property is designed in a manner that emphasizes
green components within its location along an arterial and as an entryway into the
City.
c. Owner shall contribute 25% of the cost of upgrading Slothower Road, south of the
proposed access, to collector street standards, adjacent to the subject property.
2. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the property fronting Slothower Road:
a. Installation of landscaping to the S3 standard, as detailed in section 14-5F-6C of City
Code, along the subject property’s Slothower Road frontage. If said certificate of
occupancy is issued during a poor planting season, by May 31 following issuance of
the certificate of occupancy; and
b. Improvement of Slothower Road to the southern end of the proposed access off
Slothower Road.
3. At the time the final plat is approved, Owner shall dedicate additional right-of-way along the
Slothower Road frontage in an amount and location approved by the City Engineer.
4. Parking, loading areas, and outdoor storage shall either not be located between the front
facade of the principal structure and the front yard right-of-way line or shall be screened to
the S3 standard along the IWV Road frontage.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Aerial Photograph
3. Fringe Area Map
4. Annexation Exhibit
5. Rezoning Exhibit
6. Site Grading and Erosion Control Plan and Sensitive Areas Plan
7. Wetland Delineation Report
8. Applicant Statement (July 8, 2021)
9. Annexation Legal Description
10. Rezoning Legal Description
11. Good Neighbor Meeting Summary
12. CI-1 Zone Permitted Uses Summary
13. Correspondence
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
IWV RD SWCARLS B A DPLTEMPE CTMELROSE AVESLOTHOWERRDFLAGSTAFFDRDURANGOPLSANTAFEDRWILDCATLNMELROSE AVESLOTHOWERRDSWHIGHWAY218 TEMPEPLHURT RD SW2 1 8 S B T OMELROSE A V E
SLOTHOWER RDP1/RM12RS5P2P1RR1Johnson County PD & SANN21-0003, CPA21-0002 & REZ21-0006IWV and Slothower Rd.µ0 0.15 0.30.075 MilesPrepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: June 2021Three applications submitted by MMS Consultants, on behalf of IWV Holdings, LLC,for the Annexation of 70.4 acres of property located south of IWV Rd. and west of Slothower Rd.the rezoning of 79.4 acres from County Agricultural (A) and Rural Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) and Interim Development - Commercial (ID-C)and a comprehensive plan amendment changing the future land use fromPublic/Private Open Space, and Rural Residential to Intensive Commercial.
MELROSE AVE218S B T O M E L R O S E A V E
W ILDCAT LN
C AR LSBADPLTEMPE CTL A K E S H ORE DRMELROSE AVESLOTHOWERRDSANTAFEDRSLOTHOWERRDSWTEMPE PLHIGHWAY 218HURT RD SWSLOTHOWER RDIWV RD SWANN21-0003, CPA21-0002 & REZ21-0006IWV and Slothower Rd.µ0 0.15 0.30.075 MilesPrepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: June 2021Three applications submitted by MMS Consultants, on behalf of IWV Holdings, LLC,for the Annexation of 70.4 acres of property located south of IWV Rd. and west of Slothower Rd.the rezoning of 79.4 acres from County Agricultural (A) and Rural Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) and Interim Development - Commercial (ID-C)and a comprehensive plan amendment changing the future land use fromPublic/Private Open Space, and Rural Residential to Intensive Commercial.
MELROSE AVE
2
1
8
SBT
OMEL
ROSEAVECARLSBADPLTEMPE CTLAKESHOREDRMELROSE AVE
SLOTHOWER
RD
WILDCATLND U R ANGOP LS A N T A F E D RSLOTHOWER
RD S W
TEM P EPLHIG
H
W
A
Y 218
HURT RD SWSLOTHOWER RDIWV RD SW
Johnson County PD & S
ANN21-0003, CPA21-0002 & REZ21-0006IWV and Slothower Rd.µ
0 0.15 0.30.075 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: June 2021
An application submitted by MMS Consultants, on behalf of IWV Holdings, LLC,for the Annexation of 70.4 acres of property located south of IWV Rd. and west of Slothower Rd.the rezoning of 79.4 acres from County Agricultural (A) and Rural Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) and Interim Development - Commercial (ID-C)and a comprehensive plan amendment changing the future land use fromPublic/Private Open Space, and Rural Residential to Intensive Commercial.
(319) 351-8282
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
www.mmsconsultants.net
1917 S. GILBERT ST.
07-08-2021 PER GDM REVIEW - RLW
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
07-08-2021
KJB
RLW
GDM
IOWA CITY
10355-001 1
ANNEXATION EXHIBIT
1
1"=200'
ANNEXATION PARCEL
IWV ROAD SW / F46
SLOTHOWER ROADHURT ROAD SWALBERT AND
FAY'S FIRST
ADDITION
KAUBLE'S
SUBDIVISION NW 14 - NE 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NE14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSE 14 - NW14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNE 14 - NE 14SECTION 14-T79N-R7WSE 14 - NE 14SECTION 14-T79N-R7
W
SW 14 - NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SE 14SECTION 11-T79N-R7WSW 14 - SW 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SW 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7
W
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0
1"=200'
20 50 100 150 200
ANNEXATION EXHIBIT
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
A PORTION OF THE NORTH ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7
WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN
PLAT PREPARED BY:
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
1917 S. GILBERT STREET
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
OWNER/APPLICANT:
IWV HOLDINGS LLC
2916 HIGHWAY 1 NE
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
LOCATION MAP - NOT TO SCALE
ANNEXATION PARCEL
A PORTION OF THE NORTH
ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 13,
TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7
WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN
POINT OF COMMENCEMENT
DESCRIPTION - ANNEXATION PARCEL
A PORTION OF THE NORTH ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7 WEST,
OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Commencing at the North Quarter Corner of Section 13, Township 79
North, Range 7 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County,
Iowa; Thence S89°06'50"W, along the North Line of the North One-Half of
the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13, a distance of 300.04 feet, to the
Point of Beginning; Thence S00°00'59"W, along a line parallel with and
300.00 feet normally distant Westerly from the East Line of the North
One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13, a distance of
1307.41 feet, to its intersection with the North Line of Kauble's Subdivision,
in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 20 at Page 47 of
the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence
S88°45'34"W, along said North Line, 414.99 feet, to the Northwest Corner
thereof; Thence S00°06'26"E, along the West Line of said Kauble's
Subdivision, 3.41 feet, to its intersection with the South Line of the North
One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13; Thence
S89°03'31"W, along said South Line, 1921.53 feet, to the Southwest
Corner of said North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 13;
Thence N00°08'52"E, along the West Line of the North One-Half of the
Northwest Quarter of said Section 13, a distance of 1315.30 feet, to the
Northwest Corner of said Section 13; Thence N89°06'50"E, along the
North Line of the North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section
13, a distance of 2333.42 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Annexation
Parcel contains 70.39 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions
of record.N 1\2 - NW 1\4SECTION 13-T79N-R7W70.39 AC
POINT OF BEGINNING
G:\10355\10355-010\10355-010A.dwg, 8/24/2021 5:07:41 PM
(319) 351-8282
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
www.mmsconsultants.net
1917 S. GILBERT ST.
08-24-21 REVISED ZONING BOUNDARIES -JDM
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
07-07-2021
KJB
RLW
GDM
IOWA CITY
10355-010 1
REZONING EXHIBIT
1
1"=200'
(COUNTY "A" TO CI-1 )
IWV ROAD SW / F46
SLOTHOWER ROADHURT ROAD SWALBERT AND
FAY'S FIRST
ADDITION
KAUBLE'S
SUBDIVISION NW 14 - NE 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NE14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSE 14 - NW14SECTION 13-T79N-R7
WN 1\2 - NW 1\4SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNE 14 - NE 14SECTION 14-T79N-R7
W
SW 14 - NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SE 14SECTION 11-T79N-R7WSW 14 - SW 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SW 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7WGRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0
1"=200'
20 50 100 150 200
REZONING EXHIBIT
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
PORTIONS OF THE NORTH ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7
WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN
PLAT PREPARED BY:
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
1917 S. GILBERT STREET
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
OWNER/APPLICANT:
IWV HOLDINGS LLC
2916 HIGHWAY 1 NE
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
LOCATION MAP - NOT TO SCALE
REZONING PARCELS
PORTIONS OF THE NORTH
ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 13,
TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7
WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN
REZONING PARCEL NO. 2
( RR1 TO CI-1 )REZONING PARCEL NO. 1 (COUNTY "A" TO ID-C )
REZONING PARCEL NO. 3
9.00 AC53.36 AC
17.03 AC
POINT OF BEGINNING PARCEL NO. 1
POINT OF BEGINNING PARCEL NO. 2
POINT OF BEGINNING PARCEL NO. 3
DESCRIPTION - REZONING PARCEL #1
A PORTION OF THE EAST 300 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7 WEST, OF THE FIFTH
PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Beginning at the North Quarter Corner of Section 13, Township 79 North, Range 7 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa; Thence S00°00'59"W, along the East Line of
the North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13, a distance of 1305.56 feet, to its intersection with the Easterly Projection of the North Line of Kauble's Subdivision, in
accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 20 at Page 47 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S88°45'34"W, along said Easterly Projection and
North Line, 300.07 feet; Thence N00°00'59"E, 1307.41 feet, to a Point on the North Line of the North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13; Thence N89°06'50"E, along said
North Line, 300.04 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Rezoning Parcel #1 contains 9.00 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record.
DESCRIPTION - REZONING PARCEL #2
A PORTION OF THE NORTH ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7 WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN,
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Commencing at the North Quarter Corner of Section 13, Township 79 North, Range 7 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa; Thence S00°00'59"W, along the East
Line of the North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13, a distance of 1305.56 feet, to its intersection with the Easterly Projection of the North Line of Kauble's Subdivision, in
accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 20 at Page 47 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S88°45'34"W, along said Easterly Projection and
North Line, 300.07 feet, to the Point of Beginning; Thence continuing S88°45'34"W, along said North Line, 414.99 feet, to the Northwest Corner thereof; Thence S00°06'26"E, along the
West Line of said Kauble's Subdivision, 3.41 feet, to its intersection with the South Line of the North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13; Thence S89°03'31"W, along said
South Line, 1551.41 feet; Thence N13°37'32"W, 53.10 feet; Thence N04°19'09"E, 213.22 feet; Thence N22°47'41"E, 655.46 feet; Thence N33°02'35"E, 438.62 feet; Thence N00°53'27"W,
86.39 feet, to a Point on the North Line of the North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13; Thence N89°06'50"E, along said North Line, 1471.32 feet; Thence S00°00'59"W,
1307.41 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Rezoning Parcel #2 contains 53.36 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record.
DESCRIPTION - REZONING PARCEL #3
A PORTION OF THE NORTH ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7 WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN,
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Beginning at the Northwest Corner of Section 13, Township 79 North, Range 7 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa; Thence N89°06'50"E, along the North Line of
the North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13, a distance of 862.10 feet; Thence S00°53'27"E, 86.39 feet; Thence S33°02'35"W, 438.62 feet; Thence S22°47'41"W,
655.46 feet; Thence S04°19'09"W, 213.22 feet; Thence S13°37'32"E, 53.10 feet, to a Point on the South Line of the North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13; Thence
S89°03'31"W, along said South Line, 370.12 feet, to the Southwest Corner of the North One- Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13; Thence N00°08'52"E, along the West Line of
the North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13, a distance of 1315.30 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Rezoning Parcel #3 contains 17.03 Acres, and is subject to
easements and restrictions of record.
IWV ROAD SW / F46SLOTHOWER ROAD
HURT ROAD SWALBERT ANDFAY'S FIRSTADDITIONKAUBLE'SSUBDIVISIONNW
1
4 -
N
E
1
4SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NE14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSE 14 - NW14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNE 1
4
- NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNW 14 -
NW
1
4SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNE 14 - NE 14SECTION 14-T79N-R7WSE 14 - NE 14SECTION 14-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SE 14SECTION 11-T79N-R7WSW 14 - SW 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SW 14SEC. 12-T79N-R7WSW 14 - SE 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7WCOMMONACCESS(CONCEPT)ACCESS(CONCEPT)PROPOSEDBASINPROPOSEDBASINPROPOSEDBASINLOT SPLIT
(CONCEPT)
LOT SPLIT
(CONCEPT)LIMITS OFCONST.LIMITS OFCONST.LIM
ITS
OFCONST.
LIMITS OF
CONST.
FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY
(319) 351-8282LAND PLANNERSLAND SURVEYORSCIVIL ENGINEERSLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSIOWA CITY, IOWA 52240MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTSwww.mmsconsultants.net1917 S. GILBERT ST.PER CITY COMMENTS -JDM08-06-2107/08/21JDMFIELDBOOKTAVJDM10355-001162.36 ACPART OF THENW14-NW14 ANDTHE NE14-NW14OF SEC. 13,T79N, R7WJOHNSON COUNTY,IOWAREVISED BOUNDARY -JDM08-24-21SITE GRADING ANDEROSION CONTROL PLANAND SENSITIVE AREAS11"=100'GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET1"=100'010255075100SITE GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND SENSITIVE AREASPART OF THE NW1/4-NW1/4 AND NE1/4-NW1/4, SEC. 13,T79N,R7WJOHNSON COUNTY, IOWACWPRDL010203DPREPARED BY:MMS CONSULTANTS INC.1917 S. GILBERT STREETIOWA CITY, IA 52240OWNER/APPLICANT:DLCWPRIWV HOLDINGS LLC2916 HIGHWAY 1 NEIOWA CITY IA 52240AREA OF PROPOSED ID-C ZONING:A SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENTPLAN FOR THIS PARCEL WILL BECOMPLETED WHEN A PERMANENTZONING CLASSIFICATION APPLICATIONIS SUBMITTED. SENSITIVE AREASSHOWN IN THIS AREA ARE FORREFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY.WESTERN BOUNDARY OFPROPOSED CI-1 ZONING.NO CONSTRUCTION SHALLOCCUR WEST OF THIS LINE.WESTERN BOUNDARY OFPROPOSED CI-1 ZONING.NO CONSTRUCTION SHALLOCCUR WEST OF THIS LINE.NOT TO SCALELOCATION MAPPROJECTLOCATION
IWV ROAD SW / F46SLOTHOWER ROAD
HURT ROAD SWALBERT ANDFAY'S FIRSTADDITIONKAUBLE'SSUBDIVISIONNW
1
4 -
N
E
1
4SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NE14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSE 14 - NW14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNE 1
4
- NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNW 14 -
NW
1
4SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNE 14 - NE 14SECTION 14-T79N-R7WSE 14 - NE 14SECTION 14-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SE 14SECTION 11-T79N-R7WSW 14 - SW 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SW 14SEC. 12-T79N-R7WSW 14 - SE 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7WPREPARED BY:MMS CONSULTANTS INC.1917 S. GILBERT STREETIOWA CITY, IA 52240OWNER/APPLICANT:NOT TO SCALELOCATION MAPPROJECTLOCATION(319) 351-8282LAND PLANNERSLAND SURVEYORSCIVIL ENGINEERSLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSIOWA CITY, IOWA 52240MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTSwww.mmsconsultants.net1917 S. GILBERT ST.PER CITY COMMENTS -JDM08-06-2107/08/21JDMFIELDBOOKTAVJDM10355-001162.36 ACPART OF THENW14-NW14 ANDTHE NE14-NW14OF SEC. 13,T79N, R7WJOHNSON COUNTY,IOWAREVISED BOUNDARY -JDM08-24-21SENSITIVE AREAS OVERALL MAP 21"=100'GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET1"=100'010255075100SITE GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND SENSITIVE AREASPART OF THE NW1/4-NW1/4 AND NE1/4-NW1/4, SEC. 13,T79N,R7WJOHNSON COUNTY, IOWAIWV HOLDINGS LLC2916 HIGHWAY 1 NEIOWA CITY IA 52240
IWV ROAD SW / F46SLOTHOWER ROAD
HURT ROAD SWALBERT ANDFAY'S FIRSTADDITIONKAUBLE'SSUBDIVISIONNW
1
4 -
N
E
1
4SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NE14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSE 14 - NW14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNE 1
4
- NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNW 14 -
NW
1
4SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNE 14 - NE 14SECTION 14-T79N-R7WSE 14 - NE 14SECTION 14-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SE 14SECTION 11-T79N-R7WSW 14 - SW 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SW 14SEC. 12-T79N-R7WSW 14 - SE 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7WPREPARED BY:MMS CONSULTANTS INC.1917 S. GILBERT STREETIOWA CITY, IA 52240OWNER/APPLICANT:NOT TO SCALELOCATION MAPPROJECTLOCATION(319) 351-8282LAND PLANNERSLAND SURVEYORSCIVIL ENGINEERSLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSIOWA CITY, IOWA 52240MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTSwww.mmsconsultants.net1917 S. GILBERT ST.PER CITY COMMENTS -JDM08-06-2107/08/21JDMFIELDBOOKTAVJDM10355-001162.36 ACPART OF THENW14-NW14 ANDTHE NE14-NW14OF SEC. 13,T79N, R7WJOHNSON COUNTY,IOWAREVISED BOUNDARY -JDM08-24-21SENSITIVE AREAS STREAM CORRIDORSAND WETLANDS 31"=100'GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET1"=100'010255075100SITE GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND SENSITIVE AREASPART OF THE NW1/4-NW1/4 AND NE1/4-NW1/4, SEC. 13,T79N,R7WJOHNSON COUNTY, IOWAIWV HOLDINGS LLC2916 HIGHWAY 1 NEIOWA CITY IA 52240
IWV ROAD SW / F46SLOTHOWER ROAD
HURT ROAD SWALBERT ANDFAY'S FIRSTADDITIONKAUBLE'SSUBDIVISIONNW
1
4 -
N
E
1
4SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NE14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSE 14 - NW14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNE 1
4
- NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNW 14 -
NW
1
4SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNE 14 - NE 14SECTION 14-T79N-R7WSE 14 - NE 14SECTION 14-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SE 14SECTION 11-T79N-R7WSW 14 - SW 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SW 14SEC. 12-T79N-R7WSW 14 - SE 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7WPREPARED BY:MMS CONSULTANTS INC.1917 S. GILBERT STREETIOWA CITY, IA 52240OWNER/APPLICANT:NOT TO SCALELOCATION MAPPROJECTLOCATION(319) 351-8282LAND PLANNERSLAND SURVEYORSCIVIL ENGINEERSLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSIOWA CITY, IOWA 52240MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTSwww.mmsconsultants.net1917 S. GILBERT ST.PER CITY COMMENTS -JDM08-06-2107/08/21JDMFIELDBOOKTAVJDM10355-001162.36 ACPART OF THENW14-NW14 ANDTHE NE14-NW14OF SEC. 13,T79N, R7WJOHNSON COUNTY,IOWAREVISED BOUNDARY -JDM08-24-21SENSITIVE AREAS WOODLANDS ANDGROVES, SLOPES 41"=100'GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET1"=100'010255075100SITE GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND SENSITIVE AREASPART OF THE NW1/4-NW1/4 AND NE1/4-NW1/4, SEC. 13,T79N,R7WJOHNSON COUNTY, IOWAIWV HOLDINGS LLC2916 HIGHWAY 1 NEIOWA CITY IA 52240
IWV HOLDINGS
NW1/4, NW1/4, & NE1/4, NW1/4, SEC.13-T79N-RW7W
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
“WATERS of the U.S.” DELINEATION REPORT
& PERMIT APPLICATION
Prepared For:
IWV Holdings
US Army Corps of Engineers
Prepared By:
Lee Swank
l.swank@mmsconsultants.net
MMS Project No. 10355-010
08/25/2021
IWV HOLDINGS
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
PROJECT # 10355-010
AUGUST 5TH, 2021
SUMMARY
MMS Consultants, Inc. was contracted by IWV Holdings to delineate potential “Waters of the United
States” on an approximately 75-acre parcel. The study area is located in the NW1/4 of the NW1/4 and
the NE1/4 of the NW1/4 of Section 13, T79N, R7W, in Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa. The Site
Location and Vicinity Map, in Appendix A, show the approximate location of the site.
According to aerial photos, it appears the site has been in row crop production for at least the last century
and was planted with soybeans at the time of the wetland delineation in May of 2021. A treed fence row,
and two buffered streams are also present on the property. Preliminary data research of the site revealed
that aerial indicators of surface water, two streams, and hydric soils were present within the study area,
and that further research and field data needed to be collected. An on-site investigation was conducted on
May 11th to identify areas of potential “waters of the United States”. Assessments determined that 1.45
acres of emergent wetland, 1.12 acres of wooded wetland, and 1,752 linear feet of stream channel are
present within the study area. It appears the boundaries of the wetlands extend beyond the limits of the
study area. Only wetlands that fall within the study area were delineated. As no impacts to wetlands are
proposed, a copy of this report has not been sent to the Army Corps of Engineers.
PRELIMINARY RESEARCH
Preliminary data research included:
The USGS 24K Topographical Map
The USDA/NRCS Web Soil Survey Hydric Soils Map
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Map
FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Map
and Aerial photos from the 1990s, and between 2004 and 2017
All of the above-mentioned figures are presented in the Appendix, respectively.
METHODOLOGY
A site visit was conducted on May 11th, 2021, to document soils, vegetation, and hydrology. Field
verification followed the methodology outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual
(January 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:
Midwest Region (Version Two).
SITE DESCRIPTION
Soils
The soils throughout the project area are shown on the Hydric Soils Map from the Web Soil Survey in
Appendix A. The mapped soils are listed in the below table along with their hydric rating and which
sample points were taken within each soil type:
IWV HOLDINGS
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
PROJECT # 10355-010
AUGUST 5TH, 2021
Table 1: Hydric Soils
Map Unit
Symbol
Map Unit Name Hydric Rating Sample Point Taken
within Soil Type
11B Colo-Ely Complex, 0-5% slopes 55B 1-5
75 Givin silt loam, 0-2% slopes 5
76B Ladoga silt loam, 2-5% slopes 0
76C2 Ladoga silt loam, 5-9% slopes 5
76D2 Ladoga silt loam, 9-14% slopes 0
80B Clinton silt loam, 2-5% slopes 0
80C2 Clinton silt loam, 5-9% slopes 5
80D2 Clinton silt loam, 9-14% slopes 0
M163E2 Fayette silt loam, 14-18%
slopes, eroded
0
M163E3 Fayette silt clay loam, 14-18%
slopes, severely eroded
0
According to the hydric soils map, approximately 15% of the study area is comprised of soils that are 55%
hydric, approximately 26% of the study area is mapped as 5% hydric, with the residual 19% of study area
mapped as 0% hydric. Hydric soils were observed at sample points 1, 4, and 5. Depleted Below Dark
Surface (A11), Depleted Matrix (F3), Redox Dark Surface (F6), Depleted Dark Surface (F7), and Redox
Depressions (F8) were the hydric soil indicators that were observed.
Hydrology
The below WETS table was obtained from AgACIS. Data utilized in the table was obtained from the
weather station at the Iowa City Municipal Airport approximately four miles from the project site.
Precipitation totals from Jan-June 2021 were considered below average. The month prior to the site visit
was considered a normal month, and the month of the June site visit was considered dry. It rained 1.2
inches two days prior to the site visit.
Table 2: WETS table
WETS Station: Iowa City Municipal Airport
Requested years: 1971 - 2021
Month 2021 Monthly
Precip Totals
Avg
Precip
30% chance
precip less
than
30% chance
precip more
than
Normal/Wet/Dry
Jan 1.48 0.91 0.46 1.11 Wet
Feb 0.7 1.23 0.71 1.5 Dry
Mar 2.63 2.15 1.26 2.62 Wet
Apr 2.37 3.7 2.68 4.37 Dry
May 4.33 4.26 3.17 4.99 Normal
Jun 2.67 5.14 3.83 6.02 Dry
TOTAL 14.18 17.39
Sources of on-site hydrology were also investigated. A culvert runs under IWV Rd at the northwest corner
of the site. This culvert conveys water from the surrounding uplands north of IWV, to a stream channel
that runs southwest across the west 1/2 of the property. This stream channel had active water flowing
during the site visit in May. This stream appears to be fed by groundwater and surface runoff from the
IWV HOLDINGS
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
PROJECT # 10355-010
AUGUST 5TH, 2021
surrounding uplands. A second stream channel was identified along the center of the southern boundary
line for the study area. This stream had flowing water during the site visit. Standing water was identified
within the wetland area upslope of the stream. This stream appears to be fed by groundwater and surface
runoff from the surrounding uplands.
The presence of hydrology indicators were investigated during the wetland delineation. Sample points 1,
4 and 5 all classified as having wetland hydrology. Sample points 2 and 3 did not meet sufficient indicators
to classify as exhibiting wetland hydrology. The following primary hydrology indicators were observed:
High Water Table (A2) and Saturation (A3). The secondary indicators of Drainage Patters (B10),
Geomorphic Position (D2), and the FAC-Neutral Test (D5) were also observed.
Vegetation
The study area consists of 3 separate Vegetative Areas (VA):
The row-crop farm fields, which comprise the majority of project area, are classified as Vegetative
Area 1 (VA1) and were planted with Soybeans at the time of the site visit.
The vegetation surrounding the stream channels are classified as VA2 and dominated by Phalaris
arundinacea and Acer saccharinum.
A treed fence row (VA3) is present through the center of the site. Understory vegetation is
comprised primarily of Bromus inermis and dominant tree species include Acer saccharinum and
Acer negundo.
Summary
Soils, hydrology, and vegetation were assessed throughout the project area to determine the presence of
wetlands. Two areas were identified that met all three wetland criteria, which include 1.45 acres of
emergent wetland and 1.12 acres of wooded wetland. Two stream channels were also identified within the
study area with a total of 1,752 linear feet of intermittent stream channel. The table below provides a
summary of the streams and wetlands.
Table 3. Stream and Wetland Summary
Emergent
Wetland
Wooded
Wetland
Intermittent
Stream
TOTAL
Wetland A 0.95 AC 0.37 AC 1.32
Wetland B 0.50 AC 0.75 AC 1.25
Stream 1 232 LF
Stream 2 1,520 LF
TOTAL 1.45 1.12 1,752 2.57
Wetland A is located along the southern edge of the project area and was delineated at 1.32 acres.
This wetland has 0.95 acres of emergent wetland, and 0.37 acres of wooded wetland. The wetland
is associated with the Stream 1. Ground water and the stream appear to be the primary sources of
hydrology for Wetland A. Vegetation of Wetland A was dominated by Phalaris arundinacea.
Wetland B is located along the west edge of the study area and was delineated at 1.25 acres. This
wetland has 0.50 acres of emergent wetland and 0.75 acres of wooded wetland. Wetland B is
associated with Stream 2. Groundwater and the stream appear to be the primary sources of
hydrology for Wetland B.
Stream 1 flows along the southern edge of the project area and was measured at 232 linear feet.
This stream has a defined bed and bank, and ordinary high-water mark. Water was observed within
IWV HOLDINGS
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
PROJECT # 10355-010
AUGUST 5TH, 2021
the stream channel during the site visit (less 12”). The sources of water for stream flow are ground
water, and overland flow. Based on the sources of water for stream flow, water observed within
the channel, and morphology of the stream channel, it was determined that Stream 1 was a
intermittent stream.
