HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 12.03.2025PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Wednesday, December 3, 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. Election of Chair
Subdivision Items
5. Case No. SUB25-0005
Location: 1257 and 1527 Slothower Rd
An application for a combined preliminary and final plat for Iowa Meadows, a 18.20-acre
subdivision to create two residential lots to accommodate two existing single-family homes
and three outlots for future development.
6. Meeting Minutes: November 19, 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@iowa-city.org. Early requests are
strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: December 17 / January 7 / January 21
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: SUB25-0005 Iowa Meadows
Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior
Planner
Date: December 3, 2025
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Owner/Applicant:
Delbert E Weber Revocable Trust
Mary M Weber Revocable Trust
delbertmaryweber@yahoo.com
319-361-1288
Contact Person: Lacey Stutzman
MMS Consultants
lstutzman@mms-us.com
Requested Action: Approval of a combined preliminary and
final plat
Purpose:
Approval of Iowa Meadows, a subdivision
to create two lots to accommodate two
existing single-family homes & three
outlots for future development.
Location:
South of Melrose Avenue & West of
Slothower Rd (1257 & 1527 Slothower Rd)
Location Map:
Size: 18.20 Acres
2
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Agriculture, Single family homes, Rural
Residential (RR-1) zone
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Agriculture, RR-1
South: Agriculture, Unincorporated
Johnson County
East: Vacant, Single-Family
Residential (P-1, RS-5)
West: Agriculture, Unincorporated
Johnson County
Comprehensive Plan:
Conservation Design
District Plan:
Southwest District Plan
Neighborhood Open Space District:
Southwest 2
Public Meeting Notification: Property owners and residents located
with 500’ of the project site received
notification of the Planning and Zoning
Commission public meeting. Subdivision
signs were also posted on the site.
File Date: Application was submitted on 10/29/2025
and determined to be complete.
45 Day Limitation Period:
December 13, 2025
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The properties at 1257 and 1527 Slothower Rd were annexed into the City in the late 1960s / early
1970s. The land is zoned Rural Residential. Although there are two existing single-family homes on
the properties, most of the land remains agricultural. The proposed subdivision would allow the sale
of the land with the homes separate from the land that remains agricultural.
ANALYSIS:
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Future Land Use Map of the IC2030
Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for residential development at a density of
2-8 du/ac. The Southwest District Plan identifies as this appropriate for Future Urban Development.
However, urban development is not feasible until City water and sewer are provided in the area and
Slothower Rd is improved to City standards. The plan notes that before the land west of Slothower
can be developed a sanitary sewer lift station will need to be constructed. Given that the proposed
subdivision is to create lots for the existing single-family homes and will not result in any additional
development, staff finds that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Subdivision Design: The combined preliminary and final plat contains two residential lots,
which contain existing single-family homes. It also contains three outlots for future development.
Prior to any development occurring on the outlots another subdivision would be required.
Access to the existing homes is provided from Slothower Rd, which is an unimproved collector
street. Additional development in this area will require the improvement of Slothower Rd and
extension of other city utilities.
3
Neighborhood Open Space: Since the proposed subdivision will not result in any new
residential development the neighborhood open space ordinance does not apply. Specifically,
the formula used to determine neighborhood open space is based on the number of new units
proposed. In this case it is zero.
Storm Water Management: Stormwater management is not required as part of this subdivision
since there is no development proposed.
Infrastructure Fees: There is no proposed development and no connections to City water
proposed. However, if and when the property owners would like to connect the existing single-
family homes to City water they will be required to pay a water main extension fee at the rate of
$555.60 per acre.
In addition, since Slothower Rd does not meet City standards, payment of a fee contributing to
the improvement of it will be required for the proposed lots per 15-3-2(K)(1)(b). The fee will be
required prior to the City issuing a building permit for either lot.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the combined preliminary and
final plat will be considered for approval by the City Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of SUB25-0005, an application submitted by Delbert E Weber
Revocable Trust & Mary M Weber Revocable Trust for a combined preliminary and final plat of
Iowa Meadows, an 18.20-acre subdivision to create two residential lots to accommodate two
existing single-family homes and three outlots for future development.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Combined Preliminary and Final Plat
Approved by:
_______________________________________________
Tracy Hightshoe, Director
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
ATTACHMENT 1
Location Map
Sl
o
t
h
o
w
e
r
R
d
DunleyCt
Duck Creek Dr
Rohret Rd
WildcatLn
PrairieGrassLn
Luke Dr
Ca
r
l
s
b
a
d
P
l
Tem
p
e
C
t
Co
l
u
m
b
i
n
e
C
t
Laredo
Ct
Phoenix Pl
LakeShoreDr
Yu
m
a
D
r
Country Club Dr
Wild
PrairieDr
Gallup Pl
RohretCtSW
Tempe Pl
Laredo DrPhoenix Dr
Honeysuckle
Dr
Foxana Dr
Flagstaff Dr
El Paso Dr
La
n
d
o
n
A
v
e
S
W
DurangoPl
Tucson Pl
SedonaSt
GoldenrodDr
Santa FeDr
Kessler Dr SW
Pheasant
Valley
St
Ma
i
e
r
A
v
e
S
W
Rohre
t
R
d
S
W
µSUB25-0005 1257 Slothower Road
Prepared By: Olivia Ziegler
Date Prepared: October 2025
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles
An application requesting approval of a combined preliminary and final plat
for a 18.20-acre subdivision of land to create two outlots for future
development, and two residential lots to accommodate two existing single-
family homes.
