HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 01.05.2022PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 5, 2022
Formal Meeting – 6:00 PM
Emma Harvat Hall
410 E. Washington Street
Agenda:
1.Call to Order
2.Roll Call
3.Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
4.Case No. REZ21-0010
Location: 421 E. Market Street
An application for a rezoning of approximately 0.13 acres of land from commercial office CO-1
to mixed use (MU).
5.Consideration of the Good Neighbor Policy
6.Discussion of Commission Roles & Responsibilities
7.Consideration of Meeting Minutes: November 4, 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: January 19 / February 2 / February 16
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ21-0010
Prepared by: Ray Heitner, Associate
Planner
Date: January 5, 2021
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
MMS Consultants
1917 S. Gilbert St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-351-8282
l.sexton@mmsconsultants.net
Contact Person: Sandy Steil
MMS Consultants
1917 S. Gilbert St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-351-8282
s.steil@mmsconsultants.net
Owner: SACABA, LLC.
mhayek@hmsblaw.com
Requested Action: Rezoning
Purpose:
Rezoning of approximately 0.13 acres of
land located at 421 E. Market Street from
Commercial Office (CO-1) to Mixed Use
(MU) zone.
Location:
421 E. Market Street
Location Map:
Size: 0.13 Acres
2
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Ground floor office (currently vacant),
upper flood residential; Commercial
Office (CO-1)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: (Mercy Hospital)
Commercial Office –
CO-1
South: (Multi-Family
Residential) Mixed
Use - MU
East: (Multi-Family
Residential)
Commercial Office –
Co-1
West: (Multi-Family
Residential) Mixed
Use - MU
Comprehensive Plan:
Mixed Use
District Plan:
Central Planning District – Office
Commercial
Neighborhood Open Space District:
C2
Public Meeting Notification: Property owners located within 300’ of
the subject property received notification
of the Planning and Zoning Commission
public meeting. A Rezoning sign was
also posted on the site.
File Date: December 3, 2021
45 Day Limitation Period: January 17, 2022
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The owner is requesting a rezoning of approximately 0.13 acres of property located at 421 E. Market
Street. The owner has requested that the property be rezoned from Commercial Office (CO-1) to
Mixed Use (MU). The property currently contains vacant office space on the ground floor, with an
apartment on the second floor. The owner has requested the rezoning to allow for more flexibility
should the owner wish to rent out both floors as apartments, or as a single-family residence in the
future. The subject property is located in the City’s Central Planning District.
The owner has used the Good Neighbor Policy and held a Good Neighbor Meeting on December
29, 2021.
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning: The purpose of the Commercial Office zone (CO-1) is to provide specific areas
where office functions, compatible businesses, apartments and certain public and semipublic uses
3
may be developed in accordance with the comprehensive plan. The CO-1 zone can serve as a
buffer between residential and more intensive commercial or industrial areas. Multi-Family
residential dwelling units in the CO-1 zone must be located above the street level floor of a building.
The existing zoning would not allow multi-family residential dwelling units on both floors of the
building.
Proposed Zoning: The request is to rezone the subject property from the existing Commercial
Office (CO-1) zone to Mixed Use (MU). The purpose of the Mixed Use zone (MU) is to provide a
transition from commercial and employment centers to less intensive residential zones. The MU
zone permits a mix of uses, including lower scale retail and office uses, and a variety of residential
uses. This mix of uses requires special consideration of building and site design.
Table 1 below shows how uses are permitted differently in the MU zone compared with the
existing CO-1 zone.
Table 1 – CO-1 and MU Zone Use Comparison
Use: Commercial Office (CO-1) Mixed Use (MU)
Attached Single-Family PR
Detached Single-Family P
Detached Zero Lot Line PR
Duplex PR
Animal Related Commercial
(General)
S
Commercial Recreational
Uses (Indoors)
PR/S
Alcohol Sales Oriented Retail PR
Sales Oriented Retail PR
Basic Utility Uses PR/S
Hospitals PR
Utility-Scale Ground-Mounted
Solar Energy Systems
S
Communication/Transmission
Facility Uses
PR/S PR
P = Permitted; PR = Provisional; S = Special Exception
A rezoning from Commercial Office to a Mixed Use zone would allow several residential uses (either
by right or provisionally) and alcohol oriented and sales-oriented retail uses (provisionally) to
develop on the subject property. These uses are not currently allowed in the Commercial Office
zone. If the existing structure is preserved and redeveloped, the structure could be redeveloped into
a single-family residence or two-family use (also known as a duplex). The two-family use would be
allowed as a provisional use in the Mixed Use zone, provided that additional criteria pertaining to
additional standards in the Central Planning District and single and two-family uses in MU Zone are
met. Alcohol oriented and sales-oriented retail uses would be allowed as provisional uses; however,
these uses are limited to convenience stores associated with quick vehicle servicing uses. Given
the narrow 40’-wide frontage of the subject property on a non-corner lot, future development of a
quick vehicle servicing use at this location is highly unlikely.
The proposed rezoning would eliminate the property’s ability to accommodate animal related
commercial (general), commercial recreational uses (indoors), hospitals, and utility-scale ground-
mounted solar energy systems. As the subject property is adjacent to the Mercy Hospital campus,
the rezoning would eliminate the Hospital’s ability to expand onto the subject property in the future.
However, the adjacent uses on both the east and west sides of the subject property are currently
residential. At this time, the City does not have any reason to believe that Mercy intends to expand
4
its facilities south of Market Street where the subject property is located.
Rezoning Review Criteria:
Staff uses the following two criteria in the review of rezonings:
1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan;
2. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The current Central District Plan future land use map
designates the subject property as appropriate for Office Commercial use. The Mixed Use
designation does still provide an option for lower scale office uses that would be appropriate within
the context of the less intense and more transitional character of the Mixed Use zone.
Much of the existing Commercial Office zoned land in this area buffers the main property for Mercy
Hospital. It is likely that the rezoning of the land around the periphery was primarily intended to
allow for the development of supporting buildings and businesses for the main building on the
Mercy Hospital campus. However, over time, many of these parcels, particularly along the north
side of Bloomington Street, have maintained their preexisting structures and uses. The most
recent building expansion with Mercy Hospital took place in 1990 for the property located at the
southwest corner of E. Market Street and N. Johnson Street. While the Central District Plan does
encourage the preservation of older homes in the Northside and Goosetown area from apartment
conversion, the existing Commercial Office zoning would already allow for more intense uses than
what may be allowed in the Mixed Use zone such as hospital facilities and basic utility uses. The
Comprehensive Plan’s future land use map shows the property as appropriate for Mixed Use.
Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood Character: The subject property is bordered by
multi-family residential housing to the east, west, and south, with the Mercy Hospital main building
to the north across E. Market Street. Mixed Use zoning can be found directly west and south of
the property, with Commercial Office zoning located to the east and north. The subject property’s
block is largely comprised of duplex and multi-family residential housing that has been retrofitted
within 100-year-old homes. The additional residential uses allowed within the Mixed Use zone
would not be out of character with the adjacent existing uses.
NEXT STEPS:
After recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council will set a public
hearing for the rezoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of REZ21-0010, a rezoning of approximately 0.13 acres from
Commercial Office (CO-1) to Mixed Use (MU).
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Aerial Photograph
3. Rezoning Exhibit
4. Applicant Statement
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
E MARKET ST
N GILBERT STN VAN BUREN STMU
CB2
CO1
REZ21-0010421 E. Market Streetµ
0 0.02 0.040.01 Miles Prepared By: Ray HeitnertDate Prepared: December 2021
An application submitted by MMS Consultants, on behalf of SACABA LLC., for the rezoning of 0.13 acres ofproperty located at 421 E. Market St. from Commercial Office (CO-1) to Mixed Use (MU).
E MARKET ST
N GILBERT STN VAN BUREN STREZ21-0010421 E. Market Streetµ
0 0.02 0.040.01 Miles Prepared By: Ray HeitnertDate Prepared: December 2021
An application submitted by MMS Consultants, on behalf of SACABA LLC., for the rezoning of 0.13 acres ofproperty located at 421 E. Market St. from Commercial Office (CO-1) to Mixed Use (MU).
This document was created by an application that isn’t licensed to use novaPDF.
Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.
December 3, 2021 Project 11411-001
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
Re: 421 E Market St.
Dear Mr. Heitner:
MMS Consultants on behalf of Sacaba LLC is requesting a rezoning of the property
located at 421 E Market Street. This property is currently zoned CO-1 and we are
requesting it be rezoned to MU.
The house is currently be used as office space for rent on the first floor and an
apartment above. We are requesting the property be rezoned to MU to allow the
flexibility to rent out the whole house for residential purposes but also want the
flexibility to use it for the office space below. 5 of the 6 houses on the north half of this
block are being used as residential rental properties. The house is located on Market
Street, which is designated as an Arterial street according to the 2016 publication by
the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County (MPOJC).
The property immediately to the west of 421 E Market is zoned MU. If you have any
questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Sandy Steil- Project Manager
MMS Consultants, Inc.
s.steil@mmsconsultants.net
1
Date: January 5, 2022
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Good Neighbor Policy
Background
The City established the good neighbor program in 1998. The program was developed to
encourage more dialogue between developers and adjacent properties owners. The City
Council and Planning and Zoning Commission have had several discussions related to the good
neighbor program in the past couple of years.
In October 2020, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended the following changes be
made to the good neighbor program [Attachment 1]:
1. Require good neighbor meetings for annexations, project-specific comprehensive
plan map amendments and associated rezonings, and project-specific amendments
to the zoning map.
2. Increase the notification radius to 500-feet.
3. Expand those notified to individual residences when the mailing addresses are easily
attainable from the Assessor’s website.
4. Explore ways to increase electronic notification options.
In November 2020, staff took these recommendations to the City Council and they concurred
with the Planning and Zoning Commission.
This memo outlines the discussions related to the good neighbor program dating back to 2013.
It also provides a summary of the proposed good neighbor policy [Attachment 2] that staff will
present to Commission for its consideration on January 5, 2022.
Summary of Discussions Related to the Good Neighbor Program
• May 2013: Staff reviewed the policy. At that time staff recommended, and the City
Council agreed that good neighbor meetings should continue to be optional for
applicants.
• March 2019: The Planning and Zoning Commission had a consultation with the City
Council on the proposed rezoning at 2130 Muscatine Avenue. During this consult there
was a discussion on implementation of the good neighbor program, the level of detail
provided at the rezoning stage (e.g. concept plans), and the criteria used for reviewing
rezoning applications. The Mayor requested that the Commission discuss these items
and provide thoughts and any recommendations to the City Council.
• April 2019: The Commission began a discussion of the items outlined by the Mayor.
Staff again reviewed the policy at the request of the Commission and concluded that
good neighbor meetings should continue to be voluntary.
2
• June 2020: The Commission requested that staff add a discussion of the good neighbor
program to a future agenda.
