HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-15-2025 Planning & Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Wednesday, October 15, 2025
Formal Meeting - 6:00 PM
Emma Harvat Hall
Iowa City City Hall
410 E. Washington Street
Agenda:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
4. Consider a recommendation on the Proposed Renewal and Expansion of the Self -
Supported Municipal Improvement District for Downtown Iowa City.
5. Meeting Minutes: August 27, 2025
6. Meeting Minutes: September 3, 2025
7. Planning and Zoning Information
8. Adjournment
If you will need disability -related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact
Anne Russett, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5251 or arussett(a-)iowa-city.org. Early requests are
strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: November 5 / November 19 / December 3
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
� r
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM -SAL -
CITY OF IOWA CITY
UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE
Date: October 9, 2025
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Rachel Kilburg Varley, Economic Development Coordinator
Re: Evaluative Report on a Proposed Renewal and Expansion of the Downtown Self -
Supported Municipal Improvement District (SSMID)
Introduction
The City has received, and City Council has forwarded for your review, a petition by property
owners for a proposed renewed and expanded Downtown Iowa City Self -Supported Municipal
Improvement District (SSMID) district. The petition requests the renewal and expansion of the
existing Iowa City Downtown SSMID.
Following this report is a cover letter from the Executive Director of the Iowa City Downtown Self
Supported Municipal Improvement District, dba Iowa City Downtown District (ICDD), a copy of the
petition including a map of the existing and proposed expanded district boundaries, and a copy
of Iowa Code Chapter 386 regarding the establishment and operation of SSMIDs.
Iowa Code Chapter 386 defines the establishment and operation of SSMIDs. Submission of a
petition is the first step in the process of creating or renewing a SSMID. Iowa Code states that the
SSMID petition must be signed by at least 25% of the property owners and representing at least
25% of the assessed value of the proposed district. Staff verified the petition filed on September
12, 2025 meets these two thresholds and notified City Council of the receipt of the petition.
At the October 7, 2025 City Council meeting, the Council referred the petition to the Planning and
Zoning Commission, which, pursuant to Iowa Code, "shall with due diligence, prepare an
evaluative report for the Council on the merit and feasibility of the project." This memo outlines
considerations for the Planning and Zoning Commission to complete such review.
After receiving the evaluative report from Planning and Zoning, Council may then set a public
hearing on the proposed ordinance establishing the SSMID. Notice of such public hearing is
published and mailed by certified mail to each property owner within the proposed district at least
15 days before the public hearing occurs. Finally, City Council must wait at least 30 days after the
public hearing to adopt the SSMID Ordinance.
Background
A SSMID is a self-imposed additional taxing district that will levy a tax on the properties within the
specified district. The Downtown Iowa City SSMID was first established on December 6, 2011 for
a period of four years at a levy rate of $2 per $1,000 of taxable value. The ICDD is the organization
which was created to manage and oversee the new SSMID. On December 15, 2015, the SSMID
was renewed for an additional 10 years (expiring June 30, 2026) with expanded boundaries at a
October 9, 2025
Page 2
levy rate of $2 per $1,000 of taxable value for the first five years and $2.50 per $1,000 of taxable
value for the remaining five years.
Iowa City Downtown District SSMID Renewal Petition
In advance of the June 30, 2026 expiration date on the current SSMID authorization, ICDD is
again seeking SSMID renewal. The proposed renewed SSMID District includes properties located
in the Downtown, Northside Marketplace, and portions of the Riverfront Crossings District (see
map within the attached petition). Affected properties are currently zoned CO1, CB-2, CB-5, CB-
10, MU, RFC, CC2, and PRM. Funds generated from the SSMID levy are used for the purposes
of paying the administrative and operational expenses of the district, as defined and authorized
by state law.
Chapter 386 of the Iowa Code allows for a SSMID to levy taxes for three purposes within a SSMID
District: operations, capital improvements, and debt service. In summary, the attached petition for
the renewed and expanded Iowa City Downtown SSMID proposes:
1. To re-establish the original area and expand the boundaries of the SSMID.
2. To re-establish the SSMID for 10 years, beginning July 1, 2026 and ending June 30, 2036.
3. To levy an annual tax upon property defined in the Iowa Code, excluding property taxed
as residential or property exempt from taxation, at a levy rate not to exceed two dollars
and fifty cents ($2.50) per one thousand dollars ($1,000) taxable value for the period of
July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2033 and a maximum levy rate of two dollars and seventy-
five cents ($2.75) for the period of July 1, 2033 through June 30, 2036.
4. To apply the SSMID levy revenues in support of services, including but not limited to,
business retention and attraction, marketing, advertising, business support services,
establishment and promotion of special events, festivals, and activities; physical or other
improvements designed to enhance the image and appearance of the district, including
but not limited to, enhanced cleaning, lighting improvements, decorative enhancements,
signage and campaign banners, landscape, and public or private art; and to employ an
Executive Director and staff who shall work for the Board of Directors and manage the
work of the Iowa City Downtown SSMID.
5. To execute an Operating Agreement between the City and Iowa City Downtown District
Board of Directors, a 501(c)(6) non-profit organization comprised of up to 24 Board
members representing the district property and business owners and stakeholders.
6. Because part of the proposed District is located within the boundaries of a Tax Increment
Financing (TIF) District, it is the intent of the petition that the City will reimburse the District
for any SSMID levy captured against all TIF properties within the District, unless the ICDD
and City execute a formal agreement otherwise.
Evaluative Report
October 9, 2025
Page 3
Iowa Code Chapter 386 requires the Planning and Zoning Commission to prepare, with "due
diligence," an "evaluative report" for the City Council on the "merit" and "feasibility" of the SSMID
project. These terms are not defined by statute and thus should be given their ordinary meanings.
The following is a list of items that the Commission may want to consider in drafting its report.
This list should not be considered all-inclusive.
1. Whether the property in the proposed district meets all the criteria established in Section
386.3(1):
The Iowa City Downtown SSMID ( also herein referred to as the "District') petition
appears to meet the minimum requirements of Iowa Code Section 386.3(1), which
states that a district shall: a) "(b]e compromised of contiguous property... zoned for
commercial or industrial uses" and be "located wholly within the boundaries of the
city, b) (b]e given a descriptive name containing the words 'self-supporting municipal
improvement district', and c) be comprised of property related in some manner...."
The 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 District is
entitled "Iowa City Downtown Self -Supported Municipal Improvement District."
Finally, the property within the District is related in that it is physically located in Iowa
City, is contiguous, and serves as a commercial hub for the community.
2. Whether 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:
• The 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 verified 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. Whether the petition sufficiently describes the boundaries of the district or provides a
consolidated description of the property contained therein:
• The petition provides a legal description of the boundaries of the District, and a map
indicating the parcels of land included within the District per Iowa Code Section
386.3(2) (b).
4. Whether a maximum rate of tax that may be imposed upon the property within the
district and the purposes for which it may be levied are set forth;
October 9, 2025
Page 4
The District petition establishes a maximum tax rate of $2.50 per $1,000 of assessed
value for the first seven years of the authorization, and a maximum tax rate of $2.75
per $1,000 of assessed value for the remaining three years. 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 District.
5. Whether 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 on Page 2, the petition states that the purpose of the District is to
provide for new, additional or enhanced services within the District. In particular, the
petition details how revenues collected for the District Operating Fund may be used
in support of the provision of services, physical or capital improvements, and hiring of
an Executive Director and staff.
6. Whether the proposed district or improvements would 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 operations, services, and improvements that can occur under the proposed
District do not appear to conflict with any existing laws, plans or policies.
The District overlaps with the City -University Urban Renewal Area. Under
previous authorizations and as proposed for renewal, the SSMID petition does
not conflict with the goals or purposes of this Urban Renewal Area. The petition
outlines how tax revenue captured by TIF shall be reimbursed back to the
Proposed District.
7. Whether the taxes proposed, if any, will be sufficient to pay the anticipated costs or other
expenses.
• The revenue generated from the proposed SSMID would be approximately
$1,00,000 per year. This amount would be sufficient to adequately staff the
organization, and to cover costs associated with marketing, projects, programs,
services, and improvements in the District.
8. Whether the formation of the district is consistent with or in furtherance of other
identifiable City policies or goals:
One of the principal goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to foster an environment in
the Downtown area that is attractive to new employers, is pedestrian -oriented, and
has strong cultural, commercial, and residential character.
October 9, 2025
Page 5
• The Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan clearly outlines a number of
aligned goals and priorities for investment in the downtown, south downtown, and
central crossings areas covered by the proposed District boundaries.
The City Council Strategic Plan includes several goals and priorities related to
establishing Iowa City as a strong business community, cultivating the business
ecosystem, partnering for desirable development, and creating inviting and active
outdoor spaces for the community.
• The District petition states that one of the purposes of the SSMID is to provide
physical enhancements to improve the image and appearance of the District,
including lighting, signage, landscaping, and public art.
The review by the Planning and Zoning Commission on the merits and feasibility of the Proposed
District could consider the above points and should focus on ensuring that the petition meets the
requirements of Iowa Code Chapter 386, and that:
• The operational activities (as defined in Iowa Code Section 386. of the District are
appropriate in relation to existing laws, plans and policies; and
• The means to implement the proposal appear reasonably calculated to accomplish the
District objectives.
Recommendation
In this context, staff recommends that the District petition be recommended for approval and the
draft Evaluated Report attached hereto be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration.
rx
2075 SEP 12 PM 3: SP
i()VIA CIT'S
September 11, 2025
Mayor Teague and City Council
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Request to Renew the Self -Sustaining Municipal Improvement District
Mayor Teague and City Council Members,
The Iowa City Downtown District (ICDD) is pleased to submit the petition to reauthorize
the Self -Sustaining Municipal Improvement District (SSMID) for your consideration and
approval.
As you may know, the Iowa City Downtown District (ICDD) is responsible for overseeing
the Self -Supported Municipal Improvement District (SSMID). We are authorized to invest
those funds to promote our geography as a progressive, healthy, and culturally vibrant
urban center. Under the current arrangement, the SSMID contributes roughly 45% of
ICDD's revenue, which is used to support revitalization efforts in Downtown Iowa City.
The SSMID was first authorized by the City Council to begin on January 1, 2012. The
existing SSMID authorization is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2026, so ICDD has
petitioned its stakeholders to renew the SSMID and its terms to ensure this work
continues. Approval of this petition by Council would allow the SSMID levy to continue
through June 30, 2036.
The proposal brought before you has been modified by the ICDD Board of Directors to
reflect changing local conditions and to align with the goals set out in the organization's
Strategic Plan. These changes include expanding the geographic boundaries of the
district, enhancing the scope and depth of services provided, and making Board
composition more inclusive. These modifications have been developed through
extensive member and stakeholder input and enjoy significant and meaningful support.
Summary of 2026-2036 SSMID Petition Terms:
PURPOSE — Mission remains the same
BOUNDARIES — Expansion to the South boundary, North boundary, and East
boundary.
TERM — 10 years (2026 — 2036)
LEVY RATE — $2.50/$1,000 taxable value for 7 years with an option to increase
the rate by $.25 in 2033 with Council approval if deemed necessary by
the Board of Directors.
The threshold for a successful SSMID petition requires signatures from 25% of unique
property owners and signatures from property owners with 25% of the assessed value.
We have exceeded these thresholds. The level of support demonstrates the success of
the Iowa City Downtown District's ability to target the SSMID funds towards initiatives
that property owners have found valuable and necessary.
Nearing the end of our fourteen -year operating term, we have much to celebrate, many
to thank, and we hope City Council will agree to approve the new SSMID terms to keep
building on this momentum Downtown. Over the past decade and more, the Iowa City
Downtown District has established itself as a trusted advocate for the community and a
strong partner with City staff, businesses, and residents alike. Together, we have
launched and maintained a robust Clean & Safe program, championed public art and
placemaking initiatives that bring character and vitality to the area, and curated a full
calendar of events that drive energy and visitation year-round. We have strengthened
urban design principles, advanced business attraction and retention efforts, and
coordinated communication and planning for major streetscape improvements. These
collective efforts have helped Downtown become more welcoming, vibrant, and
environmentally sustainable, with the rise of a unified voice serving as one of our
greatest achievements.
We would appreciate the City Council's consideration of this petition and accompanying
ordinance. With your support and approval of the SSMID renewal this year, we intend to
invite new voices to our Board of Directors to continue growing our base of partners. If
you have any questions or comments, please feel free to follow up with me personally.
Sincerely,
Betsy Potter,
Executive Director,
Iowa City Downtown District
Cc: SSMID Renewal Committee
Bill Nusser
Ross Nusser
Charlie Nusser
Karen Kubby
Cady Gerlach
Wendy Zimmermann
Sheila Davisson
Michelle Galvin
Josh Immerfall
Josh Schamberger
Cc: ICDD Executive Committee
Wendy Zimmermann
Jason Paulios
Josh Immerfall
Tony Branch
Angie Brown
Enclosures:
• SSMID Petition with Supporting
Signatures for 2026-2036
• ICDD Commercial Property
Database File
r CA)
ATTEST )
Johnson County ):
State of Iowa: )
We, the undersigned, as representatives of the Self -Supported Municipal Improvement District
(SSMID) that pursuant to Chapter 386 of the Code of Iowa that operates under the name of the
Iowa City Downtown Self -Supported Municipal Improvement District, hereby state and affirm
the following and attest to the following:
1. That individually and as an organization, we gathered, reviewed, or verified every signature
that is attached to the Petition herein and that all records used for obtaining signatures were
obtained through the Johnson County recorder and assessor's record books. We are the
representatives responsible for collecting and verifying signatures submitted herewith pursuant
to Chapter 386. To the best of our knowledge, the Petition contains signatures of at least
twenty-five percent (25%) of the property owners within the SSMID and represents at least
twenty-five percent (25%) of the assessed value of property within the SSMID, as required by
Iowa Code § 386.3(2)(a).
2. That every signatory to the Petition stated that, if they did not own the building individually,
they were an officer of the Corporation, Company, or Companies that owned the property listed,
and, by virtue of the authority delegated to them by the Board of Directors, Partners, Managers,
or other governing, operational, or organizational documents, they were authorized to execute
the Petition to continue to operate the Self -Supported Municipal Improvement District
(SSMID).
3. That all signatures, whether affixed by handwritten wet ink signature or by DocuSign
(electronic signature platform), have been duly witnessed and verified as authentic. That each
witness, by signing below, affirms that they have personally observed the signatory execute this
Petition either by physically signing in their presence, or executing the signature via DocuSign
and confirming identity through electronic verification. Identities were confirmed through the
platform's authentication process and the associated electronic audit trail and Certificates of
Complete are retained with the Petition file. Electronic signatures and notarizations are legally
recognized under Iowa Code and approved by the City of Iowa City for submission.
We make this affidavit under oath and subject to the penalties of perjury under Iowa law.
Affiants
k��.._
Betsy Pair, ExCutive Director, ICDD;
Date:
Karen Kubby, Business O er in the Proposed Boundary
Date: 17 1 TM� c ry
Ross Nusser, Property Owner in the Proposed Boundary
Date: _L/_/2J/V5_ Cn
Q0
Jurat:
State of Iowa )
County of Johnson )
Subscribed and sworn or affirmed before me by Betsy Potter, Karen Kubby, and Ross Nusser on
c 1 94-k 2025, by Catherine Sinnwell Gerlach,
Notary, State of Iowa.
Ca erne Sinnwe 1 Gerlach
Date:
VM CATHERINE SINNWELL GERLACH
All
Commission Number 780563
My Commission Expires
100 September 27, 2025
PETITION
To establish a Self -Supported Municipal Improvement District (SSMID) pursuant to
Chapter 386 of the Code of Iowa continuing under the established name of the "Iowa
City Downtown Self -Supported Municipal Improvement District" and establish its
operating terms for the term of this ordinance;
We, the undersigned, being owners of the property within the SSMID, hereby petition
the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 386 of the
Code of Iowa (the "Act") as follows:
1. To establish by ordinance a Self -Supported Municipal Improvement District in Iowa
City, Johnson County, Iowa:
a. The name of which shall be the "Iowa City Downtown Self -Supported
Municipal Improvement District" (also known as the "Iowa City Downtown
District" and herein referred to as the "District").
b. A description of the boundaries and a map of the District is attached hereto
as Exhibit A showing the updated District boundaries.
c. The purposes of which shall be the undertaking of actions and the
performance of administration, redevelopment, and revitalization of the
District, as authorized by the Act, any and all of which actions and
improvements are intended to benefit the property, businesses, and residents
within the District, including, but not limited to activities that expand the mix of
businesses, increase consumer traffic, improve cleanliness and safety,
enhance urban design, beautification, lighting, and the Downtown landscape
in general.