ATTACHMENT 2
Zoning Map
Sl
o
t
h
o
w
e
r
R
d
DunleyCt
Foxana DrWildcatLn
PrairieGrassLn
Luke Dr
Ca
r
l
s
b
a
d
P
l
Tem
p
e
C
t
Co
l
u
m
b
i
n
e
C
t
LakeShoreDr
Duck Creek Dr
Laredo
Ct
Phoenix Pl
QuailValleyCt
Rohret Rd
Yu
m
a
D
r
Country Club Dr
WildPrairie
Dr
Gallup Pl
RohretCtSW
Laredo DrPhoenix Dr
Pheasant
Valley
St
Honeysuckle
Dr GoldenrodDr
Flagstaff Dr
La
n
d
o
n
A
v
e
S
W
El Paso Dr
DurangoPl
Tucson Pl
SedonaSt
Tempe Pl
SantaFeDr
Kessler Dr SW
Ma
i
e
r
A
v
e
S
W
Rohre
t
R
d
S
W
µSUB25-0005 1257 Slothower Road
Prepared By: Olivia Ziegler
Date Prepared: November 2025
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles
An application requesting approval of a combined preliminary and final plat
for a 18.20-acre subdivision of land to create two outlots for future
development, and two residential lots to accommodate two existing single-
family homes.
ATTACHMENT 3
Combined Preliminary & Final Plat
COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES FIFTH ADDITION
COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES
FOURTH ADDITION
COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES SIXTH ADDITION
COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES THIRD ADDITION
WEST SIDE ESTATES - PHASE TWO
WEST SIDE ESTATES
- PHASE ONE
WEST 1/4 CORNER
OF
SECTION 13-T79N-R7W
OF THE FIFTH P.M.
FOUND 5/8" REBAR W/OUT CAP
BOOK 42 AT PAGE 262
SOUTHWEST CORNER
OF
SECTION 13-T79N-R7W
OF THE FIFTH P.M.
FOUND REBAR ±12" DEEP W/
ORANGE PLASTIC LS CAP 17774
BOOK 52, PAGE 342
SOUTH 1/4 CORNER
OF
SECTION 13-T79N-R7W
OF THE FIFTH P.M.
FOUND SCM ±10" DEEP
BOOK 36, PAGE 157
CENTER
OF
SECTION 13-T79N-R7W
OF THE FIFTH P.M.
FOUND 5/8" REBAR ±3" DEEP
W/ YELLOW PLASTIC CAP 13287
BOOK 42, PAGE 256
SE 1
/
4
-
S
W
1
/
4
SEC
T
I
O
N
1
3
-
T
7
9
N
-
R
7
W
NE 1
/
4
-
S
W
1
/
4
SEC
T
I
O
N
1
3
-
T
7
9
N
-
R
7
W
AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2002031
COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES
FIRST ADDITION
SL
O
T
H
O
W
E
R
R
O
A
D
WIL
D
C
A
T
L
A
N
E
LO
T
"
A
"
3.
2
2
A
C
POINT OF BEGINNING
247.04'
45
4
.
7
1
'
45
0
.
3
4
'
17
5
.
8
8
'
247.00'
247.00'
17
5
.
8
8
'
84
4
.
9
4
'
84
4
.
9
4
'
17
6
.
0
0
'
99
5
.
5
4
'
247.04'53.01'
17
6
.
0
0
'
99
1
.
1
2
'
S0
0
°
0
1
'
0
3
"
W
S0
0
°
0
1
'
0
3
"
W
S0
0
°
0
1
'
0
3
"
W
N89°58'57"W
N89°58'57"W
S0
0
°
0
1
'
0
3
"
W
S0
0
°
0
1
'
0
3
"
W
N88°59'35"E
N89°00'10"E2339.53'
2333.39'
"RESERVED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT"
"RESERVED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT"
"RESERVED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT"
N89°00'10"E
S0
0
°
0
1
'
0
3
"
W
S88°59'35"W
N0
0
°
0
1
'
0
3
"
E
26
4
2
.
7
0
'
300.05'
26
4
2
.
6
5
'
300.05'
1
2
OUTLOT A
43,472 SF
1.00 AC
111,774 SF
2.57 AC
43,443 SF
1.00 AC
247.00'N89°58'57"W
N89°58'57"W247.00'
OUTLOT C
OUTLOT B
208,701 SF
4.79 AC
245,353 SF
5.63 AC
53.01'
DRAF
T
PLAT/PLAN APPROVED
by the
City of Iowa City
City Clerk Date:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Notes on this plat are not intended to
create any vested private interest in
any stated use restriction or covenant
or create any third party beneficiaries
to any noted use restriction or
covenant.
