HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 11.04.2021
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, November 4, 2021
Formal Meeting – 7:00 PM
The Center – Assembly Room
28 S. Linn Street
(Entrance on E. Washington Street)
Agenda:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
4. South District Self Supported Municipal Improvement District
Discussion of the merit and feasibility of a petition submitted to establish a Self Supported
Municipal Improvement District (SSMID) for property located within the Pepperwood Plaza
area, zoned Community Commercial (CC-2) and Intensive Commercial (CI-1), generally south
of Highway 6 West, north of Cross Park Avenue, along both sides of Keokuk Street and west of
Broadway St, excepting Casey’s, which is also included.
5. Case No. REZ21-0009
Location: East of S. Riverside Dr and north of McCollister Blvd
An application for a rezoning of approximately 5.81 acres of land from high density single-family
residential with a planned development overlay (OPD/RS-12) to OPD/RS-12.
A rezoning is necessary to expand the existing manufactured housing park due to the expiration
of the previously approved OPD plan.
6. Case No. REZ21-0008
Location: South of Scott Blvd and West of 1st Ave, Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
An application for a rezoning of approximately 48.75 acres of land from Interim Development
Single-Family (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family with a Planned Development Overlay
(OPD/RS-5).
7. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: October 21, 2021
8. Planning & Zoning Information
9. Adjournment
If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact
Anne Russett, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5251 or anne-russett@iowa-city.org. Early requests
are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: November 18 / December 1 / December 15
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinator
Date: October 29, 2021
Re: Evaluative Report on a Proposed South District Self-Supported Municipal
Improvement District (SSMID)
The City has received, and City Council has forwarded for review a petition by property owners
within the South District business district, generally centered around Pepperwood Place Mall (see
map within petition included in this memo). The petition requests the creation of the South District
Self-Supported Municipal Improvement District (SSMID) as defined by Iowa Code Chapter 386
(attached).
The Iowa Code requires the Planning and Zoning Commission review of the petition for its merit
and feasibility and to make an evaluative report to the City Council. The following is a description
of a SSMID and some suggestions for the Planning and Zoning Commission on considerations
for review of the petition.
Submission of a petition is the first step in the process of creating a SSMID. The text of the petition
is also included in this memo (without signatures). Iowa Code states that the SSMID petition must
be signed by at least 25% of the property owners (within the specific area or district) representing
at least 25% of the assessed value of the proposed district. Upon staff review, the SSMID petition
meets these two thresholds. The petition submitted on October 11, 2021 contained the signatures
of 25% of the property owners representing 27.2% of the assessed value within the proposed
district.
What is a SSMID?
A SSMID is a self-imposed additional taxing district that will levy a tax on the properties within the
specified district. The proposed SSMID would cover properties located in the Pepperwood Plaza
area, zoned commercial or industrial or within a duly designated historic district. The affected
properties are presently zoned CC-2 and CI-1. Funds generated from the levy would be used for
the purposes of paying the administrative and operational expenses of the proposed district, as
defined and authorized by state law. Below are some facts about this petition and some further
points for your consideration on the merits and feasibility of the SSMID.
South District SSMID Petition
Purposes
State Code allows for the SSMID to levy taxes for three purposes within a SSMID district:
Operations, Capital Improvements and Debt Service. The petition for the Proposed South District
SSMID proposes only the levy of Operational taxes for the following purposes:
A. Develop and manage activities in support of marketing, business retention and
attraction, including but not limited to:
October 29, 2021
Page 2
1) Database establishment
2) Space referrals and assistance
3) Marketing activities, including media and advertising campaigns and communication
materials
4) Miscellaneous business support services
5) Establishment and promotion of special events, festivals, and activities
6) Support of urban design and policy development that would enhance the activities
within the SSMID
B. Physical or other improvements designed to enhance the image and appearance of the
Proposed District, including but not limited to:
1) Lighting improvements
2) Seasonal and decorative enhancements
3) Signage and banners
4) Landscaping
5) Central market development
6) Maintenance and repairs
C. To hire an Executive Director and, if needed, other support staff who will work for a non-
profit Board of Directors to manage the work of the South District SSMID Board and to
fulfill the intent of this Petition.
Tax Rate
In the SSMID petition, the rate is established at a maximum, not to exceed five dollars ($5)
per one thousand dollars ($1,000) assessed value for a period of five (5) years, commencing
with the levy of taxes for collection in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2022. At this level, the
SSMID would generate about $104,000 annually. This rate is requested by petitioners
because it will meet the operational budget projections for SSMID activities.
Duration of the SSMID
The proposed SSMID petition is limited to five years. To renew a SSMID, the same process
must be followed as to establish a SSMID.
Notification and Public Hearing
Following the receipt of the Planning and Zoning Commission’s report, the City Council must
set a public hearing and the City Clerk will officially notify all property owners via certified mail
at least 15 days prior to the public hearing. After the 15 days have elapsed, the City Council
may hold a public hearing on an ordinance to create a SSMID.
SSMID Ordinance
An ordinance implementing the SSMID would need to be created. This ordinance would
contain the operational mechanics of how the South District Self-Supported Municipal
Improvement District would work. The petition intends that the City of Iowa City enter into an
operating agreement with the South District SSMID Board, a 501 (c)(6) non-profit
organization.
October 29, 2021
Page 3
SSMID Board
The proposed Board will direct the activities of the SSMID and consist of the following voting
members: two from property owners or their representatives from a single property within the
Proposed District that has an assessed value in excess of 1.0% of the total assessed value
of property within the district boundaries; two from property owners or their representatives
from a single property within the Proposed District that has an assessed value less than of
1.0% of the total assessed value of property within the district boundaries; two from business
owners within the Proposed District that lease more than 3,000 square feet of commercial
space; two from business owners within the Proposed District that lease less than 3,000
square feet of commercial space; two from residents of the South District Neighborhood
Association; and one from the Pepperwood Plaza parking association. Board membership
may also consist of up to four (4) other stakeholders of the Proposed District as voting
members of the Board.
Board membership may consist of ex-officio non-voting members from community
development agencies and partners, such as Black Voices Project, Johnson County Interfaith
Coalition, LULAC, Iowa City Area Business Partnership, Iowa City Area Development Group,
and the City of Iowa City.
SSMID Advisory Board to the City Council
A proposed Advisory Board to the City Council will be made up of specific members of the
proposed SSMID Board and advise City Council on SSMID activities and make annual SSMID
budget recommendations to City Council. The Advisory Board will consist of the Executive
Committee of the SSMID Board.
Council Action
Because the creation of a SSMID is done by ordinance, the City Council would have three
readings of the proposed ordinance. Iowa Code states that a SSMID ordinance must be
approved by 75% of the members of the Council. Councilors who abstain due to a conflict of
interest are not included as “members of the council” in determining the 75%. A unanimous
Council vote is required if a petition opposing the SSMID received. Such a petition must
contain the signatures of 25% of the property owners within the proposed district who
represent at least 25% of the assessed value of the district. If an opposition petition contains
the signatures of 40% of the property owners who represent at least 40% of the assessed
value of the district at any time, the SSMID ordinance must be withdrawn and no further
affirmative actions may be taken by the Council related to the SSMID ordinance.
Amendments to the SSMID
To amend a SSMID ordinance, property owners within the district must go through the same
petition process used to create the SSMID. The amended ordinance is subject to Council
approval.
Other considerations for evaluating merit and feasibility
Iowa Code Chapter 386 requires the Planning and Zoning Commission to prepare, with “due
diligence,” an evaluative report for the City Council on the “merit” and “feasibility” of the SSMID
project. These terms are not defined by statute and thus should be given their ordinary meanings.
October 29, 2021
Page 4
The following is a list of items that the Commission may want to consider in drafting its report.
This list should not be considered all-inclusive.
1. Whether the property in the proposed district meets all of the criteria established in
Section 386.3(1):
• The South District Self Supported Municipal Improvement District (hereinafter
referred to as the “Proposed District”) petition appears to meet the minimum
requirements of Iowa Code Section 386.3(1), which states that a district shall: 1) be
compromised of contiguous property, zoned for commercial or industrial uses and be
located wholly within the boundaries of the city, 2) be given a descriptive name
containing the words “self-supporting municipal improvement district”, and 3) be
comprised of property related in some manner.
• The Proposed District is comprised of contiguous property zoned for commercial use
and is within the boundaries of the City of Iowa City. The petition states that the
Proposed District is entitled “South District Self Supported Municipal Improvement
District.” Finally, the property within the Proposed District is related in that it is
physically located in Iowa City, is contiguous, and serves as a commercial hub for
the community.
2. Whether the petition submitted is sufficiently clear and contains the requisite number of
signatures from property owners representing the necessary assessed value of all the
taxable property within the proposed district.
• The Proposed District petition provides detailed explanations of the proposed
operations of the SSMID and the requirements of SSMID property owners.
• Staff has reviewed the petition and verifies the signatures of at least twenty-five
percent of all the owners of property within the proposed district have signed the
petition, and that these signatures together represent ownership of property with an
assessed value of at least twenty-five percent of the assessed value of all of the
property in the proposed district per Iowa Code Section 386.3(2)(a).
3. Whether the petition sufficiently describes the boundaries of the district or provides a
consolidated description of the property contained therein;
• The petition provides a legal description of the boundaries of the Proposed District,
and a map indicating the parcels of land included within the Proposed District.
4. Whether a maximum rate of tax that may be imposed upon the property within the
district and the purposes for which it may be levied are set forth;
• The Proposed District petition establishes a maximum tax rate of $5 per $1,000 of
assessed value. This meets the requirement of Iowa Code Section 386.3(2)(d). The
October 29, 2021
Page 5
petition states purpose of the tax is to provide new, additional or enhanced services
within the Proposed District.
5. Whether the purpose of the district is adequately described, as well as any
improvements or other project activities that may be the subject of the petition;
• As stated in Item 4, the petition states that the purpose of the Proposed District is to
provide for new, additional or enhanced services within the Proposed District. In
particular, revenues collected for the Proposed District Operating Fund may be used
for the following:
o Development and management of activities in support of marketing, business
retention and attraction, including, but not limited to database establishment,
space referrals and assistance, marketing activities, including media and
advertising campaigns and communication materials, miscellaneous business
support services, establishment and promotion of special events, festivals,
and activities, support of urban design and policy development that would
enhance the activities within the SSMID.
o Physical or other improvements designed to enhance the image and
appearance of the Proposed District, including, but not limited to lighting
improvements, seasonal and decorative enhancements, signage and
banners, landscaping, central market development, and maintenance/repairs.
o To hire an Executive Director and, if needed, other support staff who will work
for a non-profit Board of Directors to manage the work of the South District
SSMID Board and to fulfill the intent of this Petition.
6. Whether the proposed district or improvements would conflict in any way with any
existing laws, plans or City policies, including comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances,
local or regional development plans or programs, local, state or federal laws or
regulations or other established special districts.
• The operational functions and marketing that can occur under the Proposed District
do not appear to conflict with any existing laws, plans or policies.
• The Proposed District overlaps with the existing Highway 6 Commercial Urban
Renewal Area, which sunsets in 2025. As proposed, the SSMID petition does not
conflict with the goals or purposes of the Highway 6 Commercial Urban Renewal
Area.
• The proposed SSMID district falls into the newly established Highway Commercial
Urban Revitalization Area which allows for a three-year 100% property tax exemption
on eligible improvements to building value. Property owners continue to pay 100% of
their tax bill on the original value. Tax exemptions through this program must be
approved by City Council.
October 29, 2021
Page 6
• It is noted in the petition the intention that, notwithstanding the fact that a part of the
proposed SSMID district is located within the Highway 6 Commercial TIF district, the
amount of funds which would be derived from the annual SSMID levy from properties
within the TIF district be made available annually for the SSMID activities and that
the City take all actions necessary to accomplish this purpose, including the
allocation of a portion of the incremental property taxes which are attributable to
properties within the proposed district.
7. Whether the taxes proposed, if any, will be sufficient to pay the anticipated costs or other
expenses.
• The revenue generated from the proposed SSMID would be approximately $104,000
per year. This amount would be sufficient to hire the Executive Director, and to
cover costs associated with marketing campaigns, operational costs, and projects in
the Proposed District.
8. Whether the formation of the district is consistent with or in furtherance of other
identifiable City policies or goals.
• Iowa City’s Comprehensive Plan notes the importance of thriving retail centers for
sustaining residential neighborhoods and employment centers. Neighborhood
commercial areas can provide a focal point and gathering place and be within
convenient walking distance for the residents in the immediate area.
• The South District Plan states a goal to encourage and support residents,
neighborhood organizations, and business and property owners to advocate for the
continued improvement of Southside neighborhoods in keeping with the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan. Specifically noted is a goal to improve aesthetic appearance of
commercial areas along Highway 6 and other commercial streets within the district.
• The Proposed District petition states that one of the purposes of the SSMID is to
provide physical enhancements, or beautification, to improve the image and
appearance of the Proposed District.
The review by the Planning and Zoning Commission on the merits and feasibility of the Proposed
District could consider the above points and should focus on ensuring that the petition meets the
requirements of Iowa Code Chapter 386, and that:
• the operational activities (as defined in Iowa Code Section 386.8) of the Proposed
District are appropriate in relation to existing laws, plans and policies, and
• that the means to implement the proposal appear reasonably calculated to accomplish
the Proposed District objectives.
In this context, staff recommends that the Proposed District petition be recommended for approval
and forwarded to the City Council for their consideration.
October 29, 2021
Page 7
Following: SSMID Petition, state code references, communication regarding SSMID.
1 SELF-SUPPORTED MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS,§386.3
386.3 Establishment of district.
1.Districts may be created by action of the council in accordance with the provisions of
this chapter.A district shall:
a.Be comprised of contiguous property wholly within the boundaries of the city.A
self-supported municipal improvement district shall be comprised only of property in
districts which are zoned for commercial or industrial uses and properties within a duly
designated historic district.
b.Be given a descriptive name containing the words “self-supported municipal
improvement district”.
c.Be comprised of property related in some manner,including but not limited to present
or potential use,physical location,condition,relationship to an area,or relationship to
present or potential commercial or other activity in an area,so as to be benefited in any
manner,including but not limited to a benefit from present or potential use or enjoyment
of the property,by the condition,development or maintenance of the district or of any
improvement or self-liquidating improvement of the district,or be comprised of property
the owners of which have a present or potential benefit from the condition,development or
maintenance of the district or of any improvement or self-liquidating improvement of the
district.
2.The council shall initiate proceedings for establishing a district upon the filing with its
clerk of a petition containing:
a.The signatures of at least twenty-five percent of all owners of property within the
proposed district.These signatures must together represent ownership of property with an
assessed value of twenty-five percent or more of the assessed value of all of the property in
the proposed district.
b.A description of the boundaries of the proposed district or a consolidated description
of the property within the proposed district.
c.The name of the proposed district.
d.A statement of the maximum rate of tax that may be imposed upon property within the
district.The maximum rate of tax may be stated in terms of separate maximum rates for the
debt service tax,the capital improvement fund tax,and the operation tax,or in terms of a
maximum combined rate for all three.
e.The purpose of the establishment of the district,which may be stated generally,
or in terms of the relationship of the property within the district or the interests of the
owners of property within the district,or in terms of the improvements or self-liquidating
improvements proposed to be developed for the purposes of the district,either specific
improvements,self-liquidating improvements,or general categories of improvements,or
any combination of the foregoing.
f.A statement that taxes levied for the self-supported improvement district operation
fund shall be used for the purpose of paying maintenance expenses of improvements or
self-liquidating improvements for a specified length of time,along with any options to renew,
if the taxes are to be used for this maintenance purpose.
3.a.The council shall notify the city planning commission upon the receipt of a petition.
It shall be the duty of the city planning commission to make recommendations to the council
in regard to the proposed district.The city planning commission shall,with due diligence,
prepare an evaluative report for the council on the merit and feasibility of the project.The
council shall not hold its public hearings or take further action on the establishment of the
district until it has received the report of the city planning commission.In addition to its
report,the commission may,from time to time,recommend to the council amendments and
changes relating to the project.
b.If no city planning commission exists,the council shall notify the metropolitan or
regional planning commission upon receipt of a petition,and such commission shall have
the same duties as the city planning commission set forth in this subsection.If no planning
commission exists,the council shall notify the zoning commission upon receipt of a petition,
and such commission shall have the same duties as the city planning commission set forth in
Tue Nov 24 23:36:29 2020 Iowa Code 2021,Section 386.3 (16,0)
§386.3,SELF-SUPPORTED MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS 2
this subsection.If no planning or zoning commission exists,the council shall call a hearing
on the establishment of a district upon receipt of a petition.
4.Upon the receipt of the commission’s final report the council shall set a time and place
for a meeting at which the council proposes to take action for the establishment of the district,
and shall publish notice of the meeting as provided in section 362.3,and the clerk shall send a
copy of the notice by certified mail not less than fifteen days before the meeting to each owner
of property within the proposed district at the owner ’s address as shown by the records of
the county auditor.If a property is shown to be in the name of more than one owner at the
same mailing address,a single notice may be mailed addressed to all owners at that address.
Failure to receive a mailed notice is not grounds for objection to the council’s taking any
action authorized in this chapter.
5.In addition to the time and place of the meeting for hearing on the petition,the notice
must state:
a.That a petition has been filed with the council asking that a district be established.
b.The name of the district.
c.The purpose of the district.
d.The property proposed to be included in the district.
e.The maximum rate of tax which may be imposed upon the property in the district.
6.At the time and place set in the notice the council shall hear all owners of property
in the proposed district or residents of the city desiring to express their views.The council
must wait at least thirty days after the public hearing has been held before it may adopt
an ordinance establishing a district which must be comprised of all the property which the
council finds has the relationship or whose owners have the interest described in subsection
1,paragraph “c”.Property included in the proposed district need not be included in the
established district.However,no property may be included in the district that was not
included in the proposed district until the council has held another hearing after it has
published and mailed the same notice as required in subsections 4 and 5 of this section on
the original petition to the owners of the additional property,or has caused a notice of the
inclusion of the property to be personally served upon each owner of the additional property,
or has received a written waiver of notice from each owner of the additional property.
7.Adoption of the ordinance establishing a district requires the affirmative vote of
three-fourths of all of the members of the council,or in cities having but three members of
the council,the affirmative vote of two members.However if a remonstrance has been filed
with the clerk signed by at least twenty-five percent of all owners of property within the
proposed district representing ownership of property with an assessed value of twenty-five
percent or more of the assessed value of all of the property in the proposed district,the
adoption of the ordinance requires a unanimous vote of the council.
8.The clerk shall cause a copy of the ordinance to be filed in the office of the county
recorder of each county in which any property within the district is located.
9.At any time prior to adoption of an ordinance establishing a district,the entire matter
of establishing such district shall be withdrawn from council consideration if a petition
objecting to establishing such district is filed with its clerk containing the signatures of at
least forty percent of all owners of property within the proposed district or signatures which
together represent ownership of property with an assessed value of forty percent or more of
the assessed value of all property within the proposed district.
10.The adoption of an ordinance establishing a district is a legislative determination that
the property within the district has the relationship or its owners have the interest required
under subsection 1,paragraph “c”and includes all of the property within the area which has
that relationship or the owners of which have that interest in the district.
11.Any resident or property owner of the city may appeal the action and the decisions of
the council,including the creation of the district and the levying of the proposed taxes for the
district,to the district court of the county in which any part of the district is located,within
thirty days after the date upon which the ordinance creating the district becomes effective,
but the action and decision of the council are final and conclusive unless the court finds that
the council exceeded its authority.No action may be brought questioning the regularity of
the proceedings pertaining to the establishment of a district or the validity of the district,or
Tue Nov 24 23:36:29 2020 Iowa Code 2021,Section 386.3 (16,0)
3 SELF-SUPPORTED MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS,§386.3
the propriety of the inclusion or exclusion of any property within or from the district,or the
ability of the city to levy taxes in accordance with the ordinance establishing the district,after
thirty days from the date on which the ordinance creating the district becomes effective.
12.The procedural steps for the petitioning and creation of the district may be combined
with the procedural steps for the authorization of any improvement or self-liquidating
improvement,or the procedural steps for the authorization of any tax,or any combination
thereof.
13.The rate of debt service tax referred to in the petition and the ordinance creating the
district shall only restrict the amount of bonds which may be issued,and shall not limit the
ability of the city to levy as necessary in subsequent years to pay interest and amortize the
principal of that amount of bonds.
14.The ordinance creating the district may provide for the division of all of the property
within the district into two or more zones based upon a reasonable difference in the
relationship of the property or the interest of its owners,whether the difference is qualitative
or quantitative.The ordinance creating the district and establishing the different zones may
establish a different maximum rate of tax for each zone,or may provide that the rate of tax
for a zone shall be a certain set percentage of the tax levied in the zone which is subject to
the highest rate of tax.
[C77,79,81,§386.3]
85 Acts,ch 113,§1;88 Acts,ch 1246,§7;2010 Acts,ch 1061,§180
Referred to in §386.4,386.6
Tue Nov 24 23:36:29 2020 Iowa Code 2021,Section 386.3 (16,0)
1 SELF-SUPPORTED MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS,§386.8
386.8 Operation tax.
A city may establish a self-supported improvement district operation fund,and may certify
taxes not to exceed the rate limitation as established in the ordinance creating the district,
or any amendment thereto,each year to be levied for the fund against all of the property in
the district,for the purpose of paying the administrative expenses of the district,which may
include but are not limited to administrative personnel salaries,a separate administrative
office,planning costs including consultation fees,engineering fees,architectural fees,and
legal fees and all other expenses reasonably associated with the administration of the district
and the fulfilling of the purposes of the district.The taxes levied for this fund may also be
used for the purpose of paying maintenance expenses of improvements or self-liquidating
improvements for a specified length of time with one or more options to renew if such is
clearly stated in the petition which requests the council to authorize construction of the
improvement or self-liquidating improvement,whether or not such petition is combined
with the petition requesting creation of a district.Parcels of property which are assessed
as residential property for property tax purposes are exempt from the tax levied under this
section except residential properties within a duly designated historic district.A tax levied
under this section is not subject to the levy limitation in section 384.1.
