HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-12-01 TranscriptionPage 1
2. Proclamations
2.a. Human Rights Day
Teague: (reads proclamation) ...and here to receive this, uh, proclamation, um, on behalf of the Human
Rights Commission is Commissioner Roger Lusala. Welcome!
Lusala: Thank you, Mayor Teague. On behalf of the Iowa City Human Rights Commission, I would
like to thank Mayor Teague and the entire Iowa City Council for this proclamation. One of the
most fundamental thing in life is the basic rights of every person, also known as the human
right. Every person is entitled to this basic right, regardless of their race, gender, religion,
disability, ethnicity, or immigration status. December 10th is International Human Rights Day.
This year in observation of this important date, considering the year we have had globally with
COVID-19 pandemic, the racial justice arrests, and the current climate of our nation's politics,
the Human Rights Commission in collaboration with the United Nation Association, will be
screening the movie White Privilege in an effort to continue the conversation and move forward
with ending racism and work toward healing our cities, state, and country. To paraphrase John
F. Kennedy once said the rights of every person are diminished when the rights of one person
are threatened. To the Council, thank you for your leadership during this trying time, uh, and
I'll leave you with remembering the quote by Gandhi. "The best way to find yourself is to lose
yourself in the service of other." Thank you.
Teague: Well, thank you. Human Rights Day, this is a very important day and thank you, uh, Councilor
Lusala ..Commissioner Lusala.
2.b. Iowa City Host Noon Lions Club
Teague: (reads proclamation) ...and here to accept this is Eldon Snyder and Donna Olson.
Snyder: Thank you very much. Not hearing Donna speak on behalf of the Iowa City Lions Club, we'd
like to thank you, Mayor, and the Council, for this proclamation. Um, as in every aspect of the
community, 2020 has been a difficult year for Lions Club and we've had to cancel our ...our two
largest fundraising projects, and it's curtailed our ability to provide KidSight services, um, for
the children in the community, but we look forward to getting back and being as active as we
possibly can, as soon as, um, the health and safety of our members and of those we serve can
be, um, best served. Again, thank you very much.
Olson: Yes we do thank you very much, and, uh, the community has been really wonderful at
supporting us and we ask you to look for our ...some of our major projects once the COVID
restriction is lifted. So thank you very much on behalf of the Iowa City Noon Lions Club.
Teague: And thanks to you both for your participation and bein' a part of this today, really appreciate it.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 2
1-8. Beginning of Consent Calendar (Items 3 — 8) —Consider adoption of the Consent Calendar
as presented or amended
Teague: Could I get a motion to approve the consent calendar?
Bergus: So moved, Bergus.
Weiner: Second, Weiner.
Teague: Moved by Bergus, seconded by Weiner, and would anyone from the public like to discuss this
topic? I did ... I did want to, before we have that, um, maybe the public, uh, we did in our work
session, we addressed item 4.b., uh, where the Human Rights, um, Commission recommended,
um, that the Council consider having, um, Iowa Freedom Riders have a ... a seat at the table.
Um, during that discussion, it was a unanimous, um, agreement that Council did not take them
up on that recommendation at this time. So I just wanted to, um, at least make mention of that
for the public that that did take place in our work session. At ... at this (both talking)
Weiner: ... it just, it wasn't unanimous. It was 6 —1.
Teague: Oh, I'm sorry if I said unanimous. I did not mean that. Majority. Yes. Sorry about that. And
we are going to open this up for public discussion. Would anyone like to address any topic that
is under, um, the consent calendar? And if you want to address Council, please raise your hand
and I'll call upon you, and if you're on the phone, press *9 and I'll call upon you there. Seein'
no one, Council discussion? Hearin' no one, roll call please. Motion passes 7 - 0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 3
9. Community Comment (items not on the agenda)
Teague: This is, uh, an opportunity for community comments and this is where we allow, um, space for
people that would like to address Council about any item that is not on our formal agenda. If
you would like to address, uh, Council, please raise your hand and I'll call upon you. If you're
on the phone, press *9. And I do see that we have, uh, Nicholas. Welcome!
Theisen: Thank you, Mayor, for, uh, letting me speak this evening. Um, again, apologies for earlier.
Um, I apparently had the wrong Zoom link so I didn't mean to intrude. I left immediately. So
sorry about that. Um, I wanted to address something that was mentioned in the work session,
specifically, um, Councilor Weiner had said something to the effect of sitting down with
developers to try and figure out what the impediments to building affordable housing are in
Iowa City. Well, the answer to that question is actually pretty simple. Um, you, the seven of
you, are the impediments to building (laughs) affordable housing in the city. Um, I mentioned
this last time, in the previous meeting, that, um, there are numerous decisions that you guys
have made regarding planning and zoning matters over the years that basically have made the
housing situation in the city much worse. So I would say, you know, first and foremost, look to
yourselves and what you're doing, because you're making a lot of really terrible decisions. Um,
additionally, I think it's really strange that the first thought is, hey, we need to go to developers
to think through this, not to actually go to the people who are affected by housing costs, which,
you know, to me just strikes me is ... as kind of strange. It's like the people you should be going
to to try and find solutions for, you know, housing costs, problems in the city, are the people
who are actually affected by those problems, not the people who are causing the problems,
which are, again, yourselves and the developers. That's all I have to say. Thank you.
Teague: Thank you, Nicholas. Would anyone else like to address Council? If so, please raise your
hand or press *9. Welcome, John.
Engelbrecht: Hi. Hi, Bruce. Uh, thanks for having me. Uh, hopefully this is the right place for me to
speak and I'm ... I'm here, uh, representing the Iowa City Downtown Arts Alliance, a group that
compromises seven... comprises seven downtown arts organizations: Riverside Theater, Film
Scene, Englert, Summer of the Arts (mumbled) UNESCO City of Lit, and my organization,
Public Space One. Together we have an impact on Iowa City and the State of Iowa, that
stretches far beyond the small radius we are based in. We have attached a letter to the Council
packet outlining not only the economic side of our impact on the city, and it is large, but the
social and inspirational one. The letter's included in the packet and will be published as an op
ed soon, but I wanted to just read a few paragraphs from it, um, and ... and leave you with that.
Art equals growth, not just economic but social. Art challenges minds with new and diverse
perspectives and moves us towards a more empathetic and inclusive culture. Iowa City is
uniquely poised to strengthen our status as a hub for arts culture in the Midwest, drawing
tourism, career artists, and families looking to raise children in an open-minded and creative
environment. We have claimed to the Midwest most state of the art cinema at Fihn Scene's
Chauncey location. We are one of just two UNESCO Designated Cities of Literature in the
U.S. We host world renowned performers at the Englert, and we collectively produce more arts
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 4
festivals than any other city in Iowa. We are active on the grassroots level, as well growing and
utilizing local talent through innovative, contemporary art programming at PSI and full seasons
of professional theater at Riverside. The Iowa City Downtown Arts Alliance was formed in
2019 with two goals in mind. One, to preserve what our orts... our arts organizations have
already built through mutual support and the sharing of resources. Two, to continue to build
pathways both across mediums towards collaborative programming and pathways out into the
community. The ICDAA is making the arts culture in Iowa City diverse, equitable, and
inclusive. We believe that art belongs to everyone. So the letter, um, continues with a series of
bullet points as evidence of our work and impact. I'm not gonna get into that here, um, but I do
urge you to take on and internalize some of these, as to know how important our presence is to
the city. So we leave you with our ask. We know a lot of businesses and people are entering
2021 in precarious positions. Our groups are too, though we ... with hope for the creative spirit
and energy that has seen us pivot and reimagine throughout 2020, eyeing the possibilities of the
new year. As the City Council looks to some tough ... tough months and years ahead from a
fiscal perspective, we only ask that you continue to keep us in mind, to continue to support
channels for the artistic lifeblood of the city, for these are not just channels for artists, but
opportunities for everyone, for both an economic and social, including equity, diversity, and
justice initiatives, uh, to take root and thrive. Please support the arts ecosystem in your budget
considerations. Thanks for your time.
Teague: Thank you, John. Would anyone else like to address council? If so, please raise your hand or
press *9 on your phone. Seeing no one.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 5
10. Planning and Zoning Matters
10.a. Carson Farm Annexation — Resolution to annex approximately 196.17 acres of land
located west of Highway 218 and south of Rohret Road. (ANN20-0001)
1. Public Hearing
Teague: I'm gonna open the public hearing. Staff presentation.
Sitzman: Evening Mayor, City Council. This is Danielle Sitzman with NDS. Um, I'm going to go
through this presentation and touch on aspects that pertain to both this item and the next one on
your agenda, since they're related. Um, the first one you're hearing tonight is the annexation,
and the second one will be for the rezoning. Um, the applicant, uh, MMS Consultants, is
requesting annexation and rezoning of 196.17 acres of property located west of Highway 218
and south of Rohret Road, shown here in the outlined white dashed area. The applicant has
requested that the property, uh, be subsequently rezoned from a County residential designation
to a City designation. Um, that's required since as land comes into the city it needs to have a
use category that coincides with City, uh, zoning regulations, and so as I said, that will be the
second, um, application that you hear this evening. This exhibit shows the existing, uh, County
zoning. This area is, uh, located in near proximity to current, uh, city limits and it's designated
per our fringe area agreement with Johnson County as an area inside the growth area, shown
here in purple. As we review, um, annexation applications there are several criteria that we
work through as staff to determine whether the annexation is suitable at this time. We'll walk
through those quickly. The first is having to do with, um, whether it's located within an adopted
long-range planning boundary. As I just mentioned, it is within a growth area designation near
the city limits and is therefore, uh, within a long-range planning boundary. Uh, we also
evaluate whether the application fulfills needed, um, needs without imposing a new burdens
upon the City. Um, in this case, the comprehensive plan does encourage growth and is
contiguous and connected to existing neighborhoods to reduce the cost of providing
infrastructure as to these services. In this case, uh, this area has been identified as appropriate
for development upon the provision of sanitary water services, which are, uh, already being, uh,
planned for in the City s capital improvement planning process. Um, and as I said, land is
contiguous with the existing city boundaries. Urn ... the annexation will, uh, help to accomplish
the City's larger goal of fulfilling the need for expanded housing options, allowing additionally
it to be de ... developed for dwelling units, uh, to accommodate housing needs. And, um, staff is
recommending that as a condition of the rezoning, the developer satisfy... satisfy our comp
plan's annexation policy requirement for affordable housing, as well. So, uh, with the eventual
development of this land, additional affordable housing goals will continue to be addressed.
Also, um, under analysis is whether the control of the land is (mumbled) development is in the
City's best interest. Um, as I said, this is designated in our growth area. So if it were not
annexed into the City, it would be, uh, under the requirements of the fringe area
agree... agreement. However, once it comes into the City, it's actually more easily regulated
through additional, uh, City ordinances that more specific... specifically control the style and
development of...of growth in the area. Um, so having direct control of something is always
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 6
preferable to trying to influence another jurisdiction to make the kinds of changes that in the
long term, the City would like to inherit as the boundaries of the City grows. Um, looking
ahead to sanitary sewer and water services, as I mentioned, there's a capital improvement
program project planned called the Abby Lane trunk sewer, um, anticipated to provide sewer
services or capability of sewer ...City sewer services to this area in the horizon of our capital
improvement program. Um, and then there are some other, uh, improvements that would need
to be made before actual development of this land can occur. Um, there are mechanisms in our
code that recoup those costs from the developer or actually require the developer to carry those
costs, depending on what, uh, particular service is being, uh, extended. In anticipation of that
trunk line sewer extension, uh, Planning staff is currently in the process of updating the Rohret
Road sub -area a portion of the Southwest District plan, the comprehensive plan for this area.
That was adopted in 2002, um, so it's due for an update. Um, staff has begun the process of,
um, identifying stakeholders who should provide input to that process and kicking up that
process soon. Um, the applicant has been informed of that and so therefore, um, when it comes
time to evaluate development for this land and look at the comprehensive plan for guidance,
um, it's very possible that comprehensive plan will have changed, uh, in the interim, and the
applicant is aware of that. They would obviously be one of the stakeholders involved in that
process. Um, staff does use, um, two criteria to review all rezoning applications. So just a little
preview of the next agenda item for you. Um, rezoning applications have to do, uh, compliance
to the comprehensive plan and compatibility of the existing neighborhood. Um, the zoning
district that they are requesting is an interim development district. It's a very low-density
district. Basically it's ... permits agricultural uses by right to continue and very low-density
single-family residential units, really at a rural scale since the infrastructure ... when intern
development is anticipated, is not truly in place to fulfill a city -scale development. So speaking
of the comprehensive plan and the Rohret Road sub -area. This is a map showing the overall
sub -area. Um, the application tonight is shown in gray, kind of a harder to see gray box here.
Um, that does include largely residential with... in ... under the past comprehensive planning
process, the possibility of a storm water regional storm water detention, um, kind of located
around a stream corridor that exists. Um, as I said, that's all kind of up in ... to be reviewed with
the, um, renewal the comprehensive plan for this district. As far as zoning goes, as I mentioned,
this is the County zoning district, so they're in place under this at this time. Um ... and as I
mentioned, the rezoning would be to an interim development, single-family, ID -RS zoning
district, very low density. Um, some of the things that we consider is looking ahead to future
development is what sensitive areas might be in place. Um, there is a stream corridor that's
been identified on the regulatory, uh, maps that we access and regulate by. So that stream
corridor would be of interest in the future, as well as the potential for cultural, um, resources in
the area. So the Office of the State Archaeologist has advised additional study. That would be
required prior to actual development. As far as the next steps in this process, this is the, um,
outline of all those steps. We're at the top step here, shown highlighted in black, which is the
annexation into the City in combination with a designation to a City zoning district, ID -RS.