NOTE:
ALL BEARINGS ARE BASED ON IOWA STATE PLANE
COORDINATES (SOUTH ZONE), LIBRARY CALIBRATION
USING THE IOWA REAL TIME NETWORK (RTN), THE
DISTANCES SHOWN ON THE PLAT ARE GROUND
DISTANCES AND NOT GRID DISTANCES.
LOCATION:
A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER, AND A PORTION OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 7 WEST, OF
THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON
COUNTY, IOWA.
LAND SURVEYOR:
RICHARD R. NOWOTNY P.L.S.
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
1917 SOUTH GILBERT STREET
IOWA CITY, IOWA, 52240
PHONE:319-351-8282
SUBDIVIDER:
DELBERT E WEBER & MARY M WEBER
17752 25TH STREET
MECHANICSVILLE, IOWA 52307
SUBDIVIDER'S ATTORNEY:
ROBERT N. DOWNER
SHUTTLEWORTH & INGERSOLL
235 6TH STREET SE
CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA 52401
DATE OF SURVEY:
07-30-2025
PROPRIETOR OR OWNER:
DELBERT E WEBER & MARY M WEBER
REVOCABLE TRUST
17752 25TH STREET
MECHANICSVILLE, IOWA 52307
NOT TO SCALE
LOCATION MAP
LOT A CONTAINS 3.22 ACRES, AND IS TO BE
DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF IOWA CITY FOR
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR SLOTHOWER ROAD.
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT
IOWA MEADOWS
IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
IOWA MEADOWS
DESCRIPTION - IOWA MEADOWS
BEGINNING at the Center of Section 13, Township 79 North, Range 7 West, of the Fifth
Principal Meridian, Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa; Thence S00°01'03"W, along the East
Line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 13, a distance of 2642.65 feet, to the South
Quarter Corner of said Section 13; Thence S88°59'35"W, along the South Line of said
Southwest Quarter, 300.05 feet; Thence N00°01'03"E, along a line parallel with and 300.00
feet normally distant Westerly from the East Line of said Southwest Quarter, 2642.70 feet, to
a Point on the North Line of said Southwest Quarter; Thence N89°00'10"E, along said North
Line, 300.05 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Iowa Meadows contains 18.20 Acres,
and is subject to easements and restrictions of record.
(3
1
9
)
3
5
1
-
8
2
8
2
LA
N
D
P
L
A
N
N
E
R
S
LA
N
D
S
U
R
V
E
Y
O
R
S
CI
V
I
L
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
IO
W
A
C
I
T
Y
,
I
O
W
A
5
2
2
4
0
MM
S
C
O
N
S
U
L
T
A
N
T
S
,
I
N
C
.
EN
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
S
P
E
C
I
A
L
I
S
T
S
ww
w
.
m
m
s
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
.
n
e
t
19
1
7
S
.
G
I
L
B
E
R
T
S
T
.
09
/
0
8
/
2
0
2
5
PE
R
C
L
I
E
N
T
-
L
S
S
IO
W
A
C
I
T
Y
JO
H
N
S
O
N
C
O
U
N
T
Y
IO
W
A
08
-
2
5
-
2
0
2
5
LS
S
14
1
7
RL
W
RR
N
12
2
5
8
-
0
0
1
IO
W
A
C
I
T
Y
1
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
A
N
D
FI
N
A
L
P
L
A
T
IO
W
A
M
E
A
D
O
W
S
09
/
3
0
/
2
0
2
5
PE
R
R
R
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
-
L
S
S
11
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
5
PE
R
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
R
E
V
I
E
W
-
L
S
S
11
/
2
5
/
2
0
2
5
PE
R
C
I
T
Y
R
E
V
I
E
W
-
L
S
S
1
1"
=
1
0
0
'
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 2025 – 6:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kaleb Beining, James Davies, Maggie Elliott, Steve Miller, Scott
Quellhorst, Billie Townsend, Chad Wade
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Alex Bright, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT:
CALL TO ORDER:
Quellhorst called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
DISCUSSION REGARDING EX-PARTE COMMUNICATION, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND
REZONING CONSIDERATIONS:
Bright stated staff would be going through a couple of topics from the bylaws and the law that
governs Planning and Zoning Commission meetings. The first topic of discussion is going to be
prohibited and restricted contacts, conflicts of interests, and then the second topic will be ex-
parte communications.