[C77,79,81,§386.8]
85 Acts,ch 113,§2
Tue Nov 24 23:36:31 2020 Iowa Code 2021,Section 386.8 (12,0)
From:Anne Russett
To:"Kate Moreland"
Cc:Wendy Ford
Subject:RE: South District SSMID Support
Date:Thursday, October 21, 2021 11:24:55 AM
Attachments:image002.png
Hi, Kate –
Thanks for your email. We will pass it along to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Thanks, Anne
From: Kate Moreland <kmoreland@icadgroup.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 8:57 AM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: South District SSMID Support
Good morning Anne,
I am writing to convey my strong support for the South District SSMID to be established in Iowa City.
I have attended several meeting with property owners and believe this economic development tool
will be transformational for this area of our community to further revitalize this neighborhood and
spur business growth and retention. I am hopeful you will convey my support to the members of the
P&Z Committee.
Thank you for you commitment to the City of Iowa City.
Kate
Kate Moreland
President, ICAD
kmoreland@icadgroup.com | 319.321.4971
http://icadcampaign.com
Iowa City Area Development Group
Merge Innovation Space | 136 S. Dubuque St. Iowa City
iowacityareadevelopment.com
From:Anne Russett
To:"Kelcey Patrick-Ferree"
Cc:Wendy Ford
Subject:RE: South District SSMID
Date:Thursday, October 21, 2021 11:24:10 AM
Hi, Kelcey –
Thanks for your email. We will pass it along to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Anne
From: Kelcey Patrick-Ferree <kelcey.patrickferree@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 8:42 AM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: South District SSMID
Dear P&Z Commission members,
I am a resident of the South District and member of the South District Neighborhood Association. I'm
writing to express support for the South District SSMID. I have seen firsthand how much the
Downtown District SSMID has done to help the downtown Iowa City area thrive, and would love to
see that same energy come to the South District.
I realize that this is not within your scope, but I want to note that I also support using a portion of
the city's ARPA funds to support the launch of the South District SSMID. We have lost several
businesses in the area during the pandemic and could use the support to get things going again. I
believe a SSMID supplemented by ARPA funds at startup would be a huge asset to both our part of
Iowa City and the city as a whole.
Warm regards,
Kelcey
--
And biannual time changes must be abolished. #LockTheClock
Virus-free. www.avast.com
From:Anne Russett
To:"Kristie Doser"
Cc:Wendy Ford
Subject:RE: South District SSMID
Date:Thursday, October 21, 2021 1:41:18 PM
Thanks for your email, Kristie. We’ll make sure to get it to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Anne
From: Kristie Doser <kristie@dvipiowa.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2021 11:21 AM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: South District SSMID
Dear P&Z Commission members,
The business I represent is part of the South District. I'm writing to express support for
the South District SSMID. I have seen firsthand how much the Downtown District
SSMID has done to help the downtown Iowa City area thrive, and would love to see
that same energy come to the South District.
I realize that this is not within your scope, but I want to note that I also support using a
portion of the city's ARPA funds to support the launch of the South District SSMID.
We have lost several businesses in the area during the pandemic and could use the
support to get things going again. I believe a SSMID supplemented by ARPA funds at
startup would be a huge asset to both our part of Iowa City and the city as a whole.
Warm regards,
~Kristie
kristie@dvipiowa.org
319-356-9863 ext. 2
Cell: 319-382-2003
Kristie Fortmann-Doser, Executive Director
Domestic Violence Intervention Program
Pronouns: she, her, hers : What's this?
From:Anne Russett
To:"Todd Means"
Cc:Elizabeth Liddle; Wendy Ford
Subject:RE: South District SSMID
Date:Thursday, October 21, 2021 1:44:04 PM
Attachments:image003.png
Hi, Todd – Thanks for your email. We’ll get it to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Anne
From: Todd Means <TMeans@midwestone.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2021 11:38 AM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Cc: Elizabeth Liddle <ELiddle@midwestone.com>
Subject: South District SSMID
To Planning and Zoning Commissioners,
Thank you in advance for your review of the South Districts SSMID proposal. I represent
MidWestOne Bank and we are in full support of this proposal. As many of you are aware,
MidWestOne Bank has had a long standing commitment to serving this neighborhood. What excites
me most about the SSMID, is the increased effort to work collectively with other business owners to
attract new business as well as foot traffic to the neighborhood. For years, we’ve worked
independent of one another. The SSMID provides a platform for the neighborhood to come together
as one. Then making collective decisions on how best to draw positive attention to this
neighborhood. We’re asking for your support in reviewing the proposal.
Thank you for your consideration,
TODD MEANS
REGIONAL RETAIL PRESIDENT
Direct: 319.356.5995
Phone: 800.247.4418
Fax: 319.356.5849
102 South Clinton Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
MidWestOne.bank
IMPORTANT: This message, including any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and
may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
use, retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy your copy. Thank you.
From:Anne Russett
To:"South District"
Cc:Wendy Ford
Subject:FW: Correspondence to P&Z Commissioners about SD SSMID petition
Date:Thursday, October 21, 2021 1:45:02 PM
Attachments:We sent you safe versions of your files.msg
SD Business Revitalization _Press Release (1).pdf
Thanks, Angie. We’ll get this correspondence to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Anne
From: South District <southdistrictneighborhood@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2021 11:45 AM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Correspondence to P&Z Commissioners about SD SSMID petition
Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.
Good Morning P&Z Commissioners,
The South District Neighborhood Association has been spearheading the efforts to revitalize our
neighborhood from the inside out, grassroots led for several years through different initiatives,
events, programs and partnerships. In line with our neighborhood association's goals since Sept.
2020, we have led the effort to revitalize the business district which is directly tied to aspects of
neighborhood revitalization on our side of town.
As a resident of the South District Neighborhood and current president of the South District
Neighborhood Association, I want to express my individual support of the South District Self-
Supported Municipal Improvement District Petition.
Additionally, I wanted to share:
Press release (attached below),
HERE is general information about SSMIDs can be found on our website
HERE password: 7ve$92oX is one of the recorded informational sessions that was offered
(in-person and virtually) to the public last year to increase awareness and input.
Thank you for your time, consideration and all you do and get done to serve Iowa City.
Sincerely,
Angie Jordan, she/her/hers
South District Neighborhood Association, President
South District SSMID Committee, Chair
Project Better Together 2030 Steering Committee, Tri-Chair
Email: southdistrictneighborhood@gmail.com
Website: www.southdistrictneighborhood.org
Facebook: South District Neighborhood Association
Nextdoor.com: Wetherby, Grant Wood, Pepperwood and South Pointe
Please share info about this association with others who live, work and play in the South District
If you would like to be removed from this email, please respond with SUBJECT: Please remove my email from this list
From:Anne Russett
To:"Kim Casko"
Cc:Wendy Ford
Subject:RE: South District SSMID
Date:Friday, October 22, 2021 1:59:45 PM
Attachments:image004.png
image005.png
Hi, Kim – Thanks for your email. We’ll get it to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Anne
From: Kim Casko <kim@iowacityarea.com>
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2021 11:41 AM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: South District SSMID
Dear P&Z Commission Members,
I am writing to let you know that the Iowa City Area Business Partnership is in full support of the
South District SSMID petition recently submitted. Having a SSMID in the South District of Iowa City
will be beneficial not only to that neighborhood but all of Iowa City and the surrounding area. It will
spur economic development, extend infrastructure, enhance livability, and enrich community-
building.
We are excited to partner with the South District SSMID to advance inclusive economic recovery and
growth.
Best regards,
Kim
Kim Casko l President & CEO
136 S. Dubuque Street, Iowa City, IA 52240
319.519.6336 kim@iowacityarea.com
Q4 Sponsor: Iowa Heartlanders
From:Anne Russett
To:"Brian Loring"
Cc:Wendy Ford
Subject:RE: P&Z Letter of Support for South District SSMID
Date:Friday, October 22, 2021 2:01:08 PM
Hi, Brian – Thanks for your email. We will forward it to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Anne
From: Brian Loring <brian-loring@ncjc.org>
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2021 12:07 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: P&Z Letter of Support for South District SSMID
Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners,As the executive director for Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County (NCJC), I am writing toexpress our support for the SSMID in the South District of Iowa City.Our Broadway Center has been a part of the South District since 1990. And as a long-timeinstitution in the area, we are well-positioned to recognize the neighborhood’s vibrancy,diversity, and the possibilities waiting to be unleashed. The SSMID is the perfect vehicle forbringing this area to its full potential. We only wish this concept had been put forth sooner.Thank you in advance for your consideration.Sincerely,Brian LoringExecutive Director
Brian Loring (he, him)Executive DirectorNeighborhood Centers of Johnson County P | 319.358.0438 x105
Follow us on:
Strengthening Families | Building Neighborhoods | Creating Community
We're hiring! Apply here.
From:Anne Russett
To:"Elizabeth Hubing"
Cc:Wendy Ford
Subject:RE: P&Z - Support for South District SSMID
Date:Thursday, October 28, 2021 1:38:30 PM
Hi, Elizabeth – We will forward this to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Thanks, Anne
From: Elizabeth Hubing <elizabeth.hubing@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 1:22 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: P&Z - Support for South District SSMID
Hello Planning and Zoning Commission members,
I am writing to you today to show my support for the South District Self-Supporting Municipal
Improvement District (SSMID). The South District SSMID is a unique opportunity to spur business
growth and enhance the livability in not only the South District, but Iowa City as a whole. As
someone who has lived on the Southside of Iowa City for my entire life, I've witnessed the
transformation of the South District first hand. Never, in my opinion, has the South District had as
much momentum and community support as it does now. We need to use this positive momentum
and keep building on it.
With the support of a SSMID, the South District neighborhood will be able to:
· Help support emerging entrepreneurs and encourage business growth for people of ALL
backgrounds
· Continue to build community within the neighborhood by supporting things like an outdoor
market and play/park areas
· Make the neighborhood more walkable and bikeable, which supports the city's climate
action goals
· ... and much more!
I am very excited for the possibilities ahead for the South District and hope that this commission will
support this initiative.
Thank you,
Liz Hubing
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ21-0009
Prepared by: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner
Date: October 21, 2021
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Ed Cole
Cole’s Community LLC
2254 S. Riverside Dr.
Iowa City, IA 52246
319-321-1002
Dirtworks0405@gmail.com
Contact Person: Brian Boelk, Axiom Consultants
60 E. Court Street, Unit 3
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-519-6220
BBOELK@AXIOM-CON.COM
Owner: Cole’s Community, LLC
C/O Ed Cole
2254 S. Riverside Dr.
Iowa City, IA 52256
319-321-1002
Dirtworks0405@gmail.com
Requested Action: Rezoning from high density single-family
residential with a planned development overlay
(OPD/RS-12) to OPD/RS-12
Purpose:
Allow the expansion of existing manufactured
housing development
Location:
East of S. Riverside Dr. and north of McCollister
Blvd.
Location Map:
Size: 5.81 Acres
2
Existing Land Use and Zoning: High density single-family residential (RS-12);
Manufactured Housing Development
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Manufactured housing development;
High density single-family residential
(RS-12)
South: Open space; Neighborhood public (P1)
East: Neighborhood public (P1); High density
single-family residential (RS-12)
West: General Industrial (I1); Neighborhood
Public (P1);
Institutional Public (P2)
Comprehensive Plan:
Single family residential
District Plan:
South Central
Neighborhood Open Space District:
S1
Public Meeting Notification:
Property owners located within 300’ of the project
site received notification of the Planning and
Zoning Commission public meeting. Rezoning
signs were also posted on the site.
File Date: September 16, 2021, resubmitted application to
proposed 5.81-acre rezoning area on October 26,
2021
45 Day Limitation Period:
Waived 45-Day review period
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Ed Cole, is requesting a rezoning to approve a Planned Development Overlay (OPD)
plan for a 5.81-acre property located east of S. Riverside Drive and north of McCollister Blvd. to
High Density Single Family Residential Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12) zoning
designation.
The property was rezoned (REZ15-00007, Ord. No. 15-4639) to high density single-family with a
planned development overlay (OPD/RS-12) for the entire 14-acre parcel in 2015. Per 14-8D-7C-4,
OPD plans are valid for no more than 24 months unless otherwise specified in the ordinance
approving the OPD overlay zone. Since a building permit for the OPD Plan was not issued within
two years of the OPD approval from 2015, the OPD expired. A new OPD rezoning is required for
development of a manufactured housing park. With the existing application, the applicant wishes to
rezone the vacant 5.81-acre section of the 14-acre parcel. The rezoning is intended to facilitate
expansion of the existing manufactured housing park. While the subject boundary has changed, the
subject application is highly similar to the rezoning that was approved by the City in 2015. The
subject application contains 3 fewer lease lots than the 2015 OPD Plan.
The expansion of the manufactured housing park requires approval of an OPD Plan through the
rezoning process. The existing manufactured home park was created in 1974 for 55 units, and the
rezoning would allow for the development of an additional 35 manufactured homes in the
undeveloped area of the parcel.
Currently, the property contains Cole’s Community Manufactured housing Park (formerly known as
3
Thatcher), along with approximately 5.81 acres of undeveloped land where the expansion is
proposed. The neighboring property to the north contains another manufactured housing park
(formally known as Baculis’ Manufactured Housing Park), which has been acquired by the applicant.
The applicant has indicated that he intends to combine the existing parks into one development that
will share facilities such as storm shelters and playgrounds. The storm shelter will also function as
a community room for the park.
The surrounding area includes a permanent open space with a levee to the east, Mesquakie Park
(former landfill) across McCollister Boulevard to the south, and general industrial parcel use to the
west.
The applicant held a virtual Good Neighbor Meeting on October 11, 2021. No members of the public
attended the meeting.
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning: The current zoning of the property is for High Density Single Family Residential
with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12). The high density single-family residential zone
(RS-12) is intended to provide for development of single-family dwellings, duplexes and attached
housing units at a higher density than in other single- family zones. Because this district represents
a relatively high density for single-family development, dwellings should be in close proximity to all
city services and facilities, especially parks, schools and recreational facilities. Special attention
should be given to site design to ensure the development of quality neighborhoods. Nonresidential
uses and structures permitted in this zone should be planned and designed to be compatible with
the character, scale, and pattern of the residential development. The RS-12 zone allows single
family dwellings on lots with a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet and 45-foot lot width. Duplexes
and attached single family dwellings are permitted with a minimum lot area of 3,000 square feet.
The overlay zone is required in order for a property owner to construct a manufactured housing
park, a form of commercial property in which individual owners of manufactured homes lease lots
for their dwellings from the property owner. Overlay zones also allow increased flexibility for
development standards such as setbacks, lot area, and road widths as long as certain specifications
are met and it is not contrary to the Comprehensive Plan.
Proposed Zoning: The applicant is requesting approval of an OPD/RS-12 rezoning to expand the
existing manufactured housing park and to allow waivers from street standards, setbacks and
minimum lot sizes. The details of the OPD plan are discussed below under the Planned
Development Overlay (OPD) Plan heading.
General Planned Development Approval Criteria: Applications for Planned Development
Rezonings are reviewed for compliance with the following standards according to Article 14-3A of
the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance.
1. The density and design of the Planned Development will be compatible with and/or
complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass and scale,
relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout.
Density – The proposal meets the standard pertaining to density. In OPD zones, density is
calculated based on the underlying residential density in the base zone. In the case of RS-12, it
allows up to 13 units per acre of net land area. The proposed density of 35 units on 5.81 acres
equals approximately 6 units per acre. This density is comparable to the approximate density of 6.5-
7.5 units per acre that can be found in the existing manufactured housing park communities to the
west and north.
Land Uses Proposed – The proposed manufactured housing park use would be an expansion of
4
the existing manufactured housing park.
Mass, Scale and General Layout – The manufactured homes will be approximately 14’ x 70’ in size,
equaling 980 square feet. The RS-12 zone requires a minimum building width of 20’. The applicant
has requested a waiver from this standard to allow for the installation of 14’-wide buildings
throughout the planned development. While section 14-3A-4K of the City Code does not contain a
specific modified standard for a reduction in building width, section 14-3A-7 of the City Code does
allow for exceptions to the OPD approval criteria, provided that the requested modification meets
the following:
• The modification will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City Code and the
City Comprehensive Plan.
• The modification will generally enhance the proposed planned development and will not
have an adverse impact on its physical, visual, or spatial characteristics.
• The modification shall not result in a configuration of lots or a street system that is impractical
or detracts from the appearance of the proposed development.
• The modification will not result in danger to public health, safety, or welfare by preventing
access to emergency vehicles, by inhibiting the provision of public services, by depriving
adjoining properties of adequate light and air, or by violating the purposes and intent of the
City Code or City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Staff maintains that the requested modification to allow for the construction of 14’-wide
manufactured homes in the planned development area meets the aforementioned criteria. While
not specifically listed within the City’s Planned Development Overlay approval criteria, there is a
separate section of the Code that addresses additional requirements for manufactured housing park
planned developments. The intent is to allow for the development of manufactured housing parks
in certain situations. As stated earlier, it is not uncommon for manufactured homes to be less than
20’-wide. By allowing the proposed manufactured housing size, the planned development may
proceed with developing land that is currently vacant and underutilized within the subject property.
Since the manufactured homes will be arranged in a similar manner to the existing manufactured
housing community to the west, the modification will not result in a configuration of lots or a street
system that is impractical or detracts from the appearance of the proposed development. Finally,
the smaller building width will not result in any apparent dangers to public health, safety, or welfare.
Open Space – The proposed development provides the required 20’ of separation between units,
with 15’ of separation provided between end to end units. However, each lease lot as proposed will
not be able to meet the RS-12 base zone standard for having 500 square feet of usable open space
with a minimum dimension of 20’ in the rear yard (14-2A-4E-2(b)). Because of this, the applicant is
requesting a waiver of from this standard to allow for a minimum open space dimension of 10’ in
the rear yards of all lease lots except for lease lots 1-3, where the rear yard minimum open space
dimension will be 0’. Section 14-3A-7 of the City Code does allow for exceptions to the OPD
approval criteria, provided that the requested modification meets the following:
• The modification will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City Code and the
City Comprehensive Plan.
• The modification will generally enhance the proposed planned development and will not
have an adverse impact on its physical, visual, or spatial characteristics.
• The modification shall not result in a configuration of lots or a street system that is impractical
or detracts from the appearance of the proposed development.
• The modification will not result in danger to public health, safety, or welfare by preventing
access to emergency vehicles, by inhibiting the provision of public services, by depriving
adjoining properties of adequate light and air, or by violating the purposes and intent of the
City Code or City’s Comprehensive Plan.
5
Each lease lot will still be able to achieve 500 square feet of usable private open space. The
character of the lease lots will be similar to the existing neighborhoods to the north and west. The
Comprehensive Plan does indicate a need for affordable housing in areas with access to parks and
recreational amenities. An existing City Park is located east of the proposed manufactured housing
park development, which provides some open space. Additionally, the positioning of each housing
unit will ensure that each property receives adequate light and air. Staff does not see any other
dangers to public health, safety, or welfare as a result of this requested modification.
Staff is also recommending a condition that the property owner provide an open space plan for a
vacant area near the entrance to the park. The plans should detail future amenities, such as
playground equipment and/or recreational fields. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the new
manufacturing housing park, compliance with the approved plan will be required, including
construction of the open space improvements. This open space area will be available to all park
residents.
The OPD standards typically require a dedication of neighborhood open space or fees in lieu of in
order to ensure that adequate usable neighborhood open space is provided for residents of new
development. When the property to the east was purchased by the City from the previous owner of
Cole’s Community Manufactured Housing Park, the purchase agreement stipulated that the land
satisfies future open space requirements upon expansion of the manufactured housing park. The
applicant has agreed to install a trail connection to provide residents of the development with access
to the open space
Traffic Circulation – Staff does not have any concerns with the additional trips that will be generated
as a result of the proposed planned development. McCollister Boulevard has controlled access at
the intersections of Old Highway 218 and Gilbert Street. Both McCollister Boulevard and Gilbert
Street have excess capacity to accommodate the development’s traffic demand.
The internal street network will consist of an extended access street from S. Riverside Drive, with a
loop street that will accommodate the new lease lots. This layout is similar to the existing layout to
the west. The applicant is requesting a waiver to reduce the required street width from 26’ to 22’
and the required right-of-way from 60’ to 32’. Private streets do not have specific modification
standards in the City Code. However, section 14-3A-4K-2c(1) of the City Code does specify that
private streets in single-family and two-family residential areas are discouraged and that requests
for private streets in these areas will be carefully scrutinized and will only be approved if the
proposed private street serves as a shared access to a cluster or small group of housing units and
does not support any through traffic. The Code further specifies that if private streets are approved,
the developer must submit a legally binding instrument setting forth the procedures to be followed
for maintaining private streets and providing garbage service and snow removal, and for financing
these services. The private streets will only serve the cluster of housing within the manufactured
housing park and will not support any through traffic. The owner will be responsible for street
maintenance and garbage service provision. With respect to the requested reduction, staff views
the request as fair, given the comparable private street network that is seen in the existing adjacent
manufactured housing park communities to the west and north.
2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities.
This property has public street access from Riverside Drive to the west. McCollister Boulevard is
located approximately 680 feet to the south. Old Highway 218 is approximately 1,000 feet to the
north. These arterial streets provide good access from the development to the larger community.
The proposed 35 dwelling units are estimated to generate approximately 250 vehicle trips per day.
Staff maintains that the existing roadway capacity in the surrounding street network is adequate for
this additional traffic.