Um, as I mentioned, there's a comprehensive plan amendment, uh, kicking off soon. After that's
accomplished and prior to any development, there would be a need for an additional rezoning
to, uh, one or more zoning districts, reflective of the actual intended development of the land
and the plats that would follow and various site plans and building permits. So as I mentioned,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 7
this is the first of two applications. This is for the annexation. Um, based on the review of
relevant criteria, staff recommended approval of the proposed annexation to the Planning and
Zoning Commission. They, at their October 15th meeting, by a vote of 4 — 2...4 to 2, concurred
with staff's opinion, and also recommended approval of the annexation. Um, I will say there
was no good neighbor meeting held for this action. There would be good neighbor meetings,
um, obviously, uh, at the time of redevelopment, including either the additional rezoning or the
planning steps. Think that concludes staff report for the annexation. Um, happy to answer
questions!
Teague: Hearing no questions. Thank you, Danielle. Would anyone from the public like to address this
topic? If so, please raise your hand. Uh, welcome, John, and ... also, if you are on the phone, uh,
press *9, and we're askin' everyone to keep their comments three to five minutes. Welcome!
Yapp: Uh, good evening, Mayor, Members of Council. This is John Yapp, uh, representative of Allen
Development, um, who is the applicant for this application. Uh, we've been working with the
Carsons for ...uh, about a couple of years now, knowing that this was a long -tern development
area for the City. Uh, the City has a sewer project planned for 2023, uh, to bring sewer to this
area. And for the west side of Iowa City, this is ... probably the last growth area there is for the
foreseeable future. Uh, we have agreed to the affordable housing agreement. Uh, we've had
some experience with that agreement for the past couple years. I believe we are the only
development company that has used the affordable housing agreement. Uh, correct me if I'm
wrong. We have talked in ... in concept with staff about form ... form based code policies, mixed-
use policies. Uh, staff actually contacted me today ...to ... set up some more visioning, uh,
meetings to discuss the development of these almost 200 acres. And, uh, we are glad to
participate with staff with that. So again, we view this as a long-term development area. We
are trying to meet the policies of Iowa City, uh, and I'd be glad to take any questions.
Teague: Thank you, uh, for, um, sharing. Um, Nicholas, welcome.
Theisen: Uh, hello, everyone, and thanks for listening to me ramble on again. Um, I wanted to, um,
bring up something now, here. I don't know if you all read the minutes from the P&Z meeting
in which this was discussed. Um, I want to highlight, um, a couple of dissents, particularly, um,
Commissioner Nolte's dissent. He notes while he's generally pro -development, he says that it
just doesn't make sense that if they aspire to affordability and walkability and better transit and
all those things, they just can't keep sprawling out like this. And so this actually goes back to
something that I had said at the previous meeting, which is one of the problems with the way in
which y'all address affordable housing is that you always take these things in microcosm. So
the thing is like even if the individual developer is signing on to some vaguely-defined
affordable housing goal, you also have to look into whether or not this plays into all of the other
things that the City is trying to do. And I think the point about sprawl (laughs) is actually pretty
apt, because if you're trying to (mumbled) even at this moment focus on say like, you know, a
new plan for busing in the city. If the City just keeps expanding outward and outward and
outward, then that makes all of those plans moot as well. So personally, and I know a lot of
people agree with me (laughs) it would be nice to see you guys actually like take these things
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 8
into consideration how like all of these disparate plans play into each other. I mean, clearly,
some of...at least some of the commissioners have. So it would be worthwhile for you to
actually like look at their dissents and even if something like this passes in the Planning and
Zoning Commission, you should at least try to think about like how these things can be
modified even after the fact to actually, you know, fit with your other goals, cause otherwise
you're gonna run into problems down the line. Thanks!
Teague: Thank you. Anyone else like to address Council? Seein' no one, I'm gonna close the public
discussion or the public hearing. All right and, Council, just wondering, do we have a majority,
um, that will vote with P&Z recommendation?
Taylor: No.
Teague: All right, I'm seein... uh, two nos. I'm a no, um, as of now. Um ... I ... I I think I'm gonna have to
go person by person because I'm not ... I'm not truly seein' everybody. Hold on one second.
Sorry. So I understood John Thomas and Pauline Taylor said no. Um, Councilor Weiner, are
you a no or yes?
Weiner: I actually don't know yet. I'd like to have a little bit more conversation about this. I'm inclined
toward yes because I think we have some actual answers to some of the issues that have
been ... been brought up, um, but I would like to have a conversation among Council Members
about this, uh, before committing it this eve ... this evening.
Teague: Okay, well, Councilor Mims, are you inclined?
Mims: I'm inclined to vote yes.
Teague: Okay, to support it. All right, and then Councilor Bergus?
Bergus: I am as well, Mayor.
Teague: All right, and then, uh, Mayor Pro Tem Salih?
Salih: No.
Teague: Okay, so we do have four that are, uh, inclined to not vote for this. Um, I closed the public
hearing. (laughs)
Dilkes: Uh, yeah, that's okay. Uh, you can still have your consult, um, before the, um, or actually you
can defer the, uh, resolution and then have your consult with P&Z.
Teague: Okay.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 9
Mims: Can we have some discussion now? I mean, I'm ... like with Janice, I would like to hear what
other Councilors are saying. I realize we need to defer and... particularly if it ends up that we're
still with the majority against it. But can we go ahead and have some discussion now?
Dilkes: That ... that's not a problem.
Teague: Okay. All right, so, um, well, um, if...can I get a motion to, I guess have disc ... well, we can
just go into discussion, and then well get a motion for deferral after which.
Thomas: (several talking, garbled) ...with my comments. Uh, first of all I wanna say, and I think, uh,
Commissioner Nolte mentioned this, I'm not opposed... categorically to the development of the
site. Uh, you know, we're asked... basically to evaluate the annexation according to three
criteria, and the ... the one that concerns me is the, uh, that the development in the area proposed
for annexation will fulfill an identified need without imposing an under ...an undue burden on
the City, and as Council recalls, we ... we developed in our strategic plan earlier this year, uh, an
item which said that we should be considering establishing a cost of development framework
that will help guide decisions on how to best accommodate future growth. And ... and one of the
the emphases of that particular... item was the... the notion that we really need to understand the
financial impacts over the long-term of our development. Uh, because there's... compelling
evidence, uh, that development... conventional subdivision development on the periphery of a
city, uh, may ...may in the long-term actually be a financial drain on the city s finances because
of the cost of maintaining the ... the infrastructure versus the taxable value of the property. Now
that isn't to say that this area couldn't be developed in a way which would address that issue.
Um, but that is the kind of analysis I ... I feel we need before we ... move forward on ... on
approving this annexation. And I know that staff is working on ... the plan. I, you know, we just
heard from John Yapp that there are ongoing discussions. Uh, this is a long-term project. I ... I
genuinely believe that this kind of approach will result in a project which begins or better
addresses the issues, the multiple issues, we're facing with respect to affordable housing, which
integrates into the concept the ... the question of mobility, uh, climate change, a whole range of
issues I think we can more effectively address if we, at this point in the process, really try to
integrate that financial analysis ... into what will ... what will generate a truly productive,
prosperous extension of Iowa City. So that ... that's the reason at this point in time I'm ... I'm just
not, um, ready to ... to annex the property and approve for this.
Taylor: As was mentioned, uh, a couple of times by Danielle and ... and a person who commented, uh, it
was not a unanimous decision by Planning and Zoning. It was a 4 - 2 vote, uh, and I ... I paid a
lot of attention to the comments in ... in their minutes and agreed with a lot of the, uh, comments
by folks, uh, and it was ... it was described as urban sprawl, and I think, uh, I think it is ... it truly
fits the description of urban sprawl and unwalkable urban sprawl. We talk about the community
mentioned earlier, uh, about as being a walkable community. And this is just so far out there.
And one of the criteria for annex was without imposing an undue burden on the City. And ... and
I see this as ... as putting a burden on ... on our fire department, our transit department. Uh, there's
no green space. There's no Park area there, uh, would possibly have to develop a park, and also
it was mentioned in the P&Z minutes about the nearby school already being overcrowded, and
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 10
putting that many homes, uh, with (garbled) families and ... and more children going to that
school, that ... that puts a burden on the School District also. So I think, you know, the, uh, it
also, uh, you mentioned, uh, as, um, criteria is that it meets housing needs, uh, additional
housing needs, but ... but at what expense? What type of housing? You know, of course they'll
fall into the affordable housing, 10% has to be if it's annexed, but ... but who's going to be able to
afford ... be able to afford to live out there, uh, if they have to drive a car to get anywhere,
because it's just not walkable or drivable or, uh, I ... I just don't see this as a ... as a good thing.
Mims: Um, I don't disagree, per se, with the comments that have been made so far, but I ... I come at
this, um, a little bit differently in I guess I ... I agree with some of what John has said and some
of my thoughts as I was going into this ... was when we talk about the City ...and if you...lots of
things when I have read in the past is you look at a lot of communities and if you don't grow,
you die. Um, there's... there's not really.. there's not really a kind of a staying stagnant in terms
of population, typically, in the ... I don't believe in city dynamics. And so when you look at that,
the question then becomes where are we going to grow? Um, there is very little undeveloped
land, uh, within city limits, per se, as ... as a percentage of our overall, um, area. We ... we hear
this from developers. Um, you look at the cost of lots that do exist within the city, um, and
they're very expensive because there isn't much land left within the city. I don't like the idea of
urban sprawl. Um, but I believe that the community does need to grow. I believe that we need
to have that capability of growing. Um, one of my fust reactions in looking at the documents in
the old comprehensive plan that ... I can't remember if it was done back in 2002 or when it was.
My first reaction was (garbled) I do not want to see almost 200 acres of single- family homes. I
think we've gotten (garbled) way beyond that. I hope we've gotten way beyond that, and one of
the first things then that went through my mind was, hey, we're developing a form based code
for the South District. I hope we can take that form based code, maybe some
adapt... adaptations to it, but maybe utilize something like that in this area, where we really have
a mix of housing. Um, get that missing -middle that John ... that you've talked about, get a
combination of single-family, um, multi -family, not huge ones, but that kind of...and so we
increase that kind of density that we need, that we ... that we can build from scratch.
When ... when we talk about walkability, I guess my concern is when people say this area isn't
walkable, and I know at least one of the P&Z commissioners did and Pauline, you just
mentioned this. Nothing that we develop is going to be necessarily walkable when it comes to
downtown. It's too far away, but you can develop the neighborhoods so the neighborhoods
themselves are walkable within the neighborhoods, something that John has ... has promoted a
lot. Does it mean some additional costs, and John, I agree. We don't know what those costs are.
Uh, when we talk about fire. We definitely are gonna have to have transportation for people
who would live out here who don't have vehicles. Um, I'm not opposed to the annexation.
I ... I'm comfortable with the annexation. But I do think it puts a burden on future Councils and I
won't be here to really think about how do we develop this in a smart way. Not, in my opinion,
not 200 acres of single-family homes. Um, yes, add park space, um, and all those other
amenities. I ... I would hope that there would be enough density here that you can get some
reasonable neighborhood commercial as a part of this. Um, but those are long-term plans that
need to be...be developed. Um, I think that first step of an annexation at this point is not an
unreasonable, uh, step to take now, and to do that, um, interim zoning. Then I think becomes
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 11
the really hard work for the City and the developer to make sure that we come up with a really
good plan that can start to be implemented in three to four years.
Teague: So a part of my decision into this and, uh, there's a few things that, um, Councilor Mims said
that I wanna point out, and it's how to develop in a smart way. I think when I looked at this, this
was the ... the overarchin' theme is how do we develop in a smart way. And a part of the
challenge is we don't have the plan in place right now. And so if we are to allow this
annexation, um, and I saw this as, you know, somethin' being annexed into the City, is not
already a part. So if it was ... if it was a part of the City, then my, you know, my thought process
could be a little different, but, um, I feel like we ... we, at some point we have to stop and we
really have to look at, you know, the topics that are within our work sessions or, um, as, uh... uh,
it was just mentioned, um, about even our plan that, um, that was mentioned. So two things that
are in our work sessions. Plan for the future. Um, item number five is consider as ... um,
consider establishin' a cost of development framework that can help guide decisions on how
best to accommodate future growth. We haven't had that conversation yet. And then number
six, you know, discuss development of new comprehensive plan to promote housing
affordability throughout the city. We have already had discussions about havin' our affordable
housing ... havin' an affordable housing plan, and so for me, since this ... isn't already a part of the
city limits, um, that's where I ... I ... I want to pause and say let's try to get some of these things in
place. We have the South District form based code that we'll be lookin' at. We still need, you
know, to have (coughs) discussions on if that's somethin' that we're gonna kinda have
throughout the city. Um, you're exactly right. There is little land within the city to develop, uh,
very few in ... infill, uh, that we ... that needs to be there. But when we're talkin' about 200 acres,
and you know, I certainly don't wanna see all family... single-family homes, which I'm ... I'm sure
there'll be a mix. And I ... I always have a problem with this 10% affordability, um, and so that
didn't sell me, um, that 10% of this will be affordable, um, and ... and of course it will go away.
So, um, I am not in support of this and I ... I, again, I would love to speak to P&Z on this and so,
um, that's where I am on this item.