• August 2020: On August 6, 2020 the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the
following potential changes to the good neighbor program:
1. Require one good neighbor meeting for most land development projects but allow
some exceptions and recommend a second good neighbor meeting if the project
extends over multiple years.
2. Identify ways to notify renters, including sending mailings to occupants of units in
addition to property owners.
3. Send notification letters regarding the good neighbor meeting to those living within
500-feet of the project site, as opposed to the current 300-foot recommendation.
4. Ensure neighborhood association representatives are notified of the meeting.
At that meeting, the Commission requested an update and report from staff regarding
the Commission’s recommendations at a future meeting. The Commission wanted to
ensure that staff supported the direction before making a recommendation to the City
Council.
• October 2020: Based on the August 2020 recommendations from the Planning and
Zoning Commission staff reviewed the good neighbor program again. In summary, staff
supported making some changes to the good neighbor program to help ensure that
more members of the public are notified of potential development projects. However, if
some good neighbor meetings are to be required, staff recommended a clear policy that
is limited to those projects that impact or change land use policy and/or the allowed land
uses and associated development standards on a property.
Summary of the Proposed Good Neighbor Policy
Based on the direction provided by both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City
Council, staff has proposed a policy as opposed to an amendment to the zoning code. Unlike a
zoning code amendment, a policy does not legally require good neighbor meetings. However,
based on the compliance with the current voluntary program staff proposed a policy to formalize
current expectations.
The policy formalizes the policies and procedures for neighbor notification of pending land
development applications. It applies to both Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of
Adjustment applications. Most of the procedures outlined in the policy are already being
implemented by applicants in coordination with staff. The two items that are new include:
• Requiring good neighbor meetings for certain land development applicantions. Currently
the meetings are voluntary; however, applicants often willingly comply.
• Expanding the notification radius to 500’. The current recommended radius is 300’;
however, in practice staff analyzes the impacts of land development applications on a
case-by-case basis and often recommends that this be increased well beyond 500’ to
include nearby neighbors. Neighborhood associations are also notified by the
Neighborhood Outreach Planner. The policy will set the radius at 500’.
Per the policy, applicants must conduct a good neighbor meeting for the following application
types:
• Annexations;
• Project-specific comprehensive plan map amendments and associated rezonings; and
3
• Project-specific amendments to the zoning map; however, staff has proposed an
exception for historic landmark rezoning cases.
Good neighbor meetings are not required, but rather strongly encouraged, for other cases types
(e.g. subdivision, vacation).
The policy outlines the procedures that the applicant must follow, which include:
• Selecting a date and time for the good neighbor meeting no less than seven days prior
to the scheduled board/commission meeting. This meeting must be coordinated with
staff.
• Identifying proximate locations for in-person good neighborhood meetings. Staff can
assist with venue locations.
• Submitting a good neighbor meeting notice to be approved by staff prior to distribution.
• Sending a good neighbor meeting notice to all property owners and occupants (when
available on the City Assessor’s website), within 500-feet of the subject property no less
than seven days prior to a good neighbor meeting. Staff may also provide contact
information for individuals and neighborhood groups located within or outside of the 500-
foot radius to the applicant for distribution.
• Summarizing the input provided at the meeting for inclusion in the board/commission
agenda packet or distributing it at the meeting.
Finally, the policy notes that failure to comply with the policy could delay the public meeting date
at which the application is considered.
Next Steps
Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, staff will take the policy to
the City Council for consideration and adoption.
Attachments:
1. October 1, 2020 Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission
2. Good Neighbor Policy
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 1, 2020
Page 7 of 13
Hensch opened the public comment.
Having none, Hensch closed the public comment.
Craig moved to amend Title 14 Zoning to allow parking reductions of up to 50% of the
required number of spaces through a minor modification process in the Mixed Use (MU),
Commercial Office (CO-1), Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1), Community Commercial
(CC-2), Central Business Service (CB-2), and Central Business Support (CB-5) zoning
districts.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Hensch stated he thinks this is a great idea as he thinks they really need to decrease the amount
of concrete and the creation of stormwater runoff and find ways to green the City and this is a
way to do it.
Martin stated she is always in favor of less parking, because she likes encouraging less driving
but also wants to be on record that she hopes the City is also looking at bettering the bike lanes,
and some sort of patrol to make sure that cars are respectful of those bike lanes. She really
hopes that this spurs a further conversation about making sure that the City does have the
connectivity that they've been talking about for years, whether it's pedestrian or bicycle, a further
conversation does need to happen. Overall yes, she wants less parking and less concrete but to
not forget the big picture.
Townsend respectfully disagreed with Martin, for example on Muscatine there is not a lot of
places to park, there is a CVS and a Walgreens but as far as on-street parking, there is none for
any small business, and biking is not always an option for more mature individuals. She agrees
there is a need for both, yes they need safety for bicycles and safety for walking, but also places
for those who do still drive to be able to park and not have to walk a mile to get to those
businesses.
Signs stated he has been on record before expressing his concerns about the continued parking
reduction efforts throughout the community. He is not a bike rider but looking at some projects
where things have been put in with parking reductions such as what happened on South Gilbert
around Big Grove Brewery has caused issues. Also on Summit Street, he has seen issues
around Deluxe Bakery when it's busy, therefore a 50% reduction concerns him.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
DISCUSSION ON THE GOOD NEIGHBOR PROGRAM:
Russett discussed the staff memo regarding the Good Neighbor Program. She explained it a
voluntary approach to ensure that there's dialogue between the development community and
neighboring residents. She reiterated it's a voluntary program that the City encourages
developers to do. Russett stated it is the applicants meeting, but they coordinate with City staff.
The Good Neighbor Program was created in 1998 and in 2013 the program was reviewed by
staff and they recommended that it maintain its voluntary status and the Council agreed. Last
Attachment 1
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 1, 2020
Page 8 of 13
year, staff reviewed the Good Neighbor Program and came up with the same conclusions that it
should be voluntary, and that staff should continue to work with applicants on encouraging these
meetings. When the Commission discussed this at their meeting in August there were four
recommendations that came out of that meeting. The first is that that the Good Neighbor
meetings should be required for most land development projects but there may be some
exceptions, and that in some cases, a second Good Neighbor meeting should be required such
as if it spans multiple years; second that staff should look at ways to notify renters in addition to
property owners; third they should increase the notification radius from 300 feet to 500 feet; and
fourth that they should ensure that there's coordination with neighborhood associations.
First Russett wants to discuss voluntary versus mandatory. Staff's thoughts on a mandatory
meeting is that if they go the route of having a mandatory program then they need a clear policy
that's easily understood, that it's limited to projects that have the most impacts, which are
changes to land use policy, so Comprehensive Plan amendments, or rezonings that are project
specific, staff would not recommend mandatory meetings for more technical reviews, such as
subdivisions, or vacations or the applications reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. Russett
showed a slide to outline what they would specifically require. They would want to see
mandatory meetings for annexations and maybe a second meeting for annexations if there were
two rezonings that were associated with that. Their thought on that is typically when land comes
into the City it's rezoned to an interim development so there might not be any development
project in mind at the time, there might not be a concept, that might come later and at that time
there should be another rezoning Good Neighbor meeting held. In addition, they could be
required for a project specific Comprehensive Plan amendments and associated rezonings, but
again not for subdivisions, vacations or Board of Adjustment applications.
In terms of notifying renters and the notification radius, staff supports the Commission's
recommendation to increase it to 500 feet and they also want to work to notify renters. They are
however concerned with the amount of staff time that it could potentially take to notify renters so
they want to limit it to notifying those where the data is easily available to staff through the
assessor's site. Lastly, if they increase the notification radius for Good Neighbor meetings, this is
also going to impact the letters that staff sends out in advance of Planning and Zoning
Commission meetings. Those radiuses need to be the same so if they increase the radius to 500
feet for Good Neighbor meetings, they need to increase the radius to 500 feet for the mailings
that staff sends out. Staff looked at a couple examples to figure out how that increase would
affect the number of letters and mailing cost. With a downtown example, because of the density
of downtown, the increase in letters seems like a lot, from 300 feet just being property owners,
it's 93 and at 500 feet and including owners and residents, it's 508. The increase in the number
of letters and the increase in the cost and postage is a lot and that would take quite a bit of staff
time. They don't have administrative staff support for planners available for that so planners and
interns would have to do that, but it's probably manageable.
In terms of additional notifications, staff will continue to work with their neighborhood outreach
coordinator to notify the neighborhood associations and they will continue to post signs. Russett
added they also have a new customer self-service portal that was launched a couple months
ago, it's publicly available, and it is a website to search for projects that are going on in the City.
They’ll continue to use that as a tool and also look at ways to improve electronic notifications.
In summary, Russett noted staff supports some changes to the Good Neighbor Program to help
ensure that more people are aware of proposed development projects in their neighborhood, but
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 1, 2020
Page 9 of 13
they do have some concerns on how the changes could impact staff times. Based on
experience, they have been able to work with applicants and applicants have been willing to hold
good neighbor meetings when they're proposing a project that is a larger scale and has a greater
impact. Staff also feels that they need input from the development community on this if they're
going to make it mandatory. It would also require a Code change. Additionally, staff hasn’t really
heard one way or the other from members of the development community on this proposal.
Russett reviewed the pros and cons, the pros are that more people would be notified, it would
clarify the expectations of the Planning Commission, and they have a clear policy. Some of the
cons are that it is an additional requirement for the development community that they've typically
been willing to do when it's voluntary, it could increase the time for review of these applications,
it's going to increase staff’s time on administrative tasks, and there is going to be some financial
budget impacts to the City in terms of postage.
Townend asked how the Good Neighbor Meetings would affect areas outside of the City and into
Johnson County if the radius was enlarged to 500 feet, would the County people be informed as
well. Russett confirmed they would.
Hensch stated he really likes the recommendations staff developed and concurs that since
they're asking for the increase in communication with neighbors, they should also make sure
they're communicating as well with the development community, to let them express their
thoughts on this also. He just wanted to add for the long term members of the Commission this
is just a recurring problem, they’ve heard so many times people saying “they weren't made
aware of these developments, or applications as they're coming through” and he just feels like
they really need to find a solution to it or address that issue. He does like the way staff have to
address this.
Hektoen noted it's worth pointing out to that the State Code allows if 20% of the property owners
within 200 feet of the property to object to a rezoning and that objection could trigger a
supermajority approval at the Council level, and this will in no way impact that requirement. This
won't give anybody any greater rights to require a supermajority vote.
Signs asked if staff is recommending making the meetings mandatory in limited circumstances.
Russett said if they're going to the mandatory route, they need a clear policy. What concerns her
is requiring two meetings in certain instances based on the time period of the project, that would
require monitoring the project and how long it's been going on and if they need to have another
Good Neighbor meeting, she doesn’t want staff to be spending time doing that. If they’re going to
require it, it should be when these major changes are proposed related to land use.