6
Within the existing development the current streets are asphalt without curb and gutter or sidewalks.
The entrance road will have a 5’-wide sidewalk along the south side of the road. Staff has proposed
that installation of this sidewalk be a condition of the rezoning. All new lots are proposed to have a
sidewalk integrated with the curb. A sidewalk on the south side of the development will provide
access to McCollister Boulevard, which leads to the Iowa River Corridor Trail and the Terry
Trueblood Recreation Center located on the east side of the Iowa River.
City water and sanitary sewer services are adequate to serve the proposed development.
Construction plans providing at the time of platting will need to address connections to City system.
The plan indicates that storm water will be directed to an existing drainage way that is located
adjacent to McCollister Boulevard.
The site grading plan is also necessary to review the proposed routing of storm water through the
site including piping and culverts, overland flow routes, drainage ways, and channels. The current
plan should also include any proposed storm sewer and culvert layout.
Staff recommends as a condition of the rezoning that the property is final platted prior to the
issuance of building permits. At the time of final platting, the applicant will be required to submit
construction drawings and a site and grading plan for the City Engineer to review.
3. The development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property values and privacy
of neighboring properties any more than would a conventional development.
The proposed planned development will meet this standard. The base RS-12 zone allows single
family homes to be as tall as 35 feet. The applicant proposes to create additional lots for
manufactured homes that would be substantially lower in height. This will result in no more
adverse effect than conventional development.
4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying
zoning requirements or from City street standards will be in the public interest, in harmony
with the purposes of this Title, and with other building regulations of the City.
Setback Reductions
In addition to the previously described variations from the underlying zoning requirements for
minimum building width, open space, and street and right-of-way width, the applicant is requesting
three different waivers for setback reductions, which are described below.
1. 30’ setback from the edge of the property (Lease Lots 1-3 (0’) and Lease Lots 4-13 (10’)).
2. Reduction of the rear yard setback from 20’ to 10’ (All Lease Lots except 1-3).
3. Reduction of the side yard setback from 5’ to 0’ (Lease Lots 1-3).
Section 14-3A-4K-1a of the City Code provides the criteria that must be met if minimum setbacks
are to be reduced. The criteria and staff’s rationale are outlined below.
(1) The setbacks proposed will provide adequate light, air, and privacy between dwellings and
between dwellings and public rights of way.
(2) Sufficient setbacks are incorporated to provide the opportunity for adequate private open space
for each dwelling unit.
(3) The setbacks proposed will provide sufficient area for utilities and street trees.
7
(4) If front setbacks are reduced, measures should be taken to preserve privacy within residential
dwellings and to provide a transition between the public right of way and private property. To
ensure privacy within single-family and two-family dwellings for which setbacks are reduced,
the first floor must be elevated at least thirty inches (30") above the grade of the adjacent public
sidewalk. Other methods to increase privacy are also encouraged, such as use of front porches.
(5) Residential buildings that are located in close proximity to each other must be designed to
preserve privacy. This can be achieved by placement of windows to prevent direct views into
the windows of adjacent residential dwelling units. In addition, balconies and air conditioning
units may not be located along a building wall that is within twenty feet (20') of a building wall of
an adjacent principal building on the same lot, if the wall of the adjacent building contains
window or door openings into dwelling units. Proximity of building walls will be subject to all
current building code fire protection requirements.
30’ setback from the edge of the property (Lease Lots 1-3 and Lease Lots 4-13)
The 30’ setback reduction request for the lots along the east side of the development will still allow
for adequate light, air, and privacy as these lots abut city-owned open space to the east. The City
acquired the land for flood control purposes, and it will remain as permanent open space lessening
the need for a setback for the residential units. Lease lots 1-3 will border the existing manufactured
housing park to the north. The buildings on Lease lots 1-3 will still be required to maintain a 15’
separation between buildings from end to end. The resulting setbacks will be 0’ for lease lots 1-3,
and 10’ for lease lots 4-13.
Reduction of the rear yard setback from 20’ to 10’ (All Lease Lots except 1-3)
The requested 10’ rear yard setback will match what is generally seen in the existing manufactured
housing park community to the west. The homes will be offset from one another, so that one unit is
not directly across the street from another unit. Between units on the same side of the street, the
minimum separation distance of 20’ will be in place. Building lot coverage on each lease lot will
range between 18% and 22%. The RS-12 zone allows for a building lot coverage of up to 50% for
detached single-family homes. Therefore, the proposed lease lots will still have ample on-site open
space.
Reduction of the side yard setback from 5’ to 0’ (Lease Lots 1-3)
The buildings on Lots 1-3 will be positioned diagonally, running from the northwest to the southeast.
This will help to vary views to and from each neighboring lease lot. The positioning also creates
room for private open space to the north and south of each building. No more than 21% of each
lot’s area will be occupied by the manufactured housing structure, leaving room for on-site open
space on each lot. The attached OPD Plan shows that street trees can still be located on each lease
lot.
Minimum Lot Size Reduction from 5,000 sq. ft. to 4,500 sq. ft. (Lease Lots 1-2 and Lease Lots 32-
36)
Finally, the applicant is requesting a waiver to reduce the minimum lot area for Lease lots 1-2 and
Lease lots 32-36 from 5,000 square feet to 4,500 square feet.
Section 14-3A-4K-1c of the City Code provides the criteria that must be met if the minimum lot area
is to be reduced. The criteria and staff’s rationale are outlined below.
(1) The proposed modifications will not result in increased traffic congestion or a reduction in
neighborhood traffic circulation. To mitigate for the concentration of dwellings, shorter block
lengths may be appropriate, and the location of driveways and pedestrian facilities must be
carefully planned.
(2) Garages and off-street parking areas must be located so that they do not dominate the
8
streetscape. Alley or private rear lane access will be required, unless garages are recessed
behind the front facade of the dwelling in a manner that allows the residential portion of the
dwelling to predominate along the street.
As detailed earlier in the report, the proposed planned development will not result in increased traffic
congestion to the greater area. Neighborhood traffic circulation will mirror existing traffic circulation
seen in the established neighborhood to the west. The density of the planned development will
actually be slightly less at 6 dwelling units per acre than the neighborhoods to the west and north,
which are approximately 6.5-7.5 dwelling units per acre. Driveways within the development are
intended to be offset, thereby reducing potential traffic conflicts. Sidewalks will be constructed along
both sides of the new private streets, and a pedestrian connection will be provided to McCollister
Boulevard to the south.
While the planned development will not provide alley or private rear lane access to each dwelling
unit, parking pads will be recessed so that designated parking areas will be located behind the front
façade of each dwelling unit.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The subject property falls within the South Central
District Plan. The future land use map shows this parcel as being an intensive commercial or
highway commercial use. At the time the district plan was written the only access to the area was
from Riverside Drive, which was surrounded by industrial uses. There was a concern that the
residential uses in this area were isolated among industrial uses. The District Plan notes that in
the long-term to avoid conflicts with the industrial uses and potential flooding, residential uses
should be phased out in this area. The District Plan was written before McCollister Boulevard and
the levee were constructed. The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan also indicates a need for affordable
housing, especially in areas with good access to parks and other amenities.
Unless an alternative location or form of affordable housing is provided, the goal of removing
manufactured housing from this area may not be realistic at least in the near term. The City may
want to consider studying the area and determine if the land use designation should be changed
to reflect the current residential uses and the recent construction of the levee and McCollister
Boulevard.
The application does not up-zone the area. That is, it maintains the existing base zone.
Because the property is maintaining an existing use, provides a relatively affordable housing
alternative, and has good access to the street network, trails and open space, it is staff’s opinion
a comprehensive plan amendment is not necessary in order to approve the OPD plan. If this
was a proposal to change the underlying zoning and establish a new residential use, an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would be necessary.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Floodplain: The subject property does not contain any
environmentally sensitive areas, but the proposed development is currently in the 100-year
floodplain (as shown in Figure 1). A levee was designed and constructed along the Iowa River to
meet US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) and FEMA design standards, but has not been
certified or accredited. FEMA accreditation would change the flood zone designation from A to X
which means the area is still technically in the 100-year floodplain but the mandatory flood
insurance requirement is lifted. USACE certification would make the levee eligible for federal
funding if the levee system was damaged by a flood event.
Development on the subject property will be required to conform to the City’s Floodplain
Management Standards (detailed in 14-5J-7 of the City Code). The City Engineer and Building
Inspection staff require review of a site grading plan to show proposed ground elevations in
relation to the floodplain. The grading plan will need to demonstrate that the lowest floor of new
dwelling units are located 1 foot above the 0.2% (500-year) flood elevation and that the private
9
streets are passible during a flood event per section 14-5J-7K-1 of the code: “Any subdivision,
planned development, or manufactured housing park intended for residential development must
provide all lots with a means of vehicular access that will remain passable during occurrence of
the 1% flood event.”
Figure 1. Floodplain Coverage
Infrastructure Fees: A water main extension fee of $503.57 per acre applies. There are no
additional infrastructure fees in this neighborhood.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be
scheduled for consideration by the City Council. Staff plans to have this application on the
November 30, 2021 City Council agenda, with public hearings set at the Council’s November 16,
2021 meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of REZ21-0009, a proposal to rezone approximately 5.81 acres of
property located east of S. Riverside Drive and north of McCollister Boulevard from high density
single-family residential with a planned development overlay (OPD/RS-12) to high density single-
family with a planned development overlay (OPD/RS-12), subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of any building permit for the property described herein, compliance with
the planned development overlay plan attached hereto, which shall include the construction
of a storm shelter and sidewalk along the existing east-west private street to Riverside Drive;
and
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, approval of a final plat of the subject property, at which
time, the applicant shall submit for review by the City Engineer:
a. Construction drawings
b. A site grading and drainage plan
10
3. As part of the final platting process the lot line between the property described herein and
the property to the north shall be dissolved. This condition will ensure that the required 30’
setback along the northern property boundary of the subject property is nullified when the
properties are combined. The final plat will need to include the adjoining properties to the
west and north, all of which are under the same ownership as the subject property.
4. Submission of an open space plan for the vacant area located south of the park entrance
and west of least lot 2 to be approved by the Director of Neighborhood and Development
Services. The plans shall detail future amenities, such as playground equipment and/or
recreational fields. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the property described herein,
compliance with the approved open space plan is required and includes construction of the
approved open space improvements.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Aerial Photograph
3. Applicant Statement
4. Rezoning Exhibit
5. Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
S RIVERSIDE DRCOLE'S MOBILEHOME COURTCOLE'S MOBILEHOME COURTN A P O L E O N L N
COLE'S MOBILEHOME COURT
MCCOLLISTERBLVD
COLE'S MOBILEHOMECOURTCOLE'SCOMMUNITYMOBILEHOMEPARKI1
P1
P2
RS12
REZ21-0009East of S. Riverside Dr. & north of McCollister Blvd.µ
0 0.08 0.160.04 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: October 2021
An application submitted by Axiom Consultants, on behalf of Cole's Community, for the rezoning of 5.81 acres ofproperty located east of S. Riverside Dr. and north of McCollister Blvd. from High Density Single Family Residentialwith a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12) to High Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned DevelopmentOverlay (OPD/RS-12).
Overlay Zones
Overlay Description
Planned Development (OPD)
S RIVERSIDE DRCOLE'S MOBILEHOME COURTCOLE'S MOBILEHOME COURTN A P O L E O N L N
COLE'S MOBILEHOME COURT
MCCOLLISTERBLVD
COLE'S MOBILEHOMECOURTCOLE'SCOMMUNITYMOBILEHOMEPARKREZ21-0009East of S. Riverside Dr. & north of McCollister Blvd.µ
0 0.08 0.160.04 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: October 2021
An application submitted by Axiom Consultants, on behalf of Cole's Community, for the rezoning of 5.81 acres ofproperty located east of S. Riverside Dr. and north of McCollister Blvd. from High Density Single Family Residentialwith a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12) to High Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned DevelopmentOverlay (OPD/RS-12).
CIVIL STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL SURVEY SPECIALTY
Project Number 200194 Page | 1
September 16, 2021
APPLICANT’S STATEMENT FOR REZONING
The proposed development area consists of a portion of Parcel 1022351009. The area being rezoned is approximately
14.36 acres of private property located west of S. Riverside Drive and north of McCollister Boulevard. Refer to the Rezoning
Exhibit included with the Rezoning Application for additional information, include the legal description.
It is bounded on the west by S. Riverside Drive as well as a self-storage facility owned by Linn Street Place, LLC. It is
bounded to the south by McCollister Boulevard and to the east by City property and the Iowa River. It is bounded to the
north by existing manufactured housing owned by applicant.
The current zoning classification is RS-12 – High Density Residential. The Applicant is seeking to rezone property to an
ODP/RS-12 zoning to allow for the expansion of the current manufactured housing. The zoning will be utilized with the
expansion.
The applicant is requesting waivers for:
• A 10-ft rear yard setback
• A 14-ft minimum building width
• A private street width of 22-ft in a 32-ft public access easement
• A reduced setback on east property line due to being adjacent to City owned property.
• A reduced setback on north property line due to combining two properties into one.
• A reduced setback on lots 44 and 45 due to 35’ distance to the back of the self-storage units to the south.
The proposed is an expansion of the single-family manufactured home development adjacent to the open space. City
utilities will serve the site. No storm water management is required due to proximity to Iowa River.
Thank you for the consideration.
Sincerely,
Brian Boelk, PE
PRINCIPAL
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ21-0008
Prepared by: Ray Heitner, Associate
Planner
Date: November 4, 2021
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Nelson Development
Jacob Wolfgang
jacob@nelsonconstruct.com
Contact Person: See above.
Owner: ACT, Inc.
Jason Happel
500 ACT Drive
Iowa City, IA 52243-0168
Jason.Happel@act.org
Requested Action: Rezoning from Interim Development –
Residential Single Family (ID-RS) to Low
Density Single-Family with a Planned
Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5)
Purpose:
Construction of Senior living facility and
open space dedication for the expansion
of Hickory Hill Park.
Location:
West of N. 1st Avenue and south of N.
Scott Boulevard.
Location Map:
Size: 48.75 Acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Undeveloped/Vacant Open Space,
2
Interim Development – Single Family (ID-
RS)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: RM-12, Low density Multi-family
Residential
RDP, Research Development
Park
ODP, Office Development Park
South: P-1, Neighborhood Public
East: RS-8, Medium Density Single
Family Residential
ID-RS, Interim Development –
Single Family Residential
ID-RP, Interim Development –
Research Park
West: P-1, Neighborhood Public
RS-5, Low Density Single Family
Residential
Comprehensive Plan:
2-8 units / acres
District Plan:
Northeast District
Neighborhood Open Space District:
C8
Public Meeting Notification:
Property owners west of the subject
property in the Hickory Heights
development and owners east of 1st
Avenue received notification of the
Planning and Zoning Commission public
meeting. Rezoning signs were posted on
the site at both Scott Boulevard and 1st
Avenue.
File Date: September 16, 2021
45 Day Limitation Period:
Completed application submitted on
October 25, 2021 – 45-day limitation due
on December 9, 2021
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Nelson Development, LLC, has requested a rezoning from Interim Development –
Single Family (ID-RS) zone to Low Density Single Family with a Planned Development Overlay
(OPD/RS-5) zone for 48.75 acres of land located south of N. Scott Boulevard and west of N. 1st
Avenue. The applicant intends to develop 8.85 acres as a senior living facility, which will contain
approximately 134 bedrooms for its residents (REZ21-0008).
The subject application is different from a previous application to rezone this property that was
considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council in Spring of 2021 (REZ20-
0016). The former rezoning application sought an OPD/RS-5 zoning designation, with both a senior
living facility component and single-family residential housing developed over the 48.75-acre
property. The subject application will still apply for the OPD/RS-5 zoning designation but will only
construct the senior living facility component of the prior application. With the proposed application,
the applicant intends to plat and dedicate a 38.98-acre outlot to the City as parkland. A future
3
rezoning to a Public (P) zone would be done by the City once the City acquires the dedicated land.
The development proposes to extend Hickory Trail from 1st Avenue to a cul-de-sac that will
terminate just short of the west lot line of the senior living facility. Sidewalks will be added to both
sides of the Hickory Trail extension, which will ultimately connect to the Hickory Hill Park trail
network, located south and west of the subject property.
The applicant also intends to grant the entirety of Outlot A from the OPD Plan (approximately 38.98
acres) to the City as neighborhood open space. This would exceed the required open space
contribution of 1.1 acres and would increase Hickory Hill Park’s size by about 21%.
Because the proposed development contains regulated sensitive features in the way of wetlands,
streams, woodlands, critical slopes, and steep slopes and modifications to the underlying zoning
designation are being requested, a Level II Sensitive Areas Review is required. A Level II Sensitive
Areas Review requires submission of a sensitive areas development plan (SADP). Furthermore, a
Level II sensitive areas review is considered a type of planned development and as such, must
comply with the applicable approval criteria set forth in chapter 3, article A, "Planned Development
Overlay Zone (OPD)".
The applicant conducted a virtual Good Neighbor meeting on September 22, 2021, which was
attended by 16 members of the public. Staff has received three additional emails pertaining to the
subject rezoning.
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning: The subject property is currently zoned Interim Development – Single Family
Residential (ID-RS). In ID-RS zones, only plant related agriculture is allowed by right. This zoning
designation effectively pauses development for a property until a time that the preferred use can be
developed, and the property can be rezoned.
Proposed Zoning: The applicant is requesting to rezone the entire property (48.75 acres) to Low
Density Single-Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5). The RS-5 zone is
intended to provide housing opportunities for individual households. The zone generally provides a
collection of homes with larger lot sizes and setbacks creating neighborhoods with a limited density.
While the proposed development contains group living in the senior living facility, the OPD process
allows for a mixture of uses, provided that additional criteria in section 14-3A-4C of the City Code
are met.
General Planned Development Approval Criteria: Applications for Planned Development
Rezonings are reviewed for compliance with the following standards according to Article 14-3A of
the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance.
1. The density and design of the Planned Development will be compatible with and/or
complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass and scale,
relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout.
Density – Table 3A-1 from the City Code outlines the maximum allowable density for planned
development zones. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to an OPD/RS-5 zone, which allows for
a density of (5) dwelling units per net acre of land area (total land minus public and private streets
right-of-way).
The senior living facility is considered a group living use, as the proposed facility most closely
resembles the following criteria for a group living use from section 14-4A-3B-1 of the City Code:
“Rooming units contain private space for living and sleeping, but not for cooking. Bathroom facilities
may be private or shared. There may also be shared kitchen and dining facilities and shared
4
common rooms and amenities for all residents. The rooming units are furnished with locks through
which one member of the group may prevent other members of the group from entering his/her
private rooming unit. The residents may or may not receive any combination of care, training, or
treatment, but those receiving such services must reside at the site.” The senior living facility is
estimated to have 134 bedrooms. These bedrooms are not included in the site’s density calculation,
because they are not dwelling units. As there are no dwelling units to factor into the site’s density
calculation, the proposed level of density is allowed within an OPD/RS-5 zone.
Land Uses Proposed – The applicant is proposing a group living land use (shown more closely in
Attachment #1) to accommodate a senior living facility in the southeast portion of the subject
property. There are currently two different multi-family developments near the subject property. The
first of which, Oaknoll East, can be found north of the subject property, along Scott Boulevard. The
second of which, the Hickory Pointe Condominiums, can be found directly east of the proposed
senior living facility. The addition of the senior living facility will help to satisfy an ongoing need for
elder housing within the City, while increasing the diversity of housing that is offered in the Northeast
District. The proposed senior living facility will be reviewed against the Multi-Family Site
Development Standards during Design Review.
Mass, Scale and General Layout –At a ground-floor area of 69,589 square feet, the footprint of the
senior living facility will be considerably larger than that of the Hickory Pointe Condominiums
building, which has a footprint of only 6,975 square feet. The applicant has requested a waiver for
the maximum height requirement of 35’, requesting an allowable height of 42’. The senior living
facility would be 3-stories at the north end and only 1-story on the south end. The adjacent Hickory
Pointe Condominiums building is 2 stories.
Open Space – The proposed development will need to comply with private open space standards,
outlined in section 14-2A-4E of the City Code. The senior living facility will be required to
accommodate 10 square feet of private open space per bedroom, for a total of 1,340 square feet of
private open space. The OPD plans shows three courtyards providing approximately 27,000 square
feet of on-site open space.
Traffic Circulation – The proposed development will be situated off an extension of Hickory Trail. An
interior access drive will provide access to the entire site, with points of access onto the east and
west ends of the Hickory Trail street extension.
2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities.
The subject property can be serviced by both sanitary sewer and water. Public Works has indicated
that both sanitary sewer and water mains have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed
development.
Transportation Planning Staff requested that the applicant submit a traffic study which examined
how the proposed development would impact traffic at the intersection of 1st Avenue and Hickory
Trail. The traffic study (Attachment #3) submitted by Axiom Consultants (performed by Gibson
Traffic Consultants, Inc.) indicates that the total average daily trips generated by the proposed
development is 288 (144 entering / 144 exiting) to 1st Avenue at full build-out. During peak hours
this breaks down to a total of 17 AM peak hour trips and 19 PM peak hour trips. The study shows
that all movements at the Hickory Trail access currently operate at a Level-of-Service D (or better)
and remain at a LOS D (or better) with the proposed development. As none of the individual
movements at the 1st Avenue intersection are anticipated to reach a failing Level-of-Service, Staff
is not recommending any off-site improvements at this time as a result of the proposed
development.
Additionally, a 5’-wide sidewalk will be added along the north side of Hickory Trail, and an 8’-wide
5
sidewalk will be added along the south side of Hickory Trail. Staff is recommending a condition that
the 8’-wide sidewalk on the south side of Hickory Trail be extended as an off-site public improvement
from the eastern property line of the subject property to 1st Avenue.