Stream 2 flows through the western 1/4 of the study area and was measured at 1,520 linear feet.
This stream has a defined bed and bank, and ordinary high-water mark. Water was observed
within the stream channel during the site visit. The sources of water for stream flow are overland
flow, channelized flow from a culvert that runs under IWV road and groundwater. Based on the
sources of water for stream flow, water observed within the channel, and morphology of the
stream channel, it was determined that Stream 2 is an intermittent stream.
Conclusions
The project area has historically been utilized for agriculture with a long history of row crop production.
Approximately 90% of the land area is in crop production. The residual non-crop areas included a treed
fence row, and two buffered streams. The site exhibits a mix of topography with uplands, drainage ways
and lowland. Soils, hydrology, and vegetation were evaluated during the May site visit and followed the
methodology outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (January 1987) and the
Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (Version
Two).
The May field visit verified the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydrology within
two regions of the site. The boundaries of the wetlands were delineated using a handheld GPS and
categorized as 1.12 acres of wooded wetland, and 1.45 acres of emergent wetland. Additionally, 1,752
linear feet of intermittent stream were identified within the project area. As no impacts to wetlands are
proposed, a copy of this report has not been sent to the Army Corps of Engineers. Per City of Iowa City
Code, a delineation of construction area limits has been provided around, and to protect, the wetland
areas, as illustrated in the site grading and erosion control plan included in the appendix of this
report. No grading, dredging, clearing, filling, draining, or other development activity is allowed within
a regulated wetland or required buffer area, unless said activity is a use, activity or structure allowed
according to subsection 14-5I-2D of City of Iowa City Code. To protect the wetland, erosion control
measures must be installed prior to any development activity occurring on the site.
AppendixSITE LOCATION & VICINITY MAPUSGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAPUSDA NRCS WEBSOIL SURVEY (HYDRIC SOILS MAP)NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY MAPFLOODPLAIN MAP
Designed by:LRSDrawn by:Checked by:LRSLRSScale:not to scaleDate:08/04/2021Project No::IC10355-010SITE LOCATION & VICINITY MAPSNW1/4, NW1/4, & NE1/4, NW1/4, Sec.13-T79N-R7WIWV RD SWLOCATION MAPVICINITY MAPIOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWAMMS CONSULTANTS, INC.IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240(319) 351-8282www.mmsconsultants.netApproximateProject Location ApproximateProject Location Map Source: Iowa Geographic Map Server https://isugisf.maps.arcgis.com
Designed by:Drawn by:Checked by:Scale:Date:Project No::USGS 24K TOPOGRAPHIC MAPApproximate Study LocationLRSLRSLRSnot to scaleICMMS CONSULTANTS, INC.IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240(319) 351-8282www.mmsconsultants.netMap Source: USGS https://viewer.nationalmap.gov08/04/202110355-010NW1/4, NW1/4, & NE1/4, NW1/4, Sec.13-T79N-R7WIWV RD SWIOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Johnson County, Iowa
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
5/10/2021
Page 1 of 5461220046123004612400461250046126004612700461220046123004612400461250046126004612700615000615100615200615300615400615500615600615700615800615900
615000 615100 615200 615300 615400 615500 615600 615700 615800 615900
41° 39' 29'' N 91° 37' 10'' W41° 39' 29'' N91° 36' 27'' W41° 39' 9'' N
91° 37' 10'' W41° 39' 9'' N
91° 36' 27'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 15N WGS84
0 200 400 800 1200
Feet
0 50 100 200 300
Meters
Map Scale: 1:4,510 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
Hydric (100%)
Hydric (66 to 99%)
Hydric (33 to 65%)
Hydric (1 to 32%)
Not Hydric (0%)
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
Hydric (100%)
Hydric (66 to 99%)
Hydric (33 to 65%)
Hydric (1 to 32%)
Not Hydric (0%)
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
Hydric (100%)
Hydric (66 to 99%)
Hydric (33 to 65%)
Hydric (1 to 32%)
Not Hydric (0%)
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:15,800.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Johnson County, Iowa
Survey Area Data: Version 23, Jun 10, 2020
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Apr 12, 2011—Nov
18, 2020
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Johnson County, Iowa
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
5/10/2021
Page 2 of 5
Hydric Rating by Map Unit
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
11B Colo-Ely complex, 0 to 5
percent slopes
55 12.6 15.4%
75 Givin silt loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
5 2.6 3.1%
76B Ladoga silt loam, 2 to 5
percent slopes
0 24.5 29.9%
76C2 Ladoga silt loam, 5 to 9
percent slopes,
eroded
5 16.8 20.6%
76D2 Ladoga silt loam, 9 to 14
percent slopes,
eroded
0 2.2 2.7%
80B Clinton silt loam, 2 to 5
percent slopes
0 1.2 1.5%
80C2 Clinton silt loam, 5 to 9
percent slopes,
eroded
5 2.0 2.5%
80D2 Clinton silt loam, 9 to 14
percent slopes,
eroded
0 13.8 16.9%
M163E2 Fayette silt loam, till
plain, 14 to 18 percent
slopes, eroded
0 0.7 0.9%
M163E3 Fayette silty clay loam,
till plain, 14 to 18
percent slopes,
severely eroded
0 5.3 6.4%
Totals for Area of Interest 81.8 100.0%
Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Johnson County, Iowa
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
5/10/2021
Page 3 of 5
10355-010
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Wetlands
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
Estuarine and Marine Wetland
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Other
Riverine
May 10, 2021
0 0.2 0.40.1 mi
0 0.35 0.70.175 km
1:1 3,434
This page was produced by the NWI mapperNational Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site.
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250
Feet
Ü
SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT
SPECIAL FLOOD
HAZARD AREAS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A, V, A99
With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulatory Floodway
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mileZone X
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood HazardZone X
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
Levee. See Notes.Zone X
Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D
NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
Area of Undetermined Flood HazardZone D
Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance
17.5 Water Surface Elevation
Coastal Transect
Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Effective LOMRs
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
Digital Data Available
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.
The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the
authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map
was exported on 8/5/2021 at 11:49 AM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and
time. The NFHL and effective information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.
This map image is void if the one or more of the following map
elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels,
legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers,
FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for
unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.
Legend
OTHER AREAS OF
FLOOD HAZARD
OTHER AREAS
GENERAL
STRUCTURES
OTHER
FEATURES
MAP PANELS
8
B 20.2
The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.
1:6,000
91°37'9"W 41°39'32"N
91°36'31"W 41°39'5"N
Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery: Data refreshed October, 2020
Appendix B 2020 & 2019 AERIAL IMAGE2017 & 2016 AERIAL IMAGES2015 & 2014 AERIAL IMAGESPHOTOS 1 – 3 PHOTOS 4 – 6 PHOTOS 7 – 9 PHOTOS 10 – 12 PHOTOS 13 – 15 PHOTOS 16 – 18
Designed by:Drawn by:Checked by:Scale:Date:Project No::2020 & 2019 AERIAL IMAGELRSLRSLRSnot to scaleICMMS CONSULTANTS, INC.IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240(319) 351-8282www.mmsconsultants.netMap Source: Iowa Geographic Map Server https://isugisf.maps.arcgis.com2020201908/04/202110355-010NW1/4, NW1/4, & NE1/4, NW1/4, Sec.13-T79N-R7WIWV RD SWIOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
Designed by:Drawn by:Checked by:Scale:Date:Project No::2017 & 2016 AERIAL IMAGELRSLRSLRSnot to scaleICMMS CONSULTANTS, INC.IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240(319) 351-8282www.mmsconsultants.netMap Source: Iowa Geographic Map Server https://isugisf.maps.arcgis.com2017201608/04/202110355-010NW1/4, NW1/4, & NE1/4, NW1/4, Sec.13-T79N-R7WIWV RD SWIOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
Designed by:Drawn by:Checked by:Scale:Date:Project No::2015 & 2014 AERIAL IMAGELRSLRSLRSnot to scaleICMMS CONSULTANTS, INC.IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240(319) 351-8282www.mmsconsultants.netMap Source: Iowa Geographic Map Server https://isugisf.maps.arcgis.com2015201408/04/202110355-010NW1/4, NW1/4, & NE1/4, NW1/4, Sec.13-T79N-R7WIWV RD SWIOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
Designed by:Drawn by:Checked by:Scale:Date:Project No::PHOTO LOCATION MAP (LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE)LRSLRSLRSnot to scaleICMMS CONSULTANTS, INC.IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240(319) 351-8282www.mmsconsultants.netMap Source: Iowa Geographic Map Server https://isugisf.maps.arcgis.com08/04/202110355-010NW1/4, NW1/4, & NE1/4, NW1/4, Sec.13-T79N-R7WIWV RD SWIOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA123511812910467141617181513
Designed by:Drawn by:Checked by:Scale:Date:Project No::PHOTOS 1 - 3LRSLRSLRSnot to scaleICMMS CONSULTANTS, INC.IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240(319) 351-8282www.mmsconsultants.netPhoto 1 (left): Standing near southeast edge of property, looking west. Photo 2 (right): Standing near southeast edge of property, looking north. Photo 3 (left): Standing near southeast edge of property, looking east. Photo source: MMS Consultants Inc. 202008/04/202110355-010NW1/4, NW1/4, & NE1/4, NW1/4, Sec.13-T79N-R7WIWV RD SWIOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
Designed by:Drawn by:Checked by:Scale:Date:Project No::PHOTOS 4 - 6 LRSLRSLRSnot to scaleICMMS CONSULTANTS, INC.IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240(319) 351-8282www.mmsconsultants.netPhoto 4 (left): Standing within Emergent Wetland A, looking south. Photo 5 (right): Looking east across Emergent Wetland A. Photo 6 (left): Looking at start of Intermittent Stream 1, within Wetland A. Photo source: MMS Consultants Inc. 202008/04/202110355-010NW1/4, NW1/4, & NE1/4, NW1/4, Sec.13-T79N-R7WIWV RD SWIOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
Designed by:Drawn by:Checked by:Scale:Date:Project No::PHOTOS 7 - 9LRSLRSLRSnot to scaleICMMS CONSULTANTS, INC.IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240(319) 351-8282www.mmsconsultants.netPhoto 7 (left): Looking at Intermittent Stream 1. Photo 8 (right): Looking at north section of Emergent Wetland A within drainageway of Ag field. Photo 9 (left): Looking at standing water within above (photo 8) pictured section of wetland. Photo source: MMS Consultants Inc. 202008/04/202110355-010NW1/4, NW1/4, & NE1/4, NW1/4, Sec.13-T79N-R7WIWV RD SWIOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
Designed by:Drawn by:Checked by:Scale:Date:Project No::PHOTOS 10 - 12LRSLRSLRSnot to scaleICMMS CONSULTANTS, INC.IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240(319) 351-8282www.mmsconsultants.netPhoto 10 (left): Looking at boundary of Wooded WetlandA.Photo 11 (right): Looking at Intermittent Stream 2 within Wetland B. Photo 12 (left): Looking at sample point 5 within Emergent Wetland B. Photo source: MMS Consultants Inc. 202008/04/202110355-010NW1/4, NW1/4, & NE1/4, NW1/4, Sec.13-T79N-R7WIWV RD SWIOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
Designed by:Drawn by:Checked by:Scale:Date:Project No::PHOTOS 13 - 15LRSLRSLRSnot to scaleICMMS CONSULTANTS, INC.IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240(319) 351-8282www.mmsconsultants.netPhoto 13 (left): Standing near center of Wetland B, looking north. Photo 14 (right): Standing on east side of Wetland B, looking north at boundary of wetland. Photo 15 (left): Standing on west side of Wetland B, looking south at boundary of wetland. Photo source: MMS Consultants Inc. 202008/04/202110355-010NW1/4, NW1/4, & NE1/4, NW1/4, Sec.13-T79N-R7WIWV RD SWIOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
Designed by:Drawn by:Checked by:Scale:Date:Project No::PHOTOS 16 - 18LRSLRSLRSnot to scaleICMMS CONSULTANTS, INC.IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240(319) 351-8282www.mmsconsultants.netPhoto 16 (left): Looking north at Intermittent Stream 2 within Wetland B. Photo 17 (right): Looking north at Intermittent Stream 2, north of Wetland B boundary. Photo 18 (left): Looking at north end of Intermittent Stream 2 at culvert that feeds stream. Photo source: MMS Consultants Inc. 202008/04/202110355-010NW1/4, NW1/4, & NE1/4, NW1/4, Sec.13-T79N-R7WIWV RD SWIOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
Appendix C • WETLAND DELINEATION MAP• SITE PLAN • DATA FORMS
IWV ROAD SW / F46SLOTHOWER ROAD
HURT ROAD SWALBERT ANDFAY'S FIRSTADDITIONKAUBLE'SSUBDIVISIONNW
1
4 -
N
E
1
4SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NE14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSE 14 - NW14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNE 1
4
- NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNW 14 -
NW
1
4SECTION 13-T79N-R7WNE 14 - NE 14SECTION 14-T79N-R7WSE 14 - NE 14SECTION 14-T79N-R7WSW 14 - NW 14SECTION 13-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SE 14SECTION 11-T79N-R7WSW 14 - SW 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7WSE 14 - SW 14SEC. 12-T79N-R7WSW 14 - SE 14SECTION 12-T79N-R7WCOMMONACCESS(CONCEPT)ACCESS(CONCEPT)PROPOSEDBASINPROPOSEDBASINPROPOSEDBASINLOT SPLIT
(CONCEPT)
LOT SPLIT
(CONCEPT)LIMITS OFCONST.LIMITS OFCONST.LIM
ITS
OFCONST.