Fruin: Mayor, if...if I may jump in. I just wanna offer some ... some clarity on where we're at in this
process. Um, the annexation and the rezoning to an interim zone does not give the applicant the
ability to build a single-family subdivision. Um, as ... as Danielle mentioned ,it's really going to
remain agricultural uses and potentially large -lot developments, but... but... but the applicant isn't
interested in large rural lot developments. Otherwise, if..if they were, they'd just build it in the
county. They wouldn't annex it. Um, as the applicant representative mentioned, uh, they're
interested in ... in planning a neighborhood for ...for us in the future. And, uh, in order for them to
invest in that planning process, they have to have some certainty that the City welcomes, uh,
this ... this development. Um, that the sewer to get to this area isn't even on our CEP until 2023.
So there's. -there's just no possibility for this to really develop between now and 2023 but
by...by annexing it, it allows the ... the developer to take some steps forward and ... and really
confirms with staff that you want us to move forward with the sewer extension, because if
you're not willing to annex, we really don't need to be investing in, you know, millions of
dollars in your sewer. Um, so the comprehensive plan process is where a lot of the comments
that I'm hearing typically get focused Um, we will look at whether we need another fire station
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 12
out here. We will look at what type of park amenity we need out here. Um, I'm interested in
exploring a west side recreation center, um, as part of this, urn ... urn, development, and I know
the School District is interested in considering school sites out there. Those aren't things that
are forgotten. Um, those are things that, um, have been noted and are going to be part of
the ... the comprehensive planning process. Um, that plan will be updated before you are asked
to zone this into a ... a traditional City zone, or a version of the new form based code, um, which
has always been our intention is to take that form based code and apply that to ... to other
greenfield sites like this in the community. Um, and then, uh, if we do that all correctly, you do
create a walkable neighborhood that has public services, that has all those things that you're
talking about. Um, my...my fear is that if you ... if you ... if you're not willing to move forward
with an annexation at this time, it's probably gonna bring some of those things to a halt, but we
can certainly still move forward with the comprehensive plan. But when you don't have the
participation of the eventual developer or owner, um, the quality of that plan, um, and the
feasibility of that plan, uh, may suffer a bit, and we might ... may find ourselves having to ... to
update that comprehensive plan, however many years down the road we need, uh, when
it ... whenever it comes back. So, again, just some comments that I ... I think in just listening to
ya, a lot of your comments are directed at...at more of a future stage in the process. Um, so if
you want to get there, I ... I ... I think, um, you'll need to just think a little bit more on ... on what
this annexation means and really what it enables us to do moving forward. Um, I will
reit... reiterate one point that, um, I believe Councilor Mims ... may, it may have been somebody
else. Um, if you take a scan of the entire city, our infill development opportunities are few and
far between, and we still know that there's a lot of growth demand in Iowa City and in Johnson
County. Um, it won't be long but if we don't commit to annexations like this, it's not gonna be
long down the road in which we don't have, um, available supply to accommodate that growth
and you're gonna see that growth move outside of Johnson County or up .... I'm sorry, outside of
Iowa City and, um, you know, if you're worried about sprawl on a macro, um, level, if you're
worried about climate change on a macro level, you're really just gonna see those households
even move further out, um, into, um, some of our ...our neighboring communities in rural
Johnson County. So I just wanted to offer some of that as you continue, uh, your deliberations.
Teague: Any other Council comments? And then I just wanted to make mention, um, that we
are, um, we have closed the public opportunity for people to comment on this. But thank you
for raising your hand.
Bergus: Um, Mayor, I wanted to ... to weigh in. I think, um, the ... the, where we are in the process is
what I think we need to focus on, and for myself the idea that we have, uh, an owner who's been
considering for years whether they wish to be subject to all of the requirements that we impose
as a city and all of the amenities that we can help provide as a city, um, and this step right now
is just saying, are we willing to expand the boundaries of our community to include the
potential for a future development, that we have the opportunity to help make something very
positive, to make something, you know, what I ... what I heard was mixed-use and form based
code, from ... from the developer, and if they're engaging in those conversations, that's exactly
what we want to see. That's in line with our strategic plan. That's in line with, um, our ...our
overall goals, our comprehensive goals, and absolutely I understand the concern with, um, that,
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 13
you know, our ... our ...we don't want to rush ahead. But we ... we want the opportunity to grow
and one of the only places where we can grow, and to be able to do it in a smart way, and I'm
just concerned with stopping that process, when we know that the need is great and we know
that ... that there are places in ... in adjacent areas or adjacent communities or even if this stays in
the county, where we won't be able to say what can happen ... with this property in any
meaningful way. I definitely share the concerns about sprawl and I remember a meeting, um, at
some point in 2019 that I ... that I was just observing about a development out, um, I think it's
east of town, that was in the county and, you know, close enough to the city that the Council
had to weigh in on it. And it was ... it was very much sprawl, you know, households that are
spread apart and ... and not easy access to our community. But I think what we're talking about
here is a planned development that can be intentional and purposeful and bring our ...our goals
and our comprehensive strategies to bear. So I'm really excited about the opportunity and I
would hate to shut that down, um, just because of where we are in the process, looking ahead
and being concerned. I have ... I have faith in our ability to help push this in the right direction.
So that... that's... thank you for the discussion. It's been really helpful for me to hear, but that's
where I'm at.
Weiner: Um, I appreciate what ... what you just had to say, um, Coun... Councilor Bergus. For... for me, I
guess, sprawl is relative. When you look at the size of this... this... the city, we are, um,
really ...we are still quite small by any stretch of the imagination, even when you look at a Cedar
Rapids, and certainly at a Des Moines, and ... and even if...even if you add this much, were still
very small, relatively speaking. The other thing that ... that comes to mind is...is if we ... opt
ultimately not to expand the boundaries of the city, uh, that will ... that will inevitably put more
pressure on the existing housing stock and more pressure on prices with the existing housing
stock, causing prices to rise further. So I, um, I sort of see creating the opportunity as a ... as a
true opportunity, um, where we would have ... once we get to a subsequent stage that's not
interim zoning, where we would have every opportunity to ensure that our values are in place,
that there is transportation that goes out there, so that ... so that anyone could, um, so that anyone
can be ... live out there and get to work in town or get ... get to the University or whatever they
need to do. So at this point, I would say that I'm leaning in ... in faith that I am now in favor of it,
having heard what I've heard from a variety of people.
Mims: If I could just add one other thing, as ... as I've listened to everybody talk, I share the same
concerns, I believe, with everybody who has indicated they're not in favor, and I ... I don't think
anybody articulated it necessarily as well as Laura did in terms of...the process and where we're
at in the process, and listening to the City Manager talk about the fact that if we're not willing at
this point to show, uh, support for the annexation, when we still have complete control. We
don't have to do the rezoning later. I mean, it would only go to interim development
zone ... interim zoning now. We still have complete control over what that final zoning is and
what all of this area looks like, and so to have that developer potentially walk away and say, you
know, how can we commit the time and the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, or
whatever it takes, to work with the City on this plan. I think we'd be really, really unfortunate,
as Councilor Bergus said. I think to at least show that we have that interest while we still have
complete control down the road. I don't see us .... I guess I don't see what we're losing. I don't
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 14
see what we're losing by doing the annexation, because we still have complete control when it
comes to the rezoning. So to me it makes sense to show good faith that, yeah we do ... it does
make sense to have this in the city someday and we wanna have control how it's developed, and
so to then encourage the developer to stay involved and work with our staff and ... and as
somebody said, I was excited to hear John Yapp say, in discussions with the ... with staff, they're
already talking about form based code and mixed-use and walkability. So I ... I think well all get
to that same page, but as Councilor Bergus said, and the City Manager said, let's look at the
process and what needs to come in what order. I don't think we can get all those details worked
out and then do the annexation, because I'm not sure the developer's gonna stay around to do all
that work if we don't show them a commitment.
Teague: I'll just make one last comment, um, only because you just mentioned, um, you know the ... and
I believe if this wasn't ... if this was already in the city, at least for me, I would, you know, if we
were, you know, votin' on somethin' different. The annexation, then I would be lookin' at this
with a different eye. The challenge that I have is when you have .... we don't have everything in
place, and then you have the developers, and then we have staff, and then you're gonna have
Council vote on somethin' in the future that it's gonna affect what can be done there, and that's
why I have ... that's why I say pause because ... do we really wanna put the developer and our staff
and ... and Council into a position where we ... whatever form based code we develop, is that
gonna be somethin' that this developer is now gonna want to do. I ... I hear the argument about
the annexation and in obtainin' the land, gettin' them under our umbrella. I get that. I hear it,
um, but I think far too often we ... we ... we, um, yeah I'm gonna say it. We don't really begin with
the end in mind, and at least for this individual, you know, it's not already a part of the city.
So ... uh, if there's any more ... if there's no more comments, and sorry I had to just make mention
of that last comment. If there's no more comments, then I will entertain a motion to defer this
for a meeting with P&Z.
Taylor: (garbled) Taylor (garbled)
Teague: All right, uh, moved by Taylor.
Thomas: Second by Thomas.
Teague: Seconded by Thomas.
Dilkes: (both talking) ...just to clarify, this is a deferral until the 15'x', and in the interim, a meeting with
P&Z will be scheduled.
Teague: Um, could we not have the meetin' with P...how do we normally do the meetings with P&Z,
the day of the ... of the Council meeting?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 15
Dilkes: You ... you can do that. I just wanted to make it clear that we're deferring this item until the
Council meeting of the 15th. (both talking) And there will need to be communication with
Planning and Zoning about when they're available to meet.
Teague: All right, so that is the deferral until the 15th. Um ... uh, roll ... I think I can do just a voice vote
in agreement.
Dilkes: You can do a voice vote.
Teague: Yep. So, all in favor say aye. Any opposed? Hearin' none, it is deferred.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 16
10.b. Carson Farm Rezoning — Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 196.17
acres of land located west of Highway 218 and south of Rohret Road from County
Residential (R) and County Urban Residential (RUA) to Interim Development Single -
Family Residential (ID -RS) zone.
1. Public Hearing
Teague: I'm gonna open the public hearing. Staff presentation ... although ... well, we'll go with it. Staff
presentation.
Sitzman: Sure, Mayor. So this is, uh, was presented largely in combination with the annexation. Uh,
this is just the summary again. Um, based on a review of the relevant criteria, staff did
recommend approval, um, at the October 15th meeting, again, by a vote of 4 — 2, the Planning
and Zoning Commission concurred with that. Um, the CZA for this rezoning has been signed
by the applicant.
Teague: All right, any questions for Danielle? Would anyone from the public like to discuss this topic ?
Um ... uh, all right. Welcome, John, and I ask all ... everyone to keep their comments three to five
minutes.
Yapp: Welcome, Mayor.
Teague: Yes, hello.
Yapp: Uh, since the staff combined the two staff reports, I would like a little bit of liberty to combine
my...presentation.
Dilkes: Mayor, that's appropriate. We typically allow ... we typically don't limit the applicant to the four
minutes. I mean, it's a ... it's a due process thing for the applicant.
Teague: Okay! All right. (both talking)
Yapp: Thank you. The annexation, the previous item which you will discuss with P&Z (clears throat)
is really regarding what area you want to bring under the City's control. It does not include
zoning, it does not include development density, it does not include... possible school sites,
possible mixed-use neighborhoods, etc. It's really .. would you rather have that under the City's
control or the County's control, with the City's fringe area agreement. Um ... and I guess that's
all I would like to say about that. It ... it ... it's part of the City's growth area ..that's been identified
for 20 -plus years. Uh, it's part of this... part of the area of the city and tends to provide
infrastructure to (goes silent) the north side or Rohret Road is ... 95% developed. South side of
Rohret Road is not at all. Um, that neighborhood needs more schools, it needs commercial
development, it needs mixed-use development. Right now it's a single- family neighborhood,
north of Rohret Road. Out intent ... is mixed-use development, is form based code
development... and school development. Uh, to the rezoning, our request for rezoning is interim
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 17
development. That is an agricultural zone. That is because the City does not plan to provide
sewer until 2023. That gives us time to work with staff ..to develop a mixed-use development
plan, which is our intent. We've also signed the affordable housing agreement ... to provide
affordable housing. That is also our intent. We are trying to plan for the future. With that, I'll
take any questions.
Teague: I'm not hearing any questions, John. Thank you. Nicholas, welcome.
Theisen: Hello, thank you again for letting me speak. Um, I'd like to note that the idea that has been
brought up both by the applicant and by a couple of Councilors that this is just an annexation,
that this is just a conditional rezoning is extremely disingenuous because, as all of you have just
shown, like what immediately came to all of your minds were all sorts of future plans about
how the City is supposed to develop. Um, Councilor Mims mentioned, you know, the need for
growth, like all sorts of things already immediately came into play. So the idea that this is just a
simple annexation decision or a simple rezoning decision is frankly bunk. I mean, because the
thing is, this is precisely what ... I mean, I know you guys probably hate that I hector you on
these things all the time, but this is precisely (several talking in background, garbled) need to be
thinking about these things. When you need to have those broader ...and you're already doing it,
and frankly, I'm actually really shocked (laughs) to see that so many of you were ... were opposed
to this for ...not always great, but, you know, very good reasons. And that's precisely what you
should be doing. So I would like to encourage you that and to speak directly to something that,
um, the City Manager brought up. It doesn't matter how far along they are in the process. It
doesn't matter. Why? Because you are our elected officials. The staff are not our elected
officials. It doesn't matter what they have done. It doesn't matter how much they have
accomplished. Because what should matter is how our elected officials actually guide the long-
term goals of the City. That is what matters. So, frankly, anytime that gets brought up, you can
just ignore it. Because you are the elected officials. You're the ones who make the votes, and I
want to encourage you to keep doing that because this is what you should be doing. You should
be thinking in this way. You should be thinking in these broader terms. Thank you.