Bright noted conflicts of interest are notoriously difficult to define, broadly speaking officers of
governmental entities, which includes members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, are
required to avoid them, and it can be helpful to focus on the basic purpose of the requirement,
which is to avoid public officials needing to decide between their public duty and their private
interests. One of the ways they can do this, particularly when talking about conflicts that are
more of a gray area, is to ask oneself if they can be fair and impartial on an item that they're
being asked to vote on. It's a broad concept that's often very fact specific, and they do often at
the City Attorney's office issue informal opinions, address issues over email or by a more formal
memo if somebody comes to them, whether from Planning and Zoning Commission or City
Council or a different board or commission. While the City really appreciates the service that
people provide, they also acknowledge that there are a lot of personal and professional ties in
the community and want to be able to parse them on a very case by case basis, to see if a
recusal is truly going to be necessary. The basis for this requirement is founded in number of
different areas of the Iowa Code and each relates to different types of conflicts of interest. Iowa
Code Sec. 362.5 addresses interest in public contracts and contracts with the City and there's a
good bit of case law and attorney general opinions on that. It is also part of the bylaws so that is
another one of the reasons why they would encourage Commissioner’s to reach out to the City
Attorney's office if they think they might be engaged in or facing a conflict of interest because
each of the sections include a number of exceptions and a number of additional requirements.
Bright next reviewed the examples that were in the agenda packet memo noting these are very
much a non-exclusive list, but some things that come up very frequently, both in the case law
and that they see at the City. Examples of conflicts of interest would include if a Commission
member has a direct or indirect financial interest in the outcome of a rezoning ordinance, which
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 19, 2025
Page 2 of 11
could be an interest in receiving future work on a development project, or an existing business
relationship with an applicant. Another case could be a Commission member advocating for a
vote based on their personal ties to a friend or family member who stands to gain financially from
that vote. Another situation would be if a Commission member demonstrates professional or
personal interests that could influence their vote on an application before the commission that
could include seeking out additional information about a project or expressing an opinion on the
application to others by attending developer meetings or other publicly hosted meetings. Bright
noted one of the things that they think about with conflicts of interest is not just the legal
component, but also the impression that's given to the public, and they'd like to avoid when at all
possible, giving the impression of there being a dynamic where Commission members, Council
members, or any City officers, are speaking with members of the business community who might
have a pending application. Another situation is a Commission member who is an employee of a
firm who receives a public contract other than by competitive bid, that would be a conflict. Iowa
Code Sec. 362.5 gets very specific so that is why they would encourage coming to the City
Attorney's office. Lastly, if a member serves on the board of a nonprofit applying for a rezoning
and votes on that rezoning, that would be a conflict of interest, requiring the member to recuse
themself from that vote. Bright reiterated if a conflict does exist, or if a Commission member may
have a conflict, the State Codes requires that the appropriate course of action is to declare it and
decline to vote. The specifics in the bylaws on that process is to state the reason for the conflict,
leave the panel before the discussion begins, not participate in the discussion and not return to
the panel until after the vote. Again, if anyone is uncertain as to whether this procedure is going
to be necessary, please reach out to the City Attorney's office as they don't want anyone to feel
the need to recuse themself if it's not actually necessary.
Bright then moved onto ex-parte communications explaining this type of communication could be
a conflict, but isn't always, so it is subject to a less stringent approach. An ex-parte
communication is a discussion of an agenda item outside of a public meeting with an interested
party. She explained this is not necessarily a conflict of interest and emphasize disclosure of the
discussion. The basic purpose of this requirement is to ensure that Commission members gain
access to all information on the basis of which they'll make their recommendation during the
course of the public meeting, which is the same public meeting where members of the public get
access to that same information at the same time. Bright noted the legal basis for this is a little
different, it's a lot more case law and it gets into the parsing between what bodies are considered
quasi-judicial and what functions are considered quasi-judicial as opposed to legislative. That
matters because quasi-judicial functions or bodies are subject to due process requirements,
which are more stringent requirements for what needs to occur at those proceedings. And then
legislative bodies like City Council are subject to less stringent requirements. In Iowa case law
there hasn't been any decisions saying one way or the other whether planning and zoning
commissions count, they aren’t entirely one or the other, they engage in both quasi-judicial and
legislative functions. Because of that, they rely on the bylaws, which just maintains a general
disclosure requirement for ex-parte communications, regardless of parsing between the type of
item that might be under consideration by the Commission.
Bright shared some examples such as if an applicant calls a Commission member to advocate
for the why a rezoning would be a good idea or if a neighbor to a property under consideration
runs into a Commission member at HyVee and says that they think the rezoning is a bad idea.
Bright noted this one is a little more complicated, because it is an example of what could be both
an ex-parte communication and a conflict depending on the specifics going on. However, if a
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 19, 2025
Page 3 of 11
Commission member were to attend a good neighbor meeting or a meeting hosted by a
developer to learn more information about a project for which a rezoning application has been
submitted, prior to the presentation of that item at a public hearing, that could be just ex-parte, or
if the Commission member has a financial or business interest in the project, which was the
reason for seeking out that additional information, that would then be a conflict as well.
Bright stated the steps would be to reveal the contact prior to the presentation of the staff report,
at the public hearing, naming the other party and sharing specifics of the contact, if it's an email
or another form of writing to share copies, if it's verbal to give a synopsis and again if there are
any questions reach out to the City Attorney's office or to staff.