2. To establish a Self -Supported Municipal Improvement District through the petition
process for ten (10) years, commencing on July 1, 2026, and ending June 30, 2036.
3. To establish a self -supported improvement district operation fund for the District and
levy an annual tax (the "Operation Tax") upon property defined in Iowa Code-§386.8,
commencing on July 1, 2026, as follows: -
a. For the period of July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2033, the mmum levy rate
shall not exceed two dollars and fifty cents ($2.50) per one ttftsand-,dollars
($1,000) taxable value. m
b. For the period of July 1, 2033, through June 30, 2036, the ma1X1mum._ vy rate
'In
shall not exceed two dollars and seventy-five cents ($2.75) per one thousand
dollars ($1,000) taxable value.
c. It is the intent of this Petition that the operation taxes levied and collected on
behalf of the District shall be expended for new, additional, or enhanced services
within the District for the Iowa City Downtown District, and that the City shall not
diminish the type and extent of current governmental services provided in
boundaries of the district.
d. This Petition does not request any levy for a Debt or Capital Fund.
4. To annually allocate all amounts collected in the Operation Fund for one or more of
the following purposes at such times and under such conditions as shall be
recommended by budget to the City Council by the Iowa City Downtown District Board
of Directors as described in Item 5 below:
a. Services, including but not limited to, development and management of
activities in support of business retention and attraction, marketing,
advertising, business support services, establishment and promotion of
special events, festivals, and activities, and a contingency reserve fund for
extraordinary expenses.
b. Physical or other improvements designed to enhance the image and
appearance of the District, including, but not limited to enhanced cleaning,
lighting Improvements, decorative enhancements, signage and campaign
banners, landscaping, and public or private art.
c. To employ an Executive Director and staff who shall work for the Board of
Directors to manage the work of the Iowa City Downtown District and to
fulfill the intent of this Petition and Ordinance establishing the
Self -Supporting Municipal Improvement District.
5. It is the intent of this Petition that the City of Iowa City enter into an operating
agreement with the Iowa City Downtown District Board of Directors (hereinafter
referred to as the "Board"). All SSMID levy monies shall be appropriated to the Board
for the management and operation of the District. From time to time, the City of Iowa
City may provide additional revenue to the Board for the purposes of the management
and operation of the District.
a. The Board shall remain as a 501 (c)(6) non-profit Orcanizati'on with
composition of up to 24 members on its Board f Pireors witli
= co
k -)
bylaws and organizational documents that are in compliance with
state and federal law. There shall be an Advisory Board for the
District and the Advisory Board shall report, as required, to the City
Council of Iowa City as requested, and no less than annually for
budgetary approval.
b. The Advisory Board contemplated in a future operating agreement
with the City is made up of the Downtown District Board President,
Vice -President, Treasurer, Secretary, and Past -President. Any
board seats designated by an assessed value or square footage
requirement shall be determined based on the assessed value or
square footage as of that tax year. Nonvoting board membership
may consist of stakeholders of the district, including other
community and economic development organizations, nonprofit
service providers, and municipal representatives.
6. The District is located within the boundaries of Tax Increment Finance (TIF)
Districts which have been created by the City. Notwithstanding that fact, it is the
intent of this Petition that the City shall reimburse the District for any SSMID levy
captured against TIF properties within the District. To accomplish this, it is the intent
of this Petition that an amount of funds which would have been derived from the
annual SSMID levy of the Operation Tax against TIF properties within the District, if
the District were not located within such TIF Districts, shall be made available
annually for the services, improvements, and activities set out in this Petition., and
that the City should take all actions necessary to accomplish this purpose, including,
if necessary, allocation to these services, improvements and activities of a portion of
the incremental property taxes which are attributable to properties within the District.
These allocations may be from the SSMID levy or other sources. It is the intent of
this Petition that nothing in this paragraph prevents both the District and City to
agree that all or portion of the SSMID levy captured against TIF properties within the
District shall be maintained by the City and not reimbursed to the District for the
benefit of both parties. Such agreement should be formalized and approved by the
District Board and City Manager.
Y�
--- -
i07
~'P
�yl _i
J
Iy j
�� ,.y
t_C)
Exhibit
_h
t DAVENPORT ST
N (ANryI rl - '�7 r —7 �3"{"1 (°}� T IIT 1
I �lly I1I�_
f z � U) : rn
slams.) p - MCI - w 10.aS[lrr Q0
Y-
L)
5 R 1 3 6 t ! } G 7', A 1 O 1 O J
• ... - .. 3N I_ _
BLOOMINGTON ST BLOOMINGTON ST BLOOMINGTON ST
• a. ! i i 4l3 zll la�-1 1�1
Il I I
BLOCK 3B
BE
O iB'. xa2 Whoa 7T .:aQy'� I
z 1 Ij II`�I`r
MARKET ST MARKET ST MARKET S
z 7 R Z etas dx - 6�_
p z _. — o pyl(Y57 IDc ab „`m o aperYG _ —
jIIIn
I I DO ma ke[ j`I
O CO 1 II .1 1 ! >p_ J I.-3
g 1.43J-
JEFFERSON ST JEFFERSON ST
- r I
(BLOCK ]ISr.!
CHURCH=acl�
I PARK -
s a r ! b ]
CAPIITOL
AVE SQUARE IOWA AVE IOWA AVE
TUC qe_ +III V 11I_ IIj`I 1 ^ L C
`
i
=; 0 11I BLIJ46 IIII�L Ir(� _
_ b !.3 1 2�� I I a 1 C + S___]..r A 9 tFt'1 ! - _. L
WASHINGTON ST i i V WASHINGTON ST
I` - "- - � f 1 I t '' Ln toil 1
3 a ti ' 1 1 3. f: �3 T I= 4 3 ,� 3 r p, : ,y, a 7 1 College w a
I ` Ij
Kxs x, -' Cxl B e , 1 41 Green dlUCR21I" ,-
s 5 7 l x r a s 4 ] `x Si a ] f b t 1 t; s 6 1 B
� Parl<_
COLLEGE ST COLLEGE ST
O
Q d 4 [a3 Z ',T ar_ AS 'v A (n 1111 Itt G I� IMMIT � =1
U Iz DO
J W
BURLINGTON ST _ _ STATE HWWA Y BURLINGTON ST E - BURLING-TON ST
e 1 Il I E x t r - B 1 r G a.x G _
II
1 - r ] - r ] ,, cn01
] 2 a ; 2 2
6BL e73 3 ULMiL:ml 3 6BLOt111033 Id - � m 26
f1U11jgT r j
mr-
p �^ S10HNSaP1'S 2 —Sul Ii:PSIOM1 JII�r IUI] 'jI WIII
S d d a B 0 0 B 4 O1 SLOT-
- I
wOURT ST COURT ST COURT ST
f ' - _ _ -
BE
RRYHILL& --
PIERCE ADDITION -
-- • �! 1
_ COUNTY BLOCK 2 "- -BLOCK 1 RIOC[ Eq' 7
SEAT OF { --
JOHNSON Horris:on
COUNTT VI I
i -i - --
-Hill Pork � - `
I I
_ HARRISON ST - - - -- -- - - --- -
z BLOCK.6 J _ BLOCK] z dlxrx w .$tdL'1. 20 In:-
1.TON'S1ST _
{ O p i- �f�..�/ HD041#111 w j .•} J ';y
K Li- Io ELI.�.r 4 anbcl _ m—LF�;
I v _
PRENMS ST _ I > 1 _` r
--J i
I BOWERY ST'
BLOCK I3 a1a[R.11 61Me110 BLOCK21 -�
WRtG T .ST - - E �'R —
C 1
I -
--{IO Bl0[IL Se I BLOCK 11 16L�aCS 3R }-
r`'
PROPOSED SSMID AREA
(2025)
BEGINNING AT THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF GILBERT STREET WHERE IT INTERSECTS THE SOUTH LINE OF THE
PLATTED EAST -WEST ALLEY IN BLOCK 57, ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA CITY, IOWA,
THENCE WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PLATTED ALLEY AND ITS WESTERLY EXTENSION TO ITS INTERSECTION
WITH THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF LINN STREET;
THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID LINN STREET AND ITS SOUTHERLY EXTENSION TO A
POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF BLOOMINGTON STREET;
THENCE WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF BLOOMINGTON STREET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER
OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2012099 AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 57 AT PAGE 120 IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY
RECORDER'S OFFICE;
THENCE SOUTHERLY, ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2012099, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2012099, AND A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE PLATTED EAST -WEST ALLEY IN BLOCK 68,
ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA CITY;
THENCE WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF THE PLATTED EAST -WEST ALLEY IN BLOCK 68, TO A POINT ON THE EAST
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF DUBUQUE STREET;
THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF DUBUQUE STREET TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF MARKET STREET;
THENCE WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF MARKET STREET TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF CLINTON STREET;
THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF CLINTON STREET TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WASHINGTON STREET;
THENCE WEST ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WASHINGTON STREET TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE
NORTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF CAPITOL STREET;
THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID NORTHERLY EXTENSION, AND SAID EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF CAPITOL STREET TO ITS
INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF BURLINGTON STREET;
THENCE WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF BURLINGTON STREET TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF MADISON STREET;
THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF MADISON STREET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE
SOUTH 75 FEET OF LOT 6, OF BLOCK 93, ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA CITY;
THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH 75 FEET OF LOT 6, BLOCK 93, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE
WEST LINE OF THE PLATTED NORTH -SOUTH ALLEY IN BLOCK 93, ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA CITY;
THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF THE PLATTED NORTH -SOUTH ALLEY IN BLOCK 93, TO ITS INTERSECTION
WITH THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF COURT STREET;
THENCE EAST ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF COURT STREET TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY
EXTENSION OF THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF CAPITOL STREET;
THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID NORTHERLY EXTENSION AND THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF CAPITOL STREET TO ITS
INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD; y
THENCE EAST ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD TO ITS INT'F _RSEC`UQN
WITH THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF GILBERT STREET; r
•• - ~ Li
THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF GILBERT STREET TO ITS INTERSECTIO�At ITH T hF
WESTERLY EXTENSION OF THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF BOWERY STREET;
CJ"i
THENCE EAST ALONG SAID WESTERLY EXTENSION AND SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF BOWERY STREET TO ITS
INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE EAST LINE OF THE PLATTED NORTH SOUTH ALLEY IN BLOCK 1
OF LYON'S I" ADDITION;
THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY PROJECTION, EAST LINE OF SAID PLATTED NORTH SOUTH ALLEY AND THE
EAST LINE OF THE NORTH SOUTH PLATTED ALLEY IN BLOCK 1 OF BERRYHILL & PIERCE ADDITION TO ITS INTERSECTION
WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND, AS DESCRIBED IN BOOK 4771 AT PAGES 112-116 OF THE RECORDS OF THE
JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE:
THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF SAID DESCRIBED PARCEL_
THENCE EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF SAID DESCRIBED PARCEL TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE OF VAN BUREN STREET:
THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF VAN BUREN STREET, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE
WESTERLY EXTENSION OF THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF COLLEGE STREET,
THENCE EAST ALONG SAID WESTERLY EXTENSION AND THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF COLLEGE STREET TO THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST 2.42 FEET OF THE SOUTH 75 FEET OF LOT 7, OF BLOCK 41, ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA
CITY;
THENCE NORTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID EAST 2 42 FEET OF THE SOUTH 75 FEET OF LOT 7, OF BLOCK 41, TO THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID EAST 2.42 FEET OF THE SOUTH 75 FEET OF LOT 7, OF BLOCK 41;
THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID EAST 2.42 FEET OF THE SOUTH 75 FEET OF LOT 7, OF BLOCK 41, TO THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTH 75 FEET OF LOT 8, BLOCK 41, ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA CITY;
THENCE NORTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTH 75 FEET OF LOT 8, BLOCK 41, AND NORTHERLY EXTENSION OF
SAID WEST LINE, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1 OF SAID BLOCK 41, ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA CITY;
THENCE NORTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 1, BLOCK 41, AND THE NORTHERLY EXTENSION OF SAID WEST LINE,
TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 8, OF BLOCK 40, ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA CITY;
THENCE NORTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 8, BLOCK 40, AND THE NORTHERLY EXTENSION OF SAID WEST LINE,
TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE PLATTED EAST -WEST ALLEY IN SAID BLOCK 40;
THENCE WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF THE PLATTED EAST -WEST ALLEY, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE
NORTHERLY LINE OF THE FORMER CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND, & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY;
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF THE FORMER CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND, & PACIFIC RAILWAY
COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF LOT 1, BLOCK 40, ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA
CITY;
THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF LOT 1, BLOCK 40, AND THE NORTHERLY EXTENSION OF SAID WEST LINE, TO
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 8, BLOCK 39, ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA CITY;
THENCE NORTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 8, BLOCK 39, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 8, BLOCK 39;
THENCE EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 8, BLOCK 39, AND ITS EASTERLY EXTENSION, TO ITS INTERSECTION
WITH THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF JOHNSON STREET;
THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF JOHNSON STREET TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINE OF MARKET STREET;
THENCE EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF MARKET STREET, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF DODGE STREET;
r-w
THENCE NORTH ALONG, SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF DODGE STREET TO ITS INl-I RSECI'IOt4'WI'rH 7HLrSOUTH
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF BLOOMINGTON STREET;
THENCE WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF BLOOMINGTON STREET TO ITS INTERSI CTjON NTH THE
WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF JOHNSON STREET;
THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF JOHNSON STREET TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF BLOOMINGTON STREET;
THENCE WEST ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF BLOOMINGTON STREET, TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE
WEST HALF OF LOT 6, BLOCK 37, ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA CITY:
THENCE NORTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID WEST HALF OF LOT 6, BLOCK 37, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH
LINE OF THE PLATTED EAST -WEST ALLEY, IN SAID BLOCK 37;
THENCE WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE PLATED EAST WEST ALLEY OF SAID BLOCK 37, THE WESTERLY
PROJECTION THEREOF, THE SOUTH LINE OF THE PLATTED EAST WEST ALLEY IN BLOCK 48, ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA
CITY, AND THE WESTERLY PROJECTION THEREOF TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PREPARED BY MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
PROJECT 11195-002
06-09-2025
r+:a
ry
�4
ES
ti
SELF -SUPPORTED MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS, §386.2
CHAPTER 386
SELF -SUPPORTED MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
Referred
to in §376.1
386.1
Definitions.
386.9
Capital improvement tax.
386.2
Authorization.
386.10
Debt service tax.
386.3
Establishment of district.
386.11
Self -supported municipal
386.4
Amendments to district.
improvement district bonds.
386.5
386.6
Dissolution.
Improvements.
386.12
Payment for improvements.
386.7
Self-liquidating improvements.
386.13
Parking fee abatements.
386.8
Operation tax.
386.14
Independent provisions.
386.1 Definitions.
As used in this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise:
1. `Book", "list", "record", or "schedule" kept by a county auditor, assessor, treasurer,
recorder, sheriff, or other county officer means the county system as defined in section 445.1.
2. "Cost" of any improvement or self-liquidating improvement includes construction
contracts and the cost of engineering, architectural, technical, and legal services, preliminary
reports, property valuations, estimates, plans, specifications, notices, acquisition of real and
personal property, consequential damages or costs, easements, rights -of -way, supervision,
inspection, testing, publications, printing and sale of bonds, interest during construction and
for not more than six months thereafter, and provisions for contingencies.
3. "District" means a self -supported municipal improvement district which may be created
and the property therein taxed in accordance with this chapter.
4. "Improvement" means any of the following:
a. All or any part of a city enterprise as defined in section 384.24, subsection 2.
b. Public improvements as defined in section 384.37, subsection 19.
c. Those structures, properties, facilities or actions, the acquisition, construction,
improvement, installation, reconstruction, enlargement, repair, equipping, purchasing,
or taking of which would constitute an essential corporate purpose or general corporate
purpose as defined in section 384.24, subsections 3 and 4.
5. "Property" means real property as defined in section 4.1, subsection 13, and in section
427A.1, subsection 1, paragraph "h".
6. "Property owner" or "owner" means the owner of property, as shown by the transfer
books in the office of the county auditor of the county in which the property is located.