Teague: Thank you, Nicholas. Would anyone else like to address this topic? If so, please raise your
hand or press •9 on your cell phone ... or on your phone. Okay. Seein' no one, I am not gonna
close the public hearing. I'm gonna ask if, uh, Councilors are inclined to vote with P&Z on this
item? Um...
Mims: Do we not have to defer this since ... can we even vote on this before we vote on the annexation?
Dilkes: No, you're ... you can't vote on this when you've deferred the annexation.
Mims: Okay. So we just need a motion to defer then.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 18
Dilkes: Well, you ... you can do a couple things. You can close the public hearing and defer the ... and
defer the item ... like you did with the annexation. Um, or you can continue the public hearing
and defer the item.
Teague:Um, I ... I mean we closed the public hearing on the other one. I ... I might suggest we leave the
public hearing open on this one.
Mims: Sure. Sounds good.
Teague: Okay. All right, so, um, could I get a motion to defer ...this item until we meet with P&Z and
defer this item until the 15th of December.
Dilkes: And continue the public hearing?
Mims: Yeah.
Teague: Yes!
Mims: (both talking) ...move to continue the public hearing and defer the vote till after we ... to the 15th.
Taylor: So moved, Taylor.
Teague: Um, moved by Mims, seconded by Taylor. All ... all in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right
item is deferred 7 - 0. Um, could I get a consideration for, uh... no, no, no, sorry.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 19
10.c. Rezoning at 400 N. Clinton Street and 112 E. Davenport Street — Ordinance
conditionally rezoning approximately 12,000 square feet of land located at 400 N. Clinton
Street and 112 E. Davenport Street to Planned High Density Multi -Family Residential
(PRM) zone. (REZ20-0008)
1. Public Hearing
Teague: I'm going to open the public hearing. Staff presentation.
Sitzman: Thank you, Mayor. Um, the applicant, Jeff Clark, has requested a rezoning from high density
multi -family residential, PRM -44, to our planned high density multi -family residential district,
PRM, for the land shown here in the white outline. Um, the proposed request is being pursued
in conjunction with the proposed zoning code amendments to follow this agenda item, allowing
minor adjustments to the PRM zone for new construction projects, which involve preserving a
separate historic structure and the rezoning application to designate, um, land shown, uh, land
just to the north of the highlighted area, uh, to designate that land as an Iowa City historic
landmark. Um, staff has been coordinating with the applicant on the proposed redevelopment
of the highlighted area, 400 North Clinton Street and 112 East Davenport Street, for several
months, as you are aware. Um, this shows the existing zoning of the area. A little bit of
overview of the timeline of this, um, going back, um, more than a year ago, um, an original
effort to landmark designate 410, 412 North Clinton Street was unsuccessful. Um, following
that, uh, staff reached out to the property owner to identify another solution and preserve that
property. Um, the property owner proposed an alternate way of, uh, capturing some
development potential in the vicinity, while still preserving that land, by focusing development
on this property, 400 North Clinton and 112 East Davenport instead. Um, over the intervening
months, um, there's been several, um, reviews of concept plans that have gone through staff.
Also to the Historic Preservation Commission. Also before you as well, um, talking about what
was a value in those concept plans and what could be continued to be refined, and then
acknowledging that some part of our code would need to change to allow some additional
flexibility in the PRM zone, to actually implement, um, the concept plan, once it had been
reviewed, um, by Historic Preservation and yourselves. So that brings us to today ...and looking
at, um, as I said 400 North Clinton, 112 East Davenport, and eventually 410, 412, uh, North
Clinton Street. Um, as you'll recall, this is the property at 410, 412 North Clinton Street that
would hopefully be landmarked and preserved. This is the property at 4...400 North Clinton
Street, and the adjacent property at 112 East Davenport, showing them in relationship to each
other as street view looking northeast. Um, pardon my failed, uh, animated slides here. But
this ... these slides are meant to show you the existing units on that north property. Um, the
existing units, ignoring the floor plan that's kind of overlaid here in the existing buildings ... and
then, um, what could be redeveloped under, um, the new zoning district on the southern
property, and in total for both, uh, keeping the existing units on the north for the most part, and
redeveloping the southern... southern parcel. These are, um, revised elevations, uh, that you've
seen before, um, shown from the west, the south, the east, and the north, and then the 3-D
model again of that western view, showing the historic landmark property on the left and the
potential redevelopment on the right. Historic Preservation Commission has provided input
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 20
throughout this process and what, uh, they've reviewed in the various concepts. Um, the
majority of the commissioners have supported the current, uh, concept. Um, they've provided
feedback on, uh, the need for rehabilitation plans to be in place, to assure preservation of the
property once it's designated, um, valuing the salvage of materials from the southern properties
as much as possible, both to divert them from the landfill and to preserve them for future use if,
um, they are, uh, desired to do that. Um, also being sensitive to the open space located between
the two structures and the historic, uh, the connection and the interplay between the historic
building and the new construction, and then really just making sure that the concepts as
expressed (mumbled) get proposed and are reviewed as the process continues. Looking just a
little bit at the current zoning and the PRM zoning, they're both for multi -family development.
They have very sta... similar, um, dimensional requirements for height, as is, um, the pro ... PRM
zone is a planned zoning district. So what it offers developers the ability to do in its current
iteration is based on a points -based system where, um, a developer can score points for, um,
added value to their development, either through materials or providing public benefits in other
categories, and then spend those points to get additional development flexibility. Um, we do, as
I said before, use several criteria to evaluate rezonings. Um, first is the comprehensive plan.
Um, the sub... subject property is located in the Central District plan and it identifies the area as
appropriate for high density multi -family development, um, intended to be in close proximity to
downtown, the University, and other employment centers, with good access to City services and
facilities. Um, the proposed amendment aligns with other goals in the comprehensive plan,
including, uh, supporting infill and historic preservation, obviously. Um, as far as compatibility
with the neighborhood, the site is surrounded by existing multi -family development, as well as
the University campus and residence halls. Um, the proposed site of the building in the concept
plans is the same height as Currier Hall across the street. Um, it has been revised to incorporate
a flat roof to visually reduce the overall building scale. Again the open space between the two
structures has been evaluated (clears throat) and revised. And a portion of the new construction
adjacent to the historic structure has been lowered in height, uh, to reduce this impact. hi
addition, as I said, the concept plan would be tied to the rezoning. Looking at the development
process for this property, um, we're at the rezoning stage here of the 400 North Clinton and 112
East Davenport. Uh, after this agenda item is the zoning code amendment for consideration,
um, and then eventually the landmark rezoning, as I said, of the property to the north. Any site
plan review and building permit review. So based on a review of the relevant criteria, staff did
recommend approval of the proposed rezoning with one condition, that being the substantial
compliance with the site plan and elevations, um, expressing the concept for development. At
it' October 15th meeting, by a vote of 5 —1, the Planning and Zoning Commission concurred
with staff's opinion and also recommended approval of the rezoning, and a CZA has been
signed for this application. And that concludes staff report. I'm happy to answer questions.
Teague: Don't hear any questions. Thank you! Would anyone from the public like to address this
topic? If so, please raise your hand ... or press *9 on ... on the phone. Welcome, Nicholas.
Theisen: Thank you, Mayor, once again. Um, at risk of sounding like a broken record, um, I'm ... I mean
I'm just gonna make the same point that I always make, which is that you all really should
seriously consider whether or not it's ... whether it's appropriate to be making these decisions
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 21
when you still yet have a comprehensive affordable housing plan. Because, as I've noted many
times in the past, it's decisions just like this one, and in fact, Clark is one of the worst offenders
when it comes to basically building apartments supposedly for students that are grossly
overpriced for them, and so these are the sorts of things that directly contribute to the rising
housing costs for the very people who can't afford to pay it. So I ... I just wanna leave it there in
fact. I'm ... no, actually I don't wanna leave it there, because several of you have actually
expressed a ... a similar concern about how these projects are actually increasing not only the
overall financial burden for the City, but also the financial burden for, you know, the people
who are supposed to live in these units. And so this is a perfect example of a situation in which
you can make the right decision, and the right decision is to reject these sorts of things until you
have actually come up with a more comprehensive plan, where you can actually think about
these decisions in a broader perspective, rather than just approaching them, you know,
piecemeal, the way you've historically done. So that's all I have to say about that. Thank you.
Teague: Thank you, Nicholas. Would anyone else like to address this topic? If so, please raise your
hand. All right. And I am going to ask Council if they are inclined to support this. Um, and
I'm gonna try to get a different view here so that I could see majority of heads. Let me see. All
right. One second. I think ... can we ... can we get rid of the presentation for now? I think that's
the challenge why I can't see them all. There we go! All right (laughs) Now I can see your
nodding heads (laughs) So, uh, is Council inclined to vote with P&Z? Please, uh, shake your
head. I ... I see the majority. So well go ahead and close the public hearing. All right. Could I
get a motion to give first consideration?
2. Consider an Ordinance (First Consideration)
Salih: Move for first consideration.
Mims: Second, Mims.
Teague: Moved by Salih, seconded by Mims. All right, Council discussion.
Mims: I'm not excited, um, at all about this project. I ... I don't like the size of the new building. I ... um,
but a lot of time and effort from Historic Preservation has gone into this and in ... from their
perspective, the value of preserving that building, I think at 410, 412 Clinton. I guess I would
have one question for Danielle. I ... sorry missed when I should have asked it. And that is how
much public input, um, have we gathered from the neighbors? I'm just, I know the Historic
Preservation Commission's been very involved, but I guess my question becomes, when those
two buildings come down on the corner of -one on the comer of Clinton and (mumbled)
Davenport, and then the other one, and this really, really big building starts going up there. I
guess my question is, how much do the neighbors really understand what's gonna happen there?
Sitzman: So, um, a good neighbor meeting was not held for this project. However, because it's been on
var...various public hearing agendas has had probably more than its fair share of exposure for
the public. There are not a lot of owners living in vicinity to the ... to this property. Um, I know
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 22
we've received comment from one, uh, gentleman who is an owner -occupant of a nearby
structure, but I think by and large the neighborhood is comprised of multi -family apartment
buildings with, um, the property owners having gotten noticed through the notice process for
the surrounding, um, notification area of those public hearings, but not necessarily independent
stakeholder meetings.
Mims: Thank you.
Taylor: This has just been a really tough decision for me. I ... I ... I keep feeling like our hands are tied on
this because, uh, with our ...well at least my desire and some previous Members on the Council's
desire, to have this preserved as historic building. Uh, that's really important to us, and it's
obviously very important to our Historic Preservation Committee, uh, for reasons that they
decided. Uh, so ... so it's just really tough, um, and I appreciate the efforts of the owner of the
property and the developer, uh, to try to work around our concerns and, uh, they've redesigned
the building a couple of times, but it's still, uh, even as ... as (laughs) Susan or Councilor Mims
described it as a large building. It does look large, and I think, uh, one of the things (garbled)
look at is the compatibility with the neighborhood and it...it just doesn't seem to ... to fit with that
neighborhood ,and ... and it reminds me a little bit about the Augusta Place, uh, development
with the UU Church and, uh... uh, Allen ... Allen Corporation worked really hard to incorporate
that building, the church, into their new design, but it still sort of overcomes that historic
building, uh, it kinda gets swallowed up in it, and I'm afraid that's what'll happen with this, but
I ... I'm just not sure where to go with my thoughts of wanting to preserve. I ... I don't know if we
denied this whether, um, whether the owner and the developer would go along, continue to go
along with trying to preserve that building.
Bergus:(garbled) Um, I just ... I just was hoping other Councilors, um, can maybe help clarify on kind
of how we got here. I think I heard, um, Danielle say the hope is that, you know, there'll be,
um, a historic landmarking for the ... the historic building, and my understanding was that
previously Council had looked to landmark that building and that that had not, um, that that
required a super -majority because the owner was not favorable to it and that that failed. And sc
now we're in a position of brokering a deal to have some assurance that they will go along with
the landmarking. Um, as I, you know, it doesn't seem to be a condition of the CZA, if I'm
understanding that correctly. So I ... I guess I'm just not sure what assurance we have or how do
we ... how do we know that's (laughs) gonna go forward (garbled)
Sitzman: I can clarify, if that wasn't very clear. The ... the applicant would .... so in the original
landmark, uh, rezoning effort, the property owner was not the applicant and they opposed the
landmarking. In this instance, the property owner will be the applicant. It would be a voluntary
landmarking that they would, um, have agreed to, um, proceed with, in conjunction with these
changes. So the reason that's not on the agenda with it at this evening is that they wanted us to
start this process, uh, on items that are on our side of the table to complete, at least get them in
the works, um, so that they would, uh, then have their hearings on their applications, and it will
all, uh, end up on the same final agenda together. So, um, they've committed to making the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 23
landmarking application. It's actually in process already, and so they will all come out at the
end together.
Bergus: Thank you for that.
Weiner: Right, so ... so if...so basically this is driven by, um, not getting the super -majority to begin
with ... to landmark it (mumbled) So with the Council ... has sort of put itself in this position, in
some ways.
Fruin: There was a, um, there was a majority of Council that wanted to preserve it, but I think it was
maybe one vote short of that super -majority. So knowing that there was a majority at the time
that ... that strongly wanted to ... to favor that, that's what initiated those conversations between
staff and the applicant. That's... that's how we ended up here.
Teague: I'm gonna support this. Um, I think I was a part of the, um, not super -majority (laughs) I
guess. Uh, I ... I wanted to preserve the historic, por...part of this buildin', um, but we couldn't
reach enough, uh, super -majority. Um, I ... I looked at this, I looked up the notes. Um, I'm
gonna support it. Um, I think I'm in the same boat as, uh, Councilor Mims, where it's not ... it
doe ... it doesn't have all the bells and whistles. Um, I know the aesthetics, there was a lot of
conversation about that. Um, for me, you know, sometimes you have to give and take a little
bit, um, but we're talkin' about the rezonin' tonight. So I'm gonna support this. Um, yeah!
