Planning and Zoning Commission recommends rezoning for south Charles City apartment development; rejects rezoning recommendation for northern parcels

By Travis Fischer, tkfischer@charlescitypress.com

It was standing room only as people filled the City Hall meeting room, spilling into the adjacent lobby, to express their thoughts on rezoning three Charles City properties for the potential development of an apartment complex during the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on Thursday, April 4.

Designated as a “Thriving Community” by the Iowa Finance Authority, Charles City has become an attractive location for developers seeking projects that may be eligible for lucrative low income housing tax credits. As such, three locations in the community have generated interest among developers as potential locations to build a new apartment complex.

To be developed, any of the three properties would need to be rezoned by the City Council as an R-3 area. That process begins with an assessment and recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, which held individual public hearings for the community to express their thoughts about the prospect of each rezoning request.

Clarifying the process for the audience, City Administrator Steve Diers explained that a recommendation would not guarantee a project would happen, but was an important first step for developers as they prepare their applications for state tax credits.

“At that point we are going to stop and see how things are going to pan out with the development,” said Diers.

Diers also noted that only a single project is likely to be awarded in Charles City, if any at all.

Commission Chair Rick Noah asked the public that comments be limited to just the general notion of rezoning these areas into R-3, without regard for any specific development plans or other issues within the community – a request that proved to be a largely futile effort through the meeting.

Beginning with the first property in question, the commission opened a public hearing for the rezoning of property located at Corporate Drive, west of the Floyd County Medical Center. This property, owned by the Charles City Area Development Corp., is currently zoned for manufacturing, but is adjacent to residential areas and is being considered as a location for Commonwealth Development to develop a large apartment complex.

“We think this area possesses great opportunity for being developed,” said Tyler Sheeran of Commonwealth Development.

Of the three properties on the agenda, the south Charles City property was the least contentious, drawing only a few comments from the public.

“I don’t think we need any rezoning at this time,” said Ryan Boehmer. “If one has to be rezoned, I think it should be this one … but I don’t think any recommendations should be made tonight.”

On the contrary, Scott Soifer, owner of Soifer Family McDonalds, spoke in favor of seeing the property rezoned and developed to increase housing stock in the community.

“I am absolutely in support of this parcel specifically being rezoned,” said Soifer. “There is a need for housing in this community. … My employees, if they make $40,000 from me, they deserve nice new housing as well.

Closing the public hearing on the Corporate Drive property, the commission voted to recommend rezoning to R-3 with a 4-2 vote, with commissioners Rick Noah, Chuck LeMaster, Bruce Hovden, and Emily Garden voting in favor while Jeff Titus and Robin Macomber voted against. Commissioner Roy Schwickerath was absent at the meeting.

Moving on to the second parcel of land under consideration, the commission opened a hearing for the community to discuss property on the east side of North Grand, north of Washington School.

Currently designated R-2, the prospect of rezoning the property to R-3 brought out a wave of opposition from neighborhood residents raising concerns about property values, traffic congestion, community cohesion, the long-term prospects of the building, and more.

Struggling to stick within the three-minute time limit, residents tag-teamed prepared statements to share what they find appealing about living in their tight-knit community and encouraging the development of more single family homes.

“Charles City can do better than this,” said Sue Davis.

Increased traffic was a frequently cited concern, with residents noting that two children have been killed by cars in the neighborhood.

“With more traffic, it will be worse,” said Carol Teeter.

Noting that apartment renters would likely be employed in industrial park, the logistics of working and living on opposite ends of the city was also cited as a reason to not build there.

Speaking in favor of rezoning was Wyllys Mann, senior vice-president of development for Pivotal Housing Partners, the firm considering development in north Charles City.

“There is a lack of housing in that community,” said Mann. “It’s a community that I think people deserve to live in.”

Regarding the property north of Washington Elementary, Mann explained that its proximity to a floodplain means that if any development were to happen on the property, it would need to be a large multi-unit facility in order to be cost effective.

“It is unlikely this would be developable for single family development,” said Mann. “This is a development opportunity for a very difficult to develop site.”

And while many residents at the meeting expressed concerns about how development of the property would impact the flow of floodwater in the area, Mann noted that development would, by city code, include a substantial retention pond. While acknowledging that he is not an engineer, he speculated that development of the pond would reduce basement flooding in the area.

However, given the choice between multi-family development and no development, neighborhood residents spoke in favor of the latter.

“We’ve got a good neighborhood there,” said Dan Miller. “There’s other options rather than 40 apartments on the north end of town.”

“I, for one, like to watch the deer,” said Mary Tumilson.

Moving on to the third parcel of the evening, many of the same comments and complaints applied. Dubbed the 21st Avenue property, the parcel in question is a narrow lot of land north of the Oak Park addition along 21st Avenue that was recently annexed by the city and is the second lot under consideration by Pivotal for development into an apartment complex.

“The Oak Park addition was not built to handle an additional 40 families,” said Trisha Bahlmann. “Rezoning this parcel to allow for high density housing makes zero sense.”

“This neighborhood has been good for 53 years,” said Bonnie Tegtmeier. “We don’t want it to be different.”

At various points during the meeting, the fervor against high-density housing bled into assertions that the 2019 housing study has become out-of-date and that Charles City doesn’t need new housing development at all.

“I think we’ve got enough rental houses in town right now,” said Harlan Kolb, pointing out that the North Grand middle school’s conversion into an apartment building is still underway. “Why don’t we just wait and see what happens.”

However, the idea that Charles City has sufficient housing already was rejected by both city officials and business leaders.

“The need for housing has only gotten stronger,” said Commissioner Garden.

“We need people,” said David Rottinghaus, stating that he could bring 15 people to the city if he had a place for them. “We cannot have people move to our community without housing.”

While some at the meeting asked the city to focus exclusively on single family housing, Rottinghaus cited his first-hand experience about the limited viability of that as an option as the Rottinghaus family is currently in the process of privately developing a series of townhouses.

“The cost to build single family homes is extraordinary,” said Rottinghaus.

Eventually bringing the public discussion back around to the topic of rezoning, the commission moved to make a decision on both the North Grand parcel and the 21st Avenue parcel. In both cases it recommend against rezoning in a 5-1 vote with Garden voting against not recommending.

Once again, Chairman Noah reminded the audience that the Planning and Zoning Commission only makes recommendations to the council, but that the sentiments expressed at the meeting would be relayed.

“The City Council has the right to make their own decisions, but at this point we appreciate you all coming,” said Noah.