7. "Self-liquidating improvement" means any facility or property proposed to be leased in
whole or in part to any person or governmental body to further the corporate purposes of the
city and:
a. To aid in the commercial development of the district.
b. To further the purposes of the districts; or
c. Not substantially reduce the city's property tax base.
8. The use of the conjunctive "and" includes the disjunctive "or" and the use of the
disjunctive "or" includes the conjunctive "and", unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
9. All definitions in section 362.2 are incorporated by reference as a part of this chapter,
except as provided in subsection 5.
[C77, 79, 81, §386.1]
84 Acts, ch 1179, §1; 2000 Acts, ch 1148, §1; 2002 Acts, ch 1119, §200, 201
386.2 Authorization.
A city which proposes to create a district, to provide for its existence and operation, to
provide for improvements or self-liquidating improvements for the district, to authorize and
issue bonds for the purposes of the district, and to levy the taxes authorized by this chapter
must do so in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
[C77, 79, 81, §386.2]
Tue Nov 19 20:14:32 2024 Iowa Code 2025, Chapter 386 (22, 0)
§386.3, SELF -SUPPORTED MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
386.3 Establishment of district.
1. Districts may be created by action of the council in accordance with the provisions of
this chapter. A district shall:
a. Be comprised of contiguous property wholly within the boundaries of the city. A
self -supported municipal improvement district shall be comprised only of property in
districts which are zoned for commercial or industrial uses and properties within a duly
designated historic district.
b. Be given a descriptive name containing the words "self -supported municipal
improvement district'.
c. Be comprised of property related in some manner, including but not limited to present
or potential use, physical location, condition, relationship to an area, or relationship to
present or potential commercial or other activity in an area, so as to be benefited in any
manner, including but not limited to a benefit from present or potential use or enjoyment
of the property, by the condition, development or maintenance of the district or of any
improvement or self-liquidating improvement of the district, or be comprised of property
the owners of which have a present or potential benefit from the condition, development or
maintenance of the district or of any improvement or self-liquidating improvement of the
district.
2. The council shall initiate proceedings for establishing a district upon the filing with its
clerk of a petition containing:
a. The signatures of at least twenty-five percent of all owners of property within the
proposed district. These signatures must together represent ownership of property with an
assessed value of twenty-five percent or more of the assessed value of all of the property in
the proposed district.
b. A description of the boundaries of the proposed district or a consolidated description
of the property within the proposed district.
c. The name of the proposed district.
d. A statement of the maximum rate of tax that may be imposed upon property within the
district. The maximum rate of tax may be stated in terms of separate maximum rates for the
debt service tax, the capital improvement fund tax, and the operation tax, or in terms of a
maximum combined rate for all three.
e. The purpose of the establishment of the district, which may be stated generally,
or in terms of the relationship of the property within the district or the interests of the
owners of property within the district, or in terms of the improvements or self-liquidating
improvements proposed to be developed for the purposes of the district, either specific
improvements, self-liquidating improvements, or general categories of improvements, or
any combination of the foregoing.
f. A statement that taxes levied for the self -supported improvement district operation
fund shall be used for the purpose of paying maintenance expenses of improvements or
self-liquidating improvements for a specified length of time, along with any options to renew,
if the taxes are to be used for this maintenance purpose.
3. a. The council shall notify the city planning commission upon the receipt of a petition.
It shall be the duty of the city planning commission to make recommendations to the council
in regard to the proposed district. The city planning commission shall, with due diligence,
prepare an evaluative report for the council on the merit and feasibility of the project. The
council shall not hold its public hearings or take further action on the establishment of the
district until it has received the report of the city planning commission. In addition to its
report, the commission may, from time to time, recommend to the council amendments and
changes relating to the project.
b. If no city planning commission exists, the council shall notify the metropolitan or
regional planning commission upon receipt of a petition, and such commission shall have
the same duties as the city planning commission set forth in this subsection. If no planning
commission exists, the council shall notify the zoning commission upon receipt of a petition,
and such commission shall have the same duties as the city planning commission set forth in
this subsection. If no planning or zoning commission exists, the council shall call a hearing
on the establishment of a district upon receipt of a petition.
Tue Nov 19 20:14:32 2024 Iowa Code 2025, Chapter 386 (22, 0)
SELF -SUPPORTED MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS, §386.3
4. Upon the receipt of the commission's final report the council shall set a time and place
for a meeting at which the council proposes to take action for the establishment of the district,
and shall publish notice of the meeting as provided in section 362.3, and the clerk shall send a
copy of the notice by certified mail not less than fifteen days before the meeting to each owner
of property within the proposed district at the owner's address as shown by the records of
the county auditor. If a property is shown to be in the name of more than one owner at the
same mailing address, a single notice may be mailed addressed to all owners at that address.
Failure to receive a mailed notice is not grounds for objection to the council's taking any
action authorized in this chapter.
5. In addition to the time and place of the meeting for hearing on the petition, the notice
must state:
a. That a petition has been filed with the council asking that a district be established.
b. The name of the district.
c. The purpose of the district.
d. The property proposed to be included in the district.
e. The maximum rate of tax which may be imposed upon the property in the district.
6. At the time and place set in the notice the council shall hear all owners of property
in the proposed district or residents of the city desiring to express their views. The council
must wait at least thirty days after the public hearing has been held before it may adopt
an ordinance establishing a district which must be comprised of all the property which the
council finds has the relationship or whose owners have the interest described in subsection
1, paragraph "c". Property included in the proposed district need not be included in the
established district. However, no property may be included in the district that was not
included in the proposed district until the council has held another hearing after it has
published and mailed the same notice as required in subsections 4 and 5 of this section on
the original petition to the owners of the additional property, or has caused a notice of the
inclusion of the property to be personally served upon each owner of the additional property,
or has received a written waiver of notice from each owner of the additional property.
7. Adoption of the ordinance establishing a district requires the affirmative vote of
three -fourths of all of the members of the council, or in cities having but three members of
the council, the affirmative vote of two members. However if a remonstrance has been filed
with the clerk signed by at least twenty-five percent of all owners of property within the
proposed district representing ownership of property with an assessed value of twenty-five
percent or more of the assessed value of all of the property in the proposed district, the
adoption of the ordinance requires a unanimous vote of the council.
8. The clerk shall cause a copy of the ordinance to be filed in the office of the county
recorder of each county in which any property within the district is located.
9. At any time prior to adoption of an ordinance establishing a district, the entire matter
of establishing such district shall be withdrawn from council consideration if a petition
objecting to establishing such district is filed with its clerk containing the signatures of at
least forty percent of all owners of property within the proposed district or signatures which
together represent ownership of property with an assessed value of forty percent or more of
the assessed value of all property within the proposed district.
10. The adoption of an ordinance establishing a district is a legislative determination that
the property within the district has the relationship or its owners have the interest required
under subsection 1, paragraph "c" and includes all of the property within the area which has
that relationship or the owners of which have that interest in the district.
11. Any resident or property owner of the city may appeal the action and the decisions of
the council, including the creation of the district and the levying of the proposed taxes for the
district, to the district court of the county in which any part of the district is located, within
thirty days after the date upon which the ordinance creating the district becomes effective,
but the action and decision of the council are final and conclusive unless the court finds that
the council exceeded its authority. No action may be brought questioning the regularity of
the proceedings pertaining to the establishment of a district or the validity of the district, or
the propriety of the inclusion or exclusion of any property within or from the district, or the
Tue Nov 19 20:14:32 2024 Iowa Code 2025, Chapter 386 (22, 0)
§386.3, SELF -SUPPORTED MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
ability of the city to levy taxes in accordance with the ordinance establishing the district, after
thirty days from the date on which the ordinance creating the district becomes effective.
12. The procedural steps for the petitioning and creation of the district may be combined
with the procedural steps for the authorization of any improvement or self-liquidating
improvement, or the procedural steps for the authorization of any tax, or any combination
thereof.
13. The rate of debt service tax referred to in the petition and the ordinance creating the
district shall only restrict the amount of bonds which may be issued, and shall not limit the
ability of the city to levy as necessary in subsequent years to pay interest and amortize the
principal of that amount of bonds.
14. The ordinance creating the district may provide for the division of all of the property
within the district into two or more zones based upon a reasonable difference in the
relationship of the property or the interest of its owners, whether the difference is qualitative
or quantitative. The ordinance creating the district and establishing the different zones may
establish a different maximum rate of tax for each zone, or may provide that the rate of tax
for a zone shall be a certain set percentage of the tax levied in the zone which is subject to
the highest rate of tax.
[C77, 79, 81, §386.3]
85 Acts, ch 113, §1; 88 Acts, ch 1246, §7; 2010 Acts, ch 1061, §180
Referred to in §386.4, 386.6
386.4 Amendments to district.
1. The ordinance creating the district may be amended and property may be added to the
district and the maximum rate of taxes referred to in the ordinance may be increased at any
time in the same manner and by the same procedure as for the establishment of a district.
All property added to a district shall be subject to all taxes currently and thereafter levied
including debt service levies for bonds previously or thereafter issued.
2. Action by the council amending the ordinance creating the district, including adding
any eligible property or deleting any property within the district or changing any maximum
rate of taxes, shall be by ordinance adopted by an affirmative vote of three -fourths of all
of the members of the council, or in cities having but three members of the council, the
affirmative vote of two members. However, if a remonstrance has been filed with the clerk
signed by at least twenty-five percent of all owners of property within the district and all
property proposed to be included representing ownership of property with an assessed value
of twenty-five percent or more of the assessed value of all the property in the district and all
property proposed to be included, the amending ordinance must be adopted by unanimous
vote of the council.
3. The clerk shall cause a copy of the amending ordinance to be filed in the office of
the county recorder of each county in which any property within the district as amended is
located.
4. At any time prior to council amendment of the ordinance creating the district, the
entire matter of amending such ordinance shall be withdrawn from council consideration
if a petition objecting to amending such ordinance is filed with its clerk containing either
the signatures of at least forty percent of all owners of property within the district and
all property proposed to be included or signatures which together represent ownership of
property with an assessed value of forty percent or more of the assessed value of all property
within the district and all property proposed to be included.
5. Any resident or property owner of the city may appeal the action or decisions of the
council amending the ordinance creating the district, to the district court of the county in
which any part of the district, as amended, is located, within fifteen days after the date upon
which the ordinance amending the ordinance creating the district becomes effective, but the
action and decision of the council are final and conclusive unless the court finds that the
council exceeded its authority. No action may be brought questioning the regularity of the
proceedings pertaining to the amended ordinance or the validity of the district as amended,
or the propriety of the inclusion or exclusion of any property within or from the amended
district, or the ability of the city to levy taxes in accordance with the ordinance establishing
Tue Nov 19 20:14:32 2024 Iowa Code 2025, Chapter 386 (22, 0)
SELF -SUPPORTED MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS, §386.6
the district, as amended, after thirty days from the date upon which the amending ordinance
becomes effective.
6. All other provisions in section 386.3 shall apply to an amended district and to the
ordinance amending the ordinance creating the district with the same effect as they apply to
the original district and the ordinance creating the original district.
[C77, 79, 81, §386.4]
386.5 Dissolution.
1. A district may be dissolved and terminated by action of the council rescinding the
ordinance creating the district, and any subsequent ordinances amending the district, by an
affirmative vote of three -fourths of all members of the council, or in cities having but three
members of the council, the affirmative vote of two members. However, if a remonstrance
has been filed with the clerk signed by at least twenty-five percent of all owners of property
within the district representing ownership of property with an assessed value of twenty-five
percent or more of the assessed value of all the property in the district, the rescission of
the ordinance creating the district, and any subsequent ordinances amending the district,
requires a unanimous vote of the council.
2. At any time prior to action of the council rescinding the ordinance creating the district,
and any subsequent ordinances amending the district, the entire matter of dissolving a district
shall be withdrawn from council consideration if a petition is filed with its clerk containing the
signatures of at least forty percent of all owners of property within the district or signatures
which together represent ownership of property with an assessed value of forty percent or
more of the assessed value of all property within the district.
[C77, 79, 81, §386.5]
2019 Acts, ch 24, § 104
386.6 Improvements.
When a city proposes to construct an improvement the cost of which is to be paid or
financed under the provisions of this chapter, it must do so in accordance with the provisions
of this section, as follows:
1. The council shall initiate proceedings for a proposed improvement upon receipt of a
petition signed by at least twenty-five percent of all owners of property within the district
representing ownership of property with an assessed value of twenty-five percent or more of
the assessed value of all the property in the district.
2. Upon the receipt of such a petition the council shall notify the city planning
commission, if one exists, the metropolitan or regional planning commission, if one exists,
or the zoning commission, if one exists, in the order set forth in section 386.3, subsection 3.
Upon notification by the council, the commission shall prepare an evaluative report for the
council on the merit and feasibility of the improvement and carry out all other duties as set
forth in section 386.3, subsection 3. If no planning or zoning commission exists, the council
shall call a hearing on a proposed improvement upon receipt of a petition.
3. Upon the receipt of the commission's report the council shall set a time and place of
meeting at which the council proposes to take action on the proposed improvement and shall
publish and mail notice as provided in section 386.3, subsections 4 and 5.
4. The notice must include a statement that an improvement has been proposed, the
nature of the improvement, the source of payment of the cost of the improvement, and the
time and place of hearing.
5. At the time and place set in the notice the council shall hear all owners of property in
the district or residents of the city desiring to express their views. The council must wait at
least thirty days after the public hearing has been held before it may take action to order
construction of the improvement. The provisions of section 386.3, subsections 7 and 9,
relating to the adoption of the ordinance establishing a district, the requisite vote therefor,
the remonstrance thereto and the withdrawal of the entire matter from council consideration
apply to the adoption of the resolution ordering the construction of the improvement.
6. If the council orders the construction of the improvement, it shall proceed to let
contracts therefor in accordance with chapter 26.
Tue Nov 19 20:14:32 2024 Iowa Code 2025, Chapter 386 (22, 0)
§386.6, SELF -SUPPORTED MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
7. The adoption of a resolution ordering the construction of an improvement is a
legislative determination that the proposed improvement is in furtherance of the purposes
of the district and that all property in the district will be affected by the construction of
the improvement, or that all owners of property in the district have an interest in the
construction of the improvement.
8. Any resident or property owner of the city may appeal the action or decisions of the
council ordering the construction of the improvement to the district court of the county in
which any part of the district is located within thirty days after the adoption of the resolution
ordering construction of the improvement, but the action and decisions of the council are
final and conclusive unless the court finds that the council exceeded its authority. No action
may be brought questioning the regularity of the proceedings pertaining to the ordering of
the construction of an improvement, or the right of the city to apply moneys in the capital
improvement fund referred to in this chapter to the payment of the costs of the improvement,
or the right of the city to issue bonds referred to in this chapter for the payment of the costs of
the improvement, or the right of the city to levy taxes which with any other taxes authorized
by this chapter do not exceed the maximum rate of tax that may be imposed upon property
within the district for the payment of principal of and interest on bonds issued to pay the costs
of the improvement, after thirty days from the date of adoption of the resolution ordering
construction of the improvement.
9. The procedural steps contained in this section may be combined with the procedural
steps for the petitioning and creation of the district or the procedural steps for the
authorization of any tax or any combination thereof.
[C77, 79, 81, §386.6]
2007 Acts, ch 144, § 19
Referred to in §386.7, 386.13
386.7 Self-liquidating improvements.
When a city proposes to construct a self-liquidating improvement, the cost of which is to
be paid or financed under the provisions of this chapter, it must do so in accordance with the
provisions of this section as follows:
1. Section 386.6, subsections 1 through 5, are applicable to a self-liquidating improvement
to the same extent as they are applicable to an improvement and the proceedings initiating a
self-liquidating improvement shall be governed thereby.
2. Before the council may order the construction of a self-liquidating improvement, and
after hearing thereon, it must find that the self-liquidating improvement and the leasing of a
part or the whole of it to any person or governmental body will further the corporate purposes
of the city and will:
a. Aid in the commercial development of the district.
b. Further the interests of the district; or
c. Not substantially reduce the city's property tax base.
3. If the council orders the construction of the self-liquidating improvement, contracts for
the improvement shall be let in accordance with chapter 26.
4. The adoption of a resolution ordering the construction of a self-liquidating
improvement is a legislative determination that the proposed self-liquidating improvement
and the leasing of a part or the whole of it to any person or governmental body will further
the corporate purposes of the city and will:
a. Aid in the commercial development of the district.
b. Further the interests of the district; or
c. Not substantially reduce the city's property tax base.