Hensch agrees and wrote a note down on the annexations because typically the land use
doesn't change on those so he is not sure that's particularly important but the second land use
change is the important one. Notifying people that land is getting annexed into the City is
important, but he is not sure that Good Neighbor meeting is quite as necessary in that scenario.
Additionally, Hensch is very sympathetic to the demand on staff time and if the time comes, they
certainly can make a request that the City has additional staff.
Signs would certainly support tacking on just a recommendation that the drain on, or the change
on staff’s time be monitored and that the Commission acknowledges there may need to be
staffing adjustments to accommodate these changes.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 1, 2020
Page 10 of 13
Hensch noted one thing he thinks they've learned, or heard loud and clear in the recent
community protests, is people want to have a voice, and people want to be heard so it's our
responsibility as community representatives to amplify that.
Hekteon stated another option might be to increase the application fee, maybe to absorb some of
that actual cost that the City is going to incur.
Hensch would certainly endorse whatever recommendation staff gives to assist with the
additional staff time and costs because the answer isn't just to keep giving more tasks to staff
and they want to be very sensitive to that.
Townsend stated however, in the long run with the Good Neighbor meetings they get to find out
what the neighbors are thinking and if there are concerns before something that comes up at a
Commission meeting. The Commission only gets one side of the story unless they hear from
those neighbors that are going to be affected by it, yes it's more work but in the long run it'll save
all a lot of time and a lot of headaches.
Hensch agrees and thinks it is actually to the developer's advantage to have good
communication with the neighbors but not everybody sees it that way.
Townsend had a question about in the memo where staff talk about next steps, to make this
mandatory it would require an amendment to the City's Zoning Code but the rest of this, like
expanding from 300 to 500 feet is purely administrative correct, so what does the City Council
have to approve to begin making changes. Russett confirmed to make it mandatory they would
need a Code change. Regarding radius the standard now is 300 feet but there are several
examples of Good Neighbor meetings where they worked with the applicant, and they've
expanded that radius. So even though they don't technically require 500 feet, staff is always
asking them to do more. Townsend asked though if they’re going to codify 500 feet she
wondered if the Council had to do that before staff could start requiring it, but it appears it is an
internal thing and staff is already suggesting it to applicants.
Russett said they have a published pamphlet that sets forth the Good Neighbor policy so it is
articulated in a public manner and provided to the developers. In terms just amending the policy
itself that could be done and Council does need to adopt the policy, but it's not an ordinance, it
would just be approval of a resolution.
Townsend asked what action is needed tonight to endorse what the staff has recommended.
Russett said staff is going to have to take this to Council for their feedback. The last time they
discussed the Good Neighbor policy the discussion ended up at Council, she is not sure if it will
get on a work session as they have a very packed agenda lately, but she can keep them posted
on that.
Townsend had one more question regarding sending out the notices to the renters, if they don't
have to have the names of the renters can they just send it to the addresses. Russett agreed
they could.
Signs feels like they need to make a recommendation or endorse a proposal or something to
Council so that it gets action and they resolve this issue, because it does seem to be kicking the
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 1, 2020
Page 11 of 13
can down the road here for a couple years. He thinks it's incumbent on the Commission to make
a recommendation to Council.
Hensch stated because Council's agenda has been really packed lately perhaps the Commission
should put it on the agenda for another meeting and discuss it again briefly and make a
recommendation to take to an informal Council meeting to get direction from them when their
agendas are a bit less packed.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Hearing no comments Hensch closed the public hearing.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: AUGUST 20, 2020:
Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of August 20, 2020.
Signs seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Hensch first wanted to acknowledge how very surprised and saddened he was to hear of the
quite unexpected death of Carolyn Dyer a long-term Commission member. She was always
looking out for the little person and the Commission could really appreciate her input in her
presence.
Russett gave an update on the Forest View project, in terms of the proposed development,
there's nothing new to report. The rezoning was approved last year but they still need approval
on their preliminary and final plat as the City has requested some additional information from the
applicant but hasn’t received it. Russett did want to let the Commission know that the City has
provided some funds to the Forest View Tenants Association to help them weatherize their
mobile homes for the winter. Additionally, toward the end of this month the property owner is
going to start removing some of the abandoned mobile homes from the property so there may be
a little activity in that area, but it's not going to be related to the project.
Next Russett discussed the South District Form-Based Code, it is an ongoing project. They got a
revised draft of the Code from the consultant in July and they’ve been working on reviewing it
and have provided some comments back to the consultant last week. As soon as all their
comments are addressed and they have a workable code they can release that to the public.
Lastly, Russett stated the conditional use permit for the kennel in the unincorporated area that
the Commission recommended against at the last meeting, the City Council actually ended up
recommending approval of that with one additional condition related to incorporating sound
deadening material between the outdoor exercise areas and the adjacent residential properties.
Therefore that'll have to come back to the City and they'll review at the staff level.
Good Neighbor Policy - Draft December 22, 2021
Section 1 - Introduction:
This Good Neighbor Policy sets forth the policies and procedures regarding the notification of
neighboring residents of pending land development applications. It applies to applications
considered by the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) and the Board of Adjustment (BOA).
Section 2 - Good Neighbor Meetings Required:
Applicants shall conduct a Good Neighbor meeting for annexations, project-specific
comprehensive plan map amendments and associated rezonings, and project-specific
amendments to the zoning map, except for historic landmark rezoning cases. The results of a
Good Neighbor meeting shall be valid for no more than twenty-four (24) months, after which
another Good Neighbor meeting will be required. Good Neighbor meetings are not required for
other planning cases, but they are strongly encouraged.
Section 3 - Good Neighbor Meetings Procedure:
To meet this requirement, the applicant must complete the following steps:
a.Select a date and time for the Good Neighbor meeting no less than seven (7) days prior to
the scheduled board/commission meeting. Because staff may attend the Good Neighbor
meeting as a resource person, the meeting date must be approved by staff prior to finalizing
arrangements.
b.If the meeting is to be held in person, select meeting facilities located as close as possible to
the subject property and neighbors. Staff can make venue suggestions in most cases and
will determine whether a location proposed by the applicant meets this step.
c.Submit a Good Neighbor meeting notice to be approved by staff prior to distribution.
d.Send a Good Neighbor meeting notice to all property owners, and to all non-duplicative
individual occupants (when available on the City Assessor’s website), within five hundred
(500) feet of the subject property no less than seven (7) days prior to a Good Neighbor
meeting. Staff may also provide contact information for individuals and neighborhood groups
located within or outside of the five hundred (500) foot radius to the applicant for distribution.
e.Submit a summary of the input provided at the meeting for review and approval by City staff
prior to the City’s publication of the board/commission agenda packet. If approved by the
City, this summary deadline may be extended so long as it is available for distribution at the
board/commission meeting.
Section 4 - Failure to Comply:
Failure to comply with this policy shall delay the public meeting at which an application may be
considered.
Approved by Resolution ________ on __________.
Attachment 2
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 4, 2021 – 7:00 PM
FORMAL MEETING
THE CENTER – ASSEMBLY ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Mark Nolte, Maria
Padron, Mark Signs, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Wendy Ford, Ray Heitner, Sarah Hektoen, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Angie Jordan, Karen Kubby, Marlen Mendoza, V. Fixmer-Oraiz,
Kate Moreland, Eleanor Levin, Kim Casko, Nick Bettis, Ed Cole,
Marissa Rosenquist, Andrew Alden, Laura Goddard, Arturs Kalnins
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval to City Council of the 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
(Cl-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.
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission 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
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.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 2 of 28
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval 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.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
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 (Cl-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.
Wendy Ford, the Economic Development Coordinator stated the City Council has forwarded for
review a petition to establish a SSMID (a Self Supported Municipal Improvement District) in the
South Business District generally centered around the Pepperwood Plaza area. The petition
requests the creation of the South District Self Supported Municipal Improvement District
(SSMID) as defined by Iowa Code Chapter 386. The Code requires the Planning and Zoning
Commission to review the petition for its merit and feasibility and staff has put together some
points to help. Ford explained submission of the petition is the first step in the process to
establish a SSMID and the petition had to reach a couple of different thresholds of signatures.
One is that it had to have 25% of the property owners within the area sign the petition, and they
had to represent at least 25% of the assessed value of the proposed district. Upon staff review,
they discovered that 25% of the property owners had signed a petition and they represented
27.2% of the assessed value in the area. SSMID is a self imposed additional taxing district that
will levy a tax on properties within the specified area. The area in the petition is the Pepperwood
Plaza area which is currently zoned CC-2 with a few properties at CI-1. This SSMID will be
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 3 of 28
established for the purpose of paying for the administration and operational expenses of the
proposed district as defined by law. State Code allows for the SSMID to levy taxes for three
purposes within a SSMID district and this SSMID proposes the levy of operational taxes for the
following purposes, (1) to have a pool of funds for marketing, business retention and attraction;
(2) make physical or other improvements designed to enhance the image and appearance of the
proposed district which could include things like lighting, seasonal and decorative
enhancements, signage, landscaping, etc. and; (3) to hire an executive director and if needed,
and with enough funds, other hire other support staff who would manage the work the board of
the SSMID had established. In the SSMID petition, the rate of taxation, the additional taxes
assessed on each property, is stated as not to exceed $5 per $1,000 of assessed value for a
period of five years and that would begin in July 2022. At this rate with the properties in the
specified area that would raise approximately $104,000 a year. Following the receipt of the
Planning and Zoning Commission's report of the merits of this value and feasibility, City Council
would then set a public hearing and do a mailing to all the residents or addresses within the
property area. The public hearing would be held, and the final step would be to adopt an
ordinance establishing the taxing district for the SSMID. The ordinance implementing this SSMID
would contain certain operational mechanics in an agreement that would stipulate how the South
District Board would work with the City in carrying out the work of the SSMID.
Ford explained the SSMID Board then would be made up of representatives of the SSMID area.
In this case, there would be two property owners or representatives from a single property within
the district that had an assessed value equal to 1% or more of the total assessed value in the
area. Similarly, there would be two properties from the area that have assessed value is worth
less than 1% of the total assessed value in that area, there would be two owners of property with
area that lease more than 3000 square feet for their business and two from business owners
within the area that lease less than 3000 square feet for their business. Lastly, there will be one
from the Pepperwood Plaza Parking Association (other entity there) and there may be up to four
other stakeholders in the proposed district who would also be voting members of the district.
Ford added there will very likely be ex-officio nonvoting board members from groups such as the
Black Voices Project, Johnson County Interfaith Coalition, LULAC, the Iowa City Area Business
Partnership, ICAD, and the City of Iowa City. There will also be a SSMID advisory board, a
subset of the board of the SSMID, that will be responsible for advising City Council on the
SSMID activities and making an annual request for budget to City Council. The advisory board in
this case would consist of the executive committee of the SSMID board which is exactly the way
the Iowa City Downtown District SSMID functions.