3. The development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property values and privacy
of neighboring properties any more than would a conventional development.
Attachment #1 shows the proposed elevations for the senior living facility. The facility will be roughly
1-3 stories in height, portions of which are taller than the Hickory Pointe Condominiums building to
the east, but similar in height to the Oaknoll East buildings off Scott Boulevard. Additionally, the
OPD plan is showing a separation distance of approximately 185’ between the senior living facility
and the Hickory Point Condominiums property.
4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying
zoning requirements or from City street standards will be in the public interest, in harmony
with the purposes of this Title, and with other building regulations of the City.
Staff finds that the proposed land use and building type meets the public interest. Staff finds the
requested height of 42’ versus the allowable 35’ in an RS-5 zone to be reasonable. Section 14-
3A-4K-1(b) of the City Code allows for the maximum building height and building coverage to be
modified or waived, provided the design of the development results in sufficient light and air
circulation for each building and adequate, accessible open space for all residents of the
development. When the underlying base zone is single-family residential, at least thirty five
percent (35%) of the net land area in a planned development shall remain free of buildings,
parking and vehicular maneuvering areas. The facility will be 185’ from the Hickory Pointe
Condominiums property line, and approximately 300’ from the Hickory Pointe building. The 69,589
square foot facility (with a building coverage of approximately 18%) will be situated on an 8.85-
acre lot, with 38.98 acres of open space (to be dedicated to Hickory Hill Park) to the west. The
adjacent public open space is in addition to 1,340 square feet of private open space that is
required to be on site. Staff finds that the facility’s placement within the greater site will provide
sufficient light and air circulation, with accessible open space for all residents. When factoring in
Outlot A, approximately 92% of the net land area will remain free of buildings, parking and
vehicular maneuvering areas.
Lastly, Staff recommends that no building permit shall be issued for any of the subject property
until the City Council approves a final plat subdividing the subject property to confirm to the zoning
boundaries established by the zoning ordinance.
Neighborhood Open Space: A neighborhood open space requirement of approximately 1.1
acres accompanies the proposed OPD rezoning. The applicant has proposed to dedicate the
entirety of Outlot A to the City for public open space, which is approximately 38.98 acres.
Dedication of Outlot A will be formalized through the subsequent subdivision process.
City Code requires that at least 90% of the land required to be dedicated be located outside of
floodways, lakes or other water bodies, areas with slopes greater than 15%, wetlands subject to
federal or state regulatory jurisdiction and other areas the city reasonably deems unsuitable for
neighborhood open space due to topography, flooding or other appropriate considerations.
However, the Code allows land in addition to the required dedication amount to include lakes,
ponds, creeks, other water bodies, wetlands falling under the jurisdiction of state or federal agencies
and other sensitive areas including woodland areas. City Staff views the proposed 38.98 acres of
dedication from Outlot A as sufficient abutting land that would be usable and extend the existing
Hickory Hill Park. This addition would increase the Park’s acreage by approximately 21%.
In addition to the dedication of land from Outlot A, the applicant will be required to provide a trail
6
connection from the proposed development to an existing trail south of the site as shown on the
OPD Plan (Attachment #2).
Per 14-5K-3C of the City Code, notice of the land dedication request was sent to Parks and
Recreation staff for comment and recommendation. Parks and Recreation staff support the
proposed dedication. City programming and planning for the additional parkland is not determined
at rezoning. Future programming and planning for the dedicated parkland will be done as part of
the Parks & Recreation planning process and the adoption of the Capital Improvement Program by
the City Council.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: With respect to compliance with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, Staff looks to the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast District
Plan for direction. The Northeast District Plan features several areas of focus for the subject
property’s neighborhood (the Bluffwood Neighborhood) that are discussed in more detail below.
Preserve Natural Features – The Northeast District Plan emphasizes the use of cul-de-sac streets
and single loaded streets (i.e. homes only on one side), where appropriate, to preserve sensitive
areas. The Plan’s intent is to preserve areas with ravines and potential wetland areas as a buffer
along the eastern and northern edges of Hickory Hill Park. Additionally, the City’s comprehensive
plan encourages the development of single-loaded street along parks.
The Bluffwood Neighborhood map (Figure #2) shows two cul-de-sac streets within the subject
property. One cul-de-sac is stemming southward from Scott Boulevard, while the other is a
westward continuation of an extension to Hickory Trail. Housing is shown mostly on both sides of
the street on the northern cul-de-sac, with an exception for the southwestern portion of the cul-
de-sac. The southern cul-de-sac shows housing only on one side of the street. A woodland buffer
is shown on the map, but dimensions for how wide the buffer are not provided.
Figure #2 - Bluffwood Neighborhood Map
The applicant intends to build just one cul-de-sac off 1st Avenue to provide access to the senior
living facility. Section 15-3-2A-4 of the City Code states the following “Use of cul-de-sacs and
other roadways with a single point of access should be avoided. Cul-de-sacs will be considered
7
where it can be clearly demonstrated that environmental constraints, existing development,
access limitations along arterial streets, or other unusual features prevent the extension of the
street to the property line or to interconnect with other streets within or abutting the subdivision.”
While previously submitted plans for this property illustrated that through access to this property
could be provided without the use of cul-de-sacs, the current proposal only includes one structure
being developed at the southeast corner of the overall site. Additionally, the applicant intends to
grant the entire 38.98 acres of Outlot A to the City as neighborhood open space. The proposed
land dedication would remove the portion of land where a through street connection to Scott
Boulevard could be made within the subject property.
Provide Pedestrian/Bicyclist Connections – The Plan calls for an interconnected sidewalk system
that is augmented by a trail system that will provide opportunities for people to walk, bike, or jog
to various destinations. The applicant is showing a 5’ wide sidewalks along the north side of the
Hickory Trail extension, with an 8’ wide sidewalk along the south side of Hickory Trail. The
sidewalk along the south side of Hickory Trail will connect to the existing trail network in Hickory
Hill Park.
Encourage a Reasonable Level of Housing Diversity – In addition to single-family dwellings, the
Plan calls for townhouses or small apartment houses at the edges of neighborhoods, where the
increased density can take advantage of the being located near major arterial streets. In-lieu of
small apartment buildings, the applicant is proposing to develop a senior living facility off the
extended Hickory Trail, just west of 1st Avenue. Staff believes that this development will add to
the neighborhood’s growing housing diversity, and compliment nearby comparable uses such as
the Hickory Pointe Condominiums building to the east, and the Oak Knoll East complex that is
located north of Scott Boulevard.
Create and Enhance Neighborhood Parks within the District (Natural Open Space/Buffer Areas)
The proposed plan improves and expands the existing Hickory Hill Park by 38.98 acres. Increased
opportunity for neighborhood access will be provided through sidewalk improvements that will be
made to both sides of the Hickory Trail. A connection to the existing Hickory Hill Park trail network
will be provided from the south side of the Hickory Trail.
Sensitive Areas Review: The applicant has applied for approval of a Sensitive Areas
Development, a type of planned development. The purpose of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is to
permit and define the reasonable use of properties that contain sensitive environmental features
and natural resources and allowing reasonable development while protecting these resources from
damage.
Outlot A contains the vast majority of the site’s sensitive features. Outlot A will be protected through
the dedication to the City as an extension of Hickory Hill Park.
Jurisdictional Wetlands - The purpose of regulating development in and around wetlands is to:
1. Preserve the unique and valuable attributes of wetlands as areas where storm water is naturally
retained, thereby controlling the rate of runoff, improving water quality, recharging ground water
resources, providing erosion control and lessening the effects of flooding;
2. Promote the preservation of habitat for plants, fish, reptiles, amphibians or other wildlife;
3. Minimize the impact of development activity on wetland areas;
4. Provide a greater degree of protection for many wetland areas above and beyond that provided
by the federal and state government; and
5. Minimize the long-term environmental impact associated with the loss of wetlands.
For this application, the subject property contains two wetlands, which are shown below in Figure
#3. The City’s Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires a 100 ft. buffer to be maintained between a
regulated wetland and any development activity (14-5I-6E-1). The Ordinance does allow for buffer
8
averaging to be permitted where an increased buffer is deemed necessary or desirable to provide
additional protection to one area of a wetland for aesthetic or environmental reasons. The applicant
has not chosen to request buffer averaging for either wetland, as each wetland and wetland buffer
will remain unimpacted.
Figure #3 – Wetland Delineation
Stream Corridors - The purpose of regulating development in and around stream corridors is to:
1. Preserve the value of stream corridors in providing floodwater conveyance and storage;
2. Promote filtration of storm water runoff;
3. Reduce stream bank erosion; and
4. Protect and enhance wildlife habitat.
The City’s Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires the delineation of any stream corridor and its
required natural buffer (14-5I-7). The subject property contains two drainageways, which require a
30’ wide stream corridor (spanning both sides of the stream) and 50’ wide stream corridor buffer on
each side of the stream. Both stream corridors are situated far enough away from the proposed
construction limits that neither corridor will be impacted.
Steep, Critical, and Protected Slopes – The purpose of regulating development on and near steep
slopes is to:
1. Promote safety in the design and construction of developments;
2. Minimize flooding, landslides and mudslides;
3. Minimize soil instability, erosion and downstream siltation; and
4. Preserve the scenic character of hillside areas, particularly wooded hillsides.
The City’s Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires a 2 ft. buffer for each foot of vertical rise of the
protected slope, up to a maximum buffer of fifty feet (50') (14-5I-8D-1). The buffer area is to be
measured from the top, toe and sides of the protected slope. No development activity, including
removal of trees and other vegetation, will be allowed within the buffer. The SADP contains 321,719
square feet of critical slopes, but no disturbance to protected slopes. Approximately 20%, or roughly
65,559 square feet of critical slopes will be impacted by the development. Table 1 below breaks out
the proposed impact to critical slopes. The City Code defines critical slopes as having a slope
greater than 25% but less than 40%. Section 14-5I-8E-4 states that a Level II sensitive areas review
is required if more than 35% of critical slopes are disturbed. The applicant is proposing to only to
disturb 20% of critical slopes, which is within the allowable threshold.
9
Table #1 – Critical Slope Summary
Existing Critical Slopes Impacted Slopes Non-Impacted Slopes
321,719 sq ft 65,559 sq ft
(20%)
256,160 sq ft
(80%)
Woodlands – The purpose of regulating development in and around wooded areas is to:
1. Reduce damage to wooded areas, particularly wetlands, steep slopes and stream corridors;
2. Reduce erosion and siltation;
3. Minimize destruction of wildlife habitat; and
4. Encourage subdivision and site plan design which incorporate groves and woodlands as
amenities within a development.
The subject property has approximately 1,325,064 square feet of woodlands. The SADP plan
(Attachment #2) shows that the development will preserve approximately 81% of woodlands, which
is above the 50% allowed per the sensitive areas ordinance.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be
scheduled for consideration by the City Council. Staff plans to have this application on the
November 30, 2021 City Council agenda, with public hearings set at the Council’s November 16,
2021 meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of REZ21-0008, a proposal to rezone approximately 48.75 acres of
land located south of N. Scott Blvd. and west of N. 1st Ave. from Interim Development – Single
Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Low Density Single Family with a Planned Development
Overlay (OPD/RS-5) zone subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to the acceptance of public improvements corresponding to the subdivision:
a. Construction of trail connections, as shown on the OPD Plan dated 10/28/2021.
b. Construction of an 8’-wide sidewalk extending from the subject property’s eastern
property line to 1st Avenue.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit:
a. Submission of a landscape plan detailing any proposed landscaping on Lot 1. The
landscape plan shall be approved by the City Forrester before a building permit is
issued.
b. City Council approval of a final plat subdividing the subject property to conform to
the zoning boundaries established by the zoning ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Senior Living Facility Elevations
2. OPD/SADP Plan
3. Landscape Plan
4. Traffic Study
5. Location Map
6. Aerial Photograph
7. Applicant Statement
8. Rezoning Exhibit
9. Correspondence
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
EXTERIOR ELEVATION GENERAL NOTES
1. PROVIDE CONCRETE SPLASH BLOCKS AT ALL DOWNSPOUTS WHICH SPILL ONTO
GRADE OR ROOFS.
2. ALL CONDUIT, METERS, VENTS, ETC. TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE.
3. GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS ARE PREFINISHED ALUMINUM.
EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEY NOTES:
MR STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
F1 FIBER CEMENT SIDING - COLOR A
F2 FIBER CEMENT SIDING - COLOR B
FP1 VERTICAL FIBER CEMENT PANEL BATTENS AT 16" O.C. - COLOR A
A THREE DIMENSIONAL ASPHALT SHINGLES
CSV CUT STONE VENEER
WP1 NICHIHA VINTAGEWOOD AWP-3-3- FIBER CEMENT PANEL- VERTICAL
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
C-TRUSS BEARING 125
125'-0"
TRUSS BEARING 114
114'-0"
1
AC601
A
AC600
C-TRUSS BEARING 124
124'-0"
VESTIBULE TRUSS BEARING
111'-0"
TRUSS BEARING 116
116'-0"
WP1
CSV
FP1
CSV
WP1
CSV
CSV
A
A
A
A
COMPOSITE METAL
WALL PANEL
SYSTEM PER 07610
STANDING SEAM METAL
WALL PANEL
SYSTEM PER 07610
STANDING SEAM METAL
ROOF PANELS
PER 07610
CSV
FP1
3" CUT STONE SILL
6X8 CUT STONE TRIM5/4X6 FIBER CEMENT TRIM
-2x12 CEDAR RAFTERS
-METAL WRAPPED BEAM AND COLUMNS
-2x8 CEDAR SLATS IN METAL FRAME
3" CUT STONE SILL
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
PORTE COCHERE TRUSS
BEARING
116'-0"
1
AC602
VESTIBULE TRUSS BEARING
111'-0"
CSV
WP1
FP1
FP1
CSV
A
COMPOSITE METAL
WALL PANEL
SYSTEM PER 07610
STANDING SEAM METAL
WALL PANEL
SYSTEM PER 07610
STANDING SEAM METAL
ROOF PANELS
PER 07610
A
5/4X6 FIBER CEMENT TRIM
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
C-TRUSS BEARING
112'-0"
C-TRUSS BEARING 125
125'-0"
PORTE COCHERE TRUSS
BEARING
116'-0"
C-TRUSS BEARING 124
124'-0"
2
AC602
VESTIBULE TRUSS BEARING
111'-0"
COMPOSITE METAL
WALL PANEL
SYSTEM PER 07610
STANDING SEAM METAL
WALL PANEL
SYSTEM PER 07610
STANDING SEAM METAL
ROOF PANELS
PER 07610
FP1
CSV
CSV
CSV
A
CSV
STANDING SEAM METAL
WALL PANEL
SYSTEM PER 07610
STANDING SEAM METAL
ROOF PANELS
PER 07610
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
1
AC601
A
AC600
TRUSS BEARING 116
116'-0"
A
A
WP1FP1
CSV
CSV
WP1
WP1CSV
WP1
CSV
CSV
FP1
CSV
FP1
CSV
A
A
COMPOSITE METAL
WALL PANEL
SYSTEM PER 07610
3" CUT STONE SILL
6X8 CUT STONE TRIM
STOREFRONT WINDOW
SYSTEM PER 084114
DATE
THIS DRAWING, ITS DESIGN CONCEPT AND ITS DETAIL ARE
THE SOLE PROPERTY OF AG ARCHITECTURE, INC. AND SHALL
NOT BE COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WITHOUT
WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF ITS DESIGNER/CREATOR
SHEET NO.
PROJECT
SHEET PRINTED ON:FILE PATH:SCHEMATIC DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONMEMORY SUPPORT
A
COMMONS
REVISIONS
B
ASSISTED
9/14/2021 3:18:04 PMBIM 360://202201-Iowa City-Nelson/202201_Architectural_R20.rvt23 JUL 2021
202201
AC5001/8" EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Iowa CityHickory Trails EstatesAssisted Living & Memory SupportIowaCOMMONS
4
31 2AC500
COMMONS
1
AC500
PORTE COCHERE FRONT ELEVATION
2
AC500
PORTE COCHERE SIDE ELEVATION
3
AC500
COMMONS
4
NO. DATE DESCRIPTION
EXTERIOR ELEVATION GENERAL NOTES
1. PROVIDE CONCRETE SPLASH BLOCKS AT ALL DOWNSPOUTS WHICH SPILL ONTO
GRADE OR ROOFS.
2. ALL CONDUIT, METERS, VENTS, ETC. TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE.
3. GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS ARE PREFINISHED ALUMINUM.
EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEY NOTES:
MR STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
F1 FIBER CEMENT SIDING - COLOR A
F2 FIBER CEMENT SIDING - COLOR B
FP1 VERTICAL FIBER CEMENT PANEL BATTENS AT 16" O.C. - COLOR A
A THREE DIMENSIONAL ASPHALT SHINGLES
CSV CUT STONE VENEER
WP1 NICHIHA VINTAGEWOOD AWP-3-3- FIBER CEMENT PANEL- VERTICAL
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
AL-TRUSS BEARING
132'-0 1/8"
TOP OF SUBFLOOR -2ND
FLOOR
111'-11 1/8"
TOP OF SUBFLOOR -3RD
FLOOR
122'-11"
CSV
WP1
CSV
F7CSV
FP1
A
A
9"
12"
F7
CSVCSV CSV
CSV
FP1
3" CUT STONE SILL
6x8 CUT STONE TRIM5/4x 6 FIBER CEMENT
TRIM
3" CUT STONE SILL
ARCHITECTURAL LOUVERS-
MODEL H6T
PAINTED METAL RECTANGULAR
TUBE BLADE SUNSHADE LOUVER
6" DEEP, 24" PROJECTION
(service@archlouvers.com)
888.568.8371
1x10 FIBER CEMENT FASCIA
1x10 FIBER CEMENT
FASCIA
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
GUTTER/ DOWNSPOUT
METAL PANEL CORNER
3" CUT
STONE SILL
5/4 X 6 FIBER CEMENT TRIM6X8 CUT STONE TRIM
3" CUT STONE SILL
CSV
F7
WP1
CSV
CSV
F7
A
1x10 FIBER CEMENT FASCIA
1x10 FIBER CEMENT
FASCIA
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
GUTTER/ DOWNSPOUT
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
AL-TRUSS BEARING
132'-0 1/8"
TOP OF SUBFLOOR -2ND
FLOOR
111'-11 1/8"
TOP OF SUBFLOOR -3RD
FLOOR
122'-11"
3" CUT STONE SILL
6X8 CUT STONE TRIM
5/4 X 6 FIBER CEMENT TRIM
CSVWP1
FP1
FP1
CSV
CSV
CSV
CSV
AA
METAL PANEL CORNER
3" CUT
STONE SILL
6X8 CUT STONE TRIM
5/4 X 6 FIBER
CEMENT TRIM
9"
12"
FP1
CSV CSV CSV
?
6X8 CUT STONE TRIM
3" CUT STONE SILL
9"
12"
FP1
CSV
WP1
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
AL-TRUSS BEARING
132'-0 1/8"
TOP OF SUBFLOOR -2ND
FLOOR
111'-11 1/8"
TOP OF SUBFLOOR -3RD
FLOOR
122'-11"
FP1
FP1
F7
FP1
F7
F7
CSV CSV
CSV CSV
F7
CSVCSVCSV
CSV
F7
FP1
F7
CSV
CSV
3" CUT STONE SILL
6X8 CUT STONE TRIM
3" CUT STONE SILL
6X8 CUT STONE TRIM
5/4X6 FIBER CEMENT TRIM
1
AA601
F7
DATE
THIS DRAWING, ITS DESIGN CONCEPT AND ITS DETAIL ARE
THE SOLE PROPERTY OF AG ARCHITECTURE, INC. AND SHALL
NOT BE COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WITHOUT
WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF ITS DESIGNER/CREATOR
SHEET NO.
PROJECT
SHEET PRINTED ON:FILE PATH:SCHEMATIC DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONMEMORY SUPPORT
A
COMMONS
REVISIONS
B
ASSISTED
9/14/2021 3:17:39 PMBIM 360://202201-Iowa City-Nelson/202201_Architectural_R20.rvt23 JUL 2021
202201
AA5001/8" EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Iowa CityHickory Trails EstatesAssisted Living & Memory SupportIowaASSISTED LIVING
4
1
23 5
AA500
EXTERIOR ELEVATION WING B
1
AA500
EXTERIOR ELEVATION WING B
2
AA500
EXTERIOR ELEVATION WING B
3
AA500
EXTERIOR ELEVATION WING B
4
AA500
EXTERIOR ELEVATION WING B
5
AA500
EXTERIOR ELEVATION WING A & WING B
6
6NO. DATE DESCRIPTION
EXTERIOR ELEVATION GENERAL NOTES
1. PROVIDE CONCRETE SPLASH BLOCKS AT ALL DOWNSPOUTS WHICH SPILL ONTO
GRADE OR ROOFS.