5. A city may lease any or all of a self-liquidating improvement to any person or
governmental body.
6. A city may issue revenue bonds payable from the income and receipts derived from
the self -liquidated improvement. Chapter 384, subchapter V applies to revenue bonds
for self-liquidating improvements and the term "city enterprise" as used in chapter 384,
subchapter V, shall be deemed to include self-liquidating improvements authorized by this
chapter.
Tue Nov 19 20:14:32 2024 Iowa Code 2025, Chapter 386 (22, 0)
SELF -SUPPORTED MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS, §386.9
7. Any resident or property owner of the city may appeal a decision of the council
to order the construction of a self-liquidating improvement or to lease any or all of a
self-liquidating improvement to the district court of the county in which any part of the
district is located, within thirty days after the adoption of the resolution ordering the
self-liquidating improvement, but the action of the council is final and conclusive unless the
court finds that the council exceeded its authority.
8. No action may be brought questioning the regularity of the proceedings pertaining to
the ordering of the construction of a self-liquidating improvement after thirty days from the
date of adoption of the resolution ordering construction of the self-liquidating improvement.
No action may be brought questioning the regularity of the proceedings pertaining to the
leasing of any or all of a self-liquidating improvement after thirty days from the date of the
adoption of a resolution approving the proposed lease. In addition to the limitation contained
in section 384.92, no action may be brought which questions the legality of revenue bonds or
the power of the city to issue revenue bonds or the effectiveness of any proceedings relating
to the authorization and issuance of revenue bonds relating to a self-liquidating improvement
after thirty days from the time the bonds are ordered issued by the city.
9. The procedural steps contained in this section may be combined with the procedural
steps for the petitioning and creation of the district.
[C77, 79, 81, §386.7]
89 Acts, ch 83, §50; 2007 Acts, ch 144, §20; 2018 Acts, ch 1041, § 127; 2019 Acts, ch 24, §48;
2020 Acts, ch 1063, §204; 2021 Acts, ch 80, §240
386.8 Operation tax.
A city may establish a self -supported improvement district operation fund, and may certify
taxes not to exceed the rate limitation as established in the ordinance creating the district,
or any amendment thereto, each year to be levied for the fund against all of the property in
the district, for the purpose of paying the administrative expenses of the district, which may
include but are not limited to administrative personnel salaries, a separate administrative
office, planning costs including consultation fees, engineering fees, architectural fees, and
legal fees and all other expenses reasonably associated with the administration of the district
and the fulfilling of the purposes of the district. The taxes levied for this fund may also be
used for the purpose of paying maintenance expenses of improvements or self-liquidating
improvements for a specified length of time with one or more options to renew if such is
clearly stated in the petition which requests the council to authorize construction of the
improvement or self-liquidating improvement, whether or not such petition is combined
with the petition requesting creation of a district. Parcels of property which are assessed
as residential property for property tax purposes are exempt from the tax levied under this
section except residential properties within a duly designated historic district or property
classified as residential property under section 441.21, subsection 14, paragraph "a
subparagraph (6). A tax levied under this section is not subject to the levy limitation in
section 384.1.
[C77, 79, 81, §386.8]
85 Acts, ch 113, §2; 2021 Acts, ch 20, §1, 14, 15
2021 amendment applies to assessment years beginning on or after January 1, 2022; 2021 Acts, ch 20, §15
386.9 Capital improvement tax.
A city may establish a capital improvement fund for a district and may certify taxes, not
to exceed the rate established by the ordinance creating the district, or any subsequent
amendment thereto, each year to be levied for the fund against all of the property in the
district, for the purpose of accumulating moneys for the financing or payment of a part or
all of the costs of any improvement or self-liquidating improvement. However, parcels of
property which are assessed as residential property for property tax purposes are exempt
from the tax levied under this section except residential properties within a duly designated
historic district or property classified as residential property under section 441.21, subsection
Tue Nov 19 20:14:32 2024 Iowa Code 2025, Chapter 386 (22, 0)
§386.9, SELF -SUPPORTED MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
14, paragraph "a", subparagraph (6). A tax levied under this section is not subject to the levy
limitations in section 384.1 or 384.7.
[C77, 79, 81, §386.91
85 Acts, ch 113, §3; 2021 Acts, ch 20, §2, 14, 15
Referred to in §386.12
2021 amendment applies to assessment years beginning on or after January 1, 2022; 2021 Acts, ch 20, § 15
386.10 Debt service tax.
A city shall establish a self -supported municipal improvement district debt service
fund whenever any self -supported municipal improvement district bonds are issued and
outstanding, other than revenue bonds, and shall certify taxes to be levied against all of the
property in the district for the debt service fund in the amount necessary to pay interest
as it becomes due and the amount necessary to pay, or to create a sinking fund to pay,
the principal at maturity of all self -supported municipal improvement district bonds as
authorized in section 386.11, issued by the city. However, parcels of property which are
assessed as residential property for property tax purposes at the time of the issuance of
the bonds are exempt from the tax levied under this section until the parcels are no longer
assessed as residential property or until the residential properties are designated as a part
of a historic district or property classified as residential property under section 441.21,
subsection 14, paragraph "a", subparagraph (6).
[C77, 79, 81, §386.10]
85 Acts, ch 113, §4; 2021 Acts, ch 20, §3, 14, 15
Referred to in §386.11
2021 amendment applies to assessment years beginning on or after January 1, 2022; 2021 Acts, ch 20, § 15
386.11 Self -supported municipal improvement district bonds.
1. A city may issue and sell self -supported municipal improvement district bonds at
public or private sale payable from taxes which must be levied in accordance with chapter
76. The bonds are payable from the levy of unlimited ad valorem taxes on all the taxable
property within the district through the district debt service fund authorized by section
386.10. When self -supported municipal improvement district bonds are issued and taxes are
levied in accordance with chapter 76, the taxes shall continue to be levied, until the bonds
and interest thereon are paid in full, against all of the taxable property that was included in
the district at the time of the issuance of the bonds, regardless of any subsequent removal of
any property from the district or the dissolution of the district.
2. The proceeds of the sale of the bonds may be used to pay any or all of the costs
of any improvement, or be used to pay any legal indebtedness incurred for the cost of
any improvement including bonds or warrants previously issued to pay the costs of an
improvement, or bonds may be exchanged for the evidences of such legal indebtedness.
3. Before the council may institute proceedings for the issuance of bonds, it shall proceed
in the same manner as is required for the institution of proceedings for the issuance of bonds
for an essential corporate purpose as provided in section 384.25, subsection 2 and all of the
provisions of that subsection apply to bonds issued pursuant to this section.
4. A city may issue bonds authorized by this section pursuant to a resolution adopted
at a regular or special meeting by an affirmative vote of a majority of the total members to
which the council is entitled. The proceeds of a single bond issue may be used for various
improvements.
5. The provisions of sections 384.29, 384.30, and 384.31 apply to bonds issued pursuant
to this section, except that the bonds shall be designated "municipal improvement district
bonds".
6. No action may be brought which questions the legality of bonds issued pursuant to
this section or the power of a city to issue the bonds or the effectiveness of any proceedings
relating to the authorization and issuance of the bonds after thirty days from the time the
bonds are ordered issued by the city.
[C77, 79, 81, §386.11]
Referred to in §386.10, 386.12
Tue Nov 19 20:14:32 2024 Iowa Code 2025, Chapter 386 (22, 0)
SELF -SUPPORTED MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS, §386.14
386.12 Payment for improvements.
The costs of improvements may be paid from any of the following sources or a combination
thereof:
1. The capital improvement fund referred to in section 386.9.
2. The proceeds of bonds referred to in section 386.11.
3. Any other funds of the city which are legally available to pay all or a portion of the
cost of an improvement. The fact that an improvement is initiated under the provisions of
this chapter, or any of the costs of an improvement or any part of an improvement are being
paid under the provisions of this chapter, shall not preclude the city from paying any costs
of an improvement from any fund from which it might otherwise have been able to pay such
costs. In addition, and not in limitation of the foregoing, any improvement which constitutes
an essential corporate purpose or a general corporate purpose as defined in section 384.24,
subsections 3 and 4, may be financed in whole or in part with the proceeds of the issuance of
general obligation bonds of the city pursuant to the provisions of chapter 384, subchapter III.
4. Payment for the costs of an improvement may also be made in warrants drawn on any
fund from which payment for the improvement may be made. If such funds are depleted,
anticipatory warrants may be issued bearing a rate of interest not exceeding that permitted
by chapter 74A, which do not constitute a violation of section 384.10, even if the collection
of taxes or income from the sale of bonds applicable to the improvement is after the end
of the fiscal year in which the warrants are issued. If the city arranges for the private
sale of anticipatory warrants, they may be sold and the proceeds used to pay the costs of
the improvement. Such warrants may be used to pay other persons furnishing services
constituting a part of the cost of the improvement.
[C77, 79, 81, §386.12]
2018 Acts, ch 1041, §127
386.13 Parking fee abatements.
A city may apply moneys in the operation fund of the district to prepay parking fees at any
city parking facility located in or used in conjunction with the district but only after notice and
hearing as required by section 386.6. The authority to prepay such fees shall exist only for the
period of time set out in the notice to owners and in the resolution of the council authorizing
the application of funds for that purpose. Upon the application of sufficient amounts of
prepaid fees, the city need not charge individual users of the parking facility. Before adopting
a resolution authorizing the application of funds for such purpose, the council must find that
the application will further the purposes of the district, including but not limited to increasing
the commercial activity in the district.
[C77, 79, 81, §386.13]
386.14 Independent provisions.
The provisions of this chapter with respect to notice, hearing and appeal for the
construction of improvements and self-liquidating improvements and the issuance and sale
of bonds are in lieu of the provisions contained in chapters 73A and 75, or any other law,
unless specifically referred to and made applicable by this chapter.
[C77, 79, 81, §386.14]
Tue Nov 19 20:14:32 2024 Iowa Code 2025, Chapter 386 (22, 0)
r /�
� .® CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
To: City Council DRAFT
From: Scott Quellhorst, Chair, Planning & Zoning Commission
Date: October 15, 2025
Re: Evaluative Report on a Proposed South District Self -Supported Municipal
Improvement District (SSMID)
The City has received, and City Council has forwarded for our review, a petition by property
owners for a proposed renewed and expanded Downtown Iowa City Self -Supported Municipal
Improvement District (SSMID) district. The petition requests the renewal and expansion of the
existing Iowa City Downtown SSMID.
Iowa Code states that the SSMID petition must be signed by at least 25% of the property owners
and representing at least 25% of the assessed value of the proposed district. Staff verified the
petition filed on September 12, 2025 meets these two thresholds and notified City Council of the
receipt of the petition.
Next, Iowa Code requires the Planning & Zoning Commission 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 October 15, 2025, the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval and forwarding
this review to the City Council for their further consideration of the Downtown Iowa City SSMID.
The following is a review and our determination of the proposed Downtown Iowa City SSMID's
merit and feasibility.
1. Whether the property in the proposed district meets all the criteria established in Section
386.3(1):
• The Iowa City Downtown SSMID ( also herein referred to as the "District') petition
appears to meet the minimum requirements of Iowa Code Section 386.3(1), which
states that a district shall: a) "[b]e compromised of contiguous property... zoned for
commercial or industrial uses" and be "located wholly within the boundaries of the
city, b) [b]e given a descriptive name containing the words 'self-supporting municipal
improvement district', and c) be comprised of property related in some manner...."
• The 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 District is
entitled "Iowa City Downtown Self -Supported Municipal Improvement District."
Finally, the property within the District is related in that it is physically located in Iowa
City, is contiguous, and serves as a commercial hub for the community.
2. Whether 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:
October 10, 2025
Page 2
• The District petition provides detailed explanations of DRAFT
the proposed operations of the SSMID and the
requirements of SSMID property owners.
Staff has reviewed the petition and verified 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. Whether the petition sufficiently describes the boundaries of the district or provides a
consolidated description of the property contained therein:
• The petition provides a legal description of the boundaries of the District, and a map
indicating the parcels of land included within the District per Iowa Code Section
386.3(2) (b).
4. Whether a maximum rate of tax that may be imposed upon the property within the
district and the purposes for which it may be levied are set forth;
The District petition establishes a maximum tax rate of $2.50 per $1,000 of assessed
value for the first seven years of the authorization, and a maximum tax rate of $2.75
per $1,000 of assessed value for the remaining three years. 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 District.
5. Whether 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 on Page 2, the petition states that the purpose of the District is to
provide for new, additional or enhanced services within the District. In particular, the
petition details how revenues collected for the District Operating Fund may be used
in support of the provision of services, physical or capital improvements, and hiring of
an Executive Director and staff.
6. Whether the proposed district or improvements would 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 operations, services, and improvements that can occur under the proposed
District do not appear to conflict with any existing laws, plans or policies.
October 10, 2025
Page 3
DRAFT
The District overlaps with the City -University Urban
Renewal Area. Under previous authorizations and as
proposed for renewal, the SSMID petition does not conflict with the goals or
purposes of this Urban Renewal Area. The petition outlines how tax revenue
captured by TIF shall be reimbursed back to the Proposed District.
7. Whether the taxes proposed, if any, will be sufficient to pay the anticipated costs or other
expenses.
• The revenue generated from the proposed SSMID would be approximately
$1,00,000 per year. This amount would be sufficient to adequately staff the
organization, and to cover costs associated with marketing, projects, programs,
services, and improvements in the District.
8. Whether the formation of the district is consistent with or in furtherance of other
identifiable City policies or goals:
• One of the principal goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to foster an environment in
the Downtown area that is attractive to new employers, is pedestrian -oriented, and
has strong cultural, commercial, and residential character.
• The Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan clearly outlines a number of
aligned goals and priorities for investment in the downtown, south downtown, and
central crossings areas covered by the proposed District boundaries.
• The City Council Strategic Plan includes several goals and priorities related to
establishing Iowa City as a strong business community, cultivating the business
ecosystem, partnering for desirable development, and creating inviting and active
outdoor spaces for the community.
• The District petition states that one of the purposes of the SSMID is to provide
physical enhancements to improve the image and appearance of the District,
including lighting, signage, landscaping, and public art.
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
• The means to implement the proposal appear reasonably calculated to accomplish the
Proposed District objectives.
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 27, 2025 —6:00 PM —FORMAL MEETING
E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kaleb Beining, James Davies, Maggie Elliott, Steve Miller, Billie
Townsend, Chad Wade
MEMBERS ABSENT: Scott Quellhorst
STAFF PRESENT: Liz Craig, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Jackson Taylor, Kory May, James W. May, Jr., Mary Knudson,
Anna Buss, Jon Marner, Lindsay Park, Paula Swygard
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of CPA25-0002, an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan future land use map from Public/Semi-Public to Residential 16-24 du/acre
and the Southwest District Plan future land use map from Public Services/Institutional to Medium
to High Density Multi -Family for approximately 9.9 acres of land located at 611 Greenwood
Drive.
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ25-0010, a request to rezone
approximately 9.90 acres of land located at 611 Greenwood Drive to Medium Density Multi -
Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM20) zone subject to the
following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, installation of a 10' wide pedestrian
connection and dedication of an associated public access easement along the eastern
portion of the property to extend from W. Benton Street to Greenwood Drive. Pedestrian
path shall also include pedestrian scale lighting to be reviewed and approved by the City
during the site plan review process. Lighting shall be installed and maintained by the
Owner.
2. Vehicular access to the site from W. Benton Street is restricted to emergency vehicles
only.
3. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, installation of a raised crosswalk across
Greenwood Drive near the entrance to the site subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer.
4. As part of the site plan approval, ensure that the design of the access drive from
Greenwood Drive to the subject property is at or near a 90-degree angle subject to review
and approval by the City Engineer.
5. Increase from S2 to S3 screening along the eastern parking lot.
CALL TO ORDER:
Elliott called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 27, 2025
Page 2 of 20
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEMS:
CASE NO. CPA25-0002:
Location: 611 Greenwood Drive; Former Roosevelt Elementary School
A public hearing to consider an amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan future land use
map from Public/Semi-Public to Residential 16-24 DU/Acre and the Southwest District Plan
future land use map from Public Services/Institutional to Medium to High Density Multi -Family for
approximately 9.9 acres of property.
Russett stated this amendment would be a change from the public designation to a multifamily
designation. She shared an aerial photograph of the subject property, to the south is West
Benton Street and to the north is Greenwood Drive. The current zoning is Neighborhood Public
(P-1), there is some single family to the east, as well as some multifamily to the east. Across
Greenwood Drive is also some single family zoning and some multifamily zoning. There are a
couple of parks in the area, so some additional public zoning to the south and to the north.