Thomas: I ... I will be supporting it as well. I, you know, it's a lot of effort, uh, that I'd like to, uh, thank
staff, uh, the Historic Preservation, Planning Commission, uh, the applicant in work ... trying to
work out a, um, remedy to this situation we found ourselves in, and I think it's the best, uh, we
could do, given the circumstances. Um, the main focus was to preserve that historic building
and, uh, this will achieve that. Um, so, um, I'm happy to support it and, um, there were some
comments regarding possible changes during the staff review regarding aesthetics. So that's
another opportunity to see if we can't refine the building a little bit more.
Teague: All right. Could I ... urn, so sound like we ... let me think. (laughs) I think I lost. Yes. All right.
Yeah, we're gonna, um, take roll call. Sorry! (laughs) Motion passes 7 — 0. Could I get a
motion to accept correspondence?
Salih: (several talking) Move by Salih.
Teague: Moved by Salih, seconded by Thomas, and all in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes
7-0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 24
10.d. Zoning Code Amendment — PRM Zone Bonus Provisions Ordinance — Ordinance to
amend Title 14 Zoning to allow minor adjustments in Planned High Density Multi -Family
Residential (PRM) zones for new construction projects which involve preserving a
separate historic structure. (REZ20-0005)
1. Public Hearing
Teague: I'm gonna open the public hearing ... and staff presentation!
Sitzman: Thank you, Mayor. So as a continuation of the discussion in August at your work session,
where staff presented the concept to potentially redevelop this property, and identified the need
to provide additional relief from zoning code regulations in the PRM zone, in order to
accomplish the applicant's concept. Um, therefore what you're seeing next is the code ... code
changes that were designed to accomplish that, to allow minor adjustments in plan density
hi ... planned high density multi- family residential zone or PRM zones for new construction
projects which involve preservation of a separate historic struc ... structure, and the amendment
may also incentivize some future historic preservation efforts, although staff expects the
application of this ... these code changes to be fairly limited. Um, so staff developed the
proposed amendment to be similar to existing forms of flexibility and incorporated into the
PRM zone bonus provisions that I mentioned earlier, where an applicant score points and then
spend points. Um, it's written as (mumbled) that new construction projects which are involving
a separate preservation abutting them would be eligible, um, for those bonus, um, provisions. It
allows for minor adjustments. Um, it does, um, require staff design review. So there's an
additional level of design review, over and above most other types of applications in the PRM
zone, and then there's specific appli... acca... applicability and, um, review criteria that were
developed just for this specific kind of bonus. So again, this is for new construction, separate
abutting historic landmark designation, property preservation, minor adjustments, and, um,
properties not needing to be under the same ownership. So perhaps a little bit of that, uh,
transfer development rights concept that we explored, but not really fully that. Simply that the
owners involved don't have to be the same, but they must agree to the project. On the specific
waivers and exclusions that would be eligible for those minor modifications or anything from
dimensional requirements, like lot sizes and setbacks, heights and widths, lot coverages, open
spaces, number of bedrooms, and density, to some of the development standards for multi-
family, which have to do more with the site improvements, the parking area, screening
requirements, the access for people and vehicles, the design and building entrances, and
building materials scale design, as well as that kind of general site standards, um, for parking
requirements, signs, and other things like, um, trees and landscaping and lighting. Um, it does
exclude things that we wanna continue to regulate regardless that ... such as sensitive features
and flood plain management requirements. As I said, there's some additional approval criteria
that would be, um, implemented to review projects under this, um, bonus waiver provision.
Um, designating the property as an Iowa City landmark, um, providing a
rehabilitat ... rehabilitation plan for the landmark property to ensure it continues, um, to be
preserved once it's designated, and diverting materials from the landfill, whenever possible, as
part of demolition. Um, as far as the approval char... criteria that I mentioned, um, there will be
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 25
some limits on height with the designation. We talked a little bit before about the relative scale
of historic buildings next to new construction. Um, certainly sensitive to that, and we'll be
looking at ways to preserve historic properties and not detract from the overall, uh,
neighborhood through new ...new development. Um, consistency, um, with the comprehensive
plan and other district plans, as well as the historic preservation plan. So staff did an analysis of
where this code change would be applicable. There are several areas where we have PRM
development in the city. However, really, um, as staff anticipates that the near North Side area
is most likely to see this protection. Um, there are some historic (garbled) properties in the
form based code Riverfront Crossings area, but they have another means of accessing bonuses
for historic preservation, uh, and would likely not be using this, uh, designation because they
would choose to go to the, um, Riverfront Crossings form based code zoning district instead
and access other, um, incentives and, um, development styles under that zoning. Again, as staff
uses some—basic criteria as we draft these kinds of code changes. We obviously want to
support the stated goals of our long-range plans and our historic preservation, uh, plans, um,
while still providing the flexibility for redevelopment and infill, uh, knowing that that is
sometimes difficult. And obviously in this case, really focusing on the historic preservation.
Um, as we draft these code changes, we're also trying to limit them and anticipate all their other
impacts, and we feel like we've done a good job with that in this case. Um, this table shows, for
illustrative purposes, um, the additional development potential that would be, um, unlocked
through this code change. Um, the far right column is the concept expressed by the applicant,
um, and the column to the left of that showing what the current limits under PRM would be,
without accessing these code changes for historic preservation. Again, in the process, this is
following that rezoning to PRM. This is the zoning code amendment to the standards in the
PRM zoning district. Again, the rezoning of the property to the north will follow on a following
agenda, as it works it way ... it's way through the Planning and Zoning Commission. So based
on a review of the relevant criteria and potential impact, staff did draft and recommend the
zoning code be amended to ... as explained, to facilitate the preservation of historic
strush ... structures specifically (clears throat) 410 and 412 North Clinton Stmt as local historic
landmark, which would occur in conjunction with the redevelopment of the southern subject
properties and the previous rezoning. Uh, as I said, the amendment may incentivize some
future historic preservation efforts, although we really feel that will be limited. At its October
15th main meeting and by a vote of 6 — 0, the Planning and Zoning Commission concurred with
our opinion and did also recommend this zoning code change. That concludes my staff report.
Teague: Thank you, Danielle. Any questions for Danielle? Hearin' none. (both talking) Oh, sorry.
Go right ahead!
Weiner: Um, you said that... Danielle, you said that, um, you couldn't foresee very many other app...
applications, but it strikes me a little bit like some of the other... some of the other amendments
that you all have been putting forward recently as ... yes, perhaps design for one specific, um,
instance, to some degree (laughs) but, um, that it...it could have ... it could be helpful in ... in
working with people who want to improve properties in an area that's already quite built up.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 26
Sitzman: Possible, um, or the other code changes we .... um, presented to you most recently are
probably more likely to have a larger impact than this one. Um, I say that because, um, really
the PRM zone is not a widely used zoning district. It only is used in the three areas that were
shown on that map. One of those three areas being the Riverfront Crossings, which really is not
where we see PRM continuing to be exist. It will be replaced by eventual rezonings to
Riverfmnt Crossing form based code district zoning designations. So this one really is a much
more limited scope than some of the other ones, but it ... it's possible.
Weiner: Thank you.
Teague: Any other questions for Danielle? Would anyone from the public like to address this topic? If
so, please raise your hand or press *9 on your phone. Seein' no one ... for Council, um, can we,
uh, stop the screen share, please? Thank you. So for Council, are you inclined to vote with
P&Z recommendation? All right, I see a majority of people. So then I'm gonna close the public
hearing, and could I get a motion to give first consideration?
2. Consider an Ordinance (First Consideration
Weiner: So moved, Weiner.
Mims: Second, Mims.
Teague: All right, Council discussion? Hearin' none, roll call please. Motion passes 7 - 0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 27
10.e. Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Riverfront Crossings, West Riverfront
Expansion — Resolution to amend the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, a
part of Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan, to include property located north of the Iowa
Interstate Railroad, east of Olive Street, and south of Myrtle Avenue in the West
Riverfront Subdistrict. (CPA20-0002)
1. Public Hearing
Teague: I'm gonna open the public hearing. Staff presentation!
Sitzman: Thank you, Mayor. Um, over the past several years, K&F Properties, LLC has purchased and
assembled 15 parcels, or approximately four acres of property, located north of Iowa Interstate
Railroad's, um, slightly east of Olive Street, south of Myrtle Avenue, and west of Riverside
Drive. (mumbled) I'll go back in a second. Um, not including 513 South Riverside Drive,
which is the corner, southwest comer of Myrtle and Riverside. Um, the owner's working with
Shive Hattery to prepare three applications to allow for ...three applications to allow for, um, the
eventual development of a mixed-use project with housing, retail, and hospitality, and
neighborhood service uses. Um, this specific application is for a comp plan amendment, um,
adding the subject properties into the West Riverfront subdistrict of the Downtown and
Riverfront Crossings master plan. Um, this is a necessary step prior to rezoning. Um, the
comprehensive plan amendment must be approved prior to changes of the zoning of the
property since one of the review criteria for a rezoning is, um, compliance with the
comprehensive plan, and, um, also to make changes to the zoning regulating plan maps. Um, so
as I indicated, this is the property outlined in white, that ... which is under consideration for the
comprehensive plan amendment. Um, the two other agenda items tonight, um, having to do this
with this property are actually rezoning that land to a Riverfront Crossings zoning subdistrict,
and then also a change to the text of the zoning code, one to adjust a map to also reflect this
change and a second kind of more substanti ... substantive one, to address the height standards
for properties in this, um, subdistrict. The yellow dashed line here shows, um, area that's
already in the West Riverfront for ...form base code district. However, it's not, uh, zoned one of
those districts yet. So this is ... the area in yellow is also part of the potential redevelopment. It
is already eligible for rezoning to Riverfront Crossings. Um, some photos showing the existing
conditions on the site, Riverside Drive on the right hand side of both of these pictures. Then
this is the existing zoning, again, kind of a hodgepodge of zoning districts, and the areas in blue
are the areas that are already, um, in the form based code Riverfront Crossings district and
zoned a Riverfront Crossings, uh, designation. This, um, map shows you, again, the West
Riverfront expansion area in relationship to the West Riverfront district as a whole. Also, um,
the Orchard, uh, district is shown there in the outline. That was the district that was, after the
adoption of the plan, also added in a similar process to this. Um, this would be expansion as...
as I said at the West Riverfront subdistrict. Um, existing uses of the property are residential,
um, primarily multi -family with some single-family uses. Um, it's on the bluff along the river
and has a significant grade change from west to east, and the proposed use would be, as I said,
mixed-use, um, and redevelopment would, um, follow the form based code. Um, zoning district
standards and, um, result in a more cohesive pedestrian -friendly environment. Um, sensitive in
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 28
this areas is the single- family district or single-family homes to the west, along Olive. Um, as I
said, there's some significant grade though, so, um, as we get farther into these applications I'll
discuss that (mumbled) further. For comprehensive plan amendments, um, there's two review
criteria, one having to do with changed circumstances. The other having to do with (clears
throat) compatibility with the comprehensive plan. hi regard to changed circumstances,
information, or factors, um, the current district plan under which this property is regulated is the
Southwest District plan. It was adopted in 2002, um, and it was, um, identified this land as kind
of a transition area, in some ways. Uh, more recently, the Riverfront Crossings master plan was
adopted in 2013, um, and the two plans really have different ways of going about kind of the
same things. Um, the Southwest District plan predates form based coding in the city, and so it
accomplishes its goals through its future land use map. Um (clears throat) the form based code
kind of reflects an evolution in our ...our way of implementing our ...our vision by, um, looking
at, um, kind of more holistic, uh, design -based approaches. Um, also achieved circumstance,
obviously, is the assemblage of the 15 different parcels under one ownership. At the time the
master plan was, um, undertaken, even in 2013, that was not contemplated. So, um, that ... that
was one of the reasons why the expansion at this time is appropriate, is that really it wasn't
contemplated at the time, but it's relevant now as a changed circumstance. And this is meant to
illustrate other changes in the neighborhood over time. Uh, this is an aerial image snap from
2012. Um, part of the subject property is on the top of the screen highlighted in blue (clears
throat) Uh, the area highlighted in yellow in the middle (clears throat) represents, um ... as I go
through these slides, you'll see it change over to multi -family development or has redeveloped
as multi -family, to the south in kind of the orange color is more of the commercial district. So
if we flip over to 2019, you can see quite a bit of redevelopment has occurred in this
neighborhood. Um, some of the redevelopment in this neighborhood was really at the
beginnings of the form based code process and, um, really, um, the beginning and the middle of
the form base code process has really implemented a lot of those design ideals. This is a street,
um, ground level view of those same areas. the Orchard last and Riverfew...Riverview West,
being the multi -family development and the, uh, properties on the east being the commercial.