2. ALL CONDUIT, METERS, VENTS, ETC. TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE.
3. GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS ARE PREFINISHED ALUMINUM.
EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEY NOTES:
MR STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
F1 FIBER CEMENT SIDING - COLOR A
F2 FIBER CEMENT SIDING - COLOR B
FP1 VERTICAL FIBER CEMENT PANEL BATTENS AT 16" O.C. - COLOR A
A THREE DIMENSIONAL ASPHALT SHINGLES
CSV CUT STONE VENEER
WP1 NICHIHA VINTAGEWOOD AWP-3-3- FIBER CEMENT PANEL- VERTICAL
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
AL-TRUSS BEARING
132'-0 1/8"
TOP OF SUBFLOOR -2ND
FLOOR
111'-11 1/8"
TOP OF SUBFLOOR -3RD
FLOOR
122'-11"
1
AA600
F7CSV
FP1F7
CSVCSV
FP1F7
CSV
A
AA
A
3" CUT STONE SILL
6x8 CUT STONE TRIM
5/4x 6 FIBER CEMENT
TRIM
1x10 FIBER CEMENT FASCIA
1x8 FIBER CEMENT TRIM
9"
12"
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM GUTTER/
DOWNSPOUT
FP1
CSVF7
CSV
CSV
WP1
CSV
FP1
A
A
A
3" CUT STONE SILL
6x8 CUT STONE TRIM
1x10 FIBER CEMENT FASCIA
3" CUT STONE SILL
5/4x 6 FIBER CEMENT
TRIM
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM GUTTER/
DOWNSPOUT
ARCHITECTURAL LOUVERS-
MODEL H6T
PAINTED METAL RECTANGULAR
TUBE BLADE SUNSHADE LOUVER
6" DEEP, 24" PROJECTION
(service@archlouvers.com)
888.568.8371
METAL PANEL CORNER
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
AL-TRUSS BEARING
132'-0 1/8"
TOP OF SUBFLOOR -2ND
FLOOR
111'-11 1/8"
TOP OF SUBFLOOR -3RD
FLOOR
122'-11"
CSV
WP1FP1
CSV
CSV
CSV
FP1
A A
A
CSV
3" CUT STONE SILL
6x8 CUT STONE TRIM
1x10 FIBER CEMENT FASCIA
1x8 FIBER CEMENT TRIM
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM GUTTER/
DOWNSPOUT
5/4x 6 FIBER CEMENT
TRIM
5/4 x FIBER CEMENT
CORNER TRIM
METAL PANEL CORNER
CSVCSV
WP1
FP1
FP1
F7F7
CSV CSV
AAA
3" CUT STONE SILL
6x8 CUT STONE TRIM
1x10 FIBER CEMENT FASCIA
1x8 FIBER CEMENT TRIM
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM GUTTER/
DOWNSPOUT
5/4x 6 FIBER
CEMENT TRIM
METAL PANEL CORNER
5/4x FIBER CEMENT
CORNER TRIM
3" CUT STONE SILL
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
AL-TRUSS BEARING
132'-0 1/8"
TOP OF SUBFLOOR -2ND
FLOOR
111'-11 1/8"
TOP OF SUBFLOOR -3RD
FLOOR
122'-11"
1
AA600
CSV
WP1
F7
F7
CSV
FP1
F7
CSV
CSV
FP1F7
F7CSVCSVCSV
CSV
WP1
AA
A
AA
3" CUT STONE SILL
6x8 CUT STONE TRIM
1x10 FIBER CEMENT FASCIA
1x8 FIBER CEMENT TRIM
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM GUTTER/
DOWNSPOUT
5/4x 6 FIBER CEMENT
TRIM
ARCHITECTURAL LOUVERS-
MODEL H6T
PAINTED METAL RECTANGULAR
TUBE BLADE SUNSHADE LOUVER
6" DEEP, 24" PROJECTION
(service@archlouvers.com)
888.568.8371
DATE
THIS DRAWING, ITS DESIGN CONCEPT AND ITS DETAIL ARE
THE SOLE PROPERTY OF AG ARCHITECTURE, INC. AND SHALL
NOT BE COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WITHOUT
WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF ITS DESIGNER/CREATOR
SHEET NO.
PROJECT
SHEET PRINTED ON:FILE PATH:SCHEMATIC DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONMEMORY SUPPORT
A
COMMONS
REVISIONS
B
ASSISTED
9/14/2021 3:17:56 PMBIM 360://202201-Iowa City-Nelson/202201_Architectural_R20.rvt23 JUL 2021
202201
AA5011/8" EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Iowa CityHickory Trails EstatesAssisted Living & Memory SupportIowaASSISTED LIVING321
AA501
EXTERIOR ELEVATION WING A
1
AA501
WING A-SOUTH WEST
2
AA501
WING A- WEST
3
AA501
WING A- NORTH WEST
4
AA501
EXTERIOR ELEVATION WING A
5
4
5
NO. DATE DESCRIPTION
EXTERIOR ELEVATION TYPICAL NOTES
ASPHALT SHINGLES
1 x COMPOSITE TRIM
5/4 COMPOSITE TRIM
MANUFACTURED STONE
BRICK
BRICK SILL
CUT STONE BAND
CAST STONE BAND
CUT STONE SILL
CAST STONE SILL
FIBER CEMENT SHAKE
CONTROL JOINT
DECORATIVE CMU
PREFINISHED METAL COPING
FIBER CEMENT SIDING WITH
5" EXPOSURE
VINYL SIDING WITH
X" EXPOSURE
ALUMINUM SIDING WITH
X" SIDING
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
RAKE FLASHING
SHAKE SIDING WITH
7" EXPOSURE
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
GUTTER AND
DOWNSPOUT
BRICK - ACCENT
COLOR 'A'1/4" COMPOSITE PANEL - NO
EXPOSED JOINTS
12" SOLDIER COURSE
PROJECT 3/8"
4" STACK BOND
PROJECT 3/8"
8" STACK BOND
PROJECT 3/8"
THREE DIMENSIONAL SHINGLES
CUT STONE HEAD
CAST STONE HEAD
FYPON BRACKET
BKT30x30
5/4 x 6 FIBER
CEMENT TRIM
5/4 x 8 FIBER
CEMENT HEAD
1 x 10 FIBER CEMENT FASCIA
5/4 x 6 FIBER CEMENT
CORNER BOARDS
FIXED SHUTTERS
B ACDE
WINDOW SCHEDULE
INSERT WINDOWS AS LEGEND COMPONENTS
(ANNOTATE TAB, COMPONENT, LEGEND COMPONENT)
MOVE TO SHEET AT401 IF TOO LARGE FOR THIS SHEET
SEE STANDARDS FOR
EXAMPLE OF SCHEDULE
SF1
STOREFRONT SCHEDULE
STOREFRONT INSTRUCTIONS:
REFER TO X:\03-Revit Documentation\01-Revit Procedures
TO FIND A DOCUMENT ABOUT HOW TO SETUP
STOREFRONT ELEVATION VIEWS.
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
MS -TRUSS BEARING
109'-6"
C-TRUSS BEARING 118
118'-0"
MS -TRUSS BEARING 118
118'-0"
MS -TRUSS BEARING 112
112'-0"MS-CORNER BEARING-111
111'-0"
A A
A A
A
CSV
CSV
CSVCSV
FP1
WP1
FP1 FP1
CSV
WP1
FP1
A
A
CSV
5/4x 6 FIBER CEMENT
CORNER TRIM3" CUT STONE SILL
6x8 CUT STONE TRIM 5/4x 4 FIBER CEMENT
TRIM
5/4x 10 FIBER CEMENT
FASCIA
5/4x 6 FIBER CEMENT
TRIM
6"
12"
5/4x 10 FIBER CEMENT
FASCIA
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
TRUSS BEARING 116
116'-0"
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
MS -TRUSS BEARING
109'-6"
MS -TRUSS BEARING 118
118'-0"
MS -TRUSS BEARING 112
112'-0"MS-CORNER BEARING-111
111'-0"
A
AM601
CSV
CSV
CSV
WP1
FP1
CSVCSVCSV
CSVWP1
CSVFP1
CSV
CSV
FP1FP1FP1
A A
A
AAA
WP1FP1
CSV
CSV
WP1
CSV
FP1
FP1
FP1
FP1
5/4x 6 FIBER CEMENT
CORNER TRIM3" CUT STONE SILL
6x8 CUT STONE TRIM5/4x 4 FIBER CEMENT TRIM
5/4x 10 FIBER CEMENT FASCIA
5/4x 6 FIBER CEMENT TRIM
5/4x 10 FIBER CEMENT
FASCIA
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
6"
12"
6"
12"
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
MS -TRUSS BEARING
109'-6"
MS -TRUSS BEARING 118
118'-0"
MS -TRUSS BEARING 112
112'-0"MS-CORNER BEARING-111
111'-0"
A
AM600
CSV
CSV
FP1
WP1
FP1
CSV
A
A
A
A
CSV
WP1
CSV
FP1
CSV
AA
WP1
FP1
CSV
WP1
FP1
CSV
CSV
3" CUT STONE SILL
6x8 CUT STONE TRIM
5/4x 10 FIBER CEMENT FASCIA
5/4x 6 FIBER CEMENT TRIM
5/4x 6 FIBER CEMENT
CORNER TRIM
5/4x 4 FIBER CEMENT TRIM
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
6"
12"
VESTIBULE TRUSS BEARING
111'-0"
EXTERIOR ELEVATION GENERAL NOTES
1. PROVIDE CONCRETE SPLASH BLOCKS AT ALL DOWNSPOUTS WHICH SPILL ONTO
GRADE OR ROOFS.
2. ALL CONDUIT, METERS, VENTS, ETC. TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE.
3. GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS ARE PREFINISHED ALUMINUM.
EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEY NOTES:
MR STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
F1 FIBER CEMENT SIDING - COLOR A
F2 FIBER CEMENT SIDING - COLOR B
FP1 VERTICAL FIBER CEMENT PANEL BATTENS AT 16" O.C. - COLOR A
A THREE DIMENSIONAL ASPHALT SHINGLES
CSV CUT STONE VENEER
WP1 NICHIHA VINTAGEWOOD AWP-3-3- FIBER CEMENT PANEL- VERTICAL
DATE
THIS DRAWING, ITS DESIGN CONCEPT AND ITS DETAIL ARE
THE SOLE PROPERTY OF AG ARCHITECTURE, INC. AND SHALL
NOT BE COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WITHOUT
WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF ITS DESIGNER/CREATOR
SHEET NO.
PROJECT
SHEET PRINTED ON:FILE PATH:SCHEMATIC DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONMEMORY SUPPORT
A
COMMONS
REVISIONS
B
ASSISTED
9/14/2021 3:18:16 PMBIM 360://202201-Iowa City-Nelson/202201_Architectural_R20.rvt23 JUL 2021
202201
AM5001/8" EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Iowa CityHickory Trails EstatesAssisted Living & Memory SupportIowaMEMORY SUPPORT
1
23
NO. DATE DESCRIPTION
EXTERIOR ELEVATION GENERAL NOTES
1. PROVIDE CONCRETE SPLASH BLOCKS AT ALL DOWNSPOUTS WHICH SPILL ONTO
GRADE OR ROOFS.
2. ALL CONDUIT, METERS, VENTS, ETC. TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE.
3. GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS ARE PREFINISHED ALUMINUM.
EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEY NOTES:
MR STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
F1 FIBER CEMENT SIDING - COLOR A
F2 FIBER CEMENT SIDING - COLOR B
FP1 VERTICAL FIBER CEMENT PANEL BATTENS AT 16" O.C. - COLOR A
A THREE DIMENSIONAL ASPHALT SHINGLES
CSV CUT STONE VENEER
WP1 NICHIHA VINTAGEWOOD AWP-3-3- FIBER CEMENT PANEL- VERTICAL
EXTERIOR ELEVATION TYPICAL NOTES
ASPHALT SHINGLES
1 x COMPOSITE TRIM
5/4 COMPOSITE TRIM
MANUFACTURED STONE
BRICK
BRICK SILL
CUT STONE BAND
CAST STONE BAND
CUT STONE SILL
CAST STONE SILL
FIBER CEMENT SHAKE
CONTROL JOINT
DECORATIVE CMU
PREFINISHED METAL COPING
FIBER CEMENT SIDING WITH
5" EXPOSURE
VINYL SIDING WITH
X" EXPOSURE
ALUMINUM SIDING WITH
X" SIDING
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
RAKE FLASHING
SHAKE SIDING WITH
7" EXPOSURE
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
GUTTER AND
DOWNSPOUT
BRICK - ACCENT
COLOR 'A'1/4" COMPOSITE PANEL - NO
EXPOSED JOINTS
12" SOLDIER COURSE
PROJECT 3/8"
4" STACK BOND
PROJECT 3/8"
8" STACK BOND
PROJECT 3/8"
THREE DIMENSIONAL SHINGLES
CUT STONE HEAD
CAST STONE HEAD
FYPON BRACKET
BKT30x30
5/4 x 6 FIBER
CEMENT TRIM
5/4 x 8 FIBER
CEMENT HEAD
1 x 10 FIBER CEMENT FASCIA
5/4 x 6 FIBER CEMENT
CORNER BOARDS
FIXED SHUTTERS
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
MS -TRUSS BEARING
109'-6"
MS -TRUSS BEARING 118
118'-0"
MS -TRUSS BEARING 112
112'-0"MS-CORNER BEARING-111
111'-0"
A
AM600
5/4x 10 FIBER CEMENT
FASCIA
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
5/4x 4 FIBER CEMENT
TRIM
3" CUT STONE SILL
AA
FP1
CSV
FP1
CSVTOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
MS -TRUSS BEARING
109'-6"
MS -TRUSS BEARING 118
118'-0"
MS -TRUSS BEARING 112
112'-0"MS-CORNER BEARING-111
111'-0"
A
A
A
CSV
FP1
WP1
CSVCSV
FP1
WP1 WP1 WP1
CSV
5/4x 10 FIBER CEMENT
FASCIA
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
5/4x 4 FIBER CEMENT
TRIM
3" CUT STONE SILL
VESTIBULE TRUSS BEARING
111'-0"
TRUSS BEARING 116
116'-0"
A
AM602
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
MS -TRUSS BEARING
109'-6"
MS -TRUSS BEARING 118
118'-0"
MS -TRUSS BEARING 112
112'-0"
FP1
CSV
FP1
CSV
AA
3" CUT STONE SILL 5/4x 4 FIBER CEMENT
TRIM
5/4x 10 FIBER CEMENT FASCIA
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
6"
12"
TOP OF CONCRETE
100'-0"
MS -TRUSS BEARING
109'-6"
MS -TRUSS BEARING 118
118'-0"
MS -TRUSS BEARING 112
112'-0"MS-CORNER BEARING-111
111'-0"
A
AM601
FP1
CSV
WP1
CSV
FP1
CSV
A
A
3" CUT STONE SILL5/4x 4 FIBER CEMENT
TRIM
CUSTOM 2-SIDED
GAS FIREPLACE
PER 10300
STOREFRONT WINDOW SYSTEM
5/4x 10 FIBER CEMENT
FASCIA
PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
6"
12"
COMPOSITE METAL
WALL PANEL SYSTEM
PER 07610
STANDING SEAM
METAL WALL PANEL
SYSTEM PER 07610
DATE
THIS DRAWING, ITS DESIGN CONCEPT AND ITS DETAIL ARE
THE SOLE PROPERTY OF AG ARCHITECTURE, INC. AND SHALL
NOT BE COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WITHOUT
WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF ITS DESIGNER/CREATOR
SHEET NO.
PROJECT
SHEET PRINTED ON:FILE PATH:SCHEMATIC DESIGNNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONMEMORY SUPPORT
A
COMMONS
REVISIONS
B
ASSISTED
9/14/2021 3:18:21 PMBIM 360://202201-Iowa City-Nelson/202201_Architectural_R20.rvt23 JUL 2021
202201
AM5011/8" EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Iowa CityHickory Trails EstatesAssisted Living & Memory SupportIowaMEMORY SUPPORT23
NO. DATE DESCRIPTION
1
4
SET ROOT FLARE 2" ABOVE FINISH
GRADE. REMOVE BURLAP AND WIRE
CAGE FROM TOP HALF OF ROOTBALL.
SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH,
2" THICKNESS
FINISH GRADE
BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE
2X ROOTBALL
NOT TO SCALE1OVERSTORY TREE PLANTING
1 1/2X ROOTBALL
NOT TO SCALE3ORNAMENTAL TREE PLANTING
SET ROOT FLARE 2" ABOVE FINISH
GRADE. REMOVE BURLAP AND WIRE
CAGE FROM TOP HALF OF ROOTBALL.
SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH,
2" THICKNESS
FINISH GRADE
BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE
2X ROOTBALL
NOT TO SCALE4SHRUB PLANTING
SET ROOT FLARE 2" ABOVE FINISH
GRADE. REMOVE BURLAP AND WIRE
CAGE FROM TOP HALF OF ROOTBALL.
SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH,
2" THICKNESS
FINISH GRADE
BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE
2X ROOTBALL
NOT TO SCALE2EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING
SET ROOT FLARE 2" ABOVE FINISH
GRADE. REMOVE BURLAP AND WIRE
CAGE FROM TOP HALF OF ROOTBALL.
SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH,
2" THICKNESS
FINISH GRADE
BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE
SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE
L1.00 COVER NOTES, SCHEDULE & DETAILS
L1.01 PLANTING PLAN
DRAWING INDEX
PLANT SCHEDULE
OVERSTORY TREES
QTY KEY BOTANICAL COMMON SIZE ROOT NOTES
3 BP BETULA PLATYPHYLLA 'FARGO' DAKOTA
PINNACLE KAKOTA PINNACLE BIRCH 2" CAL.B&B
2 CB CARPINUS BETULUS 'FASTIGIATA'COMMON HORNBEAM 2" CAL.B&B
6 CR CARPINUS CAROLINIANA AMERICAN HORNBEAM 2" CAL.B&B
4 CT CATALPA SPECIOSA NORTHERN CATALPA 2" CAL.B&B
7 CO CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS COMMON HACKBERRY 2" CAL.B&B
3 CK CLADRASTIS KENTUCKEA YELLOW WOOD 2" CAL.B&B
2 CC CORYLUS COLURNA TURKISH FILBERT 2" CAL.B&B
8 GT GLIDETSIA TRICANTHOS 'SKYLINE'SKYLINE HONEY LOCUST 2" CAL.B&B
10 GD GYMNOCLADUS DIOCUS 'ESPRESSO'ESPRESSO KENTUCKY COFFEE TREE 2" CAL.B&B
10 LT LIRIODENDRON TULIPIFERA TULIP TREE 2" CAL.B&B
8 MA MACCKIA AMURENSIS AMUR MAAKIA 2" CAL.B&B
2 NS NYSSA SYLVATICA BLACK GUM 2" CAL.B&B
5 OV OSTRYA VIRGINIANA EASTERN HOP HORNBEAM 2" CAL.B&B
1 PA PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA LONDON PLANE TREE 2" CAL.B&B
6 QB QUERCUS BICOLOR SWAMP WHITE OAK 2" CAL.B&B
3 QC QUERCUS COCCINEA SCARLET OAK 2" CAL.B&B
3 QM QUERCUS MACROCARPA BUR OAK 2" CAL.B&B
2 QR QUERCUS RUBRA 'LONG'RED OAK 2" CAL.B&B
2 RP ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA 'CHICAGO BLUES'BLACK LOCUST 2" CAL.B&B
5 UT ULMUS THOMASII ROCK ELM 2" CAL.B&B
2 ZS ZELKOVA SERRATA 'MUSASHINO'ZELKOVA 2" CAL.B&B
EVERGREEN TREES
QTY KEY BOTANICAL COMMON SIZE ROOT NOTES
1 WF ABIES CONCOLOR WHITE FIR 6'-8' HT B&B
3 PA PICEA ABIES NORWAY SPRUCE 6'-8' HT B&B
9 PG PICEA CLAUCA 'DENSATA'BLACK HILLS SPRICE 6'-8' HT B&B
7 TC TSUGA CANADENSIS EASTERN HEMLOCK 6'-8' HT B&B
SHRUBS
QTY KEY BOTANICAL COMMON SIZE ROOT NOTES
23 BB CEPHALANTHUS OCCIDENTALIS BUTTONBUSH #3 CONT.6' X 5'
209 DK DIERVILLA 'KODIAK ORANGE'KODIAK ORANGE DIERVILLA 18" HT CONT.4' X 4'
18 FM FOTHERGILLA 'MOUNT AIRY'DWARF FOTHERGILLA #3 CONT.4' X 4'
6 HV HAMAMELIS VIRGINIANA WITCH HAZEL 6' HT CONT 10' X 8'
8 HP HYDRANGEA PANICULATA 'ILVOBO' PP#22,782 BOBO HARDY HYDRANGEA #3 CONT.3' X 4'
78 IV ITEA VIRGINICA LITTLE HENRY SWEETSPIRE #3 CONT.3' X 3'
76 JH JUNIPERUS HORIZONTALIS 'HUGHES'HUGHES JUNIPER #3 CONT.1' X 6'
131 PO PHYSOCARPUS OPULIFOLIUS NINEBARK #1 CONT 5' X 4.5'
7 RL RHODODENDRON X 'LANDMARK'LANDMARK RHODODENDRON #3 CONT.4' X 4'
115 ST SPIRAEA BETULIFOLIA 'TOR'TOR SPIREA #3 CONT.3' X 3'
49 TD TAXUS X MEDIA 'DENSIFORMIS'DENSE SPREADING YEW 48" HT CONT.4' X 6'
1.IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
LOCATION AND VERIFICATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES AND
STRUCTURES. DAMAGE DONE TO UTILITIES, STRUCTURES, OR
OTHER FINISHED WORK SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED AT THE
IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE.
2.IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL CONNECT TO BACKFLOW
PREVENTER AT BUILDING CONNECTION POINT INDICATED ON PLAN.
THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH GENERAL
CONTRACTOR TO INSURE THE POINT OF CONNECTION MEETS ALL
CODES AND IS IN GOOD WORKING CONDITION.
3.LAWN WILL NEED TO BE IRRIGATED WITH TURF HEADS. ALL
PLANTING AREAS TO BE IRRIGATED WITH DRIP IRRIGATION.
4.EXERCISE EXTREME CARE IN EXCAVATING AND WORKING NEAR
UTILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATION AND
CONDITION OF ALL UTILITIES AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGE.
FIELD ADJUST SPRINKLER LOCATIONS SO AS TO AVOID CONFLICTS
WITH UTILITIES (FIRE HYDRANTS, TRANSFORMERS, ETC)
5.ADJUST HEAD LOCATION IF SPRAY IS DETRIMENTAL TO OR
BLOCKED BY TREE, SHRUB, OR STRUCTURE, MAINTAINING EVEN
COVERAGE OF PLANTING AREAS.