In terms of background, Russett explained this is the former Roosevelt Elementary School. The
property was sold by the Iowa City Community School District in 2021 and was purchased by a
private affordable housing developer who is requesting the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
change the land use designation for the 9.9 acres from the Public designation to Residential 16
to 24 dwelling units per acre in the IC 2030 Plan, and to Medium to High Density Multi -Family in
the Southwest District Plan.
The applicants did hold a good neighbor meeting on May 29 and a summary of that meeting was
provided in the agenda packet.
Russett stated there are two criteria that staff looks at when evaluating a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, the first is that circumstances have changed and the second is that the proposed
amendment aligns with other policies and provisions in the Comprehensive Plan. In terms of that
first criteria, this was the former Roosevelt Elementary School site and is no longer a school. The
school was closed in 2012 and after that closure it was still operated as an educational center
until 2019 and then in 2021 the School District sold the property to TWG. The building is
currently vacant. This proposed amendment recognizes the change in ownership from a public
entity to a private entity and it creates more opportunities for much needed residential
development in the community.
The second criteria is that the proposed amendment is compatible with other policies and
provisions in the Comprehensive Plan. Russett explained the IC 2030 Plan was adopted when
the Roosevelt Educational Center was still fully operational, aligning with that existing land use.
Additionally, the Plan recognizes the importance of having a diversity of housing options within
the community and within all neighborhoods. There are also multiple land use goals and
strategies that speak to the importance of infill development and redeveloping properties that
have access to infrastructure and transit within the community. There are housing goals that talk
about ensuring a mix of housing, supporting infill development and concentrating new
development in areas that are contiguous with existing neighborhoods and there's also
sustainability related goals that again speak to discouraging sprawl and promoting infill
development.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 27, 2025
Page 3 of 20
Staff has received four pieces of correspondence related to this Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, one of those letters was in opposition to the proposed amendment.
Staff recommends approval of CPA25-0002, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan future
land use map from Public/Semi-Public to Residential 16-24 du/acre and the Southwest District
Plan future land use map from Public Services/Institutional to Medium to High Density Multi -
Family for approximately 9.9 acres of land located at 611 Greenwood Drive.
In terms of next steps, the public hearing at City Council has already been set for September 2.
Miller asked if there are any special considerations or additional conversations at a staff level
when moving land from a more public service to residential other than just recognizing that
they're losing a public facing asset. Russett noted there are some additional things that will be
discussed within the rezoning application, such as pedestrian connectivity.
Elliott opened the public hearing.
Jackson Taylor (Senior Development Director, TWG Development) stated they believe this
project will make a meaningful impact on housing in Iowa City. They're proposing 187 units of
affordable multifamily housing located at 611 Greenwood Drive. This project is designed to serve
working families, seniors and individuals who are currently struggling to find safe, stable,
affordable housing and this development will provide long term affordability while enhancing the
surrounding area. Taylor first gave some background on TWG, they've been around for the last
18 years focused exclusively on building housing that strengthens communities, and the majority
of that is affordable housing. Over that 18 year span they've developed over 11,500 units
nationally, $2.5 billion in transaction costs, and are in 23 states. Out of those 23 states, their
home base is in Indianapolis, but the first state they expanded to, and actually their second
largest presence is in Iowa and are here quite frequently. They pride themselves on thoughtful
design, community engagement and bringing long term assets to the neighborhoods they serve.
The current project's working name is Roosevelt Ridge and Roosevelt Ridge will include dog
parks, it'll be designed to NGBS Silver standards where potential tenant amenities include a
fitness center and in -unit washer and dryer. There are also community amenities nearby, such
as close proximity to transportation and all the things that make a project great. Taylor noted
they've worked very closely with Iowa City Planning and incorporated a pretty extensive planning
process. As previously mentioned, they purchased the project back in 2021 which was in the
heat of covid and throughout that time the economics have changed quite a bit so the project has
changed a little bit. However, throughout each of those iterations and revisions they've been very
thankful to staff and the planning team and it was actually, all told, a great experience and now
what they're presenting they feel really incorporates community values and the community's
priorities at this time. Therefore, to make this vision a reality, they are requesting a rezoning and
a change to the Comprehensive Plan. Taylor stated these changes are essential to allow for the
density and layout needed to support affordability while maintaining compatibility with the
surrounding area. He acknowledged they understand the importance of responsible growth and
are committed to being a transparent and collaborative partner throughout this process.
Ultimately, this project is about creating opportunity, giving families a chance to live in quality
housing they can afford, in a neighborhood where they can thrive. They respectfully ask for
support in approving the rezoning request and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment so they can
move forward in building a more inclusive and resilient future for Iowa City.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 27, 2025
Page 4 of 20
Kory May (612 West Benton Street) is speaking on behalf of his mother and siblings. He stated
he wears a size 15 shoe so he knows what it is like to search for something that fits, not just
something that looks good, but that supports, protects, and lets you move freely. May stated
Benton Street has shaped itself over decades to fit the lives of families like his and the Roosevelt
Ridge proposal as it stands feels like a shoe that wasn't made for this block. It might be well
intentioned, but it doesn't match the contours of the community and feels shoehorned in. He
wanted to make two points, first are the traffic patterns from Benton Street and Riverside Drive to
Sunset Street, there are no traffic lights. And then down Greenwood Drive, the only traffic lights
are at Riverside and Myrtle and to the north, those are on Melrose and Melrose Park. The
second point is there are children and elderly in the area. The children at Early Explorers
Daycare on Greenwood, and just above that is Briarwood, so there is not the capacity for more.
May stated they want to protect the soul of their home, his mother has lived next door to
Roosevelt School for almost 70 years. May, as well as his siblings, graduated from Roosevelt,
and it was a sad moment to see Roosevelt close. This is where his family has walked and lived
and grown for three generations. What they're asking for is thoughtful adjustments, like moving
parking further away from their property, and because all of the property is set toward the east
side, and managing drainage responsibly. There is one drainage opening on Benton Street Hill
from the north side of Miller all the way to the top of the hill. That's right in front of 600 West
Benton Street where the Coopers formerly lived. They are also asking for buffering light and
sound, if parking is supposed to be on the east side of the property the light and sound is going
to be coming toward their property and even into their home. That's problematic. May stated a
good shoe supports without squeezing and development should do the same. There are a
proposed 187 units with 113 parking spaces. Doing the math, if every person in there has a car
that's 315 cars for 113 parking spaces, the math doesn't math. They need to balance size with
support. May stated this isn't a case of not in my backyard, they support affordable housing and
inclusive growth, but when a project is too big for the infrastructure beneath it, it stumbles.
They've all seen what happens when you cram a foot into the wrong size shoe, it hurts the foot
and ruins the shoe. This proposal as currently designed does not fit the neighborhood's scale,
rhythm or infrastructure. In conclusion, if the Roosevelt Ridge project doesn't fit, they must not
permit.
James W. May, Jr. (612 West Benton Street) stated his dad bought the property at 612 West
Benton Street when he was five years old and he lived there up until 20 some. There are two
things that he would like to express. Number one, along the east side of Roosevelt School
there's usually parking for football games and a lot of money is made doing that. There's a fence
and then there's his mom's property, but there is so much trash after almost every football game.
He realizes there's an easy solution to that, garbage cans, some people use them, some people
don't, but if that's all parking and it's already going on, it's going to go on and he would presume
more, so that's a concern. When he goes out and cuts the grass and polices the area he has to
take a garbage can or a bag with him in order to be able to take care of the property. Number
two, they use very little fertilizer and try to use natural minerals for the property to have the
property fallow as much as possible, because if someone wants to go out there and work it, they
can have their own garden. The caveat of that is that there's walnut trees there, and there's a
substance that they put out called juglone and there's certain properties that juglone affects as
far as the oxygen in the soil that the plants allowed to use. They have a variety of urbanized
wildlife, from deer, possum, voles, moles, raccoons, groundhogs, squirrels, not even to talk about
the birds, they have bald eagles that come and sit in the trees there. May is not sure how this
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 27, 2025
Page 5 of 20
development would affect their property but doesn't exactly feel that it would be all that good so
he appreciates the time to be able to express these concerns. He noted Iowa City has certain
laws and has passed ordinances that support that and maybe things will be changed, and maybe
they won't, but he wanted to be able to express this and have someone at least consider this.
May acknowledged it's good having these things for people and affordable housing and good
parking, but these things are already there and he's not sure how they would still be affected.
The animals come next to the house and lay down during the day, even if someone's out there
working and they'll just sit, they feel safe, they're urbanized wildlife and he just wanted their voice
to be heard.
Mary Knudson (725 West Benton Street) lives directly across from where they are planning to
build and wanted to note she is particularly concerned about the parking. There's not a lot of on -
street parking around Roosevelt so if they have 113 parking spots, and that many people living in
those spaces, where will everybody park. To think everybody will take a bus that doesn't have a
parking spot is unlikely. If they have to find parking, they have to go down the hill and find a spot
down on Miller, because on Greenwood there is no parking on the street. Another thing she
wanted to mention is just the number of people. Has Benton Street been looked at for a traffic
report, to note the cars that are going to be exiting onto Greenwood perhaps going up to Benton
Street, and to look at the dynamics on Benton Street to see what will happen. Finally, she
wanted to say something about the park, Benton Hill Park, she was on that committee and they
knew that they didn't have enough green space for the neighborhood but Roosevelt School was
in existence then so Roosevelt School's playground was for older kids, like kindergarten and
above, and then the Benton Hill Park would be for the younger kids. She is now concerned about
this won't be enough green space for the neighborhood and the housing development.
Anna Buss (525 West Benton Street) stated she has lived in that neighborhood for 40 years and
has watched what happens with the traffic, and the traffic is really horrendous. They refer to
Miller and Hudson as the Miller and Hudson 500 because people come off the Highway to avoid
the stop signs and other things. Putting this amount of traffic on Benton Street, and it will end up
there, there is no way to divert the traffic so no matter what it's going to end up on Benton Street,
and that is a dangerous enough street the way it is. She has seen this happen time and time
again, every time something else is added the traffic is worse. Buss would just wish that they
would consider, if nothing else, downsizing it so there's not so much traffic.
Elliott closed the public hearing.
Miller moves to recommend approval of CPA25-0002, an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan future land use map from Public/Semi-Public to Residential 16-24
du/acre and the Southwest District Plan future land use map from Public
Services/Institutional to Medium to High Density Multi -Family for approximately 9.9 acres
of land located at 611 Greenwood Drive.
Wade seconded the motion.
Davies asked about things Mr. May brought up about like traffic lights or parking. Russett stated
that would be discussed next as part of the rezoning, right now they're considering the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 27, 2025
Page 6 of 20
Townsend noted her mother-in-law is at Briarwood right now and the traffic in that area is not that
great, and there needs to be something done with that. She noted having the Roosevelt property
be 9.9 acres of affordable housing sounds like an amazing idea and is in full agreement of that.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
REZONING ITEMS:
CASE NO. REZ25-0010:
Location: 611 Greenwood Drive; Former Roosevelt Elementary School
An application for a rezoning of approximately 9.9 acres of land from Neighborhood Public (P-1)
zone to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential Zone with a Planned Development Overlay
(OPD-RM-20).
Russett stated this is the rezoning of the same property just discussed from Neighborhood Public
(P-1) zone to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential Zone with a Planned Development
Overlay (OPD-RM-20). Again, the zoning map shows multifamily zoning and single family zoning
and public zoning surrounding the subject property. She stated the applicant is proposing 187
units of housing, all of which would be affordable if they secure those low income housing tax
credits (LIHTC) which they are currently seeking. Their application to the State for those low
income tax credits would make this a 100% affordable housing project.
Russett shared some photographs of the property noting the change in topography on the
property and the ravine and woodland. She also noted where there is an existing pedestrian
crosswalk.
The current zone is Neighborhood Public (P-1) and Russett explained the purpose of that zone is
really for governmental property which allows for schools, parks, police and fire stations, other
civic buildings that have governmental purposes. The proposed zoning is Medium Density Multi -
Family Residential Zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD-RM-20) and the Planned
Development Overlay is due to some impacts to sensitive features, particularly the slopes on the
property. She stated there are multiple approval criteria that staff looks at for Planned
Development Overlay rezoning. The first is related to density and design. The allowed density in
the proposed zone is 24 dwelling units per acre, and the proposed density is 18.8 dwelling units
per acre, so they are within that requirement. Russett next explained the difference between a
regular rezoning and a Planned Development Overlay is that the rezoning is actually tied to this
Plan and any development on this property must substantially comply with this Plan. If there are
any substantial changes it has to go through the rezoning process again. Russett shared the site
plan of the proposed building, it's one building with 187 units. There's a courtyard in the center,
there is parking to the rear of the building, and then there's parking on the eastern side of the
property. The building is set back 40 feet from West Benton Street and the building has a large
setback due to the location of that parking lot from the eastern property line. Staff worked with
the applicant to address some concerns related to pedestrian connectivity. They originally
explored having a sidewalk along Greenwood Drive but that was not possible due to the ravine
and the topography so they worked with the applicant to incorporate a north/south pedestrian
connection to provide a connection from Greenwood to Benton and there's two routes, there's an
accessible route that is a little bit longer due to the topography, that connects Benton to
Greenwood, and then there's a non -accessible entrance to that pedestrian way that incorporates
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 27, 2025
Page 7 of 20
stairs up from Benton Street. Staff is recommending a couple of conditions related to that. One is
the installation of that 10-foot wide pedestrian connection, the incorporation of a public access
easement and then pedestrian scale lighting.
Related to open space, Russett noted the plan incorporates a courtyard which has a playground
and an open space area as well as some seating. She also noted on the plan where the dog
park is located. The applicant has incorporated screening along the eastern property line to
screen that parking lot from the neighboring property owners and they've incorporated some
street trees to the south. Access to the property will be limited only to Greenwood Drive. There is
an access off of Benton Street but staff is recommending a condition that access is only available
for emergency vehicles.
The applicant is also requesting a waiver from the height standards to increase the maximum
height from 35 feet to 42 feet. Russett showed more renderings of the buildings and the
elevations. The proposed building incorporates some design aspects that mimic town homes
with separate entrances, the building also incorporates a step back between the second and
third stories to help break up the mass of the building. There are design features also related to
articulation and different building materials and changes in roof lines will help break up the scale.
The next criteria is that development will not overburden existing streets and utilities. Russett
noted the property can be served by existing sanitary sewer and water infrastructure. Staff did
request that a traffic study was prepared as part of this rezoning and it determined that the
proposed development would result in 86am peak hour trips and 82pm peak hour trips, and that
the surrounding streets would still operate at an acceptable capacity and level of service despite
the increased traffic. However, staff is recommending a couple of conditions. One is to install a
raised crosswalk on Greenwood Drive. The raised crosswalk would help to slow down speeds
and also provide a better pedestrian connection for those people walking in the community. The
other condition is that the access drive to Greenwood be at or near a 90 degree angle, subject to
the review of the City Engineer.
The next criteria is that development will not adversely affect views, property values and privacy
of neighboring properties. In terms of the surrounding the neighborhood Russett explained it is a
mix. There's multifamily development, there's single family and there's even nonresidential uses
with the early childhood education center and the long-term care facility. She noted there is a
single family home that abuts the subject property to the east but the proposed building is set
back approximately 140 feet from that eastern property line. The parking area is in that location,
but it will be screened with some plantings. Russett noted there's also a significant grade change
between the location of the proposed building and the existing home. Development to the north
and to the west is buffered by the existing ravine. The homes to the south are across from the
West Benton Street public right of way.
The fourth criteria is that land use and building types will be in the public interest. Russett stated
this proposal not only incorporates multifamily housing but aims to provide more affordable
housing within the community. For the most part, it also protects the ravine and the woodland,
and it would be redeveloping an underutilized site that's been vacant since 2019.
