HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-01-04 OrdinanceItem Number: 7.a.
J anuary 4, 2022
O rd inan ce conditional l y rezonin g ap p roximatel y 53.36 acres from Cou n ty
Ag ricultu ral (A) to Intensive Commercial (C I-1), approximately 17.03 acres
from Cou n ty Agricu l tural (A) to In terim Develop ment Commercial (ID-C), an d
approximately 9 acres from Ru ral Resid ential (R R-1) to Intensive Commercial
(C I-1) for l and l ocated west of the in tersection of IW V Road S W an d
Slothower Road. (Pass & Ad opt)
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Planning and Z oning Commission Rezoning Staff Report
Rezoning Exhibit
Site Grading and Erosion Control Plan
Wetland Delineation Report - Part 1
Wetland Delineation Report - Part 2
Wetland Delineation Report - Part 3
Wetland Delineation Report - Part 4
Rezoning L egal Description
C I -1 Z one Permitted Uses
Updated Conditions Memo for P lanning and Zoning Commission
P&Z Minutes 09/16
P&Z Minutes 10/21
Correspondence
Ordinance & C Z A
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
(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
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.
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
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.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 16 of 36
Heitner explained this agenda item is focusing on the actual annexation application and the
rezoning associated with that annexation as the property is annex into the City. He also wanted
to comment on a couple things from just the general background stance, there's been discussion
about the lack of attendance at the good neighbor meeting. Those notices were sent out
pursuant to the City's current requirement of a 300-foot notification radius. Heitner attended that
meeting, and they made a concerted effort in notification, they sent out notifications to residents
within the Country Club Estates Fourth and Fifth Additions as well which is outside of the 300-
foot notification window. Staff did so because they understood that there is a potential for a larger
impact for area, since it is a larger agricultural property. They also held a consult on the
annexation on July 29th with two Union Township trustees and they also voiced concerns mostly
about the potential loss of farmland and tax revenue to the township.
Heitner showed an overview of the existing Southwest District Plan and Weber subarea, as
Lehmann mentioned the majority of this area was slated for future urban development for single
family duplex residential and then also a Vegetative and Noise and Sight Buffer to the west near
the landfill.
For the annexation component of this, voluntary annexations are reviewed under three different
criteria, first, that the area under consideration falls within the adopted long range planning
boundary, second that development in the area proposed annexation will fulfill and identify need
without imposing an undue burden on the City, and third, that control of the development is in the
City's best interest. Heitner stated on that first point with the area under consideration falling
within the adapted long range planning boundary, the portion of the subject property that isn't
already in the City limits is all entirely within the City’s growth area in fringe area C and it’s
anticipated that anything within that growth area will eventually or could eventually be annexed
into the City. Number two, that development in the area proposed for annexation will fulfill an
identified need without imposing an undue burden on the City. The applicant has demonstrated
that sanitary sewer service is possible to the eastern properties that are seeking the intensive
commercial CI-1 zoning. There are capital improvements underway on IWV road with the intent
of bringing the road to urban arterial standards. That will include an urban overlay of that
segment of the road roughly between the Poor Farm and Hebl Avenue to the landfill as well as
installation of a water line throughout that segment of road with the expectation that waterline
and section of the road will be utilized for those infrastructure improvements. Heitner noted there
is a great deal of highway adjacency lot size and also arterial proximity that makes this subject
property pretty appealing for future commercial development. Also, with regards to the
Comprehensive Plan the subject properties are contiguous the City limits there by satisfying that
goal for annexation. The last point, control the development is in the City's best interest, as
previously mentioned this property is within the City's growth area and is appropriate for
properties seeking annexation upon development to seek adequate City services, this is
especially true for commercial and industrial oriented uses that may develop within the growth
area. It is a long-standing policy that the City tries to direct those uses within the City limits if
possible.
Heitner showed an overview of the zoning noting the eastern parcels will have intensive
commercial zoning with the western parcel seeking interim development commercial. As an
overview of a CI-1 zone, it is a zone with a lot of depth to it and the purpose of the zone is to
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 17 of 36
provide areas for sales and service functions, businesses whose operations are typically
characterized by outdoor displays and storage of merchandise, repair, and sales of large
equipment or motor vehicles or commercial amusement recreational activities. It's an extensive
zone and there's a lot of discussion within the zoning ordinance about how to buffer some of
those uses from adjacent residential zones. Heitner acknowledged there's been a lot of talk
about MidAmerican being a potential end user here, certainly a possibility, but when staff is
assessing a rezoning like this, they have to analyze the potential for any kind of use that might
be permitted within that zone. There are three different ways they look at uses in zones, they
have uses that are permitted by right, meaning that if they follow all of the other items and steps
within the zoning or subdivision ordinance they are permitted without any further scrutiny, there's
provisional uses which require a few more steps and criteria to satisfy and then there's uses
permitted by special exception which require even more criteria to satisfy and they have to obtain
that special exception through the Board of Adjustment, an entirely different review body.
Heitner showed a quick overview of some of the uses that are permitted through each
mechanism. By right, they can have building trade, commercial recreational, eating
establishments, office, retail, industrial service, self-service storage warehouse, and freight
movement. Provisional uses, which again require a bit more criteria to satisfy are adult
businesses, animal related commercial, some general manufacturing, and basic utility. Finally
are the uses as permitted by special exception which deserve a bit more analysis and scrutiny,
are things like heavy manufacturing, basic utilities that maybe are outside, detention facilities,
and utility scale solar.
The IDC zone to the far west is intended to provide areas for managed growth, it's a default
zoning district that's often applied to undeveloped areas until City services can be provided, as is
the case with this portion of the subject property. For the rezoning component Heitner explained
there's two criteria that need to be satisfied, consistency with Comprehensive Plan and
compatibility with the existing neighborhood character. With respect to consistency with
Comprehensive Plan, a lot of that is tied to the previous agenda item and whether intensive
commercial designation within the Comprehensive Plan is passed. What is existing right now is
classified as future urban development. Heitner wanted to touch on the attractiveness of the site
for a couple reasons, the highway adjacency and future arterial road access. As mentioned
earlier, there are improvements ongoing right now to IWV Road to make that up to arterial urban
design standards. Also discussed already tonight was the potential for the extension of 965 that
would be on the west side of the subject property, closer to the interim zone area, and then in the
Comprehensive Plan there are plans for making Slothower Road a collector street which is a
step down from an arterial assuming less traffic than an arterial but still more volume than a local
neighborhood street.
With respect to compatibility with the existing neighborhood character Heitner wanted to highlight
topography of the area, with the lighter industrial uses to the northeast of the subject property,
the Poor Farm directly east, agricultural residential to the north and the Country Club Estates
residential of the southeast. Staff does acknowledge there's definitely concerns with potentially
having a zone with the breath of uses that an intensive commercial zone presents and being as
sensitive as possible to existing neighbors and adjacent properties so there are a few conditions
in that respect that staff would recommend for rezoning. Staff is recommending a S3 high
screen landscape buffer along the properties on Slothower Road frontage. S3 is the most
intense screening within the code and consists of six-foot-tall dense shrub and/or tree buffer with
potential to incorporate berming with that buffer or a masonry wall. They are also recommending
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 18 of 36
a condition that any parking along the IWV Road frontage be screened to the S3 standard and
that any loading areas and outdoor storage be located behind the principal structure. In addition,
there's also some built in criteria for buffering that's for more intense uses that might fall under
this zone, the code already prescribes in terms of buffering for uses such as manufacturing,
which is limited concrete mix plants, would require at least the 500 foot buffer from any
residential zone. General manufacturing has a size limitation of about 15,000 square feet and
there's certain protocols for what production could take place out of that general manufacturing.
Detention facilities must be at least 1000 feet from any residential zone and communication
transmission facility towers have to be set back at least the distance equal to the height of the
tower from any residential zone.
Heitner next discussed the environmental sensitive areas, the applicant did submit sensitive
areas plan as part of the review of the annexation and rezoning. It was already discussed about
the natural buffering that will take place on the south side of the subject property spanning the
entire width of the property and again that's largely because of a combination of planned
detention, also the stream corridor on the south end of the property, as well as a wetland a little
bit under an acre in size on the south of the property and associated 100-foot buffer around that
wetland. So there will be natural buffering on the south side of subject property that effectively
prohibits any urban development from taking place within that area.
Regarding traffic and access to the site, right now the most recent vehicle count that they have
for IWV Road is approximately 2000 vehicles per day which is well below the arterial size
capacity of about 17,000 vehicles per day. Staff is looking to finalize access to the site upon site
plan review, however, there is a City Code policy on limiting access to arterial roads, and it is the
City's preference to have that primary access point off Slothower Road, and there's a few
conditions related to that access. One, that the applicant would be obligated to improve
Slothower Road to the southern end of that proposed access and then contributes 25% toward
the cost of upgrading the remaining portion of Slothower Road along the rest of the frontage.
Staff is also requesting a dedication of approximately 13 feet of additional right -of-way along the
Slothower Road frontage.
Heitner noted the public comments received regarding concerns with the annexation were largely
similar to the concerns related to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment about the wide range of
uses in the proposed zone, concerns about buffers and impacts to sensitive features, detrimental
property valuation to adjacent residences, concerns about negative externalities from the use of
traffic, lighting impacts, the large shift from a rural residential character to an intensive
commercial or lighter industrial character and then potential implications for the larger area.
With respect to the annexation policy, the role of the Commission tonight is to determine that the
following are satisfied conditions by the Comprehensive Plans annexation policy, one that the
area falls within the adopted long range planning boundary; two, that the development area
proposed for annexation will fulfill an identified need without imposing undue burden on the City;
and three, that control of the development is the City's best interest.
With respect to next steps, after recommendation from this Commission the following will occur:
• City Council would 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.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 19 of 36
• 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.
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.
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.
Hensch had three questions, one about uses as permitted by right, provisionally and by special
exception. For the special exceptions, is it correct that those would have to go before the Board
of Adjustment to get approval and there'd be no administrative course of action, because some
of those uses sound pretty intensive. Heitner confirmed that was correct anything requiring a
special exception will require Board approval. Hensch acknowledged a couple of the public
speakers intermixed industrial zoning with intensive commercial zoning and they're not talking
about any industrial zoning tonight, the heaviest zoning is intensive commercial. Again Heitner
confirmed that was correct.