As far as combati ... compatibility with the comprehensive plan, as I said, the Southwest district
(clears throat) and the comprehensive plan (clears throat) have been the long-standing way of,
um, looking at expressing the vision for infill development in this area with sensitivity and
transition between types of housing, between single-family neighborhoods and more intense
multi -family, and even commercial uses, um, supporting generally commercial and downtown,
um, vitality, um, and attracting mixed uses as much as possible. The Southwest District plan, as
I said, uses a future land use map ... plan map for showing those transitions in the area. And then
the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings master plan more recently focusing more on the form
of development and having the form of development result in pedestrian -or :..pedestrian -oriented
and mixed-use infill, activating streetscapes, um, so that they're more welcoming, and also, uh,
changing the emphasis of where buildings are placed on sites to the parking is really de-
emphasized, buildings are at the comers, buildings are set back much more shallowly... shallow
from the street (clears throat) and really more addressing the street. Um, the proposed area is a
logical extension of the West Riverfront subdistrict. As I mentioned, the areas in blue here are
where the Riverfront Crossings form based code districts have already been, uh,
rezoned... properties already been rezoned to that. The subject property is that highlighted in
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 29
white and yellow. As far as compatibility with adjacent properties, again, um, this shows the
form based code standards for heights. Um, there are some limitations on heights when they
abut, uh, residential properties in the form based code. So that's the area shown in red. Um,
there are less restrictions, uh, so that transition happens away from single-family
neighborhoods. So that's the area shown in blue. Um, there is over 50 feet of grade change, uh,
across the site. So again, there's a way to step down development away from, um, and
in ... incorporating different forms of development across the site. As far as next steps to
development around the comprehensive plan amendment, as I mentioned, there's also a
rezoning. So if the comprehensive plan changes are considered appropriate, then the rezoning
would allow for a designation of the land as a ... as a West Riverfront district, and then also the
zoning code changes (clears throat) as I mentioned, would be the third application relative to
this redevelopment concept. So, uh, based on a review of the relevant criteria, staff did
recommend approval of the proposed amendment. Uh, we believe it incorporates the subject
property into the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings master plan, and supports the policies of
it and the comprehensive plan. At their November 5th meeting by a vote of 7 — 0, the Planning
and Zoning Commission concurred with staff's opinion and also recommended approval of the
proposed amendment. Approval will allow for a pending rezoning, and as I said, a zoning code
change. Due to the CO ... COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, the applicant conducted their good
neighbor meeting in a virtual format, on October 28th and did accept comments and questions
from the public. And that concludes staff report and I'm happy to answer questions.
Teague: Thank you, Danielle. Any questions?
Taylor: I ... I (both talking)
Teague: Oh please, go right ahead!
Taylor: I just have a quick sort of a technical question for Danielle, cause I'd seen some
correspondence, uh, some folks, uh, regarding, uh, what to classify this ... this area as an, uh, the
Orchard district was mentioned, since it's sort of...it abuts that, and quite a bit of the property.
What would be the difference, Danielle, uh, like the bullet points for Orchard district versus, uh,
the West Riverfront district?
Sitzman: Sure! (clears throat) The Orchard Court, uh, subdistrict versus the West Riverfront
subdistrict has different height limitations. Um, really, uh, much lower heights would be
allowed in Orchard, the Orchard Court scenario. Um, that district, as I mentioned, was an add-
on after the development of the original form based code and master plan. Um, its context is
much more in a neighborhood (mumbled, noise in background)) I didn't think the dog could
operate the door. But, um, this district, um, the West River&ont district is intended really to be
focused on the riverfront. Um, it is kind of bisected by Riverfront Drive. So there are some
properties on the east side of Riverside Drive that really are intended to take, uh, benefit from
the river views. Then on the west side of Riverfront... Riverside Drive, um, to the south of the
railroad, really some commercial properties that were intended to redevelop. This area was
really, as I said, not looked at as part of that because the redevelopment potential just wasn't
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 30
evident at the time the master plan was undertaken. Um, but it seems to be much more like the
West Riverfront district than the Orchard Court, in that the separation of it from the existing
single-family neighborhood is really much, uh, greater than in the Orchard Court area, which is
kind of nestled in amongst single-family homes in that neighborhood. Um, there's some other
differences I'm sure in some minor aspects of design, but primarily it has to do with heights.
Taylor: Thank you.
Thomas: Danielle, I ... one question. This is John. I had on the ... the staff recommendation ... it
mentioned item ... or number three. In the event that the owner pursues any bonus height for
buildings proposed next to the existing si ... single-family on Olive Street, and then it goes on.
Um, are bonus heights allowed in that area that would abut ... the, uh, single-family residential,
because what I ... what I also saw on one of the massing studies. Uh, this would be one, for
example, Riverside Drive looking west. There was a reference to, um, building heights, but it
states, `however, bonus height is not allowed on lots that (mumbled) residential zone. So I
was ... that seemed to run against what I was reading or understanding the ... the staff
recommendation, one of the conditions where it said that bonus heights would be allowed. Can
you clarify for me?
Sitzman: Sure! So if its abutting residential, no bonus height above the base maximum is allowed.
Um ... (both talking)
Thomas: (both talking) ...four stories?
Sitzman: Right, which is the red area... currently abutting, um, residential. Now obviously with 15
parcels, were also recommending they replat this so that some of those property lines are, uh,
probably going to ... be altered so the exact dimensions of the red area may change as they ...as
they replat all of this into, you know, one or two lots, whatever works with their development
concept when it comes to that.
Thomas: Uh huh. What is the setback, uh, against the residential there?
Sitzman: They're pretty similar, uh, throughout the form based code districts. They re generally 10 feet.
Um, its intended the buildings really ...inn, address the street and don't have large setbacks,
because when (mumbled) we see those results in this surface parking. So, the minimum
setbacks are quite small and they would be everywhere in the ... in the, uh, form based code
districts.
Teague: All right. Any other questions for Danielle? This is the opportunity to hear from the public. If
you wish to address, please raise your hand and I'll call on you. Um, keep your comments three
to five minutes. Uh, we'll have Nicholas, followed by Mark. Welcome!
Theisen: Thank you, Mayor, um, I just wanted to note with regard to two of the ... the completed
properties that Danielle had mentioned. Um, the one on ... well it's not really on Orchard. It's
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 31
like on Orchard as it's going into the cul-de-sac, but then also the one that's right on Riverside
Drive. I think like just north of the Kum n' Go. Now those two properties are actually perfect
examples of the problem that I've been trying to get you all to acknowledge, and so ... in both of
those cases, in fact, the ... the one on Riverside is really interesting because not only were the
units in it extremely expensive, but because of that fact, shortly after it was completed, like it
had an extremely high vacancy rate for a really long time. I don't know what the vacancy rate is
now because I haven't looked into it recently, I could, but ... I mean, this is a ... this is an issue here
where like these expensive units keep getting built. They're not really fully occupied, and then
in this instance we have another example of you're being asked to make another piecemeal
decision, and I hate to keep harping on this point, but it's really important. You do not have a
comprehensive affordable housing plan, and so when you keep making these decisions that are
going to produce more of these buildings with these unaffordable units in them, that don't go
occupied, you need to really seriously ...I mean, I know this just seems like, Oh, well, we're
making a minor change to, you know, the zoning code, but you're not just making a minor
change to the zoning code! You're doing something that ... that starts the ball rolling on all of
these other processes that continue to make the housing crisis in the city worse and worse and
worse, and I really need ... I really hope you guys think of this in those terms because those are
precisely the terms that you really should be thinking about it. Thank you.
Teague: Thank you, Nicholas. Welcome, Mark.
Seabold: Yes. Hi, I'm Mark Seabold. (difficult to hear) I'm with Shive Hattery Architecture
Engineering. I'd like to (both talking)
Teague: Can you speak up please?
Seabold: Yeah. Can you hear me?
Teague: Um, very faintly.
Seabold: Oh for Pete's sake, hold on a second. Is that better?
Teague: Not really.
Fruehling: Mayor, while he's trying to figure out his sound, I think he has a presentation. So I'm gonna
promote him so he can share his screen.
Teague: All right.
Fruehling: Mark, you should be able to share your screen.
Seabold: All right. And I'm still trying to figure out my audio.
Teague: Yeah, you're still very faint.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 32
Seabold: (mumbled) Okay. I ... I have no idea what's going on. Can I yell? Is this better? At all?
Taylor: (mumbled) better.
Teague: We can hear you!
Seabold: Okay, so ... well, good evening. Thank you. Thank you for, um, allowing us to, uh, present
tonight. Thank you, Danielle, for describing the project. Um, again, I'm Mark Seabold. I'm
with Shive Hattery and Engineering... Strive Hattery Architecture, Engineering. I will be, um,
going through, um, our comprehensive plan and rezoning document quickly. Um, it's a pleasure
to finally present this to Council. Um, you know, we've been working with the City for ...over a
year on this, and, uh, and it's just a pleasure to be in front of you tonight. Tonight we also have
owners Steve Long and Kevin Kane from Riverfront West, as well as Marianne Dennis, who is
our affordable housing consultant. Um, you know, our conversations with the City have
included a lot of dialogue about that Olive Street neighborhood and about the building heights,
as well as, um, the adjacency to the railroad tracks. We've had, as Danielle said, a good
neighbor meeting. It was virtual. Um, it was nice to be able to present this to the, uh, neighbors
of this project, and, uh, and we do have support from really the only... the only owner -occupied
home on the east side of Olive Street, who actually, um, sold us one of the parcels to make
this ... to make this, um, project happen. So again, I'd just like to tonight briefly run through our
conceptual design documents. It's a diagram. These are concept plans to show kind of, you
know, development scenarios for the properties, and then to illustrate what the potential
character development could be. Um, and again, our goal is ... is to provide high-quality multi-
family housing, possibly for active seniors, but also to have on-site commercial amenities to
support, um, those residents, as well as the surrounding neighborhood. And as, again, Danielle
said, this area of town has seen a lot of great development. A lot of that is ... is due to the, uh, to
the Iowa River Crossings district that's been adopted. So if I go through this diagram, again,
these are some of the same aerial photos that Danielle said. You know, this site is largely paved.
There's no existing, uh, pedestrian circulation through the site and all along Riverside Drive.
It's basically a free for all, from a vehicular access point. Um, again (both talking)
Teague: (several talking, garbled) ...your screen?
Seabold: I am. And...
Teague: We're not seein' it.
Seabold: (laughs) I'm sorry, man. I'm usually better at this. I've been doin' this for nine months. Oop,
there we go! How's that? Okay! So again, uh, some of those aerial photos that Danielle had
shared. Um, no pedestrian circulation. It's largely just a ... a big paved site. You can see
the ... the, it's really kind of haphazard development that's happened over time where you've
got ... fronts of buildings to backs of buildings and just a lot of, uh, parking and asphalt in
between. Again, the buildings don't relate to each other and really just show a bleak back of
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 33
house to the Olive Street neighborhood, but the views up here are fantastic. You can see the
buildings also really don't address Myrtle. It's a series of driveways, with no real, um, entry
points for the buildings. Don't really contribute to the neighborhood. And again, this is where
you ... you can really see that grade change. We're at 50 feet from ... from, uh, Riverside Drive, all
the way up to, um, Olive Street. So that's why this site is so different than... than, John, as you
mentioned. The... the... the neighborhood on the south side of the tracks. Uh, you've seen these.
These are just some existing, um, or these are just some, um, preliminary massing diagrams.
Look a little prettier than that, but trying to showcase that pedestrian- oriented, uh, building
development along Riverside Drive here. The tracks are off to the left here. I think it's
important this ... this site is currently zoned Riverfront West, which would allow a five -story
building at this time, with the setbacks included. And then this is that text amendment, where
we're looking for that seven -story, um, up against the railroad tracks, and I think that was
defined as 200 feet from that ... from that railroad property line. Here you can see the comer of
Myrtle and Riverside, again, the ... the grayed -out buildings are what would currently be allowed
because this site has already been rezoned, and then we're just asking to extend that up, um,
stair step it up, and then to provide, uh, building entries along Myrtle, and then provide
townhouse options. So we actually have people living and ... and, uh, entering and accessing
their apartments from Myrtle and make it a more walkable area. And then the walkability is
increased by this centralized courtyard space. This is the lobby to a potential hotel. This is our
resident ... or our, uh, or, uh, a commercial retail area that could include pedestrian pauses, not
just for the residents of this development, but also for the, uh, for the neighborhood to kind of
expand on what's been happening on the south side of the railroad tracks. This is looking at that
from the other direction. This would be a pedestrian walkway through the site, which is
something we've talked with the City about, with Planning. This is looking at a view from the
south side of the railroad tracks. You can see, um, the, uh, the existing apartment building here,
and then that seven -story exposure just peeking over the trees. There's a future tunnel location,
which I think really helps connect this project to the other side of the, uh, future project with the
City of Iowa City. And then these are just the, uh, rezoning diagrams, where we're looking at,
you know, expanding this existing Riverfront, uh, West Riverfront district up to the back
property lines on Olive. As Danielle said, it's kind of a mix of zones right now, including RM -
44, which is the highest density zone in the city. And we're ... and we're proposing to zone this
entire area West Riverfront. The idea here, this is a section through Myrtle Avenue. So you can
see that grade change between Olive Street at 700 and ... and Riverside Drive at 650. These are
those existing buildings. This is that five -story max, um, that ... that is allowed right now in the,
uh, current zone parcel on the corner. And if we were looking at the south side of the tracks,
you know, where ... where the sites are relatively flat. This is where, as Danielle said, that West
Riverfront subdistrict probably wouldn't be appropriate in other areas of the West Riverfront,
but because we have ... this grade change, it actually takes this height diagram and steps it down,
and then the way that we're envisioning the site, you're seeing that we're really only about a
story above that existing structure that's there now. That is the end of my presentation and I
guess I'd just like to open it up for questions. Is there anything I breezed over too quickly?
Teague: Any questions for Mark? I don't hear any, Mark. Thank you so much.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 34
Seabold: Okay. Apologize for the audio.
Teague: No worries. Um, let me ... if we can have you stop sharing your screen please. Thank you.
And then is there anyone else that would like to address this topic? Please raise your hand or
press *9. Seein' no one, um, Council, are you inclined to vote with P&Z recommendation? If
so, please ... nod your head. I think I see ... I see a majority of four. All right, Ion gonna close the
public hearing. Could I get a motion to approve?