In terms of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the Commission just considered that
amendment and this proposal would align with the new designation of multifamily. Again, there's
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 27, 2025
Page 8 of 20
multiple goals and strategies within the Comprehensive Plan that align with this proposal related
to compact and efficient development and redevelopment, discouraging sprawl. In terms of
compatibility with the existing neighborhood, again there really is a mix of land uses, there's
single family to the north, there's multifamily to the west, there's nonresidential uses to the east,
some single family to the east and the existing City park to the south with another City park to the
north. This existing ravine and woodland would largely remain untouched. There are slopes,
woodlands and wetlands on the site so that is why the Planned Development Overlay is required,
Russett noted there are some slopes that were human made, which will be impacted but the
natural protected slopes on the site would not be impacted. 61.5% of the woodlands would be
retained and that does not include the 50 foot buffer that they are also incorporating into the
project. Russett stated there are a couple of wetlands on the property and the applicant has
reached out to the Army Corps to see if those are jurisdictional wetlands and whether or not they
would be regulated by the city of Iowa City. They do not have that determination yet but the
project would not impact any of the wetlands that exist on the site. The applicant is also generally
maintaining the existing buffers on the site for those wetlands but the required buffers for
wetlands cannot be met on this site because of the existing driveway and the existing parking
area so that's essentially non -conforming and would remain as is.
Staff has received the four pieces of correspondence that related both to the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment and this rezoning, one in particular being in opposition to the rezoning.
Staff recommends approval of REZ25-0010, a request to rezone approximately 9.90 acres of
land located at 611 Greenwood Drive to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential with a Planned
Development Overlay (OPD/RM20) zone subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, installation of a 10' wide pedestrian
connection and dedication of an associated public access easement along the eastern
portion of the property to extend from W. Benton Street to Greenwood Drive. Pedestrian
path shall also include pedestrian scale lighting to be reviewed and approved by the City
during the site plan review process. Lighting shall be installed and maintained by the
Owner.
2. Vehicular access to the site from W. Benton Street is restricted to emergency vehicles
only.
3. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, installation of a raised crosswalk across
Greenwood Drive near the entrance to the site subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer.
4. As part of the site plan approval, ensure that the design of the access drive from
Greenwood Drive to the subject property is at or near a 90-degree angle subject to review
and approval by the City Engineer.
Elliott asked about the 90 degree angle drive angle and is the new drive going to be currently
where the old drive is. Russett explained they are going to have to reposition it so it's more at a
90 degree angle but it's going to be generally in the same location. They just want for safety
purposes, that it's perpendicular.
Elliott asked about the buffering that would be particular to the May's house, what level is that.
Russett stated it would be S2 screening, which is between three and five feet high.
Elliott asked about the lighting. Russett stated the pedestrian lighting will need to be certain
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 27, 2025
Page 9 of 20
height and because of the adjacent single family the applicant will have to meet the City lighting
standards to not have any spillover onto the neighboring property.
Elliott noted traffic has been brought up and her interpretation is the study showed that the traffic
generated by this new building would not be enough to make any alterations in the current road
conditions, like more stop signs or anything like that. Russett confirmed that's correct. Elliott
asked if there is a time that the City can come back and re -look at this and see what the effect is,
or do they just look to see if there's more accidents. Russett acknowledged for things like stop
signs and traffic signals they have to be warranted, and there's certain standards that need to be
met for those to be installed. She can't say at which point something would trigger a new stop
sign or anything like that.
Wade stated sticking with the traffic patterns asked for more detail on the decision to exit to the
north rather than on Benton Street. Russett explained it is the City's policy generally to try to
restrict access onto arterials, and since this property has another access, on Greenwood Drive,
that was the rationale to restrict it, and they can still meet the fire code standards by providing
that emergency access off of Benton Street.
Davies asked what would happen if someone's parking in those spots by the Benton Street
access. Russett stated there will be a gate there.
Beining noted there were some concerns brought up about sustainability and the naturalness of
the area so he was just wondering if there's any intention or an opportunity to install sustainable
planting, such as a rain garden or bioswale within that courtyard area. Russett stated that is not
being proposed at this point and the zoning code would not require that, they will be required to
meet the stormwater management standards as part of the site plan review, but they can meet
that through other methods.
Townsend had several questions, one is regarding the actual driveway onto the property that
goes up to this new structure, if turning out of this driveway on the left there is the childcare
center and then straight up the hill is Briarwood so now there are not only two but three different
driveways coming out and no stoplight and no stop signs. She knows it's a problem is because
they go there almost every day and already it's a concern when the people are picking up their
kids from the daycare. Now they're going to have 187 units of maybe 300 people coming down
that entryway to Greenwood and not have them using the Benton Street driveway. Is all that
traffic on Greenwood feasible. Russett stated based on the traffic study the streets will still
operate at an acceptable level of service.
Townsend noted that traffic study was done before occupancy of the big unit on Myrtle and
Riverside so are they going to reassess it after the full occupancy of that Myrtle property. Russett
cannot say how the City approaches that, but for the purposes of this rezoning there are no
traffic signals warranted and there are no stop signs warranted because of the proposed
development.
Townsend asked regarding the affordable housing, how long is that for. Russett stated that's a
question for the applicant. Townsend also noted affordable housing based on the formula they're
currently using is $1,000 for a family. Russett stated that is established by the state of Iowa for
LITHC, not the City. Townsend noted that really is not affordable for most people that need
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 27, 2025
Page 10 of 20
affordable housing
Miller asked if Russett could illuminate some of the conversations that staff has had with the
development team in regards to the public open space and the access agreement, the intention
of that 40 foot buffer, and that 10 foot sidewalk. Russett stated the 40 foot buffer toward Benton
Street is the standard setback for an arterial street. Davies noted then there is a 10 foot public
access easement for the sidewalk so his concern is the neighborhood losing an important asset
in terms of public open space so what conversations were had in terms of restoring that or
providing some sort of public open space. Russett noted there are two parks that are within
walking distance of the proposed project.
Townsend stated another concern is they tear down the school and build a three story building
that's going to look like a palace on the hill, is that fitting into the neighborhood. Russett noted
there are some homes to the north but the ravine is probably going to obscure the building.
Wade noted the basketball court always got used a lot at Roosevelt and he doesn't see any kind
of outdoor activity. He also asked if there is any kind of entrance signage on Benton Street
prohibiting using that drive. Russett reiterated there will be a gate there. Wade noted to the
earlier point on Briarwood, it is a very close double drive entrance, which is probably going to
create a little bit of confusion or some turnaround activity.
Miller went back to the question about the two driveways close to each other and the traffic
study, were the uses and driveways acknowledged. He pointed out on page 33 of the traffic
study it showed a couple potential site driveway improvements, where it made it more
perpendicular so is that what is being proposed back to the design team to revise their drawings.
Russett confirmed the condition staff is recommending is to make sure it's perpendicular to
Greenwood.
Beining is concerned about codifying that closure onto Benton Street and does it present an
issue on Greenwood, he would just like to be able to revisit that and maybe having that be a
condition of the redevelopment. Russett stated the City Engineer and transportation planner
would state having access onto Benton would create the problems. Again, with any development
in the City they avoid access onto an arterial street if possible.
Elliott opened the public hearing.
Jon Marner (MMS Consultants) are the civil engineering team working with TWG on this project.
Taylor did a great job earlier of covering their vision for the property, their experience with this
type of development, both in Indiana and Iowa and in the region. Marner will try to address some
of the questions. Regarding the intersection for the entrance onto Greenwood Drive, as opposed
to Benton Street, one of the constraints with Benton Street was how to enter, the entrance at the
current Roosevelt School, where there it's centered on the hill, it is part ways downhill and that's
not an ideal location. Further to the west is too close to the crest of the hill and also closer to the
Greenwood Drive intersection. Because it's an arterial road they don't want to have those two
street connections or those entrances too close together. To another point, some of the concerns
that were expressed routing traffic on the Benton, while they understand the concerns about all
the traffic going to Greenwood, and that connection, routing traffic onto Benton would potentially
amplify some of the other concerns from the neighbors, as far as traffic and the speeds and
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 27, 2025
Page 11 of 20
going up and down the hill, and that traffic going onto Miller and Hudson, so all of those were
conversations that were had with staff in planning to come to the appropriate solution. The
entrance onto Greenwood Drive, as the traffic studies mentions, and is one of the conditions that
specified, there is an opportunity there to do that raised crosswalk. If there's not a stoplight there
that raised crosswalk can help slow speeds, and it helps draws attention to pedestrians and
people entering and exiting from those sites. So it serves for both protecting pedestrians and
also serves to help delineate to vehicular traffic that there's entrances there and slows them
down. Regarding the parking and the building placement Marner stated one of the things they
worked with staff was the discussion to place the building closer to the existing school location,
or to slide it farther to the east, or to put the parking to the east and after a lot of back and forth
between staff and the development team they all came to the same conclusion that the best
option would be to have in its current location as it reduces the impact of the building itself from
the neighborhood to the east and to the south. Marner understands the concerns with the
parking that's why City code requires the screening that's needed along that east side to address
some of those concerns. Lastly, Marner discussed the setback from Benton Street, they do meet
the 40 foot setback in the southwest corner but most of the rest of the building, all the way along
the length of Benton Street, is actually set back an additional 40 to 50 feet so that reduces the
impact to the Benton Street corridor by pushing the building back further. He acknowledged
there's also building design elements that the architect worked with City staff on, and they tried to
incorporate varied roof lines, low roof lines, similar to prairie style architecture to try to match the
grade going down Benton Street. He stated that's the part of the vision behind the setback
between the second the third stories as well, and then again those roof lines vary and they start
to reduce the building height as they approach the eastern side of the property. Marner stated
with regards to the wetland buffer and the sensitive areas, the existing drive is the preexisting
condition and they're generally putting the road back in the same location that the existing drive
is. If they tried to move the existing drive or the proposed entrance to a different location, in
addition to the potential impacts to the wetlands, they would also have to remove quite a few
trees and impact some of those sensitive grades. If they tried to fit another drive entrance
through that location it would take out one of the valuable components of this site, which is that
wooded area and the ravine. There are paths through there, some trail systems, that can still be
beneficial for the residents of this project.
Jackson Taylor (Senior Development Director, TWG Development) wanted to address the point
about the area median incomes and the way that those are calculated to make sure everyone
was clear about the affordability component of this project. It is very geographic specific and it's
based on US census data each year. It is also the median income, not the mean income, so
there is no averaging or outliers skewing it way up with high earning income individuals. Once
they set the median income statistically whatever that baseline median is, they have to be below
even further a percentage of that. To give an example with very round numbers, if the mean is
$100,000 then a 60% AMI household would be restricted to earning $60,000 and the rents
themselves, the benchmark standard as far as housing affordability, is that housing should not
take up any more than 1/3 of an individual's income, a lot of that's incorporated into some of the
underwriting standards as well for compliance and tenant approvals.
Townsend asked for Iowa City aren't they using the HUD formula which for a family of four it was
somewhere around $90,000 Taylor doesn't want to say anything's incorrect without having all
that information in front of him so he doesn't want to comment on that. He just wanted it to be on
record that that is the affordability they're talking about.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 27, 2025
Page 12 of 20
Regarding how long the affordability will last, Taylor stated when they receive these tax credits
they're required to buy, hold, own, and operate these properties for 15 years. Beyond that 15
years they also have an additional 15 year compliance period. That means during the initial 15
years they're totally locked into the property. If within that time period they were to mess up their
tax credit commitments or potentially try to sell the property to someone else, the property would
actually lose its tax credits, which through the IRS would be a total disaster for any deal because
they have investors who come in, and there's personal guarantees that get signed. The
extended use period is an additional 15 year period where IFA, the state agency, will award a
project these affordable housing tax credits, but to ensure that they remain committed long term
as affordable they'll record a land use restriction, a restrictive covenant that gets recorded to
restrict it very specifically to the unit account and the income levels at the property. That way it'll
run throughout that period of time.
Townsend noted they're only guaranteed 15 years, the additional 15 years is based on the
covenant so it's not a guaranteed 30 years. If they are trying to fix the affordable housing
problem, 15 years is not a long time.
Townsend asked if these are all rental units. Taylor confirmed that was correct. He added part of
why they deviate between the 15 years and the 30 year period is because from a public policy
perspective, the 30 year period is designed to ensure the long term affordability of that asset
itself, but the 15 year lifespan is a little bit different and once they surpass that 15 year threshold
the developer is actually eligible to go in and get additional tax credits to improve capital
expenditures, everything else that's sorely needed at the property to through the exact same
program.
Townsend stated so the guarantee is only 15 years, and the additional 15 for affordability is
contingent upon them receiving more tax credits. Taylor stated the 30 years is guaranteed for
affordability.
Miller asked what would happen if they were not awarded the LIHTC credits to the project, would
it essentially kill the project. Taylor confirmed yes, they are an affordable housing developer and
have only considered the site as affordable housing. That is what they do. He did note they have
owned this property since 2021 waiting for the economics to turn around. Historically, especially
once they are committed to a site, they've gone in for multiple rounds of tax credit applications
until they are eventually able to get something to work.
Marner noted there was a late correspondence asking some questions about parking, and
somewhat related to that question is about a year ago the City Council passed the code
amendment for the affordable housing and the parking component. If everything fell through, and
this OPD still has to be conformed to for any development, but because there wasn't an
affordable housing component, a developer would have to revert back and provide parking
based on the current City code. He just wanted to clarify that the parking requirements by the
City differ for affordable housing. It is based on the amount of affordable housing units and in
this case, what's proposed is a 100% affordable housing project, so it has zero required parking.
Marner added at the good neighbor meeting what was presented was 113 parking spaces for the
187 units, roughly 61 % and they heard a lot of the concerns at that meeting related to both traffic
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 27, 2025
Page 13 of 20
and parking. So understanding that the City ordinance requires zero but there were concerns
related to parking, they looked at other opportunities to add parking and added two parking bays
right behind the northwest corner of the building and were still avoiding the protected slopes. So
now they have 162 spaces and approximately 86%.
Davies asked about the stormwater, how do they plan to meet the City's stormwater
requirements. Marner explained everything that's in the new building and in the parking is all
going to be routed to the existing area already functioning as a detention basin on the property in
the wetlands, as that's an allowed use. It's allowed within both the Core and City code. It is still to
be determined whether that's jurisdictional or not and they are awaiting that confirmation from the
Core. What they've presented is based on a presumption that they still need to adhere to the city
of Iowa City's ordinance related to sensitive areas, and that it may be jurisdictional, though the
stormwater would be detained in that current existing area and then outlet it back into the storm
sewer system and get into the city of Iowa City public storm sewer system.
Wade asked if the building will be roughly where Roosevelt School is now at the crest of the hill
or very close. Marner replied it is maybe just a little bit farther out, but it's very close to that same
area.
Beining asked the developer if he could elaborate on what AMI specifically they're targeting,
because he has heard of some projects that are going closer to 30% and going after that
extremely low income versus just a moderate low income. Taylor acknowledged there are
different types of tax credit programs, and the different programs tend to incentivize slightly
different. IFA has what's called the 9% program, which generally provides more subsidy per unit
to the project. There are smaller deals in general, and get less funds in general from IFA, but
those are more competitive. Those are the traditional programs with developers trying to
outscore everyone. Whereas the 4% program is a lot less subsidy per unit, but that's generally
made up in terms of scale to development, so you'll generally see the larger developments and
they've historically been less competitive as well. But part of that reduced subsidy per unit is they
do need some of that rental revenue since they're financing more with debt with that piece.
Taylor stated they will be doing 60% of AM I.
Townsend had one more question on regarding the parking traffic business. What are they doing
now for football season, is that lot being allowed to be parked on, there's a lot of parking on the
Roosevelt lot right now. Taylor stated they actually got alerted to that and were getting some
notices from the fire chief and from the City as well so they will be putting out towing signs to
protect the residents.
Townsend stated the concern about traffic from the 187 units going onto Greenwood and there
not being a stop sign on Greenwood. Marner reiterated they initiated the traffic study at the
request of staff, they consulted with staff and the traffic engineers and all the traffic counts at
Benton and Greenwood at the current existing entrances were used to monitor that traffic and
they incorporated those based on that direction from City staff at the time. He also added
regarding the question about the impact of the new building at the corner of Myrtle and Riverside
Drive, they were provided data from the City, a traffic study that was done as part of that project
and incorporated some of that information as well in this determination.
Townsend noted however that building is still not fully occupied, when they did the traffic study,
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 27, 2025
Page 14 of 20
school was not in session, so they didn't have the students. Marner stated they did obtain
additional data pertaining to traffic counts that were done when school was in session, and they
incorporated some of that those figures as well in trying to make any adjustments that were
necessary. Again, they worked the traffic engineer, worked back and forth with staff to do the
best to account for those specific instances and concerns that everyone is speaking about.