Hensch noted that Slothower Road is currently a county level B road, so that means that there's
zero maintenance going on and it's essentially non-traversable at this point by a regular motor
vehicle. Heitner confirmed it's a level B road so the County provides no maintenance for the
entire length of that road.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 20 of 36
Hensch’s last question is under the additional conditions in staff’s recommendation, the
recommendation was that there should be S3 screening standards applied for landscaping along
the length of Slothower Road and he was curious why that wasn't extend to the length of the IWV
Road since that is an entry area to Iowa City. Hensch noted the Commission has always paid
particular importance to green entry ways into the City so was there any consideration given to
have S3 standards for that length IWV Road and if not that's something he’d be interested in
adding. Heitner stated there was consideration given to it and if it's the Commission's desire to
create a new condition that would require that S3 screening on the IWV Road frontage staff
would be supportive of that. Their focus with respect to IWV Road was just making sure that any
parking within that front yard area off IWV Road be screened but again would be totally
supportive of extending that screening throughout the entire IWV Road frontage. Hensch is not
only concerned aesthetically but also quite certain the engineering staff would recommend
limitation of access on IWV Road from the main property so if they’re not going to have
driveways anyway why not have this look as aesthetically pleasing as possible. Heitner agreed
and stated it also goes to further satisfy the Comprehensive Plan goal about having aesthetically
pleasing beautified entries into the City.
Signs stated he did appreciate the review of the various uses this by right, provisional and by
special exception, that did answer some of his questions. He would definitely be supportive of
extending the S3 screening standard the entire length of the IWV Road on the side of that
property. Signs noted one of the things that they seem to be bumping up against a lot lately, in
the last year of applications that came before the Commission, is there's a common theme of not
wanting change and not wanting growth. For those folks here tonight to speak against growth, if
they stick around a little bit longer, they're going to hear the folks that are going to speak against
growth on the south side. The Commission talked with all the folks on the northeast side of town
a couple times in the last two years about the fact that they didn't want their natural areas to
grow, and it really got him thinking and begging the question of where is the City going to grow if
nobody wants to grow. In the paper last week it stated the official census estimate for Iowa City
shows that the growth was less than expected, while the growth in the neighboring communities
was way more than expected. And to be honest, there's a reason for that and it is because they
want to grow and the Iowa City community, at least part of the community, doesn't want to grow.
The Commission is seeing this trend and it's starting to concern him and as stated earlier their
role is to look at the good of the community as a whole. He is not opposed to change, they've
seen change happen on the IWV corridor and her anticipates that the demand for that's going to
continue regardless of any decision made tonight. He personally thinks that if he had to choose
between that and 230 some acres south of Rohret Road this makes the most sense to put in
some type of a heavier use of zoning so there are some of those types of businesses and
industries on that side of town and it's really the only place that seems logical for him. He likes
the staff’s conditions and totally support those, he would also support extending the screening on
IWV Road and is inclined to support this. He is definitely inclined to support the annexation and
is comforted by the chart that showed the uses of the zoning allowed so he is more inclined now
to support the zoning.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Jon Marner (MMS Consultants) stated they would also support the extension to the S3 screening
along IWV Road. The other thing he wanted to add is just to reiterate again that this zoning
amendment is being sought not just for one user, there's an opportunity for multiple other
businesses, whether they've expressed interest at this point or not, this is a great location to
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 21 of 36
provide quick access to the arterial road and immediate access to Highway 218 and the
interstate system and as staff pointed out there's not a lot of those types of properties in the
area. Other areas are located away from the highway or from the interstate or the area on the
east part of town is located near railways and are different uses or smaller parcels. A lot of the
people that are interested in this type of property for this type of uses are searching for
something more in the neighborhood of 10 to 15 acres or a little larger and those properties
simply don't exist in the Iowa City area at this time, so this is a great location.
John Bergstrom (Slothower Farms) want to state they are not anti-growth, they just don't like the
abrupt change in the land plan and doesn’t think he was hearing anti-growth. This area has
always been deemed to be residential and he thinks it should continue as residential. As far as
north of Melrose frankly this development would probably fit better north of Melrose, but as they
turn onto Slothower Road that should be residential or neighborhood commercial because then
to the south is residential and the County Farm will have a residential component to it. Again,
this is just a big change, and as they change an instrument like the Comprehensive Plan it
should be much more encompassing than just accommodating MidAmerican Energy because it's
very clear from all the staff comments that is what this is all about.
Hensch stated just so everybody knows they have not materials that state what the potential
users of these properties and they strictly look at the application and what the application says.
Eric Freedman (4401 Tempe Place) wanted to acknowledge he heard a couple of the
Commissioners say this is not a residential area, west on Melrose, but that's not the concern, the
concern is the views from the south, and what this impacts to the south. On the map it is shown
that a ton of people live right across the Poor Farm, it's a clear line of sight. If the Poor Farm is
going to be a community resource with trails and some housing and community farming, then
right next to it will be a row of trees or shrubs like six feet high and he has no idea what it's going
to look like so it'd be nice to at least see something that would show them what it's going to look
like when this is built to the west of the Poor Farm. There is concern among people who live in
this vibrant neighborhood of what the impact would be. He doesn’t think any of them are
opposed to annexing more land and creating space for things that are useful to the City, but they
don't understand why it was chosen to be here without looking at other options. Why not north of
Melrose, what's the long-term plan, is this going to be one little tiny piece, or is there going to be
expansion for other intensive commercial, is there a plan for that they haven't seen. He’d like to
know more, in order to be able to make a clear decision and he doesn’t know how they can make
a decision on this, given what they've heard so far. For example, something along the east side
of that space that was more compatible and useful to the people living there. Nobody wants to
live next to a dump so if there's going to be stuff farther west that is fine, but he thinks people are
concerned about along Slothower Road is directly next to where people live.
Jim Larimore (1143 Wildcat Lane) is one of the families that looks across that field at the
proposed site. Since one of the Commissioners made some comments that are interpreted as
being directed at those who are here in attendance, he thinks it's interesting sometimes that they
can hear the same words and or be exposed to the same words and hear such dramatically
different things. Larimore has not heard a single one of his neighbors express a concern about
growth. Some of them came to Iowa City and contributed to the growth of the population, so he
doesn’t think that anyone is anti-growth. From what he’s heard so far, they do have some
concerns about what is planned, or what is potentially going to be for some of them within a very
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 22 of 36
long stone's throw of their neighborhood and the thing that he would point out and where he
heard some things tonight that are worrisome was actually in the documentation that was posted
online and there is a reference in some of the material that suggests the plan for the County and
the Poor Farm. They're actually considering putting some residential units there which would be
very close to the proposed site and that creates a much more immediate conflict between the
kinds of uses for these properties. The thing he is very concerned about, because there were
also comments that none of us has a crystal ball, they really don't know what will go there and
there's no confirmed plan for MidAmerica Energy to use the site, but there is beyond the rights
that can be exercised to build on that site subject only to provisional review. What was
referenced as an adult video stores or strip clubs that's what the Code says so by opening up the
door for intensive commercial use on this property, not very far from one of Iowa City's high
schools and not very far from residential neighborhoods are possibilities that no one really want
in their backyards.
Cindy Seyfer (36 Tempe Court) wanted to follow up with that comment they’re not concerned if
it's MidAmerican or who it is that builds there, they are looking at what's in the best interest for
Iowa City and the public. She thinks it's really dangerous to annex and start to allow that land to
be used in a way that they don't have a plan for. They don't know what the future will hold for
that land, but what they do know is what is near it. The Commissioners indicated it isn't
residential, but she would assume that the residents of Walnut Ridge and Galway Hills would
beg to differ, because they would find themselves pretty close to that area. Her neighborhood
would find themselves close to that area and again that's where she thinks they need to be
looking at tiers, rather than jumping straight from residential to intense commercial. Once it is
intense commercial all of those options exist in terms of what could go on that land, and it makes
it really hard to feel comfortable with what the future might hold. She also wanted to echo none
of them are against the growth, they wanted residential growth or at the very least maybe some
neighborhood commercial growth, they just don't think an appropriate use is intense commercial.
Sherri Slothower Bergstrom (Slothower Farms) feels like the panel here maybe doesn't have a
good understanding of that area. They have been talking a lot about IWV Road but the people
that are here and the big impact that they are missing is what's going to happen south of there.
There's a big strip of land there and this small piece of land that they're addressing tonight is
going to set the tone for what happens in that whole area, and it really concerns her and bothers
her a lot that the people on the panel are not really understanding that. Maybe the
Commissioners are not real familiar with the area, but IWV Road is probably not what they
should be thinking about here, there is going to be impact in the future from this decision on a
large area of agricultural land and on a lot of people. Look at that neighborhood there and look at
what's going to happen in the future on that agricultural land and what they are deciding here for
a very small plot is going to impact that greatly.
Duane Kruse (965 Slothower Road) and as Bergstrom just pointed out the decision that's being
imposed on the Commission tonight does impact a lot of people and it's a very large decision.
When one drives up and down IWV you see commercial, but you get past that and there's a lot
of land there that is going to be impacted by this decision if this area goes to heavy industrial.
He is also not opposed to growth, they all want to grow, they all want to be successful, but he
also thinks if they make this decision in favor of the heavy industrial, they're opening pandora's
box and can't close it once it's opened.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 23 of 36
Craig corrected that it's not heavy industrial zoning.
Kruse accepted that but stated he is opposed to this, his wife Kathy is opposed, their two dogs
are opposed, their three cats are opposed and 49 pheasants in their front yard last winter are
opposed.
Hensch asked the applicant what's the CSR (corn suitability rating) for this land. Marner replied
he did not know off the top of his head. Hensch noted several people mentioned the agricultural
lands and he presumes it's around 50-60. He assumes it would be the same as the Poor Farm
and the Poor Farm CSR is low, it's around 50.
Freedman had a quick question as there was a mention in the conditions for the plan that the
resident would pay 25% of the improvements to Slothower Road to the south of the site. What is
the vision and is that going to extend all the way down to Rohret Road or that would connect up
the Lake Shore.
Hensch reminded him this is not a question/answer opportunity, it's an opportunity for the public
to address the Commission and share information. He could certainly ask staff after the meeting.
Freedman stated then if the idea was that collector road is going to feed on to Lake Shore and
not go all the way down to Rohret Road it would be tremendously opposed by many, many
people in the community because then lots of traffic would be going right through a street where
there's tons of kids. So if there's thinking here about creating a collector road they have to be
very careful and do an analysis of where that collector is going to go, he thinks it should go to
Rohret Road.
Marner stated the CSR is 72, he was able to look it up on the internet. Hensch noted just so
people know it's a scale of zero to 100 and the closer to 100 is prime agricultural land and as it
goes down its lesser value and that determines how it sells frankly.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Townsend moved to recommend approval of ANN21-0003, a voluntary annexation of
approximately 70.39 acres of property located south of IWV Road and west of Slothower
Road.