Mims: So moved, Mims.
Thomas: Second, Thomas.
Teague: All right, Council discussion?
Taylor: I have to say I ... I was pretty excited, um, to see the possible development, uh, on this site. Uh,
that corner, I have to admit, has been, uh, an eyesore for quite some time, ever since they took
the... especially since they took the Kum n' Go, um, station down from there. But ... it sounds
like just a really ambitious project to me. I mean, kudos to the planners and the developers, uh,
for all of the thought that went into this with ... with everything that you're planning for this site,
uh, because looking at the aerial views, you're right, it's ... ifs a lot of asphalt, a lot of just, uh,
surface. No ... no green space. Very little green space. So I like the idea you've got of
the ... adding the green space, um, but I do have, uh, some concerns, although the visuals that you
were sharing, uh, Mark, did ... did, uh, look a little better as far as the transition, uh, with the
residential area, with the ... even with the bonus height, the transition, uh, wasn't quite as extreme
as I thought it would ... would be. Um, I also have concerns cause in the P&Z it talked about
this, and Mark mentioned this, is that, uh, that tunnel, the walkway under the railroad overpass,
and that's still, as far as I know, an uncertainty. Uh, so, I mean, I think it sounds great that you
wanna build a six foot sidewalk in front of the area, but it's gonna be kind of like a sidewalk that
comes and goes from nowhere, uh, because it's not connected to the other side of Riverside
Drive. Uh, we're certainly hoping that well finally get an approval to ... to have that tunneled
area, uh, built but then I ... I think we can't call it too walkable just yet, if we don't ... can't connect
that with the other side of that railroad overpass. Uh, but otherwise, I mean it certainly as I said
sounds very ambitious and ... and very nice, a nice mixture, the total definition of mixed-use by
the things that you're talking about, the commercial and the residential and senior housing and
affordable housing. So I think the general principle of the, uh, the whole site, uh, sounds good.
Thomas: Uh, I think I have a few comments. Uh, it's, um, interesting to see with ... this is a four -acre
site. A lot of lot consolidation. Uh, which sometimes can be problematic. But I think in this
case, uh, it provides some interesting site planning opportunities where you can mass the
buildings in such a way to create that interior open space, which I think that speaks to some of
the contextual issues, uh, Riverside Drive, that perhaps, you know, lingering along Riverside
Drive may not be the best place to linger. So setting it back into the development, I think, uh,
was a good move. Um, I too had some concerns coming into the meeting with the transition
on ... on that west edge. I wish there had been those elevation, section elevations, uh, in the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 35
packet. I didn't ... if they were in there I didn't see them. Um, that ... that began to address the
relationships that I was concerned about, uh, and it ... if...if that's indicative of what the
development will be, um, I think that transition should work just fine. Um, it's a very ambitious
project, you know, this is kind of a .... I, from my standpoint, a challenging time, um, to develop
at this scale. Um, you know, some of the markets that could be tapped into, you know, the hotel
market, office space, uh, seems somewhat fragile right now, but the building concept, I think, is
a strong one.
Mims: I like the look of this. Um, as Pauline said, this has, uh, been in need of redevelopment for quite
some time, and certainly the elevation change on Myrtle, um, makes this challenging, but also
opens it up to some, you know, different kind of development than we have typically seen on
lots of sites. So, um, I would agree with John, it's certainly ambitious, um, and you know, this
doesn't mean we're gonna see it tomorrow, obviously (laughs) But, uh, I think it's a good
project for the future, and as the developers can make this work, um, to really kind of complete
that west side of...of Riverside Drive, that has improved so much from really even from all the
way down to the intersections of Highway 1 and 6, with some changes down on that corner, on
that northwest corner, um, you know, we're really getting a better look as you come up through
there, and certainly there's still some pieces left to do, but this is ... this'll be a big improvement
in that, um, entrance into the commun... into the city.
Bergus: I'm really grateful to see how, um, this comp plan amendment is ... it's a great illustration of
when we have a more modern comprehensive plan, and I think have some good examples of
development that have occurred under it very recently, so that we can see how expanding that to
this area, which I think really this is ... this is a good example of some renewal of this area.
Certainly how it is developed now is not, um, not a really beneficial use for the neighborhood
or, you know, there's that just the kind of the open space, and as I think Pauline mentioned,
the ... of the eyesore of that area. So I'm grateful to see a comp plan that is I think well thought
out and, um, primed for expansion to this spot. So I think it's just very thoughtful and I agree
with what my colleagues have said about the sensitivity to the ... the residential immediately to
the west. Um, this is very different than ... than putting a high density area next to single-family
where there hasn't been a high density residential previously. But if you look at what this is
replacing, I think it's a very nice ... nice transition. Makes sense to me.
Teague: All right, I'm gonna say ditto to everything that's been spoken so far. I think it's, um, a great,
great project for now and we'll wait and see what it all ends up bein'. So ... are we ready for roll
call? Roll call please. Motion passes 7 — 0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 36
10.f. Rezoning — 4 acres at Myrtle Avenue and South Riverside Drive — Ordinance
conditionally rezoning approximately 4 acres of land located at Myrtle Avenue and South
Riverside Drive to Riverfront Crossings — West Riverfront District (RFC -WR) zone.
(REZ20-0003)
1. Public Hearing
Teague: And I'm gonna open the public hearing. All right. Welcome, Danielle!
Sitzman: You're going to get me talking on mute one of these times tonight. Okay, so this is the second
of three applications... pertaining to the subject property, highlighted here in the white boundary,
um, as assembled from 15 smaller parcels, um, is currently under three different zoning
categories. Um, the applicant is requesting to rezone it entirely to West Riverfront, uh,
subdistrict of the Riverfront Crossings form based code district, to be intended for commercial
and mixed-use redevelopment with street -facing entry..entries and streetscapes, um, designed
to provide...provide a comfortable and attractive environment for pedestrians, buffered from
vehicular traffic along Riverside Drive. Um ... we do review applications for rezonings to two
criteria. One, consistency with the comprehensive plan and one, compatibility with the existing
neighborhood. Um, as far as consistency with the comprehensive plan, um, there is a great
potential to improve pedestrian circulation, both along Riverside Drive through the installation
of, um, more modern sidewalks, as well as a condition for circulation through the site that staff
has proposed. Um, also redevelopment, replace the existing surface parking with more
structured parking, hidden from view, more central to the site, kind of de-emphasizing the auto
orientation that is Riverside Drive today. Um, also enhancing the streetscape and the
overna... overall corner aesthetics and, um, bringing in a mix of uses, all, um, elements of our
comprehensive plan that we want to support. Um, I just wanna mention that the concept plan
for the site while we've been looking at some images, what could be, it's all still really
conceptual at this stage and could change over time. However, the general requirements for
which development in a form based code district would need to be designed to would remain
the same. So again, um, implementing that form based code to really get the type of quality
development that, um, we've expressed in our comprehensive planning, regardless of what the
concept would be, and creating that transition between neighborhoods through good ... good
building design. As far as compatibility with the existing neighborhood, again, as you've seen
in some of the early images the, uh, new redevelopment that's occurred and the existing multi-
family development, uh, in the area really setting the context for this corridor along Riverside
Drive. Um, RM44 density, um, which is what the site is currently zoned, uh, if it were
redevelop under that zoning designation, could become much more dense but, uh,
redevelopment under RM -44 does not really have the, uh, building design elements that the
form based code emphasizes. Um ... and really just acknowledging that any change in this
neighborhood will present a notable change to the eastern view for the residents along all of
Court. Um, staff has included, um, conditions, not just for properties that are abutting that
residential district, but for properties next to. Perhaps that was what Mr. Thomas was asking
about. Properties next to existing single-family districts having additional design standards and
criteria that would need to be met, kind of more carefully evaluating (clears throat) the context
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 37
of the building in proximity to those areas, while not directly abutting. Certainly the, um,
stepping down of building heights, as shown, um, by Mark earlier is one way to accomplish that
and clearly shows how that transition can be maintained as appropriate. Um, just to note again,
um, with the River&ont Crossings, affordable housing is triggered when additional, uh,
residential units are constructed. Um, so there would be the opportunity for some affordable
housing as well. The applicant submitted a traffic study as requested by staff. Um, the traffic
study demonstrated that the existing street network would allow for acceptable levels of
operation or traffic for, um, additional trips generated from and to the site. Um, in an effort to
simply, uh, avoid additional traffic conflicts, staff is recommending a restriction on access to the
site along Riverside Drive to one access point, with a right- in, right -out design. Also there's a
condition proposed to clean up some of the right-of-way along the west side of Riverside Drive,
because there is a ... private street that is one of those parcels that's been assembled that juts out
slightly out of line, so that would be addressed or a condition. Also replatting of those 15 lots,
um, and then staff is continuing to work with the Iowa Interstate Railroad to complete that
pedestrian tunnel, um, and there are probably (mumbled) on the call tonight who can give you
an update on that process. I would turn it over to ... I believe Scott is with us tonight.
Sovers: Yes, good evening, Council and, uh, Mayor and Council. Um, this is Scott Sovers. I'm the
Assistant City Engineer. Uh, just wanted to give ya... I believe most of you are aware of this
project, but wanted to give ya a ... just a quick update on it, um, just in terms of the ... the scope of
the project. It includes a ... the extension of a 6 -foot sidewalk from its existing terminus, uh,
south of the Iowa Interstate Railroad to, uh, the intersection at...at Myrtle Avenue and, uh,
Riverside Drive. Um, to be able to accomplish that (mumbled) tunnel, um, with some
associated lighting, um, will need to be constructed through the Iowa Interstate, uh,
embankment. Um, project will also include roadway and pedestrian -level lighting and then
street trees. Next slide please. Um, I guess before I get into the bullet points on this slide, I
guess I wanted to just note what the ... the two images are. Uh, the top image is just the 3-D
rendering of...of what the pedestrian tunnel will look like from the north, uh, facing south, um,
doesn't include any of the the planned future development, uh, off to the east, but it just ... to give
you some perspective, and then the ... the photo to the ... on the bottom of the page is, uh, where
the pedestrian tunnel will go through, uh, the railroad embankment, uh... facing, uh, it's actually
facing north, south of the, uh, south of the railroad. So in terms of the current project status, uh,
we completed a study in 2014. Uh, the intent of the study was to identify a preferred
alternative, um, to get, uh, sidewalk connected through the Iowa State Railroad embankment,
but then also to, uh, pull together some estimated project cost for ...for budgeting purposes.
With that, then we did start, uh, preliminary and final design in 2017. I guess I would like to
mention as a part of the overall project, uh, it's kind of a multi -phase project where we, um, did
a, uh, intersection improvement at Myrtle and Riverside. We added a traffic signal, um,
(mumbled) improvements at that intersection. That was the fust phase and then this is gonna be
a subsequent phase to that project. Um, so as of right now, we have three final plans, uh,
prepared. Uh, we've sent those to the Iowa State Railroad for review. As I think Pauline, uh,
Council... Councilor Pauline, uh, had mentioned, um, the Iowa State Railroad had some ... had
some comments. Uh, we do have consultants, uh, that specializes in, uh, railroad design on
board, um, to help, um, to help work through those comments. Um, I do .... as far as the
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 38
anticipated schedule, I've, uh, noted on there construction 22...2022 with a question mark. Um,
that will kind of depend upon how quickly we can get through, uh, their comments and get an
agreement in place to be able to extend the ... the pedestrian tunnel through the railroad
embankment. Um, one other thing I did wanna mention is, um, this project can occur before or
after the development. So it's, uh, kind of independent of what the developer ends up, uh,
moving forward with. So I guess with that, I'd like to turn it over, uh, to Danielle or, uh, maybe
open it up for questions, or do you wanna wait till after, Danielle, you're done. It doesn't matter
to me.
Sitzman: Why don't I pick it up and we can come back to you if there are questions at the end?
Sovers: Sounds good!
Sitzman: So talking about infrastructure of the site, since this has been individually developed, um, lots
over the years, there are some items, some cleanup of this water services and things like that
that will need to occur with development. That's sort of normal for the assembly of properties.
Um, future stages of redevelopment would also need to apply with the current standards we
have for the handling of storm water and floodplain controls. So there are some definite
improvements to be had through redevelopment, to address the more modern standards, uh, that
we have for those kinds of things. So again, as far as the development process goes, we're here
at the rezoning stage to apply a West ... a Riverfront Crossings zoning district to this property, the
West Riverfront zoning district. Um, following this agenda item there will be a code
amendment as well to consider. Um, development would then go through the platting process
and the design review for form based code projects and site plan reviews and building permits.
As I mentioned, there are some conditions, um, that staff recommended and the Planning and
Zoning Commission also supported for this application. Um, we did recommend approval and
that was, um ... concurred by a vote of 7 - 0 from the Planning and Zoning Commission with, uh,
the same conditions. Those six conditions include the installation of a sidewalk along Riverside
Drive frontage, some additional pedestrian linkages through the site from Myrtle and, uh,
Avenue to South Riverside Drive. Um, should development occur near, um, the single-family
housing to the west, not necessarily abutting it, additional mitigation and design, including
transitional design elements, including but not limited to increased separation or increased step -
back should be considered. Um, limiting the access to the site from Riverside Drive to one
access point, featuring a right -in, right -out design, cleaning up the 75 -square feet of right-of-
way along the rest ... west Riverside... Riverside Drive at Riverside Court area, and then prior to
the issuance of building permits, um, requiring platting of the future layout. That concludes the
staff report and Scott is still here as well.
Teague: Thanks to you both. Any questions for either of them? Is there anyone from the public that
would like to address this topic? If so, please raise your hand; and if you're on the phone, press
*9. Welcome, Mark.