Davies asked for one more quick clarification on the affordability, Taylor said the 4% tax credit
program is 60% AMI, and that limits housing costs to a third of an income. A four person
household in Iowa City, based on HUD, is $69,240 so they would take that times a third and
that's how much they could spend per year, and they would divide that by 12, and that would be
the monthly rent. Taylor confirmed the concept is correct but part of what they also factor into
that are the utility allowances such as water, sewer, electric and there's actually a formula the
state agency requires them to use and they either need to gather that information from local
public housing authority, or get it commissioned by a licensed energy rater who can study the
building and calculate an average tenants consumption per unit, etc. All gets reviewed, submitted
to IFA and justified.
Miller noted when reading a little bit about Roosevelt School, the importance of that ravine was
emphasized in quite a few articles, so what is the state of the trail system in there and is there
any sort of intention of using that as an amenity for the community or the residents of this
particular development. Marner will defer to Taylor on the potential uses from an amenity
standpoint and for the neighborhood, but the current state of the area is there's still a little bit of a
trail through there and there is likely an ability to amplify or enhance it a little bit without
disturbing the remaining portion of the wooded areas and ravines. Taylor added it's always been
in the back of their minds to try to find a creative use of the area and part of what they are waiting
to get back is that official Army Corps of Engineer data because they won't be able to touch any
of that if it is within Army Corps jurisdiction. Once they get past that hurdle they can maybe look
at some designs and try to find a good way to do that. Right now they're a little bit budget
constrained, and then also it if they did make it open to the public how do they make that
accessible. There are a lot of considerations they need make.
Miller stated there's two amenity spaces identified within the building, one on the Benton Street
side and one on the northeast side, assumably those are private building amenities. There is
also the dog park, a large green space and then the central courtyard. One member of the public
commented about losing the public amenity along with losing Roosevelt, so will any of these be
amenities for the public. Marner stated obviously anything on the interior courtyard, and within
the building will be private, the developer also confirmed this is going to be a private dog park.
Marner stated there will be a small play structure in that central courtyard and they're also
strongly considering incorporating a fitness facility. Taylor stated they've also looked at various
iterations of community gardens as they are also big fans of sustainable development. As he
mentioned a little bit earlier they are planning to design this to NGBS Silver which is a much
higher energy commitment than what was previously done.
Beining stated with regards to sustainability, when it comes time to start moving dirt and such
hopefully they will be willing to watch out for the nature in the area. Taylor confirmed 100% they
will. Personally, his approach has always been to be good neighbors to people when coming into
their community and respect each other. He acknowledged that requires a little bit of give and
take and they have incorporated a variety of mechanisms of screening to try to block out some of
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 27, 2025
Page 15 of 20
the eyesight. Marner added for all the ravine, the protected slopes, the wooded areas, the
potential wetlands anything even contemplated would have to comply with the city of Iowa City
sensitive areas ordinance.
Beining noted they are concerned about these trails in the background and what a wonderful
component of the community they are. He uses the trails himself, he went to Roosevelt, people
love nature so perhaps from a landscape, architectural perspective, if they have any
opportunities to have a collaborative solution down the road for enchantments there that would
help alleviate some of these concerns. He added then same with the detention base, maybe it's
a plausibility to follow a stormwater code and have more sustainability efforts in there such as
rain gardens or bioswales to help soak up some of that water.
Marner stated to the wetlands question, or the area that's potentially a jurisdictional wetland,
they're not proposing any grading in that area, they're only proposing to connect the storm sewer
into that as it's already functioning as a de facto detention area. They are just connecting a new
outlet pipe into it to get it routed correctly into the public storm sewer system. Yes, maybe there's
an opportunity to do something different but then they would be disturbing what's already a
natural habitat in that area. TWG is willing to as they get into the site construction to look into all
the things.
Lindsay Park (401 Douglass Street) moved to the Miller Orchard neighborhood in 1992 and loves
his neighborhood, it was like they're a little Longfellow, a wonderful school surrounded by
wonderful houses, they're like a little version of that. So then over these 30 plus years, it was sad
to suddenly not see kids walking out of their houses and going to school and having to be bused
elsewhere. That school was the only public thing, the center of the neighborhood and it died. It's
not coming back. Park acknowledged when he thinks of this area there are things he is so
grateful for, like that the ravine is going to still be there and everything. He definitely supports
affordable housing, but when he walked up there this morning and looked at where this proposed
stairway is, the east facing facade of the school, he wondered if they can preserve that concrete
set of three arches somehow and make it a monument that still faces east or perhaps the
sidewalk that comes up make it the center arch in honor of the history and the name Roosevelt,
so that somehow something of that school still survives, that would that would be wonderful.
James W May, Jr. (612 West Benton Street) has two questions, both about the ravine. First is
how much of the stormwater has been projected to flow into the ravine, and how long is it going
to stay in there because there's a lot of mosquitoes that come from that ravine and towards the
back of their house and backyard, and that's dangerous, so will that be addressed because that
is a definite concern, especially with various diseases that are out there now and coming to Iowa.
His mom has already been bitten by ticks. May stated he is bringing up things that are a concern
that a lot of people wouldn't understand until they're there, and having lived in the neighborhood
and experienced them, so how this would affect the neighborhood is pretty paramount. His mom
is 97 and he's 71 and have more time behind them than ahead but it's not just about them, it's
about the neighborhood so if anything could be done it should be done.
Paula Swygard (426 Douglass Street) has two points, the first one is she appreciates the
concern and the maybe attempts to rectify the traffic situation in the neighborhood, but it's gone
too far beyond anything one can do. Those of them who drive Benton Street all the time know
that going up the hill, if you had to stop as people are trying to turn right into any access, would
create a backup on the hill that even the City busses don't attempt to use. And then coming
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 27, 2025
Page 16 of 20
down the hill, if they were trying to turn left coming off of Benton at the top of Benton Hill, again,
they're going to just end up with a lot of accidents. She drove her daughter to school there when
they could use that entrance off of Benton Street and if one was to look back at accident reports
from that period they would see there were many accidents. Also, the sun hits in the evening
going up that hill and can blind a driver. The other point is for the parking on the east side, if
there's going to be parking with any houses that are in close proximity, the Commission might
consider instead of an S2 level of screening, which is two to four feet high going to the next level
up S3, which is five to six feet and requires a certain amount of evergreen which might help
screen just a little better.
Mary Knudson (725 West Benton Street) wanted to back up what Swygard was saying about
Benton Street, she lives in the middle of the hill and knows how dangerous it is to slow down and
have cars coming behind her. She puts her blinker on at the bottom of the hill when she goes up
the hill to give the cars a signal that they need to slow down behind her and not be bumper to
bumper as she needs to go left into her driveway. Knudson taught two kids how to drive on that
road, so they've learned how to read traffic really well, but it is a dangerous street. Knudson also
had a question about the airport and the height of the building and if that was going to be a
problem or not.
Kory May (612 West Benton Street) noted a couple of things that they haven't discussed. At the
bottom of Greenwood there is a rail line and when the train comes through traffic backs up on
Greenwood, which backs up traffic on Benton, and then all of that outflow has to go somewhere,
so maybe that goes on Woodside and Oakcrest, but this egress is going to be a problem,
because that train comes through somewhat regularly and usually it's around five o'clock and
that's where people are trying to get their children or visit mom and dad at Briarwood. And again,
as everyone has pointed out, moving from Greenwood up to Benton is problematic because
traffic is coming up at a nice rate of speed to get up the hill, and to turn right or turn left from
Greenwood is an unregulated stop. Number two, is a concern about light pollution and air
pollution. They have not discussed what the height of the parking is going to be relative to the
May property so they can't necessarily guarantee that runoff is not going to come onto their
property. He noted these are questions that are specific to their property, because they're the
only ones with the adjoining property, but until those are addressed they've got outstanding
questions.
Anna Buss (525 West Benton Street) stated before any of them vote on this she invites them to
come over between 7:30 and 9:00 in the morning and between 4:30 and 6:00 in the evening,
Monday through Friday, and sit in the driveway that goes into Roosevelt, that should be a telling
tale, right there. There's no way, no matter what anybody says, that they can control the traffic to
not come out on Benton Street, it's going to happen. They've have lots of accidents over there
and a lot of close calls.
Elliott closed the public hearing.
Wade moves to recommend approval of REZ25-0010, a request to rezone approximately
9.90 acres of land located at 611 Greenwood Drive to Medium Density Multi -Family
Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM20) zone subject to the
following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, installation of a 10' wide pedestrian
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 27, 2025
Page 17 of 20
connection and dedication of an associated public access easement along the
eastern portion of the property to extend from W. Benton Street to Greenwood Drive.
Pedestrian path shall also include pedestrian scale lighting to be reviewed and
approved by the City during the site plan review process. Lighting shall be installed
and maintained by the Owner.
2. Vehicular access to the site from W. Benton Street is restricted to emergency
vehicles only.
3. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, installation of a raised crosswalk
across Greenwood Drive near the entrance to the site subject to review and approval
by the City Engineer.
4. As part of the site plan approval, ensure that the design of the access drive from
Greenwood Drive to the subject property is at or near a 90-degree angle subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer.
Miller asked about adding a condition about upgrading the landscaping. S2 screening is only
three to five feet and that might not actually screen the parking, headlights and stuff. Should they
bump it up to S3 so it's taller and could potentially screen that more.
Wade move to amend his motion to approve with a revision on the conditions to increase
from S2 to S3 screening along the eastern parking lot.
Miller seconded.
Wade discussed other areas such as Briarwood, long term care is a use similar to residential use
so suggested S3 screening be done the whole way, obviously it's probably a little more expense.
Miller feels it is more impactful on the eastern edge of the property and at the north entrance
onto Greenwood which is on the hill they wouldn't want that extra height to screen visibility so it
should just be S3 at the parking lot edge.
Miller asked about the parking lot lighting. Marner stated all lighting would all have to conform to
City ordinance, they haven't received the detail lighting plan, but that would all have to conform
to the standards for the residential.
Wade noted change is difficult, but it is a use with the LITHC that makes sense for the area. He
is glad to see a development or reuse of the Roosevelt School grounds and anything they can do
to get additional housing in the community is needed.
Miller would echo that but does think that the density may cause some traffic issues on
Greenwood there, with that intersection, but other than that the City rightly removed the minimum
requirements for parking, to encourage and incentivize affordable housing, and that's part of
what's allowing this project to happen, and it is a good thing for the community. There is a bus
stop right on that corner of Greenwood and Benton as well. This feels like an appropriate use
and the scale is sensitively done with setbacks and the townhome scale, the parking is all hidden
behind it and the addition of the S3 screening helps. Overall it's more good than bad.
Beining has essentially the same things to say and is familiar with the area. This reminds him of
when they had a new structure on the playground. As children, they erected it and he remembers
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 27, 2025
Page 18 of 20
there were discussions in the principal's office of the safety. It's a very real concern and it's
something they do need to prioritize but looking back on that the opportunities for growth as silly
as it sounds, that that little structure gave them as members of Roosevelt School in a small,
subtle way to come togehter.There is hope this project will honor Roosevelt by everyone coming
together and incorporating some of those things, such as the S3 screening, to help alleviate the
burden as long as they're holding up to these standards.
Davies wondered how the ravine was used when it was a school. Beining stated they would look
out at the birds and they had a class in school that used to take them around the woods to look
at those little birds, pick the different leaves, take them home.
Davies is generally supportive of affordable housing and the development, he thinks it's just
really important to note to both the development team and to City staff that the really critical
component an elementary school plays in a neighborhood, not just identity, but those green
spaces and those public spaces are critical. It's identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore
he hopes that everything can be done to give something back to that community, whether that's
access to the ravine, if that's possible with very simple trails or with the green space on the front
of the building. They talked a little bit about a bus stop but with the parking reduced perhaps
either making a dedicated bus stop or nicer bus stop would be nice. It's important to recognize
what a community and a neighborhood loses when they lose an elementary school and that
history so he would love to see just continued good neighbor efforts from the development team
to do whatever they can to restore what has been lost in terms of public open space and what
can be done in terms of dedication of public open space.
Townsend acknowledged they do need the affordable housing and would hate to not vote on this
for that reason, but she still has concerns about the traffic, about the parking and would hope
that the City will look at that periodically to see how that unit is going to affect the traffic on
Greenwood.
Elliott is in support of all this, just for what's been said and would like to thank the public for
coming tonight and for their comments.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: AUGUST 6 2025:
Beining moved to approve the meeting minutes from August 6, 2025. Townsend seconded the
motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett shared updates from the last Council meeting. The City Council approved the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the former ACT property, they approved the rezoning at
911 North Governor Street, and the rezoning at Monument Hills, which is the second rezoning
that came to the Commission for the area at Scott and Rochester.
Russett also wanted to mention the open meeting trainings, Beining and Davies are the two
Commissioners that are required, per the law, to take this training because they were appointed
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 27, 2025
Page 19 of 20
July 1. The City had encouraged all board and commission members to take the training
however the rollout of these trainings has not been going that well, so the rest of the
commissioners don't need to worry about signing up right away. As more trainings become
available and the rollout improves, staff will let everyone know.
ADJOURNMENT:
Townsend moved to adjourn, Wade seconded and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2024-2025
4/3
5/1
6/26
9/4
9/18
11 /20
12/4
2/19
3/5
5/7
6/4
6/18
7/2
7/16
8/6
8/27
B E I N I N G, KA L E B
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
X
O
X
X
DAVIES, JAMES
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
X
X
X
X
CRAIG, SUSAN
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
ELLIOTT, MAGGIE
X
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
HENSCH, MIKE
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
MILLER, STEVE
-- --
-- --
-- --
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
PADRON, MARIA
O/E
O/E
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
QUELLHORST, SCOTT
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
TOWNSEND, BILLIE
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WADE, CHAD
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 3, 2025-6:OOPM—FORMAL MEETING
E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: James Davies, Scott Quellhorst, Billie Townsend, Chad Wade
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kaleb Beining, Maggie Elliott, Steve Miller
STAFF PRESENT: Madison Conley, Liz Craig, Sue Dulek, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT:
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
By a vote of 4-0 the Commission recommends Title 14 Zoning be amended, as illustrated in
attachment one, to update requirements related to floodplain management standards for Iowa
City residents and businesses to have continued eligibility to obtain insurance and participate in
the National Flood Insurance Program.
CALL TO ORDER:
Quellhorst called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT ITEMS:
CASE NO. REZ25-0013:
Consideration of amendments to Title 14, Zoning related to the City's Floodplain Management
Standards.
Conley stated the purpose of this Zoning Code Amendment is to have Iowa City remain a
participating community in the National Flood Insurance Program in order to receive flood
insurance for the community. To maintain eligibility and compliance within this program, Iowa
City needs to do two things, one, adopt the new Flood Insurance Rate Map and Flood Insurance
Study provided by FEMA, and two, align the local ordinance to the National Flood Insurance
Program standards to ensure continued program compliance. Conley noted the last time these
standards were revised was back in 2010 according to ordinance number 10-44-14, and the
proposed amendments brought forth tonight are geared towards Iowa City's Floodplain
Management Standards, which is found in Title 14-5J of the zoning code.
Conley noted some key terms for the Commission, first is the NFIP, the National Flood Insurance
Program and what it means to be a participating community within the NFIP. The NFIP provides
federally backed flood insurance to property owners and businesses. In exchange for flood
insurance, participating communities like Iowa City must adopt and enforce minimum floodplain
management regulations to reduce flood risk. The NFIP offers coverage for flood damage to
homes, belongings and businesses, and it's managed by FEMA, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. The minimum standards can be found and defined in the Code of Federal
Regulations. The next key term is the Flood Insurance Rate Map, known as FIRM. Once the
current Flood Insurance Rate Map is adopted by a community that is used to determine the
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 3, 2025
Page 2 of 9
minimum flood plain management building code and flood insurance requirements under the
National Flood Insurance Program. On the physical FIRM they are able to see the special flood
hazard areas which entail approximate zones and the floodway is delineated on it. Flood lenders
as well as certified floodplain managers utilize this FIRM as a tool to determine what structures
may or may not be in a special flood hazard area and it helps determine insurance risk zones,
provides the official data for flood hazard risk and influences decisions about flood insurance and
construction regulations.
Regarding background, Conley stated that in May 1977 Iowa City officially joined the National
Flood Insurance Program, which allowed insurance for the community, specifically flood
insurance and the first effective FIRM for the community. That FIRM was used all the way until
February 16, 2007, at which time the current effective Flood Insurance Rate Map that is utilized
today was created. In addition, all insurance lenders who are looking at flood insurance utilize
this FIRM as well. Then in January 2020 FEMA, as well as the Iowa DNR who helps put together
the information through different types of analyzes, released a preliminary Flood Insurance Rate
Map and unfortunately there was some errors in that map so that pushed back the timeframe for
the community adopting that FIRM as the new effective one. In April 2023 is when the Iowa DNR
and FEMA released the revised preliminary FIRM and that FIRM went through an appeals period
and comment period for about 90 days, and then after that was made final. Therefore, in June
2025 FEMA sent the City an official notice that the FIRM and Flood Insurance Study (FIS) are to
become effective December 26, 2025 which signals staff that as a community they need to have
these FIRMS and materials adopted by that date.