Signs seconded the motion.
Hensch stated here they are talking about the annexation of approximately 70.39 acres and they
need to analyze three criteria that's in the annexation policy. Number one, the area under
consideration falls within the adopted long range planning boundary; number two, development
in the area proposed for annexation will fulfill an identified need without imposing undue burden
on the City, so talking about city services such as utilities and other services; and number three,
the control of the development is in the City's best interest and really that's what the Commission
is always to look at, what's best for the City.
Hensch started he completely empathizes with everybody in this room, he lives on the south side
of Iowa City and there's been a lot of zoning actions have been taken adjacent to his property
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 24 of 36
that he did not agree with and did not like but that's just the way it is. Other people make these
decisions, sometimes in our favor and sometimes not. He looks at this critically, he has been
doing this for seven years now, and so on these annexations he thinks it's usually pretty
straightforward by reviewing the three criteria. Again, they are not talking about rezoning, it has
nothing to do with the conversation right now, this is about annexation. He thinks all three of
these criteria clearly been met.
Signs agrees, he is very much supportive if the property owner wants to bring their property into
the into the City and add value to the City.
Hensch thanked Signs for bringing that up. The City's annexation policy is it's only voluntary
annexation so the owner of this property wishes to be annexed into Iowa City.
Signs agrees and states he personally thinks they need to look pretty favorably upon it, as long
as it's not going to create some detriment to City services or resources.
Townsend, Craig and Padron all agreed.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
Motion by Signs to recommend 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:
5. 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.
6. 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.
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.
7. 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.
8. Parking, loading areas, and outdoor storage shall either not be located between the
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 25 of 36
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.
The motion was seconded by Craig.
Hensch stated this is the hardest part and he presumes no one in the audience will like what he
has to say but they have to look at what's best for the entire city of Iowa City, not for particular
areas. He has heard every word they said, he listened carefully, and he understands exactly
why they feel the way they do but the Commission’s job is to make decisions that's best for the
entire city of Iowa City. He personally thinks Mr. Signs comments were correct that there seems
to be a real strong, and he’s not accusing anybody in here of this, of anti-development in Iowa
City because the Commission has gone through some really rough public hearings for
development on east side by Hickory Hills and on the south side with the new zoning standards.
Somebody's got to pay property taxes, land has to be developed for the people that want to live
here, people keep moving here and they have to live somewhere, they have to work somewhere,
so the Commission has to make really hard decisions that are pretty thankless. At the end of the
day, he has to look at is a Comprehensive Plan being complied with, are the district plans and
the subdistrict plans being complied with, in general, because this is subjective when talking
about comprehensive plans and district plans and then in a particularity are the development
ordinances being followed. That’s the Commission’s role and he views it pretty literal and has to
take out his personal feelings on a lot of things. Hensch acknowledged there's some subjectivity
but mostly their job is are the rules being followed and is the intention of the plans being followed
and the answer for him in this case is yes. He acknowledged he wouldn't like it if he was a
neighbor, he does disagree with them that the residential area is farther to the south, and he is
thrilled to have a developer voluntarily without coercion have one third of their property be a
buffer. Hensch stated this is a onetime thing for the neighbors, but this is a regular every
meeting for Commission and this is a great deal and he will support this without reservation
Craig stated she also supports the rezoning, she would not support it if it came further south, but
she thinks it's in keeping with what is going to be there when 965 comes down between the
landfill and this property. They weren't going to be building residential houses to the west
because like someone already said residential houses don't want to back up to the landfill, well
residential houses don't want to live on 965 either, so there's going to be something happening
there that is not residential, and this creates the beginning of that buffer that they are going to
want to your residential neighborhoods. If this was that full strip of land they were asking for, she
would not approve it, but she thinks the corner up there by Melrose is in keeping with the uses on
Melrose, so she is very supportive of it.
Padron is still opposed to the change; she still thinks the Poor Farm is too close. For example,
the bike library is organizing rides to different farms in town, so people can ride their bike and go
to other farms and the Poor Farm has been participating in that. She received notifications to go
there and spend the day there with other nonprofit organizations doing family events as well, so
she thinks it is too close to the Poor Farm. She is also concerned with all the uses that were
listed; some are not very family friendly. Padron acknowledged Craig said if it were the whole
strip she would not approve but Padron feels approving this corner might be a beginning for
developers to keep asking for changes on the whole strip. She is very in favor of City growth but
doesn’t think this is the right way to grow the City and is concerned. This particular area is not
the right place for it.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 16, 2021
Page 26 of 36
Townsend noted at this point they're not voting on any specific proposal, right now they're just
voting on rezoning the land and she doesn’t have a problem.
Hensch agreed, they never really know what it's going to end up somewhere when they rezone
it, they rezone land and do not rezone for particular use that's going to happen eventually in the
future.
Signs appreciates that comment and would agree and is not making any decision based on the
idea that MidAmerican Energy as maybe the tenant there. He supports this type of growth along
IWV in whatever it might be. There were couple of references to some of the provisional uses
there he can assure them if something like an adult bookstore came before the Board of
Adjustment, he is sure there would be a tremendous neighborhood input in that session, and he
is pretty sure it wouldn't get past. He also reiterated it is really important to note this is not
industrial, this is intensive commercial and he is in support of the rezoning.
A vote was taken and the motion passes 4-1 (Padron dissenting).
CASE NO. CPA21-0001:
A public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the South District Plan
to facilitate development that follows form-based principles.
Russett began with a brief summary of what's in the staff report, the City has been working with
Opticos on this since 2019 and they’ve met with several stakeholders over the past two years to
get input on the plan. A few things she wanted to highlight since the Commission last saw this is
staff has made some changes to the Comprehensive Plan and some of those changes were also
incorporated into the proposed zoning code. The vast majority of the changes are non-
substantive changes, formatting issues and typos, but there were also a few things staff found
that they wanted to clarify in the code so they made those changes. One thing is they did
change the Comprehensive Plan future land use map based on recent input from a landowner
south of Wetherby Park and that will be discussed later in the presentation.
Lehmann stated for CPA21-0001, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is really a couple
changes to the context, the goals and objectives, new land use descriptions, and a new future
land use map. Lehmann showed an image of the new future land use map that takes a form-
based approach to land use. As far as context and background, there's some information about
the form-based code process and some added some information about history including planning
and of the area and development that's happened since the Plan was initially adopted in 2015,
as well as some generalizing language, based on the proposed new future land use map.
Lehmann noted it also talks about form-based zoning and form-based codes and how those
work, which is instead of organizing zones by uses, zones are organized by what they look like
and trying to tailor the character to the form of the area. He explained that is a difference and it
clarifies how that would occur in the South District. As part of that staff also is proposing three
new goals and objectives that discuss exactly what form-based zoning looks like in the South
District and how those would support other goals that are also within the Plan and broader goals
of the City as well, including a diversity of housing types, promoting walkability and use of
alternative modes of transportation, and including new neighborhood commercial areas.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 10 of 18
Hensch can speak pretty intelligently on the Poor Farm since he’s responsible for it, there's a 10-
year master plan and the possibility for affordable housing won't even occur until year seven.
They’re on year three and there's been no further discussion, there's been no consultants
retained, there's been no development, no money has been spent on that.
Signs asked if they could include an amendment to increase some tree planting along the south
and the east borders, the S3 six-foot hedge is nice for when one is driving by but from a
landscape perspective it really doesn't do a whole lot. Hensch noted that can be done in the
rezoning, this is just a comprehensive plan. He noted last time they added the condition of S3
landscaping on the northern edge as well.
Craig wanted to add she has gone out and driven the neighborhood's, she has a friend who lives
in the neighborhood behind Weber School and she feels it is her responsibility as a member of
the Commission to see the lay of the land. She had not had time to do it before the other
meeting, but she did do it before this meeting. Her opinion is the same as it was in the initial
meeting, there is development happening along IWV Road and this is compatible with what is
there. She agrees with the person who said what is going to happen after this is more
commercial development along IWV Road and she thinks from a City perspective and thinking
about what's best for the City, they are spending money on upgrading the roads so it can handle
all the traffic that is goes to the landfill and they are creating an infrastructure that costs all the
taxpayers a lot of money and it makes it possible for some of this development to happen and
will bring tax dollars back into the City. She is supportive of this project.
Signs does have one more cynical observation as he was perusing the aerial map, there are two
radio tower installations on the Slothower farm and it seems like that would affect a view of a
neighborhood too.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
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 (Cl-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
(Cl-1).
Heitner noted there's some crossover with this presentation and what was just went over so he’ll
try his best to not be too duplicative. For the rezoning component, Heitner showed an aerial of
the subject property, and a look at the existing zoning which showed County agricultural zoning
and the narrow nine-acre sliver of City rural residential on the east. Most of the property which is
zoned County Agricultural is in Fringe Area C inside the growth area, and the nine-acre strip on
the far east is within Iowa City limits. Heitner next showed the proposed rezoning noting it has
not changed since it was last discussed here. There are the two parcels to the east going to
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 11 of 18
intensive commercial zoning (CI-1) with the third parcel on the west going to interim development
commercial.
Regarding the background on why the rezoning is back in front of this Commission. At the
September 16 meeting it was recommended for approval by a vote of 4-1 but there were
concerns raised regarding negative externalities, negative impacts to viewsheds, noise, traffic
etc. So, in an attempt quell those concerns, the applicant did submit the revised Comprehensive
Plan Amendment that was just discussed, featuring the 350-foot vegetative and noise buffer also
designated as open space. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment that occurred within the last
item does identify a need for buffering intensive commercial uses along that southern 350-foot
distance of the subject property. So with that in place, staff is recommending two additional
conditions to the rezoning application which is why this item is here for discussion today. The two
additional conditions staff is recommending are first 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. This would
effectively prohibit any installation of structures, parking lots, drive aisles or loading areas within
this area. Secondly 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 the easement area in locations that do not contain sensitive areas or sensitive area
buffers. The sensitive areas are focused mostly at the south property boundary and there's a
sizable 1.3 acre wetland within that area with a 100 foot wetland buffer all around the wetland.
There is also a wetland and stream corridor on the western most property.