The next section Bright discussed was relating to rezoning applications. When evaluating an
application for a rezoning Commission members are instructed to consider two criteria,
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with the existing neighborhood. This
comes from the both the City ordinance and the State statute that gives power to the planning
and zoning commissions. She noted some of the reasons that this is important, and why they
want to emphasize it is that the question at hand is really what the application is for, what the
rezoning is, what rezoning is being asked. It's not an opportunity to achieve a general policy
goal, to express a personal preference about a neighborhood amenity, express dissatisfaction
with the present zoning code requirements and what changes could be better, any objections to
the identity of the applicant, all of that should not be factors going into the decision on which the
vote is going to be made. Bright emphasized their role is to look at the very specific application in
front of them with reference to those two criteria and then to form a recommendation around that
specific question. Given that the categories are broad the Commission is encouraged to look at
the Comprehensive Plan, there are a number of land use goals in there that can be informative
about what does it really mean to consider whether it aligns with the Comprehensive Plan and
less focusing on the question at hand under the application.
Quellhorst asked about permissible considerations as one thing that comes up pretty frequently
are details of a particular site plan, so there is the rezoning petition itself, but then often there is
some underlying plan to build a building so is it permissible for the Commission to be thinking
about like the design and appearance of that building, or should they just be thinking about the
appropriate use for that property, and whatever RS-5 or RS-12 or a particular zone is appropriate
for that plot. Bright stated that is when they really want to cabin that to the appropriateness of
the zoning designation, the reality is they don't know what will go on after that particular project
and the specifics of the esthetics or the site plan construction doesn't go to the zoning question.
Quellhorst asked if they were looking at a rezoning petition related to an apartment building they
would be trying to ask whether that plot of land is appropriate, in general, for an apartment
building, not whether a particular building is designed a certain way or that they like esthetics.
Bright confirmed that was correct.
Davies noted the general policy goals says that's an inappropriate consideration but the
Comprehensive Plan is inherently general policy goals so how are they to establish consistency
with the Comprehensive Plan without talking about general policy goals. There are really no
specifics in the Comprehensive Plan other than the land use map. Bright agreed that is a good
question and stated she could have phrased that a little better regarding situations like affordable
housing or open space. Many have opinions about what a neighborhood should look like, or what
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 19, 2025
Page 4 of 11
they want to see in the communities, and so when they think about a policy goal that may be
about promoting affordable housing, but that doesn't tie in specifically to a need created by the
application at hand it is not an appropriate consideration for whether or not the rezoning should
go through. What she was speaking to in terms of policy goals were the policy goals contained
within the Comprehensive Plan which would still be appropriate to consider and the review of the
land use goals in the Comprehensive Plan would be encouraged.
Davies stated he is still confused as to what they're allowed to ask at this point, it seems very
broad to just not talk about specifics of the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the City
recommendations usually focus on a sentence or two within the Comprehensive Plan, in terms of
their recommendations and generally disregard other sections and therefore the Commission
should not ask or question other sections of the Comprehensive Plan.
Russett stated regarding affordable housing and open space, to be a bit more specific, if a
proposed rezoning is going to be a market rate, multifamily residential, the Commission can just
not support it because it doesn't include affordable housing. That would not be an appropriate
consideration and something they should not incorporate into their vote. Regarding Chair
Quellhorst’s question about the design, if they don't think an applicant is providing enough open
space then the question becomes is this multifamily zone an appropriate zoning designation
based on all the policies in the Comprehensive Plan, but just saying they don't support the
rezoning because they think an applicant should be dedicating more open space would not be
necessarily an appropriate consideration.
Davies noted even though the Comprehensive Plan continually references open space and
connection to parks and other things, it's so prevalent in the Comprehensive Plan. Russett
explained they have neighborhood open space requirements and on site open space
requirements so if the issue is those specific standards that should be discussed outside the
rezoning as perhaps an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, but not by a particular project.
Davies asked if a proposed rezoning classification allows for very minimal open space and the
Commission thinks that might be problematic in that neighborhood, say the way the particular
project is oriented doesn't allow enough space on the plot, is that a distinction. Bright stated it’s
less saying the Comprehensive Plan contains these values and maybe this project doesn't
exactly adhere to all of the goals there, but more tailored to the specifics of that application and
the way that it shows up under that specific zoning designation or that specific site plan. So yes,
those are things that it might make sense to consider, but they want to try to focus on the actual
rezoning rather than like the particular project.
Miller stated he is just trying to picture a scenario where it is appropriate to challenge a particular
proposal based on a general policy goal in the Comprehensive Plan. For example, say there's a
project that is asking for an exception to the what's the standard in the whatever zone it is
already in, like through a OPD or something, and if that exception they're asking for is in conflict
with stated goals in the Comprehensive Plan would it be appropriate to voice that and note if they
didn't have that exception, they would be able to comply with the rest of the base underlying
zoning. Bright agreed that would an appropriate topic for discussion to raise.