Seabold: Uh, yes, Mayor and Council, I would just like to say thank you, uh, for the kind comments,
uh, during the previous presentation, and just addressing a lot of the things, you know, we've
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 39
been talking about, uh, cleaning up the utilities. We've been talking about bringing everything
up to current standards. So what an opportunity really it is to do that with this project, as well
as, uh, with these, um, six items. Uh, we're in agreement with all of those as well. So, if you do
have any questions for me, I am available. Thank you.
Teague: Thank you, Mark.
Sitzman: Mayor, I think I forgot to report that the, um, CZA has been signed for this property as well.
Teague: Thank you. Anyone else like to address this topic? Seein' no one, Councilors. I'm gonna have
the screen .... um, sharing to be ended. Thank you so much, and Councilors, are you inclined to
agree with P&Z? Yes. All right. I'm gonna close the public hearing. All right, and could I get
a motion to give first consideration?
Bergus: So moved, Bergus.
Weiner: Second, Weiner.
Teague: Moved by Bergus, seconded by Wiener. Council discussion? Hearin' none ... (both talking)
Thomas: Wait, oh .... sorry! (laughs) Um, yeah, I mean, this is a ... this phase of the project really, uh,
drew my attention toward Riverside Drive and how important it is for that street to be re -
envisioned, uh, so that it's consistent with, uh, the character of the development. I mean, this is
a major project along a pretty gritty street, and, um, I would hope, you know, through pedestrian
access, streetscape improvements, any way in which we can slow the traffic down, um, would
certainly be helpful. You know, we had some wonderful comments at our, uh, meeting with our
legislative, uh, representatives where Mary Mascher at the end mentioned having seen
McKopin street and, um, you know, she commented on how ...I think was even her grandsons
were saying this is a great street. Um, is it possible to make Riverside Drive a great street? I
don't know. But, uh (laughs) at least we need to make it a better street, and, um, especially if
we're investing, uh, you know, if...if the community is investing so much into the properties that
run alongside it.
Taylor: Well, III echo that, uh, John, and I ... I would like to say that Riverside Drive is a great street,
since it's on my side of town there and I travel up and down that street, uh, so many times, and I
think over the years that it has improved so much, and ... and I'd like to, uh, thank Scott, uh, for
sharing those videos of the proposed, uh, tunnel there under the overpass. Uh, I'm excited to
see that. Uh, right now it's not safe. You can see the path that people are ... are going around that
overpass, out onto Riverside Drive, and it's a very busy road, so that just isn't safe. So I ... I will
be so ci... so excited to see that happen and ... and do hope that the railroad, uh, cooperates and
agrees to let us do that.
Teague: All right. Roll call please. Motion passes 7 — 0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 40
10.g. Zoning Code Amendment — Changes to the Riverfrout Crossings, West Riverfront
Subdistrict Ordinance — Ordinance to amend Tide 14 Zoning to expand the West
Riverfront Subdistrict boundaries and to increase the maximum bonus height in the West
Riverfront Subdistrict to seven stories for properties north of and near the Iowa Interstate
Railroad. (REZ20-0004)
1. Public Hearing
Teague: I'm gonna open the public hearing, and welcome, Danielle!
Sitzman: Thank you, Mayor. This is the third of three applications regarding the subject property in
one way or another. This is a amendment to our zoning code, so an amendment to the standards
of the district to which, uh, the last application rezoned or began the rezoning of the property to.
There are two aspects of this. The first is to implement the expansion of that master plan, um,
comp plan change that we were just talking about to actually, uh, include this land on the map in
the zoning code that shows where, um, this zoning district can be applied. The second is to
increase the maximum bonus height from five to seven stories for properties in the West
Riverfront subdistrict in a very specific geographic area that are, uh, described as abutting the
railroad and then also not being adjacent to residential property. Um, the first of those code
changes is really a housekeeping item at this point to bring the regulating plan map in the
zoning code in alignment with that master, uh, with the comprehensive plan that we just, uh,
talked about, um, at the first of the three applications. This graphic, again, shows the area, that
expanded area, on the right-hand side in blue (clears throat) to the left of the, um, kind of
hooked line here. The second of the two changes proposed has to do with, uh, increases to
maximum building heights. This is ... the, um, only change would be that outlined here in red. It
would be abutting for parts of the West Riverfront Crossing district, abutting and within 200
feet of the railroad, but not abutting residential zones. Um, the current maximum base height is
four stories. This code change would allow for the bonus height, which can add one story to
actually increase to seven stories. So nothing else would change, nothing would change in
abutting the residential zone, nothing would change if you're not within 200 feet of the railroad.
So no bonus height for what abuts residential properties, and as I mentioned earlier, abutting is
touching based on lots, but if lots change, this red area could change somewhat. The 200 -foot
buffer from the railroad is shown here in yellow, and then put it all together and the areas where
you could see some potential additional bonus height is shown in green... along the railroad and
fronting primarily Riverside Drive. Pardon me. So staff does again look at comprehensive plan
and existing neighborhood as the criteria as we review these. Um, as Mark showed in his
exhibit, there is significant topographic changes across the site, 50 feet of grade change. Um,
that allows for the transition to occur across the site and building heights, uh, between the
residential zone and the commercial corridor of Riverside Drive. Then as far as comprehensive
plan, um, compliance. We've just talked about a comprehensive plan amendment that would
bring it into alignment. So, uh, the next steps are at the zoning code amendment, the last of
three. Um, development of the site would still require some additional steps. Uh, the
preliminary and final plats, design review and site plan review, then eventual building permits.
As I said, this is all conceptual at this point. So the applicant has some more work to do before
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 41
you would likely see any of these applications coming before you. Um, based on the review of
the relevant criteria and potential impact, staff drafted and recommended that the zoning code
be amended as explained, to support the goals and strategies in the comprehensive plan, related
to promoting infill and promoting the commercial development on the west side of South
Riverside Drive, transitioning to urban apartments and mixed-use development. Um,
specifically the development of the recently assembled four -acre, 15 parcel, uh, as contemplated
under the previous master plan. At its November 5th meeting by a vote of 7 — 0, the Planning
and Zoning Commission concurred with staff's opinion and also recommended approval of the
zoning code change. And with that I'm happy to answer questions.
Teague: I don't think there is any questions for you. Thank you! And would anyone from the public
like to address this topic? If so, please raise your hand or press •9 on your phone. Seein' no
one, Councilors, are you inclined to, uh, vote in favor of the recommendation from P&Z? I'm
seein' the majority. All right, I'm gonna close the public hearing. Could I get a motion to give
first consideration please?
Bergus: So moved, Bergus.
Salih: Second, Salih (several responding)
Teague: Moved by Bergus, seconded by Salih. And Council discussion? Roll call please.
Taylor: Oh, oh ... Mayor, I just have one quick comment that ... that's sort of bothering me a bit. I ... I don't
mind expanding the boundaries, but, uh, the phrase in there about increasing the maximum
height bonus, uh, abutting the railroad there. I just can't see that that's... that's a very good thing,
a very positive thing have, uh, that much height right along there, along the railroad. That's a
very busy stretch a railroad. It's not one of the sites in town that you don't see much, uh,
railroad traffic on. There's... there... there's railroad traffic on there constantly. Um, I just don't
see that that is a ... a favorable thing. But I don't know how to separate that out
from... from... from this proposal.
Teague: All right, are we ready to vote? Roll call please. Motion passes 7 — 0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 42
12. Unbiased Policing Ordinance — Unbiased Policing Ordinance (Second Consideration)
Teague: Could I get a motion please?
Mims: So moved, Mims.
Bergus: Second, Bergus.
Teague: Would anyone from the public like to address this topic? Um, I see Nicholas hand. Welcome,
Nicholas.
Theisen: Thank you, Mayor. So I mean, a lot of the ... the problems with this ordinance were already
brought up last ... in the last meeting. Um, there was one issue though that I had thought of
afterwards that wasn't brought up at the time. So I'd like to bring it up now. So this is from the
executive summary to the, um, the ordinance itself. It states: Iowa City policy has long
prohibited bias -based policing and the Iowa City Police Department is continuing ... is
committed to the equitable treatment of all individuals. Now, one of the reasons why this
ordinance is so pointless, one, is because supposedly it, I guess instantiates policies that have
already been in place, which if those policies were in place last year in August of 2019, which I
happen to know that they were, it didn't actually prevent an actual ICPD officer from racially
profiling a black man, Chris Kelly. I mean, this has been well covered in, you know, your own
local news media. So again, I mean, I ... so I have to reiterate the points that were made
previously, like these things are not gonna change until you actually start to, one, as IFR
representatives have noted, you think about these things in structural terms, not just on an
individual basis, and furthermore, you actually think about what it is that these policies are in
fact not doing. The officer in question not only wasn't disciplined, he was made a community
outreach officer, which is just beyond the pale, and in fact, in many ways, it has echoes of the
fact that in 2015, after Travis Graves assaulted a black teenager in the Rec Center, he was then
also later made into a public outreach officer. So the thing is like the more things change, the
more they stay the same. And so again, this isn't going to do anything. The sort of like Band
Aid fixes that you ... I mean these sort of PR things that you keep doing, they're not actually
addressing the fundamental structural issues that need to be addressed. So, that's it. Thank you.
Teague: Thank you, Nicholas. Would anyone else like to address this topic? Seein' no one, Council
discussion? I think the last time I, you know, did give my, um, support for this and I'm gonna
give it again. I ... I do believe that this is, um, a policy that we're doin' publicly, as well as, um,
individually, and we're wantin' this to really take a hold of everyone within our, uh, police
department. Um, it's very important that the message is very clear that in our community we
want unbiased treatment, um, to happen when we're doin' policing, and so I'm gonna support
this again tonight.
Taylor: I will also, Mayor. I believe that it ... it, uh, it is a step in the right direction, although, you know,
has been mentioned, these ... these things have been in, uh, practice, but it wasn't necessarily a
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 43
protocol written down, codified on paper, and this ... this codifies it on paper. So I think it's a
step in the right direction.
Teague: All right, any other comments? All right. Roll call please. Item passes 7 — 0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 44
13. Council Appointments
13.a. Senior Center Commission
Teague: Two vacancies to fill a three-year term, January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2023. Should
that be January? Yes, January 2021 (laughs) Time is flyin' (laughs) All right. Um, so...
Council discussion?
Taylor: Well, this is ... this is a little bit of an easy one, since it's a ... although there ... it says a one male
app, but that we don't have a male applicant, but the one non or non -gender or none. Uh, Linda
Vogel, we've set a precedent here of letting those who are serving unexpired terms, uh, continue
on with a full term, so I would ... I would recommend that she be appointed to do that.
Teague: Okay. I'm seein' some nodding, so I'm gonna take that as a yes. Um, so any other discussion
on this item?
Weiner: Just that we hope we have more people apply, so that we can ... so that we can fill out the board
the next time around. It's a really important institution in this town.
Teague: Absolutely! And we need a male applicant. Yep. All right. Well, um, I think we're ready to
appoint. So could I get a motion to appoint Linda Vogel to the Senior Center Commission?
Salih: Move, Salih (several responding)
Taylor: Oh, Second, Taylor.
Teague: Moved by Salih, seconded by Taylor. And roll call please. Motion passes 7 — 0.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 45
15. Community Comment
Teague: We are at item number 15, which is, uh, Ryan Longenecker. I don't know if he's still with us.
There you are!
Longenecker: Good evening, Council. Um, I just have two main things to report tonight. Uh, so the
first thing was just about COVID. First thing is, uh, I convened the COVID-19 Task Force,
which includes partners from undergraduate student government, graduate and professional
student government, all of shared governance, UIowa Administration, the Downtown District,
as well as City, including Ashley Monroe and Councilor Weiner, and we all just discussed new
updates that were happening as we had a peak in cases recently, and that was a really good, uh,
chance to inform each other, but we've ... we each have been doing and possibilities of
collaboration going forward, and I also just wanna remind any students that are ... might be
watching that even though cases are going down in Iowa, this happens in waves. We've seen
this happen before. And if we relax again, we will see it go back up. I know that people are
seeing that a vaccine is coming, but my age group, our age group, will be the very last to
receive that vaccine. So please do not count on that for another, at least several months. Uh,
and on to a more lighthearted topic somewhat, but I just wanted to give a shout out to our
Director of Academic Affairs, Regan Smock, and all those that ... in student government, uh, who
have been working on a pass/fail option to be reinstated for the fall 2012 semester. There was
data collected from a total of 6,467 to undergrad students, which represents about 28.8% of the
undergraduate population, uh, gathering data about would they use a pass/fail option? Did they
use it last semester when it was offered? A total of 53% used it last semester, but when
ifs ... take out the first years who responded to the survey, it was actually 65% used the pass/fail
option in at least one class or more, and 82% of respondents said that they definitely or
probably would use it in fall of 2020, and it also includes a lot of student testimonials that are
very compelling. So, uh, this will be presented to the UIowa Administration here in the next
week or two, and so we are hoping that the Administration will agree to reinstate a pass/fail
option for students this semester. But with that, that's all I have for this evening and, uh, thank
you, Council.
Teague: Thank you, Ryan. And yeah, students are kind of vacatin' most of our city (laughs)
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.
Page 46
17. Report on Items from City Staff
b. Assistant City Manager
Teague: All right, Ashley Monroe. Where ya hidin'? There you are!
Monroe: I'll just note that we successfully, um, launched or kicked off that solar study group recently
and it's moving along well, and we wrapped up our staff budget meetings. So we're busy
preparing that for Council's review in a month or so. That's it!
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council regular
formal meeting of December 1, 2020.