6.ALL SPRINKLER HEADS TO BE ADJUSTED SO THEY DO NOT SPRAY
ONTO WALKS, PARKING AREAS, RETAINING WALLS, BUILDINGS OR
HARDSCAPE AREAS. HEAD TO HEAD COVERAGE REQUIRED IN ALL
LAWN AREAS.
7.PLACE VALVE BOXES IN LANDSCAPE BEDS, PARALLEL TO CURBS
AND WALKS. GROUPED VALVES TO BE EQUALLY SPACED.
8.CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL PVC SCH 40 PIPE SLEEVES UNDER
HARDSCAPE AT ALL POINTS WHERE IRRIGATION MAIN LINE AND
LATERALS ARE LOCATED.
IRRIGATION NOTES
1.CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE AND VERIFY ALL EXISTING UTILITY
LINES PRIOR TO PLANTING AND SHALL REPORT ANY CONFLICTS TO
THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
2.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES
(LINES, DUCTS, CONDUITS, SLEEVES, FOOTINGS, ETC.) WITH
LOCATIONS OF PROPOSED LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS (FENCE,
FOOTINGS, TREE ROOTBALLS, ETC.). CONTRACTOR SHALL REPORT
ANY DISCREPANCIES TO ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONTINUING WORK.
3.ALL WORK SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE WORK OF OTHER
TRADES.
4.IF DISCREPANCIES EXIST BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF PLANTS
DRAWN ON THE PLANTING PLAN AND THE NUMBER OF PLANTS IN
THE SCHEDULE, THE NUMBER OF PLANTS ON PLAN SHALL GOVERN.
5.ALL PLANT MATERIALS MUST CONFORM TO AMERICAN STANDARDS
FOR NURSERY STOCK ANSI Z 60.1, OR LATEST EDITION PUBLISHED
BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN, WASHINGTON
D.C. LARGER SIZED PLANT MATERIALS OF THE SPECIES LISTED
MAY BE USED IF THE STOCK CONFORMS TO THE A.S.N.S.
6.ANY PROPOSED SUBSTITUTIONS OF PLANT SPECIES SHALL BE
MADE WITH PLANTS OF EQUIVALENT OVERALL FORM, HEIGHT,
BRANCHING HABIT, FLOWER, LEAF, COLOR, FRUIT AND CULTURE,
AND ONLY AFTER WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT.
7.OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO SUBSTITUTE PLANT MATERIAL
TYPE, SIZE, AND/OR QUANTITY.
8.STAKE LOCATION OF ALL PROPOSED PLANTING FOR APPROVAL BY
THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT A MINIMUM OF 48 HOURS PRIOR TO
THE COMMENCEMENT OF PLANTING.
9.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DAMAGE DUE TO
OPERATIONS INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
PER PLAN. ANY AREAS OUTSIDE THE LIMIT OF WORK THAT ARE
DISTURBED SHALL BE RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION AT
NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER.
10.THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND MATERIALS INJURIOUS TO PLANT
GROWTH FROM PLANTING PITS AND BEDS PRIOR TO BACKFILLING
WITH PLANTING SOIL.
11.UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, TREES TO BE CENTERED IN PLANTING
AREAS.
12.TO AVOID DISRUPTION TO EXISTING TREES, HAND DIGGING
REQUIRED WITHIN DRIP LINE OF TREES. NO TREE ROOTS OVER 1"
IN DIAMETER ARE TO BE CUT.
13.PROVIDE SHREDDED HARDWOOD BARK MULCH, NATURAL COLOR,
IN ALL PLANT SAUCERS AND PLANTING BEDS TO A 3-INCH MAXIMUM
DEPTH. APPLY PRE-EMERGENT TO ALL PLANTING BEDS PRIOR TO
MULCHING.
14.NEW TREES LOCATED OUTSIDE OF PLANT BEDS, SHALL BE
PLANTED A MINIMUM OF SIX FEET AWAY FROM PLANT BED.
15.NO TREES OR SHRUBS SHALL BE PLANTED CLOSER THAN 5' FROM
ANY UTILITY SERVICE VALVE, BASED ON ANTICIPATED TRUNK SIZE.
PLANTING NOTES
ORNAMENTAL TREES
QTY KEY BOTANICAL COMMON SIZE ROOT NOTES
2 AG AMELANCHIER X GRANDIFLORA 'AUTUMN BRILLIANCE'AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY 8' HT B&B MULTI-STEM
4 CG CRATEGUS CRUS-GALLI VAR. INERMIS THORNLESS COCKSPIR HAWTHRON 2" CAL.B&B
2 MS MAGNOLIA X SOULANGEANA SAUCER MAGNOLIA 8' HT B&B MULTI-STEM
3 MXP MALUS 'PRAIRIE FIRE'PRAIRIE FIRE CRABAPPLE 1.5" CAL.B&B
7 MXS MALUS 'SPRING SNOW'SPRING SNOW CRABAPPLE 1.5" CAL.B&B
2 SR SYRINGA RETICULATA SSP. RETICULATA 'IVORY SILK'IVORY SILK JAPANESE TREE LILAC 2" CAL.B&B
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME: Oct 28, 2021 - 10:46am Z:\Projects2\20042-IC SENIOR LIVING\04 CAD\03 Current\P&Z_20042-PP_PLANTING PLAN.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:L1.00 G. JOSEPH CLARKLOT 1SENIOR LIVINGCOVER NOTES, SCHEDULE, & DETAILSHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD & SENSITIVE AREAS PLANPRELIMINARY20-0194BETTIS[ landscape architects ]
T 515 284 1010
WWW.GENUS-LA.COM
325 EAST 5 STREET
DES MOINES, IA 50309
TH
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY SETBACK
WATER
TELECOM
GAS
ELECTRIC
SANITARY SEWER
STORM SEWER
EXISTING EASEMENT
TREE PROTECTION FENCING
EXISTING CONTOUR
TREE REMOVAL LIMITS AT EDGE OF CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
LEGEND
EVERGREEN TREE
ORNAMENTAL TREE
SHORT GRASS PRAIRIE
MIX
SHADE TREE
SHRUB
TURFGRASS
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY SETBACK
WATER
TELECOM
GAS
ELECTRIC
SANITARY SEWER
STORM SEWER
EXISTING EASEMENT
TREE PROTECTION FENCING
EXISTING CONTOUR
TREE REMOVAL LIMITS AT EDGE OF CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
LEGEND
WWW W
WSS
2 GD
1 CO
1 QC
2 MA
3 PG
1 PA
1 CG
2 CR
1 QM
1 PA
2 TC
2 MA
1 CO
3 GD
2 CR
1 QC
1 QM
2 CR
1 WF
3 MXP
3 CO
1 PA1 QC
1 QM
2 GD
2 GT
3 UT
3 PG
1 CO
3 GD
1 GT
1 LT
1 GT
2 SR
1 GT
1 GT
2 MA
1 GT
1 GT
3 MXS
3 MXS1 MA 54 DK 3 HV
35 JH
1 MXS
32 ST
7 DK
5 TD
3 HP
40 DK
34 ST
7 DK
6 JH
5 HP
3 JH
9 ST
7 DK
21 JH
3 HV
41 DK
10 JH
1 SR
27 PO
23 BB
27 PO
77 PO
5 DK
3 CG
4' DIA. MULCH RINGS AT ALL
TREES IN LAWN SPACE, TYP.
1 RP
1 CC
1 QB1 CB1 LT1 ZS1 UT
1 CT
1 NS
1 CK
1 CR
1 OV
1 RP
1 NS
1 QR
1 PA 1 OV
1 CR
1 CK 1 QR 1 CT 1 UT 1 ZS 1 LT
1 CB
1 QB
1 CC
2 CT
3 QB
3 OV
3 BP
3 LT
1 QB
3 PG
1 LT
1 MA
1 MS
1 MS
2 AG
5 TC
1 CK
19 DK
11 TD
7 IV
5 IV
11 TD
27 IV 19 DK
11 TD
20 ST
2 LT
7 IV 1 TD
5 RL
2 RL
2 TD
7 IV
7 FM
6 TD
24 IV
5 FM
2 TD
8 DK
6 FM
2 LT
[ landscape architects ]
T 515 284 1010
WWW.GENUS-LA.COM
325 EAST 5 STREET
DES MOINES, IA 50309
TH
0 20 40
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME: Oct 28, 2021 - 10:49am Z:\Projects2\20042-IC SENIOR LIVING\04 CAD\03 Current\P&Z_20042-PP_PLANTING PLAN.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:L1.01 G. JOSEPH CLARKLOT 1SENIOR LIVINGPLANTING PLANHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLANPRELIMINARY20-0194BETTIS
DODGE STREET CT
BLUFFWOODDRN D O D G E STST
U
A
RTCTCONKLIN LNHICKORY TRL
HIC
K
O
R
Y
P
L
ACT D R
BRISTOLDRB L U F F W O O D
C I R
N SCO TT B L V D
CYPRESSCTB
L
U
F
F
W
O
ODL
N EVERGREENCTN1STAVEACT PLHICKORYHEIGH T S L N
TAMARACKTRL
CN1
CO1
ID-RP
ID-RS
ORP
P1
RDP
RM12
RS12
RS5
MU
RS8
REZ21-0008Hickory Trail Estatesµ
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: September 2021
An application submitted by Axiom Consultants, on behalf ofNelson Development 1, LLC, for the rezoning of 48.75 acresof property located South of N. Scott Blvd, and West ofN. 1st Ave. from Interim Development - Single-Family (ID-RS) to Low-density Single Family Residential with a PlannedDevelopment Overlay (OPD/RS-5)
Overlay Zones
Overlay Description
Planned Development (OPD)
DODGE STREET CT
BLUFFWOODDRN D O D G E S TSTU
A
R
TCTCONKLIN LNHICKORY TRL
HIC
K
O
R
Y
P
L
ACT D R
BRISTOLDRB L U F F W O OD
C I R
N SCO TT B L V D
CYPRESSCTB
L
U
F
F
W
O
ODL
N EVERGREENCTN 1ST AVEACT PLHICKORYHEIGH T S L N
N DUBUQUE RDTAMARACKTRL
REZ21-0008Hickory Trail Estatesµ
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: September 2021
An application submitted by Axiom Consultants, on behalf ofNelson Development 1, LLC, for the rezoning of 48.75 acresof property located South of N. Scott Blvd, and West ofN. 1st Ave. from Interim Development - Single-Family (ID-RS) to Low-density Single Family Residential with a PlannedDevelopment Overlay (OPD/RS-5)
CIVIL STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL SURVEY SPECIALTY
Project Number 200194 Page | 1
Figure 2: 831 N. 1st Avenue
Proposed Project Area Shown in Red
Figure 1: Bluffwood Neighborhood from Northeast District Plan with
Approximate Project Boundary
September 16, 2021
APPLICANT’S STATEMENT FOR REZONING
The proposed development area consists of a portion of Parcel 1002476002. The area being rezoned is approximately 48
acres of private property located west of N. 1st Avenue and south of N. Scott Boulevard. It is bounded on the south and
west by Hickory Hill Park. The current zoning classification is ID-RS – Interim Development Single-Family Residential. The
Applicant is seeking to rezone the entire 48.75 acres of the property to RS-5 – Low Density Single-Family Residential.
There is 1,332.95 feet of frontage on North Scott Boulevard. There are approximately 14 acres between the proposed
development and N. Scott Boulevard and N. 1 st Avenue that are not included in this development and are not included in
the rezoning application. Refer to the Rezoning Exhibit included with the Rezoning Application for additional information,
including the legal description.
Comprehensive Plan & District Plan
The Future Land Use Map within the Comprehensive
Plan shows this area as Conservation Design. The
Conservation Design designation indicates the
presence of sensitive features on the property. These
features include wetlands, a waterway, steep slopes,
and woodlands. The Northeast District Plan includes
the property within the “Bluffwood Neighborhood”
(Figure 1). The Bluffwood concept plan shows single-
family housing and two cul de sacs on the south and
west portion of the property. There is Neighborhood
Commercial depicted on the southeast portion of the
property (four red buildings on Figure 1) and Small
Apartment Buildings shown on the northeast portion
(five pink buildings on Figure 1). The plan shows
wooded areas remaining along the waterway at the
center of the property. Hickory Hill Park can be seen
along the west and south of the property. The cul de
sacs allow for a connection from Hickory Hill Park to the
drainageway at the center of the property.
Previous Projects
A previous rezoning application for the property located
Project Number 200194 Page | 2
at 831 N. 1st Avenue (immediately east of this project) was approved as a Planned Development Overlay Medium-Density
Single-Family (OPD RS-8) and a twelve-unit, 3-story building was constructed (Figure 2) in place of the Neighborhood
Commercial shown on the Bluffwood plan.
Project Overview
The Applicant proposes to develop a Senior Living Facility with Assisted Living and Memory Care east of the waterway.
The south end of the Senior Facility building will be a single-story structure memory care, the center of the building will be
a two-story structure containing the main entry, dining, common areas, and administrative areas, and the north end of the
north end of the building will consist of three stories of assisted living apartments. Refer to Figure 3 for a rendering).
Hickory Trail, which currently dead ends at the east property line, is being extended to the west and will terminate in a cul
de sac on the east side of the existing waterway.
Low-Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5)
The Low-Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) zoning proposed is consistent with the Bluffwood plan and is the least
dense zoning designation allowed within the Iowa City Code. The proposed senior living facility will occupy a 9-acre lot at
the southeast corner of the property. Approximately 1 acre will be dedicated to the city as right-of-way for the extension of
Hickory Trail, and the remaining 38 acres will be dedicated to the city as Public Open Space and the expansion of Hickory
Hill Park.
Figure 3:Conceptual Rendering of the Proposed Senior Facility (looking northeast)
Project Number 200194 Page | 3
The area where the Senior Living Facility is proposed was shown as a mix of single-family homes and small apartment
building on the Bluffwood Plan. The proposed building and site have been designed to take advantage of the existing
topography to prevent the building from dominating the view. The existing topography rises from the s outhwest to the
north east corner of the Senior Living site. The building has a single-story on the south and three-stories on the north
(refer to Figure 3). This prevents the mass of the building from dominating views from the park. The building is set into
the existing site with a first-floor elevation of approximately 735 and the eave on the tallest portion of the building is at an
elevation of approximately 768. The elevation of the northeast corner of the property 768 and N. 1st Avenue is at an
elevation of 760 in this area. This allows the natural grade along N. 1st Avenue to block the building from view as
pedestrians and vehicles travel along N. 1st Avenue. Refer to the Site Plan included in the rezoning submittal.
The proposed building and site achieve the density desired by the Applicant without a large footprint o r excessive
amounts of impervious area. The zoning suggested on the District Plan would allow for a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of up to
1.0. The proposed site has a FAR of 0.3. Another measure of building density on a property is the amount of impervious
surfaces (pavement, sidewalks, roof top). Impervious areas averaging eighty -five percent are common in commercial
areas. This building and site combine for an impervious area of 40%. This relatively low amount of imperviousness is by
design. The building features an interior courtyard within the memory care wing and a community garden space east of
the dining and kitchen facility. Parking is located along the loop road, where possible, to minimize the pavement
associated drive aisles in traditional parki ng lots. There is ample green space along the west and east sides of the loop
road to help provide buffers to adjacent properties. Each of these features combine to reduce the imperviousness of the
site.
The Applicant is committed to planting replacemen t trees to achieve the 20% woodland retention requirement of this
zoning designation. These trees will be planted along the west, east, and south portions of the Senior Living facility.
These plantings will enhance the view from inside the building, provide unique spaces on the property for outdoor
activities, and protect the views from those looking at the property from either the park or the single-family portion of the
development.
The applicant is not seeking adjustments to minimum area regulations or setbacks. A variance allowing building height of
40 feet (code allows for 35 feet) is being requested. The proposed development will avoid protected slopes, provide the
required 50% woodland preservation, and meets other regulations of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance as required by City
Code. A buffer will be provided between the rear of the single-family lots that are adjacent to Hickory Hill Park.
City Utilities
There is city water along the north side of N. Scott Boulevard and water at the end of Hickory Trail. The watermain on
Hikcory Trail will be extended to the end of the proposed cul de sac. There is sanitary sewer at the dead-end of Hickory
Trail and along the waterway south of the project. The sanitary sewer on Hickory Trail will be used to serve the proposed
Project Number 200194 Page | 4
Senior Living building. Private utilities such as gas, electric, and communications are also available. Storm water
management is provided by an existing basin downstream of the project.
Sensitive Areas
Detailed Analyses have been undertaken and, in addition to the woodlands and the waterway, have documented the
presence of wetlands and protected slopes. The Office of the State Archaeologist has completed a field investigation and
determined that no further archaeologic investigation is required. A Preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan
accompanies this application. The development has been designed to avoid the sensitive features and minimize impacts.
Protected slopes have been avoided completely and less than 7% of critical slopes are impacted.
Hickory Hill Park
The development team has met with the Friends of Hickory Hills Park (FHHP ) to gain their insight to the development. The
two groups are seeking areas where the goals of the development and FHHP align and are discussing how each can
benefit from this relationship. The Applicant will also be utilizing the Good Neighbor Meeting process to seek additional
community input.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Welch, PE
Project Engineer
0 150 300
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
ZONING INFORMATION:
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
CURRENT ZONING: ID-RS
PROPOSED ZONING: OPD/RS-5
APPLICANT INFORMATION:
PREPARED BY:
AXIOM CONSULTANTS, LLC
C/O MICHAEL WELCH
60 E. COURT STREET, UNIT 3
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
319-519-6220
MWELCH@AXIOM-CON.COM
NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT
LOCATION
HICKORY HILL PARK
1439 E BLOOMINGTON ST
ZONING: P1HICKORY HEIGHTS LNPARCEL ID:
1002401005
ZONING: ID-RS
2640 N SCOTT BLVD
ZONING: OPD/RM12
800 CONKLIN LN
ZONING: P1
PARCEL ID:
1002426001
ZONING: P1
PARCEL ID: 1002476002
ZONING: ID-RS
831 N 1ST AVEZONING: OPD/RS8PARCEL ID:1001328001ZONING: ID-RPN 1ST AVEN SCOTT
B
L
V
D
2041 N DUBUQUE RD
ZONING: RDP
PARCEL ID: 1001327004
ZONING: ID-RP
PARCEL ID: 1001326004
ZONING: ID-RP
PARCEL ID: 1001351002
ZONING: ID-RS
643 N 1ST AVEZONING: P1HICKORY HEIGHTS
ZONING: OPD/RS5
EVAN HEIGHTS
ZONING: RS5
2601 HICKORY TRLZONING: RM121725 N DODGE ST
ZONING: P1
PARCEL ID:
1002153001
ZONING: CO1
PARCEL ID: 1001351003
ZONING: ID-RS
CYPRESS CTBLUFFWOOD DRBLUFFWOOD CIR
640 STUART CT
ZONING: RM12
2510 BLUFFWOOD CIR
ZONING: RM12
2530 BLUFFWOOD CIR
ZONING: RM12
HICKORY TRL
TAMARACK TRAIL
SUBDIVISION
ZONING: OPD/RS5EVERGREEN CTTAMARACK TRL
H
I
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
HICKORY TRAIL SUBDIVISION
ZONING: RS5
2545 BLUFFWOOD DR
ZONING: ID-RS
500-YEAR
FLOOD LINE
48.75 ACRES
PROPOSED ZONING:
OPD/RS-5
TAMARACK RIDGE
SUBDIVISION
ZONING: RS5
APPLICANT:
NELSON DEVELOPMENT 1, LLC
ATTN: JACOB WOLFGANG
218 6TH AVE., STE. 200
DES MOINES, IOWA 50309
JACOB@NELSONCONSTRUCT.COM
APPLICANT ATTORNEY:
KIRTON MCCONKIE
ATTN: BRYCE K. DALTON
50 E. SOUTH TEMPLE, SUITE 400
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
BDALTON@KMCLAW.COM
STUART CT
BL
U
F
F
W
O
O
D
L
N
ST THOMAS CTZONING:
RM12
ZONING:
OPD/
RM12
ZONING:
OPD/
RM12 A09-14-2021REZONING APPLICATIONSHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Sep 14, 2021 - 9:13am S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Sheets\200194 - Rezoning Exhibit.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:1 OF 1 NELSON DEVELOPMENTREZONING EXHIBITHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESIOWA CITY, IOWA, 5224520-0194WELCHREZONING EXHIBIT
HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES
IOWA CITY, IOWA
23.33 ACRES
ZONING:
ID-RS
BEING PART OF AMENDED AUDITOR'S PARCEL #2005110 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 52, PAGE 143 OF
THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP
79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., IN IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS;
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL, THENCE N01°07'52”W,
656.03 FEET; THENCE N01°41'17”W, 1094.66 FEET; THENCE N01°38'34”W, 210.49 FEET; THENCE
N01°20'33”W, 538.67 FEET; THENCE TO THE NW CORNER OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL; THENCE
1332.94 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SCOTT BOULEVARD ON A 1018.50 FOOT
RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY (CHORD BEARING S65°18'23”E, 1239.83 FEET); THENCE
S27°14'33”W, 924.73 FEET; THENCE S01°14'34”E, 378.49 FEET; THENCE N77°55'52”E, 649.63 FEET;
THENCE S01°15'42”E, 868.85 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL; THENCE ALONG
SAID SOUTH LINE S87°54'07”W, 1302.79 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 48.75 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS
OF RECORD.
From:Anne Russett
To:"Jason Napoli"; Raymond Heitner
Subject:RE: Hickory Hill development w/Nelson Development...on this week"s P&Z agenda?