Townsend asked about affordable housing, it is not something they should mention that when
they start talking about rezoning, but looking at the big units out on Riverside and Myrtle, where
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 19, 2025
Page 5 of 11
they tore down all of those affordable units and built this huge unit now that has no affordable
units in it, would it not have been appropriate for the Commission to question why there weren't
any units that were affordable in that complex. Russett noted that project did require affordable
units because it's in the Riverfront Crossings District so they had to meet the affordable housing
requirements and either provide them on site or pay a fee in lieu.
Townsend stated they all know that Iowa City needs more affordable units and the way the new
Comprehensive Plan is set up they talk about mixed use land so does that mean some of that
should be affordable when it's zoned. Russett stated they are still working on the
Comprehensive Plan update, but mixed use generally means a mix of land uses, so residential/
commercial, but it has nothing to do with market rate or not market rate housing. Townsend
asked then it is not this Commission’s concern to have housing that is affordable in this area,
how are they to address that or are they not concerned about it. Russett stated the City has
affordable housing requirements and existing policies regarding housing affordability. They have
an affordable housing annexation policy which requires affordable units or a fee in lieu and
something similar in the Riverfront Crossings district. What Bright is talking about is if the
Commission is considering a rezoning, the question really is more about is a multifamily zone
appropriate in that area and not is it market rate or is it income restricted.
Bright clarified it is not a blanket statement that they should never be discussing affordable
housing it’s just they need to be mindful about whether it's tied directly to the rezoning, but they
need to be mindful about not using any rezoning application as an opportunity to advocate any
general policy goal when it is not connected to the specifics of that rezoning application.
Bright moved on to the conditions of a rezoning and stated these are tied a little bit to the
considerations when reviewing a rezoning application, the standard from Iowa code section
414.5 states that Commission members may recommend conditions to Council as part of a
rezoning if the conditions are reasonable and imposed to satisfy public needs which are directly
caused by the requested change. So what is an appropriate or an inappropriate condition, Bright
noted this is an area where federal law is changing very quickly and very much cabining what
municipalities are able to do in terms of imposing conditions. Therefore, they want to be
particularly cautious about making sure they're confident that they're tying the condition to the
public need and indicating that the public need is directly caused by the requested change.
Elliott noted some examples of conditions tying to public need are usually screening, it can be for
more of a community screening or for a private individual screening, are both are okay. Bright
says it’s okay because if a project is bringing in more lighting that wasn't there before and now
there's a single family home that's going to have 24/7 lighting, if the conditions raise the
screening, they'll be blocking that.
Quellhorst stated another example is if they have one plot that's relatively low density that will
change to a medium or high density, then it might make sense to require like screening to
visually separate that from like a RS-5 zone, but if the rezoning was just from one density to
another zone of equivalent density, then that wouldn't be a reasonable justification to require that
additional screening.
Bright next discussed a fee contributing to a general fund for a particular City initiative, she
explained that's something where there's case law limiting that ability to do that, any addition of
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 19, 2025
Page 6 of 11
public amenities not linked to a need created by a rezoning is inappropriate, for example, why
they might think wouldn't it be nice to have a playground or open space park, that's not a
condition that they can impose. And getting back to the affordable housing point, if the need is
directly caused by the request to change, absolutely, that is a conversation to be had, whether
that condition can be opposed, and it has been in the past.
Davies asked Bright to define a need created by the rezoning. He noted they recently had the
case with a school that was previously zoned for public use and it was rezoned to private use
and some of the questions brought up were about public access to open space and other
amenities. So is that not a need created by that rezoning. What defines a need created by a
rezoning. Bright acknowledged that is something that courts have been increasingly restrictive
on, there's one case that went up to the Supreme Court where they were looking at a
development that got rid of a bike trail so that they weren't able to have the same connection and
it was argued that they need to bring this back because they got rid of this public space and they
need to have the public space. The Supreme Court found that it didn't rise to that level. Bright
noted there are a lot of very specific definitions that depend on the type of rezoning, the type of
condition, in case law, and in the case of something like a public space no longer being public
they wouldn't see that as directly causing public harm. Something a little bit more targeted such
as in the screening example, that might shift public amenities towards private amenities.
Davies noted in specifics of the case law it's just interesting to note how many specific references
of trails and trail connections, and the importance in maintaining those in all developments exist
in the Comprehensive Plan so it seems like, in a lot of ways, it's in conflict, case law versus the
Comprehensive Plan, so just trying to reconcile those and understand what they're trying to
advocate for or ask about in terms of a rezoning. Commissioners are obviously not well versed in
case law but are familiar with the Comprehensive Plan.
Bright stated that this is all case law coming out in 2024 and 2025 and a lot of changes that are
tied to larger political shifts so the Comprehensive Plan and some of the ways these priorities
have been articulated are changing a little bit and what they're trying to do is make sure that they
are catching up enough that they don't find themselves following pattern and practice and then
stumbling into a situation that didn't used to be a problem, but is now more restrictive and could
be one.