LIMITS OF
CONST.
FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY
(319) 351-8282LAND PLANNERSLAND SURVEYORSCIVIL ENGINEERSLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSIOWA CITY, IOWA 52240MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTSwww.mmsconsultants.net1917 S. GILBERT ST.PER CITY COMMENTS -JDM08-06-2107/08/21JDMFIELDBOOKTAVJDM10355-001162.36 ACPART OF THENW14-NW14 ANDTHE NE14-NW14OF SEC. 13,T79N, R7WJOHNSON COUNTY,IOWAREVISED BOUNDARY -JDM08-24-21SITE GRADING ANDEROSION CONTROL PLANAND SENSITIVE AREAS11"=100'GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET1"=100'010255075100SITE GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND SENSITIVE AREASPART OF THE NW1/4-NW1/4 AND NE1/4-NW1/4, SEC. 13,T79N,R7WJOHNSON COUNTY, IOWACWPRDL010203DPREPARED BY:MMS CONSULTANTS INC.1917 S. GILBERT STREETIOWA CITY, IA 52240OWNER/APPLICANT:DLCWPRIWV HOLDINGS LLC2916 HIGHWAY 1 NEIOWA CITY IA 52240AREA OF PROPOSED ID-C ZONING:A SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENTPLAN FOR THIS PARCEL WILL BECOMPLETED WHEN A PERMANENTZONING CLASSIFICATION APPLICATIONIS SUBMITTED. SENSITIVE AREASSHOWN IN THIS AREA ARE FORREFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY.WESTERN BOUNDARY OFPROPOSED CI-1 ZONING.NO CONSTRUCTION SHALLOCCUR WEST OF THIS LINE.WESTERN BOUNDARY OFPROPOSED CI-1 ZONING.NO CONSTRUCTION SHALLOCCUR WEST OF THIS LINE.NOT TO SCALELOCATION MAPPROJECTLOCATION
(319) 351-8282
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
www.mmsconsultants.net
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
IOWA CITY
IWV RD SW
IWV HOLDINGS08/05/2021
10355-010LRS
LRS
LRS
FIELDBOOK
1"=300'WETLANDSGRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET01"=300'3075150225300
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Midwest Region
Applicant/Owner:
Are Climatic/ Hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Naturally Problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific name of plants.
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot Size:)
(A)
(B)
= Total Cover
(AB)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size:)Prevalence Index Worksheet:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
=Total Cover x 5 =
Herbaceous Stratum (Plot Size:)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Index:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophtic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Pevalence Index is <3.01
Problematic Hydrophytic vegetation1 (Explain)
=Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size:)
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
2.
Yes X No
20%= 20 100
50%=0 20%=0 0
30ft radius Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
1.
10. 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology
must be present, unless disturbed or problemtic50%= 50
9.
4-Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet8.
X
7.
6.
5. X
4.
3.
Yes FACW 2.00
2.Urtica dioica Stinging Nettle 5 No FACW
5ft radius
1.phalaris arundinacea Reed Canarygrass 95
0
Column Totals:105 (A)210 (B)
FACU Species 0 0
50%=0 20%=0 0 UPL Species 0
210
4. FAC Species 0 0
3. FACW Species 105
5.
2. OBL Species 0 0
67%
15ft radius
1.
50%=10 20%=4 20 Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of:Multiply By:
5.
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across all Strata:34.
3.
2.Salix nigra Black Willow 15 Yes OBL
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:21.Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 5 Yes FACW
X
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status30ft radius
X Is the Sampled Area
within a wetland?X X
X
Soil Map Unit Name:11B Colo-Ely Complex NWI Classification:none (adjacent mapped riverine)
X No
Slope (%):0-5%Lat:41.653802 Long:-91.61294 Datum:Decimal Degree
Investigator(s):Lee Swank Section, Township, Range:NE1/4, NW1/4, SEC13-T79N-R7W
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Toeslope Local Relief (Concave, Convex, None):concave
CKR Construction Services LLC State:Iowa Sampling Point:SP1
Project/Site:IWV ROAD SW City/County:Iowa City Sampling Date:5/11/2021
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Midwest Region
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photo, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
11"Wetland hydrology Present?Yes X NoSaturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Yes X No Depth (Inches):
Depth (Inches):
Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (Inches):23"
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X
-Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)-Gauge or Well Data (D9)
-Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)-Other (Explain in Remarks)
-Iron Deposits (B5)-Thin Muck Surface (C7)X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
-Algal Mat or Crust (B4)-Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)X Geomorphic Position (D2)
-Drift Deposits (B3)-Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)-Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
-Sediment Deposits (B2)-Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)-Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
-Water Marks (B1)-Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)-Crayfish Burrows (C8)
X Saturation (A3)-True Aquatic Plants (B14)-Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
-High Water Table (A2)-Aquatic Fauna (B13)-Drainage Patterns (B10)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
-Surface Water (A1)-Water-Stained Leaves (B9)-Soil Surface Cracks (B6)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
-5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
-Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)-Redox Depressions (F8)
X Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)-Redox Dark Surface (F6)
-Thick Dark Surface (A12)-Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
-2 cm Muck (A10)X Depleted Matrix (F3)
-Stratified Layers (A5)-Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)-Other (Explain in Remarks)
-Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)-Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)-Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12)
-Black Histic (A3)-Stripped Matrix (S6)-Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
-Histic Epipedon (A2)-Sandy Redox (S5)-Dark Surface (S7)
-Histosol (A1)-Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)-Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
M SiLo
10YR 6/2 15 D M
11-32 10YR 5/1 60 7.5YR 4/6 25 C
10YR 5/2 25 D M
3-11 10YR 4/1 55 7.5YR 4/6 20 C M/PL SiLo
0-3 10YR 3/1 100 SiLo
(inches) Color (Moist) % Color (Moist) %Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
SP1
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Midwest Region
Applicant/Owner:
Are Climatic/ Hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Naturally Problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific name of plants.
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot Size:)
(A)
(B)
= Total Cover
(AB)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size:)Prevalence Index Worksheet:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
=Total Cover x 5 =
Herbaceous Stratum (Plot Size:)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Index:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophtic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Pevalence Index is <3.01
Problematic Hydrophytic vegetation1 (Explain)
=Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size:)
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
2.
Yes X No
20%= 22 110
50%=0 20%=0 0
30ft radius Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
1.
10. 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology
must be present, unless disturbed or problemtic50%= 55
9.
4-Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet8.
X
7.
6.
5. X
4.Alliaria petiolata Garlic Mustard 15 No FAC
3.Arctium lappa Burdock 10 No UPL
Yes FACW 2.41
2.Urtica dioica Stinging Nettle 10 No FACW
5ft radius
1.Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canarygrass 75
50
Column Totals:110 (A)265 (B)
FACU Species 0 0
50%=0 20%=0 0 UPL Species 10
170
4. FAC Species 15 45
3. FACW Species 85
5.
2. OBL Species 0 0
100%
15ft radius
1.
50%=0 20%=0 0 Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of:Multiply By:
5.
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across all Strata:14.
3.
2.
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:11.
X
X
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status30ft radius
X Is the Sampled Area
within a wetland?X
X
Soil Map Unit Name:11B Colo-Ely Complex NWI Classification:None
X No
Slope (%):0-5%Lat:41.653951 Long:-91.612911 Datum:Decimal Degree
Investigator(s):Lee Swank Section, Township, Range:NE1/4, NW1/4, SEC13-T79N-R7W
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):FootSlope Local Relief (Concave, Convex, None):none
CKR Construction Services LLC State:Iowa Sampling Point:SP2
Project/Site:IWV ROAD SW City/County:Iowa City Sampling Date:5/11/2021
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Midwest Region
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photo, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Wetland hydrology Present?Yes No XSaturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Yes No X Depth (Inches):
Depth (Inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (Inches):
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X
-Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)-Gauge or Well Data (D9)
-Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)-Other (Explain in Remarks)
-Iron Deposits (B5)-Thin Muck Surface (C7)X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
-Algal Mat or Crust (B4)-Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)-Geomorphic Position (D2)
-Drift Deposits (B3)-Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)-Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
-Sediment Deposits (B2)-Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)-Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
-Water Marks (B1)-Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)-Crayfish Burrows (C8)
-Saturation (A3)-True Aquatic Plants (B14)-Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
-High Water Table (A2)-Aquatic Fauna (B13)-Drainage Patterns (B10)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
-Surface Water (A1)-Water-Stained Leaves (B9)-Soil Surface Cracks (B6)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
sample not taken within a depression - does not meet indicator F8
-5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
-Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)-Redox Depressions (F8)
-Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)-Redox Dark Surface (F6)
-Thick Dark Surface (A12)-Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
-2 cm Muck (A10)-Depleted Matrix (F3)
-Stratified Layers (A5)-Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)-Other (Explain in Remarks)
-Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)-Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)-Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12)
-Black Histic (A3)-Stripped Matrix (S6)-Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
-Histic Epipedon (A2)-Sandy Redox (S5)-Dark Surface (S7)
-Histosol (A1)-Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)-Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
M SiClLo
10YR 5/2 10 D M
16-30 10YR 4/2 75 7.5YR 3/4 15 C
10YR 5/3 15 D M
3-16 10YR 3/1 83 7.5YR 4/6 2 C M Silo
0-3 10YR 3/1 90 10YR 5/3 10 D M Silo
(inches) Color (Moist) % Color (Moist) %Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
SP2
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Midwest Region
Applicant/Owner:
Are Climatic/ Hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Naturally Problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific name of plants.
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot Size:)
(A)
(B)
= Total Cover
(AB)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size:)Prevalence Index Worksheet:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
=Total Cover x 5 =
Herbaceous Stratum (Plot Size:)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Index:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophtic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Pevalence Index is <3.01
Problematic Hydrophytic vegetation1 (Explain)
=Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size:)
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Sample point taken in Ag field subject to herbicide application
2.
Yes No X
20%= 3 15
50%=0 20%=0 0
30ft radius Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
1.
10. 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology
must be present, unless disturbed or problemtic50%= 7.5
9.
4-Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet8.
7.
6.
5.
4.
3.
Yes UPL 5.00
2.Arctium lappa Burdock 5 Yes UPL
5ft radius
1.Glycine max Soybean 10
75
Column Totals:15 (A)75 (B)
FACU Species 0 0
50%=0 20%=0 0 UPL Species 15
0
4. FAC Species 0 0
3. FACW Species 0
5.
2. OBL Species 0 0
0%
15ft radius
1.
50%=0 20%=0 0 Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of:Multiply By:
5.
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across all Strata:24.
3.
2.
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:01.
X
X
Sample point taken in Ag field
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status30ft radius
X Is the Sampled Area
within a wetland?X
X X X
Soil Map Unit Name:11B Colo-Ely Complex NWI Classification:Riverine
X No
Slope (%):0-5%Lat:41.54005 Long:-91.612063 Datum:Decimal Degree
Investigator(s):Lee Swank Section, Township, Range:NE1/4, NW1/4, SEC13-T79N-R7W
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):footslope Local Relief (Concave, Convex, None):none
CKR Construction Services LLC State:Iowa Sampling Point:SP3
Project/Site:IWV ROAD SW City/County:Iowa City Sampling Date:5/11/2021
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Midwest Region
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photo, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Wetland hydrology Present?Yes No XSaturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Yes No X Depth (Inches):
Depth (Inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (Inches):
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X
-Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)-Gauge or Well Data (D9)
-Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)-Other (Explain in Remarks)
-Iron Deposits (B5)-Thin Muck Surface (C7)-FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
-Algal Mat or Crust (B4)-Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)-Geomorphic Position (D2)
-Drift Deposits (B3)-Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)-Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
-Sediment Deposits (B2)-Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)-Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
-Water Marks (B1)-Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)-Crayfish Burrows (C8)
-Saturation (A3)-True Aquatic Plants (B14)-Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
-High Water Table (A2)-Aquatic Fauna (B13)-Drainage Patterns (B10)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
-Surface Water (A1)-Water-Stained Leaves (B9)-Soil Surface Cracks (B6)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
-5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
-Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)-Redox Depressions (F8)
-Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)-Redox Dark Surface (F6)
-Thick Dark Surface (A12)-Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
-2 cm Muck (A10)-Depleted Matrix (F3)
-Stratified Layers (A5)-Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)-Other (Explain in Remarks)
-Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)-Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)-Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12)
-Black Histic (A3)-Stripped Matrix (S6)-Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
-Histic Epipedon (A2)-Sandy Redox (S5)-Dark Surface (S7)
-Histosol (A1)-Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)-Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
13-30 10YR 3/2 85 10YR 5/2 15 D M SiClLo
5-13 10YR 3/1 97 7.5YR 3/3 3 C M SiClLo
0-5 10YR 3/1 100 SiLo
(inches) Color (Moist) % Color (Moist) %Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
SP3
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Midwest Region
Applicant/Owner:
Are Climatic/ Hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Naturally Problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific name of plants.
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot Size:)
(A)
(B)
= Total Cover
(AB)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size:)Prevalence Index Worksheet:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
=Total Cover x 5 =
Herbaceous Stratum (Plot Size:)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Index:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophtic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Pevalence Index is <3.01
Problematic Hydrophytic vegetation1 (Explain)
=Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size:)
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
2.
Yes X No
20%= 22 110
50%=0 20%=0 0
30ft radius Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
1.
10. 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology
must be present, unless disturbed or problemtic50%= 55
9.
4-Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet8.
X
7.
6.Cryptotaenia canadensis Canadian Honewort 5 No FAC
5.Sanicula odorata Clustered blacksnakeroot 5 No FAC X
4.Alliaria petiolata Garlic Mustard 10 No FAC
3.Arctium lappa Burdock 5 No UPL
Yes FACW 2.38
2.Urtica dioica Stinging Nettle 10 No FACW
5ft radius
1.Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canarygrass 75
25
Column Totals:160 (A)380 (B)
FACU Species 0 0
50%=0 20%=0 0 UPL Species 5
220
4. FAC Species 45 135
3. FACW Species 110
5.