As far as the rezoning is concerned, the role of the Commission is to determine whether the
rezoning meets the review criteria, which is consistency with Comprehensive Plan and
compatibility with the existing neighborhood. Regarding consistency with Comprehensive Plan
there will be consistency pending approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to intensive
commercial. Also, the Southwest District Plan does call for future urban development within this
subject property. The rationale for why intensive commercial development may be attractive in
this location is due to the location and size of the properties, the adjacency to forthcoming arterial
road access, and highway adjacency. With respect to compatibility with the existing
neighborhood character, there are preexisting uses of comparable intensity to what might be
found in an intensive commercial zone along the north side of IWV Road, the County Public
Works facility and the Iowa National Guard Armory. Staff is proposing a S3 high screen
landscape buffer, originally this was just proposed along the Slothower Road frontage but it was
discussed at the last meeting to have this screening standard applied to the IWV Road frontage
as well. Staff is also recommending placement of this S3 screen along the southern property
boundary where there are no sensitive areas and there are additional screening standards within
the City Code that are intended to conceal parking and loading areas from adjacent residential
zones or neighborhoods. Lastly, staff does have a condition pertaining to the location of loading
areas and outdoor storage and prohibiting those areas between the principal building facade and
the IWV and Slothower Road right-of-way lines.
With respect to next steps, there will be a public hearing on November 16, not only for the
annexation and rezoning but also for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Prior to the public
hearing, there is a notification process that is tied to the annexation where the City has to notify
utility companies and non-consenting parties are sent the annexation application via certified
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 12 of 18
mail, and the annexation component of the project also has to gain City Development Board
approval from the State.
Staff recommends approval of REZ21-0006, a rezoning of approximately 53.36 acres from
County Agricultural (A) to Intensive Commercial (Cl-1), 9 acres from Rural Residential (RR-1) to
Intensive Commercial (Cl-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.
Hensch noted it seems a little inconsistent stating the first part where would have to be approved
by City Forester but does that also include the second highlighted portion also needing to be
approved by the Forester. Hensch feels that both need to pre-approved by the Forester. Heitner
confirmed that's the intent. Hensch next asked if at some point staff could share the City's
development ordinances regarding what constitutes S2 or S3 screening, he would like to read
more about that and have an understanding of those.
Hekteon looked it up, it is as at 14-5-F6 in the zoning code. The S3 standard intent is a buffering
treatment that uses dense landscape screening to provide a visual and physical separation
between uses and zones. It is commonly applied between residential uses and commercial and
industrial uses and to screen outdoor work or storage areas. Required materials are enough
shrubs and small evergreens to form a continuous screen or hedge at least five to six feet in
height and more than 50% solid year-round. Screening materials must be at least three feet high
when planted and at least one half of the shrubs must be evergreen varieties. An alternative is to
use a berm in conjunction with a hedge to achieve an overall height of at least six feet or a
continuous or semi continuous five- to six-foot-high masonry wall or solid fence. Hekteon added
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 13 of 18
the permitted plants are described in table 5-F2 where it states S3 screening and says American
Arborvitae, Emerald trees, compact burning bushes, or Hatfield trees are allowed. Deviations
from the list of plants are allowed if the replacement shrubs are similar in form or hardiness to a
permitted variety and are approved by the City.
Signs asked if there is any way that they can add a provision that some of that screening area
have some large evergreen and or deciduous trees. Heitner replied yes, if the Commission
wishes to add deciduous or evergreen trees that's certainly the Commission's right to request
that. Signs would normally refer to it as a reforestation plan but there is not just planting, so is
there a percentage of the plant material needs to be trees of mature height over 30 feet or
something. Hensch noted it said 50% has to be of evergreen variety, he hates to be too
prescriptive but it’d be nice to try to beautify that reforest a little bit. Signs noted that all the
shrubs described are six-to-eight-foot mature shrubs, even the evergreen ones.
Craig added when they are talking about evergreens, they are talking 40–50-foot evergreen trees
so could that be added to the buffer zone on the recommendation of the City Forester’s plan as
he decides.
Hensch said they can just add that as a condition to the motion.
Hekteon said they could add a condition giving some guidance to the City Forester.
Nolte asked if the developer is obligated to maintain this land in perpetuity, it's an easement but it
could be sold. Hektoen noted right now they haven't platted it so it could be platted as an outlot
to be owned by the City to be owned by anyone at this point or put in a land trust or something
like that, there is a use agreement but that doesn't mean that ownership can't be transferred
because it's not City property.
Signs stated they could potentially deed it to the City to be part of that western buffer. Hektoen
confirmed at the time that the land is platted, they could plat it as an outlot to be dedicated to the
City or to be dedicated to whomever or conveyed to whomever.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Josh Entler (IWV Holdings) is representing the applicant and had a couple of comments he'd like
to address. They are in agreement with those revised conditions with one technical clarification,
in terms of the S3 buffer on the south, they will provide the S3 screening along the south line in
areas where there's not sensitive features. He doesn’t want to get into trouble with the Army
Corps of Engineers because there is a designated wetland out there and a buffer and they need
to stay out of it. Entler just wanted to explain that so if a year from now somebody asks why
there's not a continuous straight line of brand-new trees, that is why. They'll plant new trees and
S3 screening where there's not sensitive features. Another comment on the S3 screening, they
just did this in coordination with Hiawatha for a development that also needed screening and as
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 14 of 18
mentioned this also works well in tandem with buffers or with berms and they are also in
agreement to proposing a two- or three-foot berm to elevate the base of the planting up a little
higher. They’ve found that seems to gain some traction with the adjacent residents. In terms of
the specifics of the plant, he would like to propose to table the specific tree requirement to site
plan review, once they have a specific user or person that's actually going to be planting those
trees. He asks that they push that off to the site plan review and just focus on rezoning. He does
welcome the idea of having that responsibility on to the City Forester.
Hensch was happy to hear about the berm as the concern is they just don't want a wall of
arborvitae. Entler agreed and doesn’t want that either. Hensch wants to be sensitive to the
neighbors and what they have to see and mixed deciduous and conifers is a year-round barrier
and everybody would be much happier with that.
Craig asked is that something that could be handled at site plan review. Russett replied yes,
that's typically when they would review the landscaping plan, which would be required for this.
However, if the Commission wants the condition to be more specific, that could be incorporated.
Jim Seyfer (36 Tempe Court) stated he understands the Poor Farms plans are not set in stone
but the map that he saw of future development on the Poor Farm, the affordable housing was
going to backup to Slothower Road. Someone said earlier, correctly, it was in the southwest
corner of the Poor Farm but that's subject to change. He understands but the plan was for that
housing to be fairly close to Slothower and south of the southern boundary of the land to be
rezoned. He just wanted to bring that up as a possible issue.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend approval of REZ21-0006, a rezoning of approximately 53.36
acres from County Agricultural (A) to Intensive Commercial (Cl-1), 9 acres from Rural
Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (Cl-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
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 15 of 18
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.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Hensch noted his only concern is exactly the same thing Signs brought up about appropriate
screening, mostly is out of ignorance with not being really familiar with S3 standards.
Signs can totally defer to the City Forester but he doesn’t want a six-foot hedge going around this
entire boundary as that has very little impact on the view. He’d like to see something much more
deciduous and evergreen trees that are 30 feet plus in that mature height.
Craig proposes where it says installation of landscaping to the S3 standard along the Slothower
Road and IWV Road frontage to state landscaping shall include in addition to the S3 standard, a
mix of deciduous and evergreen trees as approved by the City Forester.
The Commission’s intent is pretty clear, they'd like to see deciduous and coniferous trees. Also
they fully understand that in sensitive areas they should not be added there.
Hekteon asked if this is in the 350-foot buffer area or in all areas where S3 screening as
required. Craig answered it's in the buffer area. Hensch noted although the motion would just
be that the more intense screening would be in the buffer area he also doesn’t want to see a wall
of arborvitae on the north side either as it is an entrance to Iowa City.
Signs amended his motion to add installation of landscaping to the S3 standard shall
include a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees as approved by the City Forester.
Craig seconded the amendment.
A vote was taken on the motion and it passed 5-0
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 7, 2021:
Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of October 7, 2021.
Signs seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
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
From:John Bergstrom
To:Raymond Heitner
Cc:Sherri Bergstrom; Seyfer, James W
Subject:IWV/Slothower Road
Date:Monday, October 18, 2021 1:07:26 PM
Ray, as we discussed, we continue to object to the change in the comprehensive plan and the
rezoning at the corner of IWV and Slothower Road. It has been made clear that this change is being
made to accommodate MidAmerican Energy with little thought as to how it affects a much greater
area.
That said, I believe there is a solution that everyone can live with. Move the MidAmerican facility to
the 40 acres that IWV partners also owns on the north side of IWV Road. The comprehensive plan
and zoning would remain in place on the south side of IWV. On the north side, the facility would be
more consistent with the properties immediately to the east.
While I cannot speak for the neighborhood to the south of the county farm, I am led to believe this
is a solution they might consider to be palatable.
Please consider this alternative with your staff.
John Bergstrom
Sent from Mail for Windows
Deferred to 1/18/22
Prepared by:Ray Heitner,Associate Planner,410 E.Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240;319-356-5238(REZ21-
0006)
Ordinance No.
Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 53.36 acres from County
Agricultural (A) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1), approximately 17.03 acres
from County Agricultural (A) to Interim Development Commercial (ID-C), and
approximately 9 acres from Rural Residential (RR-1) to Intensive
Commercial (CI-1) for land located west of the intersection of IWV Road SW
and Slothower Road.
Whereas, the applicant, IWV Holdings, LLC., has requested a rezoning of approximately
53.36 acres from County Agricultural (A) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1), approximately 17.03
acres from County Agricultural (A) to Interim Development Commercial (ID-C), and approximately
9 acres from Rural Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) for land located west of the
intersection of IWV Road and Slothower Road; and
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the subject area is appropriate for intensive
commercial development and vegetative noise and sight buffer in the southern portion of the
subject area; and
Whereas, the subject property is located within .3 miles of an established residential
neighborhood within the city limits; and
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan calls for appropriate transitions between residential
neighborhoods and higher intensity commercial development; and
Whereas, there is a public need to buffer intensive commercial uses from residential uses to
the south; and
Whereas, the subject property will have frontage onto Slothower Road; and
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan calls for a collector street within the Slothower Road right-
of-way, between Melrose Avenue and Rohret Road; and
Whereas, there is a public need to upgrade Slothower Road to collector street standards upon
development; and
Whereas, the subject property is being annexed into the city limits; and
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan further establishes goals for preserving and enhancing
entryways to the City; and
Whereas, there is a public need to preserve and enhance aesthetics on City entryways by
screening items used for outdoor storage and by implementing specific standards for landscaping
along entryway corridors; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with reasonable
conditions regarding satisfaction of public needs through the buffering of intensive commercial
Ordinance No.
Page 2
uses from existing residential uses, upgrading the subject property's Slothower Road frontage to
collector street standards, and the preservation and enhancement of City entryways, the
requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa that:
Section I Approval. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and
incorporated herein, the property described below is hereby reclassified as follows:
For the property below, from its current zoning designation of Rural Residential (RR-1) zone to
Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone:
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.