Ford next discussed the other considerations for the Commission to evaluate merit and
feasibility. There are several questions, the first of which is whether the property in the proposed
district meets all of the criteria established in the law, specifically that it'd be comprised of
contiguous properties zoned for commercial or industrial uses and be located wholly within the
boundaries of the City, that it'd be given a descriptive name containing the word Self Supported
Municipal Improvement District and that it'd be comprised of property related in some manner.
Ford states staff finds that the proposed district is comprised of contiguous property zoned for
commercial use, and it is within the boundaries of the City. The petition states that the proposed
district is entitled the South District Self Supported Municipal Improvement District and finally, the
property within the proposed district is physically located in Iowa City, is contiguous and serves
as a commercial hub for the community.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 4 of 28
A second consideration would be whether the petition submitted is sufficiently clear and contains
the requisite number of signatures from property owners representing the necessary assessed
value. Staff had reviewed the petition and verifies the signatures of the 25% of all the owners
representing 27.2% of the property in that area.
Another consideration is whether the petition sufficiently describes the boundaries of the district
and provides a consolidated description of the property contained therein. Ford stated it does
and the legal description is contained within the petition.
Another consideration is whether a maximum rate of tax that may be imposed within the district
and the purposes for which it may be levied are set forth. Ford stated it is stated in the petition
that $5 per $1000 of value will be that tax rate.
Another consideration is whether the purpose of the district is adequately described, as well as
any improvements that might happen within the district. As stated earlier, Ford explained the
purpose of the district is to provide new, additional or enhanced services within the district. In
particular, revenues collected for the proposed district operating fund may be used for the
following: (1) activities in support of marketing, business retention, and attraction; (2) physical or
other improvements designed to enhance the image and appearance of the proposed district,
and (3) to hire an executive director and if needed other support staff to carry out the work of the
board.
Another consideration is whether the proposed district or improvements would conflict in any way
with existing laws, plans or City policies including comp plans, zoning ordinances, local or
regional development plans, etc. The operational functions and marketing that can occur under
the proposed district don't appear to conflict with any of the plans, laws or policies already in
effect. The proposed district does overlap with the existing Highway 6 commercial urban renewal
area, which sunsets in 2025, but the SSMID petition does not conflict with the goals or the
purposes of the Highway 6 commercial urban renewal area. This SSMID district also 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. Ford stated however,
that also doesn't conflict with the goals of this SSMID. Finally, as it was noted in the petition for
the SSMID, notwithstanding the fact that a part of the proposed SSMID district is located within
the Highway 6 commercial district should there be a TIF project evolve prior to 2025, it’s fairly
doubtful, but should there be one the TIF financing to the developer would not include the $5 per
$1000 SSMID levee rather that would flow to the South District SSMID.
Another consideration is whether the taxes proposed, if any, will be sufficient to pay the
anticipated costs and other expenses. Ford stated staff looked at the property valuations as they
are now applied at the current consolidated tax rate at 90%, a valuation that is tax, and came up
with $104,000 per year to do that's likely due to increase every other year as revaluations occur.
Another consideration is whether the formation of the district is consistent with or in furtherance
of other identifiable City policies or goals. The Comprehensive Plan notes the importance of
thriving retail centers for sustaining residential neighborhoods and employment centers.
Neighborhood commercial centers can provide a focal point and gathering place and be within
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 5 of 28
convenient walking distance for residents of the area. The South District Plan stated goal is to
encourage and support residents, neighborhood associations and business and property owners
to advocate for continued improvement of Southside neighborhoods in keeping with the goals of
the Comprehensive Plan and it's evident that neighborhood is carrying that goal out by coming to
City Council with a petition to establish this SSMID. The petition also states that one of the
purposes of the SSMID is to provide physical enhancements or beautification and to improve the
image and appearance of the proposed district which all align directly with the Comprehensive
Plan and District Plans as well.
Finally, the review on the merits and feasibility of the proposed district should and 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 of the proposed district are appropriate and
in relation to existing laws and plans and policies and that the means to implement the proposal
appear reasonably calculated to accomplish the proposed district. Ford noted in this context,
staff recommends the proposed district petition be recommended for approval and forwarded
along with the evaluative review for its merit and feasibility to City Council for their consideration.
{Padron arrived at the meeting during Ford’s presentation.}
Hensch thanked Ford and noted the report was well stated. He asked for her assurance that the
petition meets the eight requirements as stated in Iowa Code 386. Ford confirmed it does and
noted it was also reviewed by the City attorney's office.
Martin noted that while 25% is what is needed, did they just stop at 27% or was there more, is
there 100% support in that neighborhood. Ford stated that might be a question for the advocates
who took the petition out, but she did note with the downtown district petition, the downtown
district reached in the 30% and 40% level, so that was nowhere near 100%. Martin also asked if
the City received any negative letters regarding this petition. Ford confirmed all of the letters are
positive. Martin asked other than downtown, asked if Iowa City has any other SSMID districts.
Ford replied not in Iowa City but there are several across the state.
Townsend asked what percentage of that $104,000 is going to be geared towards the executive
director they’re hiring and their staff. Ford stated they have budgeted $65,000 a year for a full-
time executive director so that would be a little more than 65%. The executive director is the only
staff that in the budget for the first year. Townsend asked if the tax would be assessed to all
commercial properties in the area even though only 27% signed the petition. Ford confirmed that
was correct.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Angie Jordan (1125 Apple Court, president and co-founder of the South District Neighborhood
Association) lives off of Broadway Street in the South District. She is also a trial chair of the
Project Better Together 2030 Steering Committee, but most importantly, she is a South District
resident. Jordan submitted her positive comments in the agenda packet but thinks it's really
important for everyone to know that this project was spearheaded by the people of the South
District. This was in the context of neighborhood revitalization, which over the past three years,
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 6 of 28
their neighborhood association has spearheaded efforts that go above and beyond a lot of what
is expected of a neighborhood association in general. They’ve done events, markets, and
initiatives that’s bringing together extremely dense human service providers on that side of town,
that’s also capturing voices of people who speak lots of different languages or different socio-
economic levels and also along different political spectrums, as well. Part of their initiative to
revitalize neighborhood three years ago was to reach out to businesses. As a lay person she
had no idea at the beginning what all that jargon was with the SSMID so they had to educate
themselves as leadership, but also sell, educate, and continually bring this up to what it is to the
residents of the neighborhood, which currently wasn't being done by anyone. Jordan reiterated
this is a very grassroots level way to support ideas. Jordan also wanted to touch on what is the
South District Neighborhood Association. Its origins are in collaboration, it was founded because
Pepperwood Association, Grant Wood Association, Wetherby and South Point decided they’ve
got the same challenges and issues so why don’t they bring things together and share some
assets and do this sustainably. The other thing was reaching out to the commercial property
owners, again three years ago before this SSMID, before ARPA funding ever was anything, way
before the pandemic. Jordan noted it was so hard to engage the business and commercial, a lot
of them aren't from the neighborhood, a lot of them don't live in the neighborhood, some don't
even live in the state, so engaging them, they got really excited when they just found somebody
answered the phone or maybe reply to an email. Since the SSMID and conversations around it,
they've already had success in figuring out who are the folks that are commercial property
owners. Jordan noted they didn't always agree on everything and that's good and okay, but
some of the same stuff kept coming up for the commercial property owners and the negative
things they noted were all things that they believe this SSMID could be taking care of such as
safety, crime, esthetics, lack of resources, all those things that people are concerned about. The
commercial property owners felt the South District had been neglected and here's a chance to
create a vehicle through SSMID to empower those commercial property owners, that's informed
by the folks in the neighborhood. Jordan also wanted to address the budget and the executive
director salary. She believes the board, once it's formed, has to then say $65,000 goes to the
executive director, but that's not set in stone, it was proposed, but if the board decides they don't
want to pay the executive director that's on them to decide. Also regarding the 25% she wished
more people would give input, they're coming out of the woodwork, but there's no way to capture
their voices, collect them and do things. She wishes they hit a higher threshold but they made it,
and they have to start somewhere.
Karen Kubby (Iowa City Downtown District) represents the board that that works on the SSMID
issues in downtown. She is on the board of directors and the chair of the legislative committee,
and she was on the committee that did the original successful SSMID downtown and the
renewal. Kubby noted there are five things that are really important to come together to make a
successful improvement district and some of them are part of the merit and feasibility pieces of
the petition and that the language meets the letter of the law. But it's also important that there's
extra things in that petition like saying that the City should not reduce current investment in the
services provided to that area so that the SSMID money doesn't have to be used to replace tax
dollars, that it's additional resources. Kubby noted the TIF piece is critical, because as projects
are supported by the taxpayers through the TIF, the SSMID still needs to service those increased
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 7 of 28
businesses and capacity that's in there, so they really do need that TIF money. The signature
piece is one of the really savvy things that Iowa Legislature actually has done in that they have to
have a lot of small businesses or property owners buying into this and large ones, it just can’t be
one or the other, they have to have both. The 25% is what the law says they have to have, and it
can be very hard on a first try to do that. The timeframe of this of five years, is long enough to be
accountable for what the goals in the petition state. A couple of other things that are important is
that these signatures are from property owners who are going to pass on the cost to the
businesses, Kubby noted she pays about $600 a year extra in taxes and that's maybe two little
ads in the DI, but instead her little $600 leverages a million dollars of marketing and cleanliness
and safety and programming that she could not leverage on her own as an individual business.
Kubby also stated the diversity of the board is really important in terms of who's going to be
accountable for living out these goals and having larger properties, smaller properties, bigger
businesses, smaller businesses, and all the stakeholders of community organizations and
nonprofits make things work. The fifth thing they need is champions, like Angie Jordan,
MidwestOne Bank, Southgate Development and all the businesses that have signed those
petitions, that’s the energy that will create momentum. Kubby noted the other piece of it is she
knows they had a lot of people in the downtown who didn't want to sign the petition because they
didn't want money going for staff. Before they had the Downtown District they had the Downtown
Association where a few of them gave $250 a year and were doing all the work and didn't have
enough money to do anything. With the SSMID, even though only maybe 30% of the people
signed it, everyone paid in and everyone benefited from it. So her hope is what happened in the
Downtown District, but in a different flavor because the south side is a different neighborhood
than downtown, is that when it's up for renewal it goes to 40% because people who were not
supportive initially have then felt the value. Kubby hopes that the Commission provides strong
support to City Council and that they pass it and get to work.
Hensch asked if there were there any lessons learned now from the Downtown SSMID. Kubby
replied one of them was having all those ex-officio nonvoting members around the table, that
was critical for collaboration. Another thing is that even though the tree hugger program was not
the most important thing, it was low hanging fruit, highly visible, super fun and it helped create
momentum. So planning for that low hanging fruit is really important as it helps get the bigger,
harder things done.