2. OBL Species 0 0
100%
15ft radius
1.
50%=25 20%=10 50 Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of:Multiply By:
5.
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across all Strata:34.
3.
2.Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 25 Yes FAC
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:31.Ulmus Americana American Elm 25 Yes FACW
X
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status30ft radius
X Is the Sampled Area
within a wetland?X X
X
Soil Map Unit Name:11B Colo-Ely Complex NWI Classification:none
X No
Slope (%):0-5%Lat:41.653765 Long:-91.613343 Datum:Decimal Degree
Investigator(s):Lee Swank Section, Township, Range:NW1/4, NW1/4, SEC13-T79N-R7W
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Footslope Local Relief (Concave, Convex, None):concave
CKR Construction Services LLC State:Iowa Sampling Point:SP4
Project/Site:IWV ROAD SW City/County:Iowa City Sampling Date:5/11/2021
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Midwest Region
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photo, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
22 Wetland hydrology Present?Yes X NoSaturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Yes X No Depth (Inches):
Depth (Inches):
Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (Inches):33
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X
-Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)-Gauge or Well Data (D9)
-Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)-Other (Explain in Remarks)
-Iron Deposits (B5)-Thin Muck Surface (C7)X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
-Algal Mat or Crust (B4)-Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)X Geomorphic Position (D2)
-Drift Deposits (B3)-Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)-Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
-Sediment Deposits (B2)-Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)-Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
-Water Marks (B1)-Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)-Crayfish Burrows (C8)
-Saturation (A3)-True Aquatic Plants (B14)-Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
-High Water Table (A2)-Aquatic Fauna (B13)-Drainage Patterns (B10)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
-Surface Water (A1)-Water-Stained Leaves (B9)-Soil Surface Cracks (B6)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
-5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
-Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)-Redox Depressions (F8)
X Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)-Redox Dark Surface (F6)
-Thick Dark Surface (A12)-Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
-2 cm Muck (A10)X Depleted Matrix (F3)
-Stratified Layers (A5)-Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)-Other (Explain in Remarks)
-Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)-Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)-Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12)
-Black Histic (A3)-Stripped Matrix (S6)-Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
-Histic Epipedon (A2)-Sandy Redox (S5)-Dark Surface (S7)
-Histosol (A1)-Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)-Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
M SiLo
10YR 6/2 20 D M
14-32 10YR 5/1 60 7.5YR 4/4 20 C
10YR 6/2 10 D M
8-14 10YR 5/1 80 7.5YR 4/6 10 C M/PL SiLo
0-8 10YR 3/1 100
(inches) Color (Moist) % Color (Moist) %Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
SP4
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Midwest Region
Applicant/Owner:
Are Climatic/ Hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Naturally Problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific name of plants.
Dominance Test Worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot Size:)
(A)
(B)
= Total Cover
(AB)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot Size:)Prevalence Index Worksheet:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
=Total Cover x 5 =
Herbaceous Stratum (Plot Size:)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Index:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophtic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Pevalence Index is <3.01
Problematic Hydrophytic vegetation1 (Explain)
=Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size:)
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
2.
Yes X No
20%= 20.4 102
50%=0 20%=0 0
30ft radius Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
1.
10. 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology
must be present, unless disturbed or problemtic50%= 51
9.
4-Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet8.
X
7.
6.
5. X
4.
3.Ambrosia artemisiifolia Ragweed 2 No FACU
Yes FACW 2.11
2.Sanicula odorata Clustered blacksnakeroot 10 No FAC
5ft radius
1.Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canarygrass 90
0
Column Totals:127 (A)268 (B)
FACU Species 2 8
50%=0 20%=0 0 UPL Species 0
230
4. FAC Species 10 30
3. FACW Species 115
5.
2. OBL Species 0 0
100%
15ft radius
1.
50%=12.5 20%=5 25 Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of:Multiply By:
5.
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across all Strata:24.
3.
2.
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:21.Acer saccharinum Silver Maple 25 Yes FACW
X
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status30ft radius
X Is the Sampled Area
within a wetland?X X
X
Soil Map Unit Name:11B Colo-Ely Complex NWI Classification:none- adjacent to mapped riverine wetland
X No
Slope (%):0-5%Lat:41.653923 Long:-91.61764 Datum:Decimal Degree
Investigator(s):Lee Swank Section, Township, Range:NW1/4, NW1/4, SEC13-T79N-R7W
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):footslope Local Relief (Concave, Convex, None):concave
CKR Construction Services LLC State:Iowa Sampling Point:SP5
Project/Site:IWV ROAD SW City/County:Iowa City Sampling Date:5/11/2021
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Midwest Region
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photo, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
5"Wetland hydrology Present?Yes X NoSaturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Yes X No Depth (Inches):
Depth (Inches):
Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (Inches):7"
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X
-Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)-Gauge or Well Data (D9)
-Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)-Other (Explain in Remarks)
-Iron Deposits (B5)-Thin Muck Surface (C7)X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
-Algal Mat or Crust (B4)-Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)X Geomorphic Position (D2)
-Drift Deposits (B3)-Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)-Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
-Sediment Deposits (B2)-Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)-Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
-Water Marks (B1)-Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)-Crayfish Burrows (C8)
X Saturation (A3)-True Aquatic Plants (B14)-Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
X High Water Table (A2)-Aquatic Fauna (B13)X Drainage Patterns (B10)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
-Surface Water (A1)-Water-Stained Leaves (B9)-Soil Surface Cracks (B6)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
-5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
-Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)X Redox Depressions (F8)
X Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)X Redox Dark Surface (F6)
-Thick Dark Surface (A12)X Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
-2 cm Muck (A10)X Depleted Matrix (F3)
-Stratified Layers (A5)-Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)-Other (Explain in Remarks)
-Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)-Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)-Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12)
-Black Histic (A3)-Stripped Matrix (S6)-Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
-Histic Epipedon (A2)-Sandy Redox (S5)-Dark Surface (S7)
-Histosol (A1)-Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)-Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
SiClLo26+ Gley 1 2.5/N 100
5-26 10YR 4/1 80 7.5YR 4/6 20 C M SiClLo
10YR 5/2 10 D M
0-5 10YR 3/1 80 10YR 5/8 10 C M/PL SiClLo
(inches) Color (Moist) % Color (Moist) %Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
SP5
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region - Version 2.0
July 8, 2021
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Re: IWV Road SW Rezoning, Annexation and Comprehensive Plan Amendment
On behalf of IWV Holdings LLC we are submitting a request for an Annexation and
Rezoning in conjunction with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The described land
consists of 79.39 acres in total, the proposal includes 70.39 acres to be annexed into the
City of Iowa City with 9.0 acres currently located within the city limits. The area is
shown as a future growth area. Scheduled improvements to IWV Road will provide
necessary arterial access, with additional access provided via Slothower Road. Public
water will be available to the site, and public sewer can be extended to serve the site as
required.
Circumstances for this site have changed since the current plan was adopted. As
mentioned above, there are scheduled improvements to IWV Road, and the city has
expressed a plan to revisit the comprehensive plan for this region in the near term.
These factors, in addition to the plans by the county for the Johnson County Poor Farm,
meet the approval criteria for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. We are proposing a
change of the land use from a mix of Public/Private Open Space, Rural Residential and
2-8 DU/A to Intensive Commercial. We feel this amendment is appropriate given the
access from the property to an arterial road which provides a direct route to Interstate
I-380. The proximity to the Iowa City Landfill and a number of other commercially
zoned properties along IWV Road SW shows a consistent pattern of compatibility with
surrounding development in this area, and is generally compatible with the policies and
provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.
At this time Intensive Commercial (CI-1) is being requested for the East portion of the
property and Interim Development Commercial (ID-C) is being requested for the West
portion of the property. The ID-C zoning will allow for managed growth of future
development and for the current use of the land to continue until a plan to provide city
services can be established. This zoning also allows for a review of the stream corridor
and the associated sensitive areas located in the West portion when a permanent
zoning classification application is submitted. Development of the West portion, and
any potential impacts to the sensitive areas, can be more appropriately reviewed when
city services are able to be provided.
If you have questions or require any additional information, please contact us
accordingly.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Marner.
MMS Consultants, Inc.
10355-010L2.DOCX
DESCRIPTION - ANNEXATION PARCEL
THE NORTH ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7
WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA.
EXCEPTING THE EAST 300 FEET THEREFROM
CONTAINING 70.4 ACRES, MORE OR LESS
DESCRIPTION - REZONING PARCEL #1
A PORTION OF THE EAST 300 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7 WEST,
OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Beginning at the North Quarter Corner of Section 13, Township 79 North, Range 7
West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa; Thence S00°00'59"W,
along the East Line of the North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13, a
distance of 1305.56 feet, to its intersection with the Easterly Projection of the North Line
of Kauble's Subdivision, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 20 at
Page 47 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence
S88°45'34"W, along said Easterly Projection and North Line, 300.07 feet; Thence
N00°00'59"E, 1307.41 feet, to a Point on the North Line of the North One-Half of the
Northwest Quarter of said Section 13; Thence N89°06'50"E, along said North Line,
300.04 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Rezoning Parcel #1 contains 9.00 Acres,
and is subject to easements and restrictions of record.
DESCRIPTION - REZONING PARCEL #2
A PORTION OF THE NORTH ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7 WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Commencing at the North Quarter Corner of Section 13, Township 79 North, Range 7
West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa; Thence S00°00'59"W,
along the East Line of the North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13, a
distance of 1305.56 feet, to its intersection with the Easterly Projection of the North Line
of Kauble's Subdivision, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 20 at
Page 47 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence
S88°45'34"W, along said Easterly Projection and North Line, 300.07 feet, to the Point of
Beginning; Thence continuing S88°45'34"W, along said North Line, 414.99 feet, to the
Northwest Corner thereof; Thence S00°06'26"E, along the West Line of said Kauble's
Subdivision, 3.41 feet, to its intersection with the South Line of the North One-Half of the
Northwest Quarter of said Section 13; Thence S89°03'31"W, along said South Line,
1551.41 feet; Thence N13°37'32"W, 53.10 feet; Thence N04°19'09"E, 213.22 feet;
Thence N22°47'41"E, 655.46 feet; Thence N33°02'35"E, 438.62 feet; Thence
N00°53'27"W, 86.39 feet, to a Point on the North Line of the North One-Half of the
Northwest Quarter of said Section 13; Thence N89°06'50"E, along said North Line,
1471.32 feet; Thence S00°00'59"W, 1307.41 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said
Rezoning Parcel #2 contains 53.36 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions
of record.
DESCRIPTION - REZONING PARCEL #3
A PORTION OF THE NORTH ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7 WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Beginning at the Northwest Corner of Section 13, Township 79 North, Range 7 West, of
the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa; Thence N89°06'50"E, along the
North Line of the North One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 13, a distance
of 862.10 feet; Thence S00°53'27"E, 86.39 feet; Thence S33°02'35"W, 438.62 feet;
Thence S22°47'41"W, 655.46 feet; Thence S04°19'09"W, 213.22 feet; Thence
S13°37'32"E, 53.10 feet, to a Point on the South Line of the North One-Half of the
Northwest Quarter of said Section 13; Thence S89°03'31"W, along said South Line,
370.12 feet, to the Southwest Corner of the North One- Half of the Northwest Quarter of
said Section 13; Thence N00°08'52"E, along the West Line of the North One-Half of the
Northwest Quarter of said Section 13, a distance of 1315.30 feet, to the Point of
Beginning. Said Rezoning Parcel #3 contains 17.03 Acres, and is subject to easements
and restrictions of record.
Permitted
by Right
Permitted
Provisionally
Permitted by
Special Exception
Selected Criteria
Residential Uses
Assisted group living S 1 roomer/300 sf lot area
Commercial Uses
Building trade P
Indoor/Outdoor Commercial
Recreation
P
Eating establishments P
General and medical/dental office P
Most Retail: Alcohol sales,
Hospitality, Outdoor storage and
display, Personal service, Repair,
Sales
P
Surface passenger service P
Adult business PR Must be 1,000' from educational, parks, religious
assembly use, or residential uses or zones and 500'
from other adult business uses
General/Intensive Animal related
commercial
PR Facilities with outdoor areas must be 400' from
residential zones. Overnight boarding facilities must be
completely indoors.
Drinking Establishments PR Provisions not applicable here
Quick vehicle servicing PR Vehicular use areas must be screened from the ROW
(S2) and abutting residential zones (S3).
Fuel dispensing equipment must be set back 50' from
residential zone boundaries.
Vehicle repair PR If abutting residential zone, outdoor work and loud
indoor work is only allowed 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. The
site must minimize views of vehicular use areas from
the ROW and adjacent properties. All outdoor storage
areas abutting other properties must be fenced (S5)
and screened (S3) with landscaping.
Industrial Uses
Industrial service P
Self-service storage P
Warehouse and freight movement P
Wholesale sales P
General and Technical/light
Manufacturing and production
PR S Use is limited to 5,000 sf or 15,000 sf by special
exception. The following are prohibited: Chemical,
vehicle, rubber, or plastics manufacturing; milling or
processing grain; leather tanning; and textile mills.
Heavy manufacturing S Limited to concrete batch/mix plants at least 500' from
any residentially zoned property.
Institutional & Civic Uses
Religious/private group assembly P
Daycare PR Requires minimum usable interior floor space and
childcare uses must provide a minimum fenced outdoor
play area enclosed by a fence (S4) and screened along
the perimeter (S3). A drop off/pick up area must be
provided with adequate stacking and/or parking spaces.