For the property below, from its current zoning designation of County Agricultural (A) zone to
Intensive Commercial (CI-1)zone:
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.
For the property listed below, from its current zoning designation of County Agricultural (A) zone
to Interim Development Commercial (ID-C) zone:
Ordinance No.
Page 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 SO4°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.
Section II. Zoning Map. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change
the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final
passage, approval and publication of this ordinance by law.
Section III. Conditional Zoning Agreement. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to
sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s)
and the City, following passage and approval of this Ordinance.
Section IV. Certification And Recording. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the
same, at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, at the owner's expense, all
as provided by law.
Section V. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section VI. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a
whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section VII. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this _ day of , 20_.
Mayor
Approved by: •
/
Attest: G
City Clerk City Attorn s Office
(Sara Greenwood Hektoen— 11/09/21)
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Bergus
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Weiner
Fist Consideration 11/30/2021
Voteforpassage: AYES: Weiner, Bergus, Mims, Salih, Taylor,
Teague, Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 12/14/2021
Voteforpassage: AYES: Mims, Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas,
Weiner, Bergus. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Date published
Prepared by Ray Heitner,Associate Planner,410 E.Washington,Iowa City,IA 52240(REZ21-0006)
Conditional Zoning Agreement
This agreement is made among the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter
"City"), and IWV Holdings, LLC. (hereinafter referred to as"Owner").
Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 79.39 acres of property located
west of the intersection of IWV Road SW and Slothower Road, legally described below; and
Whereas, the Owner has requested the rezoning of said property to allow for future
intensive commercial development; and
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the subject area is appropriate for
intensive commercial development and vegetative noise and sight buffer in the southern portion
of the subject area; and
Whereas, the subject property is located within .3 miles of an established residential
neighborhood within the city limits; and
Whereas, the subject property will have frontage onto IWV Road and Slothower Road; and
Whereas, in order to ensure the long-term health of existing neighborhoods by providing
appropriate transitions between residential and intensive commercial areas, upgrading City
roadway infrastructure to meet future travel demand, and to preserve and enhance aesthetics
on City entryways, this rezoning creates public needs to provide a buffer between the proposed
commercial development and existing residential areas to the south, upgrade the property's
Slothower Road frontage to collector street standards, and to provide enhanced screening along
entryway frontages; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate
conditions regarding a buffer along the property's south side, dedication of right-of-way along
the west side of Slothower Road, improvements to the southern end of any future access off
Slothower Road, contribution toward the cost of 25% of future upgrades on Slothower Road,
south of any future proposed access, enhanced landscaping along Slothower and IWV Roads,
and screening of any loading areas or outdoor storage areas from the Slothower and IWV Road
frontages; and
Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2021) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in
order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
Whereas, the Owner agrees to develop this property in accordance with the terms and
conditions of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as
follows:
1. IWV Holdings, LLC. is the legal title holder of the property legally described as:
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.
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 500°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 Rat 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.
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 SO4°19'09"W, 213.22 feet; Thence 513°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
2
the Point of Beginning. Said Rezoning Parcel #3 contains 17.03 Acres, and is subject to
easements and restrictions of record.
2. Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the
Comprehensive Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2021)
provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a
rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public
needs caused by the'requested change.
3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner agrees that
development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the Zoning
Code, as well as the following conditions:
a. Prior to issuance of any building permit, Owner shall plat the property herein
rezoned to follow the zoning boundaries.
i. 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.
Landscaping within the buffer easement area shall meet the S3 standards
and include a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees that will be at least
30'tall upon maturity.
ii. 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.
b. 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:
i. 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.
ii. Owner shall install landscaping to the S3 standard along the Slothower
Road and RAN Road frontages;
iii. Improve Slothower Road to the southern end of any future access off
Slothower Road.
c. 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.
4. The conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under
Iowa Code §414.5 (2021), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused
by the requested zoning change.
3
5. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the
land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with
title to the land, unless or until released by the City of Iowa City. Once a building permit
is issued or certificate of occupancy is issued, as applicable, the conditions shall be
deemed satisfied and no further release will be provided. The parties further
acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors,
representatives, and assigns of the parties. In the event the subject property is
transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all development will conform with the
' terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
6. Nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner
from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
7. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the
' ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the
ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at
the Owner's expense.
Dated this day of , 20_.
City of Iowa City IWV Fy ls, LLI�
Bruce Teague, Mayor By: "Aweeiila i r
Attest:
Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk
Approved by: •
City Attorney's — -e —/oef
/r/q/21
City of Iowa City Acknowledgement:
State of Iowa )
) ss:
Johnson County )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on 20_by Bruce Teague
and Kellie Fruehling as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
4
IWV Holdings, LLC.Acknowledgement:
State of tQ '
County of "5R 4430 t4
T'f�,is� r ord wacknowledged be r me on AjrUttuhllr (0 , 2021 by
{Witt/ GWS (name) as (title) of IWV Holdi gs, LLC.
Notary Public in a }for tl tate of Iowa
AMANDA J WAUGH Stam or Seal)
(Stamp
My Commission ExpjJ
O1Y September 19,20 Lc-
My commission expires: t 2
5
Item Number: 9.
J anuary 4, 2022
O rd inan ce amen d ing Titl e 3, "F inan ce, Taxation and F ees" of th e City Cod e
to ad d a new Ch apter, to estab l ish the South District Sel f-Su p p orted
Mu n icip al Improvement District (S S MID) p u rsu ant to the provision s of
Ch apter 386, Cod e of Iowa; an d provid ing for th e establish ment of an
operation fu n d an d th e l evy of an annual tax in con n ection th erewith.
(Second Consid eration)
Prepared B y:Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed By:Eric Goers, City Attorney
F iscal I mpact:N/A
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: P lanning and Zoning Commission recommendation, Nov. 4,
2021 (7-0).
Attachments:Petition
Map
Evaluative Report from P &Z chairperson
Notice of Public Hearing
Ordinance
Executive S ummary:
T he petition met the required threshold of signatures and was forwarded to the P lanning and
Z oning Commission f or their review and recommendation. At its November 4, 2021 meeting, the
Commission recommended approval (7-0).
Background / Analysis:
T he purpose of the proposed S outh District S S MI D shall be the undertaking of additional or
enhanced services within the district and administration of work to benefit the property within the
proposed S outh District S S MI D which includes developing and managing business retention,
attraction, marketing, special events and activities, making physical or other improvements
designed to improve the image and appearance and hiring an E xecutive Director to execute the
program of work. The City will continue the type and extent of governmental services currently
provided and the work of the S outh District S S MI D will provide new and enhanced services.
T he maximum rate of tax which is requested to be levied annually for a period of 5 years shall not
exceed $5.00 per $1,000.00 of taxable value of the property annually, in addition to all other taxes.
T he proposed levy shall be distributed to the operation fund.
T he S S MI D Board will be created and is intended to hire an executive director and direct the activities
of the S SMID. T he Board will consist of the following voting members: two from property owners or
their representatives from a single property within the Proposed District that has an assessed value in
excess of 1.0% of the total assessed value of property within the district boundaries; two from property
owners or their representatives from a single property within the Proposed District that has an
assessed value less than of 1.0% of the total assessed value of property within the district boundaries;
two from business owners within the Proposed District that lease more than 3,000 square feet of
commercial space; two from business owners within the Proposed District that lease less than 3,000
square feet of commercial space; two from residents of the South District Neighborhood Association;
and one from the Pepperwood Plaza parking association. Board membership may also consist of up to
four (4) other stakeholders of the Proposed District as voting members of the Board.
Board membership may also include ex-officio non-voting members from community development
agencies and partners, such as Black Voices Project, Johnson County Interfaith Coalition, L U LAC,
Iowa City Area Business Partnership, Iowa City Area Development Group, and the City of Iowa City.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Petition
Map
Evaluative Report from P &Z
Notice of Public Hearing
Ordinance
Pepperwood
Place
Mall
2151 2103
2018 801 861 901815 10158318452018
923 1037 1053 20272030
2018
2025
2010
2018
2020 2023
2018 2103 2119
2021
2018
2017
2051 2050 8062048802
2015
820 845 2011
2018
1960 2009
2040
2017 1030 2005
2018
947925
2001 825
1958
2033 959 2003
2030 8172030 1917
1027
2018
1915
1956 191310451911
611547603 2010 1049 1946 1115
1051
1055 1926 11071059
851 1067
851610
546 1937
11021904
851 1102
1102
1933
11021102
545 609 1929
1901 1901
19261927 985 1901
630
612 907
548
1921
1911 841
1100
1630
1627
1906 1614
655
1623 1624
1907 1630 1612 16191629 1620
16101623 1615
1624 1608 1614
1615 162116221611 1606 1607
1610 1613 1604 1605
1606 16021531152716091535152315391519 1601 1104
1600 10071601
1515
1511
15051502 1536
4th Ave
1st Av
e
3rdAve2nd AveKeokukStSouthgate Ave
Archer A
v
eCrescent StBroadway StRidge StDowney Dr
Olympic Ct
Keokuk StBrook
w
o
o
d
Dr
Hol
l
y
w
o
o
dBlvd
Euclid AvePlumSt
Pepperwood Ln
Holl
y
w
o
o
d
B
l
v
d
BroadwayStCross Park Ave
6
South District SSMID
This map is intended to serve as an aid in graphic representation only.
This information is not warranted or accuracy or other purposes.
.
0 0.1 0.30.1 Miles
To: City Council
From: Mike Hensch, Chair, Planning & Zoning Commission
Date: November 5, 2021
Re: Evaluative Report on a Proposed South District Self-Supported Municipal
Improvement District (SSMID)
Council recently forwarded a petition by property owners within the South District, requesting the
creation of the South District Self-Supported Municipal Improvement District (SSMID) as defined
by Iowa Code Chapter 386.
To be considered by P&Z, the SSMID petition must be signed by at least 25% of the property
owners (within the district) representing at least 25% of the assessed value of the proposed
district. Staff confirmed the petition meets these two thresholds containing the signatures of 25%
of the property owners representing 27.2% of the assessed value within the proposed district.
Next, Iowa Code requires P&Z to review the petition for its merit and feasibility and make an
evaluative report to the City Council. After the review at its meeting on November 4, 2021, the
P&Z Commission recommended approval and forwarding this review to the City Council for their
further consideration of the South District SSMID.
The following is a review and our determination of the proposed South District SSMID’s merit and
feasibility.