Quellhorst is also trying to understand when a rezoning could give rise to a public need. Would
an example be an area that's currently RS-5 and it will be rezoned to increase density to a
medium or high density area is that circumstance where it would be reasonable to require a
sidewalk because they anticipate a lot more foot traffic. Bright replied that would be reasonable.
Quellhorst noted but maybe it wouldn't be reasonable to try to impose a sidewalk or a trail as a
condition if they were keeping density the same or moving from high density to low density.
Bright explained it is reasonable when changing the density to make a little bit more of an
argument about meeting the transit needs, pedestrian needs, but if just the topography of the
area is changing, that might be too broad.
Davies is concerned about the second one, the fee contributing to a general fund, what would
restrict the City from like requiring affordable housing or doing the fee in lieu for affordable
housing. Bright stated that particular ordinance is safe under the case law, there's just other
situations in which if they are trying to create a general fund for parks that were not at all tied to
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 19, 2025
Page 7 of 11
the district and they were just imposing conditions on any applicant to contribute to that, that
would be a situation where that was found to be unrelated to a direct need.
Quellhorst asked if there are other instances where there's been a condition imposed, as part of
rezoning, and a court found that there wasn't a reasonable justification for the condition. Bright
noted there have been a lot that happened, both in California and South Carolina, on beaches
with attempts to allow an easement for the public because somebody is seeking the opportunity
to build at a higher density along a stretch of beach, and that was something that courts said was
not directly caused by the request to change, even though it seems like it is because this greater
density was decreasing public access to the beach, but that they still couldn't require that
easement as a condition because the development did not actually change access to the beach.
It was just visibility of the beach, but the public still could have the same access, so it can get as
finely parsed as that.
Davies noted there's conditions, and there's potential language that the Commission can
recommend modifications, which doesn’t come up very often, but they seem somewhat related to
conditions. Is there any specifics about what they could suggest for modification, rather than
condition, like if it made it potentially more compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. Bright stated
that is something they need to be less cautious about because what they are saying is the
recommendation to Council is not to approve without condition XYZ, whereas a modification, as
a body Planning and Zoning Commission, is making these recommendations so it's a lot more
tied into just the process to make that recommended modification.
Davies stated he is asking about if the Comprehensive Plan mentions connections to existing
parks and things like that, can the Commission suggest modifications that are pretty minimal to a
development that make it more compatible with the neighborhood surrounding it, or with the
Comprehensive Plan. He noted it seems like planning and zoning is a good opportunity to
interject those modifications, rather than letting it go too far in the process, modifying it takes it
back to step one, and it takes several weeks to months to get through other steps.
Russett asked if Davies was asking about a rezoning like a planned development overlay
rezoning that has a site plan associated with it, or a subdivision because some rezonings come
to them with no specific development proposal. Davies confirmed it would mostly come up in
OPD or with some other specific plan attached to it.
Bright reiterated the umbrella intent is to evaluate the application at hand and not to make
recommendations to the applicant about how they could improve, that's outside the purview of
what what's being asked to do. Davies noted they are still being asked to evaluate whether it's
compatible to the Comprehensive Plan and compatibility just inherently comes with various
degrees of compatibility. A plan could be compatible with a sentence or two but largely ignoring
other aspects of the Comprehensive Plans so that’s a struggle.
Quellhorst noted the big issue is really like whether the zoning is compatible with the
Comprehensive Plan so if an area is proposed to be rezoned to a classification that would allow
for high density housing, then the question is whether high density housing in that particular area
is consistent with all of the objectives advanced by the Comprehensive Plan and that would be
things like adequate open space and good transportation and trails and so forth. But the question
would be focused on that zoning change, not if the project itself advances those objectives in the
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 19, 2025
Page 8 of 11
Comprehensive Plan. Bright confirmed they are to focus on the zoning change, not the project,
and then also ensuring that the comments are tied to the Comprehensive Plan.
Quellhorst noted for example they might look at something and say the Comprehensive Plan
prioritizes adequate open space neighborhoods and what is being proposed for a rezoning would
result in high density housing, and maybe that wouldn't allow sufficient open space in the
neighborhood. But in contrast, what they wouldn't want to do is look at that site plan and say they
think that high density housing is appropriate here, but the way that this is drawn does not have
sufficient open space.
Bright reiterated the takeaways from each of these, going back to the conflict of interest,
members should recuse themselves from discussion and voting on an item where they have one.
If someone is not sure if they have a conflict of interest, please reach out and staff is happy to
talk through the specifics. In terms of ex-parte communications, those should be disclosed prior
to the presentation of the staff report, when assessing a rezoning application focusing on the
application at hand, and when recommending conditions, ensuring that they comply with the
statutory criteria, and in particular the creation of a direct need. Again, if there are ever any
questions, contact the City Attorney's office or staff to talk it through.
Wade asked if these are constraints for the Planning and Zoning Commission, but then when it
goes to City Council are they are not bound by the same considerations. Bright confirmed the
guidance is a little different because City Council is an exclusively legislative body and so the
standards to which they are held are a little bit different. It is pretty similar in terms of conflicts of
interest and ex-parte communications, but a lot of the particulars of the way this Commission is
being asked to treat applications and conditions imposed have to do with the way the legal status
that this Commission has, as opposed to City Council.