Date:Monday, October 18, 2021 3:28:47 PM
Hi, Jason –
When we send out these meeting notices we try to strike a balance between letting the neighborhood
know as soon as possible of the application and ensuring that the meeting date listed in the notice will
actually be the meeting date. That’s why we list the meeting date as tentative and include the paragraph
about the meeting date being subject to change.
Because of the community’s interest in this rezoning we wanted to get out the notices as soon as
possible. Unfortunately, the application was not ready for this week’s meeting. The main reason is that
staff is still waiting on an updated traffic study from the applicant. The proposal has not changed from
what was presented at the good neighbor meeting. The plan still includes the senior housing development
and dedication of 38 acres to the City for parkland.
Due to your concern, though, we’ll try to reach out to those that we know are interested in this application
via email.
Thanks, Anne
From: Jason Napoli <jasnap23@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 1:11 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>; Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner@iowa-
city.org>
Subject: Re: Hickory Hill development w/Nelson Development...on this week's P&Z agenda?
Hi Anne-
Thank you for the prompt follow-up.
I’m not sure how many people received the attached notice, however will the City update the public
on the information in the attached notification no longer being accurate?
This would’ve been a massive inconvenience to arrange childcare for an in-person only meeting, only
to learn the reason for attending the meeting is no longer on the agenda.
Also, can you please let us know if the developer still intends to present the same rezoning
request/development plan as was discussed at the good neighbor meeting? It’s concerning to see
this development take a direction that is favorable to so many concerned residents and
stakeholders, however now when we think it’s on the agenda, it disappears.
Is there new activity that’s caused the case to longer be on the agenda this week?
Any additional explanation you can provide would be great and please include this correspondence
in future P&Z packets related to this case.
Thanks again,
Jason
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Monday, October 18, 2021, 12:26, Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> wrote:
Hi, Jason –
The rezoning adjacent to Hickory Hill Park is not on this week’s agenda. We anticipate that
it’ll be on the Nov 4 Commission agenda, but keep checking in with us or checking their
website.
We will also include your email below in the Commission agenda packet.
Let us know if you have any other questions.
Thanks, Anne
From: Jason Napoli <jasnap23@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 11:10 AM
To: Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner@iowa-city.org>; Anne Russett <Anne-
Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Hickory Hill development w/Nelson Development...on this week's P&Z
agenda?
Greetings Ray and Anne-
Just a quick note to confirm whether or not the Nelson/Axiom development abutting Hickory
Hill Park will be on this week's Planning and Zoning agenda. I had thought there was
notification of it being so, however it doesn't appear to be on the latest agenda published by
the city.
https://www.iowa-city.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?
id=2026480&dbid=0&repo=CityofIowaCity
Any additional information you can provide would be great.
That said, I would also like to take this opportunity to support the development as proposed
during the good neighbor meeting last month. Provided the ~38 acres of land would be
gifted to the city as dedicated parkland, this appears to be a very strong result to nearly a
year of votes, redesigns and correspondence.
Thank you for your service to the city and I appreciate this support being shared with the
P&Z Commission prior to the case being discussed.
All the best,
Jason Napoli
Vice-chair, Friends of Hickory Hill Park
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended
solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient,
you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of
the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 21, 2021 – 7:00 PM
FORMAL MEETING
THE CENTER – ASSEMBLY ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Mike Hensch, Mark Nolte, Mark Signs, Billie
Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Phoebe Martin, Maria Padron
STAFF PRESENT: Ray Heitner, Sara Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: John Marner, Josh Entler, John Bergstrom, Sherri Slothower
Bergstrom, Cathy Tholen, Jim Seyfer
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends approval of the proposed amendment to change
the Comprehensive Plan future land use map to Intensive Commercial and Public/Private Open
Space and to change the Southwest District Plan text and future land use map to Intensive
Commercial and Vegetative Noise/Sight Buffer for approximately 79 acres of property located
south of IWV Road SW and west of Slothower Road.
By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ21-0006, a rezoning of
approximately 53.36 acres from County Agricultural (A) to Intensive Commercial (Cl-1), 9 acres
from Rural Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (Cl-1), and 17.03 acres from County
Agricultural (A) to Interim Development Commercial (ID-C) subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of any building permit, Owner shall plat the property herein rezoned to
follow the zoning boundaries.
a. Said plat shall show a buffer easement area generally 350' wide consistent with
the comprehensive plan map. This easement area shall be governed by an
easement agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. This easement
area shall be planted according to a landscape plan approved by the City Forester
at such times as required by the subdivider's agreement.
b. Said plat shall include the dedication of right-of-way along the Slothower Road
frontage in a size and location approved by the City Engineer to allow Slothower
Road to be improved to City urban design standards.
2. Pursuant to Iowa City Code Title 15, Owner shall, contemporaneous with the final plat
approval, execute a subdivider's agreement addressing, among other things, the
following conditions:
a. Owner shall contribute 25% of the cost of upgrading Slothower Road, south of any
future access, to collector street standards, adjacent to the subject property.
b. Owner shall install landscaping to the S3 standard along the Slothower Road and
IWV Road frontages shall include in addition to the S3 standard, a mix of
deciduous and evergreen trees as approved by the City Forester.
c. Improve Slothower Road to the southern end of any future access off Slothower
Road.
3. For all lots fronting IWV Road and Slothower Road, loading areas, and outdoor storage
shall not be located between the front facade of the principal structure and the public
right-of-way line.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 2 of 18
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS:
CASE NO. CPA21-0002:
Location: SW corner of Slothower Road and IWV Road
A public hearing on a proposed amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan future land use
map to Intensive Commercial and Public/Private Open Space and to change the Southwest
District Plan text and future land use map to Intensive Commercial and Vegetative Noise/Sight
Buffer for approximately 79 acres of property located south of IWV Road SW and west of
Slothower Road.
Lehmann stated the area of this application is south of IWV Road and west of Slothower Road in
the county. Regarding background, there are three applications that are part of this, one is a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow intensive commercial, second is an annexation that
would annex about 70 acres into the City and finally there's a rezoning for all of that land to a mix
of intensive commercial and interim development commercial. This particular case was recently
heard by this Commission on September 16, 2021, and at that time staff had recommended all
three items in their motions to approve. That passed for the annexation and rezoning because
the annexation was unanimous, and the rezoning was four to one however the motion to approve
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment actually failed because it does require a vote four
affirmative votes and therefore the vote of three to two made it failed. Therefore, tonight the
applicant has submitted a revised Comprehensive Plan Amendment to review tonight.
Additionally, as part of this staff is also recommending new conditions as part of the rezoning and
that will be covered in the next agenda item.
Lehmann noted the area is about 80 acres and is all currently zoned agricultural and there is also
the landfill to the southwest. The zoning generally matches the current land uses, it's zoned for
agriculture with some limited rural residential zoning where it's within the City, the area to the
east is zoned public and then there's some county rural zoning to the north. Also to the east is
the County Poor Farm property and then to the northeast there are some other public uses.
The revised Comprehensive Plan Amendment is generally similar to what was presented last
time where it modifies the future land use map with intensive commercial, there is still the
generalized the timeframe for the US 965 extension, and it discusses that intensive commercial
uses may be appropriate along Melrose. Lehmann explained the big difference is that along the
south property line there's about a 350-foot vegetative noise and site buffer that would be
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 3 of 18
incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. It is noted as public and
private open space in the Southwest District Plan and would now be called that in the
Comprehensive Plan as well. Lehmann reiterated it is again along the south property line for a
width of 350 feet. He showed an image of the current Southwest District Plan Map that is
adopted, noting the subject property in the northwest corner of the Weber subarea and it's mostly
tailored for future urban development. He also pointed out along the west property line of this
property is the proposed future 965 extension that would be coming down from the north and go
along the east edge of the landfill all the way down to Highway 1. In the previous application
seen in September it was all shown as intensive commercial development for that subject
property and the revised submittal would still keep most of it as intensive commercial, but it
would include that 350-foot strip of vegetative noise and site buffer creating a more formal
buffering along the south property line. Again, that also gets carried through into the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment future land use map as well.
The role of the Commission is to determine if the Comprehensive Plan amendment meets the
approval criteria that are in the zoning code at 14-8D-3D and those two criteria are that
circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors have come to light, such as
the proposed amendments in the public interest and two, the proposed amendment will be
compatible with other policies or provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, including any district
plans or other amendments thereto. The information provided to the Commission in the agenda
packet included staff’s previous analysis that was done for the September 16 meeting and that
analysis continues to apply since generally this noise and site buffer just clarifies where that
intensive commercial would go. Tonight, Lehmann will give the Commission a brief summary of
staff's rationale for those two factors but also rely on the on that previous presentation and
information that is included in the packet.
Lehmann noted for the first factor, as to circumstances having changed and or additional
information or factors have come to light such that is in the public interest, he explained the
Southwest District Plan was initially adopted in 2002 and there have been several changes that
have occurred since that time including new residential development that has occurred north of
Rohret Road and some higher intensity commercial and public uses that have occurred to the
east, things like the public dispatch center, the County bus area, and the Johnson County Poor
Farm. Additionally, there has been some introduction of commercial uses that occurred on the
east side of the US 218 Interchange and that has happened through three different
Comprehensive Plan Amendments that have increased the intensity around that interchange on
the east side. Lehmann did acknowledge that the 2002 Plan did have a policy that discouraged
commercial uses at the Melrose/ US 218 Interchange and that policy was initially adopted in the
1983 Comprehensive Plan and has been carried forward since that time. That policy was
adopted in 1983 due to concern that such development couldn't be supported at both that
interchange and the interchange with Highway 1 to the south. In addition to that, the metro has
also experienced rapid population growth since then, especially to the northwest, in Coralville,
Tiffin and North Liberty so that has made the US 218 corridor increasingly important, and staff
believes that does warrant a reevaluation of some of these policies. Also based on some of
these things, staff does believe that the revised amendment is in the public interest. Staff also
found when looking at other similar land that allows intensive commercial uses, especially vacant
land, it doesn't seem to be meeting the needs of users within the city. Most of those intensive
commercial uses are generally smaller parcels or they're already developed, and they don't often
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 4 of 18
work for larger users of intensive commercial, especially with that proximity to a highway. In
addition, with expected growth staff expects an increased demand for additional intensive
commercial uses. Staff did project the use and there is a potential gap in the future and staff
does believe that this site especially makes sense for that given it's good access to the highway.
Again, staff does believe that it's in the public interest and that things have changed quite a bit
since 2002 and especially since 1983 when that policy was initially adopted.
As far as the other criteria, is it compatible with other policies or provisions of the Comprehensive
Plan, including amendments. Generally, it does align with the current policy direction of the City.
Within the Southwest District Plan it provides for contiguous development, it has infrastructure
access, which is one of the reasons that development had not occurred in the past, and it does
have proximity to major streets, especially the upgraded IWV Road, the future US 965 extension,
and the proximity to US 218, as well as the potential future expansion of the landfill. As far as
other policies the Comprehensive Plan, this Comprehensive Plan Amendment would allow
targeted nonresidential development that would help meet future needs, and it would be within
the growth area and have that ready highway access, which is deemed as an appropriate area
for these types of uses. It also complies with the fringe area agreement, which allows
nonresidential developments in the interchanges to pave roads, if it's annexed prior to
development. In this case, it would be annexed and rezoned as part of these joint applications.
Lehmann stated there are two policies that need to be reconciled somewhat, one is the policy
mentioned about discouraging commercial uses at Melrose and US 218. Again, staff does
believe that circumstances have changed, but that public uses generally will still be immediately
by the interchange, the subject properties are appropriate for the proposed use, and then the
other policy is encouraging new businesses in existing commercial areas. Again, as previously
mentioned, the existing commercial areas don't seem to meet all user’s needs, so some
additional areas are needed to meet future needs and that's why staff believes this is an
appropriate change. Lehmann noted there are some other Plan goals as well that would be
accommodated through rezoning and through the development standards like discouraging strict
commercial and protecting sensitive areas. In the case of this revised amendment that would
also include some sort of buffer strip to the south as included in the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. Generally, staff does believe that the revised amendment does continue to meet
this standard as well.
Lehmann noted there was significant public comment included in the packet, there was a good
neighbor meeting on July 28, attended by four attendees, there was correspondence from four
folks who are against it. Additionally, at the hearing on the September 16 there were nine
attendees who spoke against it. Staff did receive a new correspondence and that was also
provided to the Commission in advance of this meeting. The new correspondence was from
John Bergstrom, who objects due to concerns about the impact on the larger area and also
suggests that intensive commercial, specifically the MidAmerican Energy would be better suited
for the north side of IWV instead.
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve CPA21-0002, a proposed
amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan future land use map to Intensive Commercial
and Public/Private Open Space and to change the Southwest District Plan text and future land
use map to Intensive Commercial and Vegetative Noise/Sight Buffer for approximately 79 acres
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 5 of 18
of property located south of IWV Road SW and west of Slothower Road.
Next steps is for the Commission to determine if the amendment should be recommended to City
Council, the actual application itself, if it were approved or denied, would still run concurrently
with the annexation and rezoning as well. The next Council meeting would be November 16 and
that would be the public hearing. The zoning code text amendment would follow with a public
hearing and two additional meetings. Of course, those are subject to change but that would be
about the estimated timeline.
Hensch asked about the vegetative noise and sight buffer, he was trying to visualize how big a
350-foot-wide area would be. Lehmann said it is 350-feet wide which is about the size of a
football field.
Signs asked about the future land use map noting it shows a buffer, public private open space
running along future Highway 965 and then cutting across east/west on the south edge of this
property. So is this 300 feet in addition to that previous amount that was originally shown.
Lehmann explained there was a vegetative buffer along the west property line in the September
proposal but was not included in the older comp plan.
Nolte asked if the Highway 965 expansion is a hypothetical or is it on the radar to be budgeted
soon. Lehmann said it is not in any budget soon nor is it in the long-range transportation plan,
but it is in long-term planning.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Jon Marner (MMS Consultants) is representing the applicant and noted staff did a great job of
summarizing the changes to the application. He noted there was quite a bit of discussion at the
last meeting so they walked away from that meeting, met with the developer, had some
discussions with City staff and felt it was appropriate to resubmit the application with the changes
that had been presented. While they talked about the 350-foot buffer at the last meeting, there
was nothing formally in place so with this application submission they put something formerly in
place that removes that 350 feet from the intense commercial land use and places that in that
vegetative noise buffer or open space. The other thing he'd add is the 350 feet is approximately
the length of a football field, and when they take that 350 feet across the length of the property it
totals approximately 21.18 acres. So of the 79.39 acres that are being annexed and developed
and rezoned as part of this application, that constitutes 26% of the property. It's a significant
amount of the property that's been set aside as preserved for that open space and buffer from
the properties to the south.
Hensch asked Marner to describe the buffer area and what the land looks like in there, will they
add any vegetation or what are the plans for that area. Marner noted more information will be
forthcoming in the zoning application, but there’s a portion right in the middle of the property that
has two detention basins, one to the west and one to the east, there is then the stream corridor
that runs along the western edge of the property. So to answer the question, the buffer area
would be comprised primarily of sensitive features with the stream corridor, there's some
wetlands and a little bit of a stream corridor in between the detention basins. The detention
basins are required for stormwater as per City ordinances for stormwater for the property so and
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 6 of 18
that detention basin on the east extends over to the right-of-way of Slothower Road.
Signs asked if the proposal involves planting any additional trees or anything in that area.
Marner replied it’s not part of this application, but he believes that was one of the conditions of
the zoning agreement that there would be some landscaping to an S3 standard. Heitner
confirmed they would discuss that more in the next agenda item, but they are recommending S3
screening along that south side. Signs asked what S3 screening involves. Heitner explained it is
the most intense screening standard that the City has, it involves a five to six foot continuous
hedge of either shrubs or evergreens or trees, and there's an ability to mix and match with a
masonry wall or a berm. It's the most intense screening standard and typically utilized when
transitioning a commercial or industrial use to residential use.
Nolte asked about the correspondence received stating MidAmerican admitted looking at
locating their project on the north side of the road. Marner stated he would let the representative
or the developer speak to that.
Marner noted one of the other concerns that was expressed was the impact on the Poor Farm
across the road. They reviewed that Poor Farm, the most recent concept, as part of this change
and while there is some potential housing development suggested as part of that master plan, it's
located in the very southwest corner of that property, it actually lies south and east of the corner
of this property. It's approximately 600 to 1000 feet away from the north line of this buffer that
would be established as part of this land use.
Josh Entler (IWV Holdings) is representing the applicant and developer. He would first address
the prior question and stated MidAmerican has looked at this site has asked about this site but in
response to some of the comments from last meeting, this is not a MidAmerican development,
they would like to have MidAmerican there, it'd be a great use, but they are just excited about
this development for intensive commercial users, just on the face of that potential zoning, on that
comp plan amendment, as well as the annexation. They do not have any users specified at this
moment, it could be a prospect, but nobody's guaranteed. They've heard a variety of cavilings in
the neighborhood, as well as some national users and national realtors that see this area is a
great fit for intensive commercial with quick access to the highway, particularly with CDL drivers
that may be coming off the highway left in and then right out, they’re slowing down in traffic and
then pulling out in a single lane instead of crossing traffic. There's a lot of folks that like this side
of the street, they like the quick access and don't have to go through any residential
neighborhoods to get right on the interstate to I-80 and I-380. They see it as a very high potential
site and not just MidAmerican as a potential user. The other thing Entler wanted to address
publicly, and wanted to clarify, this is not an industrial type use, it is intensive commercial.
John Bergstrom (Slothower Farms) is a member of the Slothower family and spoke his piece last
time but wanted to be clear, the only reason they're discussing this tonight is because
MidAmerican Energy is looking for a site and the City of Iowa City steered them this way. He
stated it was very clear on that from discussions with City people and one of the partners. He
admitted there may be a shortage of intense commercial space around the City but there's also
plenty of other areas that this could go that doesn't impact a lot of other residents and future
residents. This is just not a good place and again, this is all about MidAmerican Energy. This is
an 80-acre piece and MidAmerican Energy needs about 40 acres. Changing the Comprehensive
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 7 of 18
Plan is a big deal in a community and in a discussion earlier and he asked about looking at a
broader approach to the Comprehensive Planning, but it was very clear and his interpretation
was the City is only looking at this piece and nothing beyond it and that just doesn't make sense.
This affects a lot of people, it affects a lot of land and he would just ask that they slow this down
a little bit. If they’re going to change the Comprehensive Plan there's a number of landowners
including them who would like to know how it's going to affect their peace. It's a big deal to
change a Comprehensive Plan and they’re doing it for one user, it just doesn't make sense.
Bergstrom did propose in his email that IWV Partners owns 40 acres directly across on the other
side of IWV Road that it looks like it would be developable. He can't speak for the neighbors but
the one discussion he did have with them they said that might make sense, because then when
they turn off IWV and it's residential, it's good continuity. His last comment is on the Johnson
County Poor Farm, nobody's real sure what's going to happen there but if they let this
workstation go in, it's going to have a big impact. Again he asks that they please slow this thing
down a little bit and if they’re going to change the plan, let's change the plan, but do it in a much
broader manner.
Sherri Slothower Bergstrom (Slothower Farms) is John's Bergstrom’s wife, and they own the
property directly to the south of the land in this application. They have 120 acres there so this is
going to have a huge impact on their land, its value and its use. Bergstrom stated there is the old
adage, you can't fight City Hall, but she would like to be proved wrong about that. She listened to
the Commission talk last time about their responsibility as volunteers to do the best thing for Iowa
City. Well, to her Iowa City is the neighborhoods and the people and the essence of community
and what's changed since 2002 is over 100 families have built homes, and a pool and a
clubhouse, an overall beautiful area right adjacent to the land in this application. One of her
objections to the slideshow that was shown last time is there was not one picture, not one slide,
of that neighborhood. It was very slanted to the armory, the Johnson County garage and the
things that are right there on the corner. There was no overall picture to show what it actually is
like there. Bergstrom doesn’t know how many of them have driven out there to actually look at
this but there's a lot of beautiful homes out there and a lot of brand-new homes being built right
on IWV Road, right behind the landfill. Also in this area is a beautiful new winery. As her
husband noted, this has happened really quickly, it wasn’t until they got a letter for the good
neighbor meeting that they heard of this. This is affecting a lot of people and the Bergstrom’s had
to personally contact other neighbors because they weren't even notified. This has happened
suspiciously and it's going to affect a huge area and a lot of people, a lot of families that have not
been pictured in the presentations. She agrees with her husband and wonders why they are
rushing to change a Comprehensive Plan that is going to affect a huge area of the City. There
are other places in Iowa City to accommodate MidAmerican Energy. She asks that the
Commission just take their time and look at this and make sure it's the right thing for an area that
hosts hundreds of families living in beautiful homes.
Cathy Tholen (965 Slothower Road) states they live in the closest home to this parcel, they live
in the Slothower old farmstead which they bought from them. She has not been notified by any
member of the City, or anyone, in regards to this rezoning. Sherri Slothower called Tholen on
the telephone to notify them of the rezoning to the property out there. No one from the City has
contacted her and she received no letter. The City did put up a sign, they put it on the Johnson
County Poor Farmland behind dirt because the IWV Road is being revamped and widened. She
feels that probably has something to do with this push for intensive commercial use. The
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 8 of 18
property was bought in the early part of this year and probably was already discussed with the
City of Iowa City about the reasoning and why it was bought, it was bought for this specific
process. Whether it's MidAmerican Energy, or whether it's some other nationally acclaimed
business that's going to move into the neighborhood, don't think for a moment that Pandora's
Box isn't going to be opened up here. They will be commercial businesses on both sides of that
road all the way out to the landfill. And if by chance in the future 965 does go through, it will be
there too. So intensive commercial will be in her backyard. There's g oing to be a tremendous
amount of lighting, there's going to be noise, there's going to be cement, there's going to be
traffic. They’ve widened the road and given them the infrastructure that they need for this
commercial property. The City has given a lot of money to Grow Johnson County which is by the
Poor Farm, which is right next to Chatham Oaks, which by the way is a residence, people live
there. Melrose Ridge apartments is a residence with people living there. Tholen acknowledge the
buffer that they're planning on putting in is great but what about along Slothower Road. Is there
a buffer that reaches into the Poor Farm, or down the road, which is a dead end but there's all
kinds of communities there. There's Country Club Estates, Galloway Hills, Walnut Ridge, the new
Camp Cardinal, housing developments on Rohret Road, and all the way to Mormon Trek is all
housing. This plan may be MidAmerican Energy, or Amazon warehouse, commercial buildings,
or whatever but there will be light, there'll be cement, there'll be noise, and they probably are
going to have to widen the IWV Road for all of the people that are going to be in and out of there.