Marlen Mendoza (League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC, Council 308)) noted the
previous speakers did such a great job there's not much to say, but the south side of Iowa City,
as many know, is one of the most highly dense and diverse places of all the City. They
understand that the main location, the main hub is the Downtown District but they are very
excited for this proposal because they want to bring people out to explore different sides of the
City, to come down to the south side and look at who lives there, look at the amazing diverse
amount of entrepreneurs, and small businesses they are hoping to help revitalize through this
initiative. Just to show an example of how much power and how much might they have, while
they were negotiating this for almost two years now, they decided they weren't going to wait until
they got the SSMID to actually start doing something in the south side and evidence of that is
this past summer with the diversity market that they launched. In doing so, one of the main
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 8 of 28
people to work alongside with them was Nancy Bird from the Downtown District and they
decided to bring together small entrepreneurs to come out and show the city that there is energy
here and that people want to find a more sustainable way to make income. People want to be
able to pride themselves in saying that they are a business owner and that they have value and
they want to show their skill or trade. The diversity market was very successful with the support
of the City and other organizations. It was a very beautiful thing to see just how much momentum
they had with very little to nothing. If they can take that and extrapolate it to when they could
have an executive board for the SSMID, when they actually have money and resources to take
those diversity market entrepreneurs, that will be amazing. To even help with signage the
Pepperwood Plaza would be a great first start, right now one can easily drive by and miss the
place, there's no signage, nothing that says hey, stop by here, check out this location. So she is
very hopeful for the future and this is the right moment when everyone needs this as people
might not have hope in the midst of a pandemic, in the midst of everything, this is people coming
together and saying they're going to come out of here stronger. Mendoza hopes they all support
this need.
V. Fixmer-Oraiz, (CEO and founder of Astig Planning) and they an office in this area and there's
a lot of opportunity can be seen walking through the neighborhood and walking through the
Pepperwood Plaza. It's great to have the banks as anchors but there are a lot of very strong
nonprofits also in Pepperwood Plaza. Fixmer-Oraiz noted this is also an opportunity as there's a
lot of diversity in the area and there's a lot of energy and excitement. What they're talking about
in general is social and racial equity and when they look at the hubs that are in this town, they
can create an economic hub and opportunity in an area that has a lot going for it already. There
is so much support and energy. Fixmer-Oraiz acknowledged to be quite honest when she heard
that there was a SSMID that was being put forth by the neighborhood association it took her
aback, she has been through a master's program in urban regional planning and never heard of
a SSMID being put forth by a neighborhood association, it’s usually a business district, it's
usually an arts council, and quite frankly, it's usually white led. Here is an opportunity to support
something that is truly unique in the state of Iowa and probably in the Midwest. As a business
with an office in this area she is excited about the economic opportunity and as a business owner
that focuses on planning and social and racial equity, she hopes the Commission sees the worth
and the merit for this and urges them strongly to vote in favor of this SSMID petition.
Hensch asked as a professional planner, if the SSMID is approved by Council, what do they see
as their first or next steps in the SSMID, what are some of the first things they should do.
Fixmer-Oraiz replied they're going to self-organize, get those internal processes figured out
before starting to work on projects, but she has no doubt that they probably already have 12
projects ready to go, maybe 20. So it's probably just going to be a matter of them having a
couple of meetings and organizing themselves from within.
Kate Moreland (Iowa City Area Development Group) is here also in support of the SSMID, noting
this is really a critical economic development tool for this area and as Ford stated it is used
throughout the state in different communities. Moreland noted in the time they're living in it's
really important to consider this a tool that can really help with inclusive economic recovery. It's
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 9 of 28
really important that they help build wealth in the minority communities, so she just wants to
commend the leadership that really has been using their own time volunteering, pounding the
pavement for two years and working with business owners. Moreland has spoken with the
business owners personally that are very supportive of this effort, and they think it's going to be
transformational. She urges the Commission to support this effort.
Eleanor Levin stated she wears a lot of hats around Iowa City but currently is here as a resident
of the South District. The five-year time horizon is actually kind of personally meaningful to her as
she became a resident of the South District four and a half years ago and in that time, she has
seen more businesses close than open. She has seen three liquor stores but no place to buy
socks and there are very few walkable opportunities for retail in her neighborhood. That being
said, there are some commercial interests, property owners who run businesses and property
owners who lease to business owners, who really see the value in this area. She relishes the
sights around the residential streets of her neighborhood, the parks, people on bikes, gardeners,
basketball games, etc. The businesses on the other hand, the outward facing piece of the
neighborhood, are unremarkable, underutilized and disconnected. The South District Iowa City
SSMID proposal will bring the commercial properties to life and every property owner who signs
on is looking forward to improve signage and lighting, coordinated marketing, walkable events,
and improved utilization of the neglected properties with a powerful potential clientele living all
around them. At present, Levin has nowhere in walking distance to pick up craft supplies for a
project or grab a tool or a piece of hardware to make an essential home repair. The businesses
currently in the area work incredibly hard and this SSMID is supporting them and helping the
area to thrive long into the future. Please put support behind the South Districts Self Supported
Municipal Improvement District and let's see what happens when a small portion of the property
owners’ resources are pooled and put into use by folks who love this place and want to see it
bloom.
Kim Casko (President and CEO Iowa City Area Business Partnership) is here tonight on behalf
of the Business Partnership to voice their support for the creation of a SSMID in the South
District of Iowa City. SSMIDs are a fantastic economic development tool and really a great model
for providing localized business support. As a county-wide chamber they often struggle with
providing tailored business support services and that's where a SSMID is really a great tool for
doing that. Casko stated they have a great partnership with the Iowa City Downtown District in
doing exactly that, they provide tailored support to the businesses within that district and play the
role of connecting those businesses across the county into the work they do at the state and
federal levels around advocacy. She noted it's a really great relationship and a great partnership
and they look forward to building that same partnership with the SSMID in the South District.
Having that SSMID in the South District will be beneficial not only to the businesses in that
district, but the residents in that neighborhood, as well as to all of the Iowa City area and
surrounding communities. Casko encourages the Commission to support this project.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Nolte moved to recommend approval to City Council of the 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
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 10 of 28
(Cl-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.
Signs seconded the motion.
Hensch stated as a resident of the South District since 1993 everything that was said tonight was
true, there's certainly enough density of population that retail should be more successful than it
is. He agreed it's always very concerning when the liquor stores and tobacco outlets seem to
proliferate and thrive and regular old retail seems to not, so clearly something is out of kilter and
maybe this is an opportunity to try to get the scales rebalanced for retail and businesses in
general in the South District. He really thinks the District is positioned in exactly the right place to
be wildly successful in the future but it's going to take a few key moves right now for that to
happen. He enthusiastically support this.
Nolte just echoes that and so excited for this. He acknowledged the leadership of Angie Jordan
and Marlen Mendoza and the support of all the other organizations and knows the Downtown
District will help them with all the SSMID technicality stuff.
Craig thinks it's great and that amount of energy that is coming out of this area of the community
and what they’ve put into it to get to where it is today. In five years it's going to be great. She is
concerned that it's not a very big budget, yes to go from nothing to $100,000 is way better than
nothing but she is concerned about how far they can make that money stretch.
To that point Signs wanted to make a comment about the executive director piece, because a lot
of times when organizations and nonprofits form there's always this questioning of the value and
the need for an executive director. Having been involved in many nonprofit organizations and
groups truly one of the key determiners of whether the project is going to succeed or not is
whether they have a strong leader at the helm. They can have all the volunteers in the world that
are supportive, but there's only so much they can do as it's not their full-time job. As a South
District resident he has been very involved, off and on, with the neighborhood association but
has been woefully uninvolved in this project. However, he knows it's in good hands because of
the people who worked together to put this together and some of the things that the
neighborhood association has already done with no budget and no executive director are pretty
amazing. Signs also wanted to thank the Downtown District specifically for their support as a
South District resident. A lot of times they feel like a lot of resources are going to the Downtown
District and not other parts of the community so it's really wonderful to see the amount of support
and guidance that that the Downtown District is providing. Signs also wanted to call out Angie
Jordan, she has worked tirelessly in the neighborhood to promote the neighborhood and to better
the neighborhood. She has worked with a group of people and business owners and that's the
key, that synergy between the residents and the business owners and the community. That's
what's going to make this succeed and he is wholeheartedly supportive of passing this forward to
the Council for their approval.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 11 of 28
Padron also wanted to say that she supports the project. She was feeling very surprised by a low
percentage in the support numbers but does think it's because it takes a long time to contact
people and get responses. She is very excited to see so many different groups that support this,
like nonprofits and private sector and residents, so that's the most exciting part. She does
understand that the budget is low, it's basically one executive director and if they hire a part time
person, the budget will be gone. But sometimes these organizations find ways to get grants and
funding from other places so the budget could potentially be much more than that.
Signs agreed and thinks that's one of the key pieces of having that executive director is they
have the time and the ability and the resources and the connections to grow that budget.
One of the things Townsend would have like hear is why businesses left that community, is there
going to be any research on why they left and can that be fixed for those new ones coming in. It
just seems that should be a concern.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
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.
Heitner began the staff report with an aerial view of the subject property, it is about 5.81 acres
and zoned a base zone of RS-12 with a planned development overlay. Regarding the
background on this application, this property was rezoned to OPD/RS-12 in 2015 as the rezoning
was necessary to expand the existing manufactured housing park. An OPD rezoning is required
for development of manufactured housing parks so that's the rationale for the planned
development overlay. The manufactured home park, situated to the west, was developed in 1974
with the build out of 55 units. The subject application wishes to add on an additional 35
manufactured homes in the undeveloped parcel area to the east. Heitner noted it’s staff’s
understanding that the applicant intends to combine the existing manufactured housing park to
the north and west along with the subject property. Some amenities that would be shared by the
community include a storm shelter and future playground and recreational areas. Staff is
proposing a condition that the applicant construct the storm shelter, as well as the adjacent
sidewalk along the south side of the entrance street prior to issuance of building permits. The
applicant did hold a virtual Good Neighbor meeting on October 11 but there were no members of
the public in attendance at that meeting.
Heitner explained with planned development rezonings there's more criteria for those rezonings
to be reviewed against, in addition to the standard rezoning review criteria of consistency with
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 12 of 28
Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with the existing neighborhood. The additional criteria for
OPDs is related to density and design being compatible with the adjacent development,
assurance that the development will not overburden existing streets and utilities, assurances that
development will not adversely affect views, property values, or privacy, and the interaction of
land use and building types will be in the public interest.
With respect to density and design being compatible to adjacent development, Heitner stated the
proposed density with 35 units would come up to about six dwelling units per acre, which is
allowed within the RS-12 base zone, which allows up to 13 dwelling units per acre. The proposed
homes would be about 14 feet by 70 feet, which is a fairly standard size for a manufactured
home of this type and so there does appear to be adequate open space within each lease lot.