Basic utility PR S If located in a completely enclosed building with
another principal use, it is allowed provisionally. If not,
it typically requires a special exception and must be
screened from public view and adjacent residential
zones (S3). It must also be compatible with surrounding
structures and uses, particularly if close to or within
view of a residential zone.
Community service - long term
housing
PR S A special exception is required if across the street from
or adjacent to an RS zone. Minimum 900 sf of lot area
per dwelling unit is required (with only eff./1-BDR
units). Requires a site plan and a management plan and
neighborhood meeting for nearby owners. Only 50% of
the 1st floor may be occupied by residential uses.
Community service - shelter S A minimum of 300 sf of lot area per permanent resident
and 200 sf of lot area per temporary resident is
required. The applicant must submit a site plan and a
shelter management plan that address nuisance issues.
General community service S Must not significantly alter the overall character of the
zone or inhibit future development.
Detention facilities S Must be 1,000' from educational, parks, religious
assembly use, or residential uses or zones and 500'
from other detention facilities. Requires a security plan.
Specialized Educational Facilities S Must be compatible with surrounding uses.
Utility-scale ground-mounted
solar energy systems
S Must be 200' and screened from view (S3) from any
residential zone. Must be enclosed by a 6-8’ tall security
fence and the maximum height shall be no greater than
15'. Must also satisfy the special exception approval
criteria for a basic utility use.
Other Uses
Communication transmission
facility: Antennas
PR The antenna must be mounted on another structure
allowed in the zone and may not be illuminated by
strobe lights unless required by federal regulations. Any
equipment associated with the antenna must be within
the walls of the building to which the antenna is
attached or screened from public view (S3).
Communication transmission
facility: Towers
S Must serve an area that cannot be served by an existing
tower or industrial property or by locating antennas on
existing structures in the area. The proposed tower
must camouflage the structure and be no taller than is
necessary, up to 120'. The tower must be set back at
least a distance equal to the height of the tower from
any residential, ID-R zone. Any associated equipment
must be enclosed in an equipment shed, cabinet, or
building, which must be adequately screened from view
of the public right of way and any adjacent residential
or commercial property.
Use
Categories Subgroups CI-1
Residential uses:
Group living
uses
Assisted group
living S
1) Maximum Density: One roomer per 300 square feet of lot area.
(staff/live-in staff of a facility are not considered roomers)
2) Must have bath and toilet facilities available for use by roomers (per
Title 17). May allow tenants' access to a communal kitchen, dining room,
and other common facilities and services.
14-4B-4A-
8
Fraternal group
living
Independent
group living
Household
living uses
Attached single-
family dwellings
Detached
single-family
dwellings
Detached zero
lot line
dwellings
Duplexes
Group
households
Multi-family
dwellings
Commercial uses:
Adult business uses PR
Must be at least:
1) 1,000' from any property containing an existing daycare use,
educational facility use, parks and open space use, religious/private
assembly use, or residential use; or any single-family or multi-family
residential zone.
2) 500' from any other adult business use.
14-4B-4B-
1
General PR
Animal related
commercial
uses
Intensive PR
Any facility with outdoor runs or exercise areas must be located at least
400' from any residential zone. Overnight boarding facilities must be
located completely indoors within a soundproof building. If all aspects of
the operation, including any accessory uses, are conducted completely
indoors within a soundproof building, then the setback requirements of this
provision do not apply. However, the use is subject to any setback
requirements of the base zone.
14-4B-4B-
3
Building trade uses P
Commercial parking uses
Commercial
recreational
uses1
Indoor P
Outdoor P
Drinking establishments1 PR Applies only to Drinking Establishments In the university impact area or
riverfront crossings district.
14-4B-4B-
11
Eating establishments1 P
Office uses
General office P
Medical/dental
office P
Quick vehicle servicing uses1 PR
1) All vehicular use areas, including parking and stacking spaces, drives,
aisles, and service lanes, must be screened from the public right of way to
the S2 standard and to the S3 standard along any side or rear lot line that
abuts a residential zone boundary.
2) Sufficient vehicle stacking spaces must be provided to prevent
congestion and vehicle conflicts along abutting streets.
3) Unenclosed canopies over gas pump islands must be set back at least
10' from any street right of way. Fuel dispensing equipment must be set
back at least 10' from any street right of way, and at least 50' from any
residential zone boundary.
4) All lighting must comply with 14-5G
14-4B-4B-
12
Retail uses1
Alcohol sales P
Delayed deposit
service uses
Hospitality P
Outdoor
storage and
display
P
Personal
service P
Repair P
Sales P
Surface passenger service uses P
Vehicle repair uses PR
1) If on a property abutting a residential zone boundary, in addition to
applicable noise control provisions (6-4-2), all outdoor work operations are
prohibited between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. Any indoor operations that
result in noise exceeding 60 dBA as measured at the residential zone
boundary are prohibited between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M.
2) No vehicle shall be stored on the property for more than 45 continuous
days.
3) The site must be designed to minimize views of vehicular use areas
from the public right-of-way and from adjacent properties.
(a) Outdoor storage areas, including storage of vehicles to be
repaired, must be concealed from public view to the extent possible. If it is
not feasible to conceal the storage areas behind buildings, the storage
areas must be set back at least 20' from any public right-of-way, including
public trails and open space, and screened from public view to at least the
S3 standard.
(b) Other vehicular use areas that abut the public right-of-way,
including parking and stacking spaces, driveways, aisles, and service
lanes, must be set back at least 10' from the public right-of-way and
landscaped according to the S2 standard.
(c) All outdoor storage areas that abut other properties must be
fenced to the S5 standard and screened to at least the S3 standard.
Landscape screening must be located between the fence and the abutting
property. The landscape screening requirement may be waived by the
building official, upon convincing evidence that a planting screen cannot
be expected to thrive because of intense shade, soil conditions, or other
site characteristics. The presence of existing pavement, by itself, shall not
constitute convincing evidence.
14-4B-4B-
21
Industrial uses:
Industrial service uses P
Manufacturing
and production
uses
General
manufacturing PR
a. The proposed use is limited to 5,000 square feet of gross floor
area, excluding floor area devoted to other principal or accessory uses,
except it may be increased up to 15,000 square feet by special exception
b. The proposed use meets the performance standards for off site
impacts contained in 14-5H "Performance Standards". The city may
require certification of compliance from a registered professional engineer
or other qualified person.
c. The following general manufacturing uses are prohibited in the
CI-1 zone: The manufacturing of chemicals and allied products; Any
manufacturing establishment that includes milling or processing of grain;
Leather tanning; Manufacture of motor vehicles; Manufacture or
processing of rubber and plastics; and Textile mills.
14-4B-4C-
2
Technical/light
manufacturing PR
Heavy
manufacturing S
1) Heavy manufacturing uses is limited to concrete batch/mix plants 2)
Must be at least 500' from any residentially zoned property.
3) All proposed outdoor storage and work areas must be located and
screened to adequately reduce the noise, dust, and visual impact of the
proposed use from surrounding properties.
4) Traffic circulation and access points must be designed to prevent
hazards to adjacent streets or property.
14-4B-4C-
4
Salvage operations
Self-service storage uses P
Warehouse and freight
movement uses P
Waste related uses
Wholesale sales uses P
Institutional and civic uses:
Basic utility uses PR/S
1) Basic utilities are permitted within a building that houses another
principal use allowed in the zone, provided the facility is completely
enclosed, and there is no visible indication of the existence of the facility
from the exterior of the building.
2) Basic utilities not enclosed within a building are permitted only by
special exception (except water and sanitary sewer pumps or lift stations
approved as part of subdivision or site plan approval)
a) Proposed uses must be screened from public view and from view of
any adjacent residential zones to at least the S3 standard.
b) In addition, the applicant must provide evidence that the proposed
use will be compatible with surrounding structures and uses with regard to
safety, size, height, scale, location, and design, particularly for facilities
that will be located close to or within view of a residential zone.
c) For uses located in highly visible areas, the board may consider
additional design elements such as masonry or brick facades, and walls or
fencing to improve public safety and to soften the visual impact of the
proposed use.
14-4B-4D-
1
Community
service uses
Community
service - long
term housing
PR/S
1) A minimum of 900 sf of lot area per dwelling unit is required.
2) Dwelling units must be efficiency and/or one bedroom units.
3) The applicant must submit a site plan and a management plan that
addresses potential nuisances such as loitering, noise, lighting, late night
operations, odors, outdoor storage and litter. The management plan must
include plans for controlling litter, loitering and noise; provisions for 24/7
on site management and/or security, and a conflict resolution procedure to
resolve nuisances if they occur. The site plan and management plan must
be submitted concurrently to the city, or if permitted as a special exception
said plans must be submitted with the special exception application.
4) A special exception is required if the proposed use is across the street
from or adjacent to a single-family residential zone.
5) Prior to a building permit being issued, the owner or operator of the
community service - long term housing use must hold a neighborhood
meeting inviting all property owners within 200' of the proposed use. At
the neighborhood meeting, the owner or operator must provide copies of
the management plan, and contact information for the management team
of the proposed use.
6) Must comply with the minimum standards as specified in the Iowa City
housing code and maintain a rental permit.
7) Up to 50% of the first floor of the building may be occupied by
residential uses.
14-4B-4D-
6
Community
service - shelter S
1) A minimum of 300 sf of lot area per permanent resident and 200 sf of
lot area per temporary resident is required.
2) Nuisance Issues: The proposed use will not have significant adverse
effects on the livability of nearby residential or commercial uses due to
loitering, noise, glare from lights, late night operations, odors, outdoor
storage, and litter. The applicant must submit a site plan and a shelter
management plan that address these issues. The management plan must
include a litter control plan, a loitering control plan, a plan for on site
security, and a conflict resolution procedure to resolve nuisance issues if
they occur. The site plan and shelter management plan must be submitted
along with the application for a special exception, or if allowed as a
14-4B-4D-
5
provisional use, such plan must be included with the materials submitted
for site plan review.
3) Must comply with the minimum standards as specified in the Iowa City
housing code
General
community
service
S
The proposed use will not significantly alter the overall character of the
zone and will not inhibit future development of uses for which the zone is
primarily intended. The board will consider such factors as size and scale
of the development, projected traffic generation, and whether adequate
transportation, transit, and pedestrian facilities exist to support the
proposed use. Community service uses that are industrial or repair
oriented in nature or that include operations that require outdoor work
areas may be particularly suited to these zones.
14-4B-4D-
4
Daycare uses PR
1) Building must contain at least 35 sf of usable interior floor space per
child or 60 sf of usable floor area per adult client. An additional 20 sf of
floor area is required for every adult client who uses ambulatory aids.
Reception areas, kitchens, storage areas, offices, bathrooms, hallways,
treatment rooms, and specialized areas used for therapy are excluded
when calculating the required floor area. The dining area may only be
included in the square footage calculation if used by daycare participants
for activities other than meals. When collocated in a facility that houses
other uses or services, the proposed daycare use must have its own
separate identifiable space for program activities during operational hours.
2) Child daycare uses must provide a fenced outdoor play area of not less
than 100 sf per child based on the maximum number of children that will
be using the outdoor play area at any given time. The outdoor play area
must meet the following standards:
a) Playground equipment is not permitted within the front and side
setbacks.
b) Outdoor play areas must be well drained, free from hazards, and
readily accessible to the daycare center. The outdoor play area must be
completely enclosed by a fence built to the S4 standard and be screened
along the perimeter of the fence to the S3 standard. The city may waive
the screening requirement if it is determined that land uses surrounding
the daycare use will not pose a nuisance or safety hazard to the children
such that a screening buffer is necessary.
3) The use must provide a drop off/pick up area in a location that is
convenient to or has good pedestrian access to the entrance to the facility.
This drop off/pick up area must contain sufficient stacking spaces and/or
parking spaces to ensure that traffic does not stack into adjacent streets
or other public rights of way. (See 14-5A-4, table 5A-2) To promote safe
vehicular circulation, one-way drives are encouraged.
4) A sidewalk must be constructed connecting the main entrance of the
center to the adjacent public right of way. Pedestrian access must be
clearly separated or distinguished from vehicular circulation areas to
minimize the extent to which users of the facility are required to walk
across drives or aisles to gain access to the daycare center.
14-4B-4D-
7
Detention facilities S Must be located at least:
1) 1,000' from any property containing an existing daycare use,
14-4B-4D-
8
educational facility use, parks and open space use, religious/private group
assembly use or residential use; or from any residential zone.
2) The proposed use will be located at least 500' from any other detention
facility.
3) The facility and its operations will not pose an unreasonable safety risk
to nearby uses and residents. The applicant must submit to the board of
adjustment a detailed plan for on site security.
Educational
facilities
General
Specialized S
The use will be functionally compatible with surrounding uses, such that
the health and safety of clients/students are not compromised. The board
will consider factors such as the types of businesses that predominate in
the immediate vicinity, whether there are any significant negative
externalities created by these uses, such as excessive noise, dust, or
vibrations from outdoor work areas that may pose a health or safety risk to
clients/students of the proposed use; and where such negative
externalities exist, whether the building(s) and site can and will be
designed to mitigate the harmful effects.
14-4B-4D-
13
Hospitals
Parks and open space uses
Religious/private group assembly
uses1 P
Utility-scale ground-mounted
solar energy systems S
1) Must be at least 200' from any residential zone.
2) Must be screened from public view and from view of any adjacent
residential zones to at least the S3 standard.
3) May not be closer than 20' from all property lines, or according to the
minimum setback requirements in the underlying base zone, whichever is
greater.
4) Must be enclosed by security fencing between 6' and 8' in height. Up to
3 individual horizontal strands of barbed wire may be placed atop the
fence (not to be included in the overall fence height measurement).