1. Does the property in the proposed district meet all of the criteria established in Section
386.3(1)?
The South District Self Supported Municipal Improvement petition appears to meet the
minimum requirements of Iowa Code Section 386.3(1), which states that a district shall:
1) be compromised of contiguous property, zoned for commercial or industrial uses and
be located wholly within the boundaries of the city, 2) be given a descriptive name
containing the words “self-supporting municipal improvement district”, and 3) be
comprised of property related in some manner.
The Proposed District is comprised of contiguous property zoned for commercial use
and is within the boundaries of the City of Iowa City. The petition states that the
Proposed District is entitled “South District Self Supported Municipal Improvement
District.” Finally, the property within the Proposed District is related in that it is physically
located in Iowa City, is contiguous, and serves as a commercial hub for the community.
2. Does the petition submitted is sufficiently clear and contains the requisite number of
signatures from property owners representing the necessary assessed value of all the
taxable property within the proposed district?
November 8, 2021
Page 2
The Proposed District petition provides detailed explanations of the proposed operations
of the SSMID and the requirements of SSMID property owners.
Staff has reviewed the petition and verifies the signatures of at least twenty-five percent
of all the owners of property within the proposed district have signed the petition, and
that these signatures together represent ownership of property with an assessed value
of at least twenty-five percent of the assessed value of all of the property in the proposed
district per Iowa Code Section 386.3(2)(a).
3. Does the petition sufficiently describe the boundaries of the district or provide a consolidated
description of the property contained therein?
The petition provides a legal description of the boundaries of the Proposed District, and
a map indicating the parcels of land included within the Proposed District.
4. Is a maximum rate of tax that may be imposed upon the property within the district and the
purposes for which it may be levied set forth?
The Proposed District petition establishes a maximum tax rate of $5 per $1,000 of
assessed value. This meets the requirement of Iowa Code Section 386.3(2)(d). The
petition states the purpose of the tax is to provide new, additional or enhanced services
within the Proposed District.
5. Is the purpose of the district is adequately described, as well as any improvements or other
project activities that may be the subject of the petition?
As stated in Item 4, the petition states that the purpose of the Proposed District is to
provide for new, additional or enhanced services within the Proposed District. In
particular, revenues collected for the Proposed District Operating Fund may be used for
the following:
o Development and management of activities in support of marketing, business
retention and attraction, including, but not limited to database establishment,
space referrals and assistance, marketing activities, including media and
advertising campaigns and communication materials, miscellaneous business
support services, establishment and promotion of special events, festivals, and
activities, support of urban design and policy development that would enhance
the activities within the SSMID.
o Physical or other improvements designed to enhance the image and appearance
of the Proposed District, including, but not limited to lighting improvements,
seasonal and decorative enhancements, signage and banners, landscaping,
central market development, and maintenance/repairs.
November 8, 2021
Page 3
o To hire an Executive Director and, if needed, other support staff who will work for
a non-profit Board of Directors to manage the work of the South District SSMID
Board and to fulfill the intent of this Petition.
6. Does the proposed district or improvements conflict in any way with any existing laws, plans
or City policies, including comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, local or regional
development plans or programs, local, state or federal laws or regulations or other
established special districts?
The operational functions and marketing that can occur under the Proposed District do
not appear to conflict with any existing laws, plans or policies.
The Proposed District overlaps with the existing Highway 6 Commercial Urban Renewal
Area, which sunsets in 2025. As proposed, the SSMID petition does not conflict with the
goals or purposes of the Highway 6 Commercial Urban Renewal Area.
The proposed SSMID district falls into the newly established Highway Commercial
Urban Revitalization Area which allows for a three-year 100% property tax exemption on
eligible improvements to building value. Property owners continue to pay 100% of their
tax bill on the original value. Tax exemptions through this program must be approved by
City Council.
It is noted in the petition the intention that, notwithstanding the fact that a part of the
proposed SSMID district is located within the Highway 6 Commercial TIF district, the
amount of funds which would be derived from the annual SSMID levy from properties
within the TIF district be made available annually for the SSMID activities and that the
City take all actions necessary to accomplish this purpose, including the allocation of a
portion of the incremental property taxes which are attributable to properties within the
proposed district.
7. Are the taxes proposed sufficient to pay the anticipated costs or other expenses?
The revenue generated from the proposed SSMID would be approximately $104,000 per
year. This amount would be sufficient to hire the Executive Director, and to cover costs
associated with marketing campaigns, operational costs, and projects in the Proposed
District.
8. Is the formation of the district is consistent with or in furtherance of other identifiable City
policies or goals?
Iowa City’s Comprehensive Plan notes the importance of thriving retail centers for
sustaining residential neighborhoods and employment centers. Neighborhood
commercial areas can provide a focal point and gathering place and be within
convenient walking distance for the residents in the immediate area.
November 8, 2021
Page 4
The South District Plan states a goal to encourage and support residents, neighborhood
organizations, and business and property owners to advocate for the continued
improvement of Southside neighborhoods in keeping with the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan. Specifically noted is a goal to improve aesthetic appearance of
commercial areas along Highway 6 and other commercial streets within the district.
The Proposed District petition states that one of the purposes of the SSMID is to provide
physical enhancements, or beautification, to improve the image and appearance of the
Proposed District.
The review by the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the petition meets the
requirements of Iowa Code Chapter 386, and that:
the operational activities (as defined in Iowa Code Section 386.8) of the Proposed
District are appropriate in relation to existing laws, plans and policies, and
that the means to implement the proposal appear reasonably calculated to accomplish
the Proposed District objectives.
Notice of public hearing
Notice of public hearing by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, considering a petition to
establish a self-supported municipal improvement district within the City of Iowa City, Iowa
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at 6:00 p.m., on
December 14, 2021 in The Center, 22 S. Linn Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the
next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk; at which hearing the Council will
consider the creation of a Self-Supported Municipal Improvement District within the city limits.
Pursuant to Chapter 386 of the Code of Iowa, herein “Act”, a Petition has been filed with the City Council
requesting that the City establish a Self-Supported Improvement District as contemplated by Chapter 386 of
the Code.
The name of the proposed District shall be the “South District Self-Supported Municipal Improvement
District”.
The property to be included in the proposed South District Self-Supported Municipal Improvement District
(SSMID) is located within the Pepperwood Plaza area, and currently zoned CC-2 and CI-1, generally south of
Highway 6 West, north of Cross Park Avenue, along both sides of Keokuk Street and west of Broadway St,
excepting Casey’s, which is also included. Said property is legally described as follows:
Beginning at the southeast corner of lot 1, part of block 2 Braverman Center, Iowa City, Iowa according to the
plat recorded in plat book 7, page 20, in the Records of the Johnson county recorder’s office; Thence
northwesterly along the southerly line of said lot 1, and its northwesterly extension to a point on the centerline
of Broadway Street; Thence south along said centerline of Broadway Street to its intersection with The
easterly extension of the northerly right-of-way line of cross park avenue; Thence west along said easterly
extended northerly right-of-way line and Along the northerly right-of-way line of cross park avenue, to the
southeast corner of lot 17, of a portion of block 1, Braverman Center, Iowa City, Iowa, according to the plat
recorded in plat book 31, page 137 in said recorder’s office; Thence north along the east line of lot 17 and lot
16, of said a portion of block 1, Braverman Center, Iowa City, Iowa, to the northeast corner of said lot 16;
Thence west along the northerly line of said lot 16 and its westerly extension to Its intersection with the
centerline of Keokuk Street; Thence north along said centerline of Keokuk Street to its intersection with the
South line of Braverman Center, lot 2 of block 1 and blocks 5,6 and 7, according to The plat recorded in plat
book 8, page 69 in said recorder’s office; Thence west along said south line to the southwest corner of lot 8,
block 7 of said Braverman Center; Thence north along the west line of said lot 8, block 7 of Braverman
Center and its northerly extension to the centerline of Southgate Avenue; Thence west along said centerline
of Southgate Avenue to its intersection with the southerly extension of the east line of the west 60 feet of lot 4
of block 5 of The resubdivision of portions of blocks 5 and 6, Braverman Center, parts 1 and 2, Iowa City,
Iowa according to the plat recorded in plat book 19, page 93 in said Recorder’s office; Thence north along
said southerly extended line and along said east line of the West 60 feet of lot 4 of block 5 and along the west
line of lot 5 of block 5 of said Resubdivision of portions of blocks 5 and 6, Braverman Center, parts 1 and 2,
to its Intersection with the southerly right-of-way line of Olympic court; Thence north to a point on the northerly
right-of-way line of Olympic court, said Point being on the west line of lot 6 of block 5 of said resubdivision of
portions of Blocks 5 and 6, Braverman Center, parts 1 and 2; Thence north along the west line of said lot 6 of
block 5 to the northwest corner Of said lot 6 of block 5 of the resubdivision of portions of blocks 5 and 6,
Braverman Center, parts 1 and 2; Thence east along the north line of said lot 6 of block 5 of the resubdivision
of portions of blocks 5 and 6, Braverman Center, parts 1 and 2, to its intersection With the west line of
auditor’s parcel 2020034, City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, according to the plat recorded in plat book
64, page 135 in said recorder’s Office; Thence north along said west line of auditor’s parcel 2020034 and its
northerly extension, to its intersection with the centerline of the east bound lane of U.S. Highway 6; Thence
southeasterly, along said centerline of the east bound lane of U.S. Highway 6, to its intersection with the
northerly extension of the east line of part of block 2, Braverman Center, Iowa City, Iowa, according to the
plat Recorded in plat book 7, page 20 in said recorder’s office; Thence south along said northerly extended
line and along said east line of part of block 2, Braverman Center, Iowa City, Iowa to the southeast corner of
lot 1, Part of block 2, Braverman Center, Iowa City to the point of beginning.
The purposes of the proposed South District SSMID shall be the undertaking of actions authorized by the Act
and include, additional or enhanced services within the district and administration of operational expenses for
actions intended to benefit the property within the proposed South District SSMID which include developing
and managing business retention, attraction, marketing, special events and activities, making physical or
other improvements designed to improve the image and appearance and hiring an Executive Director to
execute the program of work. The City will continue the type and extent of governmental services currently
provided and the work of the South District SSMID will provide new and enhanced services.
The maximum rate of tax which is requested to be imposed and to be levied annually shall not exceed $5.00
per $1,000.00 of taxable value of the “property” in any one year in addition to all other taxes. The proposed
levy shall be distributed to the operation fund.
All residents may appear and be given an opportunity to express their views for or against the proposed
establishment of a self-supported municipal improvement district.
Copies of the proposed ordinance and a map of the proposed Iowa City Downtown SSMID area are on file
for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, Iowa.
Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the
above-mentioned time and place.
Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk
•
Wendy Ford, Ec. Dev. Coordinator,410 E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240;319-356-5248
Ordinance No.:
Ordinance amending Title 3, "Finance, Taxation and Fees" of the City Code
to add a new Chapter, to establish the South District Self-Supported
Municipal Improvement District (SSMID) pursuant to the provisions of
Chapter 386, Code of Iowa; and providing for the establishment of an
operation fund and the levy of an annual tax in connection therewith.
Whereas, the City of Iowa City is authorized by Chapter 386, Code of Iowa (the "Act")to create a
self-supported municipal improvement district in the City, to provide for the existence and
operation of such district, to provide for the maintenance of improvements or self-liquidating
improvements for such district, and to levy taxes with respect to such district, all as more
specifically defined in the Act; and
Whereas, a petition (the "Petition") was filed with the City Clerk on October 11, 2021, pursuant to
the Act petitioning the City Council to create the South District SSMID (the "Proposed District") to
establish an operation fund with respect to the Proposed District, and to levy an annual tax for
such fund for a period of five years, all for the purpose of paying the operational expenses of the
Proposed District; and
Whereas, the Petition is in compliance with the provisions of the Act; and
Whereas, on October 19, 2021, the City Council received the Petition and referred it to the City's
Planning and Zoning Commission for review in accordance with the Act; and
Whereas, on November 16, 2021 the City Council received the report of the City's Planning and
Zoning Commission on the merit and feasibility of the Proposed District; and
Whereas, on November 16, 2021, the City Council scheduled a public hearing for December 14,
2021, at 6:00 P.M., at which it proposed to take action for the establishment of the Proposed
District, and did direct that notice of such hearing be given in accordance with the Act; and
Whereas, notice of the hearing was published in the Iowa City Press Citizen on November 22,
2021, and a copy of such notice was mailed by certified mail on November 20, 2021 to all the
owners of record of real property located within the Proposed District as shown by the records of
the Johnson County Auditor, in satisfaction of the notice requirements of the Act; and
Whereas, at the aforementioned time and place, the City Council did meet and hear all owners of
property in the Proposed District and residents of the City desiring to express their views with
respect to the establishment of the Proposed District; and
Whereas, on December 14, 2021, the City Council closed the public hearing on the creation of
the Proposed District and found that the Petition and the Proposed District satisfied the applicable
requirements imposed by the Act; and
Whereas, prior to adoption of this ordinance, more than thirty days will have passed since the
public hearing on the creation of the Proposed District was closed, and a petition containing the
requisite number of signatures that would require the matter to be withdrawn from Council
consideration has not been filed with the City Clerk opposing the creation of the Proposed District.
Now therefore, be it ordained, by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa,
Section I. That a new Chapter 8 entitled "South District Self-Supported Municipal Improvement
District" shall be added to Title 3, "Finances, Taxation and Fees" of the City Code, as follows:
1. In accordance with Iowa Code Chapter 386 ("the Act") there is hereby established and
created in the City of Iowa City, a self-supported municipal improvement district as defined in the
Act, the name of which shall be the"South District Self-Supported Municipal Improvement District"
(herein the "South District SSMID"),
2. The South District SSMID shall include all property within the following described
boundaries:
Beginning at the southeast corner of Lot 1, part of Block 2 Braverman Center, Iowa City,
Iowa according to the plat recorded in Rat Book 7, page 20, in the Records of the Johnson
County Recorder's office; Thence northwesterly along the southerly line of said Lot 1, and
its northwesterly extension to a point on the centerline of Broadway Street; Thence south
along said centerline of Broadway Street to its intersection with the easterly extension of the
northerly right-of-way line of Cross Park Avenue;Thence west along said easterly extended
northerly right-of-way line and along the northerly right-of-way line of Cross Park Avenue, to
the southeast corner of Lot 17, of a portion of Block 1, Braverman Center, Iowa City, Iowa,
according to the plat recorded in Plat Book 31, Page 137 in said Recorder's office; Thence
north along the east line of Lot 17 and Lot 16, of said a portion of Block 1, Braverman Center,
Iowa City, Iowa, to the northeast corner of said Lot 16; Thence west along the northerly line
of said Lot 16 and its westerly extension to its intersection with the centerline of Keokuk
Street;Thence north along said centerline of Keokuk Street to its intersection with the South
line of Braverman Center, Lot 2 of Block 1 and Blocks 5, 6 and 7, according to the plat
recorded in Plat Book 8, Page 69 in said Recorder's office; Thence west along said south
line to the southwest corner of Lot 8, Block 7 of said Braverman Center;Thence north along
the west line of said Lot 8, Block 7 of Braverman Center and its northerly extension to the
centerline of Southgate Avenue;Thence west along said centerline of Southgate Avenue to
its intersection with the southerly extension of the east line of the west 60 feet of Lot 4 of
Block 5 of the resubdivision of portions of Blocks 5 and 6, Braverman Center, Parts 1 and
2, Iowa City, Iowa according to the plat recorded in Plat Book 19, Page 93 in said Recorder's
office;Thence north along said southerly extended line and along said east line of the West
60 feet of Lot 4 of Block 5 and along the west line of Lot 5 of Block 5 of said resubdivision
of portions of Blocks 5 and 6, Braverman Center, Parts 1 and 2, to its intersection with the
southerly right-of-way line of Olympic Court; Thence north to a point on the northerly right-
of-way line of Olympic Court, said point being on the west line of Lot 6 of Block 5 of said
resubdivision of portions of Blocks 5 and 6, Braverman Center, parts 1 and 2; Thence north
along the west line of said Lot 6 of Block 5 to the northwest corner of said Lot 6 of Block 5
of the resubdivision of portions of Blocks 5 and 6, Braverman Center, Parts 1 and 2; Thence
east along the north line of said Lot 6 of Block 5 of the resubdivision of portions of Blocks 5
and 6, Braverman Center, Parts 1 and 2, to its intersection with the west line of Auditor's
Parcel 2020034, City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, according to the plat recorded in
Plat Book 64, page 135 in said Recorder's Office; Thence north along said west line of
Auditor's Parcel 2020034 and its northerly extension, to its intersection with the centerline
of the east bound lane of U.S. Highway 6; Thence southeasterly, along said centerline of
the east bound lane of U.S. Highway 6, to its intersection with the northerly extension of the
east line of part of Block 2, Braverman Center, Iowa City, Iowa, according to the plat
recorded in Plat Book 7, Page 20 in said Recorder's office; Thence south along said
northerly extended line and along said east line of part of Block 2, Braverman Center, Iowa
City, Iowa to the southeast corner of Lot 1, Part of Block 2, Braverman Center, Iowa City to
the point of beginning.
3. It is hereby found and determined that all property within the South District SSMID is
similarly related so that the present and potential use or enjoyment of the property is benefitted
by the condition, performance of administration, redevelopment, revitalization and maintenance
of the South District SSMID and the owners of property in the South District SSMID have a present
and potential benefit from the condition, performance of administration, redevelopment,
revitalization and maintenance of the South District SSMID.
4. Pursuant to the provisions of the Act, there is hereby established and created a self-
supported municipal improvement district operation fund with respect to the South District SSMID
to be known as the "South District Self-Supported Municipal Improvement District Operation
Fund" (herein the "Operation Fund"), for which the City may certify taxes, against the property
within the South District SSMID, to the extent allowed by the Act, each year(the"Operation Tax"),
in addition to all other taxes, commencing with the levy of taxes for collection in the fiscal year
beginning July 1, 2022 for the purposes of paying the administrative and operational expenses of
the district, as defined and authorized in the Act and this Ordinance, or paying part or all of the
maintenance expenses of "improvements" or "self-liquidating improvements", as defined in the
Act, for a period of five (5) years.
5. The City may disburse the amounts in the Operation Fund to a South District SSMID
Advisory Board, pursuant to an agreement between the City and said Board ("Operating
Agreement"), for one or more of the following purposes:
A. Develop and manage activities in support of marketing, business retention and attraction,
including but not limited to:
1. Database establishment;
2. Space referrals and assistance;
3. Marketing activities, including media and advertising campaigns and
communication materials;
4. Miscellaneous business support services;
5. Establishment and promotion of special events, festivals, and activities; and
6. Support of urban design and policy development that would enhance the activities
within the South District SSMID.
B. Physical or other improvements designed to enhance the image and appearance of the
South District, including but not limited to:
1. Lighting improvements;
2. Seasonal and decorative enhancements;
3. Signage and banners;
4. Landscaping;
5. Central market development; and
6. Maintenance and repairs.
C. Hire an Executive Director and other support staff, as may be necessary, who will work
for the Advisory Board to manage the work of the South District SSMID and to fulfill the
purposes of the district.
6. The rate of the Operation Tax to be levied annually, in addition to all other taxes, as
aforesaid, shall not exceed a rate of five dollars ($5) per one thousand dollars ($1,000) of taxable
value, commencing with the levy of taxes for collection in the five fiscal years.
Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a
whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication.
Passed and approved this day of , 20_
Mayor
Approved by
•
Attest:
City Clerk City Attorney' Office— 12/08/2021
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by that
the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Alter
Bergus
Harmsen
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Weiner
First Consideration 12/14/2021
Voteforpassage: AYES: Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner, Mims.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Bergus.
Second Consideration 01/04/2022
Voteforpassage: AYES: Thomas, Alter, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Weiner.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Bergus.
Date published
Item Number: 10.
J anuary 4, 2022
O rd inan ce amen d ing Titl e 8, en titled “Police Regulations,” Chap ter 8,
entitl ed “Community Pol ice Review Board ,” to in crease the comp osition of th e
b oard from five memb ers to seven memb ers. (F irst Consid eration)
Prepared B y:Susan Dulek, A ssistant City A ttorney
Reviewed By:Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:None
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: C P R B approved the ordinance at its 12/13/21 meeting.
Attachments:Memo from City Manager
Draft Minutes from 12/13/21 C P R B meeting
L etter from C P R B to City Manager
Ordinance
Executive S ummary:
T he C P R B recommended to Council that the board be expanded from 5 to 7 or 9 members. At
the Oct. 19 work session, Council directed staff to draft an ordinance increasing the membership
to 7. T his ordinance also removes the 5-year waiting period before a f ormer member of the P olice
Dept. may be appointed.
Background / Analysis:
Resolution No. 20-159 entitled “Resolution of I nitial C ouncil Commitments addressing Black
L ives Matter Movement and S ystemic R acism in the wake of the murder of G eorge F loyd by the
Minneapolis Police and calls for action from protesters and residents” contained 17 action items.