Within the context of the greater community, there is vacant land in the northwest area of the
park and staff is proposing a condition that the applicant submit an open space plan for that open
land, particularly for the area south of the entrance road, and that open space plan should show
any future recreational amenities. Lastly, transportation planning staff did review the impact to
the local transportation road network and did not express any concerns with the build out of this
development to that network.
Heitner noted the manufacture homes have a width of 14 feet and there is a requirement within
RS-12 zones that the minimum building width is 20 feet. However, through the planned
development process there's a mechanism to request a waiver from that standard or modification
of that standard. In judging that waiver request, there's criteria from section 14-3A-7 of the City
Code which allows for exceptions to the OPD approval criteria. One is that the modification will
be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan; two that
the modification will generally enhance the proposed planned development and will not have an
adverse impact on physical, visual or spatial characteristics; three that the modification will not
result in configuration of lots or street system that is impractical or detracts from the appearance
of the proposed development; and lastly, the modification will not result in danger to public
health, safety or welfare by preventing access to emergency vehicles, inhibiting the provision of
public services, depriving adjoining properties of adequate light and air or violating the purposes
and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. Heitner noted the requested building width
of 14 feet is in line with the existing manufactured housing stock that is in the neighborhoods to
the west and the north. Development of this vacant portion of the parcel would allow for
development of underutilized land within the subject parcel and the configuration of lots in the
layout of the internal street network will be similar to the neighborhood to the west. As mentioned
earlier, staff is recommending a condition for an open space plan just south of the entrance road.
The second criteria point that development will not overburden existing streets and utilities, as
already mentioned transportation planning staff looked at this and estimated 250 vehicle trips per
day generated from the development and the surrounding road network has sufficient capacity to
absorb that estimated trip amount. Staff is recommending a condition that with the final plat of
the subject property the applicants submit a site grading plan for the city engineer to review. It's
with that review that City staff will finalize its review of stormwater plans.
Criteria three is that development will not adversely affect views, property values and privacy.
Heitner explained this is mostly with respect to making sure that any structures are within the
confines of what's allowed within the base zone. These homes will be well within the allowable
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 13 of 28
bulk dimensions for structures, there's an allowable height of 35 feet within that base zone and
these will be well below that.
Finally, fourth that the land use and building types will be in the public interest. Heitner stated
there are several setback reductions that the applicant is requesting but noted this is something
that they would probably see in just about any manufactured housing park application due to the
nature of the lease lots not typically aligning with the lot size requirements that is in a base zone
(in this case RS-12). With the setback reductions the first is that there's a requirement for a 30-
foot setback from the edge of the property. Lots 1 through 3 and 4 through 13 are requesting this
reduction, 1 through 3 down to 0 feet and 4 through 13 to 10 feet. Second, reduction of the rear
yard setback for all least lots except 1 through 3 from 20 feet to 10 feet; and third reduction of the
side yard setback from 5 feet to 0 feet for lease lots 1 through 3. Regarding criteria evaluated for
setback reduction requests, one is that the setbacks proposed will provide adequate light, air and
privacy between dwellings and between dwellings and the public right-of-way; two, sufficient
setbacks provide the opportunity for adequate private open space for each dwelling unit; three,
setbacks proposed will provide sufficient area for utilities and street trees; four, 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; and five, residential
buildings that are located in close proximity to each other must be designed to preserve privacy.
Heitner explained with the first request of a 30-foot setback from the edge of the property this
would be applicable to the north side of the subject property for lots 1 through 3 and the east side
of the property for lots 4 through 13. For lots 4 through 13, the property to the immediate east is
a City owned park that will remain as open space due to its location within the floodplain. Lots 1
through 3 will still maintain a 15-foot separation distance which is also required by Code to the
structures to the north. Staff is recommending a condition to combine the existing neighborhood
to the north with the subject property at final platting as this would effectively remove this
requirement for a 30-foot setback from the edge of the property.
Second is the reduction requests of the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet. This applies to
every property except for lots 1 through 3, though they will all have a 10-foot setback, which
generally matches what is seen in the existing neighborhoods to the west and north. Heitner
showed an imagine noting the homes are offset across the street, meaning that they don't
perfectly align with one another and the homes on each side of the street will maintain that
required minimum separation distance of 20 feet. The resulting building coverage will only be
between 18% and 22% for each of these lease slots and that that can go up to 50% of the base
zone. Heitner stated that should provide adequate open space within each lease lot.
The side yard reduction requests from 5 feet 0 feet for lease lots 1 through 3 is because the
southeast corner of each of the proposed buildings, their grade does touch the side yard line so
that's why that request would be down to 0 feet. But again, the positioning of the homes here
helps to offset views in each home where they're diagonally arranged so one wouldn’t be
necessarily looking into their neighbor's home. There is a good amount of open space, both
north and south of these structures and approximately 21% of each lease lot will be covered by
the proposed homes.
In addition to the setback reduction requests, there's also a waiver reduction request for
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 14 of 28
minimum lot size for a few of these lots. The base zone requires a minimum lot size of 5000
square feet. Lots 1 and 2 and 32 through 36 are requesting that gets reduced down to 4500
square feet. As mentioned before, the smaller lots won't result in any increased density at six
dwelling units per acre. The existing neighborhood to the west is at about six and a half dwelling
units per acre and to the north it’s at seven and a half dwelling units per acre. So just because
they are smaller lots that doesn't mean its greater density. The driveways within each of these
lots will be offset from the lots across the street and there will also be recessed parking pads
behind each front facade as well.
Regarding the standard rezoning review criteria with respect to consistency with Comprehensive
Plan Heitner noted the South Central District does note that residential uses should be phased
out of this area. However, that plan was written close to 20 years ago and there have been some
changes in the surrounding areas since that Plan, mostly the improvement of McCollister
Boulevard with access eastward to Sycamore Street as well as construction of a levee to the
east. The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan also indicates a need for affordable housing, especially
in areas with good access to parks and other amenities, which staff thinks this application
achieves. Because the property is expanding on an existing use, provides a relatively affordable
housing alternative and has good access to street network, trails and open space, it's staff’s
opinion that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is not necessary to prove this OPD plan. With
respect to compatibility with the existing neighborhood character, there is already manufactured
housing parks to the north and west. The proposed development will be built within a similar style
and layout.
Heitner next discussed that the entirety of the subject property is located within the 100-year
floodplain. There was a levee constructed along the Iowa River in 2008 to meet US Army Corps
of Engineer and FEMA design standards but has not been certified or accredited. However,
FEMA accreditation would change the flood zone designation from A to X, which means the area
is still technically within the 100-year floodplain, but mandatory flood insurance would be lifted at
that stage. USACE certification would make the levee eligible for federal funding if the levee
system was damaged by a flood event. The subject property would be required to conform to
those standards and the city engineer and building inspection staff would require review of that
site grading plan to show that the proposed ground elevations are acceptable in relation to that
floodplain.
Heitner noted staff has not received any public comments on this rezoning, as previously
mentioned there was a good neighbor meeting on October 11 but there were no neighbors in
attendance at that meeting.
The role of the Commission tonight is to see if the proposed rezoning meets the aforementioned
planned development approval criteria along with the rezoning review criteria. With respect to
next steps, upon recommendation from this Commission, a public hearing would be scheduled
for City Council consideration. Staff anticipates the timeline of Council setting that public hearing
is at its November 16 meeting for a public hearing on November 30.
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
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 15 of 28
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
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.
Hensch has three questions and they're all interconnected. He recalls when they rezoned this
last time, in 2015 there were some conditions at that time as well, so the four conditions added to
the recommendations to the rezoning how do those vary from the conditions that were approved
by P&Z in 2015. Heitner stated the condition related to dissolving the north property line for the
30-foot setback was in the 2015 OPD, there was also a condition related to construction of the
storm shelter as well as that sidewalk on the east/west private street so those are carryovers.
New for this application would be requiring a final plat as staff saw that as necessary for getting a
more formal opportunity for reviewing these construction drawings and creating a drainage plan
as well as submission of that open space plan for the vacant area, that's a condition that they've
added for this subject rezoning.
Hensch noted regarding the floodplain he has noticed through the years they have been filling in
and raising the elevation of that subject parcel. Is the intention with the grading plan to raise it
above the 100-year floodplain and/or the 500 or both and if it's raised up does it technically come
out of the floodplain. Heitner is not sure if it's out of the floodplain necessarily, his understanding
is that the applicant intends to incorporate fill to raise above the flood hazard elevation level
which would be required by flood management standards. It has to be raised one foot above the
500-year floodplain.
Martin asked if the City put out that good neighbor meeting letter. Heitner said typically it is the
applicant who will reach out to the community with that good neighbor letter. Martin noted if the
notification goes out 300 feet, the City of Iowa City seems to own the land that would be in that
range so does someone from the City go to those meetings. Heitner replied there are staff at the
good neighbor meetings always just to see how those meetings are conducted, but not
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 16 of 28
necessarily ever to wear the hat of a neighbor. There was representation from the manufactured
housing park community in attendance at that meeting, just no members of the general public.
Townsend noted it’s being built in the flood zone, but the mandatory flood insurance requirement
would be lifted, so what happens if there is a flood, would their regular insurance cover that or
would they just be out of luck. Russett replied that since the levy has not been certified or
accredited, the mandate is that area is still required to have flood insurance.
Craig asked why the levee isn’t certified, and what does it take to get it certified, shouldn’t that be
one of the requirements of application. Russett said the City built the levee to FEMA and Army
Corps of Engineers standards, but it was never certified or accredited because it takes money to
go through that process. She is not sure how much money but could talk to public works about
that and find out.
Craig noted the general concern she has is meeting the criteria of adequate private open space.
When looking at the map, it seems like things are really crammed in and they’re asking for
exceptions. She gets that with the type of housing and neighborhood that it is they’re not going
to have the standard setbacks but to go down to zero seems too much and in her mind that is not
adequate private open space, particularly along the border with the City property. If a housing
development came in here and wanted to even change the back setback from 20 feet to 10 feet
along a City park people would be up in arms over that but just because the City owns it they can
go to zero. Is there a definition of adequate, private open space? Hekteon clarified when the
City acquired that land back in 1998 they retained an easement over that area to satisfy any
future open space requirement. Mr. Cole is the easement holder that conveyed it to the City and
said in the event that the mobile home expands they get to use this land in their calculation for
that open space requirement.
Russett wanted to just further clarify that for the public open space, the neighborhood open
space requirement, not the private on site or open space requirement that they typically require,
for a development in an RS-12 zone, would be 500 square feet on site. Because these lease lots
don't meet that standard, staff has proposed that condition for the community open space area.
Sings is understanding that the places where the setback is going to zero is on lots one, two, and
three, and where the homes are built at an angle from corner to corner of those lots, but it still
seems, quite frankly, there's more open space on those three lots than there is on any of the rest
of them. Heitner stated it is zero on the back on everything that backed up to the City, lots 1
through 3 on the north side and lots 4 through 13 on the east side, the rear yard setback would
be 10 feet from the rear property line.