5) The maximum height shall be no greater than 15'.
6) Any on-site lighting provided for the operational phase of the utility-
scale ground-mounted solar energy system shall be equipped with full
cutoff fixtures, shielded away from adjacent properties, and positioned
downward to minimize light spillage onto adjacent properties.
7) Exterior surfaces of utility-scale ground-mounted solar energy system
panels shall have a nonreflective finish to minimize glare and solar arrays
shall be designed and installed to minimize glare towards vehicular traffic
and any adjacent building.
8) Must also satisfy the approval criteria for a special exception for a
basic utility set forth in Section 14-4B-4D-1b-(2).
14-4B-4D-
18
Other uses:
Communication transmission
facility uses PR/S
1) Communications antennas are permitted, provided the following
conditions are met:
a) The antenna must be mounted on another structure allowed in
the zone, such as a rooftop, light pole, or utility pole.
b) In CI-1 zones, antennas may not be illuminated by strobe lights
unless required by federal regulations. If alternatives are allowed under
federal guidelines, strobe lights may not be used.
c) Any equipment associated with an antenna must be located
within the exterior walls of the building to which the antenna is attached or
screened from view of the public right of way and any adjacent property to
at least the S3 standard. If the equipment is located on the roof, it must be
set back and screened so that it is not within public view or appears to be
part of the building.
2) Communications towers are allowed by special exception, and must
comply with the following approval criteria:
a) Must serve an area that cannot be served by an existing tower
or industrial property or by locating antennas on existing structures in the
area. The applicant must document attempts to utilize existing structures,
towers, and industrial properties within 1/2 mile of the proposed tower
including maps illustrating the location of existing towers and potential
alternative sites for antenna and towers that have been explored and the
reasons these locations were not feasible.
b) The proposed tower will be constructed in a manner that will
camouflage the structure and reduce its visual impact on the surrounding
area. Examples of camouflage design include monopoles, which do not
have guywires or support trusses and that are painted to blend in with the
sky or surroundings, towers camouflaged as flagpoles, monuments,
steeples, or the integration of rooftop towers onto existing buildings, water
towers, etc. Rooftop towers must use materials similar to or that blend in
with the structure to which it is attached. Other camouflaged tower
structures must be of similar height and appearance as other similar
structures allowed in the zone, e.g., towers camouflaged as light poles or
utility poles must be of similar height and appearance as other such poles.
The applicant must include an illustration of how the tower would appear
in the proposed location.
c) The proposed tower will be no taller than is necessary to
14-4B-4E-
5
provide the service intended. Evidence presented should include
coverage maps illustrating current gaps in coverage and changes to
coverage with the proposed tower. Communications towers are exempt
from the maximum height standards of the base zone, but under no
circumstance may the tower be taller than 120' from grade.
d) The proposed tower will be set back at least a distance equal
to the height of the tower from any residential zone, ID-RS zone, and ID-
RM zone.
e) Any equipment associated with the tower facility will be
enclosed in an equipment shed, cabinet, or building, which must be
adequately screened from view of the public right of way and any adjacent
residential or commercial property.
f) The proposed tower will not utilize a backup generator as a
principal power source. Backup generators may only be used in the event
of a power outage.
g) The proposed tower must be designed and constructed to
accommodate at least one additional user, unless in doing so the tower
will exceed the 120' height limitation or if the board of adjustment
determines that allowing the additional height needed to accommodate
another user will detract from the area to the extent that it will prevent
future development intended in the zone. The applicant shall provide a
certification by a professional engineer licensed in this state that the
proposed tower will be designed to permit a second antenna system of
comparable size to be added to the tower above or immediately below the
original antenna system.
h) If use of the tower is discontinued, the tower and any
associated equipment must be removed by the owner of the tower, the
operator, or the owner of the property within one year of discontinuance of
use and the land graded and replanted to prevent erosion. The applicant
shall present a signed lease agreement, a recorded declaration of
covenants, or other satisfactory evidence acknowledging this obligation.
From:Pamela
To:Raymond Heitner
Date:Wednesday, August 18, 2021 7:32:08 PM
I am against the rezoning of Slothower Rd. I feel like it will lead to loud traffic and distracting
lighting to our neighborhood.
Pamela Miller-DeKeyser
1630 Lake Shore Drive
Iowa City, IA 52246
Sent from the all new AOL app for Android
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 7, 2021 – 7:00 PM
FORMAL MEETING
THE CENTER – ASSEMBLY ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Maria Padron, Mark
Signs, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Nolte
STAFF PRESENT: Ray Heitner, Sara Hektoen, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT:
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
By a vote of 5-0 (Hensch recused) the Commission recommends approval of the proposed
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan on an update to the Fringe Area Policy Agreement
between Johnson County and the City of Iowa City.
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends setting public hearing for October 21, 2021 on a
proposed amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan future land use map to Intensive
Commercial and Public/Private Open Space and to change the Southwest District Plan text and
future land use map to Intensive Commercial and Vegetative Noise/Sight Buffer for
approximately 79 acres of property located south of IWV Road SW and west of Slothower Road.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS:
CASE NO. CPA21-0003:
A public hearing on a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan on an update to the
Fringe Area Policy Agreement between Johnson County and the City of Iowa City.
Because of his employment with Johnson County, Hensch recused himself from this item.
Heitner began the staff report by thanking the Commission for their patience as the City and
County have worked together to create an updated fringe area policy agreement. City staff has
been working on this for about three years now and a lot of that time was spent doing the
analytical groundwork for whether the City's growth area boundary was sufficient to meet
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 7, 2021
Page 2 of 11
projected demand. So after a lot of collaboration with County planning staff this proposal was
mutually agreed upon as being in the best interest for the City and the County. Heitner showed a
map of the proposed fringe area, noting the extent of the fringe area currently and the few spots
where they are noting the growth area.
Regarding background on the fringe area agreements, the existing agreement has been in place
since 2006 and is primarily used as policy direction for the City and County for land use
development applications such as rezonings, subdivisions and annexations. There is a law within
the State Code of Iowa that allows for cities to establish a two mile extra territorial area known as
the fringe area beyond city boundaries for the purpose of reviewing and approving subdivisions.
The main reason for an update now is there have been amendments to the City and County
Comprehensive Plans that have resulted in some land use designations within those plans that
doesn't necessarily mesh with the existing agreement. With the proposed agreement, the
biggest structural change of the agreement is it's much more process oriented in its direction,
rather than land use/geographically focused like the existing agreements. This is important as
the City or County will review certain development applications as they come forth within the
fringe area and are largely dependent on whether those applications take place within the City's
growth area or outside of the growth area.
The City and County worked toward this agreement to grant some additional review authority to
the City for items that fall within the growth area, while ceding some control to the County for
items outside of the growth area. There are a few exceptions to this, which they’ve termed as
subareas which have some more specific land use policy direction. The first subarea is located
just southwest of Highway 1 and 218 except for a rectangular strip to the west where it's
envisioned that there'll be an extension of Highway 965. The rationale for inclusion of this
subarea has to do with the existing direction from the County Comprehensive Plan showing
commercial and intensive commercial uses in a portion of this subarea and it's been a long-
standing policy that commercial uses are directed toward the City so that was one impetus for
including this area. In addition, some projected residential growth the City is envisioned to occur
to the north of Highway 1 upon provision of sewer infrastructure. Therefore, that made this an
appealing area to put into the growth area. Heitner noted with that inclusion into the growth area,
development for the area outlined in green on the map (just outside of the subarea, but still in the
growth area) will be allowed to conform to future land use within the County's Comprehensive
Plan but abide by the City's urban design standards.
The second subarea is just south of Highway 218 and Riverside Drive, there's some commercial
interest in this area like subarea one so that's one reason for including it in the growth area as
well as devoting this subarea policy to it. Also, like subarea one staff views this as a new
gateway into the City and also like subarea one development may be allowed with the County's
Comprehensive Plan, which identifies commercial growth, but subdivisions will be required to
conform to the City's urban design standards.
The third subarea is located north of Highway 6 on both sides of Taft Avenue SE. This was
included as a possible extension of the City's industrial park if that ever becomes fully occupied.
In the interim, it's expected that this land will remain open space or agricultural until annexed by
the City.
Subarea four is in the northeast side of the City at the intersection area of Herbert Hoover
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 7, 2021
Page 3 of 11
Highway and I-80. This area is again looked at as another possible prominent gateway into the
City for inclusion into the growth boundary. The hatched portion in blue diagonal hashing on the
map is what the City and County have agreed upon as appropriate for highway commercial
development. Agricultural uses are suggested in the remaining balance of the subarea.
Lastly, subarea five is located north of I-80, east of Highway 1 at the Rapid Creek Road NE
intersection. This subarea shall remain as open space until annexed by the City. There is a
portion on the east side that's already developed. Heitner noted this area had started as a much
larger subarea and then through some discussion with the County was shrunk down. It
effectively takes the growth boundary to the southern boundary of Rapid Creek Road instead of
splitting the existing lot lines like it does now.
Heitner explained the urban design standards are effectively the City's subdivision regulations
and any subdivision development that takes place within the growth area will have to abide by
those urban design standards to ensure that development can be adapted to City infrastructure
upon annexation. The urban design standards can contain more specific direction with respect to
streets and circulation, layout of blocks, length of streets, stormwater drainage, how utilities are
connected and so on. There is a provision within the existing agreement that was carried over to
the proposed agreement regarding urban design standard development within the growth area.
Generally, the City would require that construction drawings for subdivisions within the growth
area must include detail regarding how the sewer treatment systems or common wells can adapt
to City infrastructure upon annexation.
Regarding major changes, Heitner provided a higher-level overview as the staff memo provided
in the agenda packed went into more detail. The existing agreement outlines a few development
standards with respect to avoiding wetland and floodplain conflicts, meeting County minimum
standards for water and wastewater provision, as well as clustering developments to preserve
typically 50% of land as open space. The proposed agreement is a bit more process oriented in
terms of how the City or County reviews development applications inside or outside the growth
area. With each the City and County's Comprehensive Plans essentially acting as the driving
vehicle for review of those applications and staff was comfortable deleting the development
standards based on the direction within the City and County Comprehensive Plans incorporating
those goals that are emphasized in the existing agreement. Right now the existing agreement
has fringe areas A, B and C, they are proposing removal of areas A, B and C and they found
there wasn't a great deal of specific land use guidance in those existing areas and there was
also a good amount of repetition of policy direction. Staff feels that the City's Comprehensive
Plan and County's Comprehensive Plan will accomplish those development goals in a better
light. In addition, the specific direction that they're suggesting is to provide for those identified
subareas. One new thing to the agreement that the existing agreement doesn't really address
are County Future Land Use Map amendments and this is an area where they are
recommending a bit more involvement from the City with respect to Future Land Use Map
amendments that happen within the growth area in particular. Staff is proposing that those be
reviewed by this Commission and City Council with a recommendation to the County when they
happen within the growth area and then outside of the growth area City staff would formulate an
opinion to the County. Heitner stated there is a specific window with which the County receives
Future Land Use Map amendments, it’s about a two-month window over the summer every year.
Regarding rezonings this Commission and the Council review rezonings throughout the fringe
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 7, 2021
Page 4 of 11
area with a recommendation ultimately to the County. With the new proposal they're proposing
that is still the practice within the growth area but outside of the growth area there would be no
City review on rezonings, just County approval, the City would be informed of any applications
just for information purposes. For preliminary plats that involve less than three lots, those are
only reviewed and approved by the County right now, this proposal is that the City and County
P&Z Commissions and Council and the Board of Supervisors review and approve all the
subdivisions within the growth area. The County only would review and approve those outside
the growth area. For plats consisting of three lots or more, through the existing agreement the
City and County both review those and that would be the same within the growth area under the
new proposal. However, outside of the growth area the City would do an administrative review
based on a few selected standards within the rural design standards, and then there would also
be County review approval. Heitner noted the one thing they wanted to do with this updated
agreement is add a bit more clarity to how site plans are reviewed. Right now, they're subject to
review by both the City and County, with each jurisdiction’s review procedures. In the proposed
agreement for site plans in the growth area, there would be a City administrative review that
would be done to a few components of the City's site plan review criteria. For site plans greater
than two acres outside of the growth area, those would only be reviewed by the County. The
existing agreement keeps that threshold of site plan review at two acres so they thought it made
sense to just keep that threshold as well.
Heitner reiterated staff conducted a thorough build out analysis to determine if and how much the
existing growth boundary needed to be adjusted based on population and employment
increases. Using linear population increase estimates, the Johnson County MPO projects about
22,000 new residents and 23,000 new jobs from their master plan from 2017 to 2045. Heitner
noted the biggest takeaway from that build out analysis was that if they were to assume a high
density build out of available land within the City limits and within the projected growth areas,
there would be ample room to accommodate the anticipated new growth in residents and jobs.
However, Heitner noted that the high density build out estimate does rely pretty heavily on
continued redevelopment of the Riverfront Crossings area. Despite the analysis results, there
were a few areas that City staff looked at as making sense for growth area expansion. One is
areas that would act as potential future gateways into the City, that have prime highway
adjacency and access, potential suitable for commercial or industrial use. Another area for
growth is adjacent to planned residential expansion already within the growth area.