Right now in the mornings at the interstate exchange there is a tremendous amount of traffic
coming into town to work. There's a tremendous amount of traffic that comes down the IWV
Road that goes into work at the University Hospital and to put intensive commercial there,
whether it’s big trucks or whatever, there's going to be a lot of traffic. They are going to take a
rural community in with the Poor Farm right there, they're going to be using that Grow Johnson
County for educational purposes, they're going to use it for family things, talks about putting trails
in there, open space and prairie, and then right next to that will now be big lights and cement and
whole bunch of buildings.
Jim Seyfer (36 Tempe Court) wanted to strongly concur with what John and Sherri Bergstrom
have said about slowing down this process and looking at the area as a whole, before making an
irreversible change to the neighborhood. Many of them live on the north edge of the residential
development right now, they look north at night and the sky along the IWV Road where the
Johnson County facility and the National Guard facility are located has a lot of light streamed up
into the sky and that would be increased by this development. So again, he just want to echo his
support for what has been said already and encourage a no vote by the Commission.
Hensch closed he public hearing.
Nolte moved to recommend approval of CPA21-0002, a proposed amendment to change
the Comprehensive Plan future land use map to Intensive Commercial and Public/Private
Open Space and to change the Southwest District Plan text and future land use map to
Intensive Commercial and Vegetative Noise/Sight Buffer for approximately 79 acres of
property located south of IWV Road SW and west of Slothower Road.
Craig seconded the motion.
Hensch asked if it is still 300 feet or is it 500 feet for notifying neighbors. Lehmann confirmed
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 9 of 18
that everyone that lives within 300 feet of the subject property is receives notification.
Hensch questioned if there a City standard about downcast lighting for development within the
City of Iowa City. Lehmann confirmed there is, there are standards related to the form of lighting
and then standards related to overall light output.
Nolte noted the National Guard facility in the County so that would be not subject to the City's
light ordinance. Russett stated the National Guard is not subject to Iowa City standards, the
Secondary Roads/Seats facility and the Historic Poor Farm would have to comply with downcast
lighting standards as the County is subject to the City’s zoning regulations within the fringe area
but not state or federal government, or the university.
Signs stated he came in here thinking that he might be changing his vote from last time based on
one of the comments in the correspondence but is now back to where he was before. The one
thing that does bother him, and this is something he read in correspondence, is this concept of
spot rezoning and spot redevelopment and changing Comprehensive Plans. This feels like
exactly that and he has spoken against that before. Now, having said that, several people this
evening talked about looking at the area as a whole so he’s been poking around the aerial map
and there's some natural barriers here. There are some stream beds, there's some valleys,
there's a landfill of nearly 80 acres away from the last street to the east and the topography of
the ground to the north of the landfill which is also on the other side of the stream bed is pretty
steep, and pretty severe. And the same with the County Poor Farm, there's a pretty substantial
ravine and that is the reason for the proposed housing in the very southwest corner of that
property is because there's some natural barriers there. When he looks at the area as a whole,
he sees kind of a circle where realistically, residential is not going to grow beyond and it should
be some other type of zoning. As for development on IWV Road, any that continues much to the
north will run into Coralville but heading south there's lots of room for residential and his personal
opinion is that most of the residential growth will go south of Rohret Road. He feels comf ortable
with this.
Hensch noted just on the issue of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments, this Commission
probably amends the Comprehensive Plan two or three times a year, it's not like this is a one off.
Craig agrees, this is something that happens fairly frequently because the Comprehensive Plan
is 20 years old. She has no problem with looking at this parcel and saying times have changed in
20 years.
Signs agrees, but to that point, the Council interpreted a 20-year-old Comprehensive Plan and
neighborhood plan very literally in a recent rezoning decision. He had asked this group is there
any direction that they need to be taking or any observations they need to be making by their
actions. At some point they’ve talked about a proposal or a recommendation to Council to
increase the speed of comprehensive plan and neighborhood plan updates, because 20 years is
a generation and additional changes are probably going to happen along that road.
Townsend noted her concern before was in the 100 feet that they were going to use for buffering
but 300 feet is almost a football field so it seems that would be enough and there shouldn't be
any problem with the Poor Farm and places around it.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 10 of 18
Hensch can speak pretty intelligently on the Poor Farm since he’s responsible for it, there's a 10-
year master plan and the possibility for affordable housing won't even occur until year seven.
They’re on year three and there's been no further discussion, there's been no consultants
retained, there's been no development, no money has been spent on that.
Signs asked if they could include an amendment to increase some tree planting along the south
and the east borders, the S3 six-foot hedge is nice for when one is driving by but from a
landscape perspective it really doesn't do a whole lot. Hensch noted that can be done in the
rezoning, this is just a comprehensive plan. He noted last time they added the condition of S3
landscaping on the northern edge as well.
Craig wanted to add she has gone out and driven the neighborhood's, she has a friend who lives
in the neighborhood behind Weber School and she feels it is her responsibility as a member of
the Commission to see the lay of the land. She had not had time to do it before the other
meeting, but she did do it before this meeting. Her opinion is the same as it was in the initial
meeting, there is development happening along IWV Road and this is compatible with what is
there. She agrees with the person who said what is going to happen after this is more
commercial development along IWV Road and she thinks from a City perspective and thinking
about what's best for the City, they are spending money on upgrading the roads so it can handle
all the traffic that is goes to the landfill and they are creating an infrastructure that costs all the
taxpayers a lot of money and it makes it possible for some of this development to happen and
will bring tax dollars back into the City. She is supportive of this project.
Signs does have one more cynical observation as he was perusing the aerial map, there are two
radio tower installations on the Slothower farm and it seems like that would affect a view of a
neighborhood too.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
CASE NO. REZ21-0006:
Location: SW corner of Slothower Road and IWV Road
An application for a rezoning from County Agricultural (A) to Intensive Commercial (Cl-1) for
approximately 53.36 acres, Interim Development Commercial (ID-C) for approximately 17.03
acres, and approximately 9 acres of land from Rural Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial
(Cl-1).
Heitner noted there's some crossover with this presentation and what was just went over so he’ll
try his best to not be too duplicative. For the rezoning component, Heitner showed an aerial of
the subject property, and a look at the existing zoning which showed County agricultural zoning
and the narrow nine-acre sliver of City rural residential on the east. Most of the property which is
zoned County Agricultural is in Fringe Area C inside the growth area, and the nine-acre strip on
the far east is within Iowa City limits. Heitner next showed the proposed rezoning noting it has
not changed since it was last discussed here. There are the two parcels to the east going to
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 11 of 18
intensive commercial zoning (CI-1) with the third parcel on the west going to interim development
commercial.
Regarding the background on why the rezoning is back in front of this Commission. At the
September 16 meeting it was recommended for approval by a vote of 4-1 but there were
concerns raised regarding negative externalities, negative impacts to viewsheds, noise, traffic
etc. So, in an attempt quell those concerns, the applicant did submit the revised Comprehensive
Plan Amendment that was just discussed, featuring the 350-foot vegetative and noise buffer also
designated as open space. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment that occurred within the last
item does identify a need for buffering intensive commercial uses along that southern 350-foot
distance of the subject property. So with that in place, staff is recommending two additional
conditions to the rezoning application which is why this item is here for discussion today. The two
additional conditions staff is recommending are first when the land is platted the owner should
dedicate to the City a buffer easement and impose upon the land a use restriction prohibiting
development within 350 feet of the southern boundary of the subject property. This would
effectively prohibit any installation of structures, parking lots, drive aisles or loading areas within
this area. Secondly at the time the land is platted and upon construction of the public
improvements the owner shall plant landscaping to the S3 standard along the southern boundary
within the easement area in locations that do not contain sensitive areas or sensitive area
buffers. The sensitive areas are focused mostly at the south property boundary and there's a
sizable 1.3 acre wetland within that area with a 100 foot wetland buffer all around the wetland.
There is also a wetland and stream corridor on the western most property.
As far as the rezoning is concerned, the role of the Commission is to determine whether the
rezoning meets the review criteria, which is consistency with Comprehensive Plan and
compatibility with the existing neighborhood. Regarding consistency with Comprehensive Plan
there will be consistency pending approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to intensive
commercial. Also, the Southwest District Plan does call for future urban development within this
subject property. The rationale for why intensive commercial development may be attractive in
this location is due to the location and size of the properties, the adjacency to forthcoming arterial
road access, and highway adjacency. With respect to compatibility with the existing
neighborhood character, there are preexisting uses of comparable intensity to what might be
found in an intensive commercial zone along the north side of IWV Road, the County Public
Works facility and the Iowa National Guard Armory. Staff is proposing a S3 high screen
landscape buffer, originally this was just proposed along the Slothower Road frontage but it was
discussed at the last meeting to have this screening standard applied to the IWV Road frontage
as well. Staff is also recommending placement of this S3 screen along the southern property
boundary where there are no sensitive areas and there are additional screening standards within
the City Code that are intended to conceal parking and loading areas from adjacent residential
zones or neighborhoods. Lastly, staff does have a condition pertaining to the location of loading
areas and outdoor storage and prohibiting those areas between the principal building facade and
the IWV and Slothower Road right-of-way lines.
With respect to next steps, there will be a public hearing on November 16, not only for the
annexation and rezoning but also for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Prior to the public
hearing, there is a notification process that is tied to the annexation where the City has to notify
utility companies and non-consenting parties are sent the annexation application via certified
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 12 of 18
mail, and the annexation component of the project also has to gain City Development Board
approval from the State.
Staff recommends approval of REZ21-0006, a rezoning of approximately 53.36 acres from
County Agricultural (A) to Intensive Commercial (Cl-1), 9 acres from Rural Residential (RR-1) to
Intensive Commercial (Cl-1), and 17.03 acres from County Agricultural (A) to Interim
Development Commercial {ID-C) subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of any building permit, Owner shall plat the property herein rezoned to
follow the zoning boundaries.
a. Said plat shall show a buffer easement area generally 350' wide consistent with
the comprehensive plan map. This easement area shall be governed by an
easement agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. This easement
area shall be planted according to a landscape plan approved by the City Forester
at such times as required by the subdivider's agreement.
b. Said plat shall include the dedication of right-of-way along the Slothower Road
frontage in a size and location approved by the City Engineer to allow Slothower
Road to be improved to City urban design standards.
2. Pursuant to Iowa City Code Title 15, Owner shall, contemporaneous with the final plat
approval, execute a subdivider's agreement addressing, among other things, the
following conditions:
a. Owner shall contribute 25% of the cost of upgrading Slothower Road, south of any
future access, to collector street standards, adjacent to the subject property.
b. Owner shall install landscaping to the S3 standard along the Slothower Road and
IWV Road frontages;
c. Improve Slothower Road to the southern end of any future access off Slothower
Road.
3. For all lots fronting IWV Road and Slothower Road, loading areas, and outdoor storage
shall not be located between the front facade of the principal structure and the public
right-of-way line.
Hensch noted it seems a little inconsistent stating the first part where would have to be approved
by City Forester but does that also include the second highlighted portion also needing to be
approved by the Forester. Hensch feels that both need to pre-approved by the Forester. Heitner
confirmed that's the intent. Hensch next asked if at some point staff could share the City's
development ordinances regarding what constitutes S2 or S3 screening, he would like to read
more about that and have an understanding of those.
Hekteon looked it up, it is as at 14-5-F6 in the zoning code. The S3 standard intent is a buffering
treatment that uses dense landscape screening to provide a visual and physical separation
between uses and zones. It is commonly applied between residential uses and commercial and
industrial uses and to screen outdoor work or storage areas. Required materials are enough
shrubs and small evergreens to form a continuous screen or hedge at least five to six feet in
height and more than 50% solid year-round. Screening materials must be at least three feet high
when planted and at least one half of the shrubs must be evergreen varieties. An alternative is to
use a berm in conjunction with a hedge to achieve an overall height of at least six feet or a
continuous or semi continuous five- to six-foot-high masonry wall or solid fence. Hekteon added
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 13 of 18
the permitted plants are described in table 5-F2 where it states S3 screening and says American
Arborvitae, Emerald trees, compact burning bushes, or Hatfield trees are allowed. Deviations
from the list of plants are allowed if the replacement shrubs are similar in form or hardiness to a
permitted variety and are approved by the City.
Signs asked if there is any way that they can add a provision that some of that screening area
have some large evergreen and or deciduous trees. Heitner replied yes, if the Commission
wishes to add deciduous or evergreen trees that's certainly the Commission's right to request
that. Signs would normally refer to it as a reforestation plan but there is not just planting, so is
there a percentage of the plant material needs to be trees of mature height over 30 feet or
something. Hensch noted it said 50% has to be of evergreen variety, he hates to be too
prescriptive but it’d be nice to try to beautify that reforest a little bit. Signs noted that all the
shrubs described are six-to-eight-foot mature shrubs, even the evergreen ones.
Craig added when they are talking about evergreens, they are talking 40–50-foot evergreen trees
so could that be added to the buffer zone on the recommendation of the City Forester’s plan as
he decides.
Hensch said they can just add that as a condition to the motion.
Hekteon said they could add a condition giving some guidance to the City Forester.
Nolte asked if the developer is obligated to maintain this land in perpetuity, it's an easement but it
could be sold. Hektoen noted right now they haven't platted it so it could be platted as an outlot
to be owned by the City to be owned by anyone at this point or put in a land trust or something
like that, there is a use agreement but that doesn't mean that ownership can't be transferred
because it's not City property.
Signs stated they could potentially deed it to the City to be part of that western buffer. Hektoen
confirmed at the time that the land is platted, they could plat it as an outlot to be dedicated to the
City or to be dedicated to whomever or conveyed to whomever.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Josh Entler (IWV Holdings) is representing the applicant and had a couple of comments he'd like
to address. They are in agreement with those revised conditions with one technical clarification,
in terms of the S3 buffer on the south, they will provide the S3 screening along the south line in
areas where there's not sensitive features. He doesn’t want to get into trouble with the Army
Corps of Engineers because there is a designated wetland out there and a buffer and they need
to stay out of it. Entler just wanted to explain that so if a year from now somebody asks why
there's not a continuous straight line of brand-new trees, that is why. They'll plant new trees and
S3 screening where there's not sensitive features. Another comment on the S3 screening, they
just did this in coordination with Hiawatha for a development that also needed screening and as
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 14 of 18
mentioned this also works well in tandem with buffers or with berms and they are also in
agreement to proposing a two- or three-foot berm to elevate the base of the planting up a little
higher. They’ve found that seems to gain some traction with the adjacent residents. In terms of
the specifics of the plant, he would like to propose to table the specific tree requirement to site
plan review, once they have a specific user or person that's actually going to be planting those
trees. He asks that they push that off to the site plan review and just focus on rezoning. He does
welcome the idea of having that responsibility on to the City Forester.
Hensch was happy to hear about the berm as the concern is they just don't want a wall of
arborvitae. Entler agreed and doesn’t want that either. Hensch wants to be sensitive to the
neighbors and what they have to see and mixed deciduous and conifers is a year-round barrier
and everybody would be much happier with that.
Craig asked is that something that could be handled at site plan review. Russett replied yes,
that's typically when they would review the landscaping plan, which would be required for this.
However, if the Commission wants the condition to be more specific, that could be incorporated.
Jim Seyfer (36 Tempe Court) stated he understands the Poor Farms plans are not set in stone
but the map that he saw of future development on the Poor Farm, the affordable housing was
going to backup to Slothower Road. Someone said earlier, correctly, it was in the southwest
corner of the Poor Farm but that's subject to change. He understands but the plan was for that
housing to be fairly close to Slothower and south of the southern boundary of the land to be
rezoned. He just wanted to bring that up as a possible issue.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend approval of REZ21-0006, a rezoning of approximately 53.36
acres from County Agricultural (A) to Intensive Commercial (Cl-1), 9 acres from Rural
Residential (RR-1) to Intensive Commercial (Cl-1), and 17.03 acres from County
Agricultural (A) to Interim Development Commercial {ID-C) subject to the following
conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of any building permit, Owner shall plat the property herein
rezoned to follow the zoning boundaries.
a. Said plat shall show a buffer easement area generally 350' wide consistent
with the comprehensive plan map. This easement area shall be governed by
an easement agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. This
easement area shall be planted according to a landscape plan approved by
the City Forester at such times as required by the subdivider's agreement.
b. Said plat shall include the dedication of right-of-way along the Slothower
Road frontage in a size and location approved by the City Engineer to allow
Slothower Road to be improved to City urban design standards.
2. Pursuant to Iowa City Code Title 15, Owner shall, contemporaneous with the final
plat approval, execute a subdivider's agreement addressing, among other things,
the following conditions:
a. Owner shall contribute 25% of the cost of upgrading Slothower Road, south
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 15 of 18
of any future access, to collector street standards, adjacent to the subject
property.
b. Owner shall install landscaping to the S3 standard along the Slothower
Road and IWV Road frontages;
c. Improve Slothower Road to the southern end of any future access off
Slothower Road.
3. For all lots fronting IWV Road and Slothower Road, loading areas, and outdoor
storage shall not be located between the front facade of the principal structure and
the public right-of-way line.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Hensch noted his only concern is exactly the same thing Signs brought up about appropriate
screening, mostly is out of ignorance with not being really familiar with S3 standards.
Signs can totally defer to the City Forester but he doesn’t want a six-foot hedge going around this
entire boundary as that has very little impact on the view. He’d like to see something much more
deciduous and evergreen trees that are 30 feet plus in that mature height.
Craig proposes where it says installation of landscaping to the S3 standard along the Slothower
Road and IWV Road frontage to state landscaping shall include in addition to the S3 standard, a
mix of deciduous and evergreen trees as approved by the City Forester.
The Commission’s intent is pretty clear, they'd like to see deciduous and coniferous trees. Also
they fully understand that in sensitive areas they should not be added there.
Hekteon asked if this is in the 350-foot buffer area or in all areas where S3 screening as
required. Craig answered it's in the buffer area. Hensch noted although the motion would just
be that the more intense screening would be in the buffer area he also doesn’t want to see a wall
of arborvitae on the north side either as it is an entrance to Iowa City.
Signs amended his motion to add installation of landscaping to the S3 standard shall
include a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees as approved by the City Forester.
Craig seconded the amendment.
A vote was taken on the motion and it passed 5-0
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 7, 2021:
Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of October 7, 2021.
Signs seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 16 of 18
DISCUSSION OF COMMISSION MEETING DAY AND TIME:
Russett wanted to have a discussion with the Commission about moving meetings from
Thursdays to Wednesdays, she sent out a poll several weeks ago and it seems like it works for
most everyone. She asks for this move as they are going to run into a situation real soon where
they won't have a room, they only have this room booked through November.
Townsend stated she was the only one that indicated she couldn't meet on Wednesdays when
the survey was sent out but now has cleared her schedule and Wednesdays will work.
Russett asked if there was any interest in moving the meeting time to 6pm. Others agreed 6pm
seems like a good start time.
Russett stated they will begin the new date/time in in December as there's a meeting coming up
in November that's already being advertised for the fourth so it's probably best to keep the
November meetings on Thursday.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett sent an email to the Commission earlier today about the self-supported Municipal
Improvement District that's being proposed in the South District so just a heads up that will be
coming to the Commission probably on November 4. This is an item that they typically don't see,
in the City's history they have had one example of this which is the Downtown District, so it's a
very uncommon item.
Russett also noted the Community View annexation/rezoning/subdivision out off of American
Legion Road, just west of the new Hoover School is being final platted so if anyone goes out that
way, they'll probably see development happening.
Townsend asked about the mobile home park on Prairie Du Chien Road noting the homes are all
gone so is there something going up there that the Commission hasn’t seen yet. Russett said
there are no plans at this time but the property owner did clear out those homes and the area is
vacant now. There is still the one house there that someone lives in.
Craig recommended everyone listen to Iowa Public Radio at nine o'clock in the morning Monday
through Friday for On Point with Meghan Tapper, and today it was about rezoning that is
happening in California based on a state law that was just passed that allows, over probably the
objections of local governments, building out in zoning areas where everything is zoned single
family, and in some cases, multiple units. It's not like just by building an extra house in your
backyard or adding an in-law suite. It's really building another residence or taking something
down and putting up a four plex, because they're so desperate for housing in California. And
then at the end, they move on and talk about some similar kinds of things and everybody's
struggles with this problem of housing, especially low-income housing, it's just a struggle. It was
a very interesting program. Signs added some communities in Minneapolis and also Portland
have banned single family zoning.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 21, 2021
Page 17 of 18
ADJOURNMENT:
Nolte moved to adjourn.
Townsend seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2021-2022
7/1 7/15 8/5 8/19 9/2 9/16 10/7 10/21
CRAIG, SUSAN X X O/E X X X X X
HENSCH, MIKE X X O/E X X X X X
MARTIN, PHOEBE X O/E O/E O/E X O/E X O/E
NOLTE, MARK X X X O/E X O/E O X
PADRON, MARIA X X X X X X X O/E
SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X X
TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X X X X X X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member