Craig stated it feels that in a neighborhood, and with all of the conversations about walking and
biking and things that they don't want a vehicle access onto McCollister, but to have a pedestrian
bicycle access onto McCollister feels like something that that whole little neighborhood would
benefit from. Heitner noted the OPD plan does show a connection in the southwest corner.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 17 of 28
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Nick Bettis (Axiom Consultants) is here on behalf of the applicant and able to answer any
questions they might have with the drawings. They feel that it's going to be a good addition and a
good continuation of the park in this part of town.
Hensch noted it looks like it's been elevated with a lot of grading and fill, is there still more work
to do to bring that up elevation out of the floodplain. Bettis confirmed yes, there has been fill dirt
added to the site over the years and it’s continuing to be brought in as is become available. It is
planned to be elevated to that 500 year, plus one, elevation for the low openings as required.
Hensch asked if that is for the entire parcel, including the roadways. Bettis stated they are
connecting on that northwest corner in the existing part of the park where it does not meet those
requirements so they will be connecting under the existing street at the northwest corner and
then coming up from that to the elevations. And then the entire subject parcel will be elevated
above the 500-year floodplain.
Nolte has a question is in regard to the flood insurance to even when that time comes that
they’re not mandated by FEMA to carry that level of coverage, does the owner generally still
provide some level of security on that.
Ed Cole (620 Foster Road) is the owner and applicant, and as far as the dirt goes on one end
they're out of the 500 year but on the other they’re not but by the time they leveled it out and cut
the streets in all the mobile home lots will be out of the floodplain, the yards might have a
waterway through it, but they’re going to make sure they're taken care of. As far as the
insurance, each homeowner has their own insurance, and if they have financing against it they're
required to have flood insurance on their homes until it is out of the floodplain.
Cole noted when he bought the park he was told he would get a loan certificate for the levee,
which meant they're in the clear but when he checked into with the engineer there was never a
definite yes, it was just part of his selling tactic. However, Cole stated they have a great
community down there, he grew up in that park and it's a close-knit community. It really doesn't
get any better as far as security, he was reluctant to put the sidewalk in off McCollister because
they have one way in and one way out of both the parks and know who's coming and who's
going.
Martin asked what 2008 looked like over there. Cole replied he didn’t own the park in 2008, he
bought it in 2013.
Craig asked regarding the insurance question, does the park carry the flood insurance as well as
the individual unit people on their units would have to carry flood insurance. Cole confirmed that
is correct. In both floods they were basically manmade, because of lack of using the reservoir for
what it was for. But they've not even been close since 2008 as far as water coming out and they
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 18 of 28
are really tracking it. He has been in the excavating business his whole life so they went out did
the proper thing and added fill to make sure they wouldn’t get hit with anything.
Marissa Rosenquist is with Cole’s Community and wanted to express the interest from all of their
tenants. Everybody that she has talked to wants a spot in the new section, so regardless of the
floodplain status, they're very excited. She is really hoping that this gets passed through and
everybody can be happy.
Martin asked if they have current residents that are interested in the newer homes, do they also
have people ready for those older units, would they do rehab on those. Rosenquist noted they
are really lucky, like her dad mentioned they are a tight-knit community and a lot of times what
happens is when something comes up for sale, it'll get sold within the same day, and it's usually
to a family member of a current tenant. Their waiting list is already halfway full.
Nolte asked what's the supply chain for getting homes right now. Rosenquist noted it is a little bit
backed up and they're still really in the very beginning phases working on the right financing, and
that kind of stuff to even start. Probably what they'll have to end up doing is bring in 10 at a time,
do it in phases, that'll probably be the most efficient way to do it.
Padron asked what are the price ranges for these units and when would they be ready?
Rosenquist would estimate the time of arrival for the first batch could be the spring if this goes
through, but realistically, a year and a half from now it could be completed. They'd like to start the
infrastructure as soon as possible and have people get them their financing and stuff. Currently
lot rents at $380, they raise rents on average about $10 a year. This year they were hit with
some pretty hard property taxes because of out of state buyers coming in and purchasing mobile
home parks for well above asking and as everyone knows, so they're trying to stay local and stay
family owned and operated. Regarding the price of the units that is hard to say but would
probably be an average of about $50,000 for a good quality-built place.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Nolte moved to recommend 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:
5. 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
6. 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
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 19 of 28
7. 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.
8. 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.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Craig is very appreciative of the sidewalk to McCollister, this is a good thing but is still concerned
if this is adequate private open space, the map makes it look like they're so jammed in there,
there are so many extreme requests for accommodations, but it is a housing need, and it's a nice
part of town.
Nolte trusts that the park owner knows what is attractive to their users and if those setbacks were
too narrow they would know that so he leans to trust their judgment of what will work there.
Signs noted it is hard to see on the images and has been looking trying to decipher what exactly
is the home, what exactly is the driveway, what exactly trees are there, it appears to him that if
the home is 980 square feet, and there's 500 square feet of open space minimum in those lots
it's pretty typical for manufactured home community and honestly that is part of the affordability
factor and part of what makes it affordable.
Martin feels that affordability brings them back to the floodplain, which is super real and they
have to really think about it. Flood insurance is expensive, even when it's inexpensive, it's
expensive, but if it was taken out of the flood zone, and there is no flood insurance, and it floods,
what happens to those people. Maybe the rules have changed, but she thought after 2008 the
City was not allowing homes to be built so close to the river, thus the stopping of the continuation
of Idlewild and buying out Normandy. Regarding the levee, with as many levees as were built
between now and 2008 how is it not automatic they have to get accredited. That's shocking.
Hensch voted for this in 2015 so doesn’t want to be contradictory and now vote against it but
being out of the 500-year floodplain mitigates all reasonable risk. A lot of people are going to be
hurt if there is another flood, especially one outside of a 500-year floodplain, there's going to be
people throughout the entire community affected.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 20 of 28
Martin agreed but at the same time it’s out of the floodplain because of a levee. Hensch replied
it’s out of the floodplain because they are raising the elevation. Reasonable steps have been
taken and if there is a flood of that caliber, there will need to be assistance for everybody.
Craig stated the point is they're supposed to be mitigating that as a country and not allowing
development in floodplains and not putting people in the situation where that could happen. She
just wants some assurance that, yes, anything can happen, but it's very, very minimal that it will
happen here. Hekteon stated this will have to comply with the City's flood mitigation ordinances,
which is the elevation, those were the Code changes that were made after the 2008 flood. She
noted looking at photos from 2008 some of this area was under water in 2008, but that was
before the added fill and the existing manufactured housing park was not.
Padron noted that elevating the terrain has other consequences, they cannot just move land and
expect it all to be okay, the water is going to go somewhere else so if they raise the land here
some other place is going to get flooded and they have to be careful about that. Hekteon agreed
and noted there is a requirement about projects not having significant impact on adjacent land.
Signs stated if the units will be built on pillars and the pillars are also on a concrete pad so the
there'll be several feet above the ground. The risk is probably pretty minimal.
Nolte agreed and stated they have 100% certainty that they need more affordable housing.
Pardon stated though if these houses have to have insurance, then how much is more the
mortgage, how much is the impact and then are they still going to be affordable. Flood insurance
is not cheap.
Signs stated compared to any other any other structure in Iowa City there are going to be
affordable.
Hensch noted there are many areas of Iowa City in floodplains, it's not just contained along the
Iowa river, there are all the creeks in town as well so a substantial portion of this City is in a
floodplain of some sort of the other. This is not a localized thing.
Padron wondered if units one, two, and three, where there is no setback, maybe they could be
smaller units and then they have more of a setback.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
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
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 21 of 28
(OPD/RS-5).
Heitner began the staff report with an ariel view of the subject property with the zoning applied. It
is currently ID-RS Interim Development Single Family residential zone. Regarding background
on this case, there was a series of previous applications for rezoning on this property in spring
2021. The last proposal had 41 detached single-family homes as well as a senior living facility
with 135 bedrooms but that was ultimately denied by the City Council. The current application is
still seeking the OPD/RS-5 zoning, but it does not contain that single family home component
that was in the previous application. This current application only contains the senior living facility
with a count of 134 bedrooms. The current application also includes a proposed dedication of
30.98 acres of land that was previously considered for development dedicated as neighborhood
open space. Heitner showed site plans of where the senior living facility would be as well as the
dedicated open space. He also noted the private open space located within the courtyard areas
of senior living facility.
With respect to zoning, the current zoning is Interim Development Single Family residential which
is intended to be a holding zone for property until their preferred use can be developed or
infrastructure can reach the property. The proposed zoning would be OPD/RS-5 with planned
development overlay. Typically, in the RS-5 zone it is housing for individual households. It's the
lowest intensity residential zone but the planned development process does allow for some
mixture of uses that one wouldn't typically see in a RS-5 zone such as this senior living facility.
Heitner stated there are some additional approval criteria within the OPD section of the City
Code as well as compliance with the City's multifamily site development standards. Staff is
proposing a condition that the applicant submit a final plat conforming the proposed lots to the
proposed zoning designation.
The approval criteria for OPD are the density and design of the planned development will be
compatible and are complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass
and scale, relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout. With respect to
density the OPD/ RS-5 zoning allows for five dwelling units per acre. There is no density
calculation for this application because this is a group living use and those bedrooms are not
factored into density calculations. With respect to mass and scale, there is about 69,000 plus
square feet in the building footprint, the height that's being requested is 42 feet and there's about
27,000 square feet of onsite open space. Regarding traffic circulation, the previous application
had Hickory Trail extending to the west from First Avenue and then north to Scott Boulevard.
Because there's no proposed housing going in on that outlot A portion of this planned
development of the proposed application it culminates in a cul-de-sac. So stemming off that cul-
de-sac there'd be two access points along the north side of Hickory Trail for facilitating access
within the senior living facility. There will be construction of sidewalks along both sides of the
street extension with a five-foot-wide sidewalk on the north side and then an eight-foot-wide
sidewalk along the south side. Staff is also recommending a condition to construct that eight-foot
sidewalk east as an offsite improvement all the way to First Avenue so that there isn't a gap in
that sidewalk system.
With respect to development not overburdening existing streets and utilities, city water and sewer
is available to the subject property. Staff did ask the applicant to submit an updated traffic study
based on the fact that previous iterations of this application had two points of access from the
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 22 of 28
development, one to First Avenue and one to Scott Boulevard. Staff’s concern this time was
primarily how would that anticipate a traffic funnel out to just one access point on First Avenue
with the cul-de-sac being proposed. Heitner stated the returns from that traffic study yielded that
the First Avenue/Hickory Trial intersection would be a level of service D which transportation
planning staff found acceptable. A level of service D is in the middle leaning toward being more
congested, but again, it is a level that staff felt comfortable with going forward so no off-site traffic
related improvements are recommended at this time.