T he action item in Paragraph 8 was a request to the C PRB for a “report and recommendation …
regarding changes to the C PRB ordinance that enhance its ability to provide effective civilian oversight
of the IC PD….”
T he C P R B submitted a list of recommendations to City C ouncil in a memo dated D ec. 22, 2020
which included increasing the membership from 5 to 7 or 9 as well as emphasizing membership
include a current or former member of law enforcement. Council discussed this recommendation
at its Oct. 19, 2021 work session and directed staff to draft an ordinance increasing the
membership to 7 with an emphasis on a member representing law enforcement.
In addition to increasing the membership to 7, the ordinance also eliminates the 5-year waiting period
for a former member of the ICPD to be appointed. When the C PRB was created in 1997, there was no
such waiting period, but in 2003 the Council became concerned about possible conflicts with current or
recently employed ICP D officers and added the 5-year waiting period. T he waiting period limits the
pool of law enforcement applicants. Officers currently employed by Iowa City will remain ineligible.
T he ordinance was provided to the CP R B for comment along with a cover memo from the City
Manager. T he CPRB discussed the proposed ordinance at its Dec. 13, 2021 meeting and
recommends that Council approve it.
T he ordinance also corrects an oversight in Ordinance No. 21-4857 that lengthened the time period
to file a complaint from 90 to 180 days after the alleged misconduct. A provision at Section 8-8-3E also
should have been amended to 180 days.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
memo
minutes
letter
ordinance
Date: November 23, 2021
To: Community Police Review Board
From: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Re: Community Police Review Board (CPRB) Expansion
On December 22nd, 2020 the CPRB sent the City Council a memo containing thirteen
recommendations. One of the outstanding recommendations that you presented to the City
Council was to expand membership of the CPRB from five members to seven or nine members.
Specifically, your memo stated:
“The CPRB requests to change its membership from the current five-member-board to
having seven or nine members. In selecting from candidates for the CPRB, an
emphasis shall be placed on persons being of a minority race, requiring at least four of
the members shall be from a minority race. Further, it should be made mandatory that
at least one member be a current or former member of the police force or otherwise
considered an expert in police procedures and/or police policies.”
At its October 19, 2021 work session, the City Council discussed this recommendation and
directed staff to prepare an ordinance that would expand membership to seven members. The
City Council concurred with the CPRB’s emphasis on the importance of both a diverse
membership and the inclusion of a police professional. However, it was decided that mandating
such diversity or police professional experience may be problematic, particularly if application
pools for future openings are limited. The City Council felt comfortable indicating the strong
preference for both objectives knowing that it is the elected leadership’s final decision to appoint
members to the board.
Attached to this memo is a draft ordinance that expands membership to seven members. The
draft maintains language that “The City Council shall strive to appoint members who represent
the diversity of the community.” While the CPRB recommended that at least one member be a
current or former member of the police force, there are potential complexities with having a
current peace officer employed by Iowa City as a voting member of the CPRB. In order to more
successfully attract police professionals, the draft ordinance does strike an existing requirement
that an officer be removed from the department for a minimum of five years. Thus, under the
draft ordinance a recently retired peace officer may apply and be eligible to serve on the CPRB.
Such appointment is not mandatory as the draft ordinance maintains language that the “The
City Council also reserves the right, for good cause shown, to waive the requirement that the
board include one current or former peace officer.”
It is important to note that Board composition has been the subject of discussion since the
CPRB was created in 1997. The initial ordinance language included that the “Board shall
include one current or former “peace officer” as the term is defined by state law” and gave the
City Council the ability to waive that requirement for ‘good cause’. However, in 2003 the Council
became concerned about possible conflicts with current or recently employed peace officers
from the Iowa City Police Department. Thus, they amended the ordinance to prohibit the
appointment of a current Iowa City peace officer or one that has been employed by the City of
Iowa City within five years.
The CPRB and City Council have recently agreed that is important to have a peace officer
perspective on the Board. The current ordinance significantly limits the pool of peace officer
applicants and, given the expansion to seven members appears imminent, it seems very
reasonable to drop the prohibition on recently employed peace officers. However, I do
recommend that current peace officers employed by the City of Iowa City still be explicitly
prohibited from serving on the CPRB.
The draft ordinance will be presented to the City Council for consideration after the CPRB has
an opportunity to review and comment on the proposal. Thank you for your continued service to
the Iowa City community and for your ongoing advocacy to make positive changes to the
current CPRB framework.
Attachments: Draft Ordinance for CPRB Comment
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City IA 52240-1826
(319)356-5043
December 14, 2021
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
RE: Draft Ordinance – Increase CPRB Members
Dear Mr. Fruin,
The CPRB met on December 14 to discuss your letter regarding the draft ordinance change.
The Board reviewed and approved of the language and would also like to express their
appreciation.
Regards,
Chris Olney
Community Police Review Board staff representative
Cc: City Attorney’s Office
' U .
'Prepared by:Susan Dulek,Asst. City Attorney,410 E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52 ' (319)356-5030
Ordinance No.
Ordinan.e amending Title 8, entitled "Police Regulati. s," Chapter 8,
entitled " immunity Police Review Board," to incre.se the composition of
the board f ,'m five members to seven members.
Whereas, Re•elution No. 20-159 entitled "Resolution of Initial Council Commitments
addressing Black L es Matter Movement and Systemic -acism in the wake of the murder of
George Floyd by th- Minneapolis Police and calls fo action from protesters and residents"
contained 17 actions it- s; and
Whereas, the action 'tem in Paragraph 8 was - request to the Community Police Review
Board (CPRB) for a "repo and recommendation . . regarding changes to the CPRB ordinance
that enhance its ability to provide effective civilia oversight of the ICPD..."; and
Whereas, the CPRB sub •itted a list of roc, mendations to City Council in a memo dated
December 22, 2020; and
Whereas, it is in the City's i erest to e .ct a recommendation to increase the size of the
board from five (5) members to even ) members with emphasis on having a member
representing law enforcement; and
Whereas, Ordinance No. 21-485 a• ended Section 8-8-3D to lengthen the time period to
file a complaint from 90 to 180 days aft- the alleged misconduct; and
Whereas, a related provision at .ec:on 8-8-3E also should have been amended to 180
days, and it is in the City's interest to corre this oversight.
Now, therefore, be it ordained • the City ouncil of the City of Iowa City, Iowa:
Section I. Amendments.
1. Title 8, entitle. "Police •'egulations," Chapter 8, entitled
"Community Police Review :card," Section 3, eltitled "Definition of Complaint; Complaint
Process in General," Subset tion E is amended by aiding the underscore text and deleting the
strike-through text as folio
E. Only those corn.laints to the board which do ,ot involve the conduct of an Iowa City
sworn police officer .r are not filed within ninety-(-94) one hundred ei.h 180 days of the
alleged misconduct ay be subject to summary dismis .1 by the board.
2. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations, Chapter 8, entitled
"Community Police/Review Board," Section 8, entitled "Board omposition; Limited Powers of
Board," Subsection Al is amended by adding the underscor: text and deleting the strike-
through text as fgllows:
1. The board shall consist of five (5) seven (7) members appointed by the City Council,
who shall/be Iowa City eligible electors and shall serve withou compensation. The City
Council Shall strive to appoint members who represent the div- sity of the community.
Appointments to the board shall include one current or former "peac. officer" as that term is
defined'by State law, except that a peace officer currently employed . such by the City of
Iowa city within five (5) y ars of the appointment date shall not be alp.ointed to the board.
The ,City Council reserves the right to waive the residency requireme,t for good cause
shown. The City Council also reserves the right, for good cause sho n, to waive the
requirement that the board include one current or former peace officer.
Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of
this'Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordin:nce as a
whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passas-, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and ap. oved this day of 2022.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved by
City Attorney's Office
(Sue Dulek— 12/28/2021)
/0
Prepared by:Susan Dulek,Asst. City Attorney,410 E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240(319)356-5030
Ordinance No.
Ordinance amending Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 8,
entitled "Community Police Review Board," to increase the composition of
the board from five members to seven members.
Whereas, Resolution No. 20-159 entitled "Resolution of Initial Council Commitments
addressing Black Lives Matter Movement and Systemic Racism in the wake of the murder of
George Floyd by the Minneapolis Police and calls for action from protesters and residents"
contained 17 actions items; and
Whereas, the action item in Paragraph 8 was a request to the Community Police Review
Board (CPRB) for a "report and recommendation ... regarding changes to the CPRB ordinance
that enhance its ability to provide effective civilian oversight of the ICPD..."; and
Whereas, the CPRB submitted a list of recommendations to City Council in a memo dated
December 22, 2020; and
Whereas, it is in the City's interest to enact a recommendation to increase the size of the
board from five (5) members to seven (7) members with emphasis on having a member
representing law enforcement; and
Whereas, Ordinance No. 21-4857 amended Section 8-8-3D to lengthen the time period to
file a complaint from 90 to 180 days after the alleged misconduct; and
Whereas, a related provision at Section 8-8-3E also should have been amended to 180
days, and it is in the City's interest to correct this oversight.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa:
Section I. Amendments.
1. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 8, entitled
"Community Police Review Board," Section 3, entitled "Definition of Complaint; Complaint
Process in General," Subsection E is amended by adding the underscore text and deleting the
strike-through text as follows:
E. Only those complaints to the board which do not involve the conduct of an Iowa City
sworn police officer or are not filed within ninety (90) one hundred eighty (180) days of the
alleged misconduct may be subject to summary dismissal by the board.
2. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 8, entitled
"Community Police Review Board," Section 8, entitled "Board Composition; Limited Powers of
Board," Subsection Al is amended by adding the underscore text and deleting the strike-
through text as follows:
1. The board shall consist of five (5) seven (7) members appointed by the City Council,
who shall be Iowa City eligible electors and shall serve without compensation. The City
Council shall strive to appoint members who represent the diversity of the community.
Appointments to the board shall include one current or former "peace officer" as that term is
defined by State law, except that a peace officer employed as such by the City of Iowa City
within five (5) two (2) years of the appointment date shall not be appointed to the board.
The City Council reserves the right to waive the residency requirement for good cause
shown. The City Council also reserves the right, for good cause shown, to waive the
requirement that the board include one current or former peace officer.
Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a
whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of , 2022.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved by
City Attor
(Sue Dule —01/06/2022)
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by that
the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Alter
Bergus
Harmsen
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Weiner
First Consideration 01/04/2022
Vote for passage:
AYES: Weiner, Alter, Bergus, Harmson,Taylor,Teague,Thomas
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration
Vote for passage:
Date published