Additionally, as a delegated community, Iowa City is responsible for locally enforcing and
maintaining floodplain regulations. These proposed changes reflect FEMA and Iowa DNRs
guidance and help ensure Iowa City continues to uphold and exceed minimum NFIP standards.
Conley explained that exceeding minimum standards means not only as a community do they
enforce the minimums that are set by the National Flood Insurance Program, they have chosen
to adopt the higher standards to not only to help protect the community from flood risk and
hazard but also because Iowa City is a part of a Community Rating System program. Conley
explained a Community Rating System program is established by FEMA and basically it's a
voluntary program that rewards communities with discounted flood insurance premiums for
implementing floodplain management activities that go above and beyond the minimum
requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. Iowa City joined this program to receive
discounts on National Flood Insurance Program premiums for residents by implementing
advanced floodplain management activities that go above and beyond minimum requirements.
Some of these requirements in Iowa City's ordinance include elevation and freeboard which
means Iowa City as a community requires residential structures to be elevated at least one foot
above the base flood elevation, above the minimum regulation of the 500 year flood plain, also
known as the 0.2% annual chance flood hazard area. Iowa City regulates not only to the 100
year level, also known as the base flood and as the 1 % annual chance flood event but even
further and regulate to the 500 year.
Next is the substantial damage and substantial improvement which states that for any type of
structure that has been damaged or is going through repairs there's a certain calculation that a
certified floodplain manager utilizes to determine if this structure needs to kick in higher
regulatory standards. For example, in Iowa City if there is a structure that exceeds the cost of
50% of the market value of the structure it would need to come into full compliance with what is
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 3, 2025
Page 3 of 9
in the floodplain management standards. Additionally, Iowa City also included an original floor
area increase of 25% or more will require compliance.
The next standard is the protection of critical facilities, this includes hospitals and jails. Iowa City
has determined that Class 1 Critical Facilities are not allowed in flood hazard areas. Then there's
enclosure design requirements, such as venting and elevation requirements for enclosures
below the base flood elevation and lastly is dry-floodproofing. Conley explained d ry-flood proofing
is having a system in place to put barriers that protect the structure from water coming in. Iowa
City requires not only to have a certification from a professional engineer, they also need to have
a plan of action for when the flood actually does happen, to make sure there is a safety measure.
Again, Conley noted these higher standards are utilized as a regulatory tool that gives Iowa City
points in the Community Rating System.
Conley stated that along with the higher standards, staff has a summary of the proposed
amendments (Attachment 1) that was included in the agenda packet. First amendment is
definitions, she noted a lot of the definitions in the current ordinance are based on 2010
ordinance language so the proposed amendments help align these terms with FEMA and Iowa
DNR terminology and help add and clarify certain terms. Then there's development in the
floodplain, currently they have a general development definition with limited examples and staff is
proposing to clarify development activities, such as grading, fill, utilities and refine substantial
damage and improvement criteria. For accessory structures Conley noted there are not many
clear standards on this in the code floodplain section, so staff has established criteria for
detached structures in flood hazard areas, which includes floodproofing or elevation.
Enforcement and violations, the code features general enforcement language, but staff is
proposing to clarify violation handling per FEMA and local expectations. Then for floodway and
encroachment, Iowa City has a limited "no rise" requirement, which basically means they can't
have any development in the floodway because that would increase the waters above the base
flood elevation. That's the current minimum so staff is adding a requirement in the ordinance that
a "no rise" analysis and certificate is required from a professional engineer for any development
in the floodway. Next is the elevation standards, it is already determined that residential
structures in Iowa City must be one foot above the 0.2% flood hazard area and staff is proposing
to reaffirm this by clarifying venting, anchoring and structural compliance for new or improved
buildings. Next is the permitting process and there is a permitting process that exists, but it lacks
detail, so the staff proposal is to formalize documentation, such as elevation certificates, cost
estimates and compliance steps. Then lastly is variance criteria. The current code references
general zoning language, but this proposal adds flood specific variance criteria and a clear code
reference, so it makes sure everything is consistent.
Conley reiterated that Iowa City exceeds the minimum NFIP standards and are a part of the
Community Rating System. She declared the Community Rating System has a total of 10
classes that communities participate in and these are based off a point scale. Each class then is
determined by the amount of points a community receives as credit for floodplain management
activities. There are four activity categories, such as public information, mapping and regulations,
flood damage reduction, warning and response. The higher standards Iowa City has as a
community continue to enforce allow the community to maintain a Class 6 ranking in the
program, which provides the community members with a 20% discount on flood insurance. At
Class level 10 they would not receive any discount and are just a participant in the Community
Rating System program. Class 1, which is the most stringent class, receives a 45% discount.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 3, 2025
Page 4 of 9
Additionally, the proposed amendments reflect collaboration between Iowa City as a delegated
community and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, which is the state agency
responsible for reporting to FEMA that Iowa City, as a delegated community, is in compliance
with the minimum requirements established by NFIP. Overall, the adoption of the new Flood
Insurance Rate Maps, the Flood Insurance Study and the proposed amendments will ensure that
Iowa City continues to remain a participating community that is eligible for flood insurance within
the National Flood Insurance Program.
Staff recommends that Title 14 Zoning be amended, as illustrated in attachment one, to update
requirements related to floodplain management standards for Iowa City residents and
businesses to have continued eligibility to obtain insurance and participate in the National Flood
Insurance Program.
For next steps Conley stated upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission,
a public hearing will be scheduled for consideration by the City Council. The anticipated timeline
includes September 16, where Council will set a public hearing, and then October 7, where
Council has the public hearing and there is the first consideration.
Quellhorst asked with regard to the amendments that staff is proposing, those are not necessary
to meet the minimum federal standard, but the amendments are being proposed to improve or
maintain the City's classification and reduce flood insurance premiums. Conley explained the
amendments that are being proposed are actually things that the community is already doing,
they just aren't written in the ordinance. The Iowa DNR has noted that FEMA requires the City to
have this language written in the ordinance. Utilizing the proposed amendments will not move
up the City to a different class, they are just making sure that the ordinance meets the minimum
requirements established by the NFIP guide. The Iowa DNR comes for a community assistance
visit and checks to see if the ordinance is up to date with the language that FEMA is looking for.
Quellhorst noted this essentially was a circumstance where the regulations are a little bit
ambiguous and so staff is proposing amendments to just bring it in line with current practices.
Wade asked if the 0.2% is FEMA regulated. Conley stated it is not, that's a higher standard. The
0.2% Flood Hazard Area is shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map, but it is not regulated as a
requirement for cities to regulate to by the NFIP as a minimum, it is something that the City has
chosen to go higher on and regulate to, in addition to the 1 %. Wade stated the 0.2% means they
need to be bring grade one foot above that. Conley confirmed that was correct and explained if
there's a new home that wants to be built and the property is located in the 0.2% Flood Hazard
Area, this is saying that the lowest floor will need to be built one foot above whatever the 0.2%
elevation is at that location.
Wade noted a particular building as an example, it seems to fall in that 0.2% area so if there was
any kind of floor expansion or something like that, then would that trigger the requirement that it
would have to be built at that one foot above grade. Conley explained the way that any type of
compliance is triggered is if it qualifies as a substantial improvement. So if they're doing an
addition, and the cost of that project goes 50% above the market value of the structure, then
that's when the higher regulations kick in, and the full structure, including the addition, need to be
brought into compliance and the whole structure needs to be elevated one foot above the 0.2%
Wade noted the Ralston Creek area seems like most of that area falls within that regulation so
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 3, 2025
Page 5 of 9
Iowa Avenue, for example, all those properties would be impacted if they made an improvement,
or if there was a turnover in housing that essentially that new standard would apply. He asked
does that get the City more base points, and how does that benefit the property owner. Conley
clarified that with certain additions they may not have to be brought completely into compliance it
just depends where it falls with the cost analysis. But to answer the question, the City doesn't
technically receive extra points for that, it's just a higher level of protection. The City generally get
points for just having higher thresholds so for example, the 25% expansion of floor area is a
standard that would give extra points. She acknowledged it might be a disservice to the
homeowner or property owner who wants to build however that's why it's important to make sure
the City and community are making homeowners aware of where they are in the Special Flood
Hazard Area, or if they are even in one, and work with them to make sure if they do want to do a
project that their project doesn't cross that threshold that kicks in higher standards.
Russett also wanted to clarify that's an existing standard, since 2010 the City has required new
construction within the 0.2% to be elevated by one foot above that elevation. They have been
enforcing that and implementing that since 2010 and are not proposing to change that. It's been
administered that way, it's just not been clarified in the code.
Conley noted there are other things, like maybe the certifications or something like that, that
needs to be clarified in the code as well. She noted the substantial improvement part of the code
is clear it's just that, for example, documentation such as a cost estimate that is needed in order
to determine what the actual amount of the project will be and since it doesn't clearly state that in
the previous version, then it's hard to sometimes get the cost estimate. The Iowa DNR and
FEMA are making sure that the City and community are receiving the materials needed to
accurately assess or determine if it is actually a substantial improved structure or not.
Wade stated in the booklet it references commercial as 14-5J-7f, how are commercial properties
treated. Conley stated commercial is treated differently, residential structures are not allowed to
be flood proofed at all but commercial has the ability to be flood proofed in a way where it can be
d ry-flood proofed. For example, there was a Pancheros that was just built where they used flood
proofing measures such as barriers and also utilized a tech spray around the bottom that went all
the way up to the 0.2% Special Flood Hazard Area. Commercial properties have a little bit more
flexibility to operate in a flood hazard area.
Davies noted this is a good conversation and it helps with understanding how development is
impacted by some of these rules. Just for clarification, the map is not changing. Conley stated
the map is changing and that is one of the big parts of this proposed amendment is that the
community has to adopt the new effective Flood Insurance Rate Map by December 26, 2025.
Davies asked what the changes to the map are. Conley shared an example the map provided by
FEMA Map Service Center, the National Flood Hazard layer. She noted she can't specifically
sum up the changes but noted the floodway has increased in some areas and maybe has
decreased in others, it just depends on the meandering of the stream and the river. However, to
her knowledge there's no giant, crazy changes.
Davies is particularly concerned along Ralston Creek. He acknowledged that most of the
properties along the river are expecting to flood and have adapted their development but
perhaps those along Ralston Creek are not as prepared. Conley noted a decent portion of her
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 3, 2025
Page 6 of 9
daily job is dedicated to flood plain development and permitting and making sure things are
substantially improved and following the code. It appears the areas around Ralston Creek have
generally decreased but there's still both flood hazards and a floodway.
Davies asked for a residential property, like a $300,000 house, that wants to put on an addition
worth $150,000 on build on an infill lot, is this a barrier to development. Conley stated it isn't a
barrier, it is more of a protection measurement. If it was found to maybe appear as a barrier,
there's certain ways with the cost estimate to cut back to make sure that they can get what they
want at 49.9% and not at 50% where those extra regulations would kick in.
Davies asked if there are steps the City or County can take to change that flood map, such as
improvements to Ralston Creek, for instance. Conley noted the Ralston Creek flood levels
shown on the map are predictions based on hydraulic and analysis, so they may not be accurate
in some areas. However, the community has the ability to file for a letter of map change, which
can remove their structure from the area, or ask for that area of the map to be revalidated. She
also noted there is a hazard mitigation plan that has recently been released by Johnson County
that talks about different ways of flood protection. She is not sure if there's any ways that the City
would take steps to reduce the floodway in general, but they can be proactive and just try to
prevent any damage from occurring, if possible.
Townsend asked after the 2008 floods and the raising of Dubuque Street how did that change
the maps. Conley stated after that work it has been updated and now it looks like the structure of
Mayflower itself does not contain any flood hazard area.
Russett added in 2008 that were probably areas that weren't included in a flood hazard area that
flooded, again the analysis that is done is as best as can be done, but there's going to be areas
that aren't in a flood hazard area that may flood in the future.
Townsend asked about the mosquito flats area and if that area is buildable. Russett noted the
City bought many of the properties in that area and they will not be built on but there is still some
privately held lands. Dulek added that the City owned lands cannot be built on because the City
got federal money to purchase.
Townsend asked under 14-5J-8, Special Floodway Provisions, storage of materials and
equipment, it says storage of other materials may be allowed if readily removable from the
floodway within the time available after flood warning, what does that mean. Conley explained if
as a City they know that there might be existing materials that can be easily removed if there is
enough warning time, then they are to be removed prior to the flooding.
Quellhorst asked what is the extent of federal flood insurance assistance that Iowa City receives,
is it hundreds of 1000s, millions, 10s of millions, hundreds of millions. Conley is not sure but
could say it is quite significant to be part of the NFIP because it allows Iowa City to access
certain funding that nonparticipating communities wouldn't be able to.
Davies asked for explanation of what the "no rise" means. Conley explained the "no rise" is
strictly for the floodway and any type of development that is proposed in the floodway cannot
cause a rise in the base flood elevation. So, if someone wanted to do a dam improvement or
something, the City would need to have an engineer conduct a hydraulic analysis and have a
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 3, 2025
Page 7 of 9
professional engineer sign off on a "no rise" certification, also known as a no encroachment
certification, to ensure no rise in the base flood, because otherwise it's going to cause a lot of
issues for all properties that are downstream. Any development, like dredging, mining, grading,
all of that needs to be reviewed if it is occurring in any special flood hazard area.
Davies asked about mobile home impacts. Conley stated mobile homes actually have a specific
section in the code and they are structures that also need to be protected and held to the same
standard, one foot above base flood elevation, or 0.2%. There's a certain amount of provisions
that come along with manufactured housing that floodplain administrators need to ensure are
checked off before some can come in.
Townsend asked about cases like the one in Fairfax with all those illegal wells that they found on
property. Russett noted that is a zoning enforcement issue, they did something illegally.
Conley noted in the ordinance they have linked the municipal infraction section in the violation
section, so it brings readers of this floodplain management standards to that area of the code, so
they understand the City's general enforcement measures.
Townsend asked how things like that would affect the insurance. Conley stated it would reflect
on the entire community as a whole and it would depend on the violation.
Quellhorst opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one come forward, Quellhorst closed the public hearing.
Townsend moves to recommend that Title 14 Zoning be amended, as illustrated in
attachment one, to update requirements related to floodplain management standards for
Iowa City residents and businesses to have continued eligibility to obtain insurance and
participate in the National Flood Insurance Program.
Wade seconded the motion.
Townsend stated it looks like something that needed to be done so it's a good thing to revise and
make sure that it's correct.
Wade agreed and is glad to see the language align with an administrative aspect of it. He did
note the 0.2% sometimes gives him a little heartburn, because being in town for coming up on 48
years, a lot of those areas that are within that 0.2% have never experienced a weather event
that's caused issues, and as a property owner, or somebody that looks at putting up a building, it
does become a cost factor. Perhaps that's a future consideration, but based on what's presented
today, it makes sense to bring it current.
Quellhorst stated he really appreciates staff's work on this as flood prevention is important. The
map was produced by experts so he doesn't have any reason to doubt that that map is current
and accurate. He appreciates that they're codifying existing practice in a way that better protects
the City and will guarantee federal funding in the future.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 3, 2025
Page 8 of 9
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett presented updates from the City Council meeting on Tuesday, the neighborhood open
space ordinance was adopted and the rezonings at the former ACT properties and the former
Pearson property were also adopted.
ADJOURNMENT:
Wade moved to adjourn, Davies seconded and the motion passed 4-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2024-2025
5/1
6/26
9/4
9/18
11/20
12/4
2/19
3/5
5/7
6/4
6/18
7/2
7/16
8/6
8/27
9/3
B E I N I N G, KA L E B
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
X
O
X
X
O
DAVIES, JAMES
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
X
X
X
X
X
CRAIG, SUSAN
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
ELLIOTT, MAGGIE
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
HENSCH, MIKE
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
MILLER, STEVE
-- --
-- --
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
PADRON, MARIA
O/E
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
QUELLHORST, SCOTT
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
TOWNSEND, BILLIE
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WADE, CHAD
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member