Townsend asked aren't they supposed to be kind of a screening committee on zoning, shouldn't
the hard questions be asked here so they have the answers when it goes to City Council as a
recommendation. If some of these things that they're talking about are not brought up at
Planning and Zoning, even though they are not the ones that make the final decisions, they are
the ones that make the recommendation to City Council, so it feels like with some of these
restrictions the Commission is being restrained from asking even the simple questions. Bright
stated they have to remember they are being asked X question, and they are allowed to consider
A, B and C, as opposed to A, B, C, D, E and F. It is expected to have a very thorough discussion
and a very thoughtful recommendation, it's just that within the power that is given legislatively to
create the Planning and Zoning Commission and what they're being asked to do in terms of the
process of how things move through this Commission onto Council there's some limitations.
Townsend noted from past cases, as they may have agreed on a rezoning or a plan when the
final project is complete it's nothing at all like what was proposed so how as a Commission can
they make sure what is proposed, what the Commission agrees on and sends to City Council is
what's going to be the final project. Quellhorst stated that is why one of the main reasons is to
focus on the actual rezoning petition itself, because they don't really know what the final project
is going to look like. They can present a particular project plan with a building of a certain
appearance or oriented a certain way, but ultimately if a rezoning goes through, they're no longer
constrained or beholden to a particular project plan. The City building code and other ordinances
will guide the project. They only decide on zoning classification.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 19, 2025
Page 9 of 11
Wade noted the example of Orchard Street, even when a building and project on it failed the
project or developer got disconnected from it, the property owner resubmitted for rezoning, and
that rezoning went through. So, there are situations where the details of a proposed project might
not be the ultimate outcome. Another example is the Barkalow project development north of
Happy Hallow Park, they talked a lot about the trail connectivity on that one and connection to
Happy Hollow and tree removal and items such as that but because it really didn't gain additional
access it was outside of the purview for the zoning moving forward. Or would that still be
considered because of some of the other items related to the Comprehensive Plan. Russett
noted for that particular project the process that staff had with the applicant discussed trail
connections and there were a lot of concerns with potential routes, like routes to the west, to the
to the bus routes and to the south to the park. There's also issues with topography, making it
ADA accessible, and a route to the south would result in more tree removal, and staff had all of
those conversations with the applicant and thought the best path forward was building a sidewalk
and connecting it to the park. Staff explored all the options and worked with the applicant to look
at those possibilities and ultimately determined what was feasible.
Wade noted the Commission doesn’t always have that background ahead of time and don't get
into that level of details, as far as what's already been vetted out, so is that something they would
just ask during staff questioning and then staff would share that. Russett stated yes, those are
appropriate questions for staff.
Davies stated it seems like just those conversations should happen in a public setting, rather
than a private meeting between City staff and developers. Reasonability or viability is a tricky
thing in making sure developments adhere to the Comprehensive Plan and it's important to ask
those questions.
Quellhorst reiterated the Commission is focusing on how the actual rezoning is impacting those
Comprehensive Plan considerations. Is the zoning appropriate in a certain area, and then once
that is decided they defer to the building code and other regulations to make sure that the criteria
set on the Comprehensive Plan are protected and advanced. Bright confirmed that was correct.
Miller stated there are frequently OPD overlays, and a lot of the things which do get into the
specifics, so he is struggling with when it is appropriate to ask questions. Russett stated
questions can be asked at the meeting in an effort to help them further understand what they
should be considering when they make the vote, but if they're adding conditions, they really need
to be thinking about the rezoning creating that direct public need that's causing the
recommended condition.
Quellhorst noted what Commissioner Townsend mentioned is really important because they can
dig into a plan and ask questions and really like it and approve the rezoning, but then there's no
guarantee that the project would actually take the shape and could be vastly different within the
contours of the building code.
Quellhorst to summarize, the question is the rezoning appropriate, not is the project itself
appropriate. Bright confirmed that is correct.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: NOVEMBER 5, 2025:
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 19, 2025
Page 10 of 11
Wade moved to approve the meeting minutes from November 5, 2025. Davies seconded the
motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett noted it is Chair Quellhorst’s last night with the Commission, so he was presented with a
certificate of appreciation for his service. The deadline for applications to the Commission is
December 3, so there should be a new commissioner appointed at the December 9 City Council
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
Townsend moved to adjourn, Elliott seconded and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2024-2025
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 10/15 11/5 11/19
BEINING, KALEB -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X O X X O O X X
DAVIES, JAMES -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X X X X
CRAIG, SUSAN X X X X X X X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
ELLIOTT, MAGGIE X O/E X X X X X X X O/E X X O/E X O/E X
HENSCH, MIKE X X X X O/E X X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
MILLER, STEVE X X X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X X
QUELLHORST, SCOTT X O/E X X X X X X X X X O/E X O/E X X
TOWNSEND, BILLIE X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
WADE, CHAD X 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