Heitner stated there are five areas for growth area inclusion. The first expansion area is the
general location of Highway 1, just southwest of Highway 218 and this expansion area does
include some area north of Highway 1. The Johnson County future land use designation
envisioned residential land use, commercial, and intensive commercial in the area. The subarea
Heitner spoke about earlier is included in this area, just south of Highway 1, with the intent of
following the land use policy from the County's Comprehensive Plan. The area north of Highway
1 would follow the guidance of the City's Comprehensive Plan and one of the primary reasons
they are making that distinction is the area just north of there is already within the City's growth
area and they suspect that upon sewer provision that area will develop first. They anticipate it
might be several years, maybe decades, before that sequential development or annexation
process gets south of Highway 1 so in collaborating with the County on this staff is comfortable
with allowing that area south of Highway 1 to develop to the County's Comprehensive Plan and
development standards. But the City wanted the area north of Highway 1 to develop to the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 7, 2021
Page 5 of 11
The second expansion area for that area near Herbert Hoover Highway. This is a suitable area
for expansion because of highway adjacency, there being City water and sewer just to the east
of this property so it's immediately suitable expansion area.
Expansion area three is additional land should it ever be needed for industrial park expansion.
Expansion area four is the area at Herbert Hoover Highway and I-80, the County's future land
use map indicates these areas appropriate for commercial developments because highway
adjacency and continuing the eastward development that is already happening, especially
relative to the Taft Avenue corridor which will eventually be developed to the existing growth area
boundary. Staff suspects as that area continues to develop there will be more of a focus on
potential commercial developments.
The last expansion area is that little sliver just south of Rapid Creek Road NE and expanding the
growth area to the Rapid Creek Road NE boundary.
Heitner noted there is some Comprehensive Plan analysis that is included with this amendment
to the fringe area agreement as it is a component of the Comprehensive Plan. First that
circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors have come to light such
that the proposed amendment is in the public interest. Heitner noted again that both the City and
County Comprehensive Plans have been updated since the existing agreement was enacted in
2006. With the most recent update to the County Comprehensive Plan being in 2018, which then
created some policy conflicts. There are some new infrastructure projects that were not
accounted for in the 2006 agreements such as improvements to Taft Avenue corridor and that
Abbey Lane trunk sewer which will allow for residential development in the southwest district of
the City. Second point being that the proposed amendment will be compatible with other policies
and/or provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, including any district plans or other amendments
thereto. Heitner stated district plans have evolved over the last several years to include more
detailed neighborhood design. Staff thinks in some ways this works as favorable for letting the
Comprehensive Plan be the guiding policy document for these development applications within
the growth area. In addition, there are a couple areas within the growth area, mainly in the
southwest district and possibly in the northeast district, where the City would wish to implement
form-based zones and standards from the South District. Lastly, staff really wanted to make a
concerted effort to only expand the growth areas where necessary, achieving some larger overall
goals of the Comprehensive Plan to encourage compact, efficient and contiguous development.
Staff is recommending approval of the proposed fringe area policy agreement between Johnson
County and the City of Iowa City.
Regarding next steps, the County is reviewing this as well, the County Planning and Zoning
Commission will consider this agreement at their meeting on October 11 and the Board of
Supervisors have set a public hearing to review this agreement on October 14. Staff has
received in writing a letter objecting to renew the existing agreement from the County given the
progress on the proposed agreements with an expiration of the existing agreement on October
11. Pending this review, staff will request that City Council set a public hearing for November 16.
Martin asked how COVID affects the numbers of the MPO build out analysis, such as when it
talks about jobs, new residents and whatnot. Right now there is a large availability of jobs so is
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 7, 2021
Page 6 of 11
that something that they need to take into consideration because obviously things have changed.
Heitner acknowledged the build on analysis was finalized pre-COVID and to his knowledge the
County doesn't have any revised population projections. Martin agreed it would be hard to have
those projections but perhaps there could be something noted in this new agreement that would
allow for a revisit. Heitner said there is a review policy, there's language that sets aside a formal
review every five years, that can be originated either by the County Board of Supervisors or the
City Council. He acknowledged while they did that pretty thorough build out analysis, population
changes can be pretty volatile, and he would recommend that analysis is updated fairly regularly,
probably not annually, but maybe every five to 10 years. That makes sense because while they
feel pretty comfortable with what they're proposing right now, in terms of capacity within the
growth area, things can change pretty quickly as with COVID impacts. He noted 10 years ago
nobody thought that Bozeman, Montana would be the hottest real estate market in the country,
so there's all sorts of external factors that really can inflame population projection and that is why
there is a mechanism where the agreement language as a whole can be revisited on a periodic
basis. Hekteon added right now it says the agreement will be reviewed every five years.
Martin noted early on in staff’s slides they talked about all the things that are considered and they
mentioned sewer on the list of things. One thing not on there, it never is, is the environmental
impact. Yes there’s language regarding sensitive slopes, but there's more to environment than
sensitive slopes. So maybe this is the opportunity as they're dealing with so much climate
change to start putting that language in about the effects of what happens and what are the
studies that can be put in place as contingencies. It is important to think about how what they're
doing is affecting climate change and wildlife and how that is all interconnected. Perhaps this is
an appropriate time to start adding verbiage.
Signs asked if there is language in the City's climate change policy document already that
addresses this. Russett agreed climate action initiatives should be at the forefront of plans and
ordinances and the fringe area agreement in general says that the policy direction of the City's
Comprehensive Plan should be the guiding policy for the growth area so that's where they really
need to have strong environmental policy language. They also need ordinances like the sensitive
areas ordinance to ensure that environmental areas are protected. Similarly, the County also has
a sensitive areas ordinance. The City does have a climate action plan and there are many action
items in there that are related to land use and zoning, things they are working on, one of which is
the form-based code. Staff is also looking at something that has been of interest to City Council
which is to try to create some metric on the impacts of development on climate and see if that
can be measured in some way.
Padron noted when they talk about climate change they have to remember that all these
organizations that focus and study sustainability, recommend that they need to be careful when
they convert agricultural land into development land. One of the main concerns is because there
is a food shortage worldwide because of the overpopulation. So when they talk about climate
change, they also have to remember the zoning of the fringe area.
Martin agreed, those are already sensitive areas, but when she also thinks about sensitive areas
when someone out in the county is going to develop a new site, they have to do an archeological
survey and it would make sense to have some sort of a wildlife survey or something that
measures those effects. If these areas in the fringe areas become residential, commercial, or
industrial how will that overtime impact those areas that aren't sensitive areas or sensitive
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 7, 2021
Page 7 of 11
slopes, but the other environmental impacts. If they will be redeveloping current agricultural
land, they need to keep having this conversation. Russett stated if they don't think the current
policies are strong enough, or if current ordinances are not strong enough, let's take a look at
those. As staff has pointed out, this document is really about process and not about policy.
There are some policies within the subareas, but this document is the guiding policy document
for those subareas. However, if this Commission is interested in reevaluating other aspects of
the plans and ordinances to address some concerns that would be appropriate.
Martin asked if she would not consider that idea is a process, and not a policy even though
identifying sensitive areas, and City sewer and whatnot are part of the processes. Russett
replied this document is at a generally high level and if in the City's growth area development
must follow the City's Comprehensive Plan and urban design standards. So if they don't like the
direction provided by the Comprehensive Plan, or don't like the urban design standards, or don't
think the sensitive areas ordinance is strong enough that needs to be reevaluated.
Signs noted a lot of the changes were around putting in the process and taking the policy piece
out of this document and referencing the County and City Comprehensive Plans. He noted if this
document focuses on process, then they don't have to wait for changes, if the City makes
changes in a Plan, they don't have to wait for those to update this. Processes are this and the
community decides what they want the policies to be.
Craig asked what happens when the fringe area of two cities abut each other, and overlap, do
they just like split it down the middle. Russett imagines there'd be more negotiations.
Signs recalls North Liberty and Coralville having a battle here recently and it had to go to a State
commission who ultimately made the decision. Tiffin and North Liberty also got into litigation.
But that is about annexation not fringe area. Hekteon stated if it's an account of municipalities
fringe area within the County. The County is negotiating a 28e agreement with Iowa City,
presumably, they have one with Coralville and presumably acting in good faith, so they shouldn't
enter into an agreement that really shows two fringe areas overlapping.
Craig asked specifically in area one, she don't quite understand why it seems like they're saying
two things about it, which is they really want to have more control on the north side of the
highway there and yet at the same time the commercial area is on the south side and the City
doesn’t really want commercial development in the county area so why not include the
commercial area in the north section. Russett stated that area is the result of many
conversations with County planners. They have interests and the City has interests as well and
this is the center balance position that they came to. The City ultimately said that it's okay for the
area south of Highway 1 to develop in compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan if it
was included in the growth area and subject to the City’s urban design standards. What that
means is anytime there's a subdivision in any part of this area, they need to meet the City’s
subdivision standards which are pretty high standards in terms of requirements of infrastructure
that would be required of any property owner.
Craig noted commercial development has grown, she lived south of town 45 years ago and there
were just a couple little things there and now it's gotten bigger. Another question is for a couple
of these areas, some language is used, for instance in area five, where it talks about the buffer
between the residential and the commercial office, and that the open space is ag land, and that
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 7, 2021
Page 8 of 11
needs to be kept the way. How can they dictate that it’s kept the way, that is will stay ag land.
Townsend said it will be ag land until annexed into the City. Craig questioned if it’s not annexed
for 20 years, then the person that owns that piece of property can’t do anything with it except
grow stuff. Russett said they could develop under the provisions the current County zoning
would allow. The County does have rezoning authority, but the City would have to review it and
provide a recommendation and then when it came to subdividing it, they would have to develop
to the City’s urban design standards.
Townsend asked about the major changes to the development standards and all those things
taken out. The existing agreement had emphasis on avoiding wetlands, floodplains and conflicts
and that whole list and so then in the proposed amendment they are not concerned about that.
Heitner said it’s not that they're not concerned about those things they just feel that most of those
things are already covered in the City and County Comprehensive Plans as larger goals within
those plans. The clustering development to preserve open space is something that's in the
existing agreement but what they would really look to there is more of the higher level of detail
and use the district plans for that guidance.
Hekteon noted the current agreement had a lot more policy statements but as they have seen
recently with the applications over the past two years is the County has gone in a different
direction with their zoning and comprehensive plans. So with this agreement they are giving back
each governmental body the authority to make their own policy decisions within the framework of
review that this agreement is creating.
Padron asked regarding reviewing this every five years if they wanted to change that to three
years could the Commission do that because five years right now seems like a very long time.
Hekteon replied if the Commission wants to recommend that change to the agreement, they can.
Okay.
Signs asked for an explanation on the difference between the subareas and the expansion
areas, what is the difference. Heitner said with the subareas they're talking about a policy focus
within those areas, what specific policy interpretations they would have for those areas. The
expansion areas are just areas where they're looking to expand the growth area and supplying
the rationale for why they're looking to expand those areas. Russett added all those subareas
are within the proposed growth areas. For the most part in the growth areas it's the City's
Comprehensive Plan that guides development but in a few of those subareas it's the County's
Comprehensive Plan.
Signs opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one, Signs closed the public hearing.
Craig moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan on an update to the Fringe Area Policy Agreement between Johnson County and the
City of Iowa City.
Martin seconded the motion.
Signs really likes this concept of separating the policy and the process because the
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 7, 2021
Page 9 of 11
Comprehensive Plans are updated fairly often. It will be good to use the neighborhood plans that
are in the City and County Comprehensive Plans to make those policy decisions. He did find it
interesting about the population growth estimates, the emphasis on the word high density, he
brings this up because as he understands it those numbers rely on the fact that they're going to
have some high-density growth. His observation is this community doesn't have the stomach for
a lot of high-density growth and imagines those numbers are probably going to come in at a
lesser degree.
Padron agrees with the separation of policy and process, especially since it was noted that the
two governments were having some disagreements so that would be a good way to fix it. The
only thing that she is concerned about is the five-year review and would like to see it a little bit
shorter.
Craig is concerned while three years would be great, is it doable and practical. Staff spend many
years on this. Russett noted three years is not that much time for staff and it would take away
staff time on other projects, like district plan updates or other things like that.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0 (Hensch recused)
CASE NO. CPA21-0002:
Location: SW corner of Slothower Road and IWV Road
A request to set a public hearing for October 21, 2021 on a proposed amendment to change the
Comprehensive Plan future land use map to Intensive Commercial and Public/Private Open
Space and to change the Southwest District Plan text and future land use map to Intensive
Commercial and Vegetative Noise/Sight Buffer for approximately 79 acres of property located
south of IWV Road SW and west of Slothower Road.
Hensch rejoined the meeting for this item.
Russett noted the motion to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment did not pass at the
last meeting so the applicant came back with some changes and would like to re-present it to the
Commission.
Signs moved to set a public hearing for October 21, 2021 on a proposed amendment to
change the Comprehensive Plan future land use map to Intensive Commercial and
Public/Private Open Space and to change the Southwest District Plan text and future land
use map to Intensive Commercial and Vegetative Noise/Sight Buffer for approximately 79
acres of property located south of IWV Road SW and west of Slothower Road.
Townsend seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 16, 2021:
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 7, 2021
Page 10 of 11
Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of September 16, 2021 with minor edits.
Padron seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett noted Tuesday night at the City Council meeting they adopted the resolution for the
South District Plan update for the form-based code and approved the first reading of the
ordinance for the text amendment for the zoning portion. There will be two more readings, but it
went well on Tuesday.
Craig wondered about the development near Hickory Hill Park, is that going to come back to the
Commission. Russett replied yes, it might be on the next agenda, the developer is bringing a
new proposal.
ADJOURNMENT:
Signs moved to adjourn.
Townsend seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2021-2022
7/1 7/15 8/5 8/19 9/2 9/16 10/7
CRAIG, SUSAN X X O/E X X X X
HENSCH, MIKE X X O/E X X X X
MARTIN, PHOEBE X O/E O/E O/E X O X
NOLTE, MARK X X X O/E X O/E O
PADRON, MARIA X X X X X X X
SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X
TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X X X X X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member