With respect to views, property values and privacy, there's 185-foot buffer distance between the
senior living facility and the property line for the Hickory Point Condominiums property to the
east. There is also considerable landscaping within that 185-foot buffer area with a combination
of shade and evergreen trees to soften that transition. Staff is proposing a condition requiring
approval of a landscape plan by the city forester prior to issuance of a building permit. Heitner
showed a general look at that landscaping pointing out a healthy concentration of shade and
evergreen trees along the east side.
With respect to land use and building types being in public interest, Heitner reiterated that the
current application is seeking 42-foot max height on senior living facility building. The base zone
has a maximum height of 35 feet, but staff did find that that requested height waiver basically
details that there will be at least 35% of the subject area free of structures, parking and loading
areas. Staff is recommending that no building permit is issued for any of the subject property until
the City Council approves a final plat subdividing the subject property to confirm these zoning
boundaries established by the zoning ordinance. Regarding neighborhood open space, the OPD
plan being proposed does show a dedication of 38.98 acres of outlot A to the City as public open
space which would eventually be incorporated into the existing footprint of Hickory Hill Park. The
plan does show a trail connection to the south off of the extended Hickory Trail Street, which will
connect into the parks trail network at the southeast corner of the subject property. Parks and
Recreation staff has commented that they support the proposed dedication.
With respect to compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast District Plan, both
promote the use of cul-de-sacs and single loaded streets where appropriate and the use of
ravine and wetland areas as a buffer to the park boundary. So even though the Comprehensive
Plan does contemplate single family housing along the left side of the subject property staff feels
that there are goals being accomplished by the subject OPD plan, mainly in the preservation of
natural features through the 38.98 acres of open space dedication, as well as the ability to
enhance the interconnectedness of the sidewalk system and trail network and providing more
housing diversity within the Northeast District with the senior living facility.
Heitner did address some sensitive areas noting the impacts to which are far less than they were
when previous iterations of this were being considered. With respect to wetlands and stream
corridors, there are two wetlands and two stream corridors within that outlot A lot. Both the
wetlands and stream corridors will be unimpacted and the wetlands will have a 100-foot buffer
and the streams will have a 30-foot stream corridor in addition to a 50-foot-wide stream corridor
buffer on each side of the stream corridor. There are some critical slopes being impacted as a
result of development on the senior living facility lot. However, only 20% of those critical slopes
will be impacted which is within the allowable threshold of up to 35%. Heitner noted there'll be
far less impact to woodlands with preservation of about 81% of the woodlands. The OPD/RS-5
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 23 of 28
designation would allow impact to their disturbance up to 50%.
Staff has received some correspondence regarding this rezoning. They've received emails from
two residents supporting the rezoning and the inclusion of outlot A as park land.
Regarding next steps, upon recommendation from this Commission, a public hearing would be
scheduled for consideration with Council with the anticipated timeline of Council setting that
public hearing on November 16 for a November 30 public hearing.
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.
Padron asked when the developer presented these in September, the use was a different use
and now they are keeping the same building but they changed the use. Heitner confirmed the
zoning designation being applied for is the same, it’s OPD/RS-5 the big difference was that
previous application included development of single-family residential housing within that area
that's now described as outlot A within this application. This application just contains the senior
living facility component. The building use is the same, it’s still a senior living facility.
Hensch noted one of his concerns was the wetlands and the jurisdictional stream because of the
invasive species, and with being the responsibility in previous iterations of the homeowner’s
association which is pretty much the same as saying that's not going to be dealt with for the
invasive species. He feels much better knowing the City will manage those.
Townsend asked why all of a sudden did they decide to donate that almost 40 acres to the City.
Signs said because Council wouldn't let them build all that out. Townsend asked but why
wouldn't they keep that for themselves and try to do something later, just questioning how their
mind changed. Nolte stated he thinks the math just get really impossible.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Nick Bettis (Axiom Consultants) is here on behalf of the applicant for the senior living facility and
the property as a whole and can answer any questions regarding the engineering portions of the
application.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 24 of 28
Andrew Alden (AG Architecture) can talk about the building and also wanted to share a video
that they showed at the Good Neighbor meeting a few weeks ago. In the video the first two
images are the renderings that they've seen before but then they have a fly-over of the property
with the building on site. Alden wanted to point out three things, the topography is accurate, the
hills and valleys are accurate, the building size and mass is accurate, but the trees and the
underbrush they didn't do species specific, so it's just to get the point across.
Hensch asked about the change in building height. Alden noted the two extra feet was
requested because of recent changes in best practice for dealing with older adults and
mechanical systems due to the pandemic. They need bigger ducts to have higher air flows and
filtration systems, and as a result they need more space between floors in order to fit it.
Martin asked how many people were at the good neighbor meeting. Alden replied 16.
Signs asked why they went from 135 bedrooms to 134. Alden replied that might be a
typographical error, it's 120 units plus one guest suite but in the AL apartments are some two
bedrooms and honestly he couldn't remember if it was 13 two bedrooms or 14 two bedrooms.
Laura Goddard (1807 Winston Drive) is speaking tonight as a member of and treasurer for the
Friends of Hickory Hill Park Board. This has been a long journey together, so she first wanted to
say thank you to the City staff and to all of the Commissioners. She reiterated this has been a
long process, but the Friends of Hickory Hill Park support this latest proposal and commend
Nelson Construction and Development for taking community and ecological input into
consideration for this latest design. They are glad that this proposal will both provide needed
assisted living facilities and maintain the integrity of an important and beloved natural space. She
was glad to see the clarity about the outlot A, that nearly 40 acres, because they do want to
make clear that their support is contingent upon that land being deeded to the City and being
incorporated into the park. Goddard also wanted to say while this was a long process, it has not
been a waste of time because this has been a good example of community involvement and
voices being heard. Regarding the invasive species Commissioner Hensch mentioned, the
Friends of Hickory Hill Park is committed to continuing their involvement with the space as they
have for many years and being active managers. They do regularly deal with invasive species in
partner with the Parks and Recreation Department to manage those species. Goddard hopes
the Commission will support this proposal.
Arturs Kalnins (44 Evergreen Place) has spoken to the Commission on this topic several time
and wanted to follow up as his perspective is not much different than the Friends of the Hickory
Hill Park. This new proposal is great, if they remember the one big debate was in the springtime
was about the view shed and it makes him very happy that the wonderful view will continue and
be intact. A huge part of the splendor of that park is having those views in what's otherwise
becoming a pretty densely populated residential area. Kalnins also wanted to state in addition of
that land added to the park there is also a nice potential access to the park from Scott Boulevard,
which is nice. So again, having that 38 acre lot which may become a prairie, or whatever the
plans the City would have for it, maybe walking trails, is a great access. Finally, Kalnins stated he
is 100% in favor and he is not an expert on issues of zoning, but he’s just curious why they're still
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 25 of 28
calling for a zoning that's going to include unit housing development when none is going to be in
the current plan. Maybe it’s just some technicality and that's just the way it works with zoning,
but overall he is hugely in support of this current plan.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Craig moved to recommend 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:
c. Construction of trail connections, as shown on the OPD Plan dated
10/28/2021.
d. 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:
e. 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.
f. City Council approval of a final plat subdividing the subject property to
conform to the zoning boundaries established by the zoning ordinance.
Martin seconded the motion.
Hensch had a couple notes, the real positives from this is the senior living facility is in the
application, which he thinks is a strong need in the community, and now the City will have the
opportunity to manage the wetlands and take some control of the invasive species which is such
a serious problem. He doesn’t think anybody can deny that it's very positive to increase a City
Park by 21%, he hopes the City can afford to manage it and spend money in there and
remember that means property taxes, that money just doesn't magically appear. Hensch
acknowledged that's not part of their consideration but as a citizen of Iowa City it is his concern.
He thinks that the negatives are, when he first saw this, and the cul-de-sac, he never wants to
vote for a cul-de-sac because he really believes in complete streets and the City’s philosophy on
that. But because it is essentially an access drive for the senior living facility, he backed off. He is
still concerned about lack of housing diversity, certainly the senior facility is housing diversity, but
he’s talking about multifamily, that's a loss for the community. They always have to keep in mind
that by increasing all housing types, there's just a chain reaction, if you build a new house,
somebody moves out of a house, they move into the new house and it causes theoretically,
increasing the total supply, which over time in a normal healthy market would reduce prices but
Iowa City has always been very odd, because it's such a high demand place. But if people
question why he’s always supported these applications, it’s because he’s a 100% supporter of
affordable housing and they have to make hard choices to add to the housing diversity and the
only way for that to happen is to build places for people to live period, even if you don't really like
it in your neighborhood. In the south side with a lot of housing around him, he didn’t care for but
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 26 of 28
sucked it up because it's his responsibility as a citizen to participate for the welfare of the entire
city. So he will support this application.
Craig has supported the senior housing portion of this from day one and hope that's where her
kids put her when the day comes so she is a neighbor to Hickory Hill Park. She loves the park
and is very pleased to see it grow.
Signs want to point out that the developer has given up 80% of their land to get this to go
through, they have spent tens of thousands of dollars satisfying the community, satisfying this
Commission, satisfying City Council, including spending thousands of dollars on a fly-over video
just so they could see how much the roof did or did not stick above the treeline. His point is
there's a reason builders are not building in Iowa City, and they're building in all the communities
around us, and those things just mentioned are part of it. As a Commission, as a Council, as a
community have to understand that there are ramifications. If Iowa City doesn’t grow everyone’s
taxes will grow to maintain the services needed.
Padron wishes developers would start considering more sustainability when they design the
buildings because in the renders all the facades have the same amount of windows, there is not
a study of the sun, there is not a study of the façade, there's not an energy study, and this is why
they end up asking for more height when it shouldn't be necessary. There are other ways where
they can reduce the ducts and make the building more sustainable. There are mental illnesses
that people have that make them sensitive to light, people that will be living there could
potentially have dementia, or Alzheimer's or illnesses like that, so there's an opportunity to make
some of the windows smaller and have a different impact. The facades have different energy
consumption, there is a difference in how they affect the building energy. Also, the renderings
and the flyovers are very easy to make right now with the technology that they have so it's not so
impressive as it is something useful as she was worried impacted woodland in that area. She
will be supporting this project but do hope to see more projects in the future that are sustainable.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 21, 2021:
Nolte moved to approve the meeting minutes of October 21, 2021.
Townsend seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
None.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Page 27 of 28
ADJOURNMENT:
Townsend moved to adjourn.
Martin seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2021-2022
7/1 7/15 8/5 8/19 9/2 9/16 10/7 10/21 11/4
CRAIG, SUSAN X X O/E X X X X X X
HENSCH, MIKE X X O/E X X X X X X
MARTIN, PHOEBE X O/E O/E O/E X O/E X O/E X
NOLTE, MARK X X X O/E X O/E O/E X X
PADRON, MARIA X X X X X X X O/E X
SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X X X
TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X X